nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am
The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?
While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.
Jesus left the turin cloth back in the empty tomb right after his glorious resurrection. So he no longer wore it afterwards when he visited the nephites.
Therefore the turin cloth doesnt corroborate the BOM.
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again”
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates"
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2023 12:17 pm
The LDS church claims that the Book of Mormon is scripture alongside the Bible, "reliable and authoritative", as you would say. Two questions:
1. If you can claim that the Turin cloth validates the Bible, what's to stop LDS from going beyond that and claiming that it validates the Book of Mormon?
2. If you don't believe that the Turin cloth validates the Book of Mormon, how do you go about arguing that but still have it validate the Bible?
As for the book of Mormon and LDS, they are subject to the same methodology. If they have external evidence that corroborates their main points, then it can be argued it is reliable.
It is not just the TS that supports the claims of the Bible. I have argued at length about the claims of creation, cosmology, the flood, Israelites in Egypt, Moses, entering Canaan, Assyrians attacking Jerusalem, and now the resurrection. I have been supporting these claims through external evidence.
In Reason to Doubt, Jordan responds to a video about the TS in THE BEAT with Allen Parr interviewing Jeremiah Johnston:
Allen Parr is WRONG about the Shroud of Turin
Here's the original video where Jeremiah Johnston presents 5 reasons why the TS is authentic:
SHOCKING Evidence That Proves The Shroud of Turin Shows The Actual FACE of Jesus!
Evidence 5 is it is the most studied artifact.
2:20
Jeremiah: "The Turin shroud is the most study archaeological artifact in the world."
7:27
Jordan: In terms of actual research being able to be done on the artifact itself people who have had access to the thing they're studying there hasn't been that much you've got one week of research in the 70s that was the STURP team.
Jordan is partially true here. Yes, STURP only had 5 straight days to do hands on study of the shroud. Outside of the RCC, they've had the longest direct study of the shroud. But, there has been countless hours of indirect study of the shroud through evidence collected by the STURP team, Enrie photographic evidence, Raes fiber/cloth evidence, historical evidence, art evidence, and textual evidence.
8:47
Jordan: But is it comparable to say like the Dead Sea Scrolls where many researchers who have expertise in relevant fields have had access to the documents them themselves.
I'd disagree with this. The Dead Sea Scrolls are locked up in museums. Few people have direct access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most people can only indirectly study it through photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Jordan: It's not clear how we would even go about assessing this claim. And if we did go about it that the Shroud would come out on top. But more importantly the claim being made here is that this is the most studied artifact of all time and the implication of that is that with this much study there's no way it would have been revealed not revealed as a hoax. If it wasn't authentic basically there's no way a hoax could have gone undetected all this time. In order for that to be to be persuasive at all at least to be persuasive to me scientists and historians would need to have actual like regular access to the artifact so they could run tests, so they could confirm hypotheses, so they could test their ideas over again and run additional tests as necessary in order to answer the questions that they have.
The issue is, if it is an artwork from a medieval artist, how was he able to elude modern scientists on how he did it? That makes no sense, esp since the shroud has been subjected to so many tests, including microscopic analysis, spectroscopy, infrared imaging, UV imaging, X-ray imaging, chemical tests, etc. The battery of tests are documented in several papers that have been published by STURP team members: https://www.shroud.com/78papers.htm
We can assess the claim it is the most studied artifact by looking at Jordan's hard drive. In video 3, he admitted his hard drive is getting full of scientific papers on the shroud. "My hard drive is fast filling up with Shroud of Turin research." What other artifact has so many scientific papers on it?
I want to add here we should qualify the statement "the shroud is the most studied artifact" to "the shroud is the most scientifically studied artifact". The Dead Sea Scrolls are perhaps more studied than the Turin Shroud, but it is primarily studied theologically. Who knows how many theologians and Biblical scholars have been analyzing the DSS? Certainly much more than all the people that have studied the TS combined. How many people have been scientifically studying the DSS? Certainly not that many compared to the TS.
Jordan: In order for this to be persuasive at all at least to be persuasive to me scientists and historians would have actually needed to have regular access to do what they wanted over time. So they could run a test examine those results come up with new hypotheses test those new ones and kind of go through the iterative process that science is. That's not the situation we have so at best this is a weak argument. But realistically I don't think it carries much weight.
