Evidence for God from Science

Could someone explain why there's 55 pages of discussion about whether or not this piece of cloth belonged to Jesus? What's the big deal.

My question is prompted by a discussion in Seraph's thread where I said:

ryanbouma wrote:bippy, let me just say I think Seaph is playing with fire and should consider the evidence of a few things more seriously. But the shroud isn't one of them. At least, so I think. Which is why I ask: What's the big deal with the shroud? I haven't read that thread either (like I have the time for that ), but how does having Jesus' body wrap prove anything? Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't prove he rose from the dead.

This question is not on topic, so I will quote myself onto that thread for the actual answer. But I've posted here to intervene on the this conversation.

ryanbouma wrote:Could someone explain why there's 55 pages of discussion about whether or not this piece of cloth belonged to Jesus? What's the big deal.

My question is prompted by a discussion in Seraph's thread where I said:

ryanbouma wrote:bippy, let me just say I think Seaph is playing with fire and should consider the evidence of a few things more seriously. But the shroud isn't one of them. At least, so I think. Which is why I ask: What's the big deal with the shroud? I haven't read that thread either (like I have the time for that ), but how does having Jesus' body wrap prove anything? Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't prove he rose from the dead.

This question is not on topic, so I will quote myself onto that thread for the actual answer. But I've posted here to intervene on the this conversation.

Ryan, actually your missing a whole lot of somethings. Once we get to the point of whether its Christ's burial shroud you then have to explain the image itself and all of the evidences that something unnnatural happened to the man of the shroud to in conjunction to it being formed (21st century science cant replicate this image) and by inference to the most reasonable explanation that would be (in my opinion and in the opinion of many others) the resurrection process.

This is a shortened answer, to fully understand why many (as i do) believe this you actually have to go through the 55 pages to see the pros and cons for and against the shroud.
Most atheists will not even admit to the strong evidence of this being the burial Shroud of teh authentic Jesus because if they do they will have to come face to face with the unique image itself and that causes most of them a whole lot of stress

This is why there is 55 pages of this stuff Ryan

Thanks bippy. You have me intrigued then. I'll try and find some time to watch a few of the videos you've linked and see where that takes me. My initial gut reaction, is how does this prove anything, but... if you're right, that's great!

ryanbouma wrote:Thanks bippy. You have me intrigued then. I'll try and find some time to watch a few of the videos you've linked and see where that takes me. My initial gut reaction, is how does this prove anything, but... if you're right, that's great!

Thats all I ask for Ryan, now this is honest seeking. cant ask for more then this
God bless

ryanbouma, bottom line is that the Shroud is a miraculous-appearing artifact that completely lines up with the historical descriptions of wounds that happened to Jesus, even including his crown of thorn injuries. The Shroud is perhaps the most examined and scientifically scrutinized artifact in history. It has a negative image of a crucified human that extensive scientific analysis has been unable to replicate or even figure out how that image got there. As the Bible teaches that Jesus was God in the flesh, put to death for the sins of the world on a Roman cross, but miraculously resurrected and seen by up to 500 people at once, POST resurrection (http://www.bibleview.org/en/Bible/Easter/500People/), it is a powerful evidence of the truth of the Bible's teachings about His life and Resurrection. In the hands of Christians for centuries (and long considered by those who possessed it to be the burial/Resurrection shroud of Jesus), the fact of the miraculous image and it's amazing attributes weren't discovered until the advent of photography and modern scientific technology and analysis. It would have been entirely impossible for a pre-scientific age person to create such an artifact, nor can modern science replicate it.

And while the Shroud may not prove Jesus was God, it does bear witness to the fact that some miraculous process must have created the image on it. The fact that it also was long considered the burial shroud of the Resurrected Christ, many centuries before modern science realized its astonishing properties, and the fact that it perfectly lines up with the relevant descriptions of Jesus' wounds in Scripture - even having microscopic pollens from the area of the Jerusalem - is a powerful evidence that what the Bible says about Jesus is true. If it were merely a medieval fake, modern science and microscopic analysis would be able to reveal it in a heartbeat. I find it to be just one more very powerful evidence of the truth of Jesus Resurrection, and of Him being God in the flesh.

bippy123 wrote:Ok Kenny I found A shorter version of the video that will explain this to you perfectly .
Dame pizcek is a world renowned artist who is also a Particle physicist that specializes in time.

