Can this be anything other than what it appears to be?

[Muffled]

JWs already believe this, actually. They say his resurrection was only spiritual.

I believe JW's believe a lot of things about Jesus that are not true.

 

[Muffled]

And there is evidence for Odin intervening n the affairs of men, both as warrior & wanderer, from testimony of faithful witnesses. But I don't see you hailing the Allfather.

I believe most of the writings about Odin have occurred millenia after his existeence adn could not be viewed as testimonies of witenesses. Most likely it is oral legends that were passed down through the ages.

 

[Muffled]

Obviously, if a thing appears to be other than what it appears to be, then the question isn't answerable.

I believe a mirage on the road appears to be water but it isn't but it shares some characteristics by its appearance.

I believe a family tomb could be found for Mary and others in her family but I think it is a long shot since Jews were dispersed. I can even imaginine a person name Jesus in the family plot because it is a common name but the Biblical testimony is that Jesus was not buried in the family tomb but in the sepulchre of a rich man. There have been various claims as to where that is but I am not sure an archeologist has ever authenticated any of them.

 

[Willamena]

I believe a mirage on the road appears to be water but it isn't but it shares some characteristics by its appearance.

I believe a family tomb could be found for Mary and others in her family but I think it is a long shot since Jews were dispersed. I can even imaginine a person name Jesus in the family plot because it is a common name but the Biblical testimony is that Jesus was not buried in the family tomb but in the sepulchre of a rich man. There have been various claims as to where that is but I am not sure an archeologist has ever authenticated any of them.

The world is as it appears, including all its "takes" and "mistakes." Sometimes we do a second take and see that the world appears as something other than what it seemed to appear on the first take. The second take is just as much an appearance of the world as the first: the appearance of it not being water. So we call the first appearance a "mis-take," and accept that the second is "the case." So it becomes the case the first take was an illusion.

Drive a little closer. You might be mistaken again.

 

[thau]

Dr. Tabor's blog contains a link to today's NY Times story about the profound new evidence concerning the so-called Jesus tomb in the east Jerusalem community of Talpiot. In my opinion, this is the smoking gun:
...are there any other arguments left besides pointing to scripture--which isn't an argument based on reason? How can it now not be what it appears to be?

A thousand signs and wonders since the resurrection are the other arguments that point to Jesus Christ being the One he said he was. Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe, Zeitoun, Akita, Japan, stigmatas and weeping statues are the stones that cry out Jesus is Lord. If science cannot wait to finish its crowning work of hoping they have found the bones of Jesus, I strongly suggest they complete their earlier homework first. The scientific evidence found on the Shroud of Turin is evidence that demands a verdict. The humble ones say it is impossible for man to have forged such a cloth, the angry ones remain silent. All that evidence lines up “miraculously” with the crucifixion and with Scripture. Sorry, but it seems very clear to me that science has already given us the smoking gun you or they have been looking for.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

A thousand signs and wonders since the resurrection are the other arguments that point to Jesus Christ being the One he said he was. Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe, Zeitoun, Akita, Japan, stigmatas and weeping statues are the stones that cry out Jesus is Lord. If science cannot wait to finish its crowning work of hoping they have found the bones of Jesus, I strongly suggest they complete their earlier homework first. The scientific evidence found on the Shroud of Turin is evidence that demands a verdict. The humble ones say it is impossible for man to have forged such a cloth, the angry ones remain silent. All that evidence lines up “miraculously” with the crucifixion and with Scripture. Sorry, but it seems very clear to me that science has already given us the smoking gun you or they have been looking for.

Actually, unlike those other examples, I believe the question of the Shroud is indeed still an open one. There is actual hard evidence to deal with which needs further investigation, and I'm leaning towards authenticity--but it's hardly a smoking gun yet. It is after all, a crucified man of which there were tens of thousands from that period. Show me how the image was formed, and then I'll tell you if forging it was impossible or not. Scientific evidence, like Truth, is a double edged sword. Now does that make me a humble man or an angry one; or does it send you back to the drawing boards to come up with a new name to hang around my neck.

 

[Bunyip]

Actually, unlike those other examples, I believe the question of the Shroud is indeed still an open one. There is actual hard evidence to deal with which needs further investigation, and I'm leaning towards authenticity--but it's hardly a smoking gun yet. It is after all, a crucified man of which there were tens of thousands from that period. Show me how the image was formed, and then I'll tell you if forging it was impossible or not. Scientific evidence, like Truth, is a double edged sword. Now does that make me a humble man or an angry one; or does it send you back to the drawing boards to come up with a new name to hang around my neck.

The shroud is 13th century, sadly it can not be genuine.

 

[thau]

The shroud is 13th century, sadly it can not be genuine.

