Evidence for God from Science

Thanks Philip , that wasn't both the front and back overlayed together but you got the water stain mark on top of the head which is actually excellent to use as a guide to actually see the separation between the face of the front shroud page and the back of the head. I believe that Ken can see the gap between the 2 now.

Thank you so much Philip
Bippy

bippy123 wrote:

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.

Looking at the picture you presented that only shows the front half of the shroud, the curved outline that appears on top of the head; is that the top of the head and the actual back of the head out of the picture? As you recall, the video I presented showed this outline as the beginning of the back of the head.

Kenny do you see the Pic that Philip gave us which only shows the front pic? The curved outline that comes off that face is actually a big water stain mark. If you had a full outline of both sides lined up you can see this. This has been verified as a water stain.

Here is another pic that shows what has been verifed as a water stain and that is a pretty nice gap between the 2 pics.

http://www.artifactoryreplicas.com/wp-c ... site_6.jpg
Absolutely no doubt about this, its a water stain.
I think what the video maker was trying to do is convince us that the water stain is part of the back head image which all shroud experts know simply isnt true

Correct ken, the actual back of the head isnt in the picture that Philip just gave us. that is the water stain, probably from the 16th century fire that happened with the shroud.
Notice there are no puncture wounds on this water stain as well.

bippy123 wrote:Correct ken, the actual back of the head isnt in the picture that Philip just gave us. that is the water stain, probably from the 16th century fire that happened with the shroud.
Notice there are no puncture wounds on this water stain as well.

Thanx for the info. I also couldn't help but notice that it appears the top of the back of the head is flat instead of curved like the top of the front of the head. Do you suppose the water stain had someting to do with that?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Correct ken, the actual back of the head isnt in the picture that Philip just gave us. that is the water stain, probably from the 16th century fire that happened with the shroud.
Notice there are no puncture wounds on this water stain as well.

Thanx for the info. I also couldn't help but notice that it appears the top of the back of the head is flat instead of curved like the top of the front of the head. Do you suppose the water stain had someting to do with that?

Ken

Most likely yea Ken, remember that 16th century fire was a biggie and the shroud was extremely lucky to have made it through that fire even in that shape.

Remember also that there was an arson fire in the turin church that was set probably to try to destroy the shroud in 1997.
There is no doubt that there are people that would love it if that relic was destroyed. If it wasnt for the efforts of a very couragious fireman the shroud would have been toast .

Here is a video of the fire that I havent seen yet. Till this day they havent found the person (persons) responsible for this arson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gklxR8GxPoQ

Excellent second pic Philip
We can actually see the back of the head image much better in this one and yes it does appear that the water stain did some damagae there but you can better see the shape of the head in that pic above , and you can see the difference between the water stain and the back of the head.

Special thanks also to kenny as well as I think this info has made us all the more wiser as far as that detail on the shroud is concerned

Excellent job Philip and Ken

Remember also that there was an arson fire in the turin church that was set probably to try to destroy the shroud in 1997.
There is no doubt that there are people that would love it if that relic was destroyed. If it wasnt for the efforts of a very couragious fireman the shroud would have been toast .

Bip, sure makes you wonder why an ancient piece of cloth would stir such anger as to commit arson. What is so dangerous about it? Of course, at this point, merely burning it wouldn't do away with the now-established analysis and detailed scans of it.

Just think about it, an ancient burial cloth just happens to perfectly match up with the wounds of Christ described in Scripture, scientists, TODAY, despite rigorous and extensive scientific analysis and high-resolution scanning cannot figure out how the image got on the cloth nor can they replicate it. It has 3-D dimensional /spatial data within the image, suggesting only a powerful burst of energy from within, 3-dimensionally caused the image on the cloth. While long in Europe, it has microscopic pollens on it of plants that only grow in a narrow region around Jerusalem. And it's most ancient references show that belief it was the burial cloth of Christ are many centuries old - what possible ancient (faked) relic could possibly have such qualities? And how would any ancient person have had the technical ability to create it? And although technically impossible for anyone, why would any faker go to such extraordinary lengths of astonishing detail to produce such a perfect artifact, during a time when pieces of wood were considered relics of the Cross, and a simple painted cloth would have fooled just about anyone? Plus the image is a NEGATIVE - who would create THAT?

