Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am usually very easy -going about the Moderator cut: Orphaned perpetrated by Religious believers, but I do not like being misrepresented or lied about.
I did not talk about not being able to provide '100% evidence'. Anything like persuasive evidence (as I have shown here) will be considered by me as objectively as I can.
I'm not sure what I can do about it, if you do this again, but perhaps my Friend Woodrow can put his mod. hat back on and tell me just what in a P M.
Well my friend I think on more than one occasion you and I have disagreed over what is valid evidence and what is based upon faith.
It is a simple fact of life. those of us who post faith based concepts as evidence or proof have to accept the reality they are not scientific nor replicable nor even measurable evidence and so not stand up as evidence under the physical meaning of evidence.
We all have to accept that it is best to quote others and not what we think someone else has said. Religious discussions often become emotionally charged unless all parties can discuss from the same religious view or void of all religious views.
I think for general clarification your view of faith based evidence is:
Quote:
I have said that it is a waste of posting effort to make faith -claims as they prove nothing one way or the other and contribute nothing to the debate.
That looks and sounds fair enough. Each of us theists need to be aware that to those that do not believe as we do, any statement we make based on faith or belief alone does not contribute to a debate. However, if an issue is viewed as a discussion and sharing of opinions and not as debate, it can help others to understand why a belief may be valid to the person saying it.
I found the discussion at the beginning of this thread thoroughly enjoyable. Its a rare topic that can be speculated about by theists and atheists alike. As I stated, whatever the origin, date, authenticity or method of production it is a truly fascinating artefact in its own right. I think we would all like it to re-examined and properly dated again at some point. Even if it is medieval, as seems pretty certain, that will not detract from its fascination. It does appear to be unique, and yes it does appear there were copies made of it. In other words people have tried to replicate this shroud. It does not appear that this particular shroud was made as part of a production line.
In the interest of fairness and as an objective observer, I would like to offer a few words about this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvmycountry
As the moderator stated earlier in this thread this is more of a vehicle to share different "views" about things rather than debates. Obviously what anyone posts or shares about his or her "views" will not measure up to the expectations of the brilliant minds that bless us daily with the name calling and childish behaviors.
Arequipa I don't think necessarily all of the comments were directed at you in this post. You have not resorted to name calling and everything you have said has been said with civility, so I can only conclude that some of the comments were directed at this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
hmmm...
Rifleman, Arequipa is clearly very capable of defending himself so if you like you can both justifiably tell me to keep my nose out of it, I won't mind. But I did feel that some of your comments Rifleman, in this post ^ were over the top. Arequipa commented on what he sees as being valuable contributions to a debate. My take on that would be that I don't see personal attacks contributing either. It just serves to wind everyone up and it all inevitably ends up in an off topic argument.
It is clearly stated time and time again on this forum that there should be no personal attacks. Sure your whole post is all dressed up by writing it all in the third person and all that, so as to make it appear that the insults are directed at someone else. It's very clever. But none of us here are stupid and we all know what it all really means.
Bah Bah black sheep .. have you any minds? The title says it all.
Mainstream illiteracy / residual intellectual chaff fed to a local flock of sheepie....
Rifleman, I don't want to make an enemy of you. One of these days I hope to have some civil debate with you on some mutual topic of interest - I'm sure that day will come along soon. There have already been times when I've almost DM'd you to pick your brains on some topic. But I do think sometimes you go too far and on this occasion I felt I had to speak my mind... You understand what that's like I know.
...
In the interest of fairness and as an objective observer, I would like to offer a few words about this:
Arequipa I don't think necessarily all of the comments were directed at you in this post. You have not resorted to name calling and everything you have said has been said with civility, so I can only conclude that some of the comments were directed at this post:
Rifleman, Arequipa is clearly very capable of defending himself so if you like you can both justifiably tell me to keep my nose out of it, I won't mind. But I did feel that some of your comments Rifleman, in this post ^ were over the top. Arequipa commented on what he sees as being valuable contributions to a debate. My take on that would be that I don't see personal attacks contributing either. It just serves to wind everyone up and it all inevitably ends up in an off topic argument....
I accept the remonstration. A chance remark escalated and I started it. I apologize to auntie and luvs country for not holding my tongue.
There are serious anatomical problems with the image. Jesus' face, body, arms, and fingers were unnaturally thin and elongated (like figures in Gothic art), his left forearm was longer than his right, and his right hand is too long. The man is impossibly tall, being 6ft 8in. The head is disproportionately small for the body, the face unnaturally narrow and the forehead foreshortened, and ears lost. The front and back images, in particular of the head, do not match up precisely, and the back image is around 2 inches longer than the front. The back of the head is wider than the front of the head. The Shroud image is, in fact, so unusually very long and narrow that one pro-Shroud pathologist suggested that Jesus must have had Marfan's syndrome!
