Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Lionz]

NY2,

What does Yahushua (sp?) Himself have to do with hate? What have you read in terms of John?

Also, I can argue that teachings having to do with evolution have led to increased hate maybe, but maybe I already have at least in a way and I should not go there.

[Calidus]

Neoteny, you said this,

"My copypasta is better. If the shroud is evidence for god, then this should be evidence against it."

So to be fair I actually read your post...even though it is just as long as mine.

I want you to note one thing, I actually have spent over 7 hours researching the shroud. I took all the information that I found and tried to put it into the post I made (trust me it could be much longer). I didn't get some e-mail about it or copy and paste a website like you did. Maybe you should look into the shroud yourself to find the validity in it. Secondly if you actually did read my post you would see that whoever wrote all the stuff in your post is not taking into account the method of how the image on the shroud got there.

The guy claims that it was a terrible job of an artist due to some faulty proportions. He mentions the size of the brain and the ratios of one side of the shroud are off from the other. I will explain both.

The ratios being off is due to when a person lies down, the image on one side is going to mathc pretty close to the actual size, this is noted in your article so thats good. The other side is off because it is draped over the body. So when you flatten out the image it will look slightly oversized in certain parts.

Again my post shows that 3d imaging was done on the head, to show that the head in fact could hold a normal size brain and wiegh the appropriate amount.

Your article rambles on and on about these problems. That is because it's from the view point of basically a terrible artist.

However, that is not what happened. As I said in my article the following is evidence:

The image has no paint or pigments from drawings of any type. The image also is only in the top few fibrils of the linen which can't be done with any utensil for drawing. Lastly it is a photo graphic negative. There is more to it, but to try to stay concise the following conclusion can be made.

By some means, based on the 3 things mentioned above the image must have been created by some sort of radiation. This could not have been done by any artist before 1800s. The carbondating shows that the shroud is at least this old, and due to fires and many other things mentioned in my post the shroud is dated back hundreds of years before that.

Most scientist, at least 95% who have studied the shroud agree that the most likely radiation to occur inside a tomb is.... well they admit they don't know and can't find anything even in todays modern science that would allow this by humans or man-made, so they say that the mericle of the resurection probably was the missing radiation.

This is obviously going to be attacked by non believers, but if you actually do take the time to study the evidence then you tell me how the image got there.

I'm not going to respond to anymore arguments that suggest an artist did it when the evidence shows that that is impossible.

That is why I believe this is evidence for Jesus' existance and therefore evidence for God.

[jonesthecurl]

So: would absolute proof that the Shroud was a hoax convince you that God is a lie?
It's a fair question.

[Calidus]

Short answer: No, I think I would still believe in God.
For me, believing in God is something I will probably never get rid of, because I can always fall back on the fact that even if the creation story is not right there had to be a beginning some time. Even if we exist here today, because we are on the 127th cycle of the Big Bang / Big Crunch you still have to admit that there was a beginning that took place to set everything in motion. To say it was a human is obviously rediculous. So, I believe it was God.

My belief in God is built up through family and relationships as well as lots of evidence out there. The shroud of turin is just one piece of evidence. If that piece is false there are still many others to look at.

I just think that the Shroud is probably the most convincing piece of evidence. To this day noone can disprove the evidence (mentioned in my first post on this topic) in the shroud itself.

[jonesthecurl]

OK a good honest answer.
I'll work on the Shroud thing when I have a little time (in short supply right here right now). I am far from convinced.

[Calidus]

, OK I got finals to study for too, so it might be a bit before I see anymore posts, but I will eventually look at them.

[BigBallinStalin]

I was simply showing evidence for God, not that I had "irrefutable proof." When one investigates a crime scene they have to gather all the evidence before proving anything. I have gathered a lot of evidence, but there is probably more out there and this is only about the shroud that shows Jesus existed. As you said there are other evidences out there for God - I just think this is enough for me personaly to believe in God or to believe that he exists.

But, on that note, irrefutable means: impossible to deny or disprove
I will say that the evidence itself is in fact irrefutable. None of the scientists have been able to falsify the evidence.

Also, I hope that you weren't suggesting that I am trolling. This is the first post in this forum that I have done and I'm not targeting people and trying to harass them.

