Spirituality
05 Mar 13
10 Mar 13
Originally posted by divegeesterYou show a lack of understanding and ignorance of the Shroud of Turin. So there is no need to discuss the subject with one like you.
OK as Mr Hinds seems reluctant to get into this detail I'll discuss it with you.
The point I'm trying to get our resident headbanger to engage with is that the only way this rag can be a "relic" is for it to actually have been wrapped around the body of Jesus Christ which is completely impossible to prove or disprove. At best the only thing that can ...[text shortened]... ople. There is no controversy, no christian relic, no nothing. It is a non-interest item.
10 Mar 13
Originally posted by divegeesterExcept for one thing.
OK as Mr Hinds seems reluctant to get into this detail I'll discuss it with you.
The point I'm trying to get our resident headbanger to engage with is that the only way this rag can be a "relic" is for it to actually have been wrapped around the body of Jesus Christ which is completely impossible to prove or disprove. At best the only thing that can ...[text shortened]... ople. There is no controversy, no christian relic, no nothing. It is a non-interest item.
No other actual burial shrouds have an image on them. It lends credence to the Church's claim it is the actual shroud Jesus was resurrected in.
Christians are exhorted to have Faith. Faith cannot usually be proven.
As I said, though, I'm not 100% on board that this relic is real.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
10 Mar 13
Originally posted by SuzianneNot 100% on board...really?! Don't tell me you buy this hogwash - seriously.
Except for one thing.
No other actual burial shrouds have an image on them. It lends credence to the Church's claim it is the actual shroud Jesus was resurrected in.
Christians are exhorted to have Faith. Faith cannot usually be proven.
As I said, though, I'm not 100% on board that this relic is real.
How do you know no other shrouds have an image on them, have you examined many?
This one does have an image on it and that "lends credence to church claims"... how?
It's a fake, it's so obvious it's a fake that it's not even funny.
And as I pointed out, even if it is a real image of a real dead guy - so what?
11 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterIf there are other shrouds with images on them, we would have seen them. The Shroud is a relic BECAUSE it has an image and because the Church says it was wrapped around Jesus Christ after the Crucifixion.
Not 100% on board...really?! Don't tell me you buy this hogwash - seriously.
How do you know no other shrouds have an image on them, have you examined many?
This one does have an image on it and that "lends credence to church claims"... how?
It's a fake, it's so obvious it's a fake that it's not even funny.
And as I pointed out, even if it is a real image of a real dead guy - so what?
I believe in the resurrection of Christ. It's not a huge leap to believe that an image was cast onto the Shroud because of the holy magic of the resurrection. We, as mere humans, do not know if such a resurrection would or would not leave such an image. We only have ONE example of someone actually being resurrected, so who's to know? We DO have a shroud that the Church says Jesus wore after the Crucifixion, and it bears an image. An extremely accurate image, bloodstains in the right places and all. It seems reasonable to me that a real resurrection COULD produce an image, but I just don't know. Since it IS the only one with an image, this one little fact does "lend credence to Church claims".
UNLESS the image is fake. Which we still haven't been able to determine with any 100% certainty. Some researchers say yes, it's fake, others say no, it's not.
And as I pointed out, even if it is a real image of a real dead guy - so what?
No other shrouds exist with images. Obviously whatever did this is not common. In fact it is an event that only happened ONCE. It's not such a huge leap to consider that the resurrection of Christ might have made the image.
Is it impossible to think that the forces involved in resurrecting the Son of God might leave an image on the cloth? Is it impossible to think that someone just made this image and claimed it was real? No, to both.
That's why I'm not decided yet on the issue.
11 Mar 13
Christians at their best...haha!!!
Just kiddin guys. I tend to go with Dive on this one - even if it is real, so what?
I mean if 'they' found Krsna's undies or the Buddha's bra, I doubt it would change much.
The non-believers would continue to disbelieve, as something 2000 years old can be torn to pieces by those skeptics. The believers would just continue their faith. I doubt anything would change.
