Scientists Say Shroud of Turin Shows Jesus Was Crucified in 'Very Painful' Position

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


I am not declaring them contradictions, they are clear and evident contradictions. Also, I don't possess audacity by standing up against what I see as confusing disinformation about people of the Christian faith, it is my duty as a Christian. I would do it every day all day all month all year all millennium. I believe you might have this weird idea that Christian people run the world through the Catholic church and what we really want is for you to assimilate. The truth is exactly the opposite.

And as far as the shroud, I believe I said multiple times that I am unsure of it's authenticity. I am only standing behind the fact it is an interesting artifact which has proven to stump many intelligent men. This has been my stance all along. I am merely pointing out what you should already be aware; that you are coming at this in an attacking fashion and attempting to show as if you are more intelligent than others in a demeaning way, while entirely missing the contradictions in your own argument. I believe that is clear. It does not appear you are as intelligent as you believe yourself to be, if indeed this is the case. I mean no disrespect, just find the irony beautiful in an almost artistic way. But trust me, it is trait that appears to be shared by many. Can't see it even though it's right in front of you but yet they call everyone else "blind". Like I said, don't take any disrespect from this. I am just calling things how I see them.

reply to post by pleasethink


The evidence on the shroud is contradictory, that is the whole point.

You then point to that and say "Your argument contradicts itself!" for some bizarre reason which has never been made quite clear during this entire exchange.

If, as you say, I have so clearly contradicted myself it should be easy for you to demonstrate this. Can you please do so, and put us all out of our misery?

There has obviously been some miscommunication or misunderstanding somewhere for this impasse to even exist, so please, shine the light on it all for everyone to look at and then we can get the hell over it..

Ancient Crucifixion Images
Roman Crucifixion Methods and Jesus’ Crucifixion

The Bible History Daily feature Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of Crucifixion includes a full “Scholars’ Corner: New Analysis of the Crucified Man,” by Hershel Shanks.

Scholars have long assumed that early Christians did not depict Jesus’ crucifixion; however, a christogram symbol depicting Jesus’ crucifixion sets the date back by 150-200 years. Read The Staurogram: The earliest images of Jesus on the cross in Bible History Daily.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org...



This second-century graffito of a Roman crucifixion from Puteoli, Italy, is one of a few ancient crucifixion images that offer a first-hand glimpse of Roman crucifixion methods and what Jesus’ crucifixion may have looked like to a bystander.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


The Staurogram
The earliest images of Jesus on the cross
www.biblicalarchaeology.org...



The staurogram combines the Greek letters tau-rho to stand in for parts of the Greek words for “cross” (stauros) and “crucify” (stauroō) in Bodmer papyrus P75. Staurograms serve as the earliest images of Jesus on the cross, predating other Christian crucifixion imagery by 200 years. Foundation Martin Bodmer.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

I believe I already did. Anyways, trying to impart knowledge on someone who refuses to accept that they are wrong and will go to impressive lengths to establish their rightness is a futile operation. It shows something about character. One should stand by their words. Also, a shroud is not like an egyptian mummy. It was not wrapped around a body, it was laid atop it. A body wash washed and scented with frankincense and myrrh. Then it would have been entombed with the shroud placed over it. In this place guards were placed out front as the Pharisees were afraid His followers would steal the body. Never does it say it was wrapped onto His body. Also in Jewish tradition, touching or coming into contact with a body would mean you were ritually unclean. It was a big no no. Everyone involved would have to separate from the town for a period of time and then become ritually cleaned to re enter. Thus contact with said body would have been limited to say the least, so placing the shroud over Him like a sheet would have been more likely, as to limit any actual physical contact.

Have a nice time and keep doing what your doing. It doesn't accomplish much, but I'm sure you feel good about it. And that is whats important, right?

originally posted by: pleasethink
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

I believe I already did.

