Jesus?

[Bernard]

There is an argument that the corner of the shroud was unrepresentative of the entire shroud, possibly a repair in France by nuns. There are other arguments and counterarguments, and counter-counter arguments. It makes no difference to me whether it is a forge of the middle ages or not. As an artist in various fields of experience from photography to printing to painting I know that image is impossible to create with any techniques we have today or that were available in the past that we know of. The image only lies on a superficial layer - less than the diameter of a bacteria. The only thing that would seem capable of creating that thin impression which we know of is electro-magnetic energy. I'm fascinated from a sheer technical perspective and from an aesthetic one, as it is very short of being a crude image.

[ForgedinHell]

There is an argument that the corner of the shroud was unrepresentative of the entire shroud, possibly a repair in France by nuns. There are other arguments and counterarguments, and counter-counter arguments. It makes no difference to me whether it is a forge of the middle ages or not. As an artist in various fields of experience from photography to printing to painting I know that image is impossible to create with any techniques we have today or that were available in the past that we know of. The image only lies on a superficial layer - less than the diameter of a bacteria. The only thing that would seem capable of creating that thin impression which we know of is electro-magnetic energy. I'm fascinated from a sheer technical perspective and from an aesthetic one, as it is very short of being a crude image.

Whatever. Scientists have duplicated the shroud with technology that was in existence centuries ago. Delude yourself all you want.

[Mike Strand]

This noise about the shroud of Turin leaves me unimpressed.

Suppose a "best" but hypothetical case: That the burial cloth of a person called Jesus had been preserved perfectly down to the present day, with unassailable documentation that it had been taken from Jesus' empty tomb.

For what would this be evidence?

It would support the argument that a man called Jesus existed and had been executed and buried, and people cared enough about him (call them his "fans") to go to his tomb and decide to keep the clothes they found there, in which he had been buried. Beyond that, here are some possibilities to choose from, even in this hypothetical "best" case:

1. Jesus' fans found the tomb empty and kept his cloths. His body had been stolen and disposed of before they arrived at the tomb, but his fans, not knowing what had happened to the body, were inspired to make up stories about his resurrection.
2. Jesus' fans, in an effort to make him a legend, got rid of the body and kept the clothes to support their story of his resurrection.
3. Jesus was alive when he was buried, recovered consciousness, left the tomb, and wandered off and died elsewhere. Whether he was found and identified later on or not, the fans who found his burial clothes in his empty tomb made up a story that he had risen from the dead.
4. Jesus rose from the dead (was resurrected) before his fans got to the tomb. His fans, not knowing at first what had happened to the body, kept the burial clothes and then later saw him and told others about it - the Biblical account.

Even in this "best" scenario, the idea of Jesus rising from the dead is a matter of faith for us today and the least likely of the choices posed above.

I refer you to the recent Sherlock Holmes' movie starting Robert Downey, Jr., in which the character Lord Blackwood, through clever tricks, actually shows up alive and well after his apparent but not actual execution by hanging. This reference to a movie is offered not as proof of trickery in the case of Jesus, but simply as an illustration of the tendency of human beings to use trickery to make people believe in supernatural events for their own purposes. Many folks, as Holmes did, would look for a natural explanation before accepting a resurrection.

It would be difficult, using forensic science, to distinguish miracles, if there have been any, from shenanigans, of which there have been many, and many of which have been exposed. It appears more reasonable, without proof, to assume trickery in such cases. Where do you place your bets, in the case of Jesus?

And which is more important -- what Jesus apparently taught (a form of the Golden Rule previously taught by others), or whether or not he was resurrected?

[ForgedinHell]

This noise about the shroud of Turin leaves me unimpressed.

Suppose a "best" but hypothetical case: That the burial cloth of a person called Jesus had been preserved perfectly down to the present day, with unassailable documentation that it had been taken from Jesus' empty tomb.

For what would this be evidence?

It would support the argument that a man called Jesus existed and had been executed and buried, and people cared enough about him (call them his "fans") to go to his tomb and decide to keep the clothes they found there, in which he had been buried. Beyond that, here are some possibilities to choose from, even in this hypothetical "best" case:

1. Jesus' fans found the tomb empty and kept his cloths. His body had been stolen and disposed of before they arrived at the tomb, but his fans, not knowing what had happened to the body, were inspired to make up stories about his resurrection.
2. Jesus' fans, in an effort to make him a legend, got rid of the body and kept the clothes to support their story of his resurrection.
3. Jesus was alive when he was buried, recovered consciousness, left the tomb, and wandered off and died elsewhere. Whether he was found and identified later on or not, the fans who found his burial clothes in his empty tomb made up a story that he had risen from the dead.
4. Jesus rose from the dead (was resurrected) before his fans got to the tomb. His fans, not knowing at first what had happened to the body, kept the burial clothes and then later saw him and told others about it - the Biblical account.

Even in this "best" scenario, the idea of Jesus rising from the dead is a matter of faith for us today and the least likely of the choices posed above.

