• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Shroud of Turin

Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
bippy123 said:
Ouro, I never said that no one in recorded history was crucified . I said that no one in recorded history was crucified in the manner that Jesus and the man on the cross were crucified :), and this is a historic fact.
Click to expand...
No. No. And NO. It is not "a historical fact".

Your utterly gross misuse of that word is disheartening of someone who claims to be rational.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
This is good here.

Silly Beliefs - The Shroud of Turin Scam

Rogers developed a new method of dating linen based on its vanillin content. He performed all his tests in his 'home laboratory'. There exists a method called pyrolysis mass spectrometry which Rogers had used recently for other testing of the Shroud of Turin. It has been shown to generate extremely precise quantitative measurements of carbohydrates, such as vanillin. Unfortunately, Rogers allegedly chose to use a qualitative analysis method, a staining method which is a rough guide to the presence of vanillin and cannot detect very small amounts. In spite of the lack of accuracy of the measurement, he concluded that the shroud could date to between 1000 BCE and 700 CE. His refusal to use the extremely precise method on such a crucial experiment is suspicious.


And we already know he is biased looking for results he desires.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
I like this.

Silly Beliefs - The Shroud of Turin Scam

The Shroud is a 14th-century forgery

and is one of many such deliberately created relics produced in the same period, all designed to attract pilgrims to specific shrines to enhance and increase the status and financial income of the local church. There were countless crucifixion nails, crowns of thorns, and lances. And there were burial shrouds. There were between 26 and 40 'authentic' burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, fragments supposedly cut from the True Cross were available in almost every church in Europe. A church in St. Omer claimed to have bits of the True Cross, of the Lance that pierced Christ, of his Cradle, and the original stone tablets upon which the Ten Commandments had been traced by the very finger of God! Three churches in France each professed to have a complete corpse of Mary Magdalene. Jesus' foreskin was preserved in at least six churches. Vials of Jesus' tears, vials of Jesus' mother's milk. One catalogue from that time includes the following: "A fragment of St. Stephen's rib; Rusted remains of the gridiron on which St. Lawrence died; A Lock of Mary's hair; A small piece of her robe; A piece of the Manger; Part of one of Our Lord's Sandals; A piece of the sponge that had been filled with vinegar and handed up to Him; A fragment of bread He had shared with His disciples; A tuft of St. Peter's beard; Drops of St. John the Baptist's Blood." Many churches vied to become known for the number and importance of their relics. As early as 1071 the cathedral at Eichstatt possessed 683 relics, while by the 1520s the Schlosskirche at Wittenburg had 19,013 and the Schlosskirche at Halle boasted more than 21,000 such objects. "About 1200, Constantinople was so crammed with relics that one may speak of a veritable industry with its own factories". Blinzler (a Catholic New Testament scholar) lists, as examples: "letters in Jesus' own hand, the gold brought to the baby Jesus by the wise men, the twelve baskets of bread collected after the miraculous feeding of the 5000, the throne of David, the trumpets of Jericho, the axe with which Noah made the Ark, and so on. . . " During the Middle Ages particularly, relic-mongering was rampant; and of course, there were no scientific means to test things, so all manner of things were sold as authentic. Including shrouds of Jesus.
 
B

bippy123

Member
Ouroboros said:
No. No. And NO. It is not "a historical fact".

Your utterly gross misuse of that word is disheartening of someone who claims to be rational.
Click to expand...


You claim it's not . Please show me one person that's been crucified in the same exact manner as Christ and the man on the shroud and you will have debunked my assertion .
Just bring me one person.
I claim it is a historic fact, now all you need is one and I've been debunked on this statement :)
It should be very simple since you claimed I'm misusing that word and I claim to be rational yet for the 4rd time I'm asking you to name one .
 
B

bippy123

Member
George-ananda said:
LOL

For UNbiased facts, you always have to look to Outhouse's posts :D



Sorry Outhouse, but how do I resist that set-up you left me.
Click to expand...

This is who outhouse is claiming to be a known biased quack.

Introduction to Ray Rogers Shroud of Turin FAQ | Shroud of Turin Story

Ray Rogers was a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education.

Yep that looks like a quack to me.a senior fellow at Los alamos labs.
I sure didnt know the prestigious Los alamos labs hires known biased quacks.
He is so biased in favor of the shroud that he is an agnostic.

The problem here is that outhouse has brought a pea shooter to a gun fight and he's shooting with a few bricks short of a load.

Outhouse also forgot to mention that Ray Rogers was a senior chemist at Los alamos for 35 years.

