Evidence for God from Science

Also Kenny the person who came closest to replicating most of the features of the shroud was doctor August Accetta who was brought up a believer and left Christianity and became an agnostic because he believed that it was all just a way for the elderly to feel comforted about dying .
His experiments on the shroud started to bring him back to Christianity and his research into Christianity eventually made him a believer again.

http://www.freechristianteaching.org/mo ... z3ZXNAnMtt

Another agnostic is Missouri lawyer mark Antonacci (who I was proudly accused of being on a skeptical forum lol ).

Antonacci started out studying the shroud to prove to his Christian girlfriend that Christianity was nothing but a fairy tale . 20 years of shroud research later he came back a Christian .

http://amarillo.com/stories/2001/04/14/ ... UyC9Se9KSM

Ex-agnostic researches, writes book on shroud

Posted: Saturday, April 14, 2001
DON MUNSCH
Globe-News Staff Writer
Mark Antonacci said he was a committed agnostic until he stumbled upon an article about a subject he would eventually spend nearly 20 years researching.

Antonacci, a St. Louis lawyer, is author of "The Resurrection of the Shroud." He spoke in a telephone interview about his book about the cloth that he and others believe wrapped the body of Jesus Christ.

His book delves into questions about the wounds suffered by the man whose impression is on the shroud, the shroud's history and scientific challenges to the carbon dating of the shroud.

Now a Christian, Antonacci said much historical, medical and archaeological evidence exists to prove Christ's death was consistent with Gospel accounts. The evidence he said he found changed his mind about God.

"I came to the conclusion that the literal, actual crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred," he said.

So why did it take nearly two decades to publish his book?

"I just had no idea the breadth of the evidence and the difficulty in finding a publisher," said Antonacci, whose publisher is M. Evans and Company Inc. in New York.

Antonacci said scientists from many religious and nonreligious backgrounds have examined the shroud, and none think it is a forgery, although they have varying opinions about it. The shroud has been kept in Turin, Italy, for the last four centuries.

"I was fortunate enough to see it about a dozen times between 1998 and 2000," said Antonacci, who said the evidence points to a man who was "tortured and crucified."

"There's no way the evidence could have been forged or occurred naturally," he said. Antonacci said modern technology allows scientists to see evidence that would have been impossible for scientists of centuries past to see.

Antonacci said he wants people to research the evidence the way he did and come to their own conclusions.

"The more they become familiar with the subject and evidence the more they will think it is authentic," he said.

Here is Antonacci's site

http://testtheshroud.org

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Ken,

Have you actually read any of Bips thread on the shroud?

No.

Storyteller wrote: I find it curious that there have been so many scientists that were atheists before studying the shroud yet became Christians after researching it. Does that count for nothing?
The shroud has been studied, really hard, yet no one can disprove (or prove, to be fair) it`s authenticity. That speaks volumes to me.

According to Essential Sacrifice; after 2000 hrs of scientific research, they concluded it was a forgery.

Storyteller wrote: The circumstantial evidence that it was indeed the shroud of Christ is pretty compelling. How, as an atheist then, do you explain the image on the shroud? We can`t, with all our knowledge and scientific processes, recreate that image today.
The blood clots, the pollen, all of the little details strongly suggest it is the real deal.

I don’t know much about the shroud, but when a group of scientists study it and conclude it a forgery, and the Catholic Church refuses to authenticate it, that is good enough for me.

Storyteller wrote: (edited to add, just read that through and realise it may come across as aggressive, it isn`t meant like that at all. x)

You don’t come across as aggressive; I invite your questions

Ken

Its a long thread ken, but I promise you, well worth the read. in fact I dare you to read it, it may just change your mind!
As for sentists finding it a fraud, thats covered in the thread (will see if I can find the relevant posts)
bips puts forward many good arguments and backs them up.
how much do you really know about the shroud?
are you willing to read bips thread, and with an open mind?

I don't know anything about carbon dating, or whatever systems scientists use to determine the age of something. This would be like a person claiming Calculus is a flawed mathematical system and providing me with a mathematical equation that proves his point! Weather he is right or wrong, I have no way of knowing because I don't understand calculus! In order for me to be convinced of something, you have to speak to me in a language I understand. Carbon dating is a language I don't understand.

I will look over the thread to see if I understand any of it. Is there any particular page, or date I should look at? There's gotta be a hundred pages to that thread; you aren't asking me to go over all of them are you?