It is the extensive detail, correct Holy Land pollens, correct wounds, impossibility of an ancient (or modern) of faking it, the 3-D / spatial information in the image, the fact that those who had it in ancient times considered it to be Christ's burial cloth - all of these make me believe it is miraculous and the real deal. And that it has survived two fires and held up to exhaustive analysis tell me that it's protection and validation reveal things quite extraordinary.

Philip wrote:

Remember also that there was an arson fire in the turin church that was set probably to try to destroy the shroud in 1997.
There is no doubt that there are people that would love it if that relic was destroyed. If it wasnt for the efforts of a very couragious fireman the shroud would have been toast .

Bip, sure makes you wonder why an ancient piece of cloth would stir such anger as to commit arson. What is so dangerous about it? Of course, at this point, merely burning it wouldn't do away with the now-established analysis and detailed scans of it.

Just think about it, an ancient burial cloth just happens to perfectly match up with the wounds of Christ described in Scripture, scientists, TODAY, despite rigorous and extensive scientific analysis and high-resolution scanning cannot figure out how the image got on the cloth nor can they replicate it. It has 3-D dimensional /spatial data within the image, suggesting only a powerful burst of energy from within, 3-dimensionally caused the image on the cloth. While long in Europe, it has microscopic pollens on it of plants that only grow in a narrow region around Jerusalem. And it's most ancient references show that belief it was the burial cloth of Christ are many centuries old - what possible ancient (faked) relic could possibly have such qualities? And how would any ancient person have had the technical ability to create it? And although technically impossible for anyone, why would any faker go to such extraordinary lengths of astonishing detail to produce such a perfect artifact, during a time when pieces of wood were considered relics of the Cross, and a simple painted cloth would have fooled just about anyone? Plus the image is a NEGATIVE - who would create THAT?

It is the extensive detail, correct Holy Land pollens, correct wounds, impossibility of an ancient (or modern) of faking it, the 3-D / spatial information in the image, the fact that those who had it in ancient times considered it to be Christ's burial cloth - all of these make me believe it is miraculous and the real deal. And that it has survived two fires and held up to exhaustive analysis tell me that it's protection and validation reveal things quite extraordinary.

Skeptics can argue that the evidence uncovered so far is purely circumstantial as to its relation to Christ as Seraph pointed out before. It could very well be just about anyone who died and was wrapped in a cloth around Jesus' time.

IMO the single most powerful piece of scientific evidence that proves beyond any doubt the shroud does in fact point not only to Christ, but precisely to his resurrection, is the evidence that the body wrapped in this shroud seemed to have completely disappeared right through it while it was STILL FOLDED . If I recall correctly, it's called the collapse theory. In other words, think of what was imprinted on the inside top of the shroud (from the entire front of the body laying on his back), as opposed to the imprint on the bottom of the shroud (from the body's backside). If this body sort of disappeared out of it without unwrapping it first, you would expect to see evidence of the top imprint onto the bottom side as well when the shroud collapsed. Lo and behold, there is undeniable evidence that that was indeed the case.

I mean, seriously, how can anyone in their right mind dismiss such powerful evidence?

Philip wrote:

Remember also that there was an arson fire in the turin church that was set probably to try to destroy the shroud in 1997.
There is no doubt that there are people that would love it if that relic was destroyed. If it wasnt for the efforts of a very couragious fireman the shroud would have been toast .

Bip, sure makes you wonder why an ancient piece of cloth would stir such anger as to commit arson. What is so dangerous about it? Of course, at this point, merely burning it wouldn't do away with the now-established analysis and detailed scans of it.