I'm all for more direct study of the shroud. But, the fiasco of the 1988 C-14 testing left a bad taste with the RCC and it's going to take some time before they trust scientists outside the church.
If anyone wants a detailed report of the 1988 C-14 dating fiasco, read "The 1988 C-14 Dating Of The Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé" by Joe Marino.
People also have free access to a vast amount of information on the shroud at shroud.com. Anybody can come up with hypotheses on the shroud based on all the available data.
On to number 4, the body image.
Reason #4: Image formation
11:07
Jeremiah: "21st century scientists modern science cannot explain how this image is on the cloth."
12:05
Jeremiah: "Under eight feet the shroud vanishes we can't explain that."
12:16
Jordan: The Shroud does not turn invisible when you're within eight feet of it like it's an invisibility cloak or something. He doesn't mean that the image vanishes in that like the coloring goes away. I's that you you no longer perceive the image. But this isn't like some weird convoluted thing. This is a we can absolutely 100 positively explain. What is going on it's not even that complicated of an explanation so the reason you need to be further back in order to perceive the thing is because it's super faint.
Jeremiah didn't really explain the point well. And Jordan doesn't counter it well either.
As Jordan says, no image is vanishing. The issue is the body image is hard to discern unless you're around 10 feet from the image. Farther away from that, as Jordan says, the image is too faint to discern. But up close, it's not discernible because of the halftone effect.
The problem for skeptics is why would a medieval artist use the halftone effect? How did he even know about it centuries ahead of time before it was invented? How was he able to achieve halftone? If the shroud was created to be displayed in public, would it even make sense for it to not be discernible more than 10 feet away?
14:16
Jeremiah: "It's ridiculous the shroud of has survived three different fires. It's been doused with water on at least two occasions. So you think about if it was a painting or if it was some kind of weird tattooed pigment you would see effects from that from the fires."
Jordan: I don't know I mean would you can we get a single shred of evidence for anything that you're gonna say. Today like there
are plenty of marketing techniques that one stride and cured could survive. It's high heat they could survive having water spilled on them.
The issue is if there was any pigment applied to the cloth, any heat or water would affect the image. We see no effect on the image from heat or water.
15:29
Jeremiah: "This is number one for a lot, it's not my number one, or in other words you can't come up with a forgery if you even wanted to."
15:37
Jordan: I know that lots of people are convinced by this point because I hear about it all the time in our comments section. And to be perfectly honest I don't get it this whole point, this entire thing is just I don't know therefore it must be God.
Well, Jordan does the exact opposite. He admits he doesn't know how the image was formed, but he concludes that it's not Jesus.
But I will agree just because there's evidence against a forgery, it is not sufficient to then claim it's authentic. You need to also have evidence to support authenticity. So, to support the authentic position, one needs to refute the arguments for it being a medieval artwork and present good arguments that it is the burial cloth of Jesus.
16:14
Jordan: I don't know means I don't know I don't. It does not mean therefore I do know and it was magic anyway.
Completely agree. And also I don't know does not mean therefore it's a fake.
The 3rd evidence is the C-14.
16:25
Jeremiah: "Number three the 1988 radiocarbon that's c14 that's the way things are dated in the scientific community. Radio carbon or Carbon 14 dating has been authoritatively shown to be utterly unreliable."
16:46
Jordan: Wow now that is a bold statement. I'm sure he's going to back it up with a ton of evidence.
18:10
Jordan: You would think that if you're gonna make this one of your top five reasons you could have taken five minutes to understand it I mean or at least brush up on it maybe he does understand it.
Yeah, looks like Jeremiah has no idea about the details about C-14 dating. Jordan then spends several minutes explaining C-14 dating.
21:05
Jeremiah: "There are no less than six peer-reviewed Journal articles that call into question the three Laboratories that carried out the only radiocarbon dating which happened in 1988 on the Shroud of Turin.
21:33
Jordan: Well we wouldn't want to be like your brothers in Christ and be
wrong because we haven't read the articles. Which articles are they so we can go read them? Tou're not you're not you're not going
to tell us? Okay well uh how about what they said? Can you at least tell me what they said? No not going to tell me that either? Just there's some papers and trust me they they're amazing?
