Orthodox_Freethinker

The skeptics deny its authenticiy, the Shroud of Turin still remains as one of the best extra-Biblical evidences for the life of Christ. For example, there are imprints on the shroud of flowers and plants that live only in the region in which Jesus was crucified, placed in his shroud because it was the tradition of the Jews to do so.

If you'd like to read scientific papers on the shroud:
http://www.shroud.com/papers.htm


What myths and legends? The Gospels are four of the most reliable historical documents of ancient history.

Wads4

"The skeptics deny its authenticiy, the Shroud of Turin still remains as one of the best extra-Biblical evidences for the life of Christ. For example, there are imprints on the shroud of flowers and plants that live only in the region in which Jesus was crucified, placed in his shroud because it was the tradition of the Jews to do so.

If you'd like to read scientific papers on the shroud:
http://www.shroud.com/papers.htm

This link contains much that is also anti-the genuine article, like the view that the shroud is a touched up primitive photograph. I had never before heard that there were imprints of flowers on the shroud,--is this true? I thought only pollen was under discussion. Of course the shroud could well have been manufactured in Palestine, but at a much later date, and so contain the indigenous pollen or flower imprints anyway, regardless of age; and as you have no time for C-dating, you cannot therefore use that test to date such pollen etc. I have also heard that the opened out shroud has very distorted and unnatural features, which would not correspond with an underlying curved face with which it was in close contact. All in all it is a very suspect artifact, especially considering the fondness for "relics" manufactured by the faithful. It could just be another one of those pious relics made to dupe the credulous.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Look at the mouth of the figure in the shroud. Can you see the teeth? That looks more like an X-Ray to me rather than a painting or photograph.

Peace.

lpetrich

So what is good for god can be completely evil for us? There goes that "image of god" bit. And that's just for starters.

Yawn. It came from a place and time in which making fake relics was a big business. And it reminds me of:

Evidence for the existence of the prophet Mohammed, the latest and greatest of Allah's Prophets:
* The Cloak of Kandahar, Afghanistan

Evidence for the existence of Prince Siddhartha Gautama, the Enlightened One, the Buddha:
* The Tooth of Kandy, Sri Lanka

So why take the Shroud of Turin seriously, but not the Cloak of Kandahar or the Tooth of Kandy?

Specifically, which ones? And the most that that might mean was that the cloth had been imported from Palestine before it was painted on.

Pure hooey, as Richard Carrier and Diogenes the Cynic have explained:

Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story: The Main Argument, in which RC explains why Julius Caesar's Rubicon crossing is much better documented than Jesus Christ's (alleged) resurrection.

Shredding the Gospels, in which DtC lays down the gauntlet of challenge.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Being created in the 'image of God' means that we've been given reason, free will and a sense of moral purpose. God defines what is good and is not bound by whatever our expectations of goodness may be. He sets the standard that we must follow, not us.

Have you actually looked at the image of the shroud? Could forgery explain the X-ray-like impressions of the teeth and finger bones?

Skeptical criticisms of the Gospels are a dime a dozen. I, hovewer, prefer historical fact over philosophical predisposition.

Peace.

lenrek

shroud of Turin

and

Alf

If we are created in God's image and/or we got to eat the apple from the tree of knowledge and thus got to know good and evil then if we see God perform an action which we deem evil it follows that it is also an action that God himself would deem evil and so God is evil by his own standard.

It is not a question of us setting the standard for God. It is God setting the standard for himself that he appearantly have problems to follow. Doesn't sound that perfect to me.

Last I heard that shroud was a forgery.. Many pieces of evidence point to it being made in France and if it has any plants from Jerusalem area it may just mean it has been used to wrap some item that contained such biological material.

Some people think it has been used to wrap a statue of either Jesus or some other mythical figure. This statue may have originated from the middle east, there were many such statues from that time. Not really of Jesus but they were of statues that closely resemble our modern picture of Jesus. In fact many people think that our Jesus picture is nothing but a rehash of those older myth's images of for example Adonis.

If you prefer fact then you would actually bother to follow the links provided. You will see that it is not just philosophical predisposition. What they give is hard solid arguments.

1. They demolish the argument that there are more evidence for JC than for Caesar crossing the rubicon.

2. They give very solid arguments that the gospels are not historical. If you think that they are historical you must counter those arguments. I know you consider them historical and so I would expect that you counter them rather than just dismiss them offhand without reading the links. If you did read the links, you should provide better arguments than just dismissing them the way you do.

However, it is very common among christians to just dismiss arguments they don't like. I have seen it before. Doherty is generally passed by in silence by christians. If this is because they have no argument against him or very weak arguments or wether it really is the case that they have such a solid case against him that they don't bother to show us those arguments is perhaps hard to tell. However, if it is the latter I really would like to see some of those solid arguments presented in the open. So far I haven't seen any.

Alf

Alf

Last I heard, the shroud had been conclusively deemed bogus. It was made in medival europe. Now, I admit I haven't paid much attention to it after that but if you have more up to date info on it please present it.

The link did not appear to present anything new.

My personal theory is that the shroud has been made and then used to wrap around a statue or some such - possibly from the middle east region and so it has gotten a 'face' imprint on it and also biological material from the middle east.

If you have any evidence that can disprove that theory then I would be interested.

Until then, no link or web site can convince me otherwise.

That is your assertion and even though you keep asserting it we are not swayed. Give us arguments please. To me the gospels appear to be myths and legends with virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, walking on water, healing etc. All things that gullible people believed in in those days but not really believable by modern standards.

That Luke and Matthew cannot agree on when Jesus is born is also a blow in the face of the historicity of them.

That Luke and Matthew cannot agree on the name of Joseph's father likewise. No, I don't buy the story that Jacob and Heli was brothers. If that was the case then I would expect that a historical document would say so explicitely and not that you would have to guess it from comparing to appearantly contradictory documents.

Show me evidence that Jacob and Heli was brothers and that Heli died childless. Then I will believe that explanation.

Alf

Wads4

"Have you actually looked at the image of the shroud? Could forgery explain the X-ray-like impressions of the teeth and finger bones?"

Are you by any chance a Dentist or a Radiologist (you could be for all i know)

Orthodox_Freethinker

It would be impossible for the shroud to be a forgery because the technology did not even exist to create an X-ray image. If this is the actual burial shroud of Christ, however, then the impression of his bones and teeth would be explained by the transformation of His body in the resurrection.

Peace.