3 Facts and the Shroud of Turin

[JoeyKnothead]

For background: Shroud of Turin wiki.
Of course other sources may be preferred, that's just for the one person on the planet who ain't heard of it yet.

The debate:
The shroud of Turin is purported by some to be related directly to the burial / encavement of Jesus.

I propose that until the following three facts can be established, the shroud has not been shown to belong to Jesus...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the hu,an / god hybrid in question.

For debate:
Do the three facts above do irreparable harm to claims that the shroud was ever draped over the biblical Jesus?

[TRANSPONDER]

Don't know how many of you are old enough to remember this but you may want to take a look, paying particular attention to 13:48-17:00.



Also.....

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
(1Corinthians 11:14)

Would the author of those words have considered the Shroud of Turin genuine?

This is actually one of the more puzzling (not to say persuasive) points. The long hair indicates a man who has taken a Nazirite vow and would suit a Jesus who was real but not in line with how Paul thought he should be. A medieval faker, frankly,would have hair down to his shoulders, but not that long. It is, I confess, one of the aspects that makes me wonder. Like the nails through the wrist - what medieval faker would have known that or even thought of it?

I'm being as honest as I know how, because I see a lot of problems with this being the actual shroud of the real Jesus, never mind a resurrection, but there are some aspects that are right on the money for a real Jesus.

[bjs1]

For background: Shroud of Turin wiki.
Of course other sources may be preferred, that's just for the one person on the planet who ain't heard of it yet.

The debate:
The shroud of Turin is purported by some to be related directly to the burial / encavement of Jesus.

I propose that until the following three facts can be established, the shroud has not been shown to belong to Jesus...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the hu,an / god hybrid in question.

For debate:
Do the three facts above do irreparable harm to claims that the shroud was ever draped over the biblical Jesus?

Orthodox Christian doctrine, which includes the Roman Catholic Church, says that there has never be a human/God hybrid. So no, I cannot see any way that agreeing with one of the universal doctrines of the Christianity would somehow do irreparable harm to anything believed by Christians.

[JoeyKnothead]

For background: Shroud of Turin wiki.
Of course other sources may be preferred, that's just for the one person on the planet who ain't heard of it yet.

The debate:
The shroud of Turin is purported by some to be related directly to the burial / encavement of Jesus.

I propose that until the following three facts can be established, the shroud has not been shown to belong to Jesus...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the hu,an / god hybrid in question.

For debate:
Do the three facts above do irreparable harm to claims that the shroud was ever draped over the biblical Jesus?

Orthodox Christian doctrine, which includes the Roman Catholic Church, says that there has never be a human/God hybrid. So no, I cannot see any way that agreeing with one of the universal doctrines of the Christianity would somehow do irreparable harm to anything believed by Christians.

Yet they declare a god knocked him up some married chick.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that a book full of contradictory claims would have one bunch denying one of the central themes within it.

[bjs1]

For background: Shroud of Turin wiki.
Of course other sources may be preferred, that's just for the one person on the planet who ain't heard of it yet.

The debate:
The shroud of Turin is purported by some to be related directly to the burial / encavement of Jesus.

I propose that until the following three facts can be established, the shroud has not been shown to belong to Jesus...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the hu,an / god hybrid in question.

For debate:
Do the three facts above do irreparable harm to claims that the shroud was ever draped over the biblical Jesus?

Orthodox Christian doctrine, which includes the Roman Catholic Church, says that there has never be a human/God hybrid. So no, I cannot see any way that agreeing with one of the universal doctrines of the Christianity would somehow do irreparable harm to anything believed by Christians.

Yet they declare a god knocked him up some married chick.

No, they don't.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that a book full of contradictory claims would have one bunch denying one of the central themes within it.

It should be even less surprising that there are a bunch denying strawmen like this thread.

[JoeyKnothead]

For background: Shroud of Turin wiki.
Of course other sources may be preferred, that's just for the one person on the planet who ain't heard of it yet.