Oh, that's fine and dandy then. I just didn't see how your scientifically discredited allegations on the credibility of the Shroud of Turin somehow support evidence for God.

It was like reading Lionz picture-style in word form: Whole lot of material, but nearly all of it fails at providing strong support for your conclusion.

[Army of GOD]

Maybe perhaps?

[Calidus]

I was simply showing evidence for God, not that I had "irrefutable proof." When one investigates a crime scene they have to gather all the evidence before proving anything. I have gathered a lot of evidence, but there is probably more out there and this is only about the shroud that shows Jesus existed. As you said there are other evidences out there for God - I just think this is enough for me personaly to believe in God or to believe that he exists.

But, on that note, irrefutable means: impossible to deny or disprove
I will say that the evidence itself is in fact irrefutable. None of the scientists have been able to falsify the evidence.

Also, I hope that you weren't suggesting that I am trolling. This is the first post in this forum that I have done and I'm not targeting people and trying to harass them.

Oh, that's fine and dandy then. I just didn't see how your scientifically discredited allegations on the credibility of the Shroud of Turin somehow support evidence for God.

It was like reading Lionz picture-style in word form: Whole lot of material, but nearly all of it fails at providing strong support for your conclusion.

Basically I was trying to show evidence for the credibility of the Shroud of Turin. This means that I am saying the Shroud is authentic. If that is the case then it would mean that Jesus did die on the cross, and then was put in the tomb, and lastly it would also be evidence for his resurection (the radiation I described in my earlier posts).

I didn't think that someone posting in forums about religion would be oblivious to the understanding that the resurection is an act of God.

So I just showed you using the transative property that the Shroud of Turin does support evidence for God.

I've done my research and you can check me on my facts that I posted, but yes it is plenty of support for my claim.

Also, Lionz is a crazy person who takes things from the Bible and exaggerates them by blowing them out of proportion. An example was when he said the Nephilim were Giants and then showed pictures of pyramids and other structures as if to say they were helped built by these powerful 50 foot tall giants. The Bible clearly states that the translation of these beings were simply those "tall in stature". An example could be like Goliath who was at most around 9ft tall although it was probably more like 8ft something.

[Lionz]

Numbers 13:32-33

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/num13.htm

Are you sure He's cool with you calling anyone a crazy person?

And what have I exaggerated not counting nephilim height, whether or not I have done that? Maybe you claim I said one or more thing that I did not say and we should be careful about not lying. What do I know?

[Lionz]

BBS at least basically claimed that you presented scientifically discredited allegations and you did more to attack me than to address it?

[Neoteny]

Way to discount evidence out of hand. This is why nobody listens to you. What do centuries of debate conclude about Jesus covering his junks?

Also, the original looked like an uncited chain email...

"nobody listens to you" lol sure Neo. I'm not dumb enough to believe an article that claims there are obvious glaring damning disproportions that nobody has noticed after tons of close scientific examination. Maybe when someone else other than a website devoted to atheist propaganda can confirm these findings, I'll give it a second look. Until then, you're the one that nobody is going to be listening to (other than people who are already atheist and chuckle at any blasphemous text they can find because it's "funny" to them).

Amazing how people can suspend disbelief when they are told what they want to hear.

Let me rephrase that; nobody who doesn't already share your biases takes you seriously. You couldn't express an argument if it were coded into your DNA. Your cute parabola demonstrates that nicely.

Having said that, my post was a response to the stream of consciousness post that rattled off dozens of standardized pro-shroud claptrap. I responded with something that has a few novel things to discuss that you very obviously can't respond to intelligently. I didn't do it because I thought it was funny or because it was blasphemous. I did it because I like arguing about things. This projecting that you do is really unbecoming. I know you want atheists to be raving lunatics who thrive on seeing theists writhing in despair, but we aren't. All your post shows is that you are unwilling to look at evidence for a perspective of which you carry the preconceived notion of of irrationality. I might have a pot or kettle around here for you.

I'd like to see you find any website that doesn't reflect a bias one way or another. Use your superagnostic powers to find a website that thinks there is no evidence either way to prove or disprove the authenticity of the shroud.

Calidus, I'll give you a more reasonable response when I have a bit more time, since we both seem to be rather busy.

[Calidus]

Actually Lionz I did address the issue if you read it and refer to the posts that I talk about you would know that. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you, because I have seen that it leads to a never ending list of posts that wont get resolved.

