Prove the Shroud of Turin a Fake

Originally posted by Kepler
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.

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 RJHinds
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.

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?

Originally posted by Kepler
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?

Okay, 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.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't understand why you're getting so techy about it all - what is it you think I don't believe?

I'm still not sure why you would even entertain that the should of Turin could possibly be genuine when scripture says the garment was 2 pieces. Or are you suggesting the 2 relics are actually the 2 items in question?

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 Suzianne
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.

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 RJHinds
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.

Oh how times change! In the old days you would have been burnt for having an different opinion to the pope.🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
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.

Balderdash. No reputable court would even entertain the suit let alone support this preposterous claim.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is a lot of circumstancial evidence that would be good enough for most courts of law to support the claims made.

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 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 avalanchethecat
Balderdash. No reputable court would even entertain the suit let alone support this preposterous claim.

I did not say it was going to be taken to a court. I was just suggesting there is enough evidence to make a good circumstantial case.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

Wrong again! 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, since the Sudarium of Oviedo has matching points with the head portion of the Shroud of Turin to show that it covered the head and face of the same man covered by the Shroud, including the same bood type AB, there is good reason to believe it is the face cloth. I can't imagine early Christian keeping a bloody rag like that unless it did mean something ...[text shortened]... ted both relics, have been able to give any other credible explanation for what they represent.

Forgetting that these items are so irrelevant to Christian faith that even bothering to look at them is a waste of a moment in ones life, let me ask you this:

You are saying that the shroud has a burial head-wrapping but another random manky rag is also the head-wrapping of a deceased person from antiquity? Why have two?

Originally posted by Suzianne
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. 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 S of the Church's claim, and further, how it suggests that I do not believe in Scripture.

I'm aware what you are suggesting, but it is completely unfounded, unscriptural nonsense. I regarded you as someone who upheld the value of scriptural authenticity, but it seems you are as easily swayed as Hinds in these matters.

I laughed out loud at you challenging whether "techy" was a real word, when the most important word (the Bible) seems to flexible to you.

Again you use the term "the Church" like Hinds does; i.e. as though saying it makes it authentic, lends credibility. I wouldn't trust the Catholic church with the loose change in my pocket, let alone a pivotal scripturally contradictory opinion.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm aware what you are suggesting, but it is completely unfounded, unscriptural nonsense. I regarded you as someone who upheld the value of scriptural authenticity, but it seems you are as easily swayed as Hinds in these matters.

I laughed out loud at you challenging whether "techy" was a real word, when the most important word (the Bible) seems to f ...[text shortened]... ith the loose change in my pocket, let alone a pivotal scripturally contradictory opinion.

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 twhitehead
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.

What 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.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Originally posted by divegeester
Forgetting that these items are so irrelevant to Christian faith that even bothering to look at them is a waste of a moment in ones life, let me ask you this:

You are saying that the shroud has a burial head-wrapping but another random manky rag is also the head-wrapping of a deceased person from antiquity? Why have two?

You defintely have your head up your arse this time.