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.
JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 4:11 pm
That it doesn't take a peer reviewed article to see the errors of your argument oughta tell you something about the quality of your argument.
Obviously you know little about the shroud and have zero evidence of any research from all your posts. So, you are not arguing from knowledge, but just shooting off the hip. Reviewers in peer-reviewed journals have extensive knowledge of the shroud and many would have decades of experience in serious study of the shroud. Myself, I'm willing to put my ideas to the ultimate test by subjecting my ideas to them. I'm even willing to submit my ideas to shroud scholars who are shroud skeptics.
If Christians do what you're doing and argue against evolution without doing any study of evolution, no skeptic would take them seriously. And if they just constantly said, "No image has ever been taken of any prehistoric animal, therefore evolution has not been confirmed" or "Nobody has ever demonstrated that abiogenesis is true, therefore evolution is wrong", then it would just be considered ranting.
1. The body was wrapped with the shroud and the side strip was wound around the body.
2. While the body was in rigor mortis and before decomposition, the body dematerialized, similar to teleportation in Star Trek.
3. During dematerialization, the body disappearing would cause a vacuum of where the body used to be. This would cause the cloth to collapse into the vacuum. The top cloth would collapse down and the bottom cloth would collapse up as the cloth moves towards the central plane of the body.
4. During a fraction of a second while the body was dematerializing, the cloth would interact with the dematerializing body and it would form the image on the cloth.
5. The entire shroud would then fall via gravity onto the surface with the side strip still wound around the shroud.
The photographic negative effect is explained by the cloth interacting with the dematerializing body. The dark areas is where the cloth interacted with the disappearing body.
The depth effect is explained by the amount of time the cloth is interacting with the body. The closer the cloth is to the body, the more it would interact with the dematerialization process and produce more colored fibers.
Unlike a true x-ray where it would go through the entire body, the x-ray effect on the shroud is only for a certain depth of the body, The cloth collapse theory explains this since the cloth would only interact with the body for a short distance at it travels through the body before it entirely disappears.
The angle encoding is also explained by more cloth would pass through the body when the angle of the cloth relative to the plane of the body is lower. When the angle is high, like the top of the head and sides of the body, less of the cloth would interact with the body. This also explains the missing ears.
Exactly what causes the oxidation/dehydration of the linen fibers is uncertain. It could be light or some radiation interaction while the body was dematerializing. Most likely the process started at the head, since the head image is the darkest, and then travelled down to the feet. This also accounts for the faint image on the back of the cloth in the head area since the cloth fell through to the other side of the cloth while the body was dematerializing.
Because of the angle of the cloth relative to the body, it can cause second degree image distortions of making things appear longer (fingers, facial features).
Dematerializing also explains the lack of any evidence of breakage or smearing of blood since the body simply disappeared.
Because the bottom side and top side of the cloth moved towards each other, it explains why the ventral and dorsal images are fairly uniform.
Sequence from a Biblical perspective:
1. Jesus was wrapped in the shroud in Joseph's tomb on Friday.
2. On Sunday, Jesus was resurrected from the dead while he was wrapped in the shroud inside the tomb.
3. When the beloved disciple came to the tomb and looked inside, he saw the linen clothes (the main shroud with the side strip wound around it). The beloved disciple, since he was Lazarus, knew first hand what it was like to be buried in a shroud. What he saw looked like the body simply vanished within the shroud, instead of anyone unwrapping the side strip and opening the shroud. He was then the first to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
Jhn 20:8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:22 am
Sequence from a Biblical perspective:
Why would you need any science if your main source of information is from a religious point of view?
Scientifically, people don't come back from the dead. That has to weigh a little bit more in your calculations than you are letting it.
All of your reasoning is motivated, and it is exactly what conspiracy theorists do. It isn't science, though. Science has weighed in and determined it's a Medieval cloth. That accounts for more than anyone's religious speculations.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 4:11 pm
That it doesn't take a peer reviewed article to see the errors of your argument oughta tell you something about the quality of your argument.
Obviously you know little about the shroud and have zero evidence of any research from all your posts.
I know enough about the shroud to know you'll never be able to confirm the image or the blood belong to a guy who came about by a woman having a virgin pregnancy, and producing a y chromosome without male involvement in that pregnancy.
Your being dismissive of these facts does nothing to refute them.
I'll say it again...
You've presented evidence, logical argumentation, and all such as that, where a man'd be within his sanity to conclude, as you have, that the shroud belongs to Jesus. I'm not saying you haven't done this. As you know, I respect your intellect, even if I poke fun here and there.
What I'm saying is that in the lack of image and blood comparison, and the problems with a virgin toting her around a y chromosome, others are perfectly within their sanity to reject your conclusions.
I argue then, at best you have a speculative argument, and as such, your conclusion can't be confirmed. No matter how spot on so much of it might be, the final conclusion will never be confirmed.
otseng wrote:
So, you are not arguing from knowledge, but just shooting off the hip.
Then show us the image sample. The blood sample.
Educate us all on how a virgin birth can produce a male child, y chromosome and all.