K

Just scan through it but maybe read from about page 60 through to 70 for a taste of it.

Maybe bips can suggest a better starting point?

I really do think that it`s quite significant that so many people who examine and study the shroud (a lot of them with the intention of proving it a fraud) end up turning to Christ because of it.

Kenny so your saying that a group of scientists concluded that the shroud was a medieval forgery right?
Your talking about the 1988 c 14 tests .
And this proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the shroud is a medieval forgery right?

Let's say we were arguing about manure . You brought to me research done in the 16th century that said maggots came from non life simply by adding manure to the ground.
I would say that is ridiculous and show you the more current 18th century data that proved that this simply isn't true and it's Confirmed by other scientists. As an unbiased rational, common sense guy you would have to concede that what I showed you was true and you would then need to change your mind.

This is exactly what happened with the 1988 c14 tests . If you had gone back through the thread or even did a search for one name , Ray Rogers you would have seen that in his peer reviewed chemical analysis published in the peer reviewed chemical specialist journal thermochimica acta he showed that this area was not only from a re weave but that there was dye added in that area and Rogers did not find any re woven cotton or dye in any other areas of the shroud . This was confirmed by almost a dozen scientists , most at Los Alamos labs.

If you were unbiased and you had taken the time to look through the old posts and followed the links to the research you would have to conclude that this newer evidence trumps the older and refuted 1988 c14 tests .

If not then you would have to present some newer evidence that would cause me to change my mind.
To look at old evidence and then argue for that without looking at the newer scientific evidence is not only irrational but unscientific .

Kenny so tell us are do you love atheism more then you love science

Kenny here is another question. Did you know that when carbon dating any relic of significance that it's standard protocol to do a micro chemical analysis on the piece being dated?

Was there a micro chemical analysis done on the piece of the shroud that was tested in 1988?

Did you know that in carbon dating any relic that there must be a chi squared value of under 6 for it to be considered reliable ?

What was the chi squared number value on the shroud piece tested?

Kenny do you now see your extreme bias?

These are just some of the many points shown if you had just done some honest seeking through the old posts here.
Now why wouldn't you want to do the research.?

The only rational conclusion I can come up with is that you have some kind of emotional bias against God.

Now Kenny tell us again about that group of Scientists that proved that it was a medieval relic?
Do you really want to go there with me?
The last atheists that did is now an agnostic and hopefully he is now a Christian .

In other words Kenny as Clint Eastwood said " are you feeling lucky tonight UNK"
We all know what that letter is

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Ken,

Have you actually read any of Bips thread on the shroud?

No.

Storyteller wrote: I find it curious that there have been so many scientists that were atheists before studying the shroud yet became Christians after researching it. Does that count for nothing?
The shroud has been studied, really hard, yet no one can disprove (or prove, to be fair) it`s authenticity. That speaks volumes to me.

According to Essential Sacrifice; after 2000 hrs of scientific research, they concluded it was a forgery.

Storyteller wrote: The circumstantial evidence that it was indeed the shroud of Christ is pretty compelling. How, as an atheist then, do you explain the image on the shroud? We can`t, with all our knowledge and scientific processes, recreate that image today.
The blood clots, the pollen, all of the little details strongly suggest it is the real deal.

I don’t know much about the shroud, but when a group of scientists study it and conclude it a forgery, and the Catholic Church refuses to authenticate it, that is good enough for me.

Storyteller wrote: (edited to add, just read that through and realise it may come across as aggressive, it isn`t meant like that at all. x)

You don’t come across as aggressive; I invite your questions

Ken

Its a long thread ken, but I promise you, well worth the read. in fact I dare you to read it, it may just change your mind!
As for sentists finding it a fraud, thats covered in the thread (will see if I can find the relevant posts)
bips puts forward many good arguments and backs them up.
how much do you really know about the shroud?
are you willing to read bips thread, and with an open mind?

I don't know anything about carbon dating, or whatever systems scientists use to determine the age of something. This would be like a person claiming Calculus is a flawed mathematical system and providing me with a mathematical equation that proves his point! Weather he is right or wrong, I have no way of knowing because I don't understand calculus! In order for me to be convinced of something, you have to speak to me in a language I understand. Carbon dating is a language I don't understand.

