Originally posted by chaney3 It would certainly help my faith if the 'shroud' was proven real.
Thinking more about your OP - how would it help your faith?
Let's (all) suppose Jesus existed as a man, was executed for blasphemy and this was his burial shroud. So what? It's doesn't prove his claims of deity, the virgin birth, the miracles, nothing.
Originally posted by divegeester Thinking more about your OP - how would it help your faith?
Let's (all) suppose Jesus existed as a man, was executed for blasphemy and this was his burial shroud. So what? It's doesn't prove his claims of deity, the virgin birth, the miracles, nothing.
The only thing it would prove, accepting the shroud as THE shroud of JC, is just that, he died and the shroud gives a rough idea of what he looked like. The only problem with that concept is the shroud is a fake, a manufactured relic to charm the faithful, nothing more.
Originally posted by apathist Sonhouse, I mean via carbon dating, without research right now I think middle ages, 1400 or so?
Tw, there is still how. Why, yes forgery is lucrative. Who, please share. And I want to say, I like mystery, and wonder why you like popping bubbles. meany-head
I think the most likely explanation is primitive photography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Hypotheses_on_image_origin
If you want mystery, then don't ask. If you want knowledge, then I suggest you study science. There is always more to learn and it has more practical use.
I personally find DNA fascinating.
Originally posted by apathist Sonhouse, I mean via carbon dating, without research right now I think middle ages, 1400 or so?
Tw, there is still how. Why, yes forgery is lucrative. Who, please share. And I want to say, I like mystery, and wonder why you like popping bubbles. meany-head
It was carbon dated but they chose a piece of the shroud that was a repair job, a couple square inches in a corner. That was a huge mistake because the repair was dated to something like 1400 AD. They will now never get a chance to do the same to the real cloth since the Vatican has learned its lesson and want to keep the mystery alive as a relic to prove faith to their subjects.
Originally posted by twhitehead I think the most likely explanation is primitive photography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Hypotheses_on_image_origin
If you want mystery, then don't ask. If you want knowledge, then I suggest you study science. There is always more to learn and it has more practical use.
I personally find DNA fascinating.
Allen seems to make a strong case.
Mysteries are exactly when we ask. Figuring out the right questions is key.
Science is powerful, but it isn't the only source of knowledge. I find cells fascinating. Microcosms! And viruses.
Seriously, does popping bubbles give you an endorphin rush? Nothing wrong with that.
Originally posted by divegeester Thinking more about your OP - how would it help your faith?
Let's (all) suppose Jesus existed as a man, was executed for blasphemy and this was his burial shroud. So what? It's doesn't prove his claims of deity, the virgin birth, the miracles, nothing.
Nor is it evidence that he rose from the dead, even supposing it really was his shroud.
Originally posted by divegeester Thinking more about your OP - how would it help your faith?
Let's (all) suppose Jesus existed as a man, was executed for blasphemy and this was his burial shroud. So what? It's doesn't prove his claims of deity, the virgin birth, the miracles, nothing.
I have to agree.
Those who believe in the Christ would still believe even if the shroud were found to be a fake. It's certainly not proof.
Originally posted by moonbus Nor is it evidence that he rose from the dead, even supposing it really was his shroud.
The transference of an image to the shroud does suggest some amount of energy was expended and given the technology of the time, it would have been a significant amount.
It is a mystery to us, given techniques available to us now, how the image was produced and imprinted on the cloth; that merely means that there is a gap in our historical knowledge of techniques available to earlier civilisations. There is no reason to suspect divine intervention simply because the image happens to 'suit' the Christian mythology of a risen messiah. If the image resembled an Ethiopian woman or a Mongolian infant or an elk, no one would suggest that the imprinting of the image had any other explanation than a mundane one, such as some chemical dye no longer known to us, or shadowing by an extremely bright light (as happened at Hiroshima), or weaving of two different-colored fibres, or some combination of techniques.
Moreover, we do not know what the image looked like 600 or more years ago; we may be looking at the faded stain of something which was once painted on in much stronger colors. Had we been able to examine the shroud in its pristine state, the method of imprinting might have been obvious. We struggle to imagine how Stonehenge or the great pyramids were built without diesel-powered cranes and power tools; but if anyone had bothered to sketch the scaffolding and heavy-lifting machinery used, and if such a sketch had survived, we would understand and not be tempted to make wild conjectures that aliens or gods must have accomplished such seemingly improbable feats of architecture.
Originally posted by divegeester Let's (all) suppose Jesus existed as a man, was executed for blasphemy and this was his burial shroud....
He wasn't executed for blasphemy. The Romans took no interest in local religious matters. What mattered to them was political control over the province. Anyone who threatened that was subject to Roman law. The charge against Jesus was that he claimed to be King of the Jews, a claim he did not explicitly deny. Whether it was to have been a spiritual kingdom (to come) or a mundane (political) one is a nuance lost in translation or perhaps deliberately left ambiguous.
The Roman authorities clearly understood it in its mundane/political sense only, and that is what gives the story much of its poignancy. To claim to be King of the Jews in a political sense was tantamount to incitement to rebellion ("sedition" ), and that was what Jesus was executed for.
Originally posted by moonbus He wasn't executed for blasphemy. The Romans took no interest in local religious matters. What mattered to them was political control over the province. Anyone who threatened that was subject to Roman law. The charge against Jesus was that he claimed to be King of the Jews, a claim he did not explicitly deny. Whether it was to have been a spiritual kingdom ( ...[text shortened]... s tantamount to incitement to rebellion ("sedition" ), and that was what Jesus was executed for.
You're quibbling over a technicality on how the Jewish leaders got him executed by the Romans, Pilate. The reason they tried to arrest him, failed, tried to stone him, failed...was blasphemy. Finally they got the Romans to arrest him for sedition, but that is not [iwhy[/i] they wanted him executed. Its very clear in the bible, several times.
Originally posted by divegeester You're quibbling over a technicality on how the Jewish leaders got him executed by the Romans, Pilate. The reason they tried to arrest him, failed, tried to stone him, failed...was blasphemy. Finally they got the Romans to arrest him for sedition, but that is not [iwhy[/i] they wanted him executed. Its very clear in the bible, several times.
I refer you to the following article which explains what constitutes blasphemy in the Jewish tradition:
If the Jewish religious authorities had had a case for blasphemy against Jesus, they could have executed him themselves. The fact that they went to the Roman political authorities to get rid of him shows that they did not have a case for blasphemy and had to trump up a political charge against him. In the event, Pilate found no guilt in the man and would have released him, but for the mob.
Originally posted by chaney3 It would certainly help my faith if the 'shroud' was proven real.
If it were the case that the shroud was genuine and accepted proof of the existence and divine nature of Jesus, surely that would weaken your faith? Given such proof, your faith would be irrelevant, wouldn't it?
The Shroud of Turin
25 Nov '16 16:58
Back to Top