I refer you to the recent Sherlock Holmes' movie starting Robert Downey, Jr., in which the character Lord Blackwood, through clever tricks, actually shows up alive and well after his apparent but not actual execution by hanging. This reference to a movie is offered not as proof of trickery in the case of Jesus, but simply as an illustration of the tendency of human beings to use trickery to make people believe in supernatural events for their own purposes. Many folks, as Holmes did, would look for a natural explanation before accepting a resurrection.

It would be difficult, using forensic science, to distinguish miracles, if there have been any, from shenanigans, of which there have been many, and many of which have been exposed. It appears more reasonable, without proof, to assume trickery in such cases. Where do you place your bets, in the case of Jesus?

And which is more important -- what Jesus apparently taught (a form of the Golden Rule previously taught by others), or whether or not he was resurrected?

Science has revealed it to be a forgery. If you are unimpressed with scientific discoveries, then there is not much hope for you.

[Bernard]

Personally, I have as much disrespect for science authorities as I do religious, not just because they may be wrong, but because of the futile need and attempts to control and set agendas for others.

[ForgedinHell]

Personally, I have as much disrespect for science authorities as I do religious, not just because they may be wrong, but because of the futile need and attempts to control and set agendas for others.

In other words, you are a lunatic.

[Bernard]

Ah, adolescence!

[ForgedinHell]

Ah, adolescence!

Anyone like you who discounts science is not even an adolescent. You are a lunatic.

[Bernard]

But i don't discount science. I don't put faith in its authority.

[reasonvemotion]

Personally, I have as much disrespect for science authorities as I do religious, not just because they may be wrong, but because of the futile need and attempts to control and set agendas for others.

and freedom of choice?

[Mike Strand]

Hi, ForgedinHell! On July 15 you replied to my post, referring to my comments about the shroud of Turin. You said:

Science has revealed it to be a forgery. If you are unimpressed with scientific discoveries, then there is not much hope for you.

Please read my post again. I did not say I was unimpressed with scientific discoveries. I think you will see that my bringing up the Sherlock Holmes movie illustrates my respect for the scientific method. My meaning was that, whether the shroud is truly a burial cloth of Jesus or not, it doesn't matter. It has no bearing on the issue or value of Jesus' teachings, and doesn't prove one way or another the less important issue (in my mind) of Jesus' resurrection. The shroud is probably a fake, but even if it is not a fake, so what? That was my point.

[ForgedinHell]

Hi, ForgedinHell! On July 15 you replied to my post, referring to my comments about the shroud of Turin. You said:

Science has revealed it to be a forgery. If you are unimpressed with scientific discoveries, then there is not much hope for you.

Please read my post again. I did not say I was unimpressed with scientific discoveries. I think you will see that my bringing up the Sherlock Holmes movie illustrates my respect for the scientific method. My meaning was that, whether the shroud is truly a burial cloth of Jesus or not, it doesn't matter. It has no bearing on the issue or value of Jesus' teachings, and doesn't prove one way or another the less important issue (in my mind) of Jesus' resurrection. The shroud is probably a fake, but even if it is not a fake, so what? That was my point.

Jesus never taught anything, because he never existed. And it does matter because even the so-called teachings of Jesus are all, without exception, childish, immoral drivel. The only reason Jesus gets the time of day is because people believe in the miracles. The shroud, therefore, does matter, because showing that it is a fake, and still the church and millions of Christians rely on it as evidence of miracle-power, it just shows how shallow the religious side is on this issue. The fact that the Christians didn't immediately toss it aside, once it was shown to be a fake, tells us how desperate they are for miracles.

[Kayla]

The fact that the Christians didn't immediately toss it aside, once it was shown to be a fake, tells us how desperate they are for miracles.

i was told it is a fake in sunday school when i was like 8

[ForgedinHell]

The fact that the Christians didn't immediately toss it aside, once it was shown to be a fake, tells us how desperate they are for miracles.

i was told it is a fake in sunday school when i was like 8

LOL. They trusted you with that information? Good for them. Too bad all churches can't be so sensible.

As a Christian, don't you think it discredits Christianity more than helps it when Christians try to rely on the Shroud? I just think anytime Christians pursue something like Creationism, or the Shroud, they lose ground. Personally, I don't care what someone else believes, as long as they leave me alone, but I do get nervous when unscientific claims start being made. Then, I worry about people rewriting science books, and that does harm me. Christians should be more open-minded, like you. I think most Christians are. It's the vocal fundies who make me nervous.

[Kayla]

i was told it is a fake in sunday school when i was like 8

LOL. They trusted you with that information? Good for them. Too bad all churches can't be so sensible.

protestant churches - and baptists are protestant however much they deny it - are not big on religious relics

the belief that prayer is an excellent supplement - not a replacement - for conventional medicine is the norm in my neck of the woods - the prayers go directly to the guy upstairs there is no need to channel divine power through any physical object

As a Christian, don't you think it discredits Christianity more than helps it when Christians try to rely on the Shroud?

coming from the baptist perspective a lot of catholic stuff is totally baffling

I just think anytime Christians pursue something like Creationism, or the Shroud,

strangely enough the catholic church does not have a problem with evolution