I will look over the thread to see if I understand any of it. Is there any particular page, or date I should look at? There's gotta be a hundred pages to that thread; you aren't asking me to go over all of them are you?

K

Just scan through it but maybe read from about page 60 through to 70 for a taste of it.

Maybe bips can suggest a better starting point?

I really do think that it`s quite significant that so many people who examine and study the shroud (a lot of them with the intention of proving it a fraud) end up turning to Christ because of it.

Annette if I could copy and paste easily with my android tablet I would have given him some good links to study but for some reason my ipad mini won't charge and the bigger problem for me now is how will I facetime my angel brother mikhail. Our facetime prayer sessions are the only thing that calm his schizophrenia

I'll try to reach him via my ipad touch

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:Dang bro! Didn't know you was gonna come at me that way! Look I ain't trying to challenge or offend, someone asked my opinion of the shroud and I told them. To me it's really a non-issue. Judging from your reaction this is obviously a very important subject to you, it's something you believe in and I ain't trying to take that away from you. I am not trying to deconvert you or anyone else here; I was just answering a question that was asked of me; Okay? Are we cool now?

Peace
Ken

Ken, it is probably a good thing to have an informed opinion, don't you think?
You opinion on the shroud is not informed at all.
Going by what one hears about the shroud from skeptics is like formulating an opinion about evolution by what you hear on creationist websites.
.

When the Catholics Church allows a group of scientists to spend 2000 hrs researching it, that sounds legitimate to me. I don't have a "dog in this fight" but the Catholic Church does I assume. If those scientists were bias against the shroud, I suspect they would have found someone else to do the research

Ken

The RC couldn't really have cared that much because the legitimacy of the shroud is irrelevant to the RC and any church doctrine.

Now, from what I gather ( and this is going simply on what I have been told by a friend in the Vatican science department ) the RCC did do testing on the shroud before they handed it over and THEIR testing showed that the Shroud was dated to around 100 BC-300 AD. When the news came out that the shroud had been dated to 13th century the "internal view" was that this was an attempt to discredit the faith and that something should be done.
The official position was that since the Faith is NOT based on anything BUT the RESURRECTED Christ, then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks and no artifact can effect it, besided even if the dating could be proved beyond a reason of a doubt, it doesn't mean it was Christ.
The unofficial view was that short of damaging the shroud and going over this again and again, there was no point because skeptics would always say it was fake, believers would always believe it to be real, regardless.

Of course, over the years more and more evidence has shown that the dating of the 13th century is wrong.

BUT, more importantly, there is one simple FACT that no skeptic has been ever able to address:

NO ONE, EVER , has been able to reproduce the image on the shroud with the same qualities that the shroud has, not even now with 21st century tech.
NO ONE.

The closest anyone has gotten to something similar to the image was when radiation was used.

A quick google search turned this up.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/ ... HL20091005
Of course he was funded by an Atheist organization.

Ken

Since Bibby already put the kaibosh on that BS, I won't address it, suffice to say that lots have SAID they replicated it but ALL have FAILED in truly doing so.

bippy123 wrote:Kenny so your saying that a group of scientists concluded that the shroud was a medieval forgery right?
Your talking about the 1988 c 14 tests .
And this proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the shroud is a medieval forgery right?

No. I misunderstood what “Essential Sacrifice” said; I thought he said the scientists deemed it a forgery when he actually said they could have deemed it a forgery. That was my mistake and I stated it a few posts later.
The rest of what you posted was just a bunch of noise to me. You’re talking about “carbon dating” tests, C-14 tests and a bunch of other stuff I am unfamiliar with. As I said before, I am unfamiliar with the type of tests done to determine the dates of things; you can make your point and I have no way of determining if your points are accurate or not because you are speaking another language to me.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Kenny so your saying that a group of scientists concluded that the shroud was a medieval forgery right?
Your talking about the 1988 c 14 tests .
And this proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the shroud is a medieval forgery right?

No. I misunderstood what “Essential Sacrifice” said; I thought he said the scientists deemed it a forgery when he actually said they could have deemed it a forgery. That was my mistake and I stated it a few posts later.
The rest of what you posted was just a bunch of noise to me. You’re talking about “carbon dating” tests, C-14 tests and a bunch of other stuff I am unfamiliar with. As I said before, I am unfamiliar with the type of tests done to determine the dates of things; you can make your point and I have no way of determining if your points are accurate or not because you are speaking another language to me.