[Lionz]

You have provided a pretty compelling argument in favor of it and the attack Lionz paragraph or whatever was a real surprise to me perhaps. BigBallinStalin, what allegations do you refer to?

[john9blue]

Let me rephrase that; nobody who doesn't already share your biases takes you seriously. You couldn't express an argument if it were coded into your DNA. Your cute parabola demonstrates that nicely.

Having said that, my post was a response to the stream of consciousness post that rattled off dozens of standardized pro-shroud claptrap. I responded with something that has a few novel things to discuss that you very obviously can't respond to intelligently. I didn't do it because I thought it was funny or because it was blasphemous. I did it because I like arguing about things. This projecting that you do is really unbecoming. I know you want atheists to be raving lunatics who thrive on seeing theists writhing in despair, but we aren't. All your post shows is that you are unwilling to look at evidence for a perspective of which you carry the preconceived notion of of irrationality. I might have a pot or kettle around here for you.

I'd like to see you find any website that doesn't reflect a bias one way or another. Use your superagnostic powers to find a website that thinks there is no evidence either way to prove or disprove the authenticity of the shroud.

a. I'm not agnostic, I'm just more agnostic than most here. I'm not claiming the Shroud proves God's existence like Calidus is.

b. Your article basically made assertions about the shroud that I find hard to believe went unnoticed until now. That, and because it came from a website with an agenda, is why I discredited the article. If the Shroud had such glaring mistakes, it would be bigger news... do you have any other sources?

c. I have no problem with truly agnostic atheists. I have a problem with atheists who believe whatever they read that supports their views, even though it is hardly credible. You're not all that bad, I just think you need to step back and consider whether your source is really "better" than his.

d. Parabola? wat

e. Yeah I'm biased, I responded harshly to you and not Calidus. Sorry. Call it a knee-jerk reaction because of my interactions with atheists over the years.

[BigBallinStalin]

The following has been brought up in a different post, but I put it here because I'm showing a lot of evidence in detail.

The Shroud of Turin:



In the last 30 years 2000 scientists have studied the shroud, 95% have turned Christian with majority starting out as Atheist or Agnostic. I believe it is because of the following information that is known about the shroud.
It is has been studied for 600,000 hours, the most studied object in the world.
The Shroud is mentioned in scripture in all four gospels, Joseph of Arimathea (very wealthy) gave Jesus a fine linen (not normally typical and was more like a fine table cloth) in which to be buried.
The shroud is 14 feet 3in by 3 feet 7 in, in Jewish times = to 4 cubits by 1 cubit, perfect size.
Many people believe this linen was used at the last supper, because on just one side there are drip patterns from maybe sauce for bread passed. Note that Jewish men were only served on one side of the table because Jewish law prohibited passing food behind a person.

Or it's just drip patterns from materials used to create such an artistic feat as this one. Can you confirm that this drops were in fact sauce? And can you confirm that this sauce was from roughly 33AD? (I'm merely jesting; the more serious mistakes of yours are found later).

The image is of a man 5 feet 11 inches tall who weighed 175 pounds and scientists all say the man is between age 30 and 35. He is Jewish because of long hair with pig tail (typical of Jewish men devoted to prayer) also through magnification they can see a phylactery. Between the eyes is a little leather box containing parchment of scripture: the scripture says keep this before your mind and in your heart.

So you narrowed down the possible "suspects" of this work of art down to those of a height of 5'11" weighing at 175 pounds, age 30, and capable of growing long hair with a pig tail. What's that figure? About 250,000 people?

