Shroud of Turin News

Originally posted by divegeester
My point is that RJHinds is like a crazed dog barking up the wrong tree.

I think that whether it's the wrong tree or not has yet to be determined.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I think that whether it's the wrong tree or not has yet to be determined.

It's an irrelevancy either way.

Besides, it remains the "wrong tree" until someone produces evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by divegeester
It's an irrelevancy either way.

Besides, it remains the "wrong tree" until someone produces evidence to the contrary.

But do you see anything wrong with those of faith believing that the Turin shroud is real?

As you say, in the grand scheme, it is irrelevant, but what is wrong with allowing some of the faithful to have their belief about it?

Originally posted by divegeester
If you don't deny that the burial cloth is in two parts, then why do you keep on posting all this guff about the catholic shroud?

Actually there are two cloths, the large table cloth that covered the entire body and the table napkin that was put around the head apparently when the body was removed from the cross. All the evidence indicates these two cloths were in contact with the same man in the Jerusalem area and the supernatural image on the long cloth testifies to a beating, crucifixion, and something supernatural happening, like a possible resurrection.

So many, including myself, believe these two cloths were those two cloths described in the gospel of John. I think the evidence is too strong for a person with a mind of reason and logic to ignore and reject.

I do not consider you a person that has the kind of reason and logic necessary to consider this matter. Therefore, I suggest you dispense with additional comments and leave this thread for those willing to consider the evidence.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But do you see anything wrong with those of faith believing that the Turin shroud is real?

As you say, in the grand scheme, it is irrelevant, but what is wrong with allowing some of the faithful to have their belief about it?

I see following these relics as wrong thinking and wrong spiritually. The catholic tradition is built on this type of faith in 'alleged' relics; we should put our faith in Christ and in him alone.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Actually there are two cloths, the large table cloth that covered the entire body and the table napkin that was put around the head apparently when the body was removed from the cross. All the evidence indicates these two cloths were in contact with the same man in the Jerusalem area and the supernatural image on the long cloth testifies to a beating, cruci ...[text shortened]... pense with additional comments and leave this thread for those willing to consider the evidence.

The shroud is one cloth for the whole body and head. It is therefore obviously not the burial items described in scripture. Just because another piece of cloth has been found somewhere else does not make the first one any more authentic.

Originally posted by RJHinds
...So many, including myself, believe these two cloths were those two cloths described in the gospel of John. I think the evidence is too strong for a person with a mind of reason and logic to ignore and reject.

I do not consider you a person that has the kind of reason and logic necessary to consider this matter. Therefore, I suggest you dispense with additional comments and leave this thread for those willing to consider the evidence.

Perhaps you should consider why you are so spiritually attached to these relics Ron and why it is you take offence at me challenging them. Have you to some degree put your faith in them? Have they become precious to you.

Originally posted by divegeester
The shroud is one cloth for the whole body and head. It is therefore obviously not the burial items described in scripture. Just because another piece of cloth has been found somewhere else does not make the first one any more authentic.

Many people, including myself, disagree with you. The blood stains on the Oviedo, Spain cloth has many points of congruence with the Shroud of Turin.

Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud.

https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
Many people, including myself, disagree with you. The blood stains on the Oviedo, Spain cloth has many points of congruence with the Shroud of Turin.

[b]Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincide ...[text shortened]... edo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud.

https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm[/b]

I'm not interested in YouTube scientists or shroud lore or how many followers there are. You seem intent on not listening to what I'm saying; it doesn't align with scripture in terms of its description, therefore we should not regard it as being the genuine article. Being obsessed with these things is not spiritual RJ.

Originally posted by divegeester
Perhaps you should consider why you are so spiritually attached to these relics Ron and why it is you take offence at me challenging them. Have you to some degree put your faith in them? Have they become precious to you.

I am not attached to the Shroud of Turin at all. I am just convinced by the evidence. I believe you are not at all educated on the facts to come close to being able to challenge the evidence. In fact, it is clear that you will not even concider the evidence due to some unknown prejudice, apparently against the Roman Catholic Church.

I also do not like many things about the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, but I am not so biased that I will not even consider the truth because it is in possession of the Roman Catholic Church. I am a Protestant and I have never even considered becoming a Roman Catholic.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not attached to the Shroud of Turin at all. I am just convinced by the evidence. I believe you are not at all educated on the facts to come close to being able to challenge the evidence. In fact, it is clear that you will not even concider the evidence due to some unknown prejudice, apparently against the Roman Catholic Church.

I also do not like ...[text shortened]... Catholic Church. I am a Protestant and I have never even considered becoming a Roman Catholic.

It's nothing to do with the Catholic Church (although that is another topic) nor is it to do with my education on the shroud. The fact is that scripture describes two items of burial attire, one for the body and one for the head. The shroud of Turin is one piece for both and therefore cannot be the one described in scripture. It really isn't rocket science.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm not interested in YouTube scientists or shroud lore or how many followers there are. You seem intent on not listening to what I'm saying; it doesn't align with scripture in terms of its description, therefore we should not regard it as being the genuine article. Being obsessed with these things is not spiritual RJ.

My reference was to a website, not something on Youtube. You are so ignorant that you can't even recognize a reference to something on Youtube from a .com website.

Originally posted by RJHinds
My reference was to a website, not something on Youtube. You are so ignorant that you can't even recognize a reference to something on Youtube from a .com website.

Why is it you feel the need to become abusive when you are challenged on you belief in the Turin shroud? Have I been rude to you, no I haven't.

My comment about YouTube was referring to the plethora of YouTube links you frequently post to support your position on something. I think you are aware of this actually but chose instead to use my comment as a cheap way of avoiding my point about the scriptural description of the burial attire and to throw an insult.

Originally posted by divegeester
It's nothing to do with the Catholic Church (although that is another topic) nor is it to do with my education on the shroud. The fact is that scripture describes two items of burial attire, one for the body and one for the head. The shroud of Turin is one piece for both and therefore cannot be the one described in scripture. It really isn't rocket science.

I believe you have a basic misunderstanding of what happened and what the scriptures say about this. The small cloth or napkin rolled up by itself as mentioned in John is the Sudarium of Oviedo, which contains only the blood stains and no image. The evidence shows this cloth was used to collect the blood from the face and cover the head of Jesus when he was still on the cross. It appears to have been tied around the head and remained there while he was being transported to the grave site. Then it was taken off and rolled up and placed to the side.

Then the body was laid on the long cloth, the Shroud of Turin, and wrapped over the head down to the feet and strips or a strip of cloth was used to tie the body together. This long cloth is the one that had both blood stains and a supernatural image that any one can still see today.

It is believed that the reason the head cloth has no image is because it was not on the body at the time of the resurrection. It is believed that the radiated light during the resurrection is what left the supernatural image on the Shroud of Turin.

Originally posted by divegeester
Why is it you feel the need to become abusive when you are challenged on you belief in the Turin shroud? Have I been rude to you, no I haven't.

My comment about YouTube was referring to the plethora of YouTube links you frequently post to support your position on something. I think you are aware of this actually but chose instead to use my comment as ...[text shortened]... avoiding my point about the scriptural description of the burial attire and to throw an insult.

That is just my way when I come across willful ignorance. Perhaps it comes partly from my military experience instructing ignorant soldiers that has made me so impatient. You are lucky I did not call you a numbnuts.

Yes, I do also refer to Youtube at times because I think it can be a good instructing tool for people that learn better by hearing and seeing things instead of just reading text. Many soldiers coming into the army would not read or understand if you just threw a bunch of papers at them and told them to read it. I am not sure you are much better.