In this video she explains what I have been trying to convey about the image to you.

http://youtu.be/oRmCaindCpg

Enjoy my friend

So if I understand you correctly the image of the shroud was not created by being wrapped around the body, it was formed by some type of a miracle of the shroud actually expanding away from the body, sorta like a balloon, and the body floating between the top and the bottom of the cloth and the image was made on the cloth even though it was not touching the body. Is that correct? If that’s the case I still have to ask; where is the top of the head? Why is the top of the head missing? Even if while the shroud was expanded, the top of the head didn’t make an image, it still doesn’t explain why there isn’t a gap between the face and the back of the head on the cloth.

Ken

Also why do you suppose even to this day the Catholic Church has refused to authenticate the Shroud of Turin as the actual burial cloth of Jesus?

Ken

Kenny wrote:Also why do you suppose even to this day the Catholic Church has refused to authenticate the Shroud of Turin as the actual burial cloth of Jesus?

Ken

Kenny I will get around to answer your previous post ( I have about 90% of it answered).
As far as why the Catholic Church doesnt officially authenticate the shroud as the actual burial cloth of Christ, I allready gave you that answer and that is because the shroud isnt needed for our faith.
they have a neutral stance on the shroud. The church believes as I and most Christians do, that Christianity and even our faith isnt based on the shroud of turin but on the word of Christ.

I never once said it was 100% proof Ken but I did say that the evidence points strongly to its authenticity and as Phillip put it, something miraculous happened on that shroud and the process that created that image cant even be replicated by 21st century science let alone some supposed forger from medieval times.

What we are are doing here ken is using the inference to the best explanation or the most reasonable explanation.

Think about it this way, we have never had a resurrection to compare this to so how could we ever know 100% if this was caused by the resurrection? The answer is we cant but since the tech is way out of the league of even 21st century science, since the shroud matches the gospels accounts of Christ's passion and crucifixion, since the church has kept it for this long these are all clues to this being a very important relic to the early Christians.

They have tried every naturalistic explanation to try to explain the image. Nothing even comes close so far.

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Ok Kenny I found A shorter version of the video that will explain this to you perfectly .
Dame pizcek is a world renowned artist who is also a Particle physicist that specializes in time.

In this video she explains what I have been trying to convey about the image to you.

http://youtu.be/oRmCaindCpg

Enjoy my friend

So if I understand you correctly the image of the shroud was not created by being wrapped around the body, it was formed by some type of a miracle of the shroud actually expanding away from the body, sorta like a balloon, and the body floating between the top and the bottom of the cloth and the image was made on the cloth even though it was not touching the body. Is that correct? If that’s the case I still have to ask; where is the top of the head? Why is the top of the head missing? Even if while the shroud was expanded, the top of the head didn’t make an image, it still doesn’t explain why there isn’t a gap between the face and the back of the head on the cloth.

Ken

Ken there is also no side images too if you notice it . Whatever the process that caused the image was directional, projecting up and projecting down. If you notice there are also no side images as well on the cloth. As far as the body not touching the cloth I said that the image would disappates after 2 inches right? Well you can see spatial height info by how close the parts of the body were to the cloth. The nose is obviously closer to the cloth then other parts of the body because it about 8 centimeters long. This can be seen on the cloth because of the spatial 3d info encoded into the cloth.

As far as there being no gap between the face and the back of the head on the cloth its obvious that you didnt actually get this information from viewing an actual picture of the shroud but from some atheistic skeptic site. Now ken before I debunk this sites information may I ask you why u werent a little skeptical of their remark since this would have debunked the light (or radiation) theory a long time ago.

Instead ill let you view the whole front and dorsal image on this link.
After you view it please explain to me in your next post if there is or isnt a gap between the face and the back of the head
But after your answer I want u to promise me that you will place the same skepticism towards shroud skeptic sites as you would shroud authenticity sites.
Deal?

Here is the link
and I think everyone here can easily see a gap between the face and back of the head which is another point towards the shroud being made taut at the point of image formation.
http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/ ... cope.shtml

Also ken, the one shroud blog that I found which is most accurate and up to par is Stephen Jones's blog from down under

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/

If you ever get to finish most of his posts ( he has over 10 years of researched posts ) you will be a shroud expert

Bippy, is there a "shroud for dummies" for simple folks like me? I can easily say here, that I am the last guy to throw confidence in relics, I don't know its just not what I do, but what Bippy has shared, its quite hard to just dismiss, so I am very much intrigued. This is not a sudden interest though, I have had a interest in the shroud for quite some time and I want to study some basics first. I have had the fortune of seeing two videos shared in the pages on this thread and they present their case in a very nice way. Enough to get me seeking more.

