Christianity

[Age]

The life of Christ is not the same as the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The former is a miraculous legend and the latter is history.

This isn't an answer to my question:

This is quite a claim, especially considering that it is coming from 'the one' who does NOT answer questions, here.

I'll remind you.
What would you accept as evidence for a miracle?

And, 'I' will remind 'you', "immanuel can", 'What would you accept as evidence that God is NOT a so-called "he" AT ALL?'

Do 'the readers', here, NEED REMINDING that you WILL NEVER EVER ANSWER MY CLARIFYING QUESTION, here?

[Immanuel Can]

The life of Christ is not the same as the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The former is a miraculous legend and the latter is history.

This isn't an answer to my question: I'll remind you.

What would you accept as evidence for a miracle?

The Roman Catholic Magisterium 's affirmation that an event is miraculous.

So it would be enough if a guy in a fancy suit said it happened?

That's what it would take to convince you?

Again, I have to marvel at the standard you propose...

Well, if you're serious, "the Magesterium" insists on the life and teachings of Christ being authentic. So I suppose you're not going to contest any of what they "affirm," then?

C'mon, B. Think, don't just go with what you've always supposed...

[attofishpi]

Miracles are alleged events that lack evidence. If there were evidence of an event the event would not be a miracle.

..back to the Shroud

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

Scientists are at a loss as to how in around 1300 AD (if a forgery) people at that time were able to produce a photographic quality negative and on later analysis of professional photos taken of the shroud, have enough information embedded by way of grayscale hue differentiations to now using NASA tech, create a 3D model of a body in rigor-mortis.


My question to you Belinda is, thus far would such an artifact be considered miraculous, or simply lacking evidence of the abilities of medieval people?

[Age]

Miracles are alleged events that lack evidence. If there were evidence of an event the event would not be a miracle.

..back to the Shroud

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

Scientists are at a loss as to how in around 1300 AD (if a forgery) people at that time were able to produce a photographic quality negative and on later analysis of professional photos taken of the shroud, have enough information embedded by way of grayscale hue differentiations to now using NASA tech, create a 3D model of a body in rigor-mortis.

Are ALL so-called "scientists" at a loss? Or, just SOME so-called "scientists" at a loss?

[attofishpi]

What part of don't interact with me are you not understanding?

[Age]

This isn't an answer to my question: I'll remind you.

What would you accept as evidence for a miracle?

The Roman Catholic Magisterium 's affirmation that an event is miraculous.

So it would be enough if a guy in a fancy suit said it happened?

That's what it would take to convince you?

Just like "belinda" and EVERY other human being while they are BELIEVING some thing can NOT be 'convinced' of some thing OTHER, you ALSO "immanuel can" are NOT ABLE TO BE 'convinced' of some thing OTHER than what 'it' is, which you are BELIEVING is true.

Again, I have to marvel at the standard you propose...

'We' also would marvel at 'the standard' you USE, and propose, "immanuel can", that is if 'we' did not ALREADY KNOW just how Truly ILLOGICAL it IS, EXACTLY, and WHY you came to USE such a Truly ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL 'standard'.

Come on "immanuel can". Think, don't just go with what you have always supposed.

[Age]

What part of don't interact with me are you not understanding?

you are in a 'philosophy forum' making Wrong and False CLAIMS. So, EXPECT to get CRITIQUED and/or CHALLENGED.

Now, ONCE AGAIN, you were just ASKED CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ABOUT your CLAIM. The fact that you will NOT just ANSWER said QUESTIONS is PROOF in and of itself that your CLAIM was Wrong and/or False in some way.

And, WHY ARE 'you' INTERACTING WITH 'me', when 'you' WANT TO, while REQUESTING and EXPECTING 'me' to NOT INTERACT WITH 'you'?

[Age]

For those who keep forgetting, 'this here' is a public philosophy forum where ideas, views, and/or claims are open to and are best expected to be critiqued, challenged, and/or questioned.

