- Jul 23, 2007
- 56,274
- 11,030
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is this really on-topic for this forum?
Nope, that would be Apologetics.
So why is the shroud dated to the middle ages? Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia
HOW IS THE IMAGE TRANSFERED FROM THE BODY TO THE FABRIC? I have not seen a solid refutation to this.
I admit I was skeptical of it at first but I watched a few videos on it, long ones. I have some real questions for doubters. How can an image of a face be put on the cloth in a negative,not a positive fashion? The image is a negative. And it's not paint or oil. It is scattered across the fabric as a negative from light.I mean it's your job to provide evidence that only a resurrection event could have caused the image to appear on the fabric. But that's all irrelevant anyway considering the dating puts the shroud between the 13th and 14th century, with scientists noting that with an adjustment of around 88 years they are 95% certain the dating is correct.
It's odd that you would talk about the shroud. It's usually only Catholics who consider the shroud a miracle, Evangelicals usually ignore it or don't consider it noteworthy.
I agree fully. I'm just saying that there are "Facts" that people are mistakenly declared dead.
Another "Fact" is that the scriptures have been copied accurately. This does not prove that the original writings were accurate. But you can't attribute the content to inaccurate transmission, which Matt does.
The fact that Matt avoids these only two facts, shows his bias against facts.
Oh don’t mind me I was just going on a rant about apparent death theory, it wasn’t towards you.
Another thing that kills me is that those who think is was all fake have Jesus chalked up as a wimpy peace loving turn the other cheek hippy who was a great moral teacher. However the apparent death believers all the sudden have Jesus tougher than John Rambo where he shakes off a Roman crucifixion, and then walks around and eats fish with his old buddies lol
Poor choice for the video on your part. That Mike Winger guy was absolutely out of his element here and that's a big mistake when going against someone like Matt.
If these arguments is the best Christianity has to offer for the resurrection then it is doomed.
Is this really on-topic for this forum?
Nope, that would be Apologetics.
But more important is the fate of the rotting corpses after they crawled out of their graves and wandered around down-town Jerusalem. Did they just crawl back into their graves or did they go somewhere else (Matt 27:52-53)?
You don't need to have faith in the resurrection, God gave us a solid piece of evidence, His burial cloth.... this easter, be thankful your faith is backed by facts... Turin Shroud 'was created by flash of supernatural light' | Daily Mail Online
huh? I don't follow. I have watched extensive documentaries on the shroud, the image is not from dye or paint, it was scattered evenly onto threads as if done by light or radiation, further more it's in a negative.The cloth was shown to be about 728 years old. And the darkened parts and blood were of artistic design showing a familiar portrait. The results were not what would occur from an internal flash of light or heat.
I admit I was skeptical of it at first but I watched a few videos on it, long ones. I have some real questions for doubters. How can an image of a face be put on the cloth in a negative,not a positive fashion? The image is a negative. And it's not paint or oil. It is scattered across the fabric as a negative from light.
sir the carbon dating test was that this was a medieval forgery. There is no possible way in those years they could have reproduced a thermal, or radiation light, or UV light powerful enough of transmitting the type of image produced. Again I would recommend watching some of the scientific studies on it, there are many out there. One person said it's the most studied piece of cloth in history. Furthermore the carbon dating was not conclusive on which parts of the parchment were tested, some say that they dated the patchwork. Some people had restored parts of the damaged fabric in the middle ages, and they used new material at the time. So there are small patches on it, and you can easily tell where they are, the image is not on those patches.But done in artistic design. The artist didn't take into account that the shroud was wrapped around the body. This would result in an image of Jesus more than twice as wide as the body.
Consider a cloth draped over a rock. You'd get a 3-d view laid flat when opened.
huh? I don't follow. I have watched extensive documentaries on the shroud, the image is not from dye or paint, it was scattered evenly onto threads as if done by light or radiation, further more it's in a negative.
Your still avoiding the wrap of the material. The image looks human as if the shroud was pulled taught at the four corners when exposed like a piece of film.sir the carbon dating test was that this was a midevil forgery. There is no possible way in those years they could have reproduced a thermal, or radiation light, or UV light powerful enough of transmitting the type of image produced. Again I would recommend watching some of the scientific studies on it, there are many out there. One person said it's the most studied piece of cloth in history.
sir the carbon dating test was that this was a medieval forgery. There is no possible way in those years they could have reproduced a thermal, or radiation light, or UV light powerful enough of transmitting the type of image produced. Again I would recommend watching some of the scientific studies on it, there are many out there.
You make an excellent point! The problem with making excellent points with this guy is eventually he will begin to ignore you like he has done with me.Your still avoiding the wrap of the material. The image looks human as if the shroud was pulled taught at the four corners when exposed like a piece of film.
There is no possible way in those years they could have reproduced a thermal, or radiation light, or UV light powerful enough of transmitting the type of image produced.
You make an excellent point! The problem with making excellent points with this guy is eventually he will begin to ignore you like he has done with me.
huh? I don't follow. I have watched extensive documentaries on the shroud, the image is not from dye or paint, it was scattered evenly onto threads as if done by light or radiation, further more it's in a negative.
And the long hair should not be hanging down the way it is, it should be compressed to his headThe shroud should only look like a person when laid on a 3-d form like a mannequin.
Not when flattened. And don't forget to look for the wrinkles in the fabric
that would be around the nose and head because of a three dimensional body.
As you can see, the lighting on the shroud-portrait is very natural looking.
Your still avoiding the wrap of the material. The image looks human as if the shroud was pulled taught at the four corners when exposed like a piece of film.
And we all doubt that.
There are some theories on how such an image could have been created through natural means in medieval times. But currently there is no agreed consensus on what caused it.
No scientific studies come to the conclusion that it was created by a supernatural source that is your religious bias wishing for it to be so.
So I don't see any natural explanation for how a midieval forgery could be done, are you suggesting a magnifying glass, seriously?
The most straightforward answer is that it was Jesus, being brought to life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?