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.
again if you can provide an alternate origin of the shroud I would love to debate plausibility, unfortunately burning a shroud 500 years ago with a magnifying glass is not really cutting it.
sir again how would someone forge light? I already said the cloth has 3 dimensionality into it.
yes again I didn't believe in it at first, I just thought it was a forgery myself. But after my first documentary and listening to the scientists study it, I was changed. It is the most studied cloth in history
They wouldn't have used the same technique as I did in boy scouts. But they could have.
I thought most scholars agree that there are portions of scripture that was original?
Ok so on this masterpiece he invented two art forms hundreds of years before their first use. Negatives first came on the scene in (1826), sunlight art is even newer (1909). So the forger of the parchment invented two art forms 3-400 years before their first use. Wow, that's impressive. Or we can go with the more logical alternative, that the shroud is genuine.They wouldn't have used the same technique as I did in boy scouts. But they could have.
So how do we get down to help people who are wanting know if they are 100% accurate. Wether it was translated accurately or not is irrelevant if there were things that wasn’t supposed to be in there from the start... is there anyway to ever figure this out for sure do you think?
If you have that then there is no need for faith.
It seems likely. I've not tabulated any scholars though.
did you read that article? It literally poured blood on someone and because of how the blood dripped they determined it was a hoax. So they must of had prophetic insight into what type of beating Jesus had. Some suggest he had over 500 wounds. Secondly they are using the carbon dating as valid and using that as evidence it was a late fraud. So again as I have said before, the patchwork was dated late, as people who took care of the cloth did patch it up occasionally, but that does not mean the original fabric is that late. Secondly carbon dating itself even if it was on a good piece, is not always valid. Carbon dating suggests the carbon decay as uniform and as a constant, and that is impossible to prove.
I decided to read each piece of refutation, the third one was a duplicate. The other two, one says that they had evidence the shroud Crucifixion feet were side by side, and they could not possibly have known that. I mean whether they used one nail or two is not known by the fact each foot had one hole, so they could not have known either way. The last refutation says blood was not dis-solvable in a blood dissolving agent. Well my question to them is how often have they dissolved 2000 year old blood, that was on a cloth that has been preserved? Most types of blood we know has been in the ground for two thousand years, and your luck to get any blood at all. So the number of artifacts themselves that have old blood would have been rare, and I doubt they ever had the opportunity to try to dissolve it. So there is no comparison. So anyway, for a refutation to be valid, they need a new carbon date, from at least three laboratories. Lastly they need to explain how sunlight art came up on the scene and how negative paintings did as well three to four hundred years before their first usage. And they have done none of that. In conclusion it is hard to do sunlight art on a piece of fabric without burning it, most art I have seen is smoking when they are doing it, they are literally burning the material, however this piece the image is uniform on all the top layers but not on the bottom layers. Furthermore even if God himself appeared to us today to say that this was His shroud people would just believe that He was an alien. Someone would find a reason not to believe. My suggestion is that while there is one christian that does not believe in the shroud here, the majority of attempted refutations are from skeptics of the Bible and God as well. So they hold to the view that the universe itself spontaneously com-busted from nothing. But then refuse solid evidence such as this. So it is clear to see this is not an intellectual issue for them, but this is a moral issue. They love their pornography, they love their sex with their girlfriends, they love their sin. It's pleasurable to them, and they don't desire to believe in a deity that would tell them how to live their life. I get it. It makes sense but don't come here and say that there are logical alternatives to the validity of this piece of evidence, when there is none.
yes if one were to fabricate a shroud you would expect this to be the case, right? I mean the only way this could be a fraud is for someone to use sunlight art four hundred years before it was invented and while that is possible, it's not probable.See for yourself. A face image burned into this cloth will be three times wider than a normal face would look. It would include the full side, full front, and full far side impression.
ok so their findings are that the blood stains were T versus a Y pattern? Were they there to see the crucifixion? Did they take a photograph to know not only what type of crucifixion was used, but what wood was available in Jerusalem indicating what style of bolting pattern they would use? I don't think so. All this is speculative. We have to look at facts. You yourself see that an image of a face would have sides and rear, yes ordinarily if someone was to explode into light, they would do that. Unless one were God and wanted only his frontal face image to appear later as evidence. That one situation makes it probable that this is genuine. The more I talk to you guys about this the more convincing the shroud becomes to be honest. I can see the shallow arguments against it, and they all rely on stuff that is not proven. We can only look at facts. We know the image was not typical. It was created by light. The only way for this to happen would be a sunlight type of art which would not come on the scene for 400 years, and in a fashion that was a negative. Negative photography would not appear for 700 years. again they date this around 1200. So your looking at even further, you are approaching a thousandyears at this point. So say someone had invented sun art and negative photography a thousand years ahead of time, in 900 a.d. Then perhaps this would be the case, that a forger could use known existing tactics. So even if every piece of historical information was true presented that refutes the shroud, the blood was fake, the patterns were fake, the pollen was fake, there still is not technology to create the image 1000 years ago in 1200 A.D. There is just isn't. So I hope you can see this with an open mind in your future talks. I hope that you see this debate every easter, and ponder the logical aspect of your views. To take the whole picture into account and to see all the evidence.
