I find it interesting like Noah's Ark but honestly it should be irrelevant to ones faith. Jesus said something I believe to Thomas about believing because He could see Christ Risen and yet He said blessed are those who believe and did not see ........ I think the problem with shroud is that ( already has) it will become a relic or idol. I've heard that the image on the shroud is said to have been caused by some intense energy or ionizing radiation and that it came from within.
Originally posted by menace71 I find it interesting like Noah's Ark but honestly it should be irrelevant to ones faith. Jesus said something I believe to Thomas about believing because He could see Christ Risen and yet He said blessed are those who believe and did not see ........ I think the problem with shroud is that ( already has) it will become a relic or idol. I've heard that the ...[text shortened]... been caused by some intense energy or ionizing radiation and that it came from within.
Manny
To determine how the image was made was the reason that the scientists went to investigate it. There is no other image in the world like it according to the statement of one scientist. None of them figured out how the image was made. One scientist believes it was made from a light source with a wavelength shorter than any known by modern science.
The image still remains a mystery after years of diligent research.
Originally posted by FabianFnas So you say that noone really knows for sure? All we have is guesswork? Nothing more?
The scientists claim to know for sure what the image on the Shroud is not, according to the reference. However, they claim they can't prove what it is or how it was made. However, I know it was made by Jesus when He raised Himself from the dead. I believe the scientists know it too.
Originally posted by RJHinds The scientists claim to know for sure what the image on the Shroud is not, according to the reference. However, they claim they can't prove what it is or how it was made. However, I know it was made by Jesus when He raised Himself from the dead. I believe the scientists know it too.
No no, you said "The image still remains a mystery after years of diligent research." It's your words, not the scientists, yours.
And I asked you:
"So you say that noone really knows for sure? All we have is guesswork? Nothing more?"
Do you deny your earlier statement? Are you saying that I lie when I quote your words? Or are you just avoiding the matter?
Originally posted by FabianFnas No no, you said "The image still remains a mystery after years of diligent research." It's your words, not the scientists, yours.
And I asked you:
"So you say that noone really knows for sure? All we have is guesswork? Nothing more?"
Do you deny your earlier statement? Are you saying that I lie when I quote your words? Or are you just avoiding the matter?
Well, actually it is part of the first paragraph from the reference. You apparently did not read it. The first paragraph goes like this:
"Much of the science involved in Shroud research is in the area of image formation theory. If Shroud were an obvious work of art, the subject would be irrelevant and even ludicrous. But it is precisely because the cause of the image still remains a mystery after years of diligent research that leads some to investigate other non-artistic causes of the image."
Originally posted by RJHinds Well, actually it is part of the first paragraph from the reference. You apparently did not read it. The first paragraph goes like this:
"Much of the science involved in Shroud research is in the area of image formation theory. If Shroud were an obvious work of art, the subject would be irrelevant and even ludicrous. But it is precisely because the cau ...[text shortened]... of diligent research that leads some to investigate other non-artistic causes of the image."[/b]
They can investigate all they want but even if it was the image of JC this does not constitute proof or resurrection. At most it is a burial cloth. The burial cloth of a dead person.
Originally posted by RJHinds Well, actually it is part of the first paragraph from the reference. You apparently did not read it. The first paragraph goes like this:
"Much of the science involved in Shroud research is in the area of image formation theory. If Shroud were an obvious work of art, the subject would be irrelevant and even ludicrous. But it is precisely because the cau ...[text shortened]... of diligent research that leads some to investigate other non-artistic causes of the image."[/b]
You wrote it, not as a quote, but as you've written it yourself, as if it was your opinion. Now you take a step back and say: No no, it wasn't my words it was theirs.
So how would we know what your words are and when you quote other words? It doesn't matter if you agree with them.
So you think there isn't any mystery here? Contrary to the 'quote' you used? Or is it crystal clear in your mind?
Originally posted by FabianFnas You wrote it, not as a quote, but as you've written it yourself, as if it was your opinion. Now you take a step back and say: No no, it wasn't my words it was theirs.
So how would we know what your words are and when you quote other words? It doesn't matter if you agree with them.
So you think there isn't any mystery here? Contrary to the 'quote' you used? Or is it crystal clear in your mind?
I gave you the link to the reference immediately after the statement. I just failed to put it in quotes. All you had to do is google the link and you could see it all. That is the purpose of giving a link to a reference. I am sure you must know that.
There is a mystery there to people like you, but not to me.
Originally posted by RJHinds I gave you the link to the reference immediately after the statement. I just failed to put it in quotes. All you had to do is google the link and you could see it all. That is the purpose of giving a link to a reference. I am sure you must know that.
There is a mystery there to people like you, but not to me.
The mystery isn't what it is. The mystery is how to think it is the face of Jesus with such a certitude.
I don't find it uninteresting. A shroud? Yes? So what? What does it prove?
Originally posted by sonhouse They can investigate all they want but even if it was the image of JC this does not constitute proof or resurrection. At most it is a burial cloth. The burial cloth of a dead person.
Well, it certainly constitutes strong evidence that would stand up in a court of law. The image is miraculous and can't be explained by modern science. That constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind.
Originally posted by FabianFnas Not scientifically, it doesn't.
Non-scientifially, you have to have the faith.
The scientists have tested it over and over and the image can't be explained by modern science, making it a miracle, just like the resurrection. One only has to have the faith the size of a mustard seed to believe this miraculous image was formed by the resurrection
However, to believe in the theory of evolution, one needs to have great faith in grownup fairy tales and science fiction.
Originally posted by sonhouse They can investigate all they want but even if it was the image of JC this does not constitute proof or resurrection. At most it is a burial cloth. The burial cloth of a dead person.
And yet no other burial cloth retains the image of the inhabitant.
Why do you suppose this is? Is it wholly unreasonable to suggest it might be a by-product of the Resurrection?
Hoax or Proof of Resurrection
02 Apr '14 02:03
Back to Top