Evidence for God from Science

Rick asked: Philip, is there a possibility in your mind that the shroud is not really Christ's shroud, but something else?

Rick, here's where I am with the Shroud: I am not 100% sure it is THE Shroud of Jesus. However, I don't believe that this is something that can be known with total certainty with just about anything. But now that I know a lot more about it from scientific analysis, it does appear to have the hallmarks of what I would expect from the real deal:

- It has the right injuries per the Bible's descriptions of Jesus' ordeal of crucifixion

- The image is of blood and no paint or other media has been found

- The blood is unbroken

- The 3D spatial details / X-ray elements

- Inexplicable, radiation-like produced image from within

- Negative photographic image - produced way before photography

- Blood analysis results

- Known to have been in the hands of the church so early on and claimed as Jesus Shroud so early on

- It can't be replicated today, suggesting to me that it's incredible detail and sophistication could not have been produced by an ancient forger. Plus not only would an ancient forger not have had the technical capability of producing the Shroud, but why would they need it - as much of what makes it incredible from the standpoint of modern scientific testing and analysis would have been irrelevant back when the Shroud originated, as such details would not have been discernible or understood - as as a simple painted corpse and transfer of an image would have more than sufficed to fool those back in the day.

- So much extensive, rigorous, peer-reviewed work on all of the above

I would say, after so much analysis, that the probabilities are getting high in favor of it being the real deal. But another question would be, if it is a fake - why the level of sophistication, how was it created, and why can't it be replicated today? And why are there no other such artifacts known? Clearly, the Shroud stands in a category by itself - which is what I would expect the real Shroud to do.

Philip wrote:

Rick asked: Philip, is there a possibility in your mind that the shroud is not really Christ's shroud, but something else?

Rick, here's where I am with the Shroud: I am not 100% sure it is THE Shroud of Jesus. However, I don't believe that this is something that can be known with total certainty with just about anything. But now that I know a lot more about it from scientific analysis, it does appear to have the hallmarks of what I would expect from the real deal:

- It has the right injuries per the Bible's descriptions of Jesus' ordeal of crucifixion

- The image is of blood and no paint or other media has been found

- The blood is unbroken

- The 3D spatial details / X-ray elements

- Inexplicable, radiation-like produced image from within

- Negative photographic image - produced way before photography

- Blood analysis results

- Known to have been in the hands of the church so early on and claimed as Jesus Shroud so early on

- It can't be replicated today, suggesting to me that it's incredible detail and sophistication could not have been produced by an ancient forger. Plus not only would an ancient forger not have had the technical capability of producing the Shroud, but why would they need it - as much of what makes it incredible from the standpoint of modern scientific testing and analysis would have been irrelevant back when the Shroud originated, as such details would not have been discernible or understood - as as a simple painted corpse and transfer of an image would have more than sufficed to fool those back in the day.

- So much extensive, rigorous, peer-reviewed work on all of the above

I would say, after so much analysis, that the probabilities are getting high in favor of it being the real deal. But another question would be, if it is a fake - why the level of sophistication, how was it created, and why can't it be replicated today? And why are there no other such artifacts known? Clearly, the Shroud stands in a category by itself - which is what I would expect the real Shroud to do.

Perfect post Philip. Totally agree.
It would be rediculous to think that any middle age forger would do things such as show the image of a nude Christ which contradicted all known artistic rendering of that time, and also place the nail wounds on the wrist as opposed to the palm of the hands, as all middle age artists did. How would this aid at all in fooling people of that time era?
On the contrary , people from the middle age era would tend to believe it was a fake because it didn't correspond to the known artistic renderings of the nail through the palms, but if this is the real deal, it would show the wounds in this way.

Philip wrote:Tetelesti's arrogance conveniently addressed only the questions and points that he wants to - and then he throws some more rocks over the fence and then storms off. He acts as if we are naive or don't realize that Satan is a deceiver on a grand scale. Yes, we know that Satan has metaphysical abilities. But what we don't see in Scripture is him constantly faking objects and creating things supportive of God's truth. Everything we've seen scientifically supported about the Shroud supports a Resurrected Jesus per what Scripture says about it.

