Indeed. However, all “religions” can be true truth simultaneously, as they all assert diametrically opposing truths, no they cannot all be truth at the same time. If one is true, then the fellow who subscribes to none is also in error.
They can all be true at the same time but they can't? How does that work? And the point is...? (Why the scare quotes around the word religions?)
Apologies, typo, they can’t be all true at the same time. The point is even if someone does not subscribe to a religion does not negate its reality. Well, God is interested in relationship, not man-made religions.
I'd agree with that: IF that religion is true. Which, so far, not one has been shown to be. (Or, conversely, if someone does subscribe to a religion that does not negate the utter lack of "god/s" in reality). This is nothing but a belief/ supposition. Given the lack of evidence for "god", and the concomitant lack of communication with same, then no one knows what he/ she/ it is interested in.
Agree. Agree. However, there is amazing and a tremedious plethora of evidence for Gods existiance. The communication is amazing ( I’ve been blown away anyway, as have many of my friends. We do know what he wants, as he wrote it down in the Bible. The Bible is not jsut a collection or words, but GodS message to humanity. It’s not as bad as many would think, it’s actually quite a amazing message. Most reject it, but do t even know what it is. If I asked you, “what does one have to do to get to Heaven according to the bible” what would you say? What’s your understanding? Check out the other thread on the actual evidence, we are just finishing talking about #1, I have about 10 or so that fit the bill.
Only if you're already a believer (or predisposed to that belief). Objectively there isn't any such evidence. You should have written "alleged communication". You can't (nor can anyone else) show that this "communication" is anything more than a subjective internal delusion. Again, you missed out the word "allegedly". So far not a single one of the (supposed) items of evidence have stood up to criticism (except - as noted prior) to those that already subscribe to the belief.
If you want to, go to shroud.com and search for “crown of thorns” You will find a number of articles and references to it there. I would think that you would rather go directly to the source, to the people who studied the Shroud. Basically, the numerous sharp point puncture wounds on the head are indicative of a “crown of thorns”. But please don’t take my word for it, study it for yourself, and decide for yourself.
Actually there is evidence, lots of it, .... it’s just how you interpret it, there’s the kicker. Bias is a real sneaky bed-fellow. If one wants to live in a world of purely & only “scientific proof” to actually believe something, well, your done right there. Discounting the possible possibility of the reality of a supernatural entity is myopic and not in the spirit of truely finding true truth imo. You may disagree. Well, I agree your partly right. This kind of communication is only visible by believers. [ should a child not know his Fathers call, yet to others it means nothing ? ] I know now it’s real, partly because all believers has the same experience. Millions of us over millennia. Coincidence? Perhaps. The other way to see it is that it’s actually happening. It’s a possibility anyway. Same evidence, seen differently. Who has the truth? I’ve seen things that blew my mind over and over and over. At one point point, I said, “Seriouly?” “Come on, this can’t be real” but it was. ( No, I did not see any phyocal manifestations of God. No burning bushes for me. I got a burning heart however. Explain sometime. Purely subjective and delusion? Maybe. But I can’t buy them apples anymore. But you could be right. What happens if your wrong compared to what happens I am wrong? Big difference. Fair enough, I concur.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But what your really saying is there is still a chance ? ( that’s from a Jim Carey movie, I could not resist. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Not sure what evidence your referencing here, will try and read back but time is at a premium for me right now. Check out the other thread if you want to see my evidence and my answers. Pick a post, let’s talk about it. But I really like what SA6 is saying. Peace
It does look in the image you provided that there was something going on with the head. Fake or real, there something with the head. Fits the story anyway. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Like I s aid... Oops. Not accepting what YOU call evidence as objective evidence is NOT the same as "discounting the possible possibility". Ergo: subjective and unverifiable. You believe, not know. Right. Except for those believers that think "god" wanted them to kill women, or unbelievers or... Or human psychology. If you're right then it's simple: I am as "god" made me. About as much chance as Pooh bear still inhabiting the Hundred Acre Wood. That's what I'm referring to. YOU believe it's evidence. Yet that "evidence" is in (serious) dispute).
