eh

Oh no, not this again.

Look, while there may have been a 'biofilm' that could altered the dating of the shroud, it has been said time and again that this still would not be enough to place the thing at the time of Christ.

But we really don't need to be debating this, as it is a very easily testable idea. If the RCC wants to prove this to be the authentic burial cloth of Christ, all they have to do is arrange for another test to be done. That would certainly put an end to this matter.

Or would it? A better topic would be, if the shroud was found to be authentic, how would it be evidence for the resurection, or any miracle at all?

donnerkeil

<strong>
Look, while there may have been a 'biofilm' that could altered the dating of the shroud, it has been said time and again that this still would not be enough to place the thing at the time of Christ.
</strong>

I disagree. If the biofilm accounts for an additional 60% of a fiber's mass, that is a significant detail that needs to be taken into account. I don't know how the results will finally turn out, but I think this hypothesis warrants further study.

<strong>
But we really don't need to be debating this, as it is a very easily testable idea. If the RCC wants to prove this to be the authentic burial cloth of Christ, all they have to do is arrange for another test to be done. That would certainly put an end to this matter.
</strong>

I agree, and from what I have read, the Church has agreed to provide more samples. However, you do need to understand that regardless of it's authenticity or not, the Shroud is an artifact, and at the very minimum a piece of art. Destruction of the Shroud for the sake of science is counter-productive in my opinion. "Yes, the Shroud was a first century relic... yes, I know, it was completely destroyed in the analysis, but at least you can rest assured it was the real deal."

<strong>
Or would it? A better topic would be, if the shroud was found to be authentic, how would it be evidence for the resurection, or any miracle at all?</strong>

And that is my point. If it was dated to the first-century, I doubt any skeptic would consider it "authentic" at all. As I said before, and will say again... miracles are for believers. Arguing the authenticity of the shroud is a pointless exercise. Unless you like pointless exercises.

Albert Cipriani

ex-preacher

Matthew 11:23 "If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day."

John 10:38 "even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles"

John 14:11 "at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves"

Acts 2:22 "accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs"

Rom 15:18-19 "leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done - by the power of signs and miracles"

This is another case of Christians wanting to have it both ways. It's also a great illustration of using the BIble to prove almost anything. It's such a flexible (self-contradictory) book. I would love to see the verse that says "miracles are for believers." Can someone find that for me?

donnerkeil

Ah, you must have been a Protestant preacher before you were an ex-preacher I suppose. Some of them are notorious for twisting Scripture, that much is true. It's also something you just did as well (taking Scripture out of context).

I never recall saying that that quote was from the Bible, hence I don't think I'm obliged to find a verse for you. But nice try.

However, let us look at least at one verse you provided (John 10:38)... btw, what Bible version is that, or is that the "Ex-preacher Translation for Atheists"?

John 10:38 "even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles"

Taken in context, of the chapter we see...

John 10:25-27
Jesus answered them, "I told you and you do not believe. The works I do in my Father's name testify to me. But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

So it's not that miracles will convince the non-believer, and though Jesus isn't saying "Miracles are for believers", His quote does seem to be saying that much... hrm, isn't it?

At any rate ex-preacher... if you saw something first-hand that you could not explain, but "coincidentally" looked miraculous and was done in a situation where a miracle was said to be about to take place, would you believe?

I think your response will prove my comment, regardless of all the scripture you try to hide behind.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: donnerkeil ]</p>

ex-preacher

Ah, you must be a Catholic to so smugly condemn all Protestants. Twisting the Bible isn't a problem for Catholics since anything the Bible says can be overruled by offcial explanations. Please tell me how each of the verses I quoted was "out of context." BTW, that's a typical Protestant dodge.


<strong> It's known as the New International Version. Please give me that verse from the Catholic Bible.

<strong> I don't buy your interpretation. If you are correct though, it becomes another example of contradictions in the Bible. Well done! Your explanation also would suggest that there is nothing anyone can do to convince the "non-sheep." You must be a Calvinist Catholic. It also raises the question of why you're even here.

<strong> I do not rule out the possibility of the miraculous. I am quite skeptical of such claims as I'm sure you are when it comes to every religion except your own. If David Copperfield announced that he would make the Statue of Liberty disappear, then appeared to have done so, would you believe?

I think your response will prove that all "true believers" are skeptical of everyone else's "miracles" regardless of how much scripture you run away from.

l-bow

About the biofilm contamination. Has anyone seen this?


<a href="http://www.mcri.org/Shroud_graph.html" target="_blank">http://www.mcri.org/Shroud_graph.html</a>

donnerkeil

I believe I said "some" in my reply. Did I say "some" ex-preacher? Did I? Come on now, be honest about it. You know, as an atheist/agnostic, you can still be honorable. Did I, or did I not say "some"?

It is true that the Bible needs to be interpreted correctly. The Catholic document Dei Verbum is quite clear about this.

So you're still a Protestant, to dodge so in that manner, or are you just delving back into your past? BTW: I provided a refutation further down on John 10:38.

In it's entirety, it reads as (from the NAB):
but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.

Of course you don't, why would I be so silly to believe that you might admit defeat to a theist?

No, hardly a contradiction at all. Also, nowhere in that verse does it say that someone is stuck as being a sheep or a non-sheep their entire life. You could easily become a sheep (by believing in His message) and recognize the miracles for what they are (ie: further proof of His existance).

As to why I am here? Because I enjoy the fellowship.

Actually, as a Catholic I'm not required to believe in any miracles that occur now or in the future. Hrm, how's them bunch of apples?

I never denied as such, so what's your point?

donnerkeil

Interesting, what science was performed to come to this conclusion?

ex-preacher

Certainly you used the word "some." The question is why did you say "some of them [i.e. Protestant preachers]"? Why didn't you say "some Christians" or "some people" or "some preachers." Since you are a Catholic saying that "some Protestants" twist scripture, the implication is that no Catholic ever twists scripture. Did you or did you not imply that?


<strong> Think, my man. The point is that you and I agree completely that we would skeptical about the following scenario you described:
"if you saw something first-hand that you could not explain, but "coincidentally" looked miraculous and was done in a situation where a miracle was said to be about to take place, would you believe?"