Proof of the existence of Christ

[SkyWriting]

So I don't see any natural explanation for how a midieval forgery could be done, are you suggesting a magnifying glass, seriously? We have no consensus because no theories make sense. There are non believing scientists who believE it was caused by light or radiation. But don't know how. The most straightforward answer is that it was Jesus, being brought to life. There was a Polen found of a flower only found in jerusalem in time of Christ on parchment. That would be impossible for a forgery of midieval times.

Still avoiding the 3-D problem?
If you WRAP a body with cloth, you cannot produce a flat image.

A wrapped profile does not result in a flat photo type of image.

Notice how the artist rendering on the right has the same highlights as the left?
Is is clearly an artist rendering with natural light shading. The shroud artwork doesn't even take into consideration
- any unusual lighting other than lamp or sunshine (shadows around the eye sockets, nose, mouth and chin)
- any results from wrapping (winkles, or 3-d distortions)
- the results of gravity. Jesus hair is practically is artistically blow-dried-fluffy and in a natural vertical position. Not a horizontal body.

If the "light source" was from the body, there would be no shadows.
If the light source was from God, there would be no shadows.
The light source on the shroud artwork is from one open window above and behind the painter.

 

[SkyWriting]

The most straightforward answer is that it was Jesus, being brought to life.

If the image was light from Jesus below or God above, it would look like on the left column.

If the image was from a pinpoint source in a dark room then the right column.
The closest is top-right.

The image is a negative. And it's not paint or oil. It is scattered across the fabric as a negative from light.

Who said it was a negative image?
No aspect is negative shaded.​

 

[createdtoworship]

These are the current theories behind the image. Knock yourself out and read them if you want: Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia




Why? Just because you say so and you want it to be so? Can you please provide evidence or a working theory on why Jesus being resurrected would create an object like the shroud?

Still avoiding the 3-D problem?
If you WRAP a body with cloth, you cannot produce a flat image.

A wrapped profile does not result in a flat photo type of image.

Notice how the artist rendering on the right has the same highlights as the left?
Is is clearly an artist rendering with natural light shading. The shroud artwork doesn't even take into consideration
- any unusual lighting other than lamp or sunshine (shadows around the eye sockets, nose, mouth and chin)
- any results from wrapping (winkles, or 3-d distortions)
- the results of gravity. Jesus hair is practically is artistically blow-dried-fluffy and in a natural vertical position. Not a horizontal body.

If the "light source" was from the body, there would be no shadows.
If the light source was from God, there would be no shadows.
The light source on the shroud artwork is from one open window above and behind the painter.

Wikipedia is publicly edited, meaning I can literally log in aND change it at will. So that is not a real source, however the 3D problem is solved when you realize that the image is not flat. There is literally a 3D sculpture of Jesus produced by the image. They used the same camera they use to find moon landscaping and used it on the parchment to provide a 3D image of the body. So knock yourself out and watch some documentaries. Again you have 2 evidences for authenticity. A negative image that had no natural explanation and cannot be painted. A pollen from the time of Christ in Jerusalem. And a mirror of a historical account. Namely there literally exists a historical person that matches the description of the person buried. See normally a criminal crucified would be buried in earth if at all, they may be tossed in city garbage not buried at all so this was a rich man who had to be buried in a tomb to protect the parchment from decay. A rich man provided the garden tomb to Jesus, it's the only tomb in jerusalem matching a richand tomb. It's a perfect match, and seeing we have pollen from Jerusalem in the time of christ, we know it was not forged.

 

[SkyWriting]

A negative image that had no natural explanation and cannot be painted.

It's not a negative image. None of the images below are negatives.
And the shroud was not taught hovering over the body, it was wrapped or draped.

 

[Skreeper]

Wikipedia is publicly edited, meaning I can literally log in aND change it at will. So that is not a real source

Incorrect. Yes, you could edit something but you also need to provide sources. If you had bothered to check, all paragraphs are linked to an external source with the original study or article.

