Some require seeing the print of the nails

[ZNPaaneah]

John 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called [b]Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, [c]thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

This portion of the word, though it rebukes Thomas for doubting and requiring physical proof of the resurrection nonetheless does provide it.

Two questions:

1. Is it reasonable therefore for someone today to require physical proof as well?

2. If so, what physical proof has been given to us of Jesus resurrection?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

John 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called [b]Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, [c]thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

This portion of the word, though it rebukes Thomas for doubting and requiring physical proof of the resurrection nonetheless does provide it.

Two questions:

1. Is it reasonable therefore for someone today to require physical proof as well?

2. If so, what physical proof has been given to us of Jesus resurrection?

Methinks you're just pulling our leg bro ZNP.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Methinks you're just pulling our leg bro ZNP.

Nope, serious question. If Thomas can ask for hard evidence I don't see why anyone else can't. It may not be honorable, but when you preach the gospel I have been asked this before and it seems reasonable.

[Evangelical]

Today there is no physical proof of the resurrection. We cannot answer the question if someone wants proof because the body of Christ is in heaven.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Today there is no physical proof of the resurrection. We cannot answer the question if someone wants proof because the body of Christ is in heaven.

OK, let's role play --

Gospel contact -- Unless you give me proof of Jesus resurrection I won't believe. Thomas was given proof, I want proof.

You -- There is no physical proof of the resurrection.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

OK, let's role play --

Gospel contact -- Unless you give me proof of Jesus resurrection I won't believe. Thomas was given proof, I want proof.

You -- There is no physical proof of the resurrection.

That's right, because of the ascension, no proof can be provided. The only possible proof of the resurrection is Jesus's body with the scars in it. The other possible proof is for Jesus to physically appear to a person who is doubting, like he appeared to so many disciples. Unfortunately, he cannot do this either because he is ascended.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right, because of the ascension, no proof can be provided. The only possible proof of the resurrection is Jesus's body with the scars in it. The other possible proof is for Jesus to physically appear to a person who is doubting, like he appeared to so many disciples. Unfortunately, he cannot do this either because he is ascended.

So Jesus body with the scars in it would be proof to you, if of course He was standing in front of you?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right, because of the ascension, no proof can be provided. The only possible proof of the resurrection is Jesus's body with the scars in it. The other possible proof is for Jesus to physically appear to a person who is doubting, like he appeared to so many disciples. Unfortunately, he cannot do this either because he is ascended.

But we have proof that wasn't available to the doubting Thomas. It's called the New Testament canon.

So Jesus doesn't have to appear and show his nail imprints. The New Testament canon replaced that need. Jesus is on vacation. He left books, that's been canonized.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But we have proof that wasn't available to the doubting Thomas. It's called the New Testament canon.

So Jesus doesn't have to appear and show his nail imprints. The New Testament canon replaced that need. Jesus is on vacation. He left books, that's been canonized.

Blessed are you, Awareness, that you don't need to see the physical proof. But that is not the question here. If someone does require physical proof is that a reasonable request?

If not, why was it reasonable for Thomas but not anyone else?

From a scientific point of view it is quite reasonable to require evidence to support your claim.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

But we have proof that wasn't available to the doubting Thomas. It's called the New Testament canon.

So Jesus doesn't have to appear and show his nail imprints. The New Testament canon replaced that need. Jesus is on vacation. He left books, that's been canonized.

Books are not primary proof of the resurrection, they are secondary, and could be hearsay.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So Jesus body with the scars in it would be proof to you, if of course He was standing in front of you?

This was the proof that Thomas demanded, and this was the proof that Jesus gave to dispel all doubt. Any other proof is second hand knowledge and open to doubt.
Most people believed Jesus was resurrected because they saw him. But there is still doubt that Jesus was not resurrected physically, but just a ghost. For this reason Thomas demanded to touch Jesus's physical body to confirm he was not a ghost. Jesus also ate some food to confirm he was not a ghost. Without the body of Jesus present there is no physical proof of the resurrection.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This was the proof that Thomas demanded, and this was the proof that Jesus gave to dispel all doubt. Any other proof is second hand knowledge and open to doubt.
Most people believed Jesus was resurrected because they saw him. But there is still doubt that Jesus was not resurrected physically, but just a ghost. For this reason Thomas demanded to touch Jesus's physical body to confirm he was not a ghost. Jesus also ate some food to confirm he was not a ghost. Without the body of Jesus present there is no physical proof of the resurrection.

You are not answering my question. Thomas wanted proof, he was given proof. Why shouldn't any other person also want to see proof?

If they do want proof, why shouldn't they get it?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are not answering my question. Thomas wanted proof, he was given proof. Why shouldn't any other person also want to see proof?

If they do want proof, why shouldn't they get it?

I thought I did answer the question - if they want proof, they shouldn't get it because they can't get it, the body of Jesus is in heaven now. If Jesus had to come down from heaven every time a person wanted proof, it would upset everything.

There is a second reason they shouldn't get it - the example of Thomas does not apply to unbelievers, but to believers who doubt the resurrection. Thomas was not an unbeliever requiring proof that Jesus exists - he believed in Christ by faith like any of the other disciples. Thomas was an example of a believer who rejects miracles without proof, rather than an unbeliever who rejects Christ. So we cannot really apply the example of Thomas to gospel preaching to unbelievers, because while he disbelieved the resurrection, he still believed in Christ.

The commonly held view is that Thomas wanted to see Jesus's body because he doubted - as if Thomas went from an unbelieving atheist into a believing Christian. This is incorrect - Thomas was not a doubter, as in an unbeliever, he was very much a believer in Christ, but was hesitant and uncertain about the resurrection. He should not be called "doubting Thomas" but "uncertain or skeptical Thomas".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Blessed are you, Awareness, that you don't need to see the physical proof. But that is not the question here. If someone does require physical proof is that a reasonable request?

I think I'm starting to get what you are driving at. If it wasn't wrong for Thomas -- a disciple of all people -- to require physical proof how can it be wrong when we today require physical proof? Well maybe it's not.

But then, if physical proof can't be found today, does that mean God won't hold it against us if we don't believe what can't be physically proven?

Originally Posted by Zzzzzz

From a scientific point of view it is quite reasonable to require evidence to support your claim.

But much that's important to humans can't be scientifically proven. Much of religion can't be empirically proven. But history proves that religion is important to humans. Religion came before science. Religion came before the invention of the written language even.

Lack of scientific proof won't kill religion. I think humans prefer religion over empirical proof. Humans seem to love a rich fantasy life. And maybe it's a way to stay young at heart. Who knows? Humans are basically crazy.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think I'm starting to get what you are driving at. If it wasn't wrong for Thomas -- a disciple of all people -- to require physical proof how can it be wrong when we today require physical proof? Well maybe it's not.

But then, if physical proof can't be found today, does that mean God won't hold it against us if we don't believe what can't be physically proven?


But much that's important to humans can't be scientifically proven. Much of religion can't be empirically proven. But history proves that religion is important to humans. Religion came before science. Religion came before the invention of the written language even.

Lack of scientific proof won't kill religion. I think humans prefer religion over empirical proof. Humans seem to love a rich fantasy life. And maybe it's a way to stay young at heart. Who knows? Humans are basically crazy.

Neuroscience and studies into schizophrenia etc has discovered that our brains are belief-generating machines that confirm or deny our beliefs by evidence. Prior to this, it was thought that we believe what we observe, and that things that we believe must have been from some past experience or observations. However it is the other way around - we observe what we believe. That is, it is "we see what we believe", not "we believe what we see". To "believe without seeing" is actually how our brains work. To believe without seeing is therefore a very normal and natural human thing to do. Those who require proof are the exception - their brains are possibly not imaginative enough. So there is some truth to what you say about a "rich fantasy life" and "basically crazy".

We are in a way, always inside our own "virtual reality". The technology we call virtual reality today, is actually a virtual reality imposed on top of the virtual reality of our own brains.

For more see https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-of-illusion/

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I thought I did answer the question - if they want proof, they shouldn't get it because they can't get it, the body of Jesus is in heaven now. If Jesus had to come down from heaven every time a person wanted proof, it would upset everything.

There is a second reason they shouldn't get it - the example of Thomas does not apply to unbelievers, but to believers who doubt the resurrection. Thomas was not an unbeliever requiring proof that Jesus exists - he believed in Christ by faith like any of the other disciples. Thomas was an example of a believer who rejects miracles without proof, rather than an unbeliever who rejects Christ. So we cannot really apply the example of Thomas to gospel preaching to unbelievers, because while he disbelieved the resurrection, he still believed in Christ.

The commonly held view is that Thomas wanted to see Jesus's body because he doubted - as if Thomas went from an unbelieving atheist into a believing Christian. This is incorrect - Thomas was not a doubter, as in an unbeliever, he was very much a believer in Christ, but was hesitant and uncertain about the resurrection. He should not be called "doubting Thomas" but "uncertain or skeptical Thomas".

Thomas doubted that Jesus resurrected from the dead and asked for proof. Why then couldn't any other believer do the same?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think I'm starting to get what you are driving at. If it wasn't wrong for Thomas -- a disciple of all people -- to require physical proof how can it be wrong when we today require physical proof? Well maybe it's not.

But then, if physical proof can't be found today, does that mean God won't hold it against us if we don't believe what can't be physically proven?

That is where you differ from Thomas. He never said that "physical proof can't be found today". On the contrary he had enough faith to ask for it.

Second, Jesus didn't "hold this against him". Rather He said "29 Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

Often the gospel is likened to a trial and the gospel contact to the Jury. We used to think that an "eyewitness" was the gold standard, but after quite a bit of research we have learned that eyewitnesses do not "bless" the trial. Rather, what really "blesses" the trial is physical evidence like fingerprints and DNA.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Neuroscience and studies into schizophrenia etc has discovered that our brains are belief-generating machines that confirm or deny our beliefs by evidence. Prior to this, it was thought that we believe what we observe, and that things that we believe must have been from some past experience or observations. However it is the other way around - we observe what we believe. That is, it is "we see what we believe", not "we believe what we see". To "believe without seeing" is actually how our brains work. To believe without seeing is therefore a very normal and natural human thing to do. Those who require proof are the exception - their brains are possibly not imaginative enough. So there is some truth to what you say about a "rich fantasy life" and "basically crazy".

We are in a way, always inside our own "virtual reality". The technology we call virtual reality today, is actually a virtual reality imposed on top of the virtual reality of our own brains.

For more see https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-of-illusion/

In reality we have all had some evidence to support our belief in Christ. Thomas might have been "weak" in the faith, but he did have faith, and his process was "like precious faith" with all the other apostles and believers.

Therefore I would conclude that it is reasonable for a person to ask for proof of the resurrection and it would be unrighteous for Jesus and God to not provide it (seeing as they did provide it for some).

[OBW]

So you think that it is reasonable to request physical proof. I can agree with that. Of course I think that most of the people who want physical proof are seeking to not get it so that they can support their disbelief.

But no matter why the ask or desire physical proof, the real question is whether there is any physical proof to be found.

Do you have physical proof that Socrates lived? There might be a grave with his name barely legible on a stone. But there is nothing to compare DNA to and assert that it is his. And everything about him is what was written by others. He could be a legend created around a group of people.

How is this any different from what we have concerning Jesus. But given the "facts" that are recorded, it would appear that a man named Jesus was executed. And more than a reasonable conspiracy of people claim to have seen him alive after that. They successfully took that as evidence throughout the region (at first) and the "fact" of their witness was of sufficient weight. Those many did see the print of the nails. It was enough to be an unsustainable conspiracy. Too many stories to keep straight and too many opportunities to let the cat out of the bag. So the only reasonable conclusion is that it is true.

Add to that the miracle that was observed just weeks afterward when the few in the upper room began to speak the languages of those assembled for Pentecost. It was a sign (evidence) that could not be ignored. With out that, how would there have come to be so many suddenly following this otherwise dead man?

The only verifiable difference is not in physical evidence of his resurrection, but in the living evidence that he can and does still change lives. It is generally said that people do not change (despite a rather famous quote in these circles the "people change"). But the true believer is not just a follower. They also have a different life. There are provable cases of what should be classed as miracles — medical, psychological, temperament, etc. Surely there are also some claims of miracles that are not true. But why is it that so many of these miracles are associated with the true followers of Jesus Christ?

The good news is not that Jesus died and resurrected. It is that however it came to be, he changes lives and is worthy of our worship and obedience.

But physical proof of the resurrection of the man, Jesus? Anyone has the right to ask.

But expect to receive?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Therefore I would conclude that it is reasonable for a person to ask for proof of the resurrection and it would be unrighteous for Jesus and God to not provide it (seeing as they did provide it for some).

What do you propose would be reasonable proof?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But physical proof of the resurrection of the man, Jesus? Anyone has the right to ask.

But expect to receive?

I want undeniable physical proof that Obama has left the White House.

Till then I'm not believing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I want undeniable physical proof that Obama has left the White House.

Till then I'm not believing.

Not me. I'll have to see the print of the nails in his hands. The pubbies have had him on the cross for 8 years.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

So you think that it is reasonable to request physical proof. I can agree with that. Of course I think that most of the people who want physical proof are seeking to not get it so that they can support their disbelief.

But no matter why the ask or desire physical proof, the real question is whether there is any physical proof to be found.

I don't want to go there until everyone weighs in on the question, as you have done. I also agree with you that it is reasonable. But if someone thinks it isn't reasonable I would like them to explain their position.

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you have physical proof that Socrates lived? There might be a grave with his name barely legible on a stone. But there is nothing to compare DNA to and assert that it is his. And everything about him is what was written by others. He could be a legend created around a group of people.

How is this any different from what we have concerning Jesus.

It is different, but I don't want to go there until everyone weighs in on the first question.

Originally Posted by OBW

But given the "facts" that are recorded, it would appear that a man named Jesus was executed. And more than a reasonable conspiracy of people claim to have seen him alive after that. They successfully took that as evidence throughout the region (at first) and the "fact" of their witness was of sufficient weight. Those many did see the print of the nails. It was enough to be an unsustainable conspiracy. Too many stories to keep straight and too many opportunities to let the cat out of the bag. So the only reasonable conclusion is that it is true.

If this were a law court their testimony would be important, but I don't know that it would rise to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Thomas was given evidence that was "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Originally Posted by OBW

Add to that the miracle that was observed just weeks afterward when the few in the upper room began to speak the languages of those assembled for Pentecost. It was a sign (evidence) that could not be ignored. With out that, how would there have come to be so many suddenly following this otherwise dead man?

The only verifiable difference is not in physical evidence of his resurrection, but in the living evidence that he can and does still change lives. It is generally said that people do not change (despite a rather famous quote in these circles the "people change"). But the true believer is not just a follower. They also have a different life. There are provable cases of what should be classed as miracles — medical, psychological, temperament, etc. Surely there are also some claims of miracles that are not true. But why is it that so many of these miracles are associated with the true followers of Jesus Christ?

