So, many here can dismiss the evidence presented by the Shroud that can not be reproduced by the science we have now (Bippy123 sites a burst of electromagnetic waves that can not be reproduced now)
Most atheists I know always seem to have an emotional component to their arguments against god and they are incredibly rigid when it comes to their standards of evidence for God and anything that points to God even indirectly . When I was an atheist I was a reluctant atheist because I always looked at things with a long term lense plus . I knew the folly of trying to attach meaning , value purpose and hope to a world without God in it . My atheism lasted for 4 years because even though I wanted God to exist I still needed evidence to bring me back to him . It was the darkest time of my life but also the most enlightening journey I ever undertook
This is only some of the evidence for the shroud . The photo negative like qualities makes it highly inlikely that a forger or artist knew of this technology hundreds of years before the invention of photography . The best site to research the shroud with is shroud.com or any presentation made by Barrie Schwortz who was the documenting photographer on the sturp term that got to study the shroud first hand for 5 straight 24 hour days . Schwortz is an Orthodox Jew which makes it more amazing that he believes in the authenticity of the shroud since he wanted it to be a forgery . Here is a good place to start with this presentation called the shroud and the Jew
Yup, funny how those who say they don't believe in a personal God seem to detest Him personally. I've asked for years what evidence would suffice and never get any answer. I suspect the real answer is, always a little more. There is no meaning without God, a dead universe doesn't care.
I see....so I am to accept your word above that of historians, archeologists and scholars because....why? Are you also directed by God that you "Know" what he intended and did? Do you understand how impossible this sounds or does truth and reality no longer apply?
Dan Brown is an author. I would like to see the list of "lots" of historians, archeologists and scholars that agree with you.....please provide this data as I am unaware of it.
You must really live in a bubble. Let's start with one, I could give you hundreds more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright The three largest Christian bodies in the world, RCC, Orthodox, and Anglican Communion would agree with me on the origin of the Bible, as well as another 600,000,000 or so evangelicals in non-denominational churches. Do you think within that group of 2,000,000,000 there aren't a few historians, archeologists or scholars?
Correct and that’s what proponents of the shroud lean towards Paul. If this is true sceptics can always use the “advanced aliens came to earth and created this to start our religion “ argument but that will Only show desperation . I lean towards it being the real thing depending on what day of the week it is . I’m even more excited about the upcoming aware 2 study that should be done in 2-3 years . If successful it will be beginning of the end for the current physicalist paradigm and start the merging of science and spirituality . I think we are in for some exciting times I sure wish the Vatican would allow for more testing for the shroud . Mark antonacci and his team of scientists are trying to push the Vatican to allow them to test the shroud for neutrinos which could demonstrate that an extraordinary event happened on that burial shroud of neutrinos are found . It’s funny that antonacci was an agnostic trying to shut his Christian girlfriend up by proving to her hat Christianity was a fairy tale and he ends up converting to Christianity himself because of hisbtrawtacg into his shroud .
Yet atheists imagine we're only Christians due to childhood brainwashing. For antonacci, the science behind the shroud led him to faith. It can be difficult to accept the Resurrection because it's not something that usually happens, and if true, you've got to change your life.
Good point. It is interesting some scientists see the evidence for design and attribute it to life from outer space, which only kicks the can down the road but at least they're honest.
No such thing as objectively true. If there is, there's no way to prove it. So, by empirical data, there is no objectively true.
I don't have that exact link handy but here are a few examples from Wikipedia: "The first actual textile, as opposed to skins sewn together, was probably felt. Surviving examples of Nålebinding, another early textile method, date from 6500 BC.[citation needed] Our knowledge of ancient textiles and clothing has expanded in the recent past thanks to modern technological developments.[7] Our knowledge of cultures varies greatly with the climatic conditions to which archeological deposits are exposed; the Middle East and the arid fringes of China have provided many very early samples in good condition, but the early development of textiles in the Indian subcontinent, sub-Saharan Africa and other moist parts of the world remains unclear. In northern Eurasia, peat bogs can also preserve textiles very well. The first known textile of South America was discovered in Guitarrero Cave in Peru, it was woven out of vegetable fibers and dates back to 8,000 B.C.E." By comparison, the Shroud is a youngster.
NO. Constantine needed a way to control the masses. The council of Nicea was set up to come up with doctrine/plan on how to achieve that. Books were put in and left out of the bible to portray the message Constantine wanted. And then a decade or 2 later, the next Emperor essentially made christianity the law of the land. Paganism was made illegal.
OK, now I kinda remember. It was fossilized in the earth. IE, preserved. How was this Shroud preserved? It wasn't fossilized. Speaking of preserved as fossil, bones are found all the time, but no clothes or skin or similar. So, I'm not sure I buy a piece of cloth fossilized from 9000 yrs ago. Besides, that is pre flood. It would have been washed away in the flood of Noah. Also, as most Shroud believers keep dismissing, is the fact, the bible states exactly what Jesus was covered in. Strips of cloth.
They aren't even in the same ball park. It is why there is a doctrine called the Pauline doctrine. It's got its own brand of christianity. Differing from Jesus.
Yes. You will inject your personal beliefs and bias into it. In fact, you probably think I am totally wrong, don't you?
We don't know! I'm not saying there was a flood, and I'm not saying there wasn't a flood. There are a lot of things we do not know, but by discarding something out right we will never know. Dutchsinse is a perfect example. When he started reporting that swarms of magma moved in certain directions, and that earthquakes can be predicted he was scorned at by the geologists. Well he was right, and they were wrong. Another example would be the expanding earth theory, but it's something that won't be looked into because the so called 'experts' would have to reconsider and readjust everything they know.
Dairyair to someone that has never studied the early Christian Church fathers and the apostolic fathers this would make sense but there are some major problems with this contention . There is one common denominator that outs your case on shaky ground.whenever thete was a Teaching that went against what the apostles passed down to their students the apostles fathers (people like Clemente of Rome , Ignatius of Antioch , polycarp of Smyrna and so on ) there would be an immediate protest by the early Christians without exception . An example would be the 2nd century heresy of docetism which says that Jesus was Never on earth in the flesh, that he was here in a spiritual form only that looked like he was here in the flesh. Ignatius of Antioch and others immediately protested this in 110 ad . Likewise if Constantine didn’t pass down anything that was taught through the succession of church leaders from the apostles down the early Christians would have likewise protested this vehemently even to the point of death as Ignatius did in 110 ad. What happened when Constantine did what he did ? Total silence from the Christian world .this is historical evidence that points to Constantine not going against what the early Christians taught . Plus there is nothing in early Christianity going against Constantine . This contention stands on very shaky historical grounds Like I said before I became an atheist I wouldn’t have known enough to disagree with your assertion but after I studied early Christian history and came out of my atheism I now know enough to confidently say this simply isn’t true . This is why apostolic succession. Is so important And Clemente of Rome even wrote about this in 80ad saying thatbthe aposties we’re stressed and worried that the teachings of Christ would be changed in the future and the message of Christ would be gone and thatbisnwhy Clemente said that they elected future church leaders to protect these teaching errors from happening http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ,