Wikipedia is a real and good source if you know how to use it. You seem not to, which is not surprising.

There is literally a 3D sculpture of Jesus produced by the image.

Since there is no photo of Jesus 2000 years ago, how do you know that this is Jesus?

It has become quite apparent that you desperately need it to be Jesus because it would validate your faith. You need to learn to leave your bias at the door.

 

[Skreeper]

A pollen from the time of Christ in Jerusalem.

They found pollen from all over the world. Again, your incredible bias is showing.

DNA and pollen from all over the world found on Turin Shroud

 

[createdtoworship]

It's not a negative image. None of the images below are negatives.
And the shroud was not taught hovering over the body, it was wrapped or draped.

sir that image of the shroud is a negative, it's opposite of the one on the right which is positive. look at the hair. The hair would have left oils, and in the shroud it's opposite, the dark spots are where the oil should have been.

 

[createdtoworship]

They found pollen from all over the world. Again, your incredible bias is showing.

DNA and pollen from all over the world found on Turin Shroud

yes that was probably from travels as the article suggests, but they don't indicate the quality of the sample. Here in a scientific journal you have solid evidence of what I say, not a new clipping which is not quite as valid....there was pollen from the first century on the cloth. The pollen on it from travels, was probably dated later, but again your source is not quite as valid, and probably did not look at it that well.
Botanical Evidence Indicates "Shroud Of Turin" Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century -- ScienceDaily

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Confirmation

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.

Confirmation bias often leads people to avoid the “misses” and only concentrate on the “hits”, lest the cognitive dissonance get the better of them.

I don’t think createdtoworship has the ability to change his mind, but I’m glad other posters are posting realistic rebuttals, because I’m sure there are other viewers of this thread who don’t suffer from the same lack of logic.

 

[SkyWriting]

sir that image of the shroud is a negative, it's opposite of the one on the right which is positive. look at the hair. The hair would have left oils, and in the shroud it's opposite, the dark spots are where the oil should have been.

I think I said that. The artist highlighted the hair differently and in the negative to make it stand out. All the rest of the shading is just like a painting and just like the photos. The artwork is normal black shading on a white cloth. If you stare at the nose, you'd think the subject has white hair.

 

[SkyWriting]

And the long hair should not be hanging down the way it is, it should be compressed to his head

Right. It looks blow dried and awesome.

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

Confirmation

Confirmation bias often leads people to avoid the “misses” and only concentrate on the “hits”, lest the cognitive dissonance get the better of them.

I don’t think createdtoworship has the ability to change his mind, but I’m glad other posters are posting realistic rebuttals, because I’m sure there are other viewers of this thread who don’t suffer from the same lack of logic.

Confirmation

Confirmation bias often leads people to avoid the “misses” and only concentrate on the “hits”, lest the cognitive dissonance get the better of them.

I don’t think createdtoworship has the ability to change his mind, but I’m glad other posters are posting realistic rebuttals, because I’m sure there are other viewers of this thread who don’t suffer from the same lack of logic.

I think I said that. The artist highlighted the hair differently and in the negative to make it stand out. All the rest of the shading is just like a painting and just like the photos. The artwork is normal black shading on a white cloth. If you stare at the nose, you'd think the subject has white hair.

Right. It looks blow dried and awesome.

Confirmation

Confirmation bias often leads people to avoid the “misses” and only concentrate on the “hits”, lest the cognitive dissonance get the better of them.

