The Shroud and Historicity
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The Shroud and Historicity
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: The Shroud and Historicity
The truth is out here: Redemption is a fraud.
Humanity is not redeemed by this ugly death of a man-god, but the church gets wealth and power as the owner of the business of Redemption. Every pregnant woman carries in her womb a dead soul who will remain a dead soul eternally if the woman does not give birth to a live child. When the child is born it has to be baptized in the Catholic Church to be eligible for salvation ...
Humanity is not redeemed by this ugly death of a man-god, but the church gets wealth and power as the owner of the business of Redemption. Every pregnant woman carries in her womb a dead soul who will remain a dead soul eternally if the woman does not give birth to a live child. When the child is born it has to be baptized in the Catholic Church to be eligible for salvation ...
Re: The Shroud and Historicity
It is funny that you purposefully ignore that the Wikipedia article cites the final dismissals of the alleged "proof" that the shroud is not a painting. Also, KK's point went obviously right over your head. If you look at the image on the shroud you can see that it's an image, not some kind of impression you would expect on a shroud, because the perspective is wrong if the cloth were used as wrapping. The elongate nature of the image of the face makes this very obvious.
Re: The Shroud and Historicity
Theologies and rhetorics of redemption differ. What one takes to be hyperbolic rhetoric to promote conversion another takes as literal truth. Most believers would finally agree that it is not in the last analysis up to us, though we are given the opportunity to choose or reject a life of grace. Free will, you know.
Re: The Shroud and Historicity
That part of the Wikipedia article seems to end up with McCrone and a pope from the 16th century as the final authorities to follow. Sorry...more needs to be said...and already has been.Ulan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:29 amIt is funny that you purposefully ignore that the Wikipedia article cites the final dismissals of the alleged "proof" that the shroud is not a painting. Also, KK's point went obviously right over your head. If you look at the image on the shroud you can see that it's an image, not some kind of impression you would expect on a shroud, because the perspective is wrong if the cloth were used as wrapping. The elongate nature of the image of the face makes this very obvious.
Well I certainly can agree that there is an image on the Shroud. The positioning of the body has also been studied. There are uneven proportions that you might not expect in a straight out painting. Some research is available here.
Re: The Shroud and Historicity
Free will did you say?pavurcn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:36 amTheologies and rhetorics of redemption differ. What one takes to be hyperbolic rhetoric to promote conversion another takes as literal truth. Most believers would finally agree that it is not in the last analysis up to us, though we are given the opportunity to choose or reject a life of grace. Free will, you know.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2268179
Re: The Shroud and Historicity
iskander wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:03 amFree will , did you say?pavurcn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:36 amTheologies and rhetorics of redemption differ. What one takes to be hyperbolic rhetoric to promote conversion another takes as literal truth. Most believers would finally agree that it is not in the last analysis up to us, though we are given the opportunity to choose or reject a life of grace. Free will, you know.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2268179
Re: The Shroud and Historicity
To isk:
I see your main argument: "I don't like the Church; it has done bad things...therefore the Shroud is fake."
Iron-clad!
I see your main argument: "I don't like the Church; it has done bad things...therefore the Shroud is fake."
Iron-clad!
- JoeWallack
- Posts: 1595
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
- Contact:
JW:
The basic scientific question here is:
Is The Shroud a first century used burial shroud?
To date the direct and objective evidence is all one way against and in order of strength:
Joseph
FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
The New Porphyry
The basic scientific question here is:
Is The Shroud a first century used burial shroud?
To date the direct and objective evidence is all one way against and in order of strength:
- 1) Credible, multiple, independent carbon dating to 14th century.
2) Epic failure for every standard forensic test for blood.
3) Determination that the entire image consists of paint materials.
4) Extant contemporary investigation by Church with confession of painting by 14th century artist.
Joseph
FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
The New Porphyry