Some atheists claim they love science, until it goes against their worldview lol
Instead he will pull his evidence from joe nickells site, a guy that doesn't even have an associate degree in any scientific field.

Yep Rogers is the known biased quack and joe nickell is the world reknowned scientist. Nuffield said :D

Yep he was such a quack that he pushes for evolution to be taught in public schools and colleges lol

And this is why I choose not to dialogue with outhouse and his gang directly anymore because they have thrown science, rational thought and honesty right out the windows, plus he was caught an an outright lie when it came to him twisting the words of ray Rogers and everyone here, including his fellow atheist buddies know it.
 
Last edited:
P

philbo

High Priest of Cynicism
bippy123 said:
You claim it's not . Please show me one person that's been crucified in the same exact manner as Christ and the man on the shroud and you will have debunked my assertion .
Click to expand...
Can you show one person (including Jesus) for whom there is any contemporary evidence that they were crucified in the same exact manner? Not recorded half a century after the fact, but something that wouldn't be considered hearsay in a court of law. Anything where there's enough evidence to call it a "historical fact", in fact.
 
B

bippy123

Member
philbo said:
Can you show one person (including Jesus) for whom there is any contemporary evidence that they were crucified in the same exact manner? Not recorded half a century after the fact, but something that wouldn't be considered hearsay in a court of law. Anything where there's enough evidence to call it a "historical fact", in fact.
Click to expand...

Other then Jesus and the man on the cross no, not anywhere in recorded history.
Philbo you seem to be confusing historical facts with scientific facts.
There is a difference and historical scholars will also tell u this.
Historicity isn't measured in the same way as something is measured in a lab.
Historians measure historicity in a different method, so my statement stand for the reasons I just mentioned :)
I do understand what your saying though.
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
bippy123 said:
You claim it's not . Please show me one person that's been crucified in the same exact manner as Christ and the man on the shroud and you will have debunked my assertion .
Just bring me one person.
Click to expand...

OK. There was a guy named Fredicus who was crucified exactly as Jesus was crucified.

Sorry. I don't like debunking people, but you did ask.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
bippy123 said:
Yep that looks like a quack to me.a senior fellow at Los alamos labs.
I sure didnt know the prestigious Los alamos labs hires known biased quacks.
He is so biased in favor of the shroud that he is an agnostic.


Outhouse also forgot to mention that Ray Rogers was a senior chemist at Los alamos for 35 years.

.
Click to expand...

Talk about intellectual dishonesty, lets look at Rogers

Silly Beliefs - The Shroud of Turin Scam


  • Raymond Rogers is a retired chemist, a Fellow at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
What articles normally fail to reveal is that Rogers was also director of chemical research for STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) and a long-time believer that the shroud is an actual burial cloth of a crucified man which dates from the first century CE. They do not disclose this bias.


He performed all his tests in his 'home laboratory'.


Rogers has not performed this necessary calibration on vanillin analysis.


Rogers also claimed a supernatural origin for the image, this destroys any credibility he might have had.
 
P

philbo

High Priest of Cynicism
bippy123 said:
Other then Jesus and the man on the cross no, not anywhere in recorded history.
Philbo you seem to be confusing historical facts with scientific facts.
There is a difference and historical scholars will also tell u this.
Historicity isn't measured in the same way as something is measured in a lab.
Historians measure historicity in a different method, so my statement stand for the reasons I just mentioned :)
I do understand what your saying though.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not confusing historical with scientific facts.

The point I'm making is that you are asserting something as historical fact when there is no contemporary evidence for it - something being in the bible does not make it historically factual: without corroboration, at best it's hearsay and at worst it's complete invention.

Judging the historical accuracy of your assertion that only one person in history has been crucified in exactly the manner of Jesus requires some secondary, non-biblical source that even one person has. Otherwise there is no way anyone could assert with any credibility that something is historically factual - and continuing to make that assertion will undermine your credibility regarding other things.
 
P

philbo

High Priest of Cynicism
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
philbo said:
Given that this is in the Daily Mail, I'm almost inclined to start believing in the shroud as holy artifact: the Mail is wrong far more often than it's right :)
Click to expand...

I have no idea about the website.

The article makes sense though, it shows magic wasnt needed to create the fraudulent shroud
 
P

philbo

High Priest of Cynicism
outhouse said:
I have no idea about the website.

The article makes sense though, it shows magic wasnt needed to create the fraudulent shroud
Click to expand...
I don't like referring to the shroud as "fraudulent", given that we don't know why it was made (by whom, or even when). It may have been appropriated invalidly by a Christianity wanting to find some evidence to shore up an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative; it may even have been made to look like the description of the crucified Christ for that or some other reason. We don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top