The image shows the man lay at one end of the shroud, head in middle and then other half folded on top. Then using other bands or rope he was tightened almost like a mummy.
Here are a few things to know about the Carbonating that occurred:
Carbon 14 dating: Church allowed it in 1988 October 14th, they were able to cut three postage stamp size pieces. They were supposed to come from three different areas. Results showed that the shroud should come in between 1290 and 1360 – people thought it was a fake (made by an artist.)
This is inaccurate for a few reasons: 1…Protocol was violated; the scientists took all the 3 pieces from only one area, 2…the shroud has been in 3 recorded fires. One example was the fire in 1532, the shroud was in a silver urn or casket and fire burned molten silver into the shroud (because it was folded up it burned 24 holes into the shroud).
Note: Silver melts at 920 degrees C.
In 1992 Russian scientists showed: taking separate linen that is known to be 2000 years old through carbon dating, they simulated the fire of 1532 and found there to be a 700 to 1300 year shift in the results.
It is shown that when linen goes through fire that intense, carboxylation in the glucose structure of the linen, which gives a different carbon 14 reading.
3…mummy linens appear 300 to 600 years younger than when they were wrapped (supposed to be same time of death), however scientists still don’t know why this occurs.
4…study in Texas showed micro-organisms found on the shroud, they were taken off the shroud cultivated and shown that there were bacteria fungi, which effect carbon 14 readings by at least 300 years
5… the sample taken for the carbon dating was from the most contaminated area of the shroud from finger prints, but that also this area had a different weave pattern than other areas of the shroud, this area might have been rewoven during the middle ages
6… if the shroud was authentic then the image was created by light radiation during the resurrection, this oxidized the shroud which is how we get the scorch image, (No pigments, no paint) Some scientists believe it was in fact created from the resurrection the rest don’t know how, but we do know that it has not been recreated since then. This radiation, if it did exist would also affect carbon 14 readings.

1) You're right about the carbon dating methods being done incorrectly. (Still doesn't prove that the shroud is 2000 years old. Your other points just state where they went wrong.

"taking separate linen that is known to be 2000 years old through carbon dating"?

And what carbon testing concluded that the shroud is about 2000 years old? That Russian one? Please provide a source. Also, was that test confirmed by others?



6) Not necessarily. During your research, you must have ran into this guy and his work: Luigi Garlaschelli. Refer to http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5943HL20091005?sp=true. What's your take on his recreation of the shroud? (Before answering, please read on):

"Basically the Shroud of Turin has some strange properties and characteristics that they say cannot be reproduced by human hands," he told CNN by phone from Italy, where he is a professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia.

"For example, the image is superficial and has no pigment, it looks so lifelike and so on, and therefore they say it cannot have been done by an artist."

His research shows the pigment may simply have worn off the cloth over the centuries since it was first "discovered" in 1355, but impurities in the pigment etched an image into the fibers of the cloth, leaving behind the ghostly picture that remains today.

"The procedure is very simple. The artist took this sheet and put it over one of his assistants," he said.

"His good idea was to wrap the sheet over the person underneath because he didn't want to obtain an image that was too obviously a painting or a drawing, so with this procedure you get a strange image," said Garlaschelli.

"Time did the rest," he said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/07/italy.turin.shroud/

Support for authenticity: (Here we go...)

1… the shroud has photo graphic negative qualities. In 1898 an amateur photographer photo graphed the shroud and when looking at negative plates he found a positive image. This negative image could be due to the burst of radiation from the resurrection. There are photo graphs of Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped that showed photo graphic negatives on walls of parts of buildings were people walked near because there shadows were flashed onto it. If some “artist” made the shroud in the 1300s, then they would have to have known how to put a negative image on something without using paintings or drawings and without even the knowledge of photography which occurred in the 1800s.

I'd like to see this guy's story (is that the picture up top? Grand. Than explain this:



Does your explanation correlate with reality--I mean, is it the only probable explanation to this supposed mystery?

Just because there's no paint or detectable pigments (after 700 years) on the shroud doesn't mean that you can with certainty move to the conclusion that this must be God's work--and this is what you do constantly throughout this post. It was recreated using that Italian scientist's methods, and voila a similar photo effect is shown on his as well.

And trust me he didn't use paint, the fire of a millions suns, or any atomic bomb to produce such effect.

2… the shroud was tested with 3D computer graphic technology. When pictures of mars or the moon were taken in space and then put under one of these 3D rendering computers you can see a vague 3d image. They used a photo graph of the shroud under a 3d analyzer. If you put any normal picture of something it would be analyzed and come out distorted, but the image on the shroud came out clearer. This shows that it must have been wrapped in a 3d manner.

That shows that a person was wrapped in it. That's it. Honestly, how does this in any way support your exaggerated claims?

3… there is pollen on the shroud. Max Fry, Swiss criminologist, took 58 species of pollen off the shroud, 45 from Jerusalem and the surrounding area, People think the shroud was made in 135 in Italy or France (how did this pollen get there?) 18 of the 45 are only found in the holy land and nowhere else.
Note, in addition most of these pollens bloom in the spring.