Please, either point me towards this explanation or explain again. I am still not seeing it.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

No offense, but maybe it's not meant for you to see.

a reply to: pleasethink

So when asked to expound upon this supposed contradiction you offer..... nothing?

Forgive me if I seem a little skeptical.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Skepticism is a wonderful thing to have. Congratulations and good luck in your endeavors. Lets just say we will agree to disagree and leave it at that. Keep on practicing tolerance!

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

But of course it's not distorted, which is evidence that the image was created while the shroud was spread flat.

if, on the other hand, you suggest the image was created by some magical non-physical or supernatural process, then you have descended into the realm of special pleading in order to justify your faith in this obvious - obvious - pious fraud.

If you could be wholeheartedly convinced you are in telepathic communication with an invisible sky fairy as outlined by an ignorant group of ancient Palestinian goat herders, overlooking this should be a piece of cake. Admire your efforts, but if you insist on using reason and common sense, you are obviously going to be up against it at times.

In the first place, it might be more worthwhile pondering whether Jesus existed at all. We know with certainty the biblical version didn't exist, the historical one is also very sketchy. Yet there is far more to indicate that bigfoot exists. As he looks a big mofo, perhaps it is an image of a bigfoot, which historically surely would have been in far more plentiful supply, than gods made flesh? Perhaps crucified for frightening an ancient group of campers?

What? Secular Huffington Post is admitting their God, science has found the Shroud to be miraculous!
Remember, it has been 2000 years since Our Lord's Resurrection. Scientist's findings from the 2011 study, man cannot yet reproduce the UV rays it took to make the markings on the Shroud.

Alleluia!!!

www.huffingtonpost.com...

"This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date."

originally posted by: pleasethink
reply to post by BuzzyWigs

 

What the Bible teaches people entirely contradicts the actions which happened during the inquisition.

Lol.

Old testament?

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

The Ten Commandments were originated in the Old Testament. I would go further to say that if we all implemented these rules into our lives, we would live in a permanent utopia.

In a thought experiment(in a kind of response to your sky fairy comment), Charles Darwin looked upon different forms of life and saw consistencies which lead him to believe they came from the same organism long ago, correct? Now lets say, if you were an alien race and came to earth after the extinction of man, you would see these structures(we call them houses) lining the landscape all over the place. Now an intelligent race would look at those, see the functional aspects of doors, windows, etc. and say "Hey, these were obviously made that way to serve a purpose" not "Man look at those strange rocks". Archaeologists use the same process to tell if something is a domicile or a cave.

Now if I showed you a Mac pro, brand new hooked up to a monitor doing amazing stuff and said "Man that just grew there like that!" you would probably walk slowly away while telephoning the police to have me committed. The human eye is a billion times more complex. Now, that's just one piece. The brain is a billion times more complex then the eye. All functional, to serve a purpose, like doors and windows, but amped up quite a bit. Now I look at all these things and see not a common single celled ancestor, but a builder utilizing a blueprint. And for that I am foolish? Hmmm...

One would refer back to the insane guy with the iMac, and think "Maybe one doesn't see it, because it's right in front of him". I won't call the police, though. You are welcome to your interpretation. But in any other situation, you would be the crazy one. Think about it.

originally posted by: colbe
What? Secular Huffington Post is admitting their God, science has found the Shroud to be miraculous!

Secular? Perhaps. Able to tell the difference between real science and pseudoscience? Not so much..

Allegations of supporting pseudo-science
The Huffington Post has been criticized by several science bloggers, as well as online news sources, for including articles by supporters of alternative medicine and anti-vaccine activists and for allegedly "censoring" rebuttals written by science bloggers before publishing them.[53][54][55][56]

Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society, criticized The Huffington Post for allowing homeopathy proponent Dana Ullman to have a blog there:

Dana Ullman, a notorious homeopathy apologist, actually has a regular blog over at HuffPo. For those of us who follow such things, the start of his blog there marked the point of no return for the Huffington Post – clearly the editors had decided to go the path of Saruman and "abandon reason for madness." They gave up any pretence of caring about scientific integrity and became a rag of pseudoscience.