Ouch... my arrogance knows no bounds I didn't storm off bro, I left because I didn't want to troll the thread further by asking the same questions over and over and over and over... Why would I storm off? Everyone in this thread has been fairly reserved, a fact I can appreciate.

And I see that Tetelesti is a Progressive Creationist - and he came to this understanding of Creation how? - likely through very many scientific signs of various sciences - so were these signs Satanically produced and false?

There is some truth in what you say here, but I started off as a YEC's because it was and still is my church's standing position. I was conflicted when I started arguing the young earth position in atheist forums. They were literally kicking the crap out of me and it caused quite a bit of confusion. My original profile here was "Dazed and Confused", (recently changed to tetelesti) because I was so messed up from the whole ordeal. To add insult to injury, I falsely witnessed to my father (who is an anthropologist) using the YEC argument. I'll always regret this... Anyways, I was blessed to see how science supported scripture, not the other way around. For me it's always been "search the scriptures to know if these things are true", and everything the bible says about creation is true.

I don't know if your aware of the gifts that God has bestowed upon you, but I know the gifts He has given me and one of them is "discernment". In a weird sense Dan is correct in that I see satan everywhere, though its not fear on my part, but because were in the latter days. Satan is the god of this world, having power and influence over none believers, including an unbelieving christendom who seek signs and wonders. Here's a good article concerning satan being god of this world: http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-god-world.html

I was never concerned about you or another believer here looking into the shroud, if that were the case then why did I first post several links in support of the shroud? The issue of the shroud for me is the coming apostasy, how its been used in the past, the guy with the big hat who exalts it, the fact that the Nehushtan was destroyed setting the precedence for an artifact like the shroud, etc, etc, etc.....

When the disciples asked Jesus when He would return, what did He say more than anything else as being the sign? Deception. Also remember that deception comes from within, just as Judas betrayed Christ being one of the twelve, the inner circle. We can't be deceived by JW's, Mormons, Scientology, we can see them coming a mile away, we need to be watchful of the enemy within.

Matthew 24:4-5,11 "As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many....Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.

Yes scriptural references are brought to by Dan the man levitan. Why because he'll harass me if I don't.

My sole reference for truth is scripture, and I can't find support for something like the shroud. That's why I keep asking you by what standard are you claiming that the shroud is a sign from God. You'd freak me out if you could show how it's biblical. I'm not going away mad, I'm just letting everyone here get back to business, minus the interruptions.

I didn't storm off, but honestly wouldn't you rather I bounced out of this thread already?

Maranatha! Philip

My sole reference for truth is scripture, and I can't find support for something like the shroud. That's why I keep asking you by what standard are you claiming that the shroud is a sign from God. You'd freak me out if you could show how it's biblical. I'm not going away mad, I'm just letting everyone here get back to business, minus the interruptions.

I didn't storm off, but honestly wouldn't you rather I bounced out of this thread already?

I am glad you are still here asking questions, iron sharpens iron etc....

I don't think anyone here is saying the shroud is or isn't a sign from God, not enough is known about it yet to make a determination one way or the other.

I guess the only belief is really that it is most likely the burial cloth of Jesus, and the way the image was created is unknown by modern science.

I believe it was Phillipthecurious that has provided scriptural support for signs and miracles, and also support for the cloth being mentioned in the Bible.

I personally have experienced miracles in my day to day life, there is not Biblical support for them but that does not mean that they are not from God.

The Bible to me is a collection of books about God and his proper place in our lives, it is not the be all and end all when it comes to matters, we also have his living word Jesus who acts within us through the Holy Spirit, and we have nature as the book of life. Just because something wasn't written about in the Bible does not immediately mean it is not from God, nor does not mean it comes from Satan. Yes be discerning, but it does not end with the Bible.

