The Shroud of Turin, compelling evidence..

[Flannel Jesus]

But just because some ancient middle eastern got tortured doesn't make him a god. If anything, quite the opposite, right? Gods don't get tortured by weak ass humans.

[Skepdick]

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.

You need a shroud for that? Fucking kids wasn't enough?

[Skepdick]

But just because some ancient middle eastern got tortured doesn't make him a god. If anything, quite the opposite, right? Gods don't get tortured by weak ass humans.

You know that the dynamic portrayed between worshipers and their gods is just an allegory for social dynamics, right? How the commoners relate to power.

A God getting their ass kicked was a social novelty. Throughout history Gods were untouchable - you were supposed to bow and temble before their greatness.

The non-dictatorial dynamic was a rather new idea. By depicting a divine figure who suffers at the hands of humans and willingly accepts vulnerability, it introduced a radically different model of authority.

This whole "hey! we can hold the powerful accountable?" thing happened.

[attofishpi]

You are both so very clueless as to the reason Y Christ did what he did.

Indeed arrogant morons that know nothing about it.

[Skepdick]

You are both so very clueless as to the reason Y Christ did what he did.

Indeed arrogant morons that know nothing about it.

Please! Spare us the theology.

Least you wish to speculate about the motivations of a God.

[Flannel Jesus]

You are both so very clueless as to the reason Y Christ did what he did.

Indeed arrogant morons that know nothing about it.

But you get what I'm saying though, right? Even if the shroud WAS really on Jesus head as he bled to death, that of course wouldn't be proof of divinity. Right?

Presumably that's why your atheist friend is still an atheist.

[Age]

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.

Yes, I understand that there is some weighted bias for a person of faith to accept the evidence, but that's not any point to my OP.

But your OWN BIASES, and ALSO 'CONFIRMATION BIASES', STAND OUT, VERY CLEARLY, in your opening post, here.

I did open with the statement that an atheist friend of mine is now convinced by the evidence.

But, SO WHAT?

LOL Are you implying that because onne 'friend' of yours, which you CLAIM is a so-called "atheist friend", is 'now' CONVINCED, by the 'evidence', then EVERY one ELSE MUST ALSO BE CONVINCED OF whatever 'it' is, EXACTLY, 'your friend' is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'now' CONVINCED OF?

LOL There are MANY upon MANY of you adult human beings who ARE, and WERE, CONVINCED, by the so-called 'evidence', but which the so-called 'evidence' was NEVER ACTUAL 'evidence' AT ALL, let alone ACTUAL PROOF. For example, MANY upon MANY were CONVINCED, by the 'evidence', that the earth is in the center of the Universe, and/or that the Universe began and/or is expanding.

The fact that he WAS an atheist prior to this video made me more inclined to watch the entire video for myself.

When then did you call 'your friend' AN "atheist friend"?

If 'your friend' is NOT 'now' an "atheist", then WHY SAY that 'it' is AN "atheist"?

If A, previous, "theist friend", of yours, is 'now' CONVINCED, by the 'evidence', that God does NOT EXIST, then would you, ALSO, be 'more inclined' to watch ' that entire video for "yourself" '?

Some were NOT YET AWARE, back when this was being written, but what people were/are 'more inclined', to watch, will ALWAYS DEPEND ON PRE-EXISTING BELIEFS, and THOUGHTS.

Also, and by the way, what has one being CONVINCED that some material was around a human being, with the name "jesus christ", got to do WITH 'now' being A "theist", or A believer in God, Itself?

I didn't require the video as evidence of Christ and what he went through, since evidence of God has been provided to me directly since 1997.

WILL you SHARE what 'evidence' you, supposedly, have been DIRECTLY PROVIDED WITH, since some years ago?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, what has some, SUPPOSED and ALLEGED, 'evidence of God', got to do with some, CLAIMED, 'evidence of "christ", EXACTLY?

Obviously one could believe or think that some human being called "jesus christ" once lived, but, STILL, NOT have some belief nor thought that God, Itself, lived/exists.

I'm just glad that the shroud evidence does convince some to the story of Christ.

If A 'story' was JUST ACTUALLY True, and IRREFUTABLY SO, then 'CONVINCING' would NOT BE NEEDED.

The presenter in the video was close to tears towards the end.

Who cares.

The presenter in the video also kept mentioning things like, 'the face of A MAN', 'recognizable as A HUMAN', 'A HUMAN FACE'.

You could question yourself as to Y God leaves the entire planet in doubt, rather that proving to all that it does exist...any thoughts?

But, God does NOT leave the entire planet in doubt, AT ALL.

And, LOL the PROOF, TO ALL, that God exists IS BEFORE ALL OF you.

For those of you who have NOT YET SEEN, HEARD, NOR EXPERIENCED the IRREFUTABLE PROOF that God exists, which, by the way, can be SHARED, SHOWN, and REVEALED, then 'you' ARE JUST CLOSED, BLIND, and DEAF.

[Age]

Why do you need 'evidence'? It thought you were a close personal friend of jebus himself. Go ask him then.