Ken

Kenny, one sec let me pull out my multiple phd's in archeology, forensics , history, c 14 dating, photography and physics.
Oops I'm just a layman
Oops , that also means that if a layman dork like me could research and get to know the evidences for and against the shroud with my chappy samsung tablet keyboard that has a crazy mind of its own then you can also research and get familiar with the evidences as well.

So Kenny , tell me again what's stopping you from doing this ?
PS thanks also for clarifying what you meant in your post

bippy123 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Kenny so your saying that a group of scientists concluded that the shroud was a medieval forgery right?
Your talking about the 1988 c 14 tests .
And this proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the shroud is a medieval forgery right?

No. I misunderstood what “Essential Sacrifice” said; I thought he said the scientists deemed it a forgery when he actually said they could have deemed it a forgery. That was my mistake and I stated it a few posts later.
The rest of what you posted was just a bunch of noise to me. You’re talking about “carbon dating” tests, C-14 tests and a bunch of other stuff I am unfamiliar with. As I said before, I am unfamiliar with the type of tests done to determine the dates of things; you can make your point and I have no way of determining if your points are accurate or not because you are speaking another language to me.

Ken

Kenny, one sec let me pull out my multiple phd's in archeology, forensics , history, c 14 dating, photography and physics.
Oops I'm just a layman
Oops , that also means that if a layman dork like me could research and get to know the evidences for and against the shroud with my chappy samsung tablet keyboard that has a crazy mind of its own then you can also research and get familiar with the evidences as well.

So Kenny , tell me again what's stopping you from doing this ?
PS thanks also for clarifying what you meant in your post

I am curious; who was the first one to posses the shroud? Is there something in the Bible of someone or a group taking possession of it then later someone claiming to received it from this group or person? Is it just someone claiming to have it? Who was the person or group responsible for it becoming the relic it has become?

Also, upon looking at photos of the shroud, it appears the hair is draped down covering the ears, up to the temple with only the face exposed; as if the image was made while in a vertical position. If a person with long hair is laid in a horizontal position on his back, (I am assuming Jesus was covered while laying in a horizontal position) gravity would cause the hair to fall back so more of his head is exposed, even showing his ears. How is this explained?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Kenny so your saying that a group of scientists concluded that the shroud was a medieval forgery right?
Your talking about the 1988 c 14 tests .
And this proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the shroud is a medieval forgery right?

No. I misunderstood what “Essential Sacrifice” said; I thought he said the scientists deemed it a forgery when he actually said they could have deemed it a forgery. That was my mistake and I stated it a few posts later.
The rest of what you posted was just a bunch of noise to me. You’re talking about “carbon dating” tests, C-14 tests and a bunch of other stuff I am unfamiliar with. As I said before, I am unfamiliar with the type of tests done to determine the dates of things; you can make your point and I have no way of determining if your points are accurate or not because you are speaking another language to me.

Ken

Kenny, one sec let me pull out my multiple phd's in archeology, forensics , history, c 14 dating, photography and physics.
Oops I'm just a layman
Oops , that also means that if a layman dork like me could research and get to know the evidences for and against the shroud with my chappy samsung tablet keyboard that has a crazy mind of its own then you can also research and get familiar with the evidences as well.

So Kenny , tell me again what's stopping you from doing this ?
PS thanks also for clarifying what you meant in your post

I am curious; who was the first one to posses the shroud? Is there something in the Bible of someone or a group taking possession of it then later someone claiming to received it from this group or person? Is it just someone claiming to have it? Who was the person or group responsible for it becoming the relic it has become?

Also, upon looking at photos of the shroud, it appears the hair is draped down covering the ears, up to the temple with only the face exposed; as if the image was made while in a vertical position. If a person with long hair is laid in a horizontal position on his back, (I am assuming Jesus was covered while laying in a horizontal position) gravity would cause the hair to fall back so more of his head is exposed, even showing his ears. How is this explained?

Ken

Kenny,
I'm not a shroud proponent. But, let's just say that you were hung (upright) on a cross after having a crown of thorns smashed on your head. You were beaten and bleeding profusely as you hung for several hours until you died. Would it be possible for your hair to have dried in with the blood covering your head and face. And so, when your body was laid flat, the hair remained stuck in place?
Is that not merely a possible explanation but a reasonable explanation?