Dan

""There is some truth in what you say here, but I started off as a YEC's because it was and still is my church's standing position. I was conflicted when I started arguing the young earth position in atheist forums. They were literally kicking the crap out of me and it caused quite a bit of confusion. My original profile here was "Dazed and Confused", (recently changed to tetelesti) because I was so messed up from the whole ordeal. To add insult to injury, I falsely witnessed to my father (who is an anthropologist) using the YEC argument. I'll always regret this... Anyways, I was blessed to see how science supported scripture, not the other way around. For me it's always been "search the scriptures to know if these things are true", and everything the bible says about creation is true. ""

Ok I understand your situation a bit better telest. I really regret the stress that was caused to you in those atheist forums.
Believe me I know how deceptive they can be.
I'm just happy that you are feeling better now.
God bless
Bippy

If we're going to start saying that every supportive thing we find from science or archaeology that buttresses belief in the God of the Bible should be rejected because it can be used by Satan, and thus we should avoid or dismiss it because of that possibility - well, that is a very long list of things. Fact is, virtually ANYTHING can be used to deceive - even Scripture itself, in the wrong hands/taught wrongly/deceptively can be thus used. Yes, Satan loves to start with a truthful thing - to make it desirable and accepted, and then attach a lie to it. The Ark of the Covenant obviously was a real artifact, it may even still exist. What if it were found? Certainly it would help validate the historical truth of the Bible's descriptions of it. Yet could some also make it into an idol, kneeling before it, worshiping it, etc? Sure. But would their wrongful worship take away its significance and support of Biblical history - absolutely not.

But the Shroud stands alone. It's either real or it's not. Again, if a Satanic deception, you must say that Satan knows the future (unBiblical) and that He created an object designed to fool modern science. But he had no way of knowing what modern scientific analysis would one day entail. Also, as for deceptions like Pharaoh's magician's snakes - if they could have been examined by modern scientists, I'm not convinced that they would still appear real, would hold up to close scrutiny. That's why God tells us to sift all things for their truth. It seems that some would assert that Satan can deceive those watching for his deceptions, using spiritual discernment of God's Holy Spirit, as the Bereans, sifting and comparing all things against God's Word. I think deceiving such spiritually discerning people is far rarer.

But, to me, it makes little sense that: 1) Satan would have known that he would have to fool modern science (as he cannot know the future) and 2) that he would create something that supports belief in the very thing that he doesn't want people to believe in (The Resurrection). And who does Satan typically fool - those WANTING to believe in a deception but that are not desirous of knowing the truth - using belief in false things to keep God out of their lives. And does not God guide us into all truth? Is He going to allow those who love Him or want to know if He exists or the Bible is true to be deceived by something that powerfully appears to support what is written in His Word? Do we avoid possible truths because we are so afraid that Satan can use them for deceptions? We don't do that with most other things - why just with the Shroud? It could be argued that much of what is on this forum, many factual evidences that are used to support the truth found in the Bible, is potentially Satanic and should be avoided. God is the one Who guides us into truth - let's trust Him on this Shroud business - to show us the truth about it. He's not abandoning us to the power of Satan - we're not helpless against his schemes and deceptions. Many attribute abilities to him that he does not possess.

(devil's advocate)

There's one thing not being considered here and I'm sure bippy (or others) can offer an opinion on. And that being, what if the shroud is a forgery and the reason we're unable to detect it is that one or more elements used to make it are no longer available/detectable today? Not that this element is undetectable by today's scientific methods (meaning that at some point in the future it will be) but that the element is no longer in existence, gone, kaput, disappeared. I don't know, does that even make any sense?

Philip wrote

But, to me, it makes little sense that: 1) Satan would have known that he would have to fool modern science (as he cannot know the future)

Philip, what makes you so sure Satan can't know the future?

Because only God knows the specifics of the future. All Satan really knows is he's ultimately going to a really hot club.

Philip wrote:Because only God knows the specifics of the future. All Satan really knows is he's ultimately going to a really hot club.