So, ONCE AGAIN, I will remind EVERY one, here, it is much better for you that for EVERY idea, view, and/or claim that you want to make, here, that prior to making and expressing the idea, view, or claim, here, you have ALL of what WILL, IRREFUTABLY, PROVE, and/or back up and support YOUR idea, view, and claim.

WHY it took 'these people' SO LONG to just COMPREHEND, FATHOM, and UNDERSTAND 'this' WILL come-to-light in MY EXPLANATION of HOW the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK.

[attofishpi]

I'm starting to agree with others, that the thang that posted above could be some form of bot...some form of RANDOM CRAP GENERATOR bot?

Honestly, I am starting to comprehend as a human posting back when this was written, about 45 seconds ago, that this is actually a very non-intelligent bot.

A RANDOM CRAP generator poised to disrupt normal intelligible conversations and debates upon an otherwise, generally reasonable PHILOSOPHY forum.

(*the uppercase stuff was required, not sure Y, maybe the bot is rubbing off on me - thus should be perma banned, B4 we are all infected)

[Belinda]

This isn't an answer to my question: I'll remind you.

What would you accept as evidence for a miracle?

The Roman Catholic Magisterium 's affirmation that an event is miraculous.

So it would be enough if a guy in a fancy suit said it happened?

That's what it would take to convince you?

Again, I have to marvel at the standard you propose...

Well, if you're serious, "the Magesterium" insists on the life and teachings of Christ being authentic. So I suppose you're not going to contest any of what they "affirm," then?

C'mon, B. Think, don't just go with what you've always supposed...

You mistake my meaning. The RC church's world view contains that miracles happen My world view does not contain that miracles happen.

The RC church's evidence is enough for Roman Catholics. I am not a Roman Catholic.
I can contest the RC world view:


*There is no supernatural order of being.

* Jesus of Nazareth is not the only holy prophet.

* Soul /minds are not separable from bodies/brains.

*Bodies are good and not subject to original sin.

*The Bible is true but not it it's read literally.

* It's better that Christianity moves on from the medieval world view to encompass science.

[Belinda]

Miracles are alleged events that lack evidence. If there were evidence of an event the event would not be a miracle.

..back to the Shroud

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

Scientists are at a loss as to how in around 1300 AD (if a forgery) people at that time were able to produce a photographic quality negative and on later analysis of professional photos taken of the shroud, have enough information embedded by way of grayscale hue differentiations to now using NASA tech, create a 3D model of a body in rigor-mortis.


My question to you Belinda is, thus far would such an artifact be considered miraculous, or simply lacking evidence of the abilities of medieval people?

The Shroud of Turin is a marvel. However the consensus of scholars is that it's medieval work. Neither you nor I is a scholar and we do well if we chose the best sources for our information.

[Immanuel Can]

The Roman Catholic Magisterium 's affirmation that an event is miraculous.

So it would be enough if a guy in a fancy suit said it happened?

That's what it would take to convince you?

Again, I have to marvel at the standard you propose...

Well, if you're serious, "the Magesterium" insists on the life and teachings of Christ being authentic. So I suppose you're not going to contest any of what they "affirm," then?

C'mon, B. Think, don't just go with what you've always supposed...

You mistake my meaning. The RC church's world view contains that miracles happen My world view does not contain that miracles happen.

But I didn't ask you what the RC's think would justify a "miracle." I asked what YOU would accept. And you won't say.

Why not? Is it because you don't know, or because there is nothing you would ever accept?

And if it's either, then how surprising can it be that you imagine there can be no such thing as a miracle? You'll never see one, not because there isn't one, but because you've either never thought about it at all, really, or because you don't even have a standard that would reveal to you when there HAD been a miracle.

The woman who has no standard for seeing miracles never sees one.

How surprising is that? Not even a bit, obviously.

[Belinda]

Miracles are alleged events that lack evidence. If there were evidence of an event the event would not be a miracle.

..back to the Shroud

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

Scientists are at a loss as to how in around 1300 AD (if a forgery) people at that time were able to produce a photographic quality negative and on later analysis of professional photos taken of the shroud, have enough information embedded by way of grayscale hue differentiations to now using NASA tech, create a 3D model of a body in rigor-mortis.