I don’t think createdtoworship has the ability to change his mind, but I’m glad other posters are posting realistic rebuttals, because I’m sure there are other viewers of this thread who don’t suffer from the same lack of logic.

sir I see no logical reason for the existence of the shroud. It can't be faked, it has pollen from the first century, it has a negative and the image is scattered on the fabric as if light did it. To me it's sort of like saying either the universe was created in infinity past, or God did it. A skeptic can call it God of the gaps, but in reality they are stuck with a universe that spontaneously combusts from nothing. So I use logic, yes we are all biased. But your bias is illogical. Can a universe really explode from nothing? can a fabric be fabricated five hundred years ago without technology? I mean if you really think a person can use a magnifying glass to burn a 3 dimensional image onto fabric, go ahead. I think that is very far fetched. I mean, that means they would have to find a 2 thousand year old fabric, with modern patchwork, then use a magnifying glass, and be a perfect artist, and not only do a piece of work but do it in a negative instead of a positive, (which is illogical already, why do a negative?) I just don't see logic in the forgery allegation.

 

[createdtoworship]

I think I sufficiently refuted the forgery allegations but if I didn't I am willing to address more of this in a conversation. I need to know more on how someone can use light to forge, and what examples of this there has been in history, for example previous forgeries using light. Also negative forgeries. Instead of positives, so if there is no examples of such events, I think it is safe to say we don't have a valid option as for the plausibility of it. Just because it is possible it was forged does not mean that most who study it come to that conclusion, nor does it mean it's plausible. Of course it is possible unicorns exist, but it's not plausible.

 

[Skreeper]

I think I sufficiently refuted the forgery allegations but if I didn't I am willing to address more of this in a conversation. I need to know more on how someone can use light to forge, and what examples of this there has been in history, for example previous forgeries using light. Also negative forgeries. Instead of positives, so if there is no examples of such events, I think it is safe to say we don't have a valid option as for the plausibility of it. Just because it is possible it was forged does not mean that most who study it come to that conclusion, nor does it mean it's plausible. Of course it is possible unicorns exist, but it's not plausible.

Why are you engaging in debate when it's obvious that you already reached your prefered conclusion and you are not willing to entertain the idea that you might be mistaken?

You are not going to convince anybody with your confused ramblings.

You have zero evidence that the image is of Jesus or has anything to do with him. So long as you do not produce any evidence the rational thing to do is reject your "explanation".

 

[createdtoworship]

Why are you engaging in debate when it's obvious that you already reached your prefered conclusion and you are not willing to entertain the idea that you might be mistaken?

You are not going to convince anybody with your confused ramblings.

You have zero evidence that the image is of Jesus or has anything to do with him. So long as you do not produce any evidence the rational thing to do is reject your "explanation".

again the plausibility someone had the technology to forge this 500 years ago is questionable, and say if someone did it using a magnifying glass as was mentioned. Again you would have to be picaso himself to use a magnifying glass to forge a picture like that and do it in a way that didn't burn it. the image is only on the top layer, not on the bottom layers. I just don't see that happening logically speaking. We know the image was probably created by light as the scientists state, but they simply don't know what light. To say you do know what light, is an error. So far the only logical hypothesis is that it was Jesus, if you have another hypothesis by all means present it. I am very open minded.

 

[Skreeper]

So far the only logical hypothesis is that it was Jesus

Why? Because you can't think of anything else?

 

[Jok]

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

What each individual person sees as good evidence varies. For a very long time I have been a big fan of historical Jesus reasoning. The Shroud has never entered into my thoughts on the matter at all, maybe because my confidence in the resurrection didn’t need anything. I’ve always just thought of the Shroud as some documentary that I see pop up from time to time.

 

[Jok]

Excellent points are considered by the sub-conscience and might take years to manifest themselves. If you plot the time-line of your own beliefs, you'll find that they change somewhat slowly?

It is interesting. And the way things just hit you out of nowhere when you’re not even in a debate or anything, you’re just walking in the park one random afternoon or something.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think I sufficiently refuted the forgery allegations but if I didn't I am willing to address more of this in a conversation.

1. Cloth draped over a 3-d object, will not show a photo realistic image when laid flat.
2. Adam was the most intelligent human ever and his offspring less so, for every generation after.
We are so dim now that we can't figure out techniques used even 2000 years ago.