(Source unknown)
Six feet eight inches tall. Disproportionate and asymmetric to the point of appearing to be a victim of genetic disease. You'd think the Apostles might have mentioned at some point, if only in passing, thatJesus was an extremely odd-looking skinny giant with a small head and a short left forearm.
I accept the remonstration. A chance remark escalated and I started it. I apologize to auntie and luvs country for not holding my tongue.
Arequipa, for the record, and even with your repudiation clause, i appreciate your apology. I have always tried to put myself in the mind-set of an atheist, with all intentions of being open minded. Honestly, it is not all that difficult to understand the view(s) of religion by an athiest. Reading some of the topics and quotes by a few of the zealot posters on city-data have left me with the "what??" look on my face.
As Cruithne has pointed out, one can ascertain just by reading between the lines on a few of the threads here the blatant adjectives used in describing the uneducated and intellectually inferior religious people. One can see those were not typing or spelling errors. Of course this puts the poster on the defensive.
None of my posts were aimed at you personally but as a general blanket statement. I have no problem whatsoever discussing the views and or "facts" by athiests or theists.
In closing, if I offended you personally in any way please accept my apologies.
Last edited by Iluvmycountry; 04-06-2013 at 01:20 PM..
Reason: spelling
I accept the remonstration. A chance remark escalated and I started it. I apologize to auntie and luvs country for not holding my tongue.
Respect to you Arequipa. Always a pleasure chatting with you on here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
There are serious anatomical problems with the image. Jesus' face, body, arms, and fingers were unnaturally thin and elongated (like figures in Gothic art), his left forearm was longer than his right, and his right hand is too long. The man is impossibly tall, being 6ft 8in. The head is disproportionately small for the body, the face unnaturally narrow and the forehead foreshortened, and ears lost. The front and back images, in particular of the head, do not match up precisely, and the back image is around 2 inches longer than the front. The back of the head is wider than the front of the head. The Shroud image is, in fact, so unusually very long and narrow that one pro-Shroud pathologist suggested that Jesus must have had Marfan's syndrome!
(Source unknown)
Six feet eight inches tall. Disproportionate and asymmetric to the point of appearing to be a victim of genetic disease. You'd think the Apostles might have mentioned at some point, if only in passing, thatJesus was an extremely odd-looking skinny giant with a small head and a short left forearm.
Honestly this is hardly even worth arguing about but oh well..
'Source unknown'. Otherwise known as 'someone made it up'. Where's this from? The Daily Mail?
I can find no other reference about any of this above ^ from any reliable source. I don't know- its always a good idea to check facts before posting this kind of thing.
There is so much research out there, its not hard to check. Here is one source:
[SIZE=3]The body was that of an adult male, nude, with beard, mustache, and long hair falling to the shoulders and drawn at the back into a pigtail. Height is estimated at between 5 ft. 9 in. and 5 ft. 11 in. (175-180 cm), weight at 165-180 lb. (75-81 kg), and age at 30 to 45 years. Carleton Coon (quoted in Wilcox 1977:133) describes the man as "of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs." Curto (quoted in Sox 1981:70, 131), however, describes the physiognomy as more Iranian than Semitic. The body is well proportioned and muscular, with no observable defects.[/SIZE]
Of course this report was written in 1983, before the carbon testing, so you still have to decided for yourself where the facts here up to scrutiny, but they appear to be convincing enough and there are many other sources. I can't find any relable source that says the figure was six feet eight.
Also the majority of people who have examined it have found it to be anatomically correct.
Again, you can research this for yourself.
There are serious anatomical problems with the image. Jesus' face, body, arms, and fingers were unnaturally thin and elongated (like figures in Gothic art), his left forearm was longer than his right, and his right hand is too long. The man is impossibly tall, being 6ft 8in. The head is disproportionately small for the body, the face unnaturally narrow and the forehead foreshortened, and ears lost. The front and back images, in particular of the head, do not match up precisely, and the back image is around 2 inches longer than the front. The back of the head is wider than the front of the head. The Shroud image is, in fact, so unusually very long and narrow that one pro-Shroud pathologist suggested that Jesus must have had Marfan's syndrome!
(Source unknown)
Six feet eight inches tall. Disproportionate and asymmetric to the point of appearing to be a victim of genetic disease. You'd think the Apostles might have mentioned at some point, if only in passing, thatJesus was an extremely odd-looking skinny giant with a small head and a short left forearm.