My question to you Belinda is, thus far would such an artifact be considered miraculous, or simply lacking evidence of the abilities of medieval people?

The Shroud of Turin is a marvel. However the consensus of scholars is that it's medieval work. Neither you nor I is a scholar and we do well if we chose the best sources for our information.

Scientists don't know everything as we well know. However science seeks evidence and , unlike believers in a supernatural way of being, presume that all events are natural.

[attofishpi]

...put it down to a glitch in the matrix Bel


Ave Lúcifer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy4Xuh1HM-Y

..I've got all the time in entropy.


PS. GOD is also natural.

[attofishpi]

Miracles are alleged events that lack evidence. If there were evidence of an event the event would not be a miracle.

..back to the Shroud

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

Scientists are at a loss as to how in around 1300 AD (if a forgery) people at that time were able to produce a photographic quality negative and on later analysis of professional photos taken of the shroud, have enough information embedded by way of grayscale hue differentiations to now using NASA tech, create a 3D model of a body in rigor-mortis.


My question to you Belinda is, thus far would such an artifact be considered miraculous, or simply lacking evidence of the abilities of medieval people?

The Shroud of Turin is a marvel. However the consensus of scholars is that it's medieval work. Neither you nor I is a scholar and we do well if we chose the best sources for our information.

Well, the analysis that scientists are baffled by is that a photographic quality negative image was created using some technique that SHOULD not be available in the medieval ages. Indeed, information stored in grayscale that has detail enough to recreate the image of a 3D body of a human in rigor-mortis.

I hope you understand how A.I. large language models work, that they base their information 'release' upon the most probable reasoning of current research, ergo:-


My GPT question:
Regarding analysis of the shroud of Turin, did scientists find the image upon the cloth of the shroud to contain enough grayscale information to form a 3D image of a body in rigor mortis?


GPT response:
Yes, scientists did find that the image on the Shroud of Turin contains grayscale information that can be interpreted as depth or spatial data, allowing for the creation of a three-dimensional (3D) image of a human form. This was one of the more unusual and widely discussed properties of the Shroud image.

Here's a breakdown of the key findings:

3D Information in the Image
In the late 1970s, the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) team conducted detailed scientific studies of the Shroud. When they used a VP-8 Image Analyzer—a NASA-developed device designed to convert variations in brightness into relief maps—they made a surprising discovery:

The image on the Shroud produced a coherent 3D relief, while normal photographs or paintings do not.

This meant the intensity of the image’s coloration on the linen correlates with distance between the cloth and the presumed body—closer parts like the nose appear lighter, and more recessed areas like the eye sockets appear darker. This grayscale depth encoding does not occur in regular 2D images, whether painted or photographed.

Possible Rigor Mortis Indicators
Researchers and some forensic pathologists have claimed that the image shows anatomical features consistent with a body in rigor mortis:

• []Legs are slightly bent and feet appear to be extended, suggesting stiffness.
  []The hands are crossed in a way that’s typical of rigor mortis and postmortem positioning.
• The side wound, blood stains, and swelling on the face may also reflect trauma shortly before or at the time of death.

While these interpretations are debated, they are cited in literature by experts like Dr. Pierre Barbet, a French surgeon who studied crucifixion anatomy in relation to the Shroud.

Controversy and Limitations

• []The source of the image remains unknown; it is not caused by pigment, dye, or scorch marks in the usual sense.
  []The cloth has been carbon-dated to the medieval period (1260–1390), though this result is contested due to possible contamination or repair samples.
• Skeptics argue that the 3D effect could have been produced by artistic techniques, though recreating it has proven difficult.

Summary:
Yes, the image on the Shroud of Turin does contain grayscale data that allows it to be interpreted in 3D, and some experts believe it shows signs consistent with a body in rigor mortis. While it is not definitive proof of authenticity, it remains one of the most mysterious and technically unusual aspects of the artifact.