U
undead_rat
Guest
Perhaps Antonacci and Rucker would disagree with your first statement.
As for the second, Secundo Pia almost dropped the negative plate when he first viewed it.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
As for the second, Secundo Pia almost dropped the negative plate when he first viewed it.
W
Wolfie
Guest
Cool relic or great art, either way I like it.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Not knowing how somebody did something is not evidence that it was miraculous. There are a great many things that close inspection has not revealed the truth of, and neither you nor anyone else would call them miracles.If the Image on the Shroud had been the work of a human being, STURP would have found that out. Skeptics have had 40 years to try to solve the riddle of how the image came to be on the cloth and have failed.
If scientific inquiry led to the conclusion that: “These markings could NOT have been man-made because X,Y,Z” then you have something. But as far as I know, none of them said that.
Apparently it’s not proven miraculous, because the Catholic Church hasn’t declared that it’s been proven so. Perhaps your bar for calling speculation and inference “proof” is too low.I answered your second question, sir. The Image on the Shroud has been proven to be miraculous.
Having reached that conclusion, I then answered your first question regarding the identity of the corpse which produced the Image.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
They are, in fact, some markings on cloth. There is no other way to regard them.
The question is whether those markings were produced by miraculous means. It has not been demonstrated that they were, so incredulity about their validity is not only a sensible position, it’s probably required. There are hundreds of clumps of hair, chips of wood, fingernail clippings, and who knows what else which are claimed to be holy relics, either of Jesus or of other religious figures.
To believe all those things just because it’s been asserted that they are miracles is idolatry. You are putting faith in objects rather than directly in the Lord and the teachings of the Lord.
The question is whether those markings were produced by miraculous means. It has not been demonstrated that they were, so incredulity about their validity is not only a sensible position, it’s probably required. There are hundreds of clumps of hair, chips of wood, fingernail clippings, and who knows what else which are claimed to be holy relics, either of Jesus or of other religious figures.
To believe all those things just because it’s been asserted that they are miracles is idolatry. You are putting faith in objects rather than directly in the Lord and the teachings of the Lord.
U
undead_rat
Guest
We had that scientific inquiry in 1978, and for a religious relic its intensity was unprecedented. Every hypothesis that involved a human hand was looked at and subsequently discarded because none of them could account for the data. Heller did say exactly that.If scientific inquiry led to the conclusion that: “These markings could NOT have been man-made because X,Y,Z” then you have something. But as far as I know, none of them said that.
U
undead_rat
Guest
While I am not Catholic, I nonetheless have a great respect and reverence for this Church. I believe that the Bishop of Rome is, in fact, the vicar of Christ. That being said, I must note that the Church is cautious on these matters. My feeling is that the Church wanted to declare the Shroud to be authentic after the 1978 investigation but decided that it would be best to wait for a confirmation in the way of a carbon fourteen dating test. When the results of that test were misunderstood to be a valid fourteenth century date, the Church was forced to cancel its formal confirmation of the Shroud. It’s a sad state of affairs that can only be rectified by further C-14 testing of different places on the Shroud.Apparently it’s not proven miraculous, because the Catholic Church hasn’t declared that it’s been proven so. Perhaps your bar for calling speculation and inference “proof” is too low.
With all due respect to the Church, I must observe that it was many years after science proved that the sun and not the earth was the center of the solar system before the the Church accepted that discovery. In this case, it is somewhat the same. Science has proved that there are no explanations available for the creation of the Image that would involve a human hand. Thanks to Mark Antonacci and Robert Rucker we now have an excellent theory as to how the Image was created, and that theory depends on the validity of the Gospel of Matthew which relates that the corpse of our Lord vanished from the inside of Its sealed and guarded tomb.
I find that truly wonderful and amazing.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
In this case it is not assertions that the Image on the Shroud is not the product of a human hand, rather it is well over one hundred thousand man hours of data gathering and analysis that leads to this conclusion.To believe all those things just because it’s been asserted that they are miracles is idolatry.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Demonstrate, please, that they did in fact arrive at this conclusion. “We don’t know how,” I believe is what they said. “. . . therefore God did it,” I believe, is YOUR conclusion.
Please understand that not knowing A is not the same as knowing not-A. This is a basic principle of logic.
Let’s say my dog gets out of the back yard. I check the gate: it’s locked. I look for holes under the fence: there are none. I talk to the neighbors and determine that nobody let the dog out of the yard. One by one, I rule out all the ways I know that the dog might get out of the yard, and conclude, “I do not know how the dog got out of the yard.”
I do not therefore conclude that Jesus miraculously let my dog out of the yard. That would be silly.