I agree with you that changed lives is the biggest miracle and is undeniable evidence to the person who has changed. But it is not the kind of evidence asked for by Thomas and provided by Jesus. It might be admissible in a court of Law, but again, doubt it would rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt" for the jury.

Originally Posted by OBW

The good news is not that Jesus died and resurrected. It is that however it came to be, he changes lives and is worthy of our worship and obedience.

agreed

Originally Posted by OBW

But physical proof of the resurrection of the man, Jesus? Anyone has the right to ask.

But expect to receive?

Why not? It appears to be a matter of righteousness. Our salvation depends on our believing in the resurrection. If you were genuine in your request, why wouldn't a God who gave His son to be crucified for our salvation not leave a little physical evidence behind for those who ask?

Would it be righteous to give Thomas the physical proof he asked for but no one else?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

What do you propose would be reasonable proof?

Physical evidence that would stand up in a court of law, resulting in a verdict that is "beyond a reasonable doubt". As an attorney making the case that is what I would want.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I want undeniable physical proof that Obama has left the White House.

Till then I'm not believing.

I would prefer to discuss this in the Box 13 scandal thread, I am posting a response there.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Thomas doubted that Jesus resurrected from the dead and asked for proof. Why then couldn't any other believer do the same?

A believer could, and many do so when confronted with claims of healing or miracles.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A believer could, and many do so when confronted with claims of healing or miracles.

Well, the resurrection is probably the best example of healing or miracle. If it is just to request proof of a healing or miracle, then by that reasoning it is reasonable to ask God for proof of Jesus resurrection.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A believer could, and many do so when confronted with claims of healing or miracles.

Kind of like what happened to the blind man in John 9. He was interrogated by all the lawyers and leaders, and found to be a "liar" and excommunicated him.

So much for "proving" miracles.

G. K. Chesterson: "The most incredible thing about miracles is that they happen."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well, the resurrection is probably the best example of healing or miracle. If it is just to request proof of a healing or miracle, then by that reasoning it is reasonable to ask God for proof of Jesus resurrection.

It is a reasonable request from one point of view, but based upon the fact that no proof can be given, it is an unreasonable request. It is unreasonable for someone to ask us for proof, because we cannot go to heaven and bring Him down (Romans 10:6) but not unreasonable for them to ask of God.

Jesus mentions this category of people in John 4:48 where Jesus says unless they see signs they won't believe. This indicates that some people need proof, but this proof is given begrudgingly - with a groan or a sigh. I believe it was an astonishment and a bewilderment on Jesus' part, perhaps a criticism as well, but also no obstacle to Jesus performing the miracle (despite the claims of Pentecostals that lack of healing indicates lack of faith). While Jesus commended those with great faith, he also obliged those with weak faith, provided there was willingness to engage Him or admission of ones weakness (Mark 9:24).

Concerning unbelievers, it rests entirely on God's mercy whether or not He would provide proof given their request. Would God send a person to hell if they requested proof and none was provided? If they were an unbeliever, then yes, because they do not have saving faith. Possibly no, if they join a tribe in the Amazon and feign ignorance - but yes again, when God points to the fact that He gave them a conscience and can be seen in Creation. The proof which God gives may not be in the form that we demand or expect - I cannot see how that is a valid excuse. If they were a believer, then it merely indicates their skepticism of the resurrection, and like to the Sadducee, Jesus would say "you err, not knowing the Scripture or the power". For these people, God would want to expose the weakness of their faith, cause them to seek Him for a miracle, and provide that miracle as evidence, which serves to increase their faith - all of this, dependent upon God's mercy, in spite of, and not necessarily because of their request.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is a reasonable request from one point of view, but based upon the fact that no proof can be given, it is an unreasonable request.

We can certainly discuss whether or not proof can be given once everyone has weighed in on whether or not the request is reasonable. So far you and OBW have weighed in.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Would God send a person to hell if they requested proof and none was provided? If they were an unbeliever, then yes, because they do not have saving faith. Possibly no, if they join a tribe in the Amazon and feign ignorance - but yes again, when God points to the fact that He gave them a conscience and can be seen in Creation. If they were a believer, then no, it merely indicates their skepticism of the resurrection, and like the Sadducee, Jesus would say "you err, not knowing the Scripture or the power".

Just so I have this straight -- if you request proof of the resurrection and you were a disciple, like Thomas, then it will be provided to strengthen your faith.

But if you are an unbeliever, then forget it, you go to hell.

Unless of course you live in the Amazon rain forest, in which case you can feign ignorance, and in that case the Lord will let it slide.

Is that your understanding of a righteous judgement?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We can certainly discuss whether or not proof can be given once everyone has weighed in on whether or not the request is reasonable. So far you and OBW have weighed in.



Just so I have this straight -- if you request proof of the resurrection and you were a disciple, like Thomas, then it will be provided to strengthen your faith.

But if you are an unbeliever, then forget it, you go to hell.

Unless of course you live in the Amazon rain forest, in which case you can feign ignorance, and in that case the Lord will let it slide.

Is that your understanding of a righteous judgement?

I did not say that the Lord will let it slide, for the scripture does say "without excuse" (I think you know the verse). I meant that even those who feign ignorance (those in the jungle) the Lord does not excuse, because "in Him we have our being".

It is really hard to discuss this without ending up in a free will versus election debate but Scripture strongly points to God's mercy being a key factor otherwise proof would be given at every request. God's mercy is at play here because some people ask for proof and get none, others ask and get it, some who do not seek at all, receive, and many, the majority I would say, neither ask nor seek, nor does God show mercy.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I did not say that the Lord will let it slide, for the scripture does say "without excuse" (I think you know the verse). I meant that even those who feign ignorance (those in the jungle) the Lord does not excuse, because "in Him we have our being".

It is really hard to discuss this without ending up in a free will versus election debate but Scripture strongly points to God's mercy being a key factor otherwise proof would be given at every request. God's mercy is at play here because some people ask for proof and get none, others ask and get it, some who do not seek at all, receive, and many, the majority I would say, neither ask nor seek, nor does God show mercy.

We walk by faith, not by sight. Even if I had physical proof right now, laid it out before the jury, and it was undeniable, you would still need to walk by faith.

Just because you could not deny the fact of the resurrection does not mean your heart would be changed.

But we digress. I would still like to hear from Awareness and Zeek before we proceed.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We walk by faith, not by sight. Even if I had physical proof right now, laid it out before the jury, and it was undeniable, you would still need to walk by faith.

Just because you could not deny the fact of the resurrection does not mean your heart would be changed.

But we digress. I would still like to hear from Awareness and Zeek before we proceed.

Just as a side discussion while waiting for responses for the others. Agree, and the reason is because our brains are "believing machines" as I mentioned before. In this context, "walking by faith" is something everyone does all the time. This is why we can say that even atheists "have faith" - they have faith in nothing. There is no way to escape this brain we have. Unlike machines, we cannot put data in our brain and expect to get facts out. All it can do is change our beliefs, if at all. It is remarkable that if you say "the sky is blue", that is not a fact but your belief, always. You believe the sky is blue because you have observed it to be so. That the sky is blue is a fact. But it comes from the virtual "belief world" that your brain has created and in which you live, 24/7, 365 days of the year. So in reality it is not a fact but your belief - our brains do not produce facts, but beliefs.

[Lisbon]

I have a friend who was born in the mid west of an average working class family, not rich at all but not poor. There were four in the family, three boys and one girl. The oldest boy became a millionaire, the second, the girl became a substantial money maker, the third and fourth did not do well. My friend, number three, got thru college with a math degree, got into drugs, alcohol, and illicit sex, and was near the bottom of our society. In a sense he was not stupid for he had the understanding from the law that if things didn't change, he was going to prison where a person like him would probably be killed by his inmates.
He passed by the LC in ft Lauderdale and received the Lord, got married, and I knew him for over 40 years. I ate lunch with him for several years and he would very overtly tell me the date of his conversion by saying so many years of sobriety. He told me things I woujld not tell to anyone. As in my religious past, I would say he got saved. He was sinking in the ocean of sin and soon not to rise up again.
The gentleman who wrote "The Greatest Story ever Told" had a somewhat semilar experience and I'm sure there are plenty of untold such stories. I was a "good" boy. Didn't smoke, drink, or chase wild women. Not that smart but enough to get thru life in some kind of reasonable manner. But now as an old man, I no longer think there is much difference in us except some don't drop out of air planes, or ships in the ocean or other tragedies, so it may appear some are just better than others. My goodness our two top apostles turn out to be quite wanting in even the way the world accounts for goodness although for the most part they have been fairly well covered. Covering however doesn't change the situation one iota.
Since we just had an election with both front runners were immoral perverts, there has been quite a lot of talk about most of our previous so called good presidents. Many of them back to the beginning indulged in extra marital sex. B ut of course the Bible tells us that leaders back far as Noah, Judah, Samson, David, Solomon who else had the same problems. Some one on this forum often quotes the famous script, There is none righteous, not even one.

Life just isn't fair. Some at age 78 have a heart attack and die. Others linger on in a sickly condition for 25 years. We don't know too much.
I think it's spmewhat of a miracle that we made it thru the LC for many years and are still believers. Some have been in the RC for years and are still believers. Maybe we're the blessed ones. I often have a real praise in my heart that I'm still a believer. Many much smarter than I have come to the conclusion that it's not real. But here we are just simply believing.

Lisbon

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

So you think that it is reasonable to request physical proof. I can agree with that. Of course I think that most of the people who want physical proof are seeking to not get it so that they can support their disbelief.

But no matter why the ask or desire physical proof, the real question is whether there is any physical proof to be found.

Really? Are you expecting in an audience of elementary students? Cuz they are the only ones that might need an explanation of why physical proof of the resurrection and the nail prints can't be found.

Methinks you might be deliberately leading us down a primrose path. I guess time will tell.

And bro OBW, I think also that some of those seeking physical proof might just be empiricalists, who might hold to neither belief nor disbelief.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Really? Are you expecting in an audience of elementary students? Cuz they are the only ones that might need an explanation of why physical proof of the resurrection and the nail prints can't be found.

Methinks you might be deliberately leading us down a primrose path. I guess time will tell.

And bro OBW, I think also that some of those seeking physical proof might just be empiricalists, who might hold to neither belief nor disbelief.

What exactly is a primrose path?

You do realize that your frequent expression of paranoia is worrisome.

Saying that "it can't be found" is not the same as saying that you shouldn't be allowed to require it. What is your stance on the question? You post on this thread but duck and dodge the question, even though the thread was a response to your question.

What say you, is it reasonable to ask for evidence? Would Jesus be righteous in condemning an unbeliever who asked for the evidence but didn't receive it while saving Thomas who asked for the evidence and did receive it?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What exactly is a primrose path?

You do realize that your frequent expression of paranoia is worrisome.

Well you've made it plain that you are leading us. And based on your posts so far we could be headed to calamity by following you.

We're not elementary students, just give it all to us at once. We can take it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well you've made it plain that you are leading us. And based on your posts so far we could be headed to calamity by following you.

We're not elementary students, just give it all to us at once. We can take it.

I think I have made my basic premise clear.

1. Some, like doubting Thomas, require seeing physical evidence of the resurrection.

2. Although Jesus commended those who did not require this He nevertheless did answer Thomas request and provided it. I believe this account demonstrates that righteousness requires that He do the same for anyone else who made such a request. Everyone will appear at the judgement seat, and it would be a very strong case if they requested physical evidence, like Thomas, but were denied.

3. I think the record of the New Testament makes it very clear that Jesus did give us physical evidence that we can examine that proves the resurrection.

I would be happy to discuss those verses and that physical evidence once you stop being such a wimp about the impending "calamity" and respond to these first three points. My reason is simple, if we don't agree on the first two points it will be pointless to discuss point 3.

BTW you are the one leading this discussion as it is a response to your question.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think I have made my basic premise clear.

Clear as mud.

Originally Posted by ZNP

1. Some, like doubting Thomas, require seeing physical evidence of the resurrection.

Yes.

Originally Posted by ZNP

2. Although Jesus commended those who did not require this He nevertheless did answer Thomas request and provided it. I believe this account demonstrates that righteousness requires that He do the same for anyone else who made such a request. Everyone will appear at the judgement seat, and it would be a very strong case if they requested physical evidence, like Thomas, but were denied.

But he showed Thomas right on the spot. How come we have to wait?

Originally Posted by ZNP

3. I think the record of the New Testament makes it very clear that Jesus did give us physical evidence that we can examine that proves the resurrection.

Where?

Originally Posted by ZNP

I would be happy to discuss those verses and that physical evidence once you stop being such a wimp about the impending "calamity" and respond to these first three points. My reason is simple, if we don't agree on the first two points it will be pointless to discuss point 3.

Don't let get in the way of your happiness.

Originally Posted by ZNP

BTW you are the one leading this discussion as it is a response to your question.

What was I thinkin'. I repent.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If this were a law court their testimony would be important, but I don't know that it would rise to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Thomas was given evidence that was "beyond a reasonable doubt".

And this is the reason that belief is by faith. There is no reason to delay getting to the ability to provide "proof" that would withstand a "reasonable doubt."

My comments about an unsustainable conspiracy merely make the likelihood that it is a fabrication buried in a conspiracy difficult to sustain. not impossible. And that does not rise to the level of American rules of law.

I honestly believe that the only real proof is in the lives of the believers. And, unfortunately, there are a lot of believers that think that becoming
saved and then preaching the gospel is all that there is. So their lives don't really look so great. Not much of an image bearer for God.

We live by faith, not by proof. If there was courtroom-worthy proof, then no one would disbelieve.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3. I think the record of the New Testament makes it very clear that Jesus did give us physical evidence that we can examine that proves the resurrection.

I don't think so. I think you have been drinking a different Kool-Aid. I have seen nothing that provides any kind of "very clear" physical evidence available today, so you claim that the NT "makes if very clear" is of no more substance than some of Lee's "it's simply . . ." statements.

Anyone needing Thomas-like proof will need to become willing to accept something less concrete. There are no nail-prints to see today. And no matter what anyone produces allegedly from the era, the "chain of evidence" is seriously broken and is therefore of no probative value.

Faith.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I don't think so. I think you have been drinking a different Kool-Aid. I have seen nothing that provides any kind of "very clear" physical evidence available today, so you claim that the NT "makes if very clear" is of no more substance than some of Lee's "it's simply . . ." statements.

Anyone needing Thomas-like proof will need to become willing to accept something less concrete. There are no nail-prints to see today. And no matter what anyone produces allegedly from the era, the "chain of evidence" is seriously broken and is therefore of no probative value.

Faith.

That is a very good point concerning "chain of evidence". If you break the chain of evidence that it is no longer admissible in court, so the first "hearing" should be on whether or not we have solid proof of a chain of evidence. We'll start there.