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Kenny so your saying that a group of scientists concluded that the shroud was a medieval forgery right?
Your talking about the 1988 c 14 tests .
And this proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the shroud is a medieval forgery right?

No. I misunderstood what “Essential Sacrifice” said; I thought he said the scientists deemed it a forgery when he actually said they could have deemed it a forgery. That was my mistake and I stated it a few posts later.
The rest of what you posted was just a bunch of noise to me. You’re talking about “carbon dating” tests, C-14 tests and a bunch of other stuff I am unfamiliar with. As I said before, I am unfamiliar with the type of tests done to determine the dates of things; you can make your point and I have no way of determining if your points are accurate or not because you are speaking another language to me.

Ken

Kenny, one sec let me pull out my multiple phd's in archeology, forensics , history, c 14 dating, photography and physics.
Oops I'm just a layman
Oops , that also means that if a layman dork like me could research and get to know the evidences for and against the shroud with my chappy samsung tablet keyboard that has a crazy mind of its own then you can also research and get familiar with the evidences as well.

So Kenny , tell me again what's stopping you from doing this ?
PS thanks also for clarifying what you meant in your post

I am curious; who was the first one to posses the shroud? Is there something in the Bible of someone or a group taking possession of it then later someone claiming to received it from this group or person? Is it just someone claiming to have it? Who was the person or group responsible for it becoming the relic it has become?

Also, upon looking at photos of the shroud, it appears the hair is draped down covering the ears, up to the temple with only the face exposed; as if the image was made while in a vertical position. If a person with long hair is laid in a horizontal position on his back, (I am assuming Jesus was covered while laying in a horizontal position) gravity would cause the hair to fall back so more of his head is exposed, even showing his ears. How is this explained?

Ken

The bible tells us Peter took the burial clothes but it does not tell us anything after that,and why would it?You should understand that the critics of the shroud have all tried and failed to show like they believe that the image on the shroud could be done by man,and they have tried to but everything they have produced is nothing like the image on the shroud.

Science has showed that in order to produce an image as close to the image on the shroud that is as close as you can get requires powerful equipment we have today that produces high amounts of light and radiation,but also that the image does not appear at first but over time,this suggests that only Jesus Christ himself who is the light of the world could have produced the image.It really seems based on the evidence it is a photograph Jesus produced as he rose from the dead to remind us of what he did for us.

jlay wrote:

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Kenny so your saying that a group of scientists concluded that the shroud was a medieval forgery right?
Your talking about the 1988 c 14 tests .
And this proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the shroud is a medieval forgery right?

No. I misunderstood what “Essential Sacrifice” said; I thought he said the scientists deemed it a forgery when he actually said they could have deemed it a forgery. That was my mistake and I stated it a few posts later.
The rest of what you posted was just a bunch of noise to me. You’re talking about “carbon dating” tests, C-14 tests and a bunch of other stuff I am unfamiliar with. As I said before, I am unfamiliar with the type of tests done to determine the dates of things; you can make your point and I have no way of determining if your points are accurate or not because you are speaking another language to me.

Ken

Kenny, one sec let me pull out my multiple phd's in archeology, forensics , history, c 14 dating, photography and physics.
Oops I'm just a layman
Oops , that also means that if a layman dork like me could research and get to know the evidences for and against the shroud with my chappy samsung tablet keyboard that has a crazy mind of its own then you can also research and get familiar with the evidences as well.

So Kenny , tell me again what's stopping you from doing this ?
PS thanks also for clarifying what you meant in your post

I am curious; who was the first one to posses the shroud? Is there something in the Bible of someone or a group taking possession of it then later someone claiming to received it from this group or person? Is it just someone claiming to have it? Who was the person or group responsible for it becoming the relic it has become?

Also, upon looking at photos of the shroud, it appears the hair is draped down covering the ears, up to the temple with only the face exposed; as if the image was made while in a vertical position. If a person with long hair is laid in a horizontal position on his back, (I am assuming Jesus was covered while laying in a horizontal position) gravity would cause the hair to fall back so more of his head is exposed, even showing his ears. How is this explained?

Ken

Kenny,
I'm not a shroud proponent. But, let's just say that you were hung (upright) on a cross after having a crown of thorns smashed on your head. You were beaten and bleeding profusely as you hung for several hours until you died. Would it be possible for your hair to have dried in with the blood covering your head and face. And so, when your body was laid flat, the hair remained stuck in place?
Is that not merely a possible explanation but a reasonable explanation?