In my opinion: If you truly wanted to know the truth about this cloth you would make the time to do so. There are thousands of articles, hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and studies on the Shroud. Scores, if not hundreds, cast enormous doubt to the carbon dated findings done in 1988. With very good cause. Amidst a number of doubts the one that surfaces the most is that that one square centimeter of cloth that was used for all these carbon tests shows real evidence of where that portion may very well have been mended or repaired by newer fabric woven in. All one needs to do is read what many – many – scientists are openly and honestly reporting and strongly suggesting.

So given the skeptics one plum of evidence for the Shroud being from medieval times as now being highly suspect, one should honestly revisit all of the other facts, findings, and qualities of this cloth that are, in a word, spellbinding. No explanations have ever been given that hold water as to how they could appear, much less how they could appear by some 13th century forger. It is simply overwhelming to even consider. The various amazing qualities and findings scientifically proven are too many to mention and document here, but anyone can do the research if interested.

Shroud of Turin Carbon Dating – Get Real | Shroud of Turin Blog

(Excerpt)

Is the Shroud real? Probably.

The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.

No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.

 

[Bunyip]

In my opinion: If you truly wanted to know the truth about this cloth you would make the time to do so. There are thousands of articles, hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and studies on the Shroud. Scores, if not hundreds, cast enormous doubt to the carbon dated findings done in 1988. With very good cause. Amidst a number of doubts the one that surfaces the most is that that one square centimeter of cloth that was used for all these carbon tests shows real evidence of where that portion may very well have been mended or repaired by newer fabric woven in. All one needs to do is read what many – many – scientists are openly and honestly reporting and strongly suggesting.

So given the skeptics one plum of evidence for the Shroud being from medieval times as now being highly suspect, one should honestly revisit all of the other facts, findings, and qualities of this cloth that are, in a word, spellbinding. No explanations have ever been given that hold water as to how they could appear, much less how they could appear by some 13th century forger. It is simply overwhelming to even consider. The various amazing qualities and findings scientifically proven are too many to mention and document here, but anyone can do the research if interested.

Shroud of Turin Carbon Dating – Get Real | Shroud of Turin Blog

(Excerpt)

Is the Shroud real? Probably.

The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.

No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.

Sure. And if one does not make that leap of faith and instead follows the evidence - the shroud is 13th century.

 

[thau]

Sure. And if one does not make that leap of faith and instead follows the evidence - the shroud is 13th century.

Yes, please do Follow the Evidence! ---- without limiting your focus upon dubious means only in order to justify the ends you insist upon.

This one article alone speaks volumes. I challenge any unbiased observer to refute these scientists findings and opinions.

Science Shines New Light on Shroud of Turin’s Age | Daily News | NCRegister.com

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, please do Follow the Evidence! ---- without limiting your focus upon dubious means only in order to justify the ends you insist upon.

This one article alone speaks volumes. I challenge any unbiased observer to refute these scientists findings and opinions.

Science Shines New Light on Shroud of Turin’s Age | Daily News | NCRegister.com

If the evidence is there - why did you say that a leap of faith is required?

All your article is claiming is that it is POSSIBLE - I agree with that, but possible and likely are two different things.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

If the evidence is there - why did you say that a leap of faith is required?

All your article is claiming is that it is POSSIBLE - I agree with that, but possible and likely are two different things.

Until we know how the image was made in the first place, we can't say that anything is likely.

 

[Shad]

Yeah, well I took a different tack since nothing else seemed to draw a reasoned, considered response. I don't mind repeating myself in separate threads, but not within the same thread. It usually means that dialogue receptors aren't open, to put it as politely as I can.

Is it reasonable to make a claim well beyond what the evidence suggests? Is it reasonable to make these claims before any peer-reviewed is done? I am by far more reasonable as I am not the one looking for confirmation bias of a presupposition in unpublished claims found in a news papers. You made a leap of faith, I did not. So bring up reason when you have shown you are capable of using it.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Is it reasonable to make a claim well beyond what the evidence suggests? Is it reasonable to make these claims before any peer-reviewed is done? I am by far more reasonable as I am not the one looking for confirmation bias of a presupposition in unpublished claims found in a news papers. You made a leap of faith, I did not. So bring up reason when you have shown you are capable of using it.

It's the same thing as finding the skeleton of a dinosaur in a context that reasonably suggests that it will be show to be millions of years old instead of 6 thousand. You reject the evidence at hand as meaningless in the face of a total lack of anything but hearsay evidence for the opposition.

 

[Bunyip]

Until we know how the image was made in the first place, we can't say that anything is likely.

Agreed. Possible, is far from likely.

 

[Shad]

It's the same thing as finding the skeleton of a dinosaur in a context that reasonably suggests that it will be show to be millions of years old instead of 6 thousand. You reject the evidence at hand as meaningless in the face of a total lack of anything but hearsay evidence for the opposition.