[ZNPaaneah]

Luke 24:12But Peter arose, and ran unto the tomb; and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths by themselves; and he departed to his home, wondering at that which was come to pass.

These two linen cloths have tremendous value to a forensic scientist.

1st, the face cloth has an excellent chain of custody, a well documented history.

On this cloth there would be blood, DNA, fluids, pollen, and evidence of wounds on the face and head.

2nd, the shroud would have pollen, DNA, evidence of wounds, and dirt and dust from the tomb. You would be able to confirm the time of year that the person was crucified from the pollen, you would be able to confirm the extremely unusual form of crucifixion which includes scourging, and a crown of thorns. You would be able to confirm that this person was pierced in the side rather than having their legs broken. And you would be able to confirm that the person was Jewish based on the material of the shroud, the way it was prepared, and the trace elements of the flowers and oil that were added. It would also be extremely unusual to have such a burial shroud in excellent condition as though it had been treasured by those who had it since most of those who are crucified are criminals who might not have anyone caring for them.

These two items have immense value forensically and in a trial would be the main exhibits. They have both been given to us based on the Biblical record.

[ZNPaaneah]

The face cloth is called the "Sudarium of Oviedo". It's history can be seen here:

https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

There are a couple of key things that can be learned from this item.

1. The chain of custody is well documented as coming from Jesus crucifixion.

2. The stains indicate the face was upright when the man died.

3. The stains are one part blood and six parts pleural oedema indicating the person died of asphyxiation.

4. There are several stains indicating the face cloth was put on while the person was on the cross, an hour later they were laid down on the ground, about 45 minutes later they were lifted from the ground.

5. At the time of death when the cloth was first put on the head was tilted 70 degrees forward and twenty degrees to the right, indicative of a person who has been crucified.

6. Pollen taken from the Sudarium supports the historical account of the Sudarium first being in Jerusalem, then North Africa, Toledo and Oviedo.

7. Residue of myrrh and aloe were found.

8. the cloth has no artistic or monetary value. Keeping this cloth, taken from the tomb of a crucified person, is indicative of its authenticity.

Apparently Jewish tradition is that if the face of a dead person has been disfigured it should be covered, however you would not bury the person with the face covered, so the cloth presumably covered the face till he was put in the tomb and then removed.

[awareness]

If we're gonna talk the Sudarium of Oviedo, we may as well talk about the Holy Foreskin of Jesus.

The Holy Prepuce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

The Quest for the Holy Foreskin (The DNA of God):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INMSWi-ZpHU

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

If we're gonna talk the Sudarium of Oviedo, we may as well talk about the Holy Foreskin of Jesus.

The Holy Prepuce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

The Quest for the Holy Foreskin (The DNA of God):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INMSWi-ZpHU

The foreskin of Jesus would not prove the resurrection.

the Sudarium is a piece of physical evidence that corresponds with the account in the gospels and does help corroborate the story.

Also, there is no account of anyone requiring to see the foreskin in order to believe, nor is there any account in the Bible of Jesus providing this to anyone as a token of His Jewishness.

I would therefore refer you back to Post #1

Based on the gospel account of Thomas I asked two questions. Is it reasonable to ask for physical proof of the resurrection. And, #2, what physical proof of the resurrection has been given to us by Jesus.

The Sudarium is therefore relevant to this thread, the "holy foreskin" is not.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The foreskin of Jesus would not prove the resurrection.

the Sudarium is a piece of physical evidence that corresponds with the account in the gospels and does help corroborate the story.

Also, there is no account of anyone requiring to see the foreskin in order to believe, nor is there any account in the Bible of Jesus providing this to anyone as a token of His Jewishness.

I would therefore refer you back to Post #1

Based on the gospel account of Thomas I asked two questions. Is it reasonable to ask for physical proof of the resurrection. And, #2, what physical proof of the resurrection has been given to us by Jesus.

The Sudarium is therefore relevant to this thread, the "holy foreskin" is not.

You know nothing about the foreskin of Jesus. You obviously didn't read the wiki on it, nor did you watch the National Geographic youtube.

The foreskin was paraded as recent as 1982, in the streets of Italy, for veneration. People have believed in it for thousands of years.

And it's much, much, bigger than the pathetic Sudarium. The foreskin of Jesus would provide us with the DNA of Jesus, and the DNA of God.

And that's a big big deal.

But your are right, the foreskin of Jesus was pre-resurrection, not post resurrection. It stayed behind when Jesus ascended.

So if you are looking for proof of the resurrection, don't look to the holy foreskin of Jesus.

It's repulsive anyway. But no more silly than the Sudarium.

[awareness]

The Sudarium doesn't prove the resurrection. The most it proves, if anything, if you believe this fantasy is, the death of Jesus (if that who it is).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Sudarium doesn't prove the resurrection. The most it proves, if anything, if you believe this fantasy is, the death of Jesus (if that who it is).

It would certainly be exhibit one. But there were two clothes the face cloth and the shroud. What the Sudarium does accomplish is a chain of custody and can therefore confirm the authenticity of the Shroud as it has DNA, Blood and pollen evidence that can be compared with it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You know nothing about the foreskin of Jesus. You obviously didn't read the wiki on it, nor did you watch the National Geographic youtube.

The foreskin was paraded as recent as 1982, in the streets of Italy, for veneration. People have believed in it for thousands of years.

And it's much, much, bigger than the pathetic Sudarium. The foreskin of Jesus would provide us with the DNA of Jesus, and the DNA of God.

And that's a big big deal.

But your are right, the foreskin of Jesus was pre-resurrection, not post resurrection. It stayed behind when Jesus ascended.

So if you are looking for proof of the resurrection, don't look to the holy foreskin of Jesus.

It's repulsive anyway. But no more silly than the Sudarium.

Once again, this post is completely irrelevant to this thread as it does not address in any way the two questions in Post #1.

Thank you for the highly predictable attempt at a distraction.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Once again, this post is completely irrelevant to this thread as it does not address in any way the two questions in Post #1.

Thank you for the highly predictable attempt at a distraction.

You are welcome. I'm just being as silly as you are being.

[zeek]

Focus on the shroud if an instance of relicism. http://aleteia.org/2016/08/01/4-quic...ion-of-relics/ Relicism is a preoccupation with the flesh either literally or by means of artifacts associated with it. It's antithetical to New Testament faith. Paul said,

"Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer." II Corinthians 5:16.

Although relicism attempts to bolster faith, by fixating on the flesh it unintentionally fosters superstition and misses the true object of faith.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Focus on the shroud if an instance of relicism. http://aleteia.org/2016/08/01/4-quic...ion-of-relics/ Relicism is a preoccupation with the flesh either literally or by means of artifacts associated with it. It's antithetical to New Testament faith. Paul said, Although relicism attempts to bolster faith, by fixating on the flesh it unintentionally fosters superstition and misses the true object of faith.

Fair enough, this relates to question 1. So do you feel it is not reasonable?

We do know that the Bible refers to those who are "weak in the faith", Jesus certainly commended those who do not "fixate on the physical" but He didn't go so far as to rule this out as being a reasonable request, and He did show Thomas the nail prints.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Fair enough, this relates to question 1. So do you feel it is not reasonable?

We do know that the Bible refers to those who are "weak in the faith", Jesus certainly commended those who do not "fixate on the physical" but He didn't go so far as to rule this out as being a reasonable request, and He did show Thomas the nail prints.

Yeah, Jesus didn't smack Thomas in the head. But, the point of the story seems to be: Don't be like Thomas. Focusing on shrouds and other relics misses the point. Get the point?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah, Jesus didn't smack Thomas in the head. But, the point of the story seems to be: Don't be like Thomas. Focusing on shrouds and other relics misses the point. Get the point?

That is certainly one way to read it. The problem is that some are like Thomas and they have yet to be changed by faith. Telling this person "get the point" is the same as telling them that salvation is not for them.

Have you ever tried mountain climbing?

My first time climbing we had to cross from one foot hold to the next with a rather large split. I was unable to do it. Finally someone just pushed me off the cliff face (of course I was attached by a rope as I swung out of the frying pan and into the fire).

Another point of the story that seems perfectly reasonable to me is that out of 12 disciples, 1 will be like Thomas. Not a majority, but 8% is a large minority to just boot because they are weak in the faith.

When I read the gospels there seem to be many stories of people who needed help to believe, why is this any different?

Here is the other thing that bothers me. Suppose you were Peter, you were in the tomb and you saw the burial clothes folded up. What would you do? I find it very difficult to believe that those things would not be kept. Very often when I am looking for something that is lost I ask myself "would anyone have thrown this in the garbage by accident?" When I realize that would never have happened then I feel much better about looking for it, knowing that since it was not accidentally tossed in the trash it must be here somewhere.

In the same way, would any of the Lord's disciples have thrown the burial clothes in the trash? I feel certain the answer is no. Therefore I would like to find them. It is good to know that the Sudarium has been kept safe for all this time just as I would have thought.

Also, it is not faithless. They could not have known at the time about DNA, or blood type, or pollen, etc. But they knew it was important. However, today, 2,000 years later this item gives a much stronger testimony than anyone could have foreseen.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Luke 24:12But Peter arose, and ran unto the tomb; and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths by themselves; and he departed to his home, wondering at that which was come to pass.

These two linen cloths have tremendous value to a forensic scientist.

1st, the face cloth has an excellent chain of custody, a well documented history.

And you went exactly where I thought you would.

To pieces of cloth lost for some period of time and eventually found and given a history.

If you think these are really that important, then why aren't you meeting with the EO or the RCC? They are the ones with the relics. It seems that no one wanted or needed relics until Constantine. Suddenly the finding of relics was endorsed by his mom, so off to the races to generate relics. The early church had no need for such things and made no reference of them.

For someone who is ready to manhandle all kinds of scripture for all kinds of purposes, there is only the chirping of crickets concerning the claims in the Bible with respect to anything that should be preserved in the New Testament equivalent of the Ark of the Covenant. Not a word. Nothing about preserving the linens from the tomb. Nothing about having a sketch artist do a drawing of Peter at the tomb showing the linens in the way that they were arranged, signed by a bunch of people who agree that it is exactly what they saw and found.

Blood from a single person on linens that were in a particular position for less than 3 full 24 hour days is not very meaningful. Pollen from the right time of year? Dating back to about the right era? Surely you don't think they can date to the exact year.

And you feel the need to go here because you think that somehow everyone has the right to the same kind of evidence that Thomas had? On what basis do you make that claim? There is no "Because of Thomas" doctrine that makes physical evidence necessary or available. It just isn't so.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And you went exactly where I thought you would.

To pieces of cloth lost for some period of time and eventually found and given a history.

If you think these are really that important, then why aren't you meeting with the EO or the RCC?

I think evangelism is important and for about 8% of gospel contacts this is important. Obviously I also think many other things are important as well. I appreciate that the RCC has been a good steward of this relic. But essentially irrelevant as to whether I would wish to meet with them.

Originally Posted by OBW

They are the ones with the relics. It seems that no one wanted or needed relics until Constantine. Suddenly the finding of relics was endorsed by his mom, so off to the races to generate relics. The early church had no need for such things and made no reference of them.

They were referenced in the gospels. What else are you referring to?

Originally Posted by OBW

For someone who is ready to manhandle all kinds of scripture for all kinds of purposes, there is only the chirping of crickets concerning the claims in the Bible with respect to anything that should be preserved in the New Testament equivalent of the Ark of the Covenant. Not a word. Nothing about preserving the linens from the tomb. Nothing about having a sketch artist do a drawing of Peter at the tomb showing the linens in the way that they were arranged, signed by a bunch of people who agree that it is exactly what they saw and found.

Blood from a single person on linens that were in a particular position for less than 3 full 24 hour days is not very meaningful. Pollen from the right time of year? Dating back to about the right era? Surely you don't think they can date to the exact year.

You have to correlate what you can see scientifically, with what you know about Jewish tradition and correlate that with historical accounts. The historical accounts for the Sudarium is straightforward with good documentation. The real issue arises with the Shroud and that has to be dealt with in great detail.

Originally Posted by OBW

And you feel the need to go here because you think that somehow everyone has the right to the same kind of evidence that Thomas had? On what basis do you make that claim? There is no "Because of Thomas" doctrine that makes physical evidence necessary or available. It just isn't so.

The way I read the New Testament Thomas made this a condition of his receiving the truth of Jesus resurrection "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe."

Since believing the gospel is critical for our judgement at the judgement seat of Christ it does seem to me that it would be unrighteous to provide this evidence to Thomas but then tell all others that this request is "silly" or that physical evidence "is not the point". Since Jesus throne is established on righteousness I do consider that everyone has the right to this, even though it is not the point of the gospel and is not evidence of someone who is "strong in the faith". Basic principle is that "smoking flax He shall not quench and a bruised reed He shall not break".

[OBW]

From Mark 4 (quoting Isaiah 6)

". . . they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!"

And you think that there are relics around that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus rose from the dead? Even if you see such a relic and consider it as somehow real, it is a matter of faith that you accept it as such because there is no solid proof. Just a lengthy history begun (and back-filled) long after the event.

So the best you can claim is that they are something that might be compelling with respect to faith, but not with respect to verifiable proof.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

They were referenced in the gospels. What else are you referring to?

Not as a relic to rely upon to believe in the resurrection of Christ.

In fact, that one account did not result in believing. Rather it resulted in either confusion or the presumption that the body had been stolen or moved. Only Thomas is recorded as having doubted until he saw Jesus (not just some linens). No one is recorded as having realized the resurrection because of the linens. It is doubtful that he did not hear anything about the linens, but it was not compelling.

If the account on the morning after the resurrection is the only thing you have, then you have nothing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

From Mark 4 (quoting Isaiah 6)

". . . they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!"

And you think that there are relics around that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus rose from the dead? Even if you see such a relic and consider it as somehow real, it is a matter of faith that you accept it as such because there is no solid proof. Just a lengthy history begun (and back-filled) long after the event.

So the best you can claim is that they are something that might be compelling with respect to faith, but not with respect to verifiable proof.

Yes. Thomas was weak in the faith, "O ye of little faith" but not devoid of faith.

Originally Posted by OBW

Not as a relic to rely upon to believe in the resurrection of Christ.

In fact, that one account did not result in believing. Rather it resulted in either confusion or the presumption that the body had been stolen or moved. Only Thomas is recorded as having doubted until he saw Jesus (not just some linens). No one is recorded as having realized the resurrection because of the linens. It is doubtful that he did not hear anything about the linens, but it was not compelling.

If the account on the morning after the resurrection is the only thing you have, then you have nothing.

If this were a court of law that would be very compelling evidence. From a forensic standpoint it is not "nothing", but rather can act as a reliable witness to the account. In the end it is simply another witness. You can only be saved by believing. But the Lord is righteous that they may be without excuse.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If this were a court of law that would be very compelling evidence. From a forensic standpoint it is not "nothing", but rather can act as a reliable witness to the account. In the end it is simply another witness. You can only be saved by believing. But the Lord is righteous that they may be without excuse.