Wiki

There are credulous, unscientific non-critical thinkers at Huff Post who go in for all sorts of nonsense. The shroud for them is just par for the course..

originally posted by: pleasethink

The Ten Commandments were originated in the Old Testament. I would go further to say that if we all implemented these rules into our lives, we would live in a permanent utopia.

Perhaps. Though if you peruse the sociological paper in the link it seems to indicate, quite clearly, exactly the opposite. All religious societies suffer poor societal conditions, commensurate with the level of belief. It is beginning to look like Marx was insightful when he referred to it as the "sigh of the oppressed creature" and the "opium of the people".

www.epjournal.net...

In a thought experiment(in a kind of response to your sky fairy comment), ...... Now I look at all these things and see not a common single celled ancestor, but a builder utilizing a blueprint. And for that I am foolish? Hmmm...

This is simply an argument from ignorance, topped off with an argument from personal incredulity. Then a make believe creator is claimed. This is all fine for a personal belief, but not the slightest bit convincing if you wish to claim it as being reality. It might be more convincing if you could explain how he did this, after you give us the experiment so that we could determine there is such a thing. All indications are the opposite, whether a creator exists he/it is exactly consistent with something that doesn't (exist) and therefore is irrelevant.

You are welcome to your interpretation. But in any other situation, you would be the crazy one. Think about it.

In basically the entire third world and most stone age cultures and particularly places with large fundamentalist populations (such as parts of the Middle East and the US) what you say is quite true. Not sure this would indicate what you think it does.

Then again, I certainly don't see Christians in general as crazy (surely the more fanatical of any religion would be veering in that direction ?). Generally I find them nice, normal, intelligent people who hold one more belief than I do (a weird and unjustified belief at that).

As to the original topic...there are basically no academics (not including the world of pseudo academia, such as biblical studies) who accept the biblical Christ as anything other than myth. So we are left with whatever may actually be historical, from among the claims. In this we find that all of the great events surrounding him, many which would have surely caused much commotion, were overlooked by every relevant historian.

So we are left with fanciful stories of unknown origin (much the same as we have for Robin Hood and his merry men), only they wildly differ where they are not obviously plagiarised and the earliest accounts make it quite clear they are not referring to any earthly, historical person.

As more genuine scholars begin to study this area that has been closely guarded by religious delusionals masquerading as academics, it's likely Christ will eventually join the already large pile of mythical heroes.

Apart from the problem of whether he existed at all outside of mythology, it has already been explained by others, quite simply, why this relic couldn't be what it claims to be.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

First point you made, you could more correctly state all human societies suffer poor societal conditions, as man tends to do messed up things to each other no matter what they believe. And I'm not gonna go into Marx.

Second point, I don't even know if you read what I wrote, or just skimmed and fired back. But the point I made was not one made from ignorance, but from a broad general understanding of multiple topics, as I like to dabble. There is a drive for understanding I possess, and I believe it shows. When one looks at a circuit board, do you see random bits of metal and weird plastic thingies also? I'm just curious. You utilize the most complicated mechanism ever understood to exist in our physical world to think about things and make a logic call as to what you believe. But then you miss the fact that the complex machinery that allows this process to occur is also surrounded by a perfectly balanced system designed to support the continued existence of this thing we call life. From my understanding of random events, laws do not exist. That is why they are random. But yet laws are all around you, quite literally everywhere you look. You literally have to deny all known understanding to believe that this is random.

As far as how He did it, the Bible clearly states it was spoken into existence. Speech is a vibration. I could go further into the fact that everything that exists has a specific vibration and that tapping into this vibration can do wild stuff, but that might be beyond a lot of peoples capability of understanding. Resonance is very interesting indeed. Just ask Tesla. Look at Cymatics. That is the introductory version. Like I have stated, I didn't grab a Bible with belief, I started more like you actually. Analytical with the hopes of disproving falsehoods. But then I started to see reality falling into place around me. It's like the red pill in the Matrix. Once you get lead to see it, you start to see it everywhere. It's pretty involved and shows a perfection of all levels of understanding. To say what He has made is impressive, is really not explaining it fully, you'd have to create another word.