It's worth considering what it would mean if it isn't a fake. If the image on the Shroud was not produced by a natural process or a human artist, then how was it produced, exactly? The Shroud is a physical artifact, so some kind of physical process must have caused the image on the cloth. But the suggestions as to what that physical process might be seem very flimsy to me. One suggestion is that the image was imprinted by "high energy UV light". Is that physically possible? Has anybody tried to imprint a similar cloth using high-energy UV light, to produce a similar image? I'm not aware of anybody even suggesting any such test. I'm not even aware of any small-scale tests on small samples of cloth, such as would establish the in-principle possibility that this could happen, let alone tests that would establish that the characteristics of the resultant image would match those that are seen on the Shroud. Is there some problem with doing such a test that I'm not aware of? If not, why isn't anybody interested in doing it? The next problem is, assuming that the image was caused by UV light, where did the UV light come from? Believers suggest that it somebody came from the body of Christ as he was resurrected by God. But how would that occur, physically? What would be needed for the skin to emit the correct level of UV radiation, for instance? Would such a process damage or destroy the body? Would it burn the cloth? What physical process could allow a body to emit the requisite UV light in the first place? What would need to occur within the body for that to happen? Of course, the believers can always allege a miracle. The resurrection, after all, is miraculous. Presumably God could just create the required UV light out of nothing, if he wanted to. But then again, he could just as easily have chosen to resurrect Jesus without the UV light, presumably. If the only explanation of how the image got on the Shroud is that a miracle happened, then we need to ask what's more likely: the miracle itself, or the conclusion that the image was produced miraculously? Clearly, the idea that a human artist created the image on the Shroud, even possibly using clever and unexpected methods, requires much less investment of faith than the belief that the image was created by a miracle from God. Scientifically speaking, the assumption must be that the image is non-miraculous unless there is quite compelling evidence that the image could only be produced by supernatural means. That's a very high hurdle. If you're religious, you might be content with "We don't know how it happened, so it must have been a miracle", but scientists will never be content with that kind of explanation. For them it's "We don't know how this happened yet, so we'll science the problem until we work out how it could have happened, going with the most plausible hypothesis unless new disconfirming evidence comes to light."
Good points. I have no idea what it is or how it got made. If it’s a fake, surely it be recreated with today’s tech? Like, if they were able to make so long ago, as a fake, someone had the tech to do it. It should be easily reproducible. If it’s real, then it’s real. Who on earth has seen a body wrapped in cloth get resurrected? Not I. So, in this process, it’s possible that the process could cause such an effect on cloth. Or, God left us this “miracle” to show that Jesus actually existed. I don’t have the answers.
There's something in science called "peer review", which means essentially that you also go to the people who criticized the original studies.
A great many people have been resurrected minutes - even tens of hours - after death. Often such people are wearing clothing, are wrapped in blankets, in some cases are even in bodybags at the morgue. No such phenomenon has ever been described.
But it doesn't. There's nothing to connect it to Jesus except some imagined crown-of-thorns wounds. Surely God could provide better evidence than that.
Agree, but this was different. Jesus was really dead for 3 days, then came back and was able to appear out of thin air after he rose. His resurrected body was his glorified body ( the one we get in heaven ) I suspect if the SoT is real it may reflect this. But I don’t know if it is. It’s irrelevant for me, but still neat.
Good question. I will do some digging and get back to you. I do know that in the OT, the three day theme was common ( johna for example was three days in the belly of the whale.) This was a foreshadowing the coming resurrection. He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.“ Matt 12
Perhaps. Or perhaps he was never dead to begin with; medical science wasn't really up to determining whether someone in hypovolemic shock was dead or not back then. If he wasn't breathing and had no (detectable) heartbeat that was it; off to the tomb (or grave.) Fun fact - as recently as the 1700's, people demanded to be buried in "safety coffins" because occasionally someone would "die" have a funeral, be buried - and then recover and find themselves six feet under in a coffin. The safety coffin had a chain you could pull to ring a bell by your gravestone, and you would then be dug up before you suffocated. So even with a higher level of medical science, people were sometimes found alive after being thought dead for days.
I suppose also, three days dead is pretty hard to come back from. I think the world record is no where near that. Found a women for 17 hours online, but she was on life support and came back to life after it was shut off.