If this were true, then every serious theologian would have this evidence before courts so that the facts could be ascertained as true. Just think of all the people who would be swayed by such a serious fact. But they have not. And will not because even the issue with certain relics is that it is a matter of faith.

And as this is not something even suggested by the Bible, I am compelled to dismiss it as fantasy. A world for dreamers. For those who can talk about what their evidence would do in a courtroom but never bring it close to one because that would destroy the illusion.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

If this were true, then every serious theologian would have this evidence before courts so that the facts could be ascertained as true. Just think of all the people who would be swayed by such a serious fact. But they have not. And will not because even the issue with certain relics is that it is a matter of faith.

And as this is not something even suggested by the Bible, I am compelled to dismiss it as fantasy. A world for dreamers. For those who can talk about what their evidence would do in a courtroom but never bring it close to one because that would destroy the illusion.

Gill’s exposition.

“he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves; in which the body of Jesus was wrapped; these lay by themselves, without the body, in one place; and the napkin about his head was wrapped together, and lay in another place by itself: so that it was a plain case, the body was not stolen, nor taken away; for neither friends, nor foes, would have taken the pains, or have lost so much time, as to have stripped the body, but would rather have carried off the clothes along with it.”

“wondering in himself at that which was come to pass; that the body should not be there, and yet the clothes should remain; he could not tell what to make of it. As for a resurrection, he had no notion of that, and yet could not account for the removal of the body, either by friends or foes, and the clothes left behind.”

So Gill's exposition understands this passage concerning the clothes as evidence the body was not stolen or removed.

Barnes exposition:

"Except I shall see ... - It is not known what was the ground of the incredulity of Thomas. It is probable, however, that it was, in part, at least, the effect of deep grief, and of that despondency which fills the mind when a long-cherished hope is taken away. In such a case it requires proof of uncommon clearness and strength to overcome the despondency, and to convince us that we may obtain the object of our desires. Thomas has been much blamed by expositors, but he asked only for proof that would be satisfactory in his circumstances. The testimony of ten disciples should have been indeed sufficient, but an opportunity was thus given to the Saviour to convince the last of them of the truth of his resurrection. This incident shows, what all the conduct of the apostles proves, that they had not conspired together to impose on the world. Even they were slow to believe, and one of them refused to rely even on the testimony of ten of his brethren. How unlike this to the conduct of men who agree to impose a story on mankind! Many are like Thomas. Many now are unwilling to believe because they do not see the Lord Jesus, and with just as little reason as Thomas had. The testimony of those eleven men - including Thomas who saw him alive after he was crucified; who were willing to lay down their lives to attest that they had seen him alive; who had nothing to gain by imposture, and whose conduct was removed as far as possible from the appearance of imposture, should be regarded as ample proof of the fact that he rose from the dead."


I personally consider the fact that the Shroud has been largely ignored and deemed as unimpressive until just recently as the most convincing part of the testimony. It is the scientists, not the theologians, who originally set out to prove that it was a forgery. These are the ones who have become the most overawed by the shroud.

You may not be aware of this but the Shroud of Turin is the most intensely studied artifact in human history. We have applied more forensic tests to this article than to any other artifact, ever.

We thought the blood would be a fake, or the pollen would prove it was a fake, the wounds, etc. They thought the image was created with some form of paint, dye or other technique. The fact that after 28 years of intense study we cannot find any evidence that it is a forgery, that we still can't reproduce how this was made, it is truly unbelievable that a forger from 500 years ago could have done this. If this were true then you would have both the stupidest forger and the most brilliant. Stupid because the purpose of the forgery is to impress the public. This did not really happen till hundreds of years later when it was realized the image was a negative. It was very difficult for tourists and crowds to see, but the photograph is what caught people's imagination. Talk about "before your time". Yet, brilliant because we have been unable to find any evidence that it is a forgery. We have used state of the art imaging software from NASA to recreate the 3d face of the person crucified from the 2d image and discovered that the image did in fact contain a 3d image, something that makes creating a forgery all the harder, but that it was a very normal looking middle eastern face.

There are two key points on the shroud that completely contradict the common understanding of the day. First, the wounds from the nails were accurate on the shroud whereas artist from the time it was first recorded showing up in Turin put them in the wrong place. One would think that a forger would also put them where the public would expect to see them. The second is that the crown of thorns was completely different. All paintings depict a crown woven from thorns as though the Roman soldiers did basket weaving as a hobby. However, the wounds on the shroud suggest that a clump of thorns was pushed down on the head which seems much more likely.

Also, the blood type matches the blood type of the Sudarium. Now if a forger did this then it is really lucky, the odds were one in ten.

But here is what I find the single most compelling piece of evidence. It was not originally obvious, but under careful examination they realized a strip had been cut off the length of the shroud and then sewn back. It was done with tremendous skill. This is explained saying that when a person is wrapped in the burial clothe they cut a strip used to tie up the body. So this means that some person, very skilled at sewing took the time to sew this back on in an extremely careful way. Now why would anyone take a shroud off of a dead person, a person who had been put to death for some serious crime, and do that? It seems to me that if you had a community of 500 or 1,000 people they picked the single best seamstress and this persons work was an act of devotion and love. I cannot see any other reasonable explanation. Why would a forger do this?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is no "Because of Thomas" doctrine that makes physical evidence necessary or available. It just isn't so.

Amen OBW, I've been a little more blunt about it. But bro ZNP just keeps on throwing out more "proof." Like we can actually see the nail prints today.

It's kind of loony if you ask me. And these shroud's are way too loony to take serious. But not to bro ZNP. To him they're real actual physical proof of the resurrection ; somehow that is, by the stretch of a wild imagine. Maybe it doesn't match this thread, but they are as absurd as the foreskin of Jesus ; just a different relic. Only the weak of faith need them. But people will believe anything. That's what the holy foreskin of Jesus teaches us.

[Evangelical]

Radiocarbon dating of the shroud has revealed that it does not date to the time of Christ but instead to the 14th century.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Radiocarbon dating of the shroud has revealed that it does not date to the time of Christ but instead to the 14th century.

Yes, the radiocarbon dating says 14th century. So then you have two possible theories, the first is that it is a 14th century forgery. That was the assumption that most of the scientists had when they began.

So then, let us consider this 14th century forger.

1st we assumed that the blood would be chicken or pig, etc. But it was human.

2nd we assumed that the blood would be a different blood type from the Suderian (the odds were 90% that it would be different) but it wasn't, it was the same.

3rd. We assumed that pollen would prove that this relic never left Turin, but instead the pollen showed that it had been in Jerusalem, Turkey, and Constantinople prior to the time for which we have a well documented record of where it was.

4th We were also able to prove that the shroud had once laid on the floor of a limestone cave in Jerusalem. Although limestone can be found around the world, the trace elements in limestone give it a unique fingerprint. Because the only real question concerning the shroud is whether or not it is the actual shroud of Jesus the scientists used that limestone as a comparison and discovered a match.

5th We also assumed the image was made by some kind of paint or dye. It isn't.

6th Some thought that it might have been made by projecting some kind of crude photographic image onto Shroud (14th century predates the invention of photography, but clearly this forger was way ahead of his time). However, this theory was disproved when they discovered that 3 dimensional information is encoded in the image (see the Nova special -- the face of Jesus). That strange elongated face is created when you drape a shroud over a 3d image. When they ran it through the imaging software the result is a much more normal, middle eastern face of a relatively young man.

7th we were able to match the wounds on the back to an actual Roman artifact from the time of Jesus.

8th we assumed we could easily prove the item a forgery based on the textile. This is how many paintings are proven forgeries. However, it has been confirmed to be accurate for a Jewish burial, the material is accurate for the time, and the weave is accurate.

9th we assumed a forger would position the nail holes where you see them in paintings, in the palms, rather then in the wrist. However, the nail holes were accurate and as a result you can see that the nerve connecting the thumb had been severed, which is what you would expect.

10th We found evidence that one knee was swollen, which does correspond to the story of him falling on it while carrying the cross.

11th we also found evidence that the wounds on one shoulder were mashed down which would be expected if you were carrying a heavy weight.

12th We found something very strange, the crown of thorns was not as it is depicted in paintings, but rather a clump of thorns marks all over the head as though they chopped off a bush and stuck it on his head. Forensic scientists always look for the parts of the record that don't match recorded history. The clump of thorns appears much more believable than having some Roman soldier doing arts and crafts at the time of the crucifixion.

13th When you look at the blood pattern from the wrists you can see two distinct blood flows. When we reconstruct it there is a direct correlation to a person hanging from the cross in one, and then pulling themselves up to breath in the second.

14th. Not only do we know that the shroud was in Jerusalem, on the limestone that the tombs are in. But we also know, from the pollen, the time of year, which also matches the account that this happened over the passover. We did find pollen from this very severe thorn bush that grows in Jerusalem and is called "the crown of thorns". But, they also found pollen from about 40 other types of flowers around Jerusalem which would be reasonable according to Jewish burial customs.

At this point the only way a forger could have done this was to reenact a real crucifixion with a real person who just happens to have had the same blood type as Jesus. Even so they would have had to have been able to reproduce their own cloth that perfectly matches the cloth of the time in both weave and composition. They would have had to use Roman artifacts that were over 1,000 years old. Even if they did all that we still don't understand how the image got on the cloth, and this is after 30 years of study.

Now, even if you want to believe that there really was such a forger, that it fine, you are doing it based on the carbon dating, so it isn't as though your conclusion is baseless.

But then you are left with two very big problems to your theory that this is a forgery.

1. There are late 7th century byzantine coins which depict a shroud.

2. You have to explain the iconographic image of Christ the Pantocrator -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Pantocrator

This is the first time in history we see the iconic image of Jesus face, which we see on the Shroud, and which has been adopted since. This was made in the 6th or 7th century, almost 800 years before the supposed age of the shroud. Why this strange appearance of the face? The images of Jesus prior to this came in a wide variety, all looking relatively normal or else God like (Zeus, etc). But after this we get this very strange looking face that people even suggested Jesus might have some strange disease. However, once we did the 3d modeling we discovered that this strange looking face is what happens when you drape a cloth over a face and then flatten out the cloth. The face on the cloth of the person who was crucified was normal looking, and that is the way in which Jesus was depicted for 700 years until this one church in Jerusalem was built with this image. Now one very reasonable explanation is that this picture was based on the shroud. But if that is true then the carbon dating is wrong.

3. The image of Edessa had the face of Jesus on it, this dates to the 6th century. We don't know what this item was, but apparently it had the exact same image that the shroud has. Because this became the image for the face of Jesus from then on.

4. There is an account of the image of Jesus rising up out of a box in a big cathedral in Constantinople from around this time. There are also strange fold marks on the shroud of Turin which when replicated would explain the folds you would see if it were kept in this box and pulled up like a screen to be on display.

So yes, we do have a single piece of evidence that says it is a forgery from the 14th century but that would not explain these 4 historical accounts of a shroud or image that predate that by close to 1,000 years. It also does not explain how a forger could do such a masterful job that after 30 years scientists have not been able to figure out or recreate.

The basic premise of science is that you get "reproducible" results. You can claim that you have discovered "cold fusion" but until we can reproduce your results no one is going to accept that. This is where we are with the Shroud, no one can explain all of the questions, nor can we reproduce it.

On the other hand there is are plausible explanations for why the carbon dating says 14th century whereas the Shroud is actually much older.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Radiocarbon dating of the shroud has revealed that it does not date to the time of Christ but instead to the 14th century.

Which means, if we're rightful doubting Thomas's today, we're not ever going to have the type of proof Thomas had. Try as he may, bro ZNP is not going to be able to offer such proof.

All we have today, as proof, is 'the comforter.' That's not physical scientific proof, so, if that's not enough for doubters today, then doubters will not be or become followers of Jesus.

But it's been enough for over a billion Christians today, and billions thru the millennia.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Which means, if we're rightful doubting Thomas's today, we're not ever going to have the type of proof Thomas had. Try as he may, bro ZNP is not going to be able to offer such proof.

All we have today, as proof, is 'the comforter.' That's not physical scientific proof, so, if that's not enough for doubters today, then doubters will not be or become followers of Jesus.

But it's been enough for over a billion Christians today, and billions thru the millennia.

I think the principal is that Joshua and Caleb have to wait for the entire nation to enter the good land. This is a non issue for the mighty men of faith, but for the weakest among us this is important.

Also, I find it interesting that the people most interested in this are the scientists. They describe it like going to a 14th century magic show where the patrons are not all that impressed with the magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat. The scientist come in with all of their 20th century and 21st century technology. Super slow motion camera, infrared goggles, super computers, scales that can measure down to the weight of a hair. But the more they examine this the more impressed they become.

The New Jerusalem has 12 gates, just because this is not the gate that you came in or even the gate that 11/12ths of believers came in doesn't make it unimportant for the other 1/12th.

Also, for me it has several benefits. First it has caused me to look at these verses in the gospels anew. I find it very interesting that the clothes were left. This does appear to me as very strong evidence that the body was not stolen or taken. A grave robber would not do this.

I also find it interesting that one of the 12 didn't believe he had risen. This demonstrates to me that there was no conspiracy among the apostles to spread this kind of story.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, the radiocarbon dating says 14th century. So then you have two possible theories, the first is that it is a 14th century forgery. That was the assumption that most of the scientists had when they began.

So then, let us consider this 14th century forger.

1st we assumed that the blood would be chicken or pig, etc. But it was human.

2nd we assumed that the blood would be a different blood type from the Suderian (the odds were 90% that it would be different) but it wasn't, it was the same.

3rd. We assumed that pollen would prove that this relic never left Turin, but instead the pollen showed that it had been in Jerusalem, Turkey, and Constantinople prior to the time for which we have a well documented record of where it was.

4th We were also able to prove that the shroud had once laid on the floor of a limestone cave in Jerusalem. Although limestone can be found around the world, the trace elements in limestone give it a unique fingerprint. Because the only real question concerning the shroud is whether or not it is the actual shroud of Jesus the scientists used that limestone as a comparison and discovered a match.

5th We also assumed the image was made by some kind of paint or dye. It isn't.

6th Some thought that it might have been made by projecting some kind of crude photographic image onto Shroud (14th century predates the invention of photography, but clearly this forger was way ahead of his time). However, this theory was disproved when they discovered that 3 dimensional information is encoded in the image (see the Nova special -- the face of Jesus). That strange elongated face is created when you drape a shroud over a 3d image. When they ran it through the imaging software the result is a much more normal, middle eastern face of a relatively young man.

7th we were able to match the wounds on the back to an actual Roman artifact from the time of Jesus.

8th we assumed we could easily prove the item a forgery based on the textile. This is how many paintings are proven forgeries. However, it has been confirmed to be accurate for a Jewish burial, the material is accurate for the time, and the weave is accurate.