Right now the material is so much and is so fractured that I have no idea where to begin. So hence my question, any "shroud for dummies"?

Bipps has done a lot of hardwork in this thread. I applause him for that.

neo-x wrote:Bippy, is there a "shroud for dummies" for simple folks like me? I can easily say here, that I am the last guy to throw confidence in relics, I don't know its just not what I do, but what Bippy has shared, its quite hard to just dismiss, so I am very much intrigued. This is not a sudden interest though, I have had a interest in the shroud for quite some time and I want to study some basics first. I have had the fortune of seeing two videos shared in the pages on this thread and they present their case in a very nice way. Enough to get me seeking more.

Right now the material is so much and is so fractured that I have no idea where to begin. So hence my question, any "shroud for dummies"?

Bipps has done a lot of hardwork in this thread. I applause him for that.

Thanks Neo , much appreciated my friend. it seems like time flies when I'm researching the shroud. Maybe I can put together some links in a few weeks or so after I get to see a dermatologist and they figure out why I'm still itching all over.

I do recall a link to the history of the shroud which would be a great place to start.
Ill have something for you soon buddy I promise

bippy123 wrote:As far as there being no gap between the face and the back of the head on the cloth its obvious that you didnt actually get this information from viewing an actual picture of the shroud but from some atheistic skeptic site.

I actually got the information from the youtube video I posted on march 20th. I wouldn't consider youtube an atheist website.

bippy123 wrote:Now ken before I debunk this sites information may I ask you why u werent a little skeptical of their remark since this would have debunked the light (or radiation) theory a long time ago.

I don't know enough about the Shroud of turin to debunk the points made on the video so I sent it to you guys to let you have at it.

bippy123 wrote:Instead ill let you view the whole front and dorsal image on this link.
After you view it please explain to me in your next post if there is or isnt a gap between the face and the back of the head
But after your answer I want u to promise me that you will place the same skepticism towards shroud skeptic sites as you would shroud authenticity sites.
Deal?

Deal!

[quote="bippy123"Here is the link
and I think everyone here can easily see a gap between the face and back of the head which is another point towards the shroud being made taut at the point of image formation.
http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/ ... cope.shtml

Unfortunately I was unable to bring up the link. Am I to assume the youtube video doesn't present an actual photo of the shroud to make his point? Would you mind sending another link; maybe I will be able to bring it up to so you can make your point.

K

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:As far as there being no gap between the face and the back of the head on the cloth its obvious that you didnt actually get this information from viewing an actual picture of the shroud but from some atheistic skeptic site.

I actually got the information from the youtube video I posted on march 20th. I wouldn't consider youtube an atheist website.

bippy123 wrote:Now ken before I debunk this sites information may I ask you why u werent a little skeptical of their remark since this would have debunked the light (or radiation) theory a long time ago.

I don't know enough about the Shroud of turin to debunk the points made on the video so I sent it to you guys to let you have at it.

bippy123 wrote:Instead ill let you view the whole front and dorsal image on this link.
After you view it please explain to me in your next post if there is or isnt a gap between the face and the back of the head
But after your answer I want u to promise me that you will place the same skepticism towards shroud skeptic sites as you would shroud authenticity sites.
Deal?

Deal!

[quote="bippy123"Here is the link
and I think everyone here can easily see a gap between the face and back of the head which is another point towards the shroud being made taut at the point of image formation.
http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/ ... cope.shtml

Unfortunately I was unable to bring up the link. Am I to assume the youtube video doesn't present an actual photo of the shroud to make his point? Would you mind sending another link; maybe I will be able to bring it up to so you can make your point.

K

Does anyone know how to input this image on here? http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/ ... cope.shtml as it is the easiest to spot the gap with.

Here is one that is abit harder to spot but remember there is a water spot in the gap between the face and back of the head images.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... fturin.jpg

As far as the video you brought up Ken, the guy that made that video up either hasnt done his shroud homework, or is deleibrately posting debunked information masking it as good information or both.
Most of the times it is atheists that are doing it but there are a few Christians that are trying to debunk the shroud as well and they erroneously think it doesnt match the gospels as they havent researched it fully.

As Barrie Schwortz said some of the biggest critics trying to debunk the shroud are other fellow Christians for reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence.