The Shroud of Turin, compelling evidence..

[Skepdick]

Thanks, I didn't real eyes the URL included the time!

Your URL included t=0 (from the start). My cache/browser history was at t=half way.

No, you're missing the key: Gnosis v Faith...as in Y would God leave people only with their faith if they choose to believe rather than giving all gnosis, knowledge of its existence. There is a far bigger reason than what you allude to.

You don't even understand what faith is. It's the suspension of doubt and moving forward.

Thoughtful action rather than endless contemplation.

While you are sitting on your ass doubting/doing philosophy/theology you aren't getting any closer to God. It's basic Theosis.

Eh? To the contrary. I am a Christian because I believe in the life of Christ...I don't need to adopt MAN's version of Christianity to consider myself a Christian.

Believe - as in intellectually e.g you think it accurately reflects history; or believe as in - you get off your ass and be Christ-like with every moment of your being?

Mere intellectual belief without corresponding action misses what The Way is all about.

[attofishpi]

Thanks, I didn't real eyes the URL included the time!

Your URL included t=0 (from the start). My cache/browser history was at t=half way.

No, I just edited it, it was originally t=440s or sumfin.

No, you're missing the key: Gnosis v Faith...as in Y would God leave people only with their faith if they choose to believe rather than giving all gnosis, knowledge of its existence. There is a far bigger reason than what you allude to.

You don't even understand what faith is. It's the suspension of doubt and moving forward.

Thoughtful action rather than endless contemplation.

While you are sitting on your ass doubting/doing philosophy/theology you aren't getting any closer to God. It's basic Theosis.

bla bla bla...

*yawns*

Eh? To the contrary. I am a Christian because I believe in the life of Christ...I don't need to adopt MAN's version of Christianity to consider myself a Christian.

Believe - as in intellectually e.g you think it accurately reflects history; or believe as in - you get off your ass and be Christ-like with every moment of your being?

Funny that. It appears according to God, as it stated to me many times, that I am a good Christian (*ergo, a TRUE Christian)

Can't ask for much more than that

[Skepdick]

Funny that. It appears according to God, as it stated to me many times, that I am a good Christian (*ergo, a TRUE Christian)

Can't ask for much more than that

Well if all you wanted out of it was a pat on the back...

[attofishpi]

Funny that. It appears according to God, as it stated to me many times, that I am a good Christian (*ergo, a TRUE Christian)

Can't ask for much more than that

Well if all you wanted out of it was a pat on the back...

..full of assumptions arn't ya, cocky.

[Age]

...

It doesn't really matter. You still haven't figured out that the entire point of faith is simply a pragmatic solution to the stupid Western idea that beliefs require justification.

But, what "western idea" that beliefs require justification.

Just about EVERY so-called "westerner" has beliefs that can NOT be 'justified', let alone 'require justification'.

Do your BELIEFS 'require justification' "skepdick"?

If yes, then by who and/or what, EXACTLY?

Obviously MANY upon MANY of you adult human beings have BELIEFS, so, since when, do these BELIEFS so-claimed 'require justification'?

They do if you are possessed by the profoundly dumb idea of mirroring reality. They don't if you simply use them as heuristics for navigating it.

What does the word 'heuristics', here, MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY?

Evidence merely serves as self-justficiation, but you never needed any because faith requires none.

The Western intellectual tradition's emphasis on proving beliefs has actually obscured the pragmatic value of faith as a way of engaging with the world and organically developing know-how.

One would WONDER WHY you human beings WOULD even HAVE BELIEFS, to begin with?

If some thing has NOT YET been PROVED, empirically, or through a sound AND valid argument, then WHY would ANY sane human being BELIEVE, or even ASSUME, some thing is true or right, OR false or wrong?

[Age]

Recently an atheist friend of mine told me that he is now convinced that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the burial shroud of Christ.

Does the word "atheist" word, here, have ANY bearing, AT ALL, with 'your friend' being 'now' CONVINCED of what it, supposedly, does, here?