For hair to be petrified to that extent might take a little more than just a couple of days.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Kenny so your saying that a group of scientists concluded that the shroud was a medieval forgery right?
Your talking about the 1988 c 14 tests .
And this proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the shroud is a medieval forgery right?

No. I misunderstood what “Essential Sacrifice” said; I thought he said the scientists deemed it a forgery when he actually said they could have deemed it a forgery. That was my mistake and I stated it a few posts later.
The rest of what you posted was just a bunch of noise to me. You’re talking about “carbon dating” tests, C-14 tests and a bunch of other stuff I am unfamiliar with. As I said before, I am unfamiliar with the type of tests done to determine the dates of things; you can make your point and I have no way of determining if your points are accurate or not because you are speaking another language to me.

Ken

Kenny, one sec let me pull out my multiple phd's in archeology, forensics , history, c 14 dating, photography and physics.
Oops I'm just a layman
Oops , that also means that if a layman dork like me could research and get to know the evidences for and against the shroud with my chappy samsung tablet keyboard that has a crazy mind of its own then you can also research and get familiar with the evidences as well.

So Kenny , tell me again what's stopping you from doing this ?
PS thanks also for clarifying what you meant in your post

I am curious; who was the first one to posses the shroud? Is there something in the Bible of someone or a group taking possession of it then later someone claiming to received it from this group or person? Is it just someone claiming to have it? Who was the person or group responsible for it becoming the relic it has become?

Also, upon looking at photos of the shroud, it appears the hair is draped down covering the ears, up to the temple with only the face exposed; as if the image was made while in a vertical position. If a person with long hair is laid in a horizontal position on his back, (I am assuming Jesus was covered while laying in a horizontal position) gravity would cause the hair to fall back so more of his head is exposed, even showing his ears. How is this explained?

Ken

The bible tells us Peter took the burial clothes but it does not tell us anything after that,and why would it?You should understand that the critics of the shroud have all tried and failed to show like they believe that the image on the shroud could be done by man,and they have tried to but everything they have produced is nothing like the image on the shroud.

Science has showed that in order to produce an image as close to the image on the shroud that is as close as you can get requires powerful equipment we have today that produces high amounts of light and radiation,but also that the image does not appear at first but over time,this suggests that only Jesus Christ himself who is the light of the world could have produced the image.It really seems based on the evidence it is a photograph Jesus produced as he rose from the dead to remind us of what he did for us.

I guess my question would be, how do you know it is an image of Jesus rather than one of the thousands of others that were crucified by the Romans?

Ken

Ken wrote:
I guess my question would be, how do you know it is an image of Jesus rather than one of the thousands of others that were crucified by the Romans?

Ken

That's a great point Kenny. I'd like to hear how it's supposed to be Jesus, and not any one of the thousands of other crucified people who were resurrected.

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:
I guess my question would be, how do you know it is an image of Jesus rather than one of the thousands of others that were crucified by the Romans?

Ken

That's a great point Kenny. I'd like to hear how it's supposed to be Jesus, and not any one of the thousands of other crucified people who were resurrected.

If the cloth were removed from the remains hundreds of years later, resurrection would not be necessary

Ken

Sweetie He WAS recorded....read your bible. In the last days, in revelation, God says many people will ask," Well...where is YOUR God? How come he's not here?" And MANY people will be driven by this spirit and fall into the same line of thinking...WE believers KNOW our Shepards voice and feel His comforting presence. Jesus said very plainly, "an evil generation asks for a sign..." But He only gave people with that type of thinking a very simple answer...." The sign of Jonah". That is: the man was swallowed up for three days and then miraculously back out again. it was Christ's way of explaining His death, burial, and resurrection . If that answer does not confound you enough to get you to your bible and keep in prayer , then He will keep calling you to seek Him until you do....or you don't. God brings the high ones down..he confounds the intellects...he giggles at the talking heads and think tanks on this planet. Get to know and hang out with people who walk with God...none of us are perfect...but there is a joy in our spirit and a light in our eyes that comes from the inside....it is the fruit from growing on His vine. No one can scream a question like "Proove to me you have a soul"....I need proof...ON PAPER!!" ......read your bible.