The Shroud of Turin

Originally posted by sonhouse
What about the part that, for the sake of argument, the shroud was proven beyond doubt to belong to the dead Jesus.

Exactly how would that prove divinity? All it would prove is a positive identification of Jesus, proving there WAS a real Jesus and he lived and died in Jerusalem. Going from that to now he is divine is impossible just analyzing the shroud.

Again, if you bothered to read the thread you would have seen my thoughts on that also. 🙂

Originally posted by divegeester
Again, if you bothered to read the thread you would have seen my thoughts on that also. 🙂

Ok, we are on the same page there.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Ok, we are on the same page there.

🙂

Originally posted by divegeester
🙂

It was a long post, I have been working 12 hours a day for the past 3 weeks to help get out product that the sales team managed to sell and we didn't have product🙂 So long hours and I only have a few minutes at a time at work to read stuff. Plus I drive 160 miles a day commute, 80 miles one way. Been at that since 2001. Up the 78-287 corridor in New Jersey. But I get to keep my house......

The shroud would prove resurrection.

Why has nobody been able, even in 2016, to produce an image on a cloth that would produce an image on the negative of a photo?

Despite carbon dating, on a bad example, this shroud is remarkable.

Originally posted by chaney3
The shroud would prove resurrection.

Why has nobody been able, even in 2016, to produce an image on a cloth thremarkable.

An empty tomb proves nothing. An empty shroud proves nothing. Unless there is hard empirical evidence that the tomb and the shroud were ever occupied. That evidence is notably lacking.

The fact that we cannot produce a similar image does not mean that Goddidit.

Originally posted by moonbus
An empty tomb proves nothing. An empty shroud proves nothing. Unless there is hard empirical evidence that the tomb and the shroud were ever occupied. That evidence is notably lacking.

The fact that we cannot produce a similar image does not mean that Goddidit.

It does not mean God didn't do it.

Your science cannot duplicate an image from thousands years ago.

Keep your atheism to yourself, unless you can produce a shroud.

Originally posted by divegeester
I've given you one set of biblical text which completely debunks your claim. The biblical text is very clear in all 4 gospels, you are welcome to present contradictory text from whatever websites you can find which support your POV. If you get desperate you could always ask Chaney3 for a papyrus.
🙂

Your ability to cite selected passaged of the NT is exemplary. Your understanding of the historical context from which they drew their meaning would benefit from supplementary reading outside the evangelical curriculum.

The passage you cite from Matthew indicates that some aggrieved high priest shrieked "Blasphemy!" and tore his clothes in a fit of hystrionic rage. It is not a historically accurate account of the legal grounds for Jesus's execution.

The Romans would not have executed a Jew because some other fractious Jew had accused him of blaspheming a god the Romans did not believe in.

Originally posted by chaney3
It does not mean God didn't do it.

Your science cannot duplicate an image from thousands years ago.

Keep your atheism to yourself, unless you can produce a shroud.

This is exactly the point where Tertullian's famous claim kicks in: for those who are wont to believe in impossibilities (which you call "miracles" ), putative evidence which appears to support their belief (however tenuous) will be accepted and touted as "proof", whereas putative evidence which disputes the belief will be dismissed, discredited, or simply ignored. You can keep your faith to yourself, too. It's no skin off my nose. Just don't try to teach it to my children as science in the public school system.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Can you explain how an average man claiming to be God would NOT be considered blasphemy?

I agree though, that they probably needed the Romans help to actually execute Jesus, as the Romans were really good at that, and it would have been problematic for the Jewish leaders to actually execute him, a popular rabbi, especially at Passover. But Pilate said t ...[text shortened]... ion of Caliphas to get rid of Jesus was probably the perceived threat to his political position.

I don't think Jesus did claim to be God. Words were put into his mouth by his accusers. Mystics from time immemorial have claimed to be one with God and have, from time immemorial, been misinterpreted by the spiritually inadept to mean that they think they are God.

What doesn't work is the claim that the Romans would have cared about a Jew blaspheming Yahweh. Pilate would have laughed the accusers out of court. Caliphas would have known this, so he had to come up with some other charge.

