Haran

Personally, I think that there are very few committed Christians on the far left and far right. I personally think the more committed Christians are to be found somewhere between the two parties...where love of neighbor and love of land is found alongside the toughness needed to keep the gospel from being watered down and morality becoming relativistic.

Nope.

This is why I'm not being "coy" Gamera...what you have stated is not "proof" in any way. It is an assumption. It takes faith to leap from an image on a cloth to resurrection (for which no one has any comparisons). It is not proof of anything.

Why do you really think that this could destory faith? It is impossible.

The only thing that could destroy faith is for God to rip open the sky and show himself to us....

Only then woudl everyone would pretty much be obliged to believe without the need of faith.

Oh please. It is you methinks is being coy. Please explain exactly why this would be evidence of a "supernatural event" and not something else?

If you can't do so, then it is obvious this is no proof of resurrection. No coyness needed.

Why not? I do not have the qualifications or study necessary to say what could or could not have created such an image. Who's to say that whatever was put on the body of the deceased could not have made such an image? Some people claim it was even forged in such a way....

It almost sounds as if you are defending its proof of the resurrection.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Haran]The gospel isn't about morality, it's about relationships. So we disagree even about what we're discussing. And of course Paul is utterly relativistic as to telling people what to do. That's not what the gospel is about.

If authentic, it is evidence (not proof) of an event relating to Jesus' body that cannot be explained naturalistically. That sure suggests something like the resurrection.

I didn't say it would destroy faith. I said it would result in a false gospel based on evidence, not faith.

Since we have no naturalistic explanation of how an image of dead man could get on a shroud, if that shroud were indeed the shroud of Jesus, resurrection would come to mind as an explanation.

Stick with evidence and stop worrying about proof.

I'll say it. It's easy to test. We have shrouds and we have dead people, and in no other instance do the images of dead people wind up on shrouds.

Since I think it's a fake, I"m not defending anything of the sort. However, if it were real I'm rational enough to understand that images of corpses don't normally appear on shrouds, so something funny would have had to have happened to get it there. Which is really what you're fishing for.

Haran

I think it may have been a while since you dusted off your bible then if you really believe that.

Paul was not totally relativistic, and the main reason he wrote to many of the churches he wrote to was to reproach them for their behavior and to exhort them to behave correctly. Please reread Paul's letters. Further, James would likely have quite a bit to say to you on this subject. There is very little moral relativism in the bible.

You really believe that it cannot be explained naturalistically, or are you just being "coy" with me? Even if it suggests the resurrection, it is still no proof. Proof is what would be necessary to cause problems with the notion of faith.

Sure, if people worshipped it and not God. Is this what you are getting at, because I am mightly confused about exactly what you are trying to say here, because I don't think you believe it is proof (or evidence) of resurrection.

Ok, I don't really see the point, but I'll switch to the word evidence. How is the shroud evidence of resurrection? What the heck do you compare it with to come to that conclusion? Do you believe that it was supernaturally created?

Ok, so it was painted on in some form or fashion as some suggest. Are you contradicting them? Do you believe there is no naturalistic explanation for it? That was being a little "coy". :devil3:

Gamera

[QUOTE=Haran]II was thinking the same thing about you.

I've read Paul extensively. He states the essence of Christianity when he rebuts your view by stating.

2 Corinthans 3:6 "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

you need to take this to heart.

And check out James.

James 1:25 - But he who looks
into the perfect law, the law of
liberty, and perseveres, being no
hearer that forgets but a doer that
acts, he shall be blessed in his
doing.

Uh, I not only believe, it hasn't been explained naturalistically as it stands.

It's a fake. But if it were real, it would clearly be evidence of a supernatural event since it's just not normal for the images of dead people to mysteriously appear on shrouds.

It's a fake. But if it were real, it would clearly be evidence of a supernatural event since it's just not normal for the images of dead people to mysteriously appear on shrouds.

If it was painting on, then it's a fake and has no probative value as to the history of Jesus.

