29 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI think you've given your beliefs regarding the Shroud a thorough airing. Its status and history, and the significance you claim it has, don't seem to be seen as relevant by the other Christians here in terms of their belief in Jesus.
Yes, other than me, there does not seem to be even another Christian on here that is interested in the Shroud.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121315
Originally posted by divegeesterNope, I'm with Swissgambit on this and I'm tired of chasing you via videos. If you can't be arsed to summarise the key points and your POV then I can't be arsed to watch another one of your videos.
Any chance of a synopsis of the 4 main reasons and his counter argument?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121315
29 Mar 14
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFIt isn't relevant and it's so obviously a hoax it's laughable.
I think you've given your beliefs regarding the Shroud a thorough airing. Its status and history, and the significance you claim it has, don't seem to be seen as relevant by the other Christians here in terms of their belief in Jesus.
Option 1 it is really the shroud of a dead dude. Response: so what could be anyone.
Option 2 it is really the shroud of a dead guy and the dead guy was actually the person Jesus. So what, he was a dude who was executed for being a pain in the ass to the Romans.
Option 3: it's a fake. The Catholics love all this relic stuff, it's what the whole ridiculous abhorrent stupid religion is built on - bones and stones and rags.
End point: so what?
Edit: iPad typos, sorry.
29 Mar 14
Originally posted by divegeesterI would think a real YEC would explain the whole shroud thing with "God did it that way!"
It isn't relevant and it's so obviously a hoax it's laughable.
Option 1 it is really the shroud of a dead dude. Response: so what could be anyone.
Option 2 it is really the shroud of a dead guy and the dead guy was actually the person Jesus. So what, he was a dude who was executed for being a pain in the ass to the Romans.
Option 3: it's a fake. ...[text shortened]... is built on - bones and stones and rags.
End point: so what?
Edit: iPad typos, sorry.
29 Mar 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhat gets me is the option that says it is the burial shroud of JC. Then all of a sudden the shroud of a dead guy is proof of resurrection.
I would think a real YEC would explain the whole shroud thing with "God did it that way!"
Excuse me, but how does that follow? Even if it was in some fantasy universe proven to be the burial shroud of JC, which is about as likely as me winning the lottery when I never buy a ticket, what does that have to do with a subsequent reversal of the dead part?
29 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsDon't get butthurt at the question; I'm being sincere.
The significance depends on what you believe about the Shroud. If no person on this Forum is willing to listen to what the scientists that actually examined the Shroud say about it, then there is no point in me bringing it up anymore.
I've racked my brains on both this one and the Ark--- and quite frankly, I find the Ark more compelling in terms of significance--- but I always end up with the same result: huh.
In one of the seven books of The Chronicles of Narnia children's series (I think it was the seventh one, The Last Battle if memory serves), those who had been in opposition of Aslan were so blinded by their hatred of him, or truth, that despite being seated at the very banquet table which was serving as a reward for those who fought for Aslan, the former were completely blinded to the extravagance spread before them.
I find the Bible to be far, far more compelling than either the Shroud of Turin or even Noah's Ark as it relates to 'unexplained phenomena" in the history of man.
Truth haters/God haters will/have done everything they can to discredit it at every turn, without a single serious challenge to its authority and it persists still... always will, really.
Let's say we were able to conclusively prove that the gopher wood boat which sits on Mt. Ararat is Noah's from the biblical account.
Add the irrefutable proof that the cloth is the very same one used to swath the body of our Lord Jesus Christ.
What do either of them offer, other than another witness to the things written about in the Bible?
Does the Bible really need more witnesses attesting to its veracity, when it has withstood all of the challenges to date?
29 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEven the Holy Bible says the truth of a matter is established by two or more witnesses.
Don't get butthurt at the question; I'm being sincere.
I've racked my brains on both this one and the Ark--- and quite frankly, I find the Ark more compelling in terms of significance--- but I always end up with the same result: huh.
In one of the seven books of The Chronicles of Narnia children's series (I think it was the seventh one, [i]The L ...[text shortened]... d more witnesses attesting to its veracity, when it has withstood all of the challenges to date?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121315
30 Mar 14
Originally posted by RJHindsJust reconsidering your thread title; how could the shroud ever be "proof of resection"?
Barrie Schwartz, a Jewish member of the shroud of Turin examination team, gives a lecture on his involvment with the shroud and the effect it has had on his belief in his life. He addresses the 4 main reasons protestant and evangelical Christians are skeptical of the shoud of Turin as being the burial cloth of Jesus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0N9cMUQrZI
30 Mar 14
Originally posted by divegeesterAnd I'm with Freaky (there's something you don't see everyday) in that I don't see the relevance of it, for either the skeptic, or the believer.
Nope, I'm with Swissgambit on this and I'm tired of chasing you via videos. If you can't be arsed to summarise the key points and your POV then I can't be arsed to watch another one of your videos.