Source please. And this pollen. Did they carbon date the pollen? Couldn't someone at a later date (like even up to 10 years ago) have some pollen travel with him? Does this pollen necessarily have to be from the holy land? Why can't there be those same plants in similar Mediterranean climates (like in Italy and France along the coast)? And pollen travels easily, does it not? It could've been picked up by people handling it, or it traveled by win and captured some while being moved, etc. I ran into some story about the Crusaders transporting the shroud from the Middle East, perhaps Turkey, around the 1200s, 1300s, some time around then.

You ducked all these questions and just imply that the shroud couldn't have been made in Italy or France in "135" (you mean 1335? Even if it's 135, your point still doesn't hold).

4… again no pigments or paints on the shroud. The image is made of oxidation of the top linen fibrils, only the top 6 microns of the shroud (less than the thickness of human hair) No brush marks to show directionality. The image is not full contact image. Darker areas like the tip of the nose and parts of the back appear, but other parts were also not touching the body (half inch or an inch away…still an image). Fire and water don’t affect the image. Fire (like that in 1532) would have melted the paint and smeared it and the water to put out the fire would have done so as well.

Source please. Also refer to the above scientist. He states that the pigment over time will go away. 700 years seems like a enough time, considering how faded that shroud is, it's really no surprise that the image is only made of the top 6 micron of the shroud (assuming that's indeed true, source please).

Also, there are other methods in reproducing this shroud, like the Italian scientist's methods. Either way, this doesn't prove that Jesus is the figure in the shroud, nor does it support the notion that he was resurrected, nor does it support the existence of God.

Water does affect any work of art via moisture in the air. That's why it's faded.

Not sure how water reacts with this medieval era shroud. Perhaps it did smear it, so they recreated another one. Maybe water never did get on it. You really don't know, so you can't just ignore the other possibilities and then thump your chest proclaiming you have the answer.

5... ultraviolet light detects blood serum halos around every one of the scourge marks. This can only be seen with ultra violet light not a naked eye…why would an artist in 1350 create these?

lol, source please. Was this confirmed with other tests? Was what being seen really a problem with the equipment itself? Are they really halos or is this part of the observers' imagination? (Much like people seeing the face of Jesus on a cloud, or some Reverend being the only man seeing a coin from 43AD in a picture, while everyone else backs away from that claim nervously **see #7*).

Couldn't these supposed halos be a naturally occurring phenomena over the course of roughly 700 years from the methods used to create such a shroud? Or are such halos around blood commonplace for 700 year old artifacts?

6… the shroud gives some soft tissue information but also bone structure information. Through magnification you can see teeth through the area of the mouth…like an x-ray. Some other bone structures are visible like vertebrae, ribs, and bones in the hand and feet. The image of the thumbs can be seen through the hand (look at reason 10 for more about why)!

OMG! You just narrowed it down to a human being! Congratulations.

7… off body images… 1970s 3d imaging showed coins on the eyes of the man on the shroud… polarized image overlays with different ancient coins to see which match up… the same technique used to match finger prints on a gun or window sill to that of a person. The coin on the right eye was found to be a lepton, coin minted during the time of Tiberius Caesar under the reign of Ponches Pilot, (around 29 AD) also the phylactery was seen with this technology. Hundreds of flower images are around the body that blooms in spring at the holy land. (Probably put there by those who took Jesus down from the cross… the pollen on the shroud comes from these flowers)

Source please.

In 1978, scientists, including Dr. John P. Jackson and Dr. Eric J. Jumper, while working with NASA's VP-8 3-D Image Analyzer, discovered what appeared to be raised button-like shapes over each eye. (They don't confirm what type of coin it was).

About 1980, the Rev. Francis Filas, S.J., of Loyola University in Chicago and Michael Marx, an expert in classical coins, examined the area over the right eye and detected patterns of what appeared to be the letters UCAI (from TIBERIOU CAISARUS). They also found a lituus design (an auger's staff). Father Filas concluded that this was a lituus lepton coin minted by Pontius Pilate between 29 and 32 CE. Over the left eye, Father Filas also identified what he believed to be a Juolia lepton with a distinctive sheaf of barley design. The Juolia lepton was only struck in 29 CE in honor of Tiberius Caesar's wife, Julia. (Only Rev. Francis Filas, S.J. states this while his friend Michael Marx reserves judgment.)