9th we assumed a forger would position the nail holes where you see them in paintings, in the palms, rather then in the wrist. However, the nail holes were accurate and as a result you can see that the nerve connecting the thumb had been severed, which is what you would expect.

10th We found evidence that one knee was swollen, which does correspond to the story of him falling on it while carrying the cross.

11th we also found evidence that the wounds on one shoulder were mashed down which would be expected if you were carrying a heavy weight.

12th We found something very strange, the crown of thorns was not as it is depicted in paintings, but rather a clump of thorns marks all over the head as though they chopped off a bush and stuck it on his head. Forensic scientists always look for the parts of the record that don't match recorded history. The clump of thorns appears much more believable than having some Roman soldier doing arts and crafts at the time of the crucifixion.

13th When you look at the blood pattern from the wrists you can see two distinct blood flows. When we reconstruct it there is a direct correlation to a person hanging from the cross in one, and then pulling themselves up to breath in the second.

14th. Not only do we know that the shroud was in Jerusalem, on the limestone that the tombs are in. But we also know, from the pollen, the time of year, which also matches the account that this happened over the passover. We did find pollen from this very severe thorn bush that grows in Jerusalem and is called "the crown of thorns". But, they also found pollen from about 40 other types of flowers around Jerusalem which would be reasonable according to Jewish burial customs.

At this point the only way a forger could have done this was to reenact a real crucifixion with a real person who just happens to have had the same blood type as Jesus. Even so they would have had to have been able to reproduce their own cloth that perfectly matches the cloth of the time in both weave and composition. They would have had to use Roman artifacts that were over 1,000 years old. Even if they did all that we still don't understand how the image got on the cloth, and this is after 30 years of study.

Now, even if you want to believe that there really was such a forger, that it fine, you are doing it based on the carbon dating, so it isn't as though your conclusion is baseless.

But then you are left with two very big problems to your theory that this is a forgery.

1. There are late 7th century byzantine coins which depict a shroud.

2. You have to explain the iconographic image of Christ the Pantocrator -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Pantocrator

This is the first time in history we see the iconic image of Jesus face, which we see on the Shroud, and which has been adopted since. This was made in the 6th or 7th century, almost 800 years before the supposed age of the shroud. Why this strange appearance of the face? The images of Jesus prior to this came in a wide variety, all looking relatively normal or else God like (Zeus, etc). But after this we get this very strange looking face that people even suggested Jesus might have some strange disease. However, once we did the 3d modeling we discovered that this strange looking face is what happens when you drape a cloth over a face and then flatten out the cloth. The face on the cloth of the person who was crucified was normal looking, and that is the way in which Jesus was depicted for 700 years until this one church in Jerusalem was built with this image. Now one very reasonable explanation is that this picture was based on the shroud. But if that is true then the carbon dating is wrong.

3. The image of Edessa had the face of Jesus on it, this dates to the 6th century. We don't know what this item was, but apparently it had the exact same image that the shroud has. Because this became the image for the face of Jesus from then on.

4. There is an account of the image of Jesus rising up out of a box in a big cathedral in Constantinople from around this time. There are also strange fold marks on the shroud of Turin which when replicated would explain the folds you would see if it were kept in this box and pulled up like a screen to be on display.

So yes, we do have a single piece of evidence that says it is a forgery from the 14th century but that would not explain these 4 historical accounts of a shroud or image that predate that by close to 1,000 years. It also does not explain how a forger could do such a masterful job that after 30 years scientists have not been able to figure out or recreate.

The basic premise of science is that you get "reproducible" results. You can claim that you have discovered "cold fusion" but until we can reproduce your results no one is going to accept that. This is where we are with the Shroud, no one can explain all of the questions, nor can we reproduce it.

On the other hand there is are plausible explanations for why the carbon dating says 14th century whereas the Shroud is actually much older.

That's the remarkable thing about radio carbon dating, it's reliable when concerning billions of years and age of the Earth, but for a possibly 2000 year old piece of cloth it is apparently unreliable.

One key thing that shows it is fake is that it clearly depicts a man with long hair. Most biblical scholars believe that Jesus's hair was probably short with tight curls.

The Apostle Paul, said "long hair on a man is a disgrace" (1 Corinthians 11:14). Paul would not have said that if Jesus had long hair.

The shroud depicts a "Byzantine Jesus" which is not what he looked like according to Professor Taylor professor of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism at King's College London :

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965

Jesus would have looked more like the depiction of Moses in the 3rd Century synagogue of Dura-Europos.

Also the height of the man in the shroud (5 ft 7 in to 6 ft 2 in) is too tall to be that of an average Jewish man in the first century (5 ft 1 to f ft 5).
A 6 ft tall shroud of turin man at that time would be very noticeable, and the bible would depict Jesus as such, which it does not. According to Isaiah 53:2, Jesus was average looking, nothing remarkable about his outward appearance such as height, like the bible says about Saul: 1 Sam 9:2 His son Saul was the most handsome man in Israel--head and shoulders taller than anyone else in the land.

The problem with these kinds of images is that it deceives people into following a different Jesus, an image of Jesus which is the creation of artists and movies.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's the remarkable thing about radio carbon dating, it's reliable when concerning billions of years and age of the Earth, but for a possibly 2000 year old piece of cloth it is apparently unreliable.

One key thing that shows it is fake is that it clearly depicts a man with long hair. Most biblical scholars believe that Jesus's hair was probably short with tight curls.

The Apostle Paul, said "long hair on a man is a disgrace" (1 Corinthians 11:14). Paul would not have said that if Jesus had long hair.

The shroud depicts a "Byzantine Jesus" which is not what he looked like according to Professor Taylor professor of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism at King's College London :

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965

Jesus would have looked more like the depiction of Moses in the 3rd Century synagogue of Dura-Europos.

Also the height of the man in the shroud (5 ft 7 in to 6 ft 2 in) is too tall to be that of an average Jewish man in the first century (5 ft 1 to f ft 5).
A 6 ft tall shroud of turin man at that time would be very noticeable, and the bible would depict Jesus as such, which it does not. According to Isaiah 53:2, Jesus was average looking, nothing remarkable about his outward appearance such as height, like the bible says about Saul: 1 Sam 9:2 His son Saul was the most handsome man in Israel--head and shoulders taller than anyone else in the land.

The problem with these kinds of images is that it deceives people into following a different Jesus, an image of Jesus which is the creation of artists and movies.

So taller than average, and longer than average hair "prove" that it is fake? Once again your posts are very revealing as to your scientific acumen.

But let's think about that, here is a forger, he has been able to accurately replicate the textiles of the day in composition, weave, and what was appropriate for Jewish tradition. He has also gone ahead and crucified another man in Jerusalem in the 14th century going so far as to place the corpse in a tomb in Jerusalem before taking the shroud. During this crucifixion they scourge the man using a Roman artifact that would have been more than 1,000 years old at the time. Yet this person who is able to do this doesn't know what the average height of man is back then? He chooses to use a weird looking face rather than something more ordinary, he gets the hair wrong. So basically this brilliant forger who has completely stumped the scientific community was an idiot? That is your hypothesis?

[OBW]

ZNP,

For the 14th century forger, while they might not have had reason to go to such lengths, they could have:

• Used a real body of someone of the right "class"
• Damaged them in the way presumed to be consistent with Jesus
• Done this in the vicinity of Jerusalem
• Took the them on the trip to where they were eventually declared "found" and to be what they wanted them to be.

Statistics are not a friend of proof. And the writers who provide the support are most likely of the group that would want to be finding such an artifact. Is their analysis truly objective or are they seeing what they want to see?

I do believe that your are.

But it is difficult to discuss anything with the smartest person in the room. So I might just leave you to your fantasy. Sort of like when you started in analyzing the facts and conjecture surrounding the source of the "Landslide Lyndon" nickname. For what reasonable purpose is this part of "Local Church Discussions"?? It's not as strong a connection as powerplants, wires and electricity when discussing the power of Christ and that one is really "out there."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

ZNP,

For the 14th century forger, while they might not have had reason to go to such lengths, they could have:

• Used a real body of someone of the right "class"
• Damaged them in the way presumed to be consistent with Jesus
• Done this in the vicinity of Jerusalem
• Took the them on the trip to where they were eventually declared "found" and to be what they wanted them to be.

Statistics are not a friend of proof. And the writers who provide the support are most likely of the group that would want to be finding such an artifact. Is their analysis truly objective or are they seeing what they want to see?

I do believe that your are.

But it is difficult to discuss anything with the smartest person in the room. So I might just leave you to your fantasy. Sort of like when you started in analyzing the facts and conjecture surrounding the source of the "Landslide Lyndon" nickname. For what reasonable purpose is this part of "Local Church Discussions"?? It's not as strong a connection as powerplants, wires and electricity when discussing the power of Christ and that one is really "out there."

I consider James 1:8 to be one of the most central and critical verses for the Local Church discussions. The reference to "Landslide Lyndon" was illustrating that, the use of it as an illustration was not understood. Therefore I elaborated on the Box 13 scandal thread.

I believe that the book of James is perhaps the one book in the New Testament that fully deals with what we saw happen in the Lord's Recovery churches of Witness Lee. It is significant that he begins with James 1:8, just as Box 13 scandal is really where our modern presidency went off the rails. It wasn't JFK's assassination, prior to that you had people who stole an election, joked about stealing the election, it was well known they stole the election, and everyone just shrugged it off.

Well I don't think too many people are laughing about stealing elections now. They are already talking about investigating whether or not their are ethics violations and he has not been inaugurated yet. By definition a "double minded man" has "ethics violations". So, James would ask, is he "unstable, unreliable and uncertain" about everything? That is the expression of a double minded man.

When Witness Lee was able to steal the saints money with Daystar, laugh about it, and everyone shrugged it off, that was when the fox was in the henhouse. That was when we saw the double minded man who was unstable in all of his ways. Everything else was the logical outcome.

You are certainly right that what we are viewing as a forger might merely have been an accurate reenactment of a crucifixion, including scourging and a crown of thorns. It would be remarkable that they got it so right when prevailing wisdom was wrong on a few key aspects. It would be very lucky (1/10) that the man they executed had the same blood type as Jesus, and it would display excellent scholarship all of the fine details they got right. It is difficult to imagine there is no record of this event, but that is a small detail.

Even in the unlikely event that all of that is true it still doesn't explain the image on the shroud or how it got there.

It doesn't explain where this image of Edessa on which Jesus face is based since the 7th century came from.

Doesn't explain the byzantine coins and other historical references to a shroud.

Nor does it explain how Christians could take care of the face covering for 2,000 years as a sacred relic, yet seemed to have lost the shroud.

Finally, it doesn't explain why they took the strip that was cut from the shroud and sewed it back on in such a meticulous way. There is no precedent or Jewish tradition for that.

On the other hand, if the shroud is really the shroud you then only have one question, which is why the carbon dating says 14th century? There is a picture of how many priests used to hold it up for the crowds to see. Is it possible that a strip of cloth was added so that they wouldn't be handling the shroud?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So taller than average, and longer than average hair "prove" that it is fake? Once again your posts are very revealing as to your scientific acumen.

But let's think about that, here is a forger, he has been able to accurately replicate the textiles of the day in composition, weave, and what was appropriate for Jewish tradition. He has also gone ahead and crucified another man in Jerusalem in the 14th century going so far as to place the corpse in a tomb in Jerusalem before taking the shroud. During this crucifixion they scourge the man using a Roman artifact that would have been more than 1,000 years old at the time. Yet this person who is able to do this doesn't know what the average height of man is back then? He chooses to use a weird looking face rather than something more ordinary, he gets the hair wrong. So basically this brilliant forger who has completely stumped the scientific community was an idiot? That is your hypothesis?

I am sure that the Catholic church would go to any length to preserve their integrity, think of all the destruction they have caused through the ages and what lengths they went to preserve themselves. Just because modern science cannot explain it does not mean it is not a forgery. Ancient techniques could have been used that we are not aware of today.

This article says that a number of these cloths were produced in the middle ages:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ucifixion.html

The hair thing did not come from me. Professor Taylor was the scientist who believes Jesus's hair was short. Numerous experts in that area believe that. Long hair is simply not compatible with an average Jewish man of the time. Nor is it compatible with the apostle Paul's views on men with long hair. All of the disciples including Jesus would have had short hair. If Jesus had long hair we should find some mention of it. The image looks more like King Alfred the Great than a first century Jew.

Why would carbon dating of 2000 year old material be less reliable than carbon dating of fossils etc over billions of years?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That did not come from me. Professor Taylor was the scientist who believes Jesus's hair was short. Numerous experts in that area believe that. Long hair is simply not compatible with an average Jewish man of the time.
If Jesus had long hair we should find some mention of it.

Why would carbon dating of 2000 year old material be less reliable than carbon dating of fossils etc over billions of years?

Carbon dating this relic was extremely problematic because it is a sacred relic and you have to destroy part of it to date it. As a result they were given the corner of the shroud that would not have been the first choice.

One theory is that a piece of cloth was added in the 14th century so that those holding it up would not be touching the sacred relic.

In my opinion the fold marks on the shroud a very persuasive proof that this is the shroud that held the image of Jesus which rose up out of box in a church in Constantinople about 500 years earlier than the 14th century and hence the shroud referred to by the Byzantine coins from the 7th century. I also feel it is the simplest and best explanation for why all images of Jesus after the 7th century all seem to have the same strange looking face.

It seems quite reasonable to me that the genuine shroud would be kept safe all these years. It is the simplest, and in my mind, best explanation for why the blood type of the two relics match.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am sure that the Catholic church would go to any length to preserve their integrity, think of all the destruction they have caused through the ages and what lengths they went to preserve themselves. Just because modern science cannot explain it does not mean it is not a forgery. Ancient techniques could have been used that we are not aware of today.

I realize people get away with forgery. But when you focus an intense light on a forgery there is no forgery that can stand. The most intense light ever focused on any artifact is on the Shroud. Scientists know this, which is why they were very confident that they would prove it was a forgery within the two weeks of the original study. 30 years later the consensus among those involved is that if it were not for the implication the shroud would have been declared authentic a long time ago.

As for the experts, 30 years ago I was told the story of the crucifixion was false because they don't scourge someone who is going to be crucified. Well, the shroud is very compelling evidence that at least one man was scourged and crucified and also had a crown of thorns on his head.

[Evangelical]

http://www.lindro.it/sindone-le-ragioni-del-no/

translated here:

https://shroudstory.com/tag/antonio-lombatti/

Archaeology and History

The linen threads of the Shroud have a twisting opposite to that in use in Israel at the time of Jesus; this twisting, however, is the same that was used in Europe in the Middle Ages. Then the shroud is not a fabric produced in Palestine at the time of Jesus .