I argue from the knowledge that you lack the knowledge (evidence) in this regard.
otseng wrote:
Reviewers in peer-reviewed journals have extensive knowledge of the shroud and many would have decades of experience in serious study of the shroud. Myself, I'm willing to put my ideas to the ultimate test by subjecting my ideas to them. I'm even willing to submit my ideas to shroud scholars who are shroud skeptics.
You can't even get your ideas past my scrutiny, and I'm the least educated person on this site.
Even so, your continued claim / implication you'll put your position up for scholarly review is just bluster until you actually do it.
otseng wrote:
If Christians do what you're doing and argue against evolution without doing any study of evolution, no skeptic would take them seriously.
That's because evolution is a fact.
No amount of fussing'll change that fact.
And if they just constantly said, "No image has ever been taken of any prehistoric animal, therefore evolution has not been confirmed"
Wasn't it you that mentioned red herrings?
When folks go to declaring the image on a towel is directly from a triceratops, I'll set to fussing with them.
or "Nobody has ever demonstrated that abiogenesis is true, therefore evolution is wrong", then it would just be considered ranting.
Wasn't it you who mentioned red herrings?
When folks set to declare the image on a towel is the direct product of abiogenesis, I'll give them a fussing too.
This is the problem we have when trying to assert as fact what can't be shown to be fact.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
During dematerialization, the body disappearing would cause a vacuum of where the body used to be. This would cause the cloth to collapse into the vacuum. The top cloth would collapse down and the bottom cloth would collapse up as the cloth moves towards the central plane of the body.
A body is three-dimensional. If a 3-D object with mass were to suddenly disappear, leaving a vacuum, the atmosphere filling the vacuum would push everything inward from all sides. Thus, the part of the cloth covering the top of the head would have been pushed inward by atmospheric pressure, into the space where the head had been, so there should be imaging on that part of the cloth.
The John Jackson interview is interesting.Collected data from 1978 I think he said and this vid is from 2015.
However I am not comfortable with the next video of the technique of dematerialization as was imagined by a telaporter device.
I find a difference between the the terms dematerialization and immediate dissolution which I presented many pages back.
Dematerialization allows matter to be reconstructed later as telaportaton from one area to another where as immediate dissolution does not and such material will be dust to dust without ordinary time causing mortal decay.
Dematerialization and immediate dissolution were both concerns published in 1955 concerning the body of Jesus.
Page 189 2.1 through 2.8
This is not a new discussion of deployment of a technique to make a physical body vanish in a matter of seconds leaving it's evidence of partial information behind.
OTseng wrote, referring to JoeyKnotHead's comments,
Obviously you know little about the shroud and have zero evidence of any research from all your posts. So, you are not arguing from knowledge, but just shooting off the hip. Reviewers in peer-reviewed journals have extensive knowledge of the shroud and many would have decades of experience in serious study of the shroud. Myself, I'm willing to put my ideas to the ultimate test by subjecting my ideas to them. I'm even willing to submit my ideas to shroud scholars who are shroud skeptics.
Joe Mama asks,
Oliver, in all your years of study, have any of your ideas ever been published in peer-reviewed journals?
otseng wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:44 am
There are two broad categories of imaging theories - artistic (involving an artist) and non-artistic (does not involve an artist and is from the body itself). Pretty much all artistic theories can account for the head gap. Most non-artistic theories would not account for the head gap. In particular, any theory that involves gas emanation from the body would most likely not have a head gap. Also, any theory that involves radiation from the body would also not have a head gap. There is one radiation scenario that could account for it if the radiation is not emitted in all directions, but only radiated like a laser in a single direction. I don't like that theory because it has an ad hoc nature to it of proposing radiation being emitted perfectly vertically in a single direction instead of omni-directionally. Another theory that explains the head gap is the theory from the head of STURP, John Jackson, has proposed, the cloth collapse theory. Instead of radiation going out of the body, the cloth collapses into the body and the image is formed during body contact. This would explain the head gap and many other features as well.
What I find confounding about this evaluation of different radiation theories is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any radiation was involved at all. It's all just making up stuff about other made up stuff.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
earl wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 12:41 pm
Dematerialization and immediate dissolution were both concerns published in 1955 concerning the body of Jesus.
Page 189 2.1 through 2.8
This is not a new discussion of deployment of a technique to make a physical body vanish in a matter of seconds leaving it's evidence of partial information behind.
Dematerialisation looks easy when it is done in movies, but it would actually require the complete annihilation of all the matter making up the body. Big ask if one simply expects it to vanish without any subsequent effects. An easier way to 'dematerialise' a body would be to simply steal it when no one is looking.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:09 am
Why would you need any science if your main source of information is from a religious point of view?
My main argument is from a scientific point of view. And the science of the shroud confirms the account in the Bible.
Scientifically, people don't come back from the dead. That has to weigh a little bit more in your calculations than you are letting it.
Of course. However, a resurrection would be outside the realm of science.
All of your reasoning is motivated, and it is exactly what conspiracy theorists do. It isn't science, though. Science has weighed in and determined it's a Medieval cloth. That accounts for more than anyone's religious speculations.
Yeah, simply accuse of bias and repeat the refrain of the C-14 dating. How about actually address my arguments instead? Here's the situation, nobody has been able to counter my arguments with any evidence. Instead, all we see is just constant fallacious arguments from the skeptics.