Subsequent computerized image enhancement analysis at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University's Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory supports, though cautiously, the existence of the lituus lepton over the right eye and an outline of a coin over the left eye. (that's it. Just a coin...)

By overlaying polarized images, Alan Whanger at Duke University identified both coins. Alan found 74 points of congruence with an existing lituus lepton and 73 points with a Juolia lepton. But such identification is highly interpretive and other researchers do not find the same level of congruence.

Also, the supposed coin from roughly 29 AD is contested even among the people who claim that the Shroud of Turin is authentic.

Your evidence is looking very shaky.

http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-coins.htm

Also, I like your sentence of describing this technique to the one used for matching fingerprints on a gun or window sill, but it's a bit misleading since fingerprints leave oil residue on nice shiny metal while the images you mentioned are completely different since they supposedly show four letters on a coin behind the surface of a coarse piece of cloth.

8… no sign of decomposition on the body. When a body dies (like Jesus did while he was still on the cross) it enters a process of rigor mortis. This is shown on the shroud …lasts 2-3 days after the 4th day it begins to decompose. You would see deterioration if this occurred…seen on ancient mummy’s linen. This would correspond nicely to the resurrection which occurred 40 hours after Jesus was put into the tomb. They didn’t wash the body; blood is still detected, because his death occurred during the Sabbath. They were going to come back after the Sabbath to probably clean the body, when it was gone.
9… In 1978, it was proven that type AB blood (human) was on the shroud. Blood will only transfer to linen within an hour and a half or it will be too dry. This was said in bible because they had to be quick to put him in tomb before the sun went down.

There's no sign of decomposition on the body, which leaves out the conclusion that the man on the shroud wasn't a corpse, and this hardly hints that "zOMG it was Jesus."

Rigor mortis can also be imitated by someone, so let's stop before rashly implying that the undead, or not-dead, body of Jesus was man behind the shroud. That 40 hour time limit until resurrection is lovely, but there's nothing here suggesting that it happened. You just placed that event from the Bible into this happenstance with no evidence showing that the body was in fact Jesus.

Blood can also be there because it was placed there (still doesn't prove it came from Jesus). What blood type was Jesus? So a bible phrase about blooding drying on linen somehow supports that the shroud is authentic?

10… Perfect anatomy found in the shroud image. In the head there are artery and vein bleed marks, something not understood until 18th century (way after the supposed painting). The thumbs are not shown on shroud accept through the palm. It has been proven that if a nail goes through the wrist then the thumbs during rigor mortis would move inside the palm region. The wound in the side shows blood, and clear blood serum which is on the shroud. Corresponds with scientific knowledge of what would happen when lung or heart was pierced by a sword. (This was said in scripture as well). It is also shown that the nail went through the half medium nerve. This is shown that it can support the body. There are no broken bones, and this is important theologically because the scripture says the lord was to have no broken bones. Also there is blood flow shown only done by gravity, and by someone trying to breathe on the cross in the position.

Oh, so this just shows that there was a man under the shroud who curled his thumbs into his palms, had no broken bones, and after "posing" for the shroud, they put some blood serum obtained in similar manners to one who is crucified. Not that hard to do, a bit painstaking, but certainly not impossible.

11… There is a peaceful expression on the face, not a painful one seen in many other crucifixions.

Well, posing for such a work of art isn't too strenuous. Actually, a peaceful expression and not an expression commonly found from a crucified man doesn't lean in favor of the subject of the shroud being crucified.

12… If you take the body out of the linen you would smear the blood. When Jesus was laid down the blood slowed into the small of his back, and if lifted it would open up more wounds and again smeared the blood. The only way that Jesus could get out was through the linen collapsing through the body of a glorified body, when he is resurrected.

Or there was no Jesus or dead body in the linen, which makes more sense then merely claiming that he HAD to have been resurrected. Why did you overlook such a reasonable alternative explanation? Seems like you've been blinded by the Light.

13….the image also shows that the image was made by a weightless body, there are no pressure parts, and the burn from the resurrection burst showed no more burn marks on parts touching the shroud and those not touching.