The shroud is a piece of cloth with some markings. The markings got there somehow, and the examining scientists have not yet been able to ascertain how. It could be an unknown technique. It could be a kind of fading in the sun at some point. It could be aliens or trans-dimensional magical monkeys. It could be Thor or the devil trying to fool us, or a saint who’s not Jesus. It could be someone who ate plants grown in uranium-rich soil.
There are infinitely many possibilities for any unexplained phenomenon. At no point does, “. . . therefore God” work, unless you have POSITIVE EVIDENCE.
Please understand that not knowing A is not the same as knowing not-A. This is a basic principle of logic.
Let’s say my dog gets out of the back yard. I check the gate: it’s locked. I look for holes under the fence: there are none. I talk to the neighbors and determine that nobody let the dog out of the yard. One by one, I rule out all the ways I know that the dog might get out of the yard, and conclude, “I do not know how the dog got out of the yard.”
I do not therefore conclude that Jesus miraculously let my dog out of the yard. That would be silly.
The shroud is a piece of cloth with some markings. The markings got there somehow, and the examining scientists have not yet been able to ascertain how. It could be an unknown technique. It could be a kind of fading in the sun at some point. It could be aliens or trans-dimensional magical monkeys. It could be Thor or the devil trying to fool us, or a saint who’s not Jesus. It could be someone who ate plants grown in uranium-rich soil.
There are infinitely many possibilities for any unexplained phenomenon. At no point does, “. . . therefore God” work, unless you have POSITIVE EVIDENCE.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
No one is saying that the Shroud should be worshiped like an idol. Miracles are not worshiped, but they do have a place in our various faiths. If that were not so, Jesus would not have bothered to perform them. Furthermore, we have had many Saints and redeemed souls in our faiths who knew nothing of our Lord’s miraculous Image but found their salvation anyway. On the other hand, some saints have expressed a appreciation of our Lord’s Holy Face such as St. Teresa of Lisieux.
In this day and age insidious theories and postulations abound about Christianity. Some try to say that Jesus never existed at all, or, if He did live, He did not actually perform any miracles. Others claim that Christianity is nothing more that a reworking of various pagan theologies. Even the Romans are claimed to have invented our religion.
Our Lord’s Holy Image on His burial linen contradicts all of these nonsensical ideas. It is a valuable tool tor the teachers of Christianity to have at their disposal, and you, my friends, are those teachers.
In this day and age insidious theories and postulations abound about Christianity. Some try to say that Jesus never existed at all, or, if He did live, He did not actually perform any miracles. Others claim that Christianity is nothing more that a reworking of various pagan theologies. Even the Romans are claimed to have invented our religion.
Our Lord’s Holy Image on His burial linen contradicts all of these nonsensical ideas. It is a valuable tool tor the teachers of Christianity to have at their disposal, and you, my friends, are those teachers.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Using bad evidence does not support the idea of Christianity being true. It merely confirms to non-believers their idea that religious people are mentally weak.Our Lord’s Holy Image on His burial linen contradicts all of these nonsensical ideas. It is a valuable tool tor the teachers of Christianity to have at their disposal, and you, my friends, are those teachers.
One of the advantages of Catholicism is every dummy with a half-baked theory can’t just run with it and pretend that it represents God or the Church of God. Catholics are limited by the decrees of academics who are much more clever and capable than the normal layperson.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
Using this convoluted “logic” one could say that a man who walks on water is not performing a miracle because there could be some yet to be found explanation for that phenomena.There are infinitely many possibilities for any unexplained phenomenon. At no point does, “. . . therefore God” work, unless you have POSITIVE EVIDENCE.
U
undead_rat
Guest
Our Holy teacher underwent a terrible suffering to make the miracle of His Holy Image available to us 2000 years later. It is a precious gift, purchased at a great price. In most cultures it is considered an insult to the giver to refuse to accept a valuble gift. I humbly ask you to accept this holy gift and to use it as our Lord intended.Using bad evidence does not support the idea of Christianity being true. It merely confirms to non-believers their idea that religious people are mentally weak.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Ah, now there you get to a really interesting point, one which is probably the crux of the authentic/medieval debate. Although the Shroud was of rather local interest, and had minimal artistic or theological impact throughout its entire history until 1896, the negative photo was a real surprise, and enough to generate immediate global interest. No one could imagine that a face of such serene nobility could have been produced accidentally (or at least, the artist’s work was deliberate, but the negative effect accidental). It had certainly never been seen before. It was enough, for a while, to stifle all possible objections. As far as know nobody, for the next fifty years or so, seriously wondered if an artist could do it: the answer was an automatic ‘No’. Only in the last fifty years or so has this been queried, and then, of course, we find that it’s really quite easy. I’m no artist, but can make a ‘reversible’ image with little effort and invariably the negative is much more impressive than the positive. The automatic dismissal of a possible human provenance has been seriously dented in that respect.Perhaps Antonacci and Rucker would disagree with your first statement.