The debate:
The shroud of Turin is purported by some to be related directly to the burial / encavement of Jesus.

I propose that until the following three facts can be established, the shroud has not been shown to belong to Jesus...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the hu,an / god hybrid in question.

For debate:
Do the three facts above do irreparable harm to claims that the shroud was ever draped over the biblical Jesus?

Orthodox Christian doctrine, which includes the Roman Catholic Church, says that there has never be a human/God hybrid. So no, I cannot see any way that agreeing with one of the universal doctrines of the Christianity would somehow do irreparable harm to anything believed by Christians.

Yet they declare a god knocked him up some married chick.

No, they don't.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that a book full of contradictory claims would have one bunch denying one of the central themes within it.

It should be even less surprising that there are a bunch denying strawmen like this thread.

"Jesus, the son of God."

Nothing in your comments here hampers the presented facts in any way.

[otseng]

For any readers of this thread, this topic spawned off of How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?. Anyone who wishes to actually debate a shroud authenticist and not just clap each other on the back with frivolous unsubstantiated claims of the shroud are welcome to participate in my thread.

[JoeyKnothead]

For any readers of this thread, this topic spawned off of How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?. Anyone who wishes to actually debate a shroud authenticist and not just clap each other on the back with frivolous unsubstantiated claims of the shroud are welcome to participate in my thread.

For any readers interested, this thread was spawned off that other'n cause I got threatened with sanctions for trying to present these facts.

I absolutely reject this "clap on the back" dooficity, as I sought, doggedly, to have these facts considered within that thread.

I absolutely reject the notion these facts are "frivolous".

What is it about these three facts the Christian is too afraid to even consider, much less debate?

[otseng]

For any readers of this thread, this topic spawned off of How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?. Anyone who wishes to actually debate a shroud authenticist and not just clap each other on the back with frivolous unsubstantiated claims of the shroud are welcome to participate in my thread.

That's awful rich, your ignoring my posts in that thread only to come into this'n trying to sale your wares.

My only response will be...

For any readers of this thread, this topic spawned off of How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?. Anyone who wishes to actually debate a shroud authenticist and not just clap each other on the back with frivolous unsubstantiated claims of the shroud are welcome to participate in my thread.

[JoeyKnothead]

For any readers of this thread, this topic spawned off of How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?. Anyone who wishes to actually debate a shroud authenticist and not just clap each other on the back with frivolous unsubstantiated claims of the shroud are welcome to participate in my thread.

That's awful rich, your ignoring my posts in that thread only to come into this'n trying to sale your wares.

My only response will be...

For any readers of this thread, this topic spawned off of How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?. Anyone who wishes to actually debate a shroud authenticist and not just clap each other on the back with frivolous unsubstantiated claims of the shroud are welcome to participate in my thread.

I make note your response was posted while I was editing. No nefarious intended.

[otseng]

Replying to your edited post...

For any readers interested, this thread was spawned off that other'n cause I got threatened with sanctions for trying to present these facts.

I absolutely reject this "clap on the back" dooficity, as I sought, doggedly, to have these facts considered within that thread.

I absolutely reject the notion these facts are "frivolous".

What is it about these three facts the Christian is too afraid to even consider, much less debate?

These are not "facts", these are "claims". And it is the burden of those who make the claim to provide evidence to support that claim. You have not provided any evidence to support these claims, but instead repeatedly post the same thing over and over (I lost count when it hit a dozen).

I say "clap on the back" because in the short time you created this thread, numerous skeptics have participated in your thread, but few participate in mine. And who in this thread is arguing for the authenticity of the shroud?

"Frivolous" because of the usage "human / god hybrid in question". Who are you talking about? Jesus? What Christian uses the phrase "human / god hybrid"? If nobody, then it's a frivolous description at a minimum, but can more accurately be described as mocking.

Who's afraid to actually debate on the shroud? I'll let the readers judge.