Explain in detail. How do you know?

That last part of the compound sentence doesn't make sense. So, this burn shows no more burn marks on parts touching and not touching the shroud. So I assume at one time the cloth was burned but that parts touching and not touching were not burned? OK, someone burned the linen and didn't reburn it?

Seems like the shroud was just burned, and after hanging out for 700 or so years, the threads even out, showing no pressure parts. Or there's no pressure parts because the shroud wasn't placed that long around the subject. Or there are pressure parts and you're just making this up (source please).

14… They feel that the resurrection would come from light from above, and it is shown that the image could not be made from anywhere else (the side, beneath, or at an angle) other than from above.

Where did you get that from? The image was made in a manner similar to Garlaschelli's method.

15…There is also directionality from scourge marks from whippings from the soldiers under Jewish law there are only 40 lashings permitted, but under roman law they went up to 120 lashings. All are shown on the shroud.

Oh, so the artisans read the Jewish law and recreated it on the work of art as well? This proves that they did some good con-work, but this in no way can be considered strong evidence supporting your allegation (not even weakly supporting; in fact, this entire section doesn't even weakly support your claims, it's mostly just you blinding asserting something as truth while ignoring any reasonable alternative suggestion.

16… there are puncture wounds from the thorns on his head, also creating more swelling… seen on the shroud.

...which can be recreated. (Are they Jesus' wounds? No evidence given for that).

17… there are scrape marks on the nose and torn up knees showing that Jesus falling face first while carrying the cross as well as dirt particles heavily in those areas.

...which can be recreated.(Are they Jesus' wounds? No evidence given for that).

There is a lot more pain described in the bible during the whole process of Jesus getting prepared to being crucified, only some proof to support this, but it is know that he was on the cross for only 3 hours a lot shorter than most people, to me this shows that there must have been a lot of blood loss from all the beatings that made Jesus die sooner than normal. Also the Romans would normally break the people’s legs to hasten death, but they didn’t have to because Jesus was already dead.
I believe this evidence shows that someone must have been crucified and somehow able to do some sort of disappearing act after being placed in the shroud. The bleed marks, swelling, scrape marks, scourge marks, and more described above are all seen on the shroud. These correspond quite accurately with the Bible and no other source. To say that it is a coincidence and that all this is not proof that the words from the Bible are true and right in front of us is ridiculous in my opinion. I see so much evidence, and so do 95% of scientists – again previously atheist or agnostic, from the shroud that is identified in the Bible. Therefore I believe that the shroud increases the validity of the Bible.

This alone is enough for me to show evidence for God.

...which ALL can be recreated. (Are they Jesus' wounds on that shroud? No evidence given for that).



The crucifixion was so painful that Jesus took it all grinning, which explains the smiley face on the shroud (just joking, but that "peaceful expression" was pretty funny to me since it doesn't support that the man in the shroud was crucified, yet you cited it as evidence to the contrary).

What you shown remotely supports that the man behind the shroud was Jesus, that he was resurrected, and that God exists, and it lightly touches upon its authenticity (only the 1st part of 1-5 beat down the Middle Age carbon dating, but you've shown nothing that strongly supports that this shroud is indeed authentic). What I provided, coupled with my questions on the implausibility of your claims, shows strong evidence contrary to your claims while leaving your former warship of a post into twisted hunks of steel now supporting the growth of coral reefs in the Mediterranean Sea. The only way you connect your three conclusions with the "facts" and observations you stated is by a mere stretch of the imagination, and additionally because you either purposely or intentionally failed to counter your arguments with any alternative and reasonable explanation or question.

The more plausible explanation was that it was a manufactured by human hands, and what's even more damning is that Mr. Garlaschelli actually pulled it off using methods available to artisans in medieval times, and after 700 years or so of fading, his result would've looked similar. (I'm sure the artisans of the Shroud of Turin had a few practice shrouds to perfect their work; that and those shrouds weren't produced by some Doctor of Chemisty with no experience in tapestry work, but by the hands of a team of highly skilled, very experienced artisans).

Furthermore, there's another method for testing the date of this shroud without damaging the shroud at all, yet this has yet to be allowed (which hints that the Turin people don't want to have their precious money-maker being proven as a hoax. If they were so confident about its validity, they'd readily agree to this test).