And lastly, it clearly indicates what I think it does, if you would have read what I said and compared it to the life you and I live on Earth. Please provide an experiment to prove evolution. Oh yeah, can't really. I've heard about certain bacterias adapting to different mediums as a quasi proof, and imagine that would be coming. But that isn't really a species becoming an entirely different species now is it? In fact people live in the coldest climates on Earth. That is called adaptation. Not evolution. If I showed you a rock, would you say it was created? Probably not, right? Except by a random process of water and pressure. But if I showed you a computer, you or any other person of learned capability would see the elements of design despite not ever having interacted with it. Why? Because of the mechanisms working in unison to perform an action. Think about it, bud. Just think about it. If we were talking about some ufo that fell out of the sky, and they put on the news that it was some random rock formation, you'd be crying out to holy hell about how it's a cover up and etc etc. But because its human, it's a random formation. This is called programming. Also conditioned response. But that's another topic. On that note, 2+2=5 if 5 of your peers think it is. Scientifically proven. You'll deny logic because of peer pressure.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing,

You're talking about Huffington Post, the important thing is the findings of the scientists. Man cannot produce YET
the UV rays it took to make the marks on the Shroud.

Wow, the moment of "light."


God bless you,


colbe

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

And oh yeah, as far as the historicity of Christ, there is a wiki page. Google it, it contradicts what you have stated quit vividly, with historical accounts to his existence. In fact, almost no scholar worth anything denies He existed, they just refute the miracles.

And as far as religious delusionals(bit o irony) and scholars. Einstein believed in G-d. Isaac Newton believed in G-d. Copernicus. Kepler. Wait for it, this one might hurt a bit, Leonardo DaVinci, had a firm belief in G-d. I could keep going, but this is starting to feel like beating children. Religious delusionals every one. In fact this anti religious scientific movement is almost purely a modern invention. In fact, despite modern beliefs to the contrary, most of the anti religious stuff dawned with artists, Oscar Wilde(famous homosexual), Mark Twain, etc. etc. This is where you probably come in with the Catholic church ruled the world that I hear so much, despite not having an army or really any power over any nation aside from Spain, Rome for brief periods of time.

You seem like an intelligent fellow. Think about this: from what I have actually shown you, you should start to perceive that in fact, your ideals are kind of like a religion unto themselves. They require faith. They attempt to explain the world around them in a way that makes sense. And they are actually less scientifically or historically provable then the Bible. Now this should shock you, but it won't. Because like all others wrapped up in a belief system, it is comfortable to them. And there is no budging once it's set in. Now consider the fact that in your own estimation that people in these types of systems are "delusional". You are actually insulting yourself. And I like the company I'm in. I'll stick with the real scientists, and you can hold the mayo.

originally posted by: pleasethink

First point you made, you could more correctly state all human societies suffer poor societal conditions, as man tends to do messed up things to each other no matter what they believe. And I'm not gonna go into Marx.

Second point, I don't even know if you read what I wrote, or just skimmed and fired back.

Yes I read it, I just disagree with it.

Though I highly doubt you read the paper I cited, clearly and unavoidably showing the direct correlation between societal dysfunction and religious belief in 1st world democracies. More religious belief = more dysfunction...in fact quite remarkably so.

Your quip that "all human societies suffer poor societal conditions" was never an item in contention. It's whole point was to look at the level of dysfunction and whether it rises commensurate with religious belief (it most certainly does). As a rebuttal, that is really a very superficial strawman.