The flax is woven with the technique twill from 3 Alloy 1, that is, each warp yarn passes over three weft yarns and under the fourth, and so on , alternately, so as to form a diagonal pattern. This trend is mirrored and gives rise to an effect to ‘zig zag’ said ‘herringbone’. It is not known in ancient times , before the Middle Ages, no linen fabric large and complex as the shroud that has been woven with this technique , with which the frames would have been at the disposal of the old extreme complexity to the point of making it almost impossible. No ‘ shroud ‘ and no linen fabric ancient comparable to the shroud is made ​​in this way . The oldest examples found so far, which are technically comparable to the Shroud are all back to the thirteenth century.

The Shroud of Turin is completely different from the various fragments of authentic Palestinian shrouds of the first century known to archaeologists, found in tombs at Masada, ‘En Gedi, Jericho, Akeldama.

It seems that the real shrouds were wrapped around the body and tied , and not placed above and below , and stir well stretched in the longitudinal direction, as seems to be the case for that of Turin. The Shroud is not even consistent with the description of the Gospel , which speaks of various linens and a shroud on the head, smaller and distinguished from other fabrics. Also the Gospels do not say that Jesus was put in a sheet , but that was wrapped and tied in cloth, which is incompatible with what you see in the Shroud of Turin , where there are no signs of ligatures and windings .

This seems solid proof to me.:
John 19:40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.

It does say the body of Jesus was bound, with cloths, not one cloth. The shroud was a sheet that cover the whole body. It cannot be the same thing.

Also the shroud should have no blood on it because according to Jewish burial customs, the body would be washed before being placed into the shroud.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The problem with these kinds of images is that it deceives people into following a different Jesus, an image of Jesus which is the creation of artists and movies.

And the two shroud's conflict. If he had a head wrap then Turin wouldn't show such a head shot. But people will believe anything. That's what the holy foreskin of Jesus teaches us. People love relics.

Check out the Maria Stein Shrine of the Holy Relics.
http://www.mariasteinshrine.org/

ZNP won't be able to contain himself.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So taller than average, and longer than average hair "prove" that it is fake? Once again your posts are very revealing as to your scientific acumen.

You can't claim scientific acumen until you display some.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

It's not as strong a connection as powerplants, wires and electricity when discussing the power of Christ and that one is really "out there."

Nee, Lee, and ZNPee

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I consider James 1:8 to be one of the most central and critical verses for the Local Church discussions.

James 1:8 was written long long before the age of multitasking and Adderall.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

And the two shroud's conflict. If he had a head wrap then Turin wouldn't show such a head shot. But people will believe anything. That's what the holy foreskin of Jesus teaches us. People love relics.

Check out the Maria Stein Shrine of the Holy Relics.
http://www.mariasteinshrine.org/

ZNP won't be able to contain himself.

Shrouded in mystery isn't it?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And the two shroud's conflict. If he had a head wrap then Turin wouldn't show such a head shot. But people will believe anything. That's what the holy foreskin of Jesus teaches us. People love relics.

Check out the Maria Stein Shrine of the Holy Relics.
http://www.mariasteinshrine.org/

ZNP won't be able to contain himself.

Or perhaps people do shoddy research and don't actually read. The head covering does not remain on the person. They put it on him on the cross (we can determine that from basic gravity flow of the blood). It was pinned to his head to cover his face apparently according to Jewish tradition for a person whose face had been injured prior to death. However, in the tomb it was removed.

I have no issue for people who have put forth various theories, but it should be based on a solid understanding, not shoddy cursory reading and sarcastic remarks, typical of old, bitter, curmudgeons.

Just to clarify your position, can you answer these questions:

1. When the Bible refers to the burial clothes do you feel that these were real or fictitious?

If you feel they were real, then

2. Do you feel that the Sudarium is the face cloth that was used on Jesus?

3. Since you don't feel that the Shroud of Turin is the genuine shroud that Jesus was buried in, what do you think happened to that shroud?

Thanks

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You can't claim scientific acumen until you display some.

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Jesus had plenty of acumen, I'll accept His insight on how your posts reveal your heart.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

ZNP,

But it is difficult to discuss anything with the smartest person in the room. So I might just leave you to your fantasy. Sort of like when you started in analyzing the facts and conjecture surrounding the source of the "Landslide Lyndon" nickname. For what reasonable purpose is this part of "Local Church Discussions"?? It's not as strong a connection as powerplants, wires and electricity when discussing the power of Christ and that one is really "out there."

Well, before I answer it lets both agree that this post sums up nicely the mission of this forum. It is from the thread: What This Forum Means To You. What This Forum Should Be. and is Post #2.

But this forum is the only place that gives actual discussion of the LRC a chance to happen in a mostly unhindered fashion.

At some level, a magic wand should:
• Make us so that we are willing to accept that we don't agree. To build our case for our position rather than just rant when it is not agreed with. And start with the presumption that the thing disagreed with or being critiqued is the post, not the person. Quit taking disagreement personally.

• Establish strong moderation that has the time to evenly enforce certain kinds of rules, like off-topic posts, baiting, trolling, etc. Maybe the likes of Harold and zeek would have altered their ways before we kind of ganged up on them and they saw nothing left to do but leave. I fear that is more their loss than ours, but that is my opinion.

• We need to accept that written communication is not perfect and start with the presumption that the most negative way to take something is the wrong way to start out. Instead assume the best and go forward with it. Assume that there is a misunderstanding rather than an attack.

• Unfortunately, one of my wishes is for the return of some of the people who thought it was worthwhile to actually dissect Lee's teachings rather than just snip at them or instead just talk about the bad leadership. There is plenty to say about the bad leadership. But I believe it was an environment void of true spiritual/scriptural teaching that could allow such bad leadership on such a grand scale. So being disinterested in it seems to miss the core of what was wrong with the LRC from before most of us had ever even heard of it.

• Willingness to critique Nee along with Lee. Even after we began to see Nee's errors, most still just sort of wave it away. (Kind of like Father Guido Sarducci says the Vatican waved one miracle to finally get an American Saint. (really old SNL))

Mostly, I always hope that we will learn to be open to a different perspective. As long as we continue to think only like we were already taught, we are doomed to follow the same paths and patterns. And even when I think I disagree with something, I at least consider it. And try to see it from the perspective of the other person before I dismiss it. I have learned some things that way. Some of them have made significant changes in my thinking and beliefs. (And not all are about the LRC. I'm talking about things outside this forum.)


Let's also agree that the "alternative views" portion of the LCD really addresses those aspects which you directly referred to:

"unhindered fashion"

"makes us willing to accept that we don't agree"

This addition to LCD is a way for the likes of Harold, Zeek and ZNP a freer opportunity to participate.

"assume the best" -- just because you haven't heard what is being shared or do not think you agree with it, perhaps that is simply a misunderstanding.

focus on the "core of what was wrong", not just bad leadership.

Finally this:

Mostly, I always hope that we will learn to be open to a different perspective. As long as we continue to think only like we were already taught, we are doomed to follow the same paths and patterns. And even when I think I disagree with something, I at least consider it. And try to see it from the perspective of the other person before I dismiss it. I have learned some things that way. Some of them have made significant changes in my thinking and beliefs. (And not all are about the LRC. I'm talking about things outside this forum.)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

You can't claim scientific acumen until you display some.

Thanks bro ZNP. If you are talking Jesus, I'm in the clear.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here is the other thing that bothers me. Suppose you were Peter, you were in the tomb and you saw the burial clothes folded up. What would you do? I find it very difficult to believe that those things would not be kept. Very often when I am looking for something that is lost I ask myself "would anyone have thrown this in the garbage by accident?" When I realize that would never have happened then I feel much better about looking for it, knowing that since it was not accidentally tossed in the trash it must be here somewhere.

After reading about the Shroud, I can no longer dismiss it as a religious hoax or ancient relic. It corresponds with Isaiah's prophecy concerning His crucifixion and burial -- everything was typical for the worst of criminals, until He died, and then His body was treated as with royalty. His burial in the tomb was perhaps the best in the land, sealed by Pilate, covered with a huge stone, guarded around the clock by Roman soldiers, yet lovingly prepared with spices and cloths, using nothing but the best available in the land.

Then He arose from the dead on the third day according to the scripture.

The guards went into shock, so visibly shaken that their required deaths as Roman soldiers were waived in exchange for lies. The entire burial scene lie vacant, guarded by angels, until Mary and the disciples arrived. Instead of the Lord's corpse, they found His readily recognizable burial cloths already folded -- waiting for them to take back as evidence to the other disciples.

It surprises me that those who so love their "science," apparently trusting their very souls to its many conclusions, can so readily dismiss the exhaustive forensic science which has been invested into the shroud for years. Had the shroud been a fraud, obviously science would expose it, as only it could.

As for those who say we should not need "physical proof," I agree. I never had it, and don't need it. Nothing "human" could have happened to me the night I was saved. I have forgotten millions of things in my life, yet could never forget the night I found Jesus, who forgave all my sins, and birthed me of His Spirit.

But the Bible also says that, "Jews seek signs." The shroud was one such sign, as were earthquakes, the solar eclipse, etc. Everyone in Jerusalem knew that Jesus was different. Whether they believed in Him was another matter.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just to clarify your position, can you answer these questions:

1. When the Bible refers to the burial clothes do you feel that these were real or fictitious?

How am I suppose to know that?

Originally Posted by ZNP

2. Do you feel that the Sudarium is the face cloth that was used on Jesus?

No.

Originally Posted by ZNP

3. Since you don't feel that the Shroud of Turin is the genuine shroud that Jesus was buried in, what do you think happened to that shroud?

The same that has happen to much from 2000 yrs ago. From dust it came to dust it went. The same thing that happened to the foreskin of Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Gill’s exposition:

“he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves; in which the body of Jesus was wrapped; these lay by themselves, without the body, in one place; and the napkin about his head was wrapped together, and lay in another place by itself: so that it was a plain case, the body was not stolen, nor taken away; for neither friends, nor foes, would have taken the pains, or have lost so much time, as to have stripped the body, but would rather have carried off the clothes along with it.”

I'm not familiar with Gill, but I love this insight!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I personally consider the fact that the Shroud has been largely ignored and deemed as unimpressive until just recently as the most convincing part of the testimony. It is the scientists, not the theologians, who originally set out to prove that it was a forgery. These are the ones who have become the most overawed by the shroud.

You may not be aware of this but the Shroud of Turin is the most intensely studied artifact in human history. We have applied more forensic tests to this article than to any other artifact, ever.

We thought the blood would be a fake, or the pollen would prove it was a fake, the wounds, etc. They thought the image was created with some form of paint, dye or other technique. The fact that after 28 years of intense study we cannot find any evidence that it is a forgery, that we still can't reproduce how this was made, it is truly unbelievable that a forger from 500 years ago could have done this. If this were true then you would have both the stupidest forger and the most brilliant. Stupid because the purpose of the forgery is to impress the public. This did not really happen till hundreds of years later when it was realized the image was a negative. It was very difficult for tourists and crowds to see, but the photograph is what caught people's imagination. Talk about "before your time". Yet, brilliant because we have been unable to find any evidence that it is a forgery. We have used state of the art imaging software from NASA to recreate the 3d face of the person crucified from the 2d image and discovered that the image did in fact contain a 3d image, something that makes creating a forgery all the harder, but that it was a very normal looking middle eastern face.

There are two key points on the shroud that completely contradict the common understanding of the day. First, the wounds from the nails were accurate on the shroud whereas artist from the time it was first recorded showing up in Turin put them in the wrong place. One would think that a forger would also put them where the public would expect to see them. The second is that the crown of thorns was completely different. All paintings depict a crown woven from thorns as though the Roman soldiers did basket weaving as a hobby. However, the wounds on the shroud suggest that a clump of thorns was pushed down on the head which seems much more likely.

Also, the blood type matches the blood type of the Sudarium. Now if a forger did this then it is really lucky, the odds were one in ten.

But here is what I find the single most compelling piece of evidence. It was not originally obvious, but under careful examination they realized a strip had been cut off the length of the shroud and then sewn back. It was done with tremendous skill. This is explained saying that when a person is wrapped in the burial clothe they cut a strip used to tie up the body. So this means that some person, very skilled at sewing took the time to sew this back on in an extremely careful way. Now why would anyone take a shroud off of a dead person, a person who had been put to death for some serious crime, and do that? It seems to me that if you had a community of 500 or 1,000 people they picked the single best seamstress and this persons work was an act of devotion and love. I cannot see any other reasonable explanation. Why would a forger do this?

I really appreciate your research here ZNP on the Shroud. Your forensic background makes your views compelling. I know many former LC Christians who dispelled the Shroud as a hoax, kind of like those ancient RCC relics I grew up with, without looking further into the scientific inquiry it has generated.

It is ironic that those who use science, love science, and adhere to science, would then not be influenced by science to consider the authenticity of the shroud of Turin, and its implications concerning the life and death of Jesus Christ and the writings in the New Testament.

My lingering question is why that is not the case. It really seems like the numerous claims to trust in science and scientific principle is merely a ruse to justify unbelief. That to me is tragic.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I really appreciate your research here ZNP on the Shroud. Your forensic background makes your views compelling. I know many former LC Christians who dispelled the Shroud as a hoax, kind of like those ancient RCC relics I grew up with, without looking further into the scientific inquiry it has generated.

It is ironic that those who use science, love science, and adhere to science, would then not be influenced by science to consider the authenticity of the shroud of Turin, and its implications concerning the life and death of Jesus Christ and the writings in the New Testament.

My lingering question is why that is not the case. It really seems like the numerous claims to trust in science and scientific principle is merely a ruse to justify unbelief. That to me is tragic.

I agree that it is a ruse.

When I was at Rice I signed up for a religion course that was taught by a Catholic priest. We began by going around in a circle and explaining why we were taking the course (this was a science and engineering school). When we finished he began to explain that the Bible was not scientific and should not be read that way. He gave the example of Joshua and the Sun standing still. He was then interrupted by this student who was a physics major and had introduced himself as an agnostic / atheist. He said that Nasa had done some studies and realized the Earth was missing a day and so they had ultimately used this account in the Bible to reconcile the discrepancy.

That was it for me, I decided if an atheist has to tell the priest the Bible is true it is not worth listening to the priest. I switched to another class where I met a young brother who wound up coming into the church and being a crucial cornerstone in our gospel work on campus.

[zeek]

ZNP and Ohio--

You guys are two peas is shroud er uh pod. ZNP where do you get off condemning Harold because he is skeptical about your shroud? Is this the new "What must I do to be saved" test---ya gotta accept the shroud or go to hell? I missed that verse.

It's a little early to be taking a victory lap. You haven't even replied to Evangelical's well framed arguments in post #74. Ugly judgmental Christian behavior is why most people reject Christianity. It certainly isn't because they don't want to give up sin. There seems to be as much sin in Christianity as outside of it, maybe more.

You guys share a paranoid world-view in which you think people are holding beliefs in order to trick you. That's a kind of pathological narcissism. It's the same kind of thinking that I have seen in the Church of Scientology not to mention the Local Church. Even though you claim you are out of the LC, you are still living in socially isolated bubbles. It's related to the exclusivism which is at the core of your way of looking at Christianity.