Even the official 1989 report mentions finding cotton:
Oxford thank P. H. South (Precision Process (Textiles) Ltd, Derby) for examining and identifying the cotton found on the shroud sample
Jordan again asserts an ad hoc explanation to account for the C-14 discrepancies.
25:42
Jordan: Let me emphasize that again a small difference in cleaning procedures from one lab to the others could be sufficient to explain the discrepancy between the three labs.
He then mentions about a defective ruler.
26:31
This is absurd this is ridiculous this is like noticing that your ruler has a factory defect and the lines aren't quite evenly spaced you know so you're trying to measure stick you see your rulers messed up like oh well well I guess the thing's a kilometer long
What do you do with a ruler that is defective? Do you continue to use it or throw it away? Obviously you throw it away. Same with the 1988 C-14 dating. It should be thrown away.
27:38
Jordan: Jeremiah doesn't call it this but this is known as the invisible reweave hypothesis.
He's wanting to conjure this image that there's like a patch it's of a different material it's cotton where's the rest is linen.
According to William Meacham an archaeologist who published in 1983 he said quote my new traces of carbon fibers were discovered an indication that the Shroud was woven on a loom used for weaving.
Interestingly, this quote is before the 1988 C-14 dating. Not sure where Meacham found cotton, but most likely it was from the Raes sample. So then this is additional evidence the Raes corner is heterogeneous. When STURP members investigated the main part of the cloth, they did not find any cotton woven into the shroud.
28:43
Jordan: There are my new traces of cotton fibers there are a few fibers scattered all over.
The invisible reweave does not state it's just a few random cotton fibers on the sample, but it was cotton yarn that was spliced with the linen yarn. There are trace material of many things found on the shroud - bugs, hair, pollen, dust, paint particles, etc. These are all inconsequential. But as for the Raes corner, there is evidence it was not just traces of cotton fibers, but cotton threads. I covered this in:
Here's photographic evidence of a cotton thread that has been dyed that was from the C-14 sampled area:
Second reason is the VP8 image analyzer result.
31:50
Jeremiah: "This is my number two because again no other photo does this."
32:04
Jordan:
To be clear another photo could do this if it were designed to do it that way.
This response doesn't make any sense. The shroud would've been the first one to ever do this. And no artist has ever done this prior to the discovery with the VP-8. And how would a medieval artist have done this anyways without a VP-8 to confirm he did it right? Why would anyone do this anyways? So that it can be determined he was a super genius that would only be discovered centuries later?
Jordan again goes back to "I don't know means I don't know".
32:29
Jordan: another thing that gets brought up constantly like it's a slam dunk.Again I don't know doesn't mean therefore we do know in its magic. I don't know means I don't know.
Though Jeremiah doesn't talk about this, the situation is not "I don't know" for the authenticists, but there is a theory that does explain the depth encoding. So, if it's "I don't know" on the skeptics side and "I do have a theory" on the authenticist side, it would be a slam dunk.
Top reason Jeremiah gives is all data on the shroud, except for C-14, point to authenticity.
Reason #1: Kitchen sink
Jeremiah: "Shroud of Turin is legit because all data and I don't use all lightly as a historian all the data excluding the c14 dating of the lower left quadrant of the Shroud which includes the floral the newest numismatic the textile the archaeological the hematological the fabric and the historical data point to a much earlier origin. Which helps us because it exhibits here's the key word for the viewer very similitude with the world of Jesus."
Jordan: Wow that was a lot of points he just kind of galloped past in a gishy sort of way now here's the list again in case you missed it it went by pretty fast he said floral numismatic which is like having to do with coins textile archaeological hematological fabric which is different than textile in some way and historical data so I mean it's kind of weird that he bundled seven points in point one.
34:33
Jeremiah: "Everything we see reflected in the crucified man in the Shroud of Turin is what we would expect if we saw an image of a crucified man from the first century in Judaica everything."
35:04
Jordan: He does not justify a single thing he just said I am not kidding through the whole rest of this presentation he provides not one shred of evidence whatsoever to support his number one most slam dunk reason.
Jordan then goes to length addressing what Jeremiah might've been referring to. But he's correct that Jeremiah does not go into any detail about these claims so it's not sure what to really refute about his claims.
In conclusion, here's Jordan's analysis:
43:48
That's their entire presentation? This is gotta be the worst presentation on the Shroud I've seen and I've seen a lot.
