Originally posted by sonhouseScience Proves Shroud Is The Genuine Burial Cloth
There is no scientific proof of the authenticity of the shroud. There may be evidence but no proof and furthermore even if it was proven to be a burial cloth there is zero evidence it came from JC and you know that full well, you just would never admit it, even to yourself.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by humy
I wouldn't say it is absolutely conclusive because the text is incomplete and we may never know what exactly were the missing words but, nevertheless, it is powerful scientific evidence that Jesus probability did have a wife:
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-scroll-mentions-jesus-wife-ancient.html
"..A ancient piece of papyrus that contains a mention of Jes ...[text shortened]... rn fabrication ("forgery" ) was found," the Harvard Divinity School said in a statement.
..."
I wouldn't say it is absolutely conclusive because the text is incomplete and we may never know what exactly were the missing words but, nevertheless, it is powerful scientific evidence that Jesus probability did have a wife:
What???
No it isn't. It isn't anything even remotely resembling "powerful scientific evidence" for JC having a wife.
IF it is genuine.
Then it can be considered evidence that one of the many myths created around JC that did not make it
into the 'official cannon' included JC having a wife.
This is not a contemporary writing [there are none that I know of] written by people with a history
of making stuff up.
The only SCIENCE being done here is in the dating of an ancient scroll [or whatever] and the writing on it,
as well as checking it for signs of more modern forgery.
The balance of evidence doesn't even indicate that JC actually existed, and this does nothing to change
that.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSeriously guys. When I have to agree with RC, let alone in the science forum...
wow you dismiss the entire Biblical cannon as irrational and then some singular piece of papyri shows up and you laud it as truth! there are literally thousands of extant codices and papyri of the Bible yet you remain silent about these!
Now let us view this with our mental faculties in the light of reason, the document may be genuine but it do ...[text shortened]... l! that great Bible scholar sir Issac Newton shall be turning in his grave at the thought of it!
You are doing stuff badly wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's easy to prove that the Shroud of Turin is a fake. So I use creationists rhetorics:
I am still waiting for you to scientifically prove that the Shroud of Turin is a fake. Unless you can do that then it must prove the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.
There are no mention of the shroud in the genesis, therefore it cannot have been created, therefore it cannot be such a thing as the Shroud of Turin. Therefore the thing presented as the Shroud of Turin must be a fake.
Or I can use the RJHinds kind of thetorics to disprovew the rag:
There were no city of Turin at the time of Jesus, dumbnut, therefore it is a fake, dumbnut! And this is true because I am the near genius! Dumbnut!"
Okay, now when this is proven, can we just dismiss the shroud as being a fake, from now on?
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat's not scientific proof, numbnuts.
It's easy to prove that the Shroud of Turin is a fake. So I use creationists rhetorics:
There are no mention of the shroud in the genesis, therefore it cannot have been created, therefore it cannot be such a thing as the Shroud of Turin. Therefore the thing presented as the Shroud of Turin must be a fake.
Or I can use the RJHinds kind of thetorics t ...[text shortened]... "
Okay, now when this is proven, can we just dismiss the shroud as being a fake, from now on?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsNope.
I am still waiting for you to scientifically prove that the Shroud of Turin is a fake. Unless you can do that then it must prove the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.
IF.... and this is a really big IF... a test was done that proved that
the shroud, and the image on it, were made at around the time JC
was supposed to have been crucified...
Then that would prove that this was a cloth with an image on it
made at about the time JC was supposed to have been crucified.
It wouldn't prove that the image made it onto the cloth magically.
It wouldn't prove that it was a cloth wrapped around a crucifixion victim.
It wouldn't prove that if it was wrapped around a crucified person that
that person was JC. [we can't do a dna test because we haven't got a
confirmed sample of JC's dna to compare to, we have no accurate contemporary
pictures of JC to know what he looked like, and if we did, those could
have been copied... ect]
And even if it was wrapped around a real person called JC that wouldn't
prove that JC was the son of god or could perform miracles.
And it wouldn't prove that the person who was wrapped in it had come back
to life.
As ever, for a piece of evidence to be proof of something, it must have only
one possible rational explanation.
For the Shroud to be proof of the resurrection, then it must be possible to explain
it's existence ONLY by JC's resurrection.
As it is trivially easy to not only come up with alternate hypothesis, but more likely
ones, then the Shroud wouldn't even be evidence FOR the resurrection, let alone
proof. And that is assuming that it was confirmed to BE the shroud wrapped around
JC.
And you can't even show that.
I follow this debate intensively.
Who will win? Googlefudge or RJHinds?
As this is the Science Forum I bet my money on Googlefudge.
On the other hand, if the debate would be in Spiritual Forum only one argument would be enough: "God-did-it-that-way". Science cannot disprove that there.