Oh while you're at it, please produce the scientific NASA evidence for Joshua's lost day. Snopes couldn't find it. http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp

[awareness]

Goodness! What a great post ZNP!

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But this forum is the only place that gives actual discussion of the LRC a chance to happen in a mostly unhindered fashion.

Brother Untohim was brilliant. He named it "Alternative Views."

Originally Posted by ZNP

• Establish strong moderation that has the time to evenly enforce certain kinds of rules, like off-topic posts, baiting, trolling, etc. Maybe the likes of Harold and zeek would have altered their ways before we kind of ganged up on them and they saw nothing left to do but leave. I fear that is more their loss than ours, but that is my opinion.

Leave??? I love this place. I get to annoy y'all. And ya have to love me. Your Christians after all ... after one fashion or another.

As to strong moderation, maybe I spoke too soon about Untohm being brilliant. He made me Moderator of AltVs. The MOTA - Moderator of the Age. I didn't volunteer for the honors. He didn't give me a choice (so much for free will). I would have been my last pick for moderator. But it's grown on me. I'm into free will ... and free speech. Maybe that's why he did it. Bro zeek and I considered, when Untohim first came up with the idea such as this subforum, that Untohim was possibly being devious, and wanted AltVs as a dungeon for zeek and I, to put us 'down' into. haha ... Maybe ZNP is right to worry about my possible paranoia.

Look. We don't have many members but let's let us/we decide how we want it in this subforum of LCD. Maybe ZNP should be moderator. All we'd have to do is have a majority hammer Untohim a little about it.

Originally Posted by ZNP

• Unfortunately, one of my wishes is for the return of some of the people who thought it was worthwhile to actually dissect Lee's teachings rather than just snip at them or instead just talk about the bad leadership. There is plenty to say about the bad leadership. But I believe it was an environment void of true spiritual/scriptural teaching that could allow such bad leadership on such a grand scale. So being disinterested in it seems to miss the core of what was wrong with the LRC from before most of us had ever even heard of it.

Ya know, we're all at different stages in our departure from the local church. I'm way past the local church. Dissecting Witness Lee's teachings seems pointless to me. But not to others. My mind is still blown that people continued to join the local church after I left ; like you bro ZNP, if I'm not mistaken. But then, it took me 10 years to figure it out and leave. So the illusion is strong. Strong enough to hold people, and strong enough to draw people in.

Originally Posted by ZNP

• Willingness to critique Nee along with Lee. Even after we began to see Nee's errors, most still just sort of wave it away. (Kind of like Father Guido Sarducci says the Vatican waved one miracle to finally get an American Saint. (really old SNL))

I loved Father Guido Sarducci (Don Novello).

Originally Posted by ZNP

Let's also agree that the "alternative views" portion of the LCD really addresses those aspects which you directly referred to:

"unhindered fashion"

"makes us willing to accept that we don't agree"

This addition to LCD is a way for the likes of Harold, Zeek and ZNP a freer opportunity to participate.

Amen! That's great!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree that it is a ruse.

When I was at Rice I signed up for a religion course that was taught by a Catholic priest. We began by going around in a circle and explaining why we were taking the course (this was a science and engineering school). When we finished he began to explain that the Bible was not scientific and should not be read that way. He gave the example of Joshua and the Sun standing still. He was then interrupted by this student who was a physics major and had introduced himself as an agnostic / atheist. He said that Nasa had done some studies and realized the Earth was missing a day and so they had ultimately used this account in the Bible to reconcile the discrepancy.

That was it for me, I decided if an atheist has to tell the priest the Bible is true it is not worth listening to the priest. I switched to another class where I met a young brother who wound up coming into the church and being a crucial cornerstone in our gospel work on campus.

Your switch was based on a story that has no factual basis. We know stories like this are surely false when not even Christian Creationist apologists are willing to endorse it. That is, these stories are even too kooky for a person like Ken Ham to believe. I say that because the article on creation.com says the story is fake. Also snopes has it down as a fake as Zeek already said.

See:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp

http://creation.com/has-nasa-discovered-a-missing-day

The Public Affairs Office at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, responded to the prevalence of Hill's fictitious story by issuing a press release that noted (among other things):
[This center] has no knowledge of the use of its computers supposed by Mr. Harold Hill and attributed to our scientists. Goddard does not apply its computers to the task of projecting thousands of years into the future or past, as this would be irrelevant to the operational lifetime of satellites, which rarely exceeds a dozen years.

[Harold Hill] worked briefly at Goddard early in the 1960s as a plant engineer, a position which would not place him in direct contact with our computer facilities or teams engaged in orbital computations.

So it seems your atheist classmate and yourself failed science or even journalism lesson 101 - check the facts. The Priest was right afterall. Atheist and Christian alike are not immune to the problem of believing and spreading false rumors because they sound too good to be true.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

ZNP and Ohio--

You guys are two peas is shroud er uh pod. ZNP where do you get off condemning Harold because he is skeptical about your shroud? Is this the new "What must I do to be saved" test---ya gotta accept the shroud or go to hell? I missed that verse.

It's a little early to be taking a victory lap. You haven't even replied to Evangelical's well framed arguments in post #74. Ugly judgmental Christian behavior is why most people reject Christianity. It certainly isn't because they don't want to give up sin. There seems to be as much sin in Christianity as outside of it, maybe more.

You guys share a paranoid world-view in which you think people are holding beliefs in order to trick you. That's a kind of pathological narcissism. It's the same kind of thinking that I have seen in the Church of Scientology not to mention the Local Church. Even though you claim you are out of the LC, you are still living in socially isolated bubbles. It's related to the exclusivism which is at the core of your way of looking at Christianity.

Oh while your at it, please produce the scientific NASA evidence for Joshua's lost day. Snopes couldn't find it. http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp

Who's condemning who here?

Science has persuaded me to reconsider the authenticity of the shroud.

My faith is in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Your Scientology comments are baseless distractions.

Readers know what I do believe, they only know what you do not believe.

We'll let the reader decide who sounds paranoid here.

And, btw, would you please learn the simple difference between "your" and "you're".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

ZNP and Ohio--

You guys are two peas is shroud er uh pod. ZNP where do you get off condemning Harold because he is skeptical about your shroud? Is this the new "What must I do to be saved" test---ya gotta accept the shroud or go to hell? I missed that verse.

It's a little early to be taking a victory lap. You haven't even replied to Evangelical's well framed arguments in post #74. Ugly judgmental Christian behavior is why most people reject Christianity. It certainly isn't because they don't want to give up sin. There seems to be as much sin in Christianity as outside of it, maybe more.

You guys share a paranoid world-view in which you think people are holding beliefs in order to trick you. That's a kind of pathological narcissism. It's the same kind of thinking that I have seen in the Church of Scientology not to mention the Local Church. Even though you claim you are out of the LC, you are still living in socially isolated bubbles. It's related to the exclusivism which is at the core of your way of looking at Christianity.

Oh while your at it, please produce the scientific NASA evidence for Joshua's lost day. Snopes couldn't find it. http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp

Clearly they believe in the Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Science.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am sure that the Catholic church would go to any length to preserve their integrity, think of all the destruction they have caused through the ages and what lengths they went to preserve themselves.

Any idea how ironic this sounds?

Any idea what lengths LSM has gone thru to preserve themselves and their own version of "integrity?"

Any idea how much destruction LSM has caused to those who spoke their conscience in the face of LSM's own unrighteousness?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Now please don't twist this into supposing that I am defending the RCC in any way.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Clearly they believe in the Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Science.

Who are "they?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

ZNP and Ohio--

You guys are two peas is shroud er uh pod. ZNP where do you get off condemning Harold because he is skeptical about your shroud? Is this the new "What must I do to be saved" test---ya gotta accept the shroud or go to hell? I missed that verse.

I respond in kind. When he characterizes my posts as "silly" only then do I "come off" characterizing his posts as bitter.

Pull up any post of mine that offends you for "condemning Harold" or anyone else and you will see that I was merely matching their intensity, not exceeding it, not backing down from it and not condemning their use of it.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

ZNP and Ohio--

It's a little early to be taking a victory lap. You haven't even replied to Evangelical's well framed arguments in post #74. Ugly judgmental Christian behavior is why most people reject Christianity. It certainly isn't because they don't want to give up sin. There seems to be as much sin in Christianity as outside of it, maybe more.

There was no need for me to respond. The official studies of the Shroud included recognized, certified experts in textiles.

Forensics 101 when looking at a forgery is to look at the paper that it was written on. This was the first thing they looked at. The weave, the composition, the stitching, etc.

Yes, you will always be able to find someone who says it is a forgery, but when you look at the experts who were brought in that was not their conclusion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

ZNP and Ohio--

Ugly judgmental Christian behavior is why most people reject Christianity. It certainly isn't because they don't want to give up sin. There seems to be as much sin in Christianity as outside of it, maybe more.

I prefer the Lord's assessment ...

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved
darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I prefer the Lord's assessment ...

Take a look at yourself, Mr. Holier-than-thou.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Take a look at yourself, Mr. Holier-than-thou.

Ugly behavior like yours is why folks love Jesus and the Bible.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I respond in kind. When he characterizes my posts as "silly" only then do I "come off" characterizing his posts as bitter.

Pull up any post of mine that offends you for "condemning Harold" or anyone else and you will see that I was merely matching their intensity, not exceeding it, not backing down from it and not condemning their use of it.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm gonna report you guys to the moderator. Oh! That's me! I'm taking this moment, in silence, to report myself. Bad moderator ... bad.

And y'all feel free to attack me, call me names ... and whatever. To me it's a 'sticks and stones thing.' Besides, a lot of times I do earn it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ugly behavior like yours is why folks love Jesus and the Bible.

You're just out to criticize, no matter how petty you have to get to do it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, you will always be able to find someone who says it is a forgery, but when you look at the experts who were brought in that was not their conclusion.

Okay, let's go whole hog into believing the Shroud is authentic. What then? What does that prove? And what good does it do me today?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Any idea how ironic this sounds?

Any idea what lengths LSM has gone thru to preserve themselves and their own version of "integrity?"

Any idea how much destruction LSM has caused to those who spoke their conscience in the face of LSM's own unrighteousness?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Now please don't twist this into supposing that I am defending the RCC in any way.



Who are "they?"

I don't personally believe there was any sinister plot behind the shroud from the Catholics. Just pointing out that if there was, it would be within their capabilities. According to what I read from historians, the shroud was one of many circulated during the middle ages as a sort of souvenir from the crusades, or something like that. Apparently at least 40 of them were produced at the time, from Turkey. I read that here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ucifixion.html

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, let's go whole hog into believing the Shroud is authentic. What then? What does that prove? And what good does it do me today?

It would show you that Jesus was real and died. Is it proof of the resurrection? No, it only proves a dead body was in it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, let's go whole hog into believing the Shroud is authentic. What then? What does that prove? And what good does it do me today?

They are without excuse.

When I preached the gospel I heard that the gospel was false because they don't scourge people before they crucify them. I heard that there was no evidence he ever lived. I heard there was no evidence of the resurrection, etc.

It has been a great entrance for those who believe that physical evidence is the best witness. It has helped some scientists to come to a point of receiving Christ.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I consider James 1:8 to be one of the most central and critical verses for the Local Church discussions. The reference to "Landslide Lyndon" was illustrating that, the use of it as an illustration was not understood. Therefore I elaborated on the Box 13 scandal thread.

. . . .

The problem is that it is entirely too convoluted as a metaphor. It would appear to add problems and questions rather than support or explain anything.

Metaphors and pictures should be somewhat simple, and be what is well known and understood. Then you bring it along side what is true, but is not fully understood. It does not add to the truth in any way. It just provides a picture of it in a way that is understood.

When your metaphor/picture is so controversial as to what happened, when, and how, it becomes useless. You spent more time trying to create the story of the election with the particular view you wanted (or think is true). But while there is something there, it is not necessarily as you describe it, therefore the story has little use. It needs to be understood and accepted as something true with respect to the aspects that you want to bring out. Then you bring it along side something else and use what is known to describe what is not fully understood or known.

Seems as what is understood most fully is James, not Box 13. Box 13 is virtually a black box of factoids, innuendo, and conjecture. There are some presumptions because of what is now mostly hearsay. But the overall story that Lyndon's first statewide election was won through voting irregularities in one rather small county in south Texas is understood. But that story may not be enough to put up beside James for a metaphor.

The answer is not to argue over what is fact or conjecture about Box 13. It is to find a better metaphor. If the metaphor is not agreed to as a stipulated fact, it is useless. While the overall effects are pretty well accepted, the details are far from stipulated, so it is useless.

I made reference to Lee's power plant, wires, and electrons. It was brought in because the Greek word was the one from which we somewhat transliterated the word "dynamo" which is essentially an electrical power source/plant. But the meaning of the Greek word was "power." Not electricity. Or plant of any kind. So looking at the English word dynamo and then bringing in the wires and the flow of electrons is to discuss something that really isn't there in the scripture. Admittedly a different problem than I see in Box 13. But to the same effect. The metaphor is not actually useful in studying and understanding the relevant scripture. It doesn't actually fit. Or is too convoluted and/or not really understood, therefore not helpful.


As for your statement about the "same blood type as Jesus" . . . . I feel like the AFLAC duck trying to reply to Leo Durocher in the barber shop. I have no idea what to say to any kind of claim that anyone has any idea what type of blood that would be. Maybe except for being Jewish blood.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It would show you that Jesus was real and died. Is it proof of the resurrection? No, it only proves a dead body was in it.

I think it proves more than that.

1. It proves that this body was crucified.

2. It proves that this body was scourged by the Romans.

3. It proves that this person who was both scourged and crucified was wearing a "crown of thorns".

4. It proves that this person's tomb was in Jerusalem and was buried according to Jewish tradition.

5. It proves that this person was pierced in the side, that they carried their cross, and that they had a hurt, swollen knee.

In that sense it confirms very much of the gospel account.

But on top of that it is very interesting that the strip cut off to tie up the body was then so meticulously sewn back on. You would not be able to do that with a cloth that had been sitting in a tomb for a couple of years. So this shroud was taken right after the person was buried. Why?

Finally, no one has explained the image on the shroud. That is the strongest evidence of a forgery (if we could replicate it) and if it is real that is the strongest evidence of the resurrection.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is that it is entirely too convoluted as a metaphor. It would appear to add problems and questions rather than support or explain anything.

Metaphors and pictures should be somewhat simple, and be what is well known and understood. Then you bring it along side what is true, but is not fully understood. It does not add to the truth in any way. It just provides a picture of it in a way that is understood.