So Jordan has seen a lot of presentations and he decides to critique the worst presentation he's seen? Why has he not picked the good presentations and addressed those instead? Why would skeptics want to attack the lowest hanging fruit and think they can then have any sort of strong counterargument against authenticity?
As for the book of Mormon and LDS, they are subject to the same methodology. If they have external evidence that corroborates their main points, then it can be argued it is reliable.
But they also claim the Bible, so their "main points" are your main points.
It is not just the TS that supports the claims of the Bible. I have argued at length about the claims of creation, cosmology, the flood, Israelites in Egypt, Moses, entering Canaan, Assyrians attacking Jerusalem, and now the resurrection. I have been supporting these claims through external evidence.
Even if all of that is evidence of Bible claims, which is historically, geologically and archaeologically questionable, how does any of it refute the "major claims" of the Book of Mormon?
Jesus left the turin cloth back in the empty tomb right after his glorious resurrection. So he no longer wore it afterwards when he visited the nephites.
Therefore the turin cloth doesnt corroborate the BOM.
The Christian Bible says that Jesus rose from the dead. The BOM says that Jesus rose from the dead. So if the Turin cloth says that Jesus rose from the dead, how does it corroborate the Christian Bible but not the BOM?
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 2:22 pm
But they also claim the Bible, so their "main points" are your main points.
Even if all of that is evidence of Bible claims, which is historically, geologically and archaeologically questionable, how does any of it refute the "major claims" of the Book of Mormon?
This thread is not about the BoM, but about the Bible. If you wish to discuss the BoM, please create a separate thread about it.
Dennis MacDonald vs. Mike Licona - The Resurrection of Jesus Debate: (2021)
A little background on Dennis MacDonald:
Dennis R. MacDonald received his PhD from Harvard University in 1978 and taught New Testament and Christian origins at Goshen College, the Iliff School of Theology, and the Claremont School of Theology. From 1999-2010 he served as the director of The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at Claremont Graduate University. He also has been a visiting professor at the Harvard Divinity School, Union Theological Seminary, Florida State University, and Yonsei University (South Korea).
Dr. MacDonald retired from teaching in 2015 and during his career and retirement has written several books documenting the widespread influence of ancient Greek literature on the composition of the New Testament. He proposes that this mimetic approach should serve as a paradigm shift in New Testament studies because it shifts the focus from the New Testament authors as mere editors to ones who were creative imitators of the Greek epic literature.
MythVision has an interview with him on how he left Christianity.
MacDonald's opening in the debate:
24:01
I'm a historian. I'm not a theologian. I'm not a preacher and my goal is the same as Dr Lincoln. I want to deal with the evidence and I want to deal with it as a historian.
He doesn't even know who he's debating. It's Dr Licona, not Dr Lincoln.
24:10
And then I'm going to make some conclusions that answers the question why did early Christians what did they mean when they said God raised Jesus. By the way the language in the New Testament is almost always consistent that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus is a passive.
Sure, that would be correct. Jesus did not raise himself from the dead, but God did.
24:47
This is the text that the professor Lincoln mentioned and so I won't deal with it again except to say what the Corinthians meant by it is that the soul of Jesus was seen being liberated from his body.
He again misstates Licona's name.
MacDonald claims Paul believed Jesus was only raised spiritually, not bodily.
25:10
What's more important is that Paul did not believe it was a bodily resurrection, a physical bodily resurrection. For him it was a spiritual body. And he insists that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God. And I'll run over this. I agree with my colleague on that, but the point is neither the Corinthians nor Paul interpreted the tradition cited in first Corinthians 15:3-8 to mean that God raised Jesus's physical body. Got that? The Corinthians thought it was Jesus's soul liberated from the body and Paul thought it was a spiritual body.
His main argument is 1 Cor 15:3-8 is not reliable. But he does not bring up any evidence to justify the passage is not reliable and Paul believed in a purely spiritual resurrection.
His argues about the differences between the gospel accounts and Paul's accounts and the gospels added fictional narrative.