What mattered to the Romans was maintaining control over a province with a history of rebelliousness. A charge of sedition would have caught Pilate's attention, and the title "King of the Jews" would have fit the bill as a rebel leader. That Jesus was talking about a spiritual Kingdom (to come) and not a political kingdom on the ground, probably went right over Pilate's head.

Originally posted by moonbus
Your ability to cite selected passaged of the NT is exemplary. Your understanding of the historical context from which they drew their meaning would benefit from supplementary reading outside the evangelical curriculum.

The passage you cite from Matthew indicates that some aggrieved high priest shrieked "Blasphemy!" and tore his clothes in a fit of hystri ...[text shortened]... use some other fractious Jew had accused him of blaspheming a god the Romans did not believe in.

Again as I stated earlier, you are conflating, and deliberately so I now suspect, the how the Jews got Jesus executed with the why they did it. But carry on with with your attempts to obfuscate by accusing the Jewish leader at the time of "shrieking".

Originally posted by moonbus
I don't think Jesus did claim to be God. Words were put into his mouth by his accusers. Mystics from time immemorial have claimed to be one with God and have, from time immemorial, been misinterpreted by the spiritually inadept to mean that they think they are God.

What doesn't work is the claim that the Romans would have cared about a Jew b ...[text shortened]... dom (to come) and not a political kingdom on the ground, probably went right over Pilate's head.

Again, as I said before, what you think is just that...what opinion you personally hold to and we all know what opinions are worth. You have been given unequivocal scriptural evidence of why the Jews wanted Jesus dead, you just don't like it because it contradicts your opinion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It was a long post, I have been working 12 hours a day for the past 3 weeks to help get out product that the sales team managed to sell and we didn't have product🙂 So long hours and I only have a few minutes at a time at work to read stuff. Plus I drive 160 miles a day commute, 80 miles one way. Been at that since 2001. Up the 78-287 corridor in New Jersey. But I get to keep my house......

Interesting; what product is this?

Originally posted by moonbus
The Romans would not have executed a Jew because some other fractious Jew had accused him of blaspheming a god the Romans did not believe in.

You miss the point. Pilate's main concern was to not incite the crowds coming into Jerusalem for the Passover, most of which were Jews. His concern was to squash any rebelliousness, and here is the leader of the Jewish elders in Jerusalem telling him that the man Jesus was dangerous. Caliphas found reason to silence him and yet Pilate still "found no fault in him". He let the mob pass judgement on whom to release for Passover, as a conciliatory gesture. He wasn't exactly hot to execute anyone. He had his eye on moving up the ladder and just wanted to get to the end of his time in Jerusalem without a major "event" to screw up his record.

@chaney3

Suppose someone shows me an empty box. "See," he says, "this box is empty."
"Yes," I agree, "the box is empty. That is an undeniable fact."
Now he says, "There used to be a beetle in this box. And the fact that the box is now empty proves that the beetle ascended into heaven by a miracle."
"Woa, Nelly!" I say, "what evidence is there that there was ever a beetle in the box?"
"That disappeared 2,000 years ago," he says, "the box is all we have now."
I say, "Isn't it much more likely that the beetle, assuming there once was one, was removed by conventional means?"
"More probable, yes," he answers, "but it was a special sort of beetle. That is what proves it ascended to heaven by a miracle."
That is an exact analogy of the shroud myth.
You say, "See here, this piece of cloth is empty."
Yes, I agree, the cloth is empty, that is an indisputable fact.
"The person who was burried in this cloth isn't here anymore. So that proves that he ascended into heaven by a miracle."
Woa, Nelly. What evidence is there that there was ever anyone in that cloth? It could be that that particular cloth was never actually used to wrap up a body. That it was always only just a piece of cloth.
"The Corpus Delicti disappeared 2,000 years ago," you say. "The cloth is all we have now."
I say, but even supposing that there was once someone in that cloth, it is much more likely that the body was removed by conventional means.
"The person was a special person," you say, "See this image on the cloth? We don't know how that image was imprinted, and that is what proves that his not being here now was a miracle."
Woa, Nelly! If you think that is a valid conclusion, given the available evidence, then I suggest you start watching reruns of original Star Trek, and pay particular attention to Mr. Spock.