When your metaphor/picture is so controversial as to what happened, when, and how, it becomes useless. You spent more time trying to create the story of the election with the particular view you wanted (or think is true). But while there is something there, it is not necessarily as you describe it, therefore the story has little use. It needs to be understood and accepted as something true with respect to the aspects that you want to bring out. Then you bring it along side something else and use what is known to describe what is not fully understood or known.

Seems as what is understood most fully is James, not Box 13. Box 13 is virtually a black box of factoids, innuendo, and conjecture. There are some presumptions because of what is now mostly hearsay. But the overall story that Lyndon's first statewide election was won through voting irregularities in one rather small county in south Texas is understood. But that story may not be enough to put up beside James for a metaphor.

The answer is not to argue over what is fact or conjecture about Box 13. It is to find a better metaphor. If the metaphor is not agreed to as a stipulated fact, it is useless. While the overall effects are pretty well accepted, the details are far from stipulated, so it is useless.

I made reference to Lee's power plant, wires, and electrons. It was brought in because the Greek word was the one from which we somewhat transliterated the word "dynamo" which is essentially an electrical power source/plant. But the meaning of the Greek word was "power." Not electricity. Or plant of any kind. So looking at the English word dynamo and then bringing in the wires and the flow of electrons is to discuss something that really isn't there in the scripture. Admittedly a different problem than I see in Box 13. But to the same effect. The metaphor is not actually useful in studying and understanding the relevant scripture. It doesn't actually fit. Or is too convoluted and/or not really understood, therefore not helpful.


As for your statement about the "same blood type as Jesus" . . . . I feel like the AFLAC duck trying to reply to Leo Durocher in the barber shop. I have no idea what to say to any kind of claim that anyone has any idea what type of blood that would be. Maybe except for being Jewish blood.

Let's come at this from another angle. It is 1978, I am a young brother, I have just met this local church in Houston. I know nothing of Daystar. I don't know the Bible, etc. I am not going to know all the stuff we now know about WL, PL, and WN. Is there any way to realize we have a problem without spending 20 years?

Look at how difficult it is right now in this political context to determine if this president elect and his nominees are "double minded". That is very difficult to determine.

But it is very easy to see they are "unstable in all their ways". Going back to Houston in 1978, that was the summer when the entire Max Rappaport "rebellion" hit the fan along with the so called "sister's rebellion".

Going forward these kinds of events will cause my antennas to go up, just as the current political climate has.

Suppose people had reacted like this to the Box 13 scandal, would JFK still have been assassinated? No one assassinates JFK unless they believe LBJ will be much more agreeable to them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think it proves more than that.

1. It proves that this body was crucified.

2. It proves that this body was scourged by the Romans.

3. It proves that this person who was both scourged and crucified was wearing a "crown of thorns".

4. It proves that this person's tomb was in Jerusalem and was buried according to Jewish tradition.

5. It proves that this person was pierced in the side, that they carried their cross, and that they had a hurt, swollen knee.

In that sense it confirms very much of the gospel account.

But on top of that it is very interesting that the strip cut off to tie up the body was then so meticulously sewn back on. You would not be able to do that with a cloth that had been sitting in a tomb for a couple of years. So this shroud was taken right after the person was buried. Why?

Finally, no one has explained the image on the shroud. That is the strongest evidence of a forgery (if we could replicate it) and if it is real that is the strongest evidence of the resurrection.

No one has explained why there is an image on the shroud in the first place? An image on the shroud (which should otherwise be absent of one, particularly for a body only 3 days dead) could itself be evidence of manipulation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't personally believe there was any sinister plot behind the shroud from the Catholics. Just pointing out that if there was, it would be within their capabilities. According to what I read from historians, the shroud was one of many circulated during the middle ages as a sort of souvenir from the crusades, or something like that. Apparently at least 40 of them were produced at the time, from Turkey. I read that here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ucifixion.html

They were produced for confirmation bias. And still used for that purpose today.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It would show you that Jesus was real and died. Is it proof of the resurrection? No, it only proves a dead body was in it.

Is there claims that Jesus never existed, and that's why we need the Shroud to prove it? Empty tomb, empty Shroud. Jesus must have resurrected, or his body would be under that shroud still today. haha.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

They are without excuse.

When I preached the gospel I heard that the gospel was false because they don't scourge people before they crucify them. I heard that there was no evidence he ever lived. I heard there was no evidence of the resurrection, etc.

It has been a great entrance for those who believe that physical evidence is the best witness. It has helped some scientists to come to a point of receiving Christ.

Doesn't the shroud turn Jesus into a fantasy figure?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think it proves more than that.

1. It proves that this body was crucified.

2. It proves that this body was scourged by the Romans.

3. It proves that this person who was both scourged and crucified was wearing a "crown of thorns".

4. It proves that this person's tomb was in Jerusalem and was buried according to Jewish tradition.

5. It proves that this person was pierced in the side, that they carried their cross, and that they had a hurt, swollen knee.

In that sense it confirms very much of the gospel account.

But on top of that it is very interesting that the strip cut off to tie up the body was then so meticulously sewn back on. You would not be able to do that with a cloth that had been sitting in a tomb for a couple of years. So this shroud was taken right after the person was buried. Why?

Finally, no one has explained the image on the shroud. That is the strongest evidence of a forgery (if we could replicate it) and if it is real that is the strongest evidence of the resurrection.

So to you the shroud proves the Bible is true?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No one has explained why there is an image on the shroud in the first place? An image on the shroud (which should otherwise be absent of one, particularly for a body only 3 days dead) could itself be evidence of manipulation.

That was the assumption, but scientifically you can't make that conclusion until you can replicate how they did it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So to you the shroud proves the Bible is true?

To me the Shroud is a witness in the trial of the last two millenniums.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't personally believe there was any sinister plot behind the shroud from the Catholics. Just pointing out that if there was, it would be within their capabilities. According to what I read from historians, the shroud was one of many circulated during the middle ages as a sort of souvenir from the crusades, or something like that. Apparently at least 40 of them were produced at the time, from Turkey. I read that here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ucifixion.html

Daily Mail -- a bastion of quality Christian historical research.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Daily Mail -- a bastion of quality Christian historical research.

They are reporting the work done by Antonio Lombatti.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Daily Mail -- a bastion of quality Christian historical research.

I think we can all agree that there have been many, many forgeries over the course of human history. Art work, currency and yes, even "magical" items and religious relics.

This is the old story of Moses and Pharaoh's magicians.

But for those of us who believe the Bible is true there is a shroud. It is part of the biblical record. It was given to us from the resurrected Jesus. No one threw it away.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is the old story of Moses and Pharaoh's magicians.

Bahahahahaha ... now that's thinking by quotations.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They are reporting the work done by Antonio Lombatti.

Those who scream "fraud" sound the same as those who claimed His body was "stolen."

Those who love and trust their beloved "science," please use a little science to dispute the forensic evidence.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Those who scream "fraud" sound the same as those who claimed His body was "stolen."

Those who love and trust their beloved "science," please use a little science to dispute the forensic evidence.

There is no forensic evidence. Your belief is based upon the scientists not being able to explain it. That is not proof.

As ZNP said "scientifically you can't make that conclusion until you can replicate how they did it". Scientists have so far been unable to replicate how it was done.

A person does not get charged with murder because there are unexplained blood stains on the carpet. The blood has to be confirmed to belong to the victim or offender. Not being able to explain things is not proof.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think we can all agree that there have been many, many forgeries over the course of human history. Art work, currency and yes, even "magical" items and religious relics.

This is the old story of Moses and Pharaoh's magicians.

But for those of us who believe the Bible is true there is a shroud. It is part of the biblical record. It was given to us from the resurrected Jesus. No one threw it away.

We don't even need science to disprove the shroud.

The gospel of John is self explanatory that Jesus had a separate cloth wrapped around Jesus's head:

John 20:7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.

The cloths (plural) and the way the body would have been prepared is not consistent with Jewish customs or the bible:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitz...urial-clothes/

the Gospel of John relates four times about “linen wrappings,” which is always plural, so that even the body itself, disregarding the head, had been wrapped with multiple clothes (John 19.40; 20.5-7). The Greek text has othonion/othonia, which means “sheets.” Could they have been “strips” of cloth as the Egyptians did? It should be noted that Jews, like Egyptians, were very particular about how they prepared human corpses for burial. Jews likely wrapped such bodies with several strips of cloth, thus not a single cloth. The main reason was that they interspersed spices with layered, multiple wrappings in order to further preserve the body from decay. A single cloth the size of the Shroud of Turin with spices could not possibly have preserved a dead body as long as multiple cloths with spices could have.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To me the Shroud is a witness in the trial of the last two millenniums.

So God left us the shroud as a witness? Really? How come it's not in our primary witness, the New Testament. And don't give me the folded linen. There's no mention that it was left as a witness.

[Evangelical]

The type of arguments that some are making, that the shroud is the genuine shroud of Christ, are what is known as an "argument from ignorance":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

In hypothesis testing, normally the null hypothesis would be chosen to be the one we don't want to be true. So the null hypothesis would be "the shroud of Turin is genuine".

In statistical hypothesis testing, there are only two possibilities - reject the null, or fail to reject the null. It is a type of "innocent until proven guilty" approach. Just because there is a verdict of "not guilty" does not mean they are not guilty, it means the prosecution was unable to prove their guilt.

As frequently stated by the believers, scientists have not been able to reject the null hypothesis. However the inability to reject a null hypothesis does not mean that the null hypothesis is true. In hypothesis testing the null is never proven to be true. So no one can say "we accept that the shroud of Turin is genuine" on the basis of science's failure to prove it to be false. Only those with a misunderstanding of hypothesis testing and statistics would say that.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let's come at this from another angle. It is 1978, I am a young brother, I have just met this local church in Houston. I know nothing of Daystar. I don't know the Bible, etc. I am not going to know all the stuff we now know about WL, PL, and WN. Is there any way to realize we have a problem without spending 20 years?

Look at how difficult it is right now in this political context to determine if this president elect and his nominees are "double minded". That is very difficult to determine.

But it is very easy to see they are "unstable in all their ways". Going back to Houston in 1978, that was the summer when the entire Max Rappaport "rebellion" hit the fan along with the so called "sister's rebellion".

Going forward these kinds of events will cause my antennas to go up, just as the current political climate has.

Suppose people had reacted like this to the Box 13 scandal, would JFK still have been assassinated? No one assassinates JFK unless they believe LBJ will be much more agreeable to them.

But the "truth" of Box 13 is still not known. And it was mostly little more than rumors for most Americans.

And pointing to what happened south of San Antonio does not instruct with respect to Lee, Max, Daystar, or anything else.

And "unstable in their ways" is clearly a problem of perspective. Maybe that particular storm chases the newest out the door. But those who have been around for a while were "inoculated" against these things. Lee even taught that there had to be problems otherwise you couldn't be assured that what you thought was good was the real thing.

If you can cause people to refuse to accept what they have already accepted, then there is a chance. But it is a problem of timing. If it is being taught that there will be wolves, then when they identify Max as a wolf, we ignore other aspects and stick to the "he's a wolf" theory.

Sort of an Arlington Road scenario. We like that there are simple solutions. A lone gunman. A single suicide bomber. One deranged psychopath attacking a school. Sometimes the lone gunman story is correct. But not always. But we don't want to hear about systemic problems that involve what would classify as a conspiracy. Except for the conspiracy fanatics, people want it simple.

And a wolf is simple. People trying to overthrow the MOTA. And that last one is difficult because it is hard to accept that the person that you have built your whole world-view upon is a charlatan. That brings into question my own intelligence and we would rather die wrong than admit we actually were wrong.

So trying to educate 10 people on your version of how the Box 13 thing went down is not going to do much in the way of educating the masses. Find a better example. Sticking to it makes you look foolish.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The type of arguments that some are making, that the shroud is the genuine shroud of Christ, are what is known as an "argument from ignorance":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

In hypothesis testing, normally the null hypothesis would be chosen to be the one we don't want to be true. So the null hypothesis would be "the shroud of Turin is genuine".

In statistical hypothesis testing, there are only two possibilities - reject the null, or fail to reject the null. It is a type of "innocent until proven guilty" approach. Just because there is a verdict of "not guilty" does not mean they are not guilty, it means the prosecution was unable to prove their guilt.

As frequently stated by the believers, scientists have not been able to reject the null hypothesis. However the inability to reject a null hypothesis does not mean that the null hypothesis is true. In hypothesis testing the null is never proven to be true. So no one can say "we accept that the shroud of Turin is genuine" on the basis of science's failure to prove it to be false. Only those with a misunderstanding of hypothesis testing and statistics would say that.

This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider alternatives. A false dilemma may take the form:

• If a proposition has not been disproved, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
• If a proposition has not been proved, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproved and (b) false things can never be proved. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true. Therein lies the fallacy.
— Duco A. Schreuder, Vision and Visual Perception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Ohio]

ZNP have you seen this recent "scientific" study on the Shroud?

Abstract

An investigation into the arm and body position required to obtain the blood pattern visible in the image of the Shroud of Turin was performed using a living volunteer. The two short rivulets on the back of the left hand of the Shroud are only consistent with a standing subject with arms at a ca 45° angle. This angle is different from that necessary for the forearm stains, which require nearly vertical arms for a standing subject. The BPA of blood visible on the frontal side of the chest (the lance wound) shows that the Shroud represents the bleeding in a realistic manner for a standing position while the stains at the back—of a supposed postmortem bleeding from the same wound for a supine corpse—are totally unrealistic. Simulation of bleeding from the nail wounds contacting wood surfaces yielded unclear results.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

ZNP have you seen this recent "scientific" study on the Shroud?

I was unable to read anymore than that. I saw a different study which showed that the blood flowed from the nails in the arms along two different paths indicating two positions, one where the person is hanging from the arms, the other where they are pulling up to breathe.

But all of that is irrelevant. There is one way to prove once and for all if it is authentic or a forgery. The radioactive dating of the Shroud puts it at 728 years old, thereabouts. There are only two plausible explanations: forgery, or else the Shroud was exposed to radiation (if an object is exposed to radiation it can completely distort the radiocarbon dating).

Since we know that the image was formed by radiation (though other than that we haven't been able to reproduce it) I would suggest that you test the Sudarium. If the Shroud was exposed to radiation at the resurrection then the Sudarium would have been exposed as well. Since we know that the Sudarium is 2,000 years old if carbon dating also makes it much younger then you have proven the Shroud is authentic.

As for me I am of the opinion that no one could have possibly done this "forgery" 700 years ago. I don't even know if we could pull it off today. People who claim it is a forgery are fools, you haven't "proven" a forgery until you can recreate what the forger did. No one has come anywhere close to doing that.

The second problem with claiming it is a forgery is that still doesn't explain what happened to the real shroud. We have a written record of its existence along with the Sudarium. The Sudarium was treated with reverence and preserved for the last 2,000 years. So then, where is the Shroud? We have evidence in paintings and art of a Shroud that dates back 1500 years all the way through 1,000 years ago. So, what happened to that Shroud?