26:05
My argument this evening is going to be in these bullet points. I'm going to be interested in whether the gospel accounts of Jesus's resurrection conforms to what we find in Paul. And we're going to find that it doesn't at all. The two earliest gospels explicitly rejected the view that Jesus appeared to anyone after his death. That's the Q document and Mark. The gospel of Matthew altered Mark by adding an appearance to the eleven not to the twelve disciples in Galilee. Luke added extensive narratives of Jesus's corporeal appearances in Jerusalem but not Galilee as is in Matthew. And he created his stories by imitating the last book of the Odyssey crafted stories of appearances to the Magdalene and doubting Thomas by imitating Luke's imitation the gospels.
27:25
The gospels call into question the historical reliability of the tradition first Corinthians 15:3-8. So what? One should read the gospel resurrection narratives not as collaborating historical reports but as creative literary fictions to makes God's vindication of Jesus's message and career meaningful to later diverse social and political challenges.
He appeals to the hypothetical document Q as his evidence.
27:58
This is the lost gospel Q which I have attempted and others have attempted to recreate. Many of you may be Q skeptics but you'll hear in what I'm going to read words that appear also in Matthew and Luke.
Yes, there are common passages in Matthew and Luke, but there can be a variety of ways to explain it. Yes, it could all come from a common ancestor. But Luke also could've used Matthew as a source. Further, there is no extrabiblical evidence to point to the existence of a Q document.
I don't question all the gospels could've used other sources, but we don't know how many sources they used. Also, we don't know if those sources are textual or oral sources.
Then the gospel of Mark the earliest surviving gospel is the one attributed to Mark written soon after the Jewish war.
It's debateable when Mark was written. It could've been before 70 AD or after 70 AD. If you read Mark with a naturalistic perspective, one would have to interpret the prophetic statements as writings after those events had occurred. But without a naturalistic view, they can be taken as face value and are written as predictions of future events.
[Mar 13:2 KJV] 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
He points out discrepancies in the gospel accounts and therefore discounts them as not reliable accounts.
30:26
In the gospel of Matthew Jesus appears to 11 disciples in Galilee and he clearly is correcting Mark. So here's what Mark wrote they left and pled these are the women from the tomb for trembling in confusion sorry had seized them they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid but Matthew corrects it they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to tell his disciples and Jesus then appears to them and repeats the message and they do go the disciples do go to Galilee and receive the great commission.
31:03
None of this in my view has historical value except to tell us about Matthew's church.
As I've argued before, text can be errant and still be considered a reliable source.
And if MacDonald views the gospels as unreliable, what does that make the hypothetical Q document since it contains verbatim text with the gospels?
31:29
Paul in first Corinthians 15 says flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God Jesus says body is a spiritual body. But in Luke Jesus himself says handle me and look a mere spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have and he actually ate he lived with the disciples for 40 days in Jerusalem and then had a bodily ascension. Luke and Paul disagree and that's all the more amazing because Luke knows first Corinthians apparently and he never says anything about the appearance to 500.
They only disagree because MacDonald claims Paul only believed in a spiritual resurrection. Paul did not believe in that.
Yes, Paul used the word "spiritual" to describe the resurrection, but he also used the word "body" (soma).
[1Co 15:44 KJV] 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
The resurrected body is somehow both physical and spiritual. It is something that is altogether different.
[1Co 15:49 KJV] 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
It is a body that has immortal properties.
[1Co 15:53 KJV] 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality.
As for nobody else mentioning the 500 witnesses, yes, I would agree that could be fictional, either Paul was exaggerating or he got his information incorrectly.
He presents his theory the gospels were imitating Homer.
32:21
And here's my own dactylic examiner imitation of Homer gospel text seldom retain memories of actual events more often than not they contain mimesis of seminal texts. Mimesis is simply the greek word for imitation and the book that was most imitated in classical antiquity was the Homeric epic the Iliad and the Odyssey and people learned in school how to compose by taking themes in Homer and rewriting them in prose.
This is an interesting theory. Yes, it's an argument used by skeptics the gospels were based on preexisting myths and stories. J Warner Wallace counters this charge in Person of Interest. He argues all other myths were preparing for the message of Jesus. In a sense, all other myths are predictions and indicators of Jesus. And in the words of CS Lewis, Christianity is the true myth.
But what the mimesis theory cannot account for is the Shroud of Turin. Is there any artifact that Greek myths have left?
39:52
So little historical confirmation in the gospels for the Pauline tradition.
With the TS, we have artifact confirmation of the Pauline tradition.
