1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    22 Oct '12 19:591 edit
    Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 test proves false

    YouTube&feature=related

    God must have allowed this to happen so he could laugh at the skeptics who refused to believe.

    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
  2. Joined
    03 Sep '12
    Moves
    16252
    22 Oct '12 20:37
    I recently heard somwhere that ancient jews did not even use a single piece of material when burying their dead, it was many.

    -k
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    22 Oct '12 20:491 edit
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    I recently heard somwhere that ancient jews did not even use a single piece of material when burying their dead, it was many.

    -k
    I believe that was the Eqyptians. They mummified the dead and wrapped them with many strips of cloth.

    http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/mummies/home.html
  4. Joined
    03 Sep '12
    Moves
    16252
    22 Oct '12 21:05
    I never did get the shroud debate. The Christian faith is about faith not things in which we can worship.

    -k
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    22 Oct '12 22:20
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    I never did get the shroud debate. The Christian faith is about faith not things in which we can worship.

    -k
    So you are a Christian concerned about the possibility that the Shroud of Turin will be worshipped?
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    23 Oct '12 01:442 edits
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    I recently heard somwhere that ancient jews did not even use a single piece of material when burying their dead, it was many.

    -k
    Hi pat. There is a genuine fear that yet another relic will become a worship object in itself. So what else is new? 73, AI3N.

    So here is some other evidence, a finding of real 1st century shroud material, nothing like the shroud of Turin:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-shroud-of-turin-jesus-jerusalem-leprosy/
  7. Joined
    03 Sep '12
    Moves
    16252
    23 Oct '12 02:19
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    So you are a Christian concerned about the possibility that the Shroud of Turin will be worshipped?
    No I am not really concerned that it would be worshipped, it already is. I think people already make pilgrimages to Italy to see it. I also think there is a danger in supposing what Christ may have looked like, and there is a worship of an image. Just my opinion.

    -k
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Oct '12 02:56
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    No I am not really concerned that it would be worshipped, it already is. I think people already make pilgrimages to Italy to see it. I also think there is a danger in supposing what Christ may have looked like, and there is a worship of an image. Just my opinion.

    -k
    I have not heard of any evidence that anyone is yet worshipping the image on the shroud. But I believe the Jewish photographer stated that unless the image was made by human hands that it would not be considered a graven image anyway.
  9. Joined
    03 Sep '12
    Moves
    16252
    23 Oct '12 03:09
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I have not heard of any evidence that anyone is yet worshipping the image on the shroud. But I believe the Jewish photographer stated that unless the image was made by human hands that it would not be considered a graven image anyway.
    Yeah? Whatever. I think Christians should not rely on the authenticity of the shroud one way or another for what they believe. The shroud debate is a moot point when I comes to true faith, it should make no difference at all. So lets say for a moment the shroud is dated to the period of Christ. What does it prove? It proves that the shroud is from the period of Christ, 1979 years ago. I think we should focus more on who He is vs. vain controversies. Just my humble opinion.

    -k
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Oct '12 03:361 edit
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    Yeah? Whatever. I think Christians should not rely on the authenticity of the shroud one way or another for what they believe. The shroud debate is a moot point when I comes to true faith, it should make no difference at all. So lets say for a moment the shroud is dated to the period of Christ. What does it prove? It proves that the shroud is from the per ...[text shortened]... I think we should focus more on who He is vs. vain controversies. Just my humble opinion.

    -k
    Christians have never relied on the shroud or the sudarium for their belief. The existence of the shroud and the sudarium are not even well known by most Christians. The shroud has only become more well known recently because instead of being passed on within the family that owned it, it was willed to the Roman Catholic Church and a request was made to scientifically examine it for authenticity through the church.

    My wife and I became believers in Christ without knowing anything about it. I suspect most other Christian are the same as us. Therefore it does not have any effect on my faith one way or the other. But perhaps it is meant to help others like the apostle Thomas in the Holy Bible that needed to see and touch before he would believe in the resurrection. This may not be as good as the real Jesus, but nobody knows what the real Jesus looked like anyway.