I really don't understand Ron's angle here 😕
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by karoly aczelHis 'angle' is that the Shroud of Turin proves that the man Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God. He's answering those who have said it does not, it's a fake, prove it's real - you can't, with saying "You think the Shroud is a fake? Prove it!"
Christians at their best...haha!!!
Just kiddin guys. I tend to go with Dive on this one - even if it is real, so what?
I mean if 'they' found Krsna's undies or the Buddha's bra, I doubt it would change much.
The non-believers would continue to disbelieve, as something 2000 years old can be torn to pieces by those skeptics. The believers would jus ...[text shortened]... their faith. I doubt anything would change.
I really don't understand Ron's angle here 😕
Jesus was all those things, but the Shroud just doesn't 'prove' it. Those who say it's fake haven't been able to prove it either.
And you might even be right about Krsna's undies or Buddha's bra. 🙂
11 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneOk. So Ron thinks that if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt then that will authenticate Jesus' story, a bit more (?).
His 'angle' is that the Shroud of Turin proves that the man Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God. He's answering those who have said it does not, it's a fake, prove it's real - you can't, with saying "You think the Shroud is a fake? Prove it!"
Jesus was all those things, but the Shroud just doesn't 'prove' it. Those who say it's fake haven either.
And you might even be right about Krsna's undies or Buddha's bra. 🙂
It's funny that Ron doesn't believe in the only thing that may prove it. Ie Radiocarbon dating ,(or whatever the elemental dating technique would be appropriate for that length of time).
(Perhaps one of the sciency guys could refresh my over-burdened memory banks and tell me which elemental dating technique would be appropriate, if any, for this job)
btw, I mentioned Buddha's bra because there was more than one Buddha, and I think one was a female.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by karoly aczelWho gives a rat's ass about Krisna or a Buddha, who are still dead and in their graves? What can they do for us?
Ok. So Ron thinks that if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt then that will authenticate Jesus' story, a bit more (?).
It's funny that Ron doesn't believe in the only thing that may prove it. Ie Radiocarbon dating ,(or whatever the elemental dating technique would be appropriate for that length of time).
(Perhaps one of the sciency guys could ...[text shortened]... mentioned Buddha's bra because there was more than one Buddha, and I think one was a female.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
11 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneI'm just surprised at you giving this any consideration of value. The shroud will only ever mean anything if it is proved without doubt to be the one which wrapped the body of Christ.
If there are other shrouds with images on them, we would have seen them. The Shroud is a relic BECAUSE it has an image and because the Church says it was wrapped around Jesus Christ after the Crucifixion.
I believe in the resurrection of Christ. It's not a huge leap to believe that an image was cast onto the Shroud because of the holy magic of the resu nd claimed it was real? No, to both.
That's why I'm not decided yet on the issue.
When you say "the Church" you really should use a small 'c' as it is a Catholic relic; using a capital 'C' implies that the body of Christ, the actual Church, accepts the shroud claims. Catholicism is so far from Christianity that we hardly speak the same spiritual language.
I believe in the resurrection of Christ. It's not a huge leap to believe that an image was cast onto the Shroud because of the holy magic of the resurrection.
Leaving aside your strange use of the word "magic" in this context, it is not a matter of huge or indeed small leaps of faith; the shroud is not something we are commanded to put our faith in one way or the other, neither are any of the other nick-nacks or piles of dead men's bones horded up by the Catholics of any spiritual significance whatsoever. Our faith must be in Jesus Christ and him alone.
You can only be undecided on the issue because you do not accept what scripture tells us about Jesus burial clothes:
John 20: 7-6
Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen..
The shroud cannot be genuine or the Biblical account by John is incorrect. And there lies the real issue; to believe scripture or to believe man.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by divegeesterIt has been proved that the Shroud was tied to the body with something. That could be where the linen strips mentioned in the gospel comes in.
I'm just surprised at you giving this any consideration of value. The shroud will only ever mean anything if it is proved without doubt to be the one which wrapped the body of Christ.