39:59
The Corinthians interpreted 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 and his appearance to the 12 as proof that Jesus says see his soul had successfully escaped his soma, his body. Paul insisted that Jesus's spiritual body was raised not one with flesh and blood.
Again I disagree. The entire chapter of 1 Cor 15 disputes this as well as the gospel accounts.
His conclusion:
41:22
Here's my conclusion. Jesus had defiantly denounced the religious and political elites who oppressed the social marginal. As a result of his success as a social radical he suffered an ignominious crucifixion. His followers could not imagine that his God would allow his death to terminate his mission or legacy and they all in various ways affirmed that God vindicated Jesus and his career so his mission could be continued. But no one would have been more shocked that Jesus rose from the dead than he.
Yes, Jesus defended the socially marginal. Yes, he was crucified.
There is no evidence the disciples afterwards had much hope in Jesus's message after he died. At the moment they realized Jesus was not going to reign in power and overthrow the Roman government, they left him. Fear and disappointment characterized the disciples, not a desire to continue his mission. And why would they decide to carry on his mission by borrowing a Roman myth? No Jew thinks this way and no Jew would've accepted their message if it was. The only reasonable thing that could've transformed their abandonment was a powerful miracle to change their minds. And that was his literal resurrection from the dead.
Though this was in the other thread, I'm going to answer this here since it's directly related to the TS and not to the BoM...
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 11:47 am
I think I'll put my theist hat on. But it'll be a non denominational one. I would say (with some credibility) that the shroud looks like the body of a crucified man. Anatomically and historically convincing. Even to the swatch of hair in a correctly Nazirite but not notably Christian length. That said, there are discussions about the about the anatomy. The shroud is not wrap - around which suggests (at best) a temporary burial, and I am doubtful about the attempts to claim the image as a miracle flash rather than a contact image.
I do have suspicions about the bloodstains, which look clumsy and I suspect were added later to get the sheet to agree with John's gospel, which is more than you can say for the synoptics who know of no spear in the side (1). In fact I give it more credit that any of the gospels, which are full of errors, omissions and contradictions.
So, while I do find the shroud interesting though I am no more likely to fall to my knees and invite Jesus into my hart because of it than because of NDEs and Watchmaker apologetics, I follow it with something of the interest with which I follow the James Welliscope - instigated overturning of the BB theory. Perhaps Because IF the shroud is the body - clout of the historic Jesus, it confirms what the gospels suggest - someone removed a body which might not even have been dead (see the claims of movement in the image - though these people see the non -Jewish eye coins with wrong inscriptions on, too) so It does not have to confirm a divine resurrection, though the believers want to force it onto us, and certainly not any particular denomination, none of which, I would risk my pension on, really understand the gospels.
The name of the game is, keep watching, but don't sign up to anything, just yet.
(1) the Lirey pilgrim badge may explain the disparity in arm lengths - but indicates that in Medieval times the bloodstain wasn't there, or they wouldn't know the position of the lower arm. Which makes the Expert pronouncement of Bloodstains suspicious, as well as claiming to get residue from scorch marks which is what the image supposedly is.
As for how the image was formed. It could not have been a contact imaging through being pressed against the body like what Nickell proposes. There is no imaging distortion like what we would see if the cloth was pressed completely against the body. But it could be a contact imaging like what Jackson proposes since there is a fairly linear path for the cloth to travel through the body.
As for the blood stains, it could not have been added later. There is no body image under the blood stains. So, blood was on the cloth first, and then the body image was formed.
As for NDE, as far as I know, there are no empirical evidence to back this up, it is entirely by testimonial evidence. So, NDE is not on the same caliber as the TS.
As for arm length disparity, it was because the right shoulder was dislocated. I mentioned this at: viewtopic.php?p=1105467#p1105467
As for someone removing the body, evidence is against this since the blood stains are intact and not broken or smeared: viewtopic.php?p=1118731#p1118731
”
"
Because IF the shroud is the body - clout of the historic Jesus, it confirms what the gospels suggest - someone removed a body which might not even have been dead (see the claims of movement in the image - though these people see the non -Jewish eye coins with wrong inscriptions on, too) so It does not have to confirm a divine resurrection, though the believers want to force it onto us, and certainly not any particular denomination, none of which, I would risk my pension on, really understand the gospels.
