The Shroud and Historicity

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by Ben C. Smith »

pavurcn wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:29 amThe truth is out there....
Image
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by iskander »

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 ...
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by Ulan »

pavurcn wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:29 am To KK: Beware the bias of the Wikipedia article. The shroud cannot be a painting, science has proven. The truth is out there...that is, seek and ye shall find.
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.
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn »

iskander wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:24 am The truth is out here: Redemption is a fraud.
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.
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn »

Ulan wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:29 am
pavurcn wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:29 am To KK: Beware the bias of the Wikipedia article. The shroud cannot be a painting, science has proven. The truth is out there...that is, seek and ye shall find.
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.
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.

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.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by iskander »

pavurcn wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:36 am
iskander wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:24 am The truth is out here: Redemption is a fraud.
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.
Free will did you say?
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2268179
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by iskander »

iskander wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:03 am
pavurcn wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:36 am
iskander wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:24 am The truth is out here: Redemption is a fraud.
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.
Free will , did you say?
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2268179
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn »

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!
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Post by JoeWallack »

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:
  • 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.
There is no direct objective evidence for a first century burial shroud. And as far as "objective" note that generally the Christian "scientists" who claim evidence disputing the above show a primary relationship between degree of religious belief and faith in the Shroud indicating that their conclusions are based more on religious belief than science.


Joseph

FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

The New Porphyry
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by iskander »

pavurcn wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:19 am 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!

Relics are a discredited witness because ,the church is an untrustworthy witness .
Post Reply