I give your summary work a D-. Not an F because you put effort into this. Well done. Good luck answering my questions and providing those sources.




EDIT: Grammar Nazi Crack Down and Quote Fixing

[Calidus]

I just spent the last hour typing a response to you, when I tried to post it the website told me to relogin. There is no way I'm going to retype it all, but I'll point out a few things.

Your guys image is not the same. The shroud cannot be drawn.

Take a closer look at the images. You will see that my image shows that the darker spots are lighter and the lighter spots are darker. This is what happens when you have a photographic negative. Your picture does not do this. If a person were to draw this, it would basically be the same as you trying to sign your name upsidedown and with your left hand (If your right-handed). Now, try drawing an entire painting like this.

The shroud could not have been drawn, because when the scientists used a 3d imaging machine they were able to see a clear 3d image of the man on the shroud. There has not been any artist out there capable drawing with such detail. If you take the 3d imaging system and use it on these other drawings, the results come out very destorted.

There is also, as i mentioned, dirt particles spaciffically located in the nose and knee areas, pollen all around the sides, real human blood and blood serum within the shroud. As I said before, the image is only in the top 6 microns of the linen fibrils. Most of this along with "possible paint or pigments" are detected using microsopes, ultraviolet light, and other advanced technology only available in our modern world.

You say that it is very faded over 700 years. Think about that. If you paint something now and in 700 years you still see an image, that would mean there would still be paint or pigments on your paper or canvas right? Unless I'm missing something, if you can detect something created by paint or pigments,the amount of time doesn't matter. If you see it and there are no paints or pigments then obviosult it was not drawn (again, explain how this could be detected otherwise).

If it wasn't drawn, you say that a random body or corspe was used. This couldn't have happened.

It couldn't have been a live body, because there were no broken bones in the image on the shroud, and the positions of the body parts on the shroud cannot be replicated unless the body has gone through rigor mortis. You wouldn't be able to lie down and take the exact position of the body shown on the shroud (and I mean EXACT) without breaking your body.

Regardless of live body or not, if you wrapped a body in a shroud, there would be smear marks of the blood and blood serum, the pollen, the dirt marks, and other things in the shroud. even if you "let it dry" you should still be able to see microscopic smear marks showing directionality. The shroud of Turin only has directionaly created by the 120 scourge marks from the Romans. There are no directionality from smear marks seen on the shroud, even at a microscopic level.

So, either there is some unfound way the shroud was created, or it could be the possibility of the radation from the Resurection that created the image.

I think so, it would allow for the photo graphic negative image, the 3d imager results, and the fact that there are no smear marks.



Believe what you want man, but I got my facts from those who have actually studied the shroud. Again 95% of these scientists have converted to the Christian faith. However niether of us can prove to one another about the shroud, because we personaly have not viewed it. I will simply say that if the facts I have posted are indeed facts, then I can say for sure that this is evidence for Jesus and him resurecting ... an act of God.

[john9blue]

You can press back on the browser and it's usually saved.

Also do you go to North Central?

[Calidus]

nope, but I know of it

[notyou2]

NY2,

What does Yahushua (sp?) Himself have to do with hate? What have you read in terms of John?

Also, I can argue that teachings having to do with evolution have led to increased hate maybe, but maybe I already have at least in a way and I should not go there.

I said "religion causes hate", not Jesus causes hate. Jesus stood for love and harmony and all things good. Jesus stood for Karma. Now he is used in ways that he never intended, by people that don't practice what he stood for. Other people have changed everything about him. He was a man of strong moral fiber and great convictions and beliefs, nothing more. Yes he should be emulated, revered perhaps, but wars in his name.....I think not.

[Lionz]

You make one or more very nice point perhaps, but you sure you did not add the words nothing more in error?

[notyou2]

I believe he was simply a man that existed a long time ago. He is not the son of god, just a man like any other. Perhaps a man of stronger convictions and better moral fiber than most, but a man non-the-less.

[Lionz]

You might be at least subtly suggesting you feel there are positive words from Him recorded in scripture. Well, do Matthew or Mark or Luke or John suggest He is an average man not born to a virgin who didn't die for trangressions of others?

[Lionz]

John 1:1-14

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/john1.htm

[notyou2]

I don't buy any of that crap.

Stop pushing your books on me please.