There is far more work done on fossils than isolated samples from a single tomb. We have dating methods on fossil which are cross referenced with other fossils of the same species to confirm a date range for the species to have lived. These findings are published unlike your source. these claims are also reThese findings never made leaps to conclusions such as dinosaurs as the ancestors of birds until secondary information is provided by biologist with an expertise of avian species. If you are going to make a comparison at least use one that is accurate. I reject certain claims the author made, not all of his claims. His conclusion includes a leap of faith not supported by his own evidence.

 

[Shad]

Yes, please do Follow the Evidence! ---- without limiting your focus upon dubious means only in order to justify the ends you insist upon.

This one article alone speaks volumes. I challenge any unbiased observer to refute these scientists findings and opinions.

Science Shines New Light on Shroud of Turin’s Age | Daily News | NCRegister.com

Fanti's views are questionable as best and unprofessional at worst. Perhaps reading from sources which are not produced by Catholics would be a start... Like the actual studies published unlike Fanti's. Especially the reports on the samples not being contaminated as Fanti claims. Fanti can not even prove his samples are from the shroud as he took unprofessional routes in acquiring a sample which itself was acquired by unprofessional routes before him. Such issues with dating could be resolved with more samples but these samples are never produced. After all if the samples were repair materials why not produce samples from areas not repaired? To me it seems like rather than actually being involved in valid research the Vatican is more interested in reaping the benefits over doubt over published results which makes it an ideological stance, nothing more.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There is far more work done on fossils than isolated samples from a single tomb.

There's a lot of evidence in those two tombs, and that evidence is but a few pieces of the puzzle from many sources, which includes Roman historians, early church fathers, archaeology, epigraphy, Jewish traditions including the Dead Sea Scrolls and Gnostic texts, as well as one of the best sources of evidence, the Bible itself--many witnesses giving inadvertent testimony against what they were or are advocating.

This latest evidence would bring two disparate pieces together, Talpiot and the James ossuary, in a fit that is evidence of its own. Yes, we're waiting on publication, but that's not cause to berate and ignore it.

His conclusion includes a leap of faith not supported by his own evidence.

There's a profound difference between faith based on a significant amount of objective evidence, and a blind leap of faith based on nothing but hearsay--the more profound because so few people make that distinction.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Many people believe that Jesus was one of the many Jewish rabble-rousers who proliferated during that time.

 

[Shad]

There's a lot of evidence in those two tombs, and that evidence is but a few pieces of the puzzle from many sources, which includes Roman historians, early church fathers, archaeology, epigraphy, Jewish traditions including the Dead Sea Scrolls and Gnostic texts, as well as one of the best sources of evidence, the Bible itself--many witnesses giving inadvertent testimony against what they were or are advocating.

None of which is about this tomb being the tomb of Jesus. You seem to be confusing the claims regarding the tombs with something I never stated. Gnostic claims vary so your generalization is useless. The DSS support the OT not Jesus nor the NT thus the point is useless. Archaeology has also a vastly different view of Judaism which is completely out of line with what the religion teaches which also undermines the DSS. One teaches there was a conquest of the Holy Land. Archaeology has evidence that this story is fictional. Depending on the view you hold archaeology may provide no benefit but only refute your view. The Bible is not contemporary evidence, it is secondary. Thus it is not even the best source since it's writers were not eye witnesses to any of their accounts. So the best evidence is hearsay. Hence why secondary non-bible sources are used not the Bible.

This latest evidence would bring two disparate pieces together, Talpiot and the James ossuary, in a fit that is evidence of its own. Yes, we're waiting on publication, but that's not cause to berate and ignore it.

Neither of which supports the idea that the tomb is that of Jesus. You rely on sources which are rejected by experts. You rely on finds which have not been reviewed. More so the views have been refuted by actual eperts. You rely on a person which makes films for a living as a source. Bring up evidence when you can tell the difference between an experts view and your fallacious argument from authority. Find me the evidence linking James ossurary and that of Talpoit. Here is a hint, you wont find any. This is due to the ossurary not being found in Talpoit. the only link are the names which can suggest no more than that is it of a man named James, brother of Jesus. Which Jesus is speculation. Which James is speculation. You are creating a link not support by the data but by a presuppositional view. Beside this the Talpiot conclusions have been refuted by experts as Jacobovici is out of his depth.

There's a profound difference between faith based on a significant amount of objective evidence, and a blind leap of faith based on nothing but hearsay--the more profound because so few people make that distinction.

Let me know when you have figured out the faith component as you seem oblivious to your leaps of faith and those of your own non-expert sources which were never reviews or refuted by actual experts. You have one source from one person that is even remotely credible and he has not yet published anything for review.

You seem to mistake my rejection of your fallacious argument from authority as rejection of a historical Jesus. This is not my stance. Just providing clarification since it seems you are suggesting this is my view.