Haran

By what I'm reading, I doubt that very much.

Wow, now that's cherry picking. You are not taking the whole of the books into account. And you just completely ignored what I stated. Paul wrote those books to those cities, Gamera, to reproach them for their incorrect behavior. That is not moral relativism.

And, I have no idea why in the world you quoted the verse from James because it is totally against what you just stated about moral relativism. James was Jewish, and the message of his book is that a faith without works is dead. His exhortation was not only to have faith but to follow the law. I'm sure you remember the legalism of James as expressed in Acts.

Gamera, I don't really know what to say to you. You will probably just throw the accusation back in my face, but I say in all seriousness that if you consider yourself a Christian, you would do well not to cherry-pick but to read through these books and attempt to understand the context and to whom these books were written and why and to understand the connections between the books.

Yes, Jesus had a message of love, and yes, Jesus socialized with sinners rather than those "white-washed tombs" around him, but he did not condone their sin. Jesus was no moral relativist. He would tell us as he told the woman at the well...Go and sin no more.

*sigh* Gamera, this is the whole point I am making. If it is disputable, which it is, then it in no way causes problems for faith. If mean that you are worried that people will see the shroud as proof positive of a resurrection and worship the shroud, then I too would see that as a problem. Your position at the moment is something of an amoeba, and it is impossible to detect where you are trying to go with the whole thing.

Amaleq13

That would be an entirely inappropriate paraphrase that is also false. I accept the arguments I consider to best explain the evidence and this has required me to alter my conclusions. If you were as familiar with me as you pretend to be, you would know that this has happened in this very forum on more than one occasion. Seriously, Haran, these straw man caricatures should be beneath you.

Wrong again. You going for a record? I enjoy rational discussions of the evidence here because I have no particular emotional investment in the conclusions.

Clearly in sufficient numbers and not carefully enough to justify your false characterizations.

:rolling:

Wrong again. Instead, I've stated repeatedly that I consider certainty to require faith.

You really need to slow down and read more carefully. You are consistently and badly misinterpreting nearly everything I've written.

For example, compare what I did write with your response above:
You turned a recognition that the magical picture is probably not real into a recognition that the resurrection is not real.

I can't do that because atheism isn't a "belief system" so it can't be a better one. Atheism is an absence of faith in any deity.

RUmike

I'm not so sure about this. I can't really think of any solid instance of Jesus telling the sinners he hung out with to repent. Maybe you can prove me wrong, though.

Haran

I believe I already did in the post from which you pulled my statement. Jesus told the woman at the well to go and sin no more.

Haran

Nope.

Oh, ok, this is much different. So, these "Christians" believe that the picture in the Bible of the resurrection is a "magical picture" that is not real, yet they still believe in the resurrection (and that despite the fact that they reject this "magical picture" that informs them of the resurrection)??

I would call this poor spin in an attempt to get out of being wrong.

I have always seen this as an failed apologetic tactic that has died a million deaths and keeps coming back. An absence of faith in deity does not mean an absence of faith in your "worldview" as an atheist. You have "faith" that your interpretations of the world and morals are correct and you cannot prove them. I would be glad to have this discussion with you elsewhere, because it is a place I have been before, analyzed in depth and rejected.

Didymus

Are you responding to the VMJ - Virtual Mythical Jesus - idea?

The difference is that VMJ posits the crucifixion of a human Jesus. We are NOT talking about a "historical" Jesus here, i.e., a preacher with a following whose biography is reflected in the ahistorical gospels and their many "mythic motifs," but rather the (real or rumored) unjust crucifixion of an obscure individual whose biography was and is unknown. This scenario would explain why Paul knew nothing of his life.

With VMJ, there's no need to insist that Paul conjured Jesus as a spirit whose crucifixion and resurrection took place is some middle realm between the spiritual and the temporal. And there's no "hard part," no difficulty in explaining Paul's various references to a Jesus with human characteristics: "Seed of David," "born of a woman," "died," "crucified," "buried."

Didymus