Originally posted by KeplerThere is a lot of circumstancial evidence that would be good enough for most courts of law to support the claims made. The purpose of this thread is to allow the unbelievers to submit their evidence to the contrary. That is what I have been waiting for.
But they don't have to provide a credible explanation. All they have to say is it's cloth that has some blood on it. Now demonstrate that this has actually been in contact with a divine corpse. That passes the issue back to the believers. Can they produce anything other than "You must have your head up your arse if you don't believe numbnuts"? No? Not proven then.
Originally posted by RJHindsScience isn't like a court of law, it just doesn't work that way. So, a cloth that has blood on it, possibly a burial shroud. Anything that would cause me to believe it has ever been in contact with something divine?
There is a lot of circumstancial evidence that would be good enough for most courts of law to support the claims made. The purpose of this thread is to allow the unbelievers to submit their evidence to the contrary. That is what I have been waiting for.
Originally posted by KeplerOkay, I understand. Since you don't really know what something divine is anyway, I can't think of any reason to even attempt to convince you of such a thing. So I think it would be better for you to not waste your time on this thread and leave it to others that are more interested in the point of the thread.
Science isn't like a court of law, it just doesn't work that way. So, a cloth that has blood on it, possibly a burial shroud. Anything that would cause me to believe it has ever been in contact with something divine?
1 edit
-Removed-I'm suggesting they MAY be the two items. Certainly the Church believes they are.
As I said before, I'm not 100% sure of their authenticity.
Techy? (Is that even a word?)
What I'm getting touchy about is you parading a Bible passage in front of me and suggesting that "either you believe what the Bible says, or you don't", indicating that I'm completely ignorant of Scripture. As I SAID, I don't see how the passage you quoted has anything to do with determining the veracity of the Church's claim, and further, how it suggests that I do not believe in Scripture.
Originally posted by SuzianneIt is my understanding that the Roman Catholic Church has made no official claim on the matter. Many in the church believe and the Pope's position has been to leave it up to the individual believers.
I'm suggesting they MAY be the two items. Certainly the Church believes they are.
As I said before, I'm not 100% sure of their authenticity.
Techy? (Is that even a word?)
What I'm getting touchy about is you parading a Bible passage in front of me and suggesting that "either you believe what the Bible says, or you don't", indicating that I'm compl ...[text shortened]... of the Church's claim, and further, how it suggests that I do not believe in Scripture.
Originally posted by RJHindsOh how times change! In the old days you would have been burnt for having an different opinion to the pope.🙂
It is my understanding that the Roman Catholic Church has made no official claim on the matter. Many in the church believe and the Pope's position has been to leave it up to the individual believers.
Originally posted by RJHindsBalderdash. No reputable court would even entertain the suit let alone support this preposterous claim.
There is a lot of circumstancial evidence that would be good enough for most courts of law to support the claims made. The purpose of this thread is to allow the unbelievers to submit their evidence to the contrary. That is what I have been waiting for.
Originally posted by RJHindsActually there is zero evidence to support the basic claim made ie that it is the burial cloth of Jesus. All the evidence, is either negative evidence ie it contradicts the claim, or it is compatible evidence ie it doesn't contradict the claim, but none of it is supporting evidence ie that the claim is the most reasonable explanation for the evidence.
There is a lot of circumstancial evidence that would be good enough for most courts of law to support the claims made.
At very best, even if you ignore all the controversy, you have a burial cloth from approximately the right time and place of a crucified man. But considering that crucifiction was common practice at the time in that region, there is no reason to think it is Jesus' burial cloth.
The two main arguments presented for thinking it is Jesus' burial cloth are:
1. That some religious people claim it is. However this can be dismissed on the grounds that none of the claimants could possibly know this based on evidence.
2. That there is something magical about the image being created in the first place and about it being preserved. But if this were the case then there is no point making a scientific investigation as the object is magical and therefore not subject to scientific scrutiny.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWrong again! 😏
Actually there is zero evidence to support the basic claim made ie that it is the burial cloth of Jesus. All the evidence, is either negative evidence ie it contradicts the claim, or it is compatible evidence ie it doesn't contradict the claim, but none of it is supporting evidence ie that the claim is the most reasonable explanation for the evidence.
At ...[text shortened]... ific investigation as the object is magical and therefore not subject to scientific scrutiny.
-Removed-Well, there we go.
You let your internal bias color everything you hear when someone says "the Church", calling everything coming after that "scriptural nonsense". That's as bad as the atheists going around with their fingers in their ears, adding nothing to the conversation.
And yet, you make these snap decisions about me, even though I've tried to explain several times now that I do not at all agree 100% with the Church. Calling me as easily "swayed" as RJH is patently ridiculous and tells me you don't bother too much with what I actually write as you do with your preconceived notions of how you think I am.
And frankly, that's about as bad as what twhitehead's been doing to me in this forum.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat you fail to recognize is that not being the most reasonable solution does not make it not true. You sound like googlefudge when you do that.
Actually there is zero evidence to support the basic claim made ie that it is the burial cloth of Jesus. All the evidence, is either negative evidence ie it contradicts the claim, or it is compatible evidence ie it doesn't contradict the claim, but none of it is supporting evidence ie that the claim is the most reasonable explanation for the evidence.
At ...[text shortened]... ific investigation as the object is magical and therefore not subject to scientific scrutiny.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.