If yes, then HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

I had heard of the shroud probably since being in a Catholic school, thus a long time ago, and I always thought that is was proven to be a fake from around the 15th century.

Okay.

I watched the video below and I now am also convinced that it truly is a ‘miraculous’ object.

WHY?

What is, supposedly, 'miraculous', here, EXACTLY?

Please do watch the entire video if you are going to make comment within this thread, also the second video regarding a letter Pontius Pilate sent to Caesar regarding Jesus Christ is fascinating.

But, obviously, what some find 'fascinating' others will find 'boring'.

Shroud of Turin – Dr John Campbell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1R2kDPHFA&t=0s



Acta Pilate (Letter of Pilate to Caesar about Jesus, His Crucifixion & Resurrection) - ARCHKO VOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQUJGce ... ex=30&t=0s

www.androcies.com

[Walker]

All of which is irrelevant. I am making no debate re faith n evidence.

You are weighing evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud.

Your weighing apparatus is ultimately deteermined by your temperament; when in practice the authenticity of the shroud (even if 100% established) would neither alter the beleifs of a theist; nor a secularist.

So the entire quest for truth is irrelevant.

All of which is irrelevant. I am making no debate re faith n evidence.

You are weighing evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud.

Your weighing apparatus is ultimately deteermined by your temperament; when in practice the authenticity of the shroud (even if 100% established) would neither alter the beleifs of a theist; nor a secularist.

So the entire quest for truth is irrelevant.

It’s not so much about faith. It’s the feeling that an archaeologist feels. I felt it as a kid when climbing through the smooth, stone rooms on the cliff face of Montezuma’s Castle, standing in small rooms chiseled in the rock face, chalky white round rooms lit by the sun, like the later desert homes from Star Wars 1. With some intellectual knowledge than can enlighten awareness of the past with imagination to light up the present, both the bona fide archaeologist and the child grasp a broader view of the world created in the moment of wonder when in the presence, and that becomes a snapshot for it to continue existing in memory. It’s the moment when one feels the presence of what is known, with scientific proof, to have been touched by actual, factual, objective divinity, objective defined by time created from Christianity’s stubborn persistence. Whether or not one has faith in the persistent, continuing presence that comprised the present of Christ’s time, as proven by the Shroud, divinity for faith is enhanced by the scientific power of proof, in the singular message in the present time, in the Now, that can exist and persist far longer than any mortal coil. Using rationality as a scientific measure of truth, as do the theoretical physicists, obviously within the realm of experience this objectivity shaped by persistence and time, rather than shaped by academic, off-shooting theories and experiments such as the socialism of hippies scratching on the dirt in a class-ruled commune, all grown up and dressed up for academia ... this view of objectivity and thus equanimity is more in line with actual cause and effect.

[Flannel Jesus]

Recently an atheist friend of mine told me that he is now convinced that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the burial shroud of Christ.

What does this perhaps-real atheist friend of yours consider to be the most compelling pieces of evidence that this is in fact the burial shroud of Christ?

[attofishpi]

Recently an atheist friend of mine told me that he is now convinced that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the burial shroud of Christ.

What does this perhaps-real atheist friend of yours consider to be the most compelling pieces of evidence that this is in fact the burial shroud of Christ?

Oh, maybe I should give you his phone number?

Did you watch the video? Do you see flaws in the evidence? Make a list..

[Flannel Jesus]

I didn't ask "what does this guy in this 40-something minute video think is the most compelling evidence?" In the first couple minutes he talks about how you'll have to watch some other video and "see it for yourself", so I'm not even sure that video linked is about the evidence.

No, instead my question was curiosty about what that atheist friend of yours considers the most compelling evidence. I don't care about the guy in the video. What does your friend think?

Does he think the shape of the bloody penis is so clearly the shape of Christ's penis that it must be his shroud? Or the type of pollen found on it is clearly the type of pollen only Christ would be covered in? What are some of the most compelling pieces of evidence for him?