    But as one of the investigators said this was overwhelming circumstantial evidence for him and each person will have to make up their own mind as to what it means to them, because it does not eliminate the need for faith and belief.
  11. Joined
    03 Sep '12
    Moves
    16252
    23 Oct '12 03:42
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Christians have never relied on the shroud or the sudarium for their belief. The existence of the shroud and the sudarium are not even well known by most Christians. The shroud has only become more well known recently because instead of being passed on within the family that owned it, it was willed to the Roman Catholic Church and a request was made to sci ...[text shortened]... n mind as to what it means to them, because it does not eliminate the need for faith and belief.
    I think more Christians know of the shroud than you give credit. I do believe it is mainly a catholic thing however. Interesting stuff though.

    -k
  12. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    23 Oct '12 10:34
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Christians have never relied on the shroud or the sudarium for their belief. The existence of the shroud and the sudarium are not even well known by most Christians. The shroud has only become more well known recently because instead of being passed on within the family that owned it, it was willed to the Roman Catholic Church and a request was made to sci ...[text shortened]... n mind as to what it means to them, because it does not eliminate the need for faith and belief.
    Ah so you keep harping on about the shroud like a broken record for our benefit.

    Well let me clear something up.

    As you rightly say, those that don't need evidence to believe don't and wont care about the shroud being the right age either way.

    Those that do care about evidence will also not care about how old the shroud is either way


    Even if the shroud were 2000 (ish) years old, and even if you could somehow prove (you can't) that it was wrapped around JC and
    that he was a real person that STILL wouldn't be evidence (let alone compelling evidence) that JC was the son of god or could work
    miracles or came back to life.

    Nobody who actually cares about evidence and reason is going to alter their beliefs based on the shroud and nobody who doesn't care
    about evidence and reason is going to care either.




    So why do you keep posting about it?

    Whats the point?
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Oct '12 10:43
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Ah so you keep harping on about the shroud like a broken record for our benefit.

    Well let me clear something up.

    As you rightly say, those that don't need evidence to believe don't and wont care about the shroud being the right age either way.

    Those that do care about evidence [b]will also not care about how old the shroud is either way


    ...[text shortened]... is going to care either.




    So why do you keep posting about it?

    Whats the point?[/b]
    I am not concerned about you only. It might help someone. You should just ignore this thread and it will run its course. Then in a few months later I can repost for any new people that might be open to the truth. 😏
  14. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    23 Oct '12 11:09
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I am not concerned about you only. It might help someone. You should just ignore this thread and it will run its course. Then in a few months later I can repost for any new people that might be open to the truth. 😏
    There is nobody who actually cares about evidence for whom the Shroud would be convincing was my point.

    The reasons being that even if you could establish beyond any reasonable doubt that this was actually wrapped
    around a guy who lived 2000 yrs ago who had just been crucified and who was called Jesus Christ (which you
    emphatically can't do) It would still not be evidence of anything supernatural.

    While I don't believe that JC actually existed or that any of the events in the NT actually happened (or happened anything
    like it says they happened) it wouldn't be in any way surprising or interesting to learn that actually there was a bloke who
    went by that name who lived at that time who did the non-supernatural things in the bible and upon whom the religion was
    founded.


    What you need to prove that the religion is true is evidence of the supernatural, of actual miracles, of god.

    This isn't evidence for any of those things, even if you assumed the best case scenario for it's authenticity.



    The reason you keep clinging to nonsense like this is that you have no real evidence to show.

    Harking on about this like it was a trump card or something worthy of looking at doesn't make your case stronger to
    anyone who cares about evidence.

    It makes it weaker. It makes you look desperate.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Oct '12 11:361 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    There is nobody who actually cares about evidence for whom the Shroud would be convincing was my point.

    The reasons being that even if you could establish beyond any reasonable doubt that this was actually wrapped
    around a guy who lived 2000 yrs ago who had just been crucified and who was called Jesus Christ (which you
    emphatically can't do) It wo to
    anyone who cares about evidence.

    It makes it weaker. It makes you look desperate.
    I don't think you know who cares and who doesn't. So again you are just making things up. 😏
Back to Top