As for the second, Secundo Pia almost dropped the negative plate when he first viewed it.
Although I disagree with much that Antonnacci and Rucker have written, I applaud the fact that they have come up with a clearly defined idea that can readily be disproved. Sadly for them, I’m pretty sure it will be!
B
benjamin1973
Guest
That’s right. If I see a man walking on water, I will not think it’s a miracle. I’ll ask “How did this dude perform this trick?”
Miracle? Nah.
Miracle? Nah.
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
There was an interview on television with one of the scientists who worked on the study of the Shroud of Turin … and he was absolutely overwhelmed by their observations … awestruck.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Not sure if this is the same scientist:
click here google youtube shroud of turin:
Many more interviews along the edge.
click here google youtube shroud of turin:
Many more interviews along the edge.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Barrie Schwortz is a Jew. Although he believes that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, he does not believe in the Resurrection, nor in any miracles associated with it. He thinks the image on the Shroud was formed by natural processes.
U
undead_rat
Guest
THE SIGN OF JONAH
In the Gospels we have something called the “sign of Jonah,” which is described as " . …the only sign it (a generation) will be given. … " in Luke,
and in Matthew:
" . . .but none will be given it (a generation) except the sigh of the prophet Jonah.
For just as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the great fish, so the son of man will be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth."
Since Jonah was cast out of the fish onto land and came back to life, the “Sign of Jonah” refers to our Lord’s death and the miracle of His subsequent resurrection.
What the Jewish leaders were asking Jesus to do was to work a miracle in their presence, so the word “sign” in this context means some miracle that is witnessed. Note that Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead was present in Jerusalem at that time, but his testimony did not constitute a “sign” for those leaders because they had not witnessed his coming back to life.
Because Jesus mentioned giving a “generation” a sign there is one thing missing from the miracle of His resurrection, and that is the witnessing of this miracle by an entire generation of people. In my opinion, there is addendum to the sign of jonah which is the miraculous image that we all can see on Jesus burial linen. The only viable (again in my opinion) explanation for the creation of this image is that the holy corpse vanished from inside of that cloth. That vanishing is not quite the same as a resurrection, but it so strongly implies it that one would have to accept it as proof of that event.
So, theologically speaking, the Shroud of Turin is an integral part of the Sign of Jonah that Jesus predicted.
In the Gospels we have something called the “sign of Jonah,” which is described as " . …the only sign it (a generation) will be given. … " in Luke,
and in Matthew:
" . . .but none will be given it (a generation) except the sigh of the prophet Jonah.
For just as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the great fish, so the son of man will be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth."
Since Jonah was cast out of the fish onto land and came back to life, the “Sign of Jonah” refers to our Lord’s death and the miracle of His subsequent resurrection.
What the Jewish leaders were asking Jesus to do was to work a miracle in their presence, so the word “sign” in this context means some miracle that is witnessed. Note that Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead was present in Jerusalem at that time, but his testimony did not constitute a “sign” for those leaders because they had not witnessed his coming back to life.
Because Jesus mentioned giving a “generation” a sign there is one thing missing from the miracle of His resurrection, and that is the witnessing of this miracle by an entire generation of people. In my opinion, there is addendum to the sign of jonah which is the miraculous image that we all can see on Jesus burial linen. The only viable (again in my opinion) explanation for the creation of this image is that the holy corpse vanished from inside of that cloth. That vanishing is not quite the same as a resurrection, but it so strongly implies it that one would have to accept it as proof of that event.
So, theologically speaking, the Shroud of Turin is an integral part of the Sign of Jonah that Jesus predicted.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Some markings on a piece of linen which cannot be shown ever to have belonged to Jesus’ tomb are a particularly poor sign.
Look, you really have to be cautious when you’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. If you’re wrong, and there’s every reason to believe that you might be, then you are not only wrong for yourself, but guilty of spreading misinformation about the life and works of the Lord.
There’s no point in taking on the danger of this possibility, because there’s nothing about believing in the Shroud of Turin that is necessary in order to be a good Christian. You’d be better to stick to preaching love, and to setting an example of a loving and forgiving follower of Christ’s example, than in obsessing about physical objects.
Look, you really have to be cautious when you’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. If you’re wrong, and there’s every reason to believe that you might be, then you are not only wrong for yourself, but guilty of spreading misinformation about the life and works of the Lord.
There’s no point in taking on the danger of this possibility, because there’s nothing about believing in the Shroud of Turin that is necessary in order to be a good Christian. You’d be better to stick to preaching love, and to setting an example of a loving and forgiving follower of Christ’s example, than in obsessing about physical objects.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.