[attofishpi]

I didn't ask "what does this guy in this 40-something minute video think is the most compelling evidence?" In the first couple minutes he talks about how you'll have to watch some other video and "see it for yourself", so I'm not even sure that video linked is about the evidence.

No, instead my question was curiosty about what that atheist friend of yours considers the most compelling evidence. I don't care about the guy in the video. What does your friend think?

And, AGAIN: Do you want his (my friends) phone number to find out what he found compelling within the video? (since I don't know, we haven't discussed it at any length).

And, AGAIN: Have you watched the entire video?

[Flannel Jesus]

Why would i watch a 40-something minute video where, in the opening statements, he says I'll have to watch some other video to decide for myself?

Get your friend to make an account here so he can say what he finds to be the most compelling evidence. That way you do'nt have to hand his number out to internet strangers.

I honestly think this is all bullshit. There's no chance that there's enough evidence to trace this shroud to -one-particular-person- who lived 2000 years ago. You could trace it back to the approximate place and century he died at best. I think you're invoking a fictional friend to give more weight to this, when really rationally there's no weight to the claim.

There's a bloody old shroud from jerusalem, from loosely around the time (plus or minus 100 years) that jesus died. People really, really want it to be Jesus Shroud, so they invent atheist friends and make their invented atheist friends say things no atheist in history has ever said.

[attofishpi]

Why would i watch a 40-something minute video where, in the opening statements, he says I'll have to watch some other video to decide for myself?

He summarises from other scientific sources of analysis which he suggests you can investigate yourself. If you actually watch the video, you'd understand the overall argument being made.

I watched the video about a month ago, so from memory these are key points..
That:
- the image within the shroud is a negative
- the ONLY argument that can attempt to refute the authenticity is the carbon dating putting it at 15th Century. It happens that in the 15th Century parts of the shroud were reconstructed since a fire had destroyed the edges. It seems that the sample for the carbon dating was from part of the restored cloth.
- a photographic negative created LONG before cameras were invented - even if only from the 15th century per the 70s radio carbon dating, the forgery would have been impossible
- the fibres that bear the image are individually 'marked', like irradiated fibres.
- the image is so very detailed that from the grayscale image info within the shroud a 3D construct of the man can be created (using recent NASA tech developed to detail the contours on planets and moons).
- blood exists in the areas that make up the key positions per the negative image.
- it's impossible to recreate even with our current technology.

(watch the video FFS)

Get your friend to make an account here so he can say what he finds to be the most compelling evidence. That way you do'nt have to hand his number out to internet strangers.

Pff, yeah, as if I was going to give u his no.

I honestly think this is all bullshit. There's no chance that there's enough evidence to trace this shroud to -one-particular-person- who lived 2000 years ago. You could trace it back to the approximate place and century he died at best. I think you're invoking a fictional friend to give more weight to this, when really rationally there's no weight to the claim.

You're being a fucking idiot. If you watched the video you'd understand that its a bloody miracle the shroud even exists with the image - EVEN - if it was a fake created in the 15C - it's impossible to recreate even with our current technology.

There's a bloody old shroud from jerusalem, from loosely around the time (plus or minus 100 years) that jesus died. People really, really want it to be Jesus Shroud, so they invent atheist friends and make their invented atheist friends say things no atheist in history has ever said.

[Flannel Jesus]

Lol.

I don't know why it's so important anyway. Say it was Jesus shroud - so what? What's the importance of that? Why is it any more important than having Mohammad's Codpiece, or Buddha's belly button lint?

[attofishpi]

Lol.

I don't know why it's so important anyway. Say it was Jesus shroud - so what? What's the importance of that? Why is it any more important than having Mohammad's Codpiece, or Buddha's belly button lint?

Clearly you are missing the entire point of God creating the shroud.

Also, the fact that it basically proves Christ and the torture he endured, it wipes the bullshit in the ""holy"" Quran off of the map of Abrahamic divinity, rendering Mohamad the liar false profit that he was.