Just think about it, an ancient burial cloth just happens to perfectly match up with the wounds of Christ described in Scripture, scientists, TODAY, despite rigorous and extensive scientific analysis and high-resolution scanning cannot figure out how the image got on the cloth nor can they replicate it. It has 3-D dimensional /spatial data within the image, suggesting only a powerful burst of energy from within, 3-dimensionally caused the image on the cloth. While long in Europe, it has microscopic pollens on it of plants that only grow in a narrow region around Jerusalem. And it's most ancient references show that belief it was the burial cloth of Christ are many centuries old - what possible ancient (faked) relic could possibly have such qualities? And how would any ancient person have had the technical ability to create it? And although technically impossible for anyone, why would any faker go to such extraordinary lengths of astonishing detail to produce such a perfect artifact, during a time when pieces of wood were considered relics of the Cross, and a simple painted cloth would have fooled just about anyone? Plus the image is a NEGATIVE - who would create THAT?

It is the extensive detail, correct Holy Land pollens, correct wounds, impossibility of an ancient (or modern) of faking it, the 3-D / spatial information in the image, the fact that those who had it in ancient times considered it to be Christ's burial cloth - all of these make me believe it is miraculous and the real deal. And that it has survived two fires and held up to exhaustive analysis tell me that it's protection and validation reveal things quite extraordinary.

These are the keys here Philip. It would be rdiiculous to even fathom how or even why any forger could or would be able to do this. Any reasonable individual looking at the evidences would know that its simply beyond the realm of reason to think this. It all reminds me of the time I was on an atheist forum and one particular atheist was so stressed out that he on the verge of having a panic attack as he was begging his fellow atheists to please debunk this shroud once and for all
What even more illogical then someone believing that a forger creating this image is someone not wanting the Christian God to exist. It baffles my mind

Correct Byblos, that is the cloth collapse theory developed by Physicist John Jackson of the sturp Team. He teaches an advanced shroud course in his Colorado Center and I really hope that one of these days I can get around to taking the course. Byblos the technology used to create this image is beyond anything that 21st century science has and it might be byond anything science will ever have. The xray information on the image alone is amazing by itself and the part where there is now compression showing on the dorsal image is downright freaky. This means no gravity present. How does an ancient forger create an antigravity environment when 21st century science cant do it.

If Seraph would bring up that the image could be of anyone and that the evidence is circumstantial that isnt entirely correct . The fact is that no one in recorded history was crucified the way Christ and the man on the shroud were crucified. I challenge Seraph to bring me just one person in recorded history that was recorded as being crucified the same way . I tried for over 6 months at one point and just couldnt find one.

As Philip stated there were certainly people that would feel much better if the shroud had been burnt up and judging by the 1997 arson fire they really wanted to make sure it was gone for good, that was one heck of a fire.

I have a feeling that Ken is starting to get pulled in by the shroud, almost everyone that approaches the shroud evidences honestly cant help but get pulled in. Mark Antonacci went in trying to debunk it to shut up his Christian Girlfriend and ended up becoming a Christian himself lol

bippy123 wrote:If Seraph would bring up that the image could be of anyone and that the evidence is circumstantial that isnt entirely correct . The fact is that no one in recorded history was crucified the way Christ and the man on the shroud were crucified. I challenge Seraph to bring me just one person in recorded history that was recorded as being crucified the same way . I tried for over 6 months at one point and just couldnt find one.

Well its not like one can just google "list of people crucified by the romans in 33AD". To say "there are no known people crucified this way in this time period" is just an appeal to ignorance in my opinion.

How diverse could cruxifiction be? I imagine Jesus was hardly the only one crucifed by piercing his hands and feet.

Seraph wrote:

bippy123 wrote:If Seraph would bring up that the image could be of anyone and that the evidence is circumstantial that isnt entirely correct . The fact is that no one in recorded history was crucified the way Christ and the man on the shroud were crucified. I challenge Seraph to bring me just one person in recorded history that was recorded as being crucified the same way . I tried for over 6 months at one point and just couldnt find one.

Well its not like one can just google "list of people crucified by the romans in 33AD". To say "there are no known people crucified this way in this time period" is just an appeal to ignorance in my opinion.

How diverse could cruxifiction be? I imagine Jesus was hardly the only one crucifed by piercing his hands and feet.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the Roman empire very good at recording these sorts of things and if there was a deviation from the norm it most likely would have been recorded somewhere?

I guess it is possible that someone was crucified the same way, but I find it unlikely or an extremely rare event.