But the point I made was not one made from ignorance, but from a broad general understanding of multiple topics, as I like to dabble. There is a drive for understanding I possess, and I believe it shows. When one looks at a circuit board, do you see random bits of metal and weird plastic thingies also? I'm just curious. You utilize the most complicated mechanism ever understood to exist in our physical world to think about things and make a logic call as to what you believe. But then you miss the fact that the complex machinery that allows this process to occur is also surrounded by a perfectly balanced system designed to support the continued existence of this thing we call life. From my understanding of random events, laws do not exist. That is why they are random. But yet laws are all around you, quite literally everywhere you look. You literally have to deny all known understanding to believe that this is random.

As far as how He did it, the Bible clearly states it was spoken into existence. Speech is a vibration. I could go further into the fact that everything that exists has a specific vibration and that tapping into this vibration can do wild stuff, but that might be beyond a lot of peoples capability of understanding. Resonance is very interesting indeed. Just ask Tesla. Look at Cymatics. That is the introductory version. Like I have stated, I didn't grab a Bible with belief, I started more like you actually. Analytical with the hopes of disproving falsehoods. But then I started to see reality falling into place around me. It's like the red pill in the Matrix. Once you get lead to see it, you start to see it everywhere. It's pretty involved and shows a perfection of all levels of understanding. To say what He has made is impressive, is really not explaining it fully, you'd have to create another word.

And lastly, it clearly indicates what I think it does, if you would have read what I said and compared it to the life you and I live on Earth. Please provide an experiment to prove evolution. Oh yeah, can't really. I've heard about certain bacterias adapting to different mediums as a quasi proof, and imagine that would be coming. But that isn't really a species becoming an entirely different species now is it? In fact people live in the coldest climates on Earth. That is called adaptation. Not evolution. If I showed you a rock, would you say it was created? Probably not, right? Except by a random process of water and pressure. But if I showed you a computer, you or any other person of learned capability would see the elements of design despite not ever having interacted with it. Why? Because of the mechanisms working in unison to perform an action. Think about it, bud. Just think about it. If we were talking about some ufo that fell out of the sky, and they put on the news that it was some random rock formation, you'd be crying out to holy hell about how it's a cover up and etc etc. But because its human, it's a random formation. This is called programming. Also conditioned response. But that's another topic. On that note, 2+2=5 if 5 of your peers think it is. Scientifically proven. You'll deny logic because of peer pressure.

It appears to now be going from logical fallacies to refuting claims I haven't even made (laws, randomness ???).

It would be a change to find an argument for creation that wasn't based on logical fallacies, none so far it seems...

All you demonstrate (quite conclusively) that you believe in a creator and on what you base those personal beliefs. What you haven't done is provide any genuine and verifiable evidence of either a creator or how he managed his feat. "He spoke it into existence" doesn't quite cut it. Firstly...where might we find "him" ie. this creator to verify an existence. Secondly where is the verifiable evidence (that doesn't rely soley on your personal belief) that makes it clear in some tangible way this creator we have just verified (thanks to your experiment) created anything. Until you do, I will stick with the evidence we do have, that the scientific community at large bases their theories on.

As to succumbing to peer pressure, this could also be quite a fallacy of it's own (ad hom fallacy) and either way, it's irrelevant and doesn't help your argument itself one bit.

If you wish to go on a Gish Gallup of creationist claims such as above, broaching topics such as the commonly accepted facts/scientific theories regarding evolution, while championing creationism, it is really starting to drift of topic. Perhaps it might be better to start another thread in the appropriate section where people might respond more thouroughly?

a reply to: pleasethink

with historical accounts to his existence. In fact, almost no scholar worth anything denies He existed,

Christians love to say that no real scholars say Jesus didn't exist. The fact is, there is no credible evidence to his existence at all.

they just refute the miracles.

Other questionable subjects are , his real name, his date and place of birth, his parentage and lineage, what he did and didn't say and do, if he was crucified, if he died during that ordeal, and on and on and on. Certainly, many scholars agree that the Jesus Christ, the biblical story character, did NOT ever exist.