Btw, the shroud is ridiculous hogwash. Made in mediaeval times when they thought jebus would have looked like an old long-haired hippy.
The jebus in the story died as a young man. Only 32.

Watch the video first, then provide your reasoning as to how in the 15th century they could produce the negative image of Christ.

I KNOW it is HARD for those who have and hold BELIEFS, like you 'religious human beings', here, BOTH the 'scientifically' and 'theologically' ones, BUT just because you hear or read some thing, that, in and of itself, does NOT make 'it' TRUE. So, what 'this' MEANS is that just because some one says, or writes, some thing, like what you are BELIEVING is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, here, that 'it' is NOT necessarily ACTUALLY True, AT ALL.

UNTIL one has, DIRECTLY, EXPERIENCED ACTUAL PROOF, then one is BEST TO REMAIN OPEN, or SKEPTIC.

If you watch the video it is clear that the way the fibres of the cloth have been 'exposed' to some form of radiation, that it would be difficult to achieve with current technology.

AND YET AGAIN 'this one' BELIEVES ANY thing, just as long it ALIGNS WITH its 'current' BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS.

[Age]

Why do you need 'evidence'? It thought you were a close personal friend of jebus himself. Go ask him then.

Btw, the shroud is ridiculous hogwash. Made in mediaeval times when they thought jebus would have looked like an old long-haired hippy.
The jebus in the story died as a young man. Only 32.

Watch the video first, then provide your reasoning as to how in the 15th century they could produce the negative image of Christ. If you watch the video it is clear that the way the fibres of the cloth have been 'exposed' to some form of radiation, that it would be difficult to achieve with current technology.

FFS. It's been done to death. It's been tested to within an inch of its life. They were experts at making these kind of religious 'relics' in mediaeval times. They were worth a lot of money to churches.

Here 'we' have ANOTHER PRIME example OF one who WILL BELIEVE ANY thing, just as long it ALIGNS WITH its 'current' BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS.

It was carbon dated. That should have been the end of it but no, of course relgious nuts are going to believe what they want to believe.

LOL And, 'this one', here, who is OBVIOUSLY ALSO VERY MUCH what is called A 'religious nut' BELIEVING what it wants to BELIEVE.

LOL 'This one' is BEING CRITICAL OF 'another' who is JUST DOING the EXACT SAME 'this one' IS DOING, and DOES.

There's no point in even discussing it, just as conspiracy theorists have no interest in actual evidence.

'This one' ONLY does NOT want to even discuss 'it' BECAUSE 'this one' has NO ACTUAL PROOF for its CLAIM, and BELIEF, here.

[Age]

FFS - just lost my original reply and have to type it all up again!!

Yes, I understand that there is some weighted bias for a person of faith to accept the evidence, but that's not any point to my OP. I did open with the statement that an atheist friend of mine is now convinced by the evidence.

To my point: What is it that he's convinced of? That this is Jesus's burrial cloth (which is mundane); or that Jesus resurrected (which is the extraordinary beleif)?

He's convinced that the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ and that something beyond any ability of humans at the time created the image.
I haven't questioned him to whether he believes in the resurrection etc..

You could question yourself as to Y God leaves the entire planet in doubt, rather that proving to all that it does exist...any thoughts?

I don't find the question very interesting.

Really? It is THE biggest question of our time in relation to God. That this entity claims to exist and refuses to provide evidence to all of its existence and instead requires FAITH. The REASON for that is of great importance imo.
[/quote]

'These people', here, STILL think or BELIEVE that 'evidence' OVERRIDES 'proof', and/or ANY thing ELSE, here. Which is, OBVIOUSLY, ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS.

[attofishpi]

You are both so very clueless as to the reason Y Christ did what he did.

Indeed arrogant morons that know nothing about it.

But you get what I'm saying though, right? Even if the shroud WAS really on Jesus head as he bled to death, that of course wouldn't be proof of divinity. Right?

The shroud is an example of what people tend to refer to as a 'miracle'..hence proof of divinity imo. If you spent 48 mins of your time to watch its entirety you may understand Y I make such a claim.

The shroud isn't just of Christ's head, its his entire body - the shroud is 14ft long.


The other video I posted is also fascinating, worthy of watch..

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

[Flannel Jesus]

The shroud is an example of what people tend to refer to as a 'miracle'..

So why is your buddy still an atheist?

[Skepdick]

...

Fuck off, Age.

[attofishpi]

The shroud is an example of what people tend to refer to as a 'miracle'..

So why is your buddy still an atheist?

I don't think he is and I'm pretty certain I never made a statement that he remains atheist.

Any rational atheist that investigates the shroud and even just watches the entire video should have little doubt as to the veracity of Christian claims.

How about you provide a "rational" atheist explanation to the shroud & information embedded upon it, how it must have come into existence..without any 'divine hand'?

[Age]

...

Fuck off, Age.

LOL

Here 'we' have ANOTHER one who, when they can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS and BELIEFS, can NOT CLARIFY, and/or has had their FAULTY or FAILING thinking and thoughts EXPOSED, can ONLY RESORT TO a response like the one it just provided, here.