When you say "the Church" you really should use a small 'c' as it is a Catholic relic; using a capital 'C' implies that the body of Christ, the actual Church, accepts th ...[text shortened]... is incorrect. And there lies the real issue; to believe scripture or to believe man.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by divegeesterI'm just surprised at you giving this any consideration of value. The shroud will only ever mean anything if it is proved without doubt to be the one which wrapped the body of Christ.
I'm just surprised at you giving this any consideration of value. The shroud will only ever mean anything if it is proved without doubt to be the one which wrapped the body of Christ.
When you say "the Church" you really should use a small 'c' as it is a Catholic relic; using a capital 'C' implies that the body of Christ, the actual Church, accepts th ...[text shortened]... is incorrect. And there lies the real issue; to believe scripture or to believe man.
Correct. And at this point in time, we do not know if it is indeed the shroud of Christ. It might be, it might not be.
When you say "the Church" you really should use a small 'c' as it is a Catholic relic; using a capital 'C' implies that the body of Christ, the actual Church, accepts the shroud claims. Catholicism is so far from Christianity that we hardly speak the same spiritual language.
I use the 'big C' Church to mean the Catholic Church. Regardless of your bias against the Catholic Church, it is what was once the original body of Christ. If I were any more jaded, I would call it the Apostate Church, but that really does not help me to be understood by anyone. Most people I know would consider the 'big C' Church to be the Catholic Church. If you want your writing to be understood, you can't go around inventing words and concepts willy-nilly (yes, even regardless of your opinion of the Catholic Church).
Leaving aside your strange use of the word "magic" in this context, it is not a matter of huge or indeed small leaps of faith; the shroud is not something we are commanded to put our faith in one way or the other, neither are any of the other nick-nacks or piles of dead men's bones horded up by the Catholics of any spiritual significance whatsoever. Our faith must be in Jesus Christ and him alone.
Actually, I agree. I agree that we should not worship relics. That much is clear from scripture. That way lies the occult.
I used the word 'magic' because, well, how would *you* describe it? Besides a resurrection happening, we really don't know what happened (I mean the forces involved) in that grotto in Jerusalem even to this day. Maybe it was angels channeling "God's will", maybe it was God himself "speaking" Christ back into existence, maybe it was an atomic reaction of some kind, we just don't know. And that translates to 'magic' in my book. And I used the word 'holy' to separate it from common, or 'black' magic.
You can only be undecided on the issue because you do not accept what scripture tells us about Jesus burial clothes:
John 20: 7-6
Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, [b]separate from the linen..
The shroud cannot be genuine or the Biblical account by John is incorrect. And there lies the real issue; to believe scripture or to believe man.[/b]
I've seen you argue this point with RJH. I can't understand why it is relevant though. Who cares about a comment about the placement of the clothes, a comment made almost as an aside? So what if the cloth was lying separate from the linen? Why is this important at all? First you say that we shouldn't be placing our Faith in things, these relics, and then you ascribe monumental value to a comment about where the cloth and linen were found. How does this invalidate the shroud as genuine? And why would John's account be incorrect if the shroud were genuine? I see no delineation as such in this scripture passage.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by karoly aczelRadiocarbon dating would be good for the shroud. It should show an age of 2000 years or thereabouts. Of course, we already have a date that is much less than that which RJ insists is down to scientific stupidity because they tested the bits given to them by the church. The thing that puzzles me about that is just why the church felt the need to sample a part that had been "repaired" with dyed cotton? Could it be that the whole thing is cotton? Who knows, we only have the church's word for what the the rest of it is made of.
Ok. So Ron thinks that if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt then that will authenticate Jesus' story, a bit more (?).
It's funny that Ron doesn't believe in the only thing that may prove it. Ie Radiocarbon dating ,(or whatever the elemental dating technique would be appropriate for that length of time).
(Perhaps one of the sciency guys could ...[text shortened]... mentioned Buddha's bra because there was more than one Buddha, and I think one was a female.