Scientific View of The Shroud of Turin

Originally posted by RJHinds
Jesue said, "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

(John 20:29 NASB)

If believing without seeing is so critical, why do you keep posting your evidence?

Originally posted by menace71
I remember watching a doc on this on TV and they were able to tell that part of the shroud came from and older piece and sometime in the middle ages they were sewn together the older piece with a much newer piece. Also they found pollen samples within the cloth and if I remember correctly they were able to state that the pollen spores were from the middle e ...[text shortened]... conclusively found there is a lot of hearsay evidence and stories about it but not concrete.

The face cloth is also available in Spain and has a history going back much further than can be verified for the shroud of Turin.

Originally posted by divegeester
If believing without seeing is so critical, why do you keep posting your evidence?

So others that still don't believe will know there is evidence that convinced those that went to examine the Shroud with the intent to quickly prove it a fake and could not do it and came away believing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So others that still don't believe will know there is evidence that convinced those that went to examine the Shroud with the intent to quickly prove it a fake and could not do it and came away believing.

Believing what, exactly?

Originally posted by divegeester
Believing what, exactly?

Apparently you have not listened to any of the videos from an actual eyewitness that was able to actually hold and to investiagete the Shroud. No one can give you enough evidence to make you believe something you refuse to believe. Thia is just for those open to learn the truth like these investigators.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No one can give you enough evidence to make you believe something you refuse to believe.

Believe what though...exactly?

Originally posted by divegeester
Believe what though...exactly?

Reread my posts in this thread and if you have any capability to comprehend the English language you should be able to understand the answer to your question, EXACTLY.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He also says circumstantial evidence proved to him that it was the burial linen of Jesus. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

It is just possible (though by no means certain) that you will offend fewer people and be a better ambassador for Christ, if you were to drop the ridiculous smug grimace, which negates your closing line but says, in effect, Glory! Glory! Glory! To RJH, and up yours! to everybody else.:'(

Originally posted by RJHinds
Reread my posts in this thread and if you have any capability to comprehend the English language you should be able to understand the answer to your question, EXACTLY.

This is what you've said:

"They prove the shroud of Turin is not a fake according to the view of the people that actually examined the shroud. This is not from 2nd hand sources."

It also justifies the Christian belief in the resurrection of Christ Jesus.

So lt me get this straight; what you're saying is the the [so called] evidence in your clips proves that the shroud is "real". A real what? At best all that means is it's a rag a body was once in.

How does a burial cloth which could have been any dead man "justify belief in the resurection"?

Originally posted by CalJust
It is just possible (though by no means certain) that you will offend fewer people and be a better ambassador for Christ, if you were to drop the ridiculous smug grimace, which negates your closing line but says, in effect, Glory! Glory! Glory! To RJH, and up yours! to everybody else.:'(

Possible, but not likely.

Originally posted by divegeester
This is what you've said:

[b]"They prove the shroud of Turin is not a fake according to the view of the people that actually examined the shroud. This is not from 2nd hand sources."

It also justifies the Christian belief in the resurrection of Christ Jesus.

So lt me get this straight; what you're saying is the the [so called] evidenc ...[text shortened]... a burial cloth which could have been any dead man "justify belief in the resurection"?[/b]

Man, it's up to you now. I lead you to the water.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Man, it's up to you now. I lead you to the water.

I'm afraid you don't get off that easily.

How does a burial cloth which could have been any dead man "justify belief in the resurection"?

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm afraid you don't get off that easily.

How does a burial cloth which could have been any dead man "justify belief in the resurection"?

One more time. If you pay attenion to what he says in the video. The crucified man could not just be any crucified man. That man was crucified, beaten, whipped, mutilated, pierced in the side with a wound equal in size to a Roman spearhead, with no broken legs, pierced marks all over his head resembling what would be expected of a thorn bush squashed on his head.

All these wounds, he says, are consistent with only one man in history that was discribed to be crucified in this manner, and that was Jesus in the Holy Bible. It is different and more brutal than a normal crucifixion would be expected to be from known historical information.

We don't know what Jesus looked like, we don't have his blood type, or DNA, so the man can not be identified positively as Jesus. But the circumstantial evidence points overwhelming to someone of the fame of Jesus due partly to the fact that the burial linen was saved and revered instead of discarded.

Certain pollen embedded in the shroud comes from desert plants found no where else in the world but southern Israel around the Dead Sea. So that indicates that it was there at one time. Etc., etc, etc.

Look and listen to what is said about it in the video, if you are interested. If not, just forget about it.

P.S. One more thing I would like to point out. It is still not know how the image on the Shroud was made. There is no known way to reproduce all the properties of the image on the Shroud. I think that is because it was not an image made by man.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He also says circumstantial evidence proved to him that it was the burial linen of Jesus. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The key words, 'proved to him'. That would be because he is a dyed in the wool paulist and has an agenda to believe, just like the catholics and their relics.

what exactly is the point of the shroud? if it did capture the image of christ, what would be the reason, how did it happen and why? was it an accident? a chemical reaction leftover of the magical process of resurrection?