Sandals Jamaica?

I think Satan has been around long enough, and he's wise enough to know how to deceive humans. I think Satan is also wise enough to know enough to make it seem like he knows the future.

Byblos wrote:(devil's advocate)

There's one thing not being considered here and I'm sure bippy (or others) can offer an opinion on. And that being, what if the shroud is a forgery and the reason we're unable to detect it is that one or more elements used to make it are no longer available/detectable today? Not that this element is undetectable by today's scientific methods (meaning that at some point in the future it will be) but that the element is no longer in existence, gone, kaput, disappeared. I don't know, does that even make any sense?

Byblos there is always a possibility of anything out there, but what we are dealing with here is the most reasonable assumption when it comes to the shroud. Sure there always could be a lost substance that no one knows about, but for this forger to be able to make this image, he would not only need to possess this substance, but he would have to be an expert that's hundreds of years in advance of his peers in so many areas.

This image conforms to no known time period.
The image and blood stains are anatomically perfect
Why would the forger put microscopic pollens from Jerusalem knowing that no one would find them for hundreds of years
And rare microscopic limestone from the tombs of Jerusalem that no one would find for hundreds of years.
Why the nail through the wrist as opposed to nails through the palm as all middle age artists did?
Why a nude Jesus instead of a clothes Jesus as middle age artistry depicts.

Too many Improbabilities for this to be a work of a forger.
Even if you had that lost substance you have to account for the points I made above plus hundreds of other points in which a forger wouldn't have even needed to do in order to fool the people of his time .

What are the odds of him doing all of this?
Bippy

Pierson5 wrote:

Swimmy wrote:

They still believe "X," haha!" .

Well. When one still keeps holding on to the idea that paint makes up the image and that there is no blood on the shroud I can't help but laugh. Or thinking McCrones work is reliable. Very amateur stuff.

Well, why not go in there and link some citations (research shows it IS blood, research shows McCrones work is false). If it's amateur stuff, it shouldn't take very long to pull up a couple publications. Help Jabba out

Pierson,

- Thanks for the introduction.
- I should have been keeping up with you guys all along, but only recently learned that you were out here.

- On the Randi site (specifically http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226761), they don't want me referring members to my own sites for info, but I suspect that such won't be a problem for this site. If it is, please let me know.
- I have two sites that I've let sit for a long time due mostly to my efforts with Randi -- but, to better understand my perspective, I'd urge you to check them out at least superficially. These are, http://messiahornot.com/ (for a brief autobiography, you can go to http://messiahornot.com/Biography2.php) and http://shrouddebates.com/. Not that I know what I'm doing re websites, but I was desperate.
- I clearly could use some help over on the Randi site, but would prefer that you guys just inform and advise me -- I think that it's very useful to have only one spokesperson per side. Though actually, if one of you guys would prefer to be the spokesperson instead, I'd happily become an informer/adviser.
- I tried to get the skeptics over there to elect one spokesperson, but they refused. And since signing on over there a year ago, I've had about 70 opponents. I think that two people have joined the discussion in my favor, but they didn't last very long...

- The following is what I was about to enter at http://shroudstory.com, but now think that it is better entered right here.

10. At this point, I’m somewhat worried that my strong belief that the Shroud is authentic has been based upon a lot of separate books and articles, quoting (or MISQUOTING) the SAME, perhaps MINIMAL AND MISUNDERSTOOD, research…
11. So currently, I am trying to gather up the different bits of actual research responsible for our different claims.
12. One of the problems is that much of what I’m looking for is not on line…
13. The best summary I have for the blood evidence is the Dec 2000 paper by Ford -- http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf. Is there something better and/or more recent?

- By the way, I'm not a Christian -- I'm a Christian wannabe.
- I have a lot more to say, but should probably put it off until later.

--- Jabba (Rich Savage)

Jabba, why are u wasting your time on the randi forum??????