One would also think that with over 7000 posts here and 90% of those denouncing the existance of God, we could expect a little better documentation than those darn Apostles.
Yes. You'd also think one of those perhaps hundreds of people who had examined it and tested it over the years might have noticed it was a lanky knuckle dragging giant. Could have saved a lot of time and effort.
'Source unknown'. Otherwise known as 'someone made it up'. Where's this from? The Daily Mail?
I don't know, that's why it says "Source unknown". It's just one of those things that you have in the back of your hard-drive which you come across occasionally and drag out to irritate people like you..
Quote:
I can find no other reference about any of this above ^ from any reliable source. I don't know- its always a good idea to check facts before posting this kind of thing.
Also the majority of people who have examined it have found it to be anatomically correct.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether or not the shroud can be dated to the first century. It doesn't matter if it's blood or paint on the shroud. It doesn't matter whether there is pollen from the area where the event are alleged to have taken place. It doesn't matter if the image on the shroud is the genuine image of a man - the fact remains that it still doesn't prove that it is the burial shroud of the character Jesus The Christ as depicted in the Bible. It would only prove that it was the burial shroud of a man who died sometime in the first century. a man who appears to have suffered some kind of crucifixion and as we know, there were thousand of people who died by this common form of execution.
Now if JtC had been the only person ever to have been crucified, then Christianity would have a good point but he wasn't. It was common practice.
I'd also like to ask Shroud believers how they match up the shroud with the description of what happened to JtC' body regarding Jewish customs and practices as described in the Bible. For example, how do you get a single piece of cloth to cover the whole body when the Bible says that the body of JtC was bound with 'linen strips' in some verses or "clothes" (plural) in other verses...with a separate piece of cloth for the head?
Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.
John 19:40
So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. John 20: 3-8
6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. John 20: 6-7
(my emphasis)
All four gospels state that the burial was done by Joe Of Arimathea and Nicodemus by wrapping the body in strips, not a single large sheet. Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, and Luke 23:53 describe the body being wrapped "in linen cloths," not "in a linen cloth" whilst John 19:40 is more specific, describing strips of linen cloth, not a single sheet, as is the Shroud of Turin.So if the Shroud is true then the Bible's description of events is not.
It would appear also that the image on the shroud had long hair, yet Paul wrote... "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" Would Paul have made such a statement if the Christian man-god had had long hair?
I don't know, that's why it says "Source unknown". It's just one of those things that you have in the back of your hard-drive which you come across occasionally and drag out to irritate people like you..
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether or not the shroud can be dated to the first century. It doesn't matter if it's blood or paint on the shroud. It doesn't matter whether there is pollen from the area where the event are alleged to have taken place. It doesn't matter if the image on the shroud is the genuine image of a man - the fact remains that it still doesn't prove that it is the burial shroud of the character Jesus The Christ as depicted in the Bible. It would only prove that it was the burial shroud of a man who died sometime in the first century. a man who appears to have suffered some kind of crucifixion and as we know, there were thousand of people who died by this common form of execution.
Now if JtC had been the only person ever to have been crucified, then Christianity would have a good point but he wasn't. It was common practice.
I'd also like to ask Shroud believers how they match up the shroud with the description of what happened to JtC' body regarding Jewish customs and practices as described in the Bible. For example, how do you get a single piece of cloth to cover the whole body when the Bible says that the body of JtC was bound with 'linen strips' in some verses or "clothes" (plural) in other verses...with a separate piece of cloth for the head?
Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.
John 19:40
So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. John 20: 3-8
6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. John 20: 6-7
(my emphasis)
All 4 books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John state that the burial of JtC was done by Joe Of Arimathea and Nicodemus by wrapping the body in strips, not a single large sheet. Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, and Luke 23:53 describe the body being wrapped "in linen cloths," not "in a linen cloth" whilst John 19:40 is more specific, describing strips of linen cloth, not a single sheet, as is the Shroud of Turin.So if the Shroud is true then the Bible's description of events is not.
It would appear also that the image on the shroud had long hair, yet Paul wrote... "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" Would Paul have made such a statement if the long-haired man in the shroud were the Christian man-god?
Just a thought. But looking at the time the Shroud first became known and the manner of wrapping, the physical appearance of the image etc. It seems there would be a much stronger case to show it is the Shroud of King Arthur. I have always felt the face looks similar to the paintings of King Arthur
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know.
Always a pleasure chatting with you on here.
It's just one of those things that you have in the back of your hard-drive which you come across occasionally and drag out to irritate people like you..