They basically employ the same tactics that I've seen used on another site I'm on.
This was a Christian site which doesn't have the moderation that they have here on godandscience.
What they basically do is link up to nonpeer reviewed material like Walter Mccrone and joe nickell.
Your not going to convince anyone there of anything no matter how good the evidence is.

Going on the randi forum is the equivalent of me going on the flat earth society forum to convince them that the earth is round. At that point I would slap myself for even attempting to convince them of this since they aren't in touch with reality lol.

If you want the evidence of the blood on the shroud that is very easy to get.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf
Oops I see that you had this link in your post above lol. Yes this is a great article that also points specifically how Adler's peer reviewed work showed that it was in fact blood on the shroud and how Mccrone made many errors in his very shallow analysis that he couldn't even pass peer review to the point where he published his findimgs in his own magazine in which he is the editor and chief as well as owner of. You basically have science in the corner of authentic blood going against non peer reviewed guess work of Walter Mccrone .

This is a complete 32 page PDF which show the many errors of Mccrone who could never get his papers passed peer review, while Adler who is a world class blood chemist got his research passed peer review. If the people on the randi forum believe that there wasnt blood on the shroud they are arguing against the peer reviewed scientific finds. In essence the people on the randi forum are professional anti science skeptics.

Mccrone is only a microscopic guy, Adler is a world class blood chemist. Adlers tests conclusively show that it was blood on the shroud and it passed peer review while Mccrones subjective finds from nothing more than looking through his microscope could never be reproduced by any scientist.

Jabba why not stay here where the real evidence has been presented on the shroud over a long period of time.
Arguing with anti scientific and anti reason people on the randi forum solves nothing as they don't care about the evidence.
When I was on that marijuana forum they presented the same arguments as they did on the randi forum.

If you need any help just post the objections here in a list , but we also expect you to go through the forum as there is a lot of info here, but most serious shroud researchers wouldn't waste their time on anyone from the randi forum.
They post like a bunch of grade schoolers who won't listen to reason.

Oh by the way, what the heck is a Christian wannabe?

Oh also if I were you I would be using info from Stephen Jones shroud blog even more so then shroud story's site.
Stephen has done an amazing job of shroud research, and he is very meticulous when it comes to his shroud research.
It's hands down my favorite shroud site to go to, and he is starting to garner the attention of serious shroud researchers.
Your free to use any of the info I posted also. I might not be 100% accurate but it's pretty good.

Here is a perfect example of the complete ignorance on the shroud from the randi forum

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226514
20th December 2011, 09:47 AM #7
KuriousOrange
Scholar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sheffield U.K
Posts: 75
Surely if J.C/whoever was wrapped in it, once the shroud was laid flat the image would look distorted? Of course, carbon dating has made that a moot point.
Last edited by KuriousOrange; 20th December 2011 at 10:01 AM.

This is easy to debunk . First of all Ray Rogers peer reviewed research in thermochimica acta invalidated the c14 tests.
Second of all this person has completely ignored the evidence that shows 3d spatial information encoded on the shroud , which matches an image that wasnt made by cloth to body formation.

The other parts of the image also concede to this .
For a more detailed understanding of this he is a link that will help

http://asis.com/users/stag/shroud/newevid.html

Lets not forget that these people come from the randi forum.
James randi is cut from the same cloth as joe nickell.
Both don't have any scientific degrees or any expertise in any scientific area, and both were magicians and jack of all trades .
Jabbi, no wonder why these people are allergic to science , they are in love with 2 people that probably don't even know how to spell the word.
Ill take the evidence of the scientists like Ray Rogers, a senior fellow at Los alamos labs over the. On peer reviewed pseudo skepticism of joe nickell and James randi who calls himself a bright but has a severe allergy to scientists and peer reviewed research.

Janna as they told u on shroudstory, your wasting your time with those scientific Neanderthals lol.

Bippy,
- Sorry that I've been so slow in responding, but I thought that explaining what I meant by "Christian wannabe" would be easy.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba