Regardless of the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ or not, I am not worshiping it. I worship the Lord. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Satan faked the cloth. My faith is not in the cloth it's in Christ.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

The Shroud Of Turin, New Findings

https://www.theepochtimes.com/bright/new-questions-emerge-around-the-authenticity-of-the-shroud-of-turin-5793926?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=epochtimes&fbclid=IwY2xjawIApHdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHaDGlqmzz4Sl3L6Sr0DMXFfF8JND5ymeiN7eLSCjmUMf5-kXbyWzDsIT7w_aem_-3dfbeaBGLRrQKkSwrju7w

---

I read it. It's pretty interesting. If you think that's interesting, read the book "The Face of God" by Paul Badde. While such things aren't the foundation of our faith, they strengthen it.



You might find this interesting as well:

About Cold Plasma Physics and The Miracle of Easter

I have to presume that the descent of the Holy FIre occurred that first Pascha morning as well and is in some way responsible for both these images.

---

I will take a look at it. Thanks for aharing.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Regardless of the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ or not, I am not worshiping it. I worship the Lord. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Satan faked the cloth. My faith is not in the cloth it's in Christ.

---

I'm just saying be real careful about such things.

Personally, the main reason I don't believe the Shroud is real is that the image is too clean. If you have a cloth around your body, there's gonna be folds and creases here and there, so when you stretch it all out, the image should be splayed out and distorted somewhat, not a perfect outline. The body isn't a flat surface, so the cloth isn't going to lay flat on it and get a perfect 2-D imprint. A facial cloth when opened up is going to spread the facial image out to look wider. And there'd be creases in the cloth as mentioned, which would distort the image even more.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Regardless of the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ or not, I am not worshiping it. I worship the Lord. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Satan faked the cloth. My faith is not in the cloth it's in Christ.

---

I'm just saying be real careful about such things.

Personally, the main reason I don't believe the Shroud is real is that the image is too clean. If you have a cloth around your body, there's gonna be folds and creases here and there, so when you stretch it all out, the image should be splayed out and distorted somewhat, not a perfect outline. The body isn't a flat surface, so the cloth isn't going to lay flat on it and get a perfect 2-D imprint. A facial cloth when opened up is going to spread the facial image out to look wider. And there'd be creases in the cloth as mentioned, which would distort the image even more.

---

Interesting points. Thanks for pointing that out. I have heard that before and there may be some truth to it. Just not sure. That may also depend on how the image was formed. Personality, I believe that when Jesus rose again, He emitted a huge amount of radiation of some sort that formed the image. Maybe XRays? They say the negatives look like XRays. That would only happen if they were genuine, not a fake.

Lmao. Been traveling so just getting back to some of this. I see the comment by a baylor board poster has shed light on the most scientifically studied inanimate object in human history which can in no way be replicated and, of course, said "the devil did it!" And if you believe in that miracle I guess you're going to hell

All believers will hang up and listen waiting for anyone in todays advanced technological age to reproduce it.

Some people need to introspect a bit with where they heading with their beliefs

Fre3dombear said:

---

Lmao. Been traveling so just getting back to some of this. I see the comment by a baylor board poster has shed light on the most scientifically studied inanimate object in human history which can in no way be replicated and, of course, said "the devil did it!" And if you believe in that miracle I guess you're going to hell

All believers will hang up and listen waiting for anyone in todays advanced technological age to reproduce it.

Some people need to introspect a bit with where they heading with their beliefs

---

Well, since you're so afraid to engage me in debate that you had to "block" me, I can't hash it out for you.

Nobody said the Devil did it. What was said is that the Devil could do it, and even if he didn't and it was authentic, he still could use it to his advantage in order to deceive.

But it probably doesn't matter to you, you're seemingly not so high on correctness, precision, and focus.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Regardless of the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ or not, I am not worshiping it. I worship the Lord. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Satan faked the cloth. My faith is not in the cloth it's in Christ.

---

I'm just saying be real careful about such things.

Personally, the main reason I don't believe the Shroud is real is that the image is too clean. If you have a cloth around your body, there's gonna be folds and creases here and there, so when you stretch it all out, the image should be splayed out and distorted somewhat, not a perfect outline. The body isn't a flat surface, so the cloth isn't going to lay flat on it and get a perfect 2-D imprint. A facial cloth when opened up is going to spread the facial image out to look wider. And there'd be creases in the cloth as mentioned, which would distort the image even more.

---

Interesting points. Thanks for pointing that out. I have heard that before and there may be some truth to it. Just not sure. That may also depend on how the image was formed. Personality, I believe that when Jesus rose again, He emitted a huge amount of radiation of some sort that formed the image. Maybe XRays? They say the negatives look like XRays. That would only happen if they were genuine, not a fake.

---

The problem though with the radiation theory, in my mind, is that it still requires the cloth to have been completely flat for such a clean 2-dimensional image to come out, otherwise the normal creases and folds from a cloth covering a 3-dimensional body that has topography will yield a splayed out, distorted image. For example, when you have xrays done at a hospital, they put a flat, rigid plate behind the area of your body that is being imaged, and that plate is what picks up the xrays that go through your body. The plate has to be flat so you can get an image with clean outlines and normal shapes. It would have to be the same for the cloth, I would think, unless someone has a theory around this. Honestly, I don't see how there could be one.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The Gospel accounts never described Jesus physically, and part of that helps people to see Jesus spiritually rather than fixate on a superficial image.

---

They also admit that they are an incomplete record of Jesus' ministrty.

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (John 21:25)

There is as much danger in overspiritualizing Jesus (the gnostic and monophysite heresies) as there is in underspiritualizing him. One person, two natures is the reality.

If the Veil and the Shroud are the items described in John 20:8, then God left us a Polaroid. In the end, however, miracles are things that can strengthen faith, not the object of faith.

I wouldn't fixate on x-ray radiation as the mechanism by which these images were created. It is just as likely that the specific mechanism (which cannot be duplicated today) was as supernatural as the resurrection itself...and we cannot explain the supernatural in natural terms.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Regardless of the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ or not, I am not worshiping it. I worship the Lord. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Satan faked the cloth. My faith is not in the cloth it's in Christ.

---

I'm just saying be real careful about such things.

Personally, the main reason I don't believe the Shroud is real is that the image is too clean. If you have a cloth around your body, there's gonna be folds and creases here and there, so when you stretch it all out, the image should be splayed out and distorted somewhat, not a perfect outline. The body isn't a flat surface, so the cloth isn't going to lay flat on it and get a perfect 2-D imprint. A facial cloth when opened up is going to spread the facial image out to look wider. And there'd be creases in the cloth as mentioned, which would distort the image even more.

---

Interesting points. Thanks for pointing that out. I have heard that before and there may be some truth to it. Just not sure. That may also depend on how the image was formed. Personality, I believe that when Jesus rose again, He emitted a huge amount of radiation of some sort that formed the image. Maybe XRays? They say the negatives look like XRays. That would only happen if they were genuine, not a fake.

---

The problem though with the radiation theory, in my mind, is that it still requires the cloth to have been completely flat for such a clean 2-dimensional image to come out, otherwise the normal creases and folds from a cloth covering a 3-dimensional body that has topography will yield a splayed out, distorted image. For example, when you have xrays done at a hospital, they put a flat, rigid plate behind the area of your body that is being imaged, and that plate is what picks up the xrays that go through your body. The plate has to be flat so you can get an image with clean outlines and normal shapes. It would have to be the same for the cloth, I would think, unless someone has a theory around this. Honestly, I don't see how there could be one.

---

It depends on how tightly that the cloth was wrapped, the area that the cloth woukd have touched His face would have been quite small, so I am not sure how much that would have factored. If it was wrapped extremely tight, then your theory holds more weight, but if it isn't conformed to the contours of His face, then it would be more of a flat surface for the image to happen. So, it depends on how the cloth conformed to His face also.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Regardless of the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ or not, I am not worshiping it. I worship the Lord. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Satan faked the cloth. My faith is not in the cloth it's in Christ.

---

I'm just saying be real careful about such things.

Personally, the main reason I don't believe the Shroud is real is that the image is too clean. If you have a cloth around your body, there's gonna be folds and creases here and there, so when you stretch it all out, the image should be splayed out and distorted somewhat, not a perfect outline. The body isn't a flat surface, so the cloth isn't going to lay flat on it and get a perfect 2-D imprint. A facial cloth when opened up is going to spread the facial image out to look wider. And there'd be creases in the cloth as mentioned, which would distort the image even more.

---

Interesting points. Thanks for pointing that out. I have heard that before and there may be some truth to it. Just not sure. That may also depend on how the image was formed. Personality, I believe that when Jesus rose again, He emitted a huge amount of radiation of some sort that formed the image. Maybe XRays? They say the negatives look like XRays. That would only happen if they were genuine, not a fake.

---

The problem though with the radiation theory, in my mind, is that it still requires the cloth to have been completely flat for such a clean 2-dimensional image to come out, otherwise the normal creases and folds from a cloth covering a 3-dimensional body that has topography will yield a splayed out, distorted image. For example, when you have xrays done at a hospital, they put a flat, rigid plate behind the area of your body that is being imaged, and that plate is what picks up the xrays that go through your body. The plate has to be flat so you can get an image with clean outlines and normal shapes. It would have to be the same for the cloth, I would think, unless someone has a theory around this. Honestly, I don't see how there could be one.

---

It depends on how tightly that the cloth was wrapped, the area that the cloth woukd have touched His face would have been quite small, so I am not sure how much that would have factored. If it was wrapped extremely tight, then your theory holds more weight, but if it isn't conformed to the contours of His face, then it would be more of a flat surface for the image to happen. So, it depends on how the cloth conformed to His face also.

---

But regardless if it's tight or loose, any cloth draped over a body isn't going to be flat. Try it for yourself - put a substance over your face and cover it with a cloth, loosely or tightly. Then stretch out the cloth. The marks from your face will be spread out to make your face look wider than normal. Also the folds and bends of the cloth will create spaces on the cloth where there are no marks, and it will stretch out the image even further. It won't be a clean image. Here, do this - put a cloth over your face, and then mark with your fingers where the cloth touches your ears. Then remove the cloth and stretch it out flat, keeping your fingers where your ears were. If you imagine an imprint of your face on that cloth, you can see that your ears would be really far apart and make your face look freakishly wide.

Happy Sunday everybody find a good Bible believing church and attend.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Regardless of the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ or not, I am not worshiping it. I worship the Lord. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Satan faked the cloth. My faith is not in the cloth it's in Christ.

---

I'm just saying be real careful about such things.

Personally, the main reason I don't believe the Shroud is real is that the image is too clean. If you have a cloth around your body, there's gonna be folds and creases here and there, so when you stretch it all out, the image should be splayed out and distorted somewhat, not a perfect outline. The body isn't a flat surface, so the cloth isn't going to lay flat on it and get a perfect 2-D imprint. A facial cloth when opened up is going to spread the facial image out to look wider. And there'd be creases in the cloth as mentioned, which would distort the image even more.

---

Interesting points. Thanks for pointing that out. I have heard that before and there may be some truth to it. Just not sure. That may also depend on how the image was formed. Personality, I believe that when Jesus rose again, He emitted a huge amount of radiation of some sort that formed the image. Maybe XRays? They say the negatives look like XRays. That would only happen if they were genuine, not a fake.

---

The problem though with the radiation theory, in my mind, is that it still requires the cloth to have been completely flat for such a clean 2-dimensional image to come out, otherwise the normal creases and folds from a cloth covering a 3-dimensional body that has topography will yield a splayed out, distorted image. For example, when you have xrays done at a hospital, they put a flat, rigid plate behind the area of your body that is being imaged, and that plate is what picks up the xrays that go through your body. The plate has to be flat so you can get an image with clean outlines and normal shapes. It would have to be the same for the cloth, I would think, unless someone has a theory around this. Honestly, I don't see how there could be one.

---

It depends on how tightly that the cloth was wrapped, the area that the cloth woukd have touched His face would have been quite small, so I am not sure how much that would have factored. If it was wrapped extremely tight, then your theory holds more weight, but if it isn't conformed to the contours of His face, then it would be more of a flat surface for the image to happen. So, it depends on how the cloth conformed to His face also.

---

But regardless if it's tight or loose, any cloth draped over a body isn't going to be flat. Try it for yourself - put a substance over your face and cover it with a cloth, loosely or tightly. Then stretch out the cloth. The marks from your face will be spread out to make your face look wider than normal. Also the folds and bends of the cloth will create spaces on the cloth where there are no marks, and it will stretch out the image even further. It won't be a clean image. Here, do this - put a cloth over your face, and then mark with your fingers where the cloth touches your ears. Then remove the cloth and stretch it out flat, keeping your fingers where your ears were. If you imagine an imprint of your face on that cloth, you can see that your ears would be really far apart and make your face look freakishly wide.

---

I have seen documentaries on this very thing. There has been extensive research on the Shroud of Turin and nobody seems to be able to come up with any conclusions 100%.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But regardless if it's tight or loose, any cloth draped over a body isn't going to be flat. Try it for yourself - put a substance over your face and cover it with a cloth, loosely or tightly. Then stretch out the cloth. The marks from your face will be spread out to make your face look wider than normal. Also the folds and bends of the cloth will create spaces on the cloth where there are no marks, and it will stretch out the image even further. It won't be a clean image. Here, do this - put a cloth over your face, and then mark with your fingers where the cloth touches your ears. Then remove the cloth and stretch it out flat, keeping your fingers where your ears were. If you imagine an imprint of your face on that cloth, you can see that your ears would be really far apart and make your face look freakishly wide.

---

You're using this logic to try and dismiss why an image ostensibly made by God in a supernatural way in the process of supernaturally raising Jesus from the dead isn't authentic?

Too much scientism for my faith there. But since you believe in textual criticism of the Bible, that isn't shocking I guess.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But regardless if it's tight or loose, any cloth draped over a body isn't going to be flat. Try it for yourself - put a substance over your face and cover it with a cloth, loosely or tightly. Then stretch out the cloth. The marks from your face will be spread out to make your face look wider than normal. Also the folds and bends of the cloth will create spaces on the cloth where there are no marks, and it will stretch out the image even further. It won't be a clean image. Here, do this - put a cloth over your face, and then mark with your fingers where the cloth touches your ears. Then remove the cloth and stretch it out flat, keeping your fingers where your ears were. If you imagine an imprint of your face on that cloth, you can see that your ears would be really far apart and make your face look freakishly wide.

---

You're using this logic to try and dismiss why an image ostensibly made by God in a supernatural way in the process of supernaturally raising Jesus from the dead isn't authentic?

Too much scientism for my faith there. But since you believe in textual criticism of the Bible, that isn't shocking I guess.

---

Wow. So we are to believe in the shroud's authenticity because of the logic and reasoning behind the blood marks, scourge marks, nail location in the wrists, superficial discoloration of the fibrils, the herringbone stitching, pollen spores, the historical dating, etc.... but the facts and logical reasoning that line up against it's autheticism - "Oh, that's just too much 'scientism'. It should be disregarded - it's about faith!"

I guess this, coming from someone who dismisses the very branch of science that completely validates the authenticity and reliability of the New Testament, isn't very shocking either.

I don't have a problem with looking at the scientific evidence for the shroud of Turin weather for or against. Regardless if it's the true burial cloth of Christ or not we don't look to that for salvation we look to Christ Himself.

https://images.app.goo.gl/n56qUbHA8g8s7LUg7

Check that image of the shroud out. Did anyone see the AI images?

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Oldbear83 said:

---

See also Acts 16:30-34

"He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

"They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be savedyou and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in Godhe and his whole household."

See how belief led to Salvation, yet water baptism was an immediate action.

---

Noticed that baptism was not mentioned when he asked what he must do to be saved. It's not part of your salvation for a couple of reasons number one because it's an actual obedience under the gospel of the kingdom. Number two we are not under the gospel of the Kingdom right now we are under the gospel of grace in which salvation of some change through faith in Christ alone believing that he died on the cross and rest in the dead as a sacrifice for your sins. Paul said he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel.

AI image of Christ based on the Shroud Of Turin

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But regardless if it's tight or loose, any cloth draped over a body isn't going to be flat. Try it for yourself - put a substance over your face and cover it with a cloth, loosely or tightly. Then stretch out the cloth. The marks from your face will be spread out to make your face look wider than normal. Also the folds and bends of the cloth will create spaces on the cloth where there are no marks, and it will stretch out the image even further. It won't be a clean image. Here, do this - put a cloth over your face, and then mark with your fingers where the cloth touches your ears. Then remove the cloth and stretch it out flat, keeping your fingers where your ears were. If you imagine an imprint of your face on that cloth, you can see that your ears would be really far apart and make your face look freakishly wide.

---

You're using this logic to try and dismiss why an image ostensibly made by God in a supernatural way in the process of supernaturally raising Jesus from the dead isn't authentic?

Too much scientism for my faith there. But since you believe in textual criticism of the Bible, that isn't shocking I guess.

---

I think you're looking at this all wrong. Faith does not defy factual information. Faith in Christ and the Bible is backed up by the factual information in the evidence. It is not there in spite of the evidence. Yes my faith is not dependent upon that evidence but it is backed up by it.

Happy sunday. Find a good Bible believing church and attend.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

AI image of Christ based on the Shroud Of Turin

---

Brother, I don't think it's a good idea to entertain this sort of thing. Firstly, we don't know for sure if this really is the burial cloth of Jesus. Secondly, we shouldn't fix an image of Jesus' earthly physical appearance in our minds. There's probably a reason God didn't tell us anything about what Jesus looked like in Scripture. Besides, Jesus' appearance has changed since he was in his earthly form. Thirdly, Artificial Intelligence is man's humanistic goal to make something in man's own image. God created us in His image, man created AI in his own image... and AI is creating an image of God? Something really not right about that. Be really wary of AI, it really smacks of a new Tower of Babel, and a conduit through which the Beast system in Revelation comes.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

AI image of Christ based on the Shroud Of Turin

---

Brother, I don't think it's a good idea to entertain this sort of thing. Firstly, we don't know for sure if this really is the burial cloth of Jesus. Secondly, we shouldn't fix an image of Jesus' earthly physical appearance in our minds. There's probably a reason God didn't tell us anything about what Jesus looked like in Scripture. Besides, Jesus' appearance has changed since he was in his earthly form. Thirdly, Artificial Intelligence is man's humanistic goal to make something in man's own image. God created us in His image, man created AI in his own image... and AI is creating an image of God? Something really not right about that. Be really wary of AI, it really smacks of a new Tower of Babel, and a conduit through which the Beast system in Revelation comes.

---

We don't know that for sure. You are right. But I believe it is based on the evidence. We I kind of agree with you that we should not fix an image of Christ in our minds. We should focus on Christ in heaven, but it is nice to speculate about what he might have looked like. I am not sure how much Christ's appearance might have changed before and after the resurrection. Nobody really knows about that yet. Not sure I care about AI being in man's image or not. It is a computer and a tool nothing more. I do agree that the Beast is probably going to utilize that technology. But I don't believe that it's something that we should stay away from. There are lots of things that we engage in each day that the Beast is also going to engage in. The truth of the matter is it's going to happen whether we want it to happen or not.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet thanks

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You can deny it all you want; throughout church history the Roman Catholic Church has always talked about purgatory in a temporal sense. Even if you deny this, how is that even relevant? The issue that the suffering in purgatory can be made less in some sense by obtaining merit from another departed person still remains. It's still completely unsupported biblically, and just sounds completely made up.

---

Once again, you are wrong. Just as Jesus won his merit by undergoing his passion and crucifixion, and then rising from the dead, we on earth gain the merits in this treasury in our suffering and works.

As mentioned in a previous post, St. Paul tells us, "I make up for what is lacking in the suffering of Christ." - Col. 1:24

He also tells us in 1 Cor 12 that we are ALL part of the Mystical body of Christ, specifically in verse 26: "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it."

We have an intrinsic unity that we possess by virtue of grace.

St Peter (2 Pet 1:4) tells us that "We are partakers in the divine nature".

Romans 2:6 - "For [God] will reward every man according to his works..."

It that time, the word for reward and merit were interchangeable.

God doesn't need my help saving anyone. He can do it all on his own. But he didn't choose to do it like that. Jesus could have fed the 5000 by snapping his finger, but he chose to allow those around him to help. Just like me allowing my kids when they were younger to help me clean up. It was faster for me to do it, but they received grace by helping me. God wants us to be part of others salvation.

After all, Paul says in 1 Cor 9:21:
"I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."

God stores up our works in heaven that can be applied to us or others Matt 6:20:21 "But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church is clearly not protected from error. As I've repeatedly brought up, their councils have anathematized previous councils. They've introduced anathemas against that which was the prevailing, universal belief of the early church, like which books were in canon and the rejection of icon veneration. The most obvious and egregious example is the dogmas of Mary - they are completely unbiblical, are NOT based on the teachings of the original apostles and the early church, and are completely idolatrous and heretical. The psalms of Mary by St. Bonaventure is a CLEAR form of idolatry, heresy, and worship of Mary, and those psalms were officially declared by the RCC to be without error. It's obvious to everyone who read them to be blatant heresy and idolatry. Same with the Fatima message and The Glories of Mary. Even those here in this thread who can't stand me have admitted as much, even when it pains them to agree with me. That's how obvious it is.

---

This is a misunderstanding again on your behalf.

The Church views those pronouncements made by the councils (and ratified by the pope) that are declared infallible teachings, along with any infallible declarations made by a pope individually (extremely rare), as infallible. The entire council is not infallible.

The main messages of Fatima are to pray, repent, and convert. The messages emphasis the Blessed Trinity, the Eucharist, Penance, the Rosary, and Sacrifices for conversion of sinners. No where does it mention that we should worship Mary as God.

The psalms of Mary by St. Bonaventure, (which I've never heard of before today, but thank you, they are beautiful) are a private devotion that is not required by the Church. They are a collection of 150 psalms that are express devotion to Mary. They were written in the 1200's in a different time and I a different language with affectionate language that one might use for a beloved spouse or parent. Yes, they may seem strange for modern-day protestant ears like yours. But there is nothing heretical in them. Every single psalm ends with "Glory be to the Father". Once again, may one day you finally realize that that Mary's glory exists only because of her divine Son.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You can't admit it, because you're in a cult mindset. Your belief that the RCC is protected from error is a circular form of reasoning. Whatever teaching they produce, you followers believe to be without error, because the Church tells you they don't teach errors. There's only one way out of this cultish mindset - decide for yourself that you will seek what is TRUE, instead of what preserves the status quo of Roman Catholicism. What you're doing - with ALL your replies to me - is just a defense mechanism. Please - WAKE UP.

---

Oh, I am awake. It is you that is blinded by your bias. You have been taught that your version of Christianity, which may only be a couple hundred years old, is correct. In actuality, it is a far deviation from the real truth that was 15 centuries before Luther, Calvin, et al, abandoned TRUE Christianity of the Catholic Church. You want to twist history to your desire and refuse to accept the reality of many doctrines that have been taught since the beginning of the Church - Baptismal Regeneration, Eucharist, etc.

These have biblical and historical references that are irrefutable, but you still cling to YOUR personal interpretation as if it is infallible. Your beliefs spit in the face of what Christ and His Church has always taught. Your beliefs represent an exceedingly superficial knowledge of the NT based of a 20th century view with no link and understanding of the OT and NO authority to determine what is correct.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Brother, I don't think it's a good idea to entertain this sort of thing. Firstly, we don't know for sure if this really is the burial cloth of Jesus. Secondly, we shouldn't fix an image of Jesus' earthly physical appearance in our minds. There's probably a reason God didn't tell us anything about what Jesus looked like in Scripture. Besides, Jesus' appearance has changed since he was in his earthly form. Thirdly, Artificial Intelligence is man's humanistic goal to make something in man's own image. God created us in His image, man created AI in his own image... and AI is creating an image of God? Something really not right about that. Be really wary of AI, it really smacks of a new Tower of Babel, and a conduit through which the Beast system in Revelation comes.

---

This is just your opinion. We're all entitled to have one. I just happen to completely disagree with yours on this topic. Some people need visual images to help them meditate on the scriptures. Why do you think churches have stained-glass windows? Originally when most of the world was illiterate, they could focus on them because the knew the stories that we're read to them at mass.

Also, there is no biblical basis for telling us that it is wrong to picture Christ in our minds. If one is dwelling on Christ, then one is dwelling righteous thoughts.

Focusing on the physical sufferings of Christ (especially those witnessed by the Shroud) can help us remember what sin does and what it cost. It also reminds us that we are going to suffer too.

Focusing only on the "heavenly Jesus", seems a little Joel Osteen-ish to me, but then, that's my opinion which I'm entitled to have.

We differ peace.

No offense to the "Satan" theory, but the Shroud has allowed millions of people to dwell on Christ and his passion. It is converted many hearts to Christianity, not to mention hundred (if not thousands) of scientists who studied the Shroud to Christianity. That's not Satan's work. That's what God does. He draws us to him.

Having said all that, I've studied the Shroud (on and off) for the past year and a half at The Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum (online) in Rome. I've taken courses from amazing scientists and researchers who have studied the Shroud for more than 40 years.

The Shroud of Turin is the MOST studied artifact in the world. I'll type it again. It is the most studied artifact in the world.

In my opinion, after reviewing the data with skeptical mind and critical thinking, I am convinced that it is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. While the instructors all believe that it is the Jesus' Shroud, they almost always refer to the image as the "man in the shroud." They let you make your own judgement.

I don't believe in Jesus' resurrection, because of the Shroud. If a conclusive test came out tomorrow and said that the Shroud was the most elaborate fake in history, I'd simply say, "Well done mystery forger, but I still believe in Jesus' resurrection."

I believe in the Shroud because of the man, not the other way around.

When the STRUP institute did it's testing in 1978, scientists, researchers, photographers, etc. were given 120 hours (by King Umberto II of Italy) to perform their testing. That was the their only window to gather data. They prepared for nearly two years before this to setup teams, devise testing procedures and materials, and to obtain equipment. Many companies assisted in this effort. Los Alamos National Laboratory, JPL, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, 3M, NASA, etc. 3M actually created a special tape that would allow the pickup of materials on the shroud (pollen, fibers, minerals, etc.) without leaving a residue on the Shroud.

When they completed this 120-hour non-stop study, they were left with more questions than answers.

Some of the conclusions are that:
1) We are still not sure exactly how it was made. We have theories, but we don't know.
a. We know that it is not a rubbing, scorch, painting, drawing, etc.
2) It was made with an actual human male corpse.
3) Embedded in the Shroud is 3D information that gives us our best images of the man in the Shroud.
4) We know that the blood stains came before the image was created, because the image is not underneath the blood.

Some of the interesting features are:
The man in the Shroud has 372 individual scourge marks. Scientists believe that they were created by two different persons based on directionality and depth. The Roman flagrum used on the man had three leather straps with the "dumbbell-shaped" ending meaning that he was struck at least 124 times. 71 times on the back, thighs, & buttocks. Another 53 times on the front (chest, arms, & thighs.)

The crown of thorns was actually a helmet of thorns. Pollen from the Shroud matches a plant found in that region called "Ziziphus spina-christi". Some of the thorns penetrated the boney plate of the scalp.

A close examination of the back of the man shows contusions where a heavy object like the patibulum (the horizontal bar) of a cross would have carried.

They found shale and limestone particles from the region on the knees and elbows.

The man in the shroud has a stab wound on his right side of his chest in the in the region of the sixth intercostals place. The exact space where Roman soldiers are trained to pierce the heart.

I could go on an on about the amazing features.

Whether any believes that the man in the shroud is actually Jesus or not, is inconsequential. If it draws people deeper into the Passion of Christ, then it has done its job.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You can deny it all you want; throughout church history the Roman Catholic Church has always talked about purgatory in a temporal sense. Even if you deny this, how is that even relevant? The issue that the suffering in purgatory can be made less in some sense by obtaining merit from another departed person still remains. It's still completely unsupported biblically, and just sounds completely made up.

---

Once again, you are wrong. Just as Jesus won his merit by undergoing his passion and crucifixion, and then rising from the dead, we on earth gain the merits in this treasury in our suffering and works.

As mentioned in a previous post, St. Paul tells us, "I make up for what is lacking in the suffering of Christ." - Col. 1:24

He also tells us in 1 Cor 12 that we are ALL part of the Mystical body of Christ, specifically in verse 26: "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it."

We have an intrinsic unity that we possess by virtue of grace.

St Peter (2 Pet 1:4) tells us that "We are partakers in the divine nature".

Romans 2:6 - "For [God] will reward every man according to his works..."

It that time, the word for reward and merit were interchangeable.

God doesn't need my help saving anyone. He can do it all on his own. But he didn't choose to do it like that. Jesus could have fed the 5000 by snapping his finger, but he chose to allow those around him to help. Just like me allowing my kids when they were younger to help me clean up. It was faster for me to do it, but they received grace by helping me. God wants us to be part of others salvation.

After all, Paul says in 1 Cor 9:21:
"I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."

God stores up our works in heaven that can be applied to us or others Matt 6:20:21 "But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

---

Absolutely nowhere in Scripture is there the idea that we can withdraw from a "treasury of merit" the merits of others and apply it to ourselves, or deposit our merit for others to claim. Every verse you reference doesn't say anything of the sort. As you always do, you're reading all of this into bible verse in order to come out with the belief that you want.

For you to believe that Paul is saying that Jesus' suffering was "lacking" in its ability to clear us from sin so he had to make up for it, is about as heretical as anything you've ever said. Which is saying a lot.

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church is clearly not protected from error. As I've repeatedly brought up, their councils have anathematized previous councils. They've introduced anathemas against that which was the prevailing, universal belief of the early church, like which books were in canon and the rejection of icon veneration. The most obvious and egregious example is the dogmas of Mary - they are completely unbiblical, are NOT based on the teachings of the original apostles and the early church, and are completely idolatrous and heretical. The psalms of Mary by St. Bonaventure is a CLEAR form of idolatry, heresy, and worship of Mary, and those psalms were officially declared by the RCC to be without error. It's obvious to everyone who read them to be blatant heresy and idolatry. Same with the Fatima message and The Glories of Mary. Even those here in this thread who can't stand me have admitted as much, even when it pains them to agree with me. That's how obvious it is.

---

This is a misunderstanding again on your behalf.

The Church views those pronouncements made by the councils (and ratified by the pope) that are declared infallible teachings, along with any infallible declarations made by a pope individually (extremely rare), as infallible. The entire council is not infallible.

---

The books of the canon, icon veneration, and the dogmas of Mary are all declared as infallible teaching. For reasons already explained and proven, this clearly shows the Roman Catholic Church is not without error. No misunderstanding there. I don't even know what your point that "the entire council is not infallible" is even supposed to be refuting. In fact, it's supporting my whole point.

Coke Bear said:

---

The main messages of Fatima are to pray, repent, and convert. The messages emphasis the Blessed Trinity, the Eucharist, Penance, the Rosary, and Sacrifices for conversion of sinners. No where does it mention that we should worship Mary as God.

The psalms of Mary by St. Bonaventure, (which I've never heard of before today, but thank you, they are beautiful) are a private devotion that is not required by the Church. They are a collection of 150 psalms that are express devotion to Mary. They were written in the 1200's in a different time and I a different language with affectionate language that one might use for a beloved spouse or parent. Yes, they may seem strange for modern-day protestant ears like yours. But there is nothing heretical in them. Every single psalm ends with "Glory be to the Father". Once again, may one day you finally realize that that Mary's glory exists only because of her divine Son.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You can't admit it, because you're in a cult mindset. Your belief that the RCC is protected from error is a circular form of reasoning. Whatever teaching they produce, you followers believe to be without error, because the Church tells you they don't teach errors. There's only one way out of this cultish mindset - decide for yourself that you will seek what is TRUE, instead of what preserves the status quo of Roman Catholicism. What you're doing - with ALL your replies to me - is just a defense mechanism. Please - WAKE UP.

---

Oh, I am awake. It is you that is blinded by your bias. You have been taught that your version of Christianity, which may only be a couple hundred years old, is correct. In actuality, it is a far deviation from the real truth that was 15 centuries before Luther, Calvin, et al, abandoned TRUE Christianity of the Catholic Church. You want to twist history to your desire and refuse to accept the reality of many doctrines that have been taught since the beginning of the Church - Baptismal Regeneration, Eucharist, etc.

These have biblical and historical references that are irrefutable, but you still cling to YOUR personal interpretation as if it is infallible. Your beliefs spit in the face of what Christ and His Church has always taught. Your beliefs represent an exceedingly superficial knowledge of the NT based of a 20th century view with no link and understanding of the OT and NO authority to determine what is correct.

---

Virtually everyone sees through this lie.

The consensus here is that the RCC worships Mary, as it is PAINFULLY obvious from all the examples I've given. You'd have to be a complete fool not to see it. As I already said, even those who hate to agree with me sees it and knows it.

Nothing more needs to be said to you about this, really, at this point. You are so firmly entrenched in denial and deception, that it is heartbreaking. You aren't a Christian. You are an idolater, a Marian cultist. You can still see the error of your ways and repent, though, before it's too late, if you'd just humble yourself and take an honest look at what you're doing and saying.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Check that image of the shroud out. Did anyone see the AI images?

---

I don't use, or believe anything AI. But this is a fantastic video that overlays the face of the Veil of Manopello (aka Veil of Veronica, probably the Mandylion, and the handkerchief/facecloth of John's Gospel) over the face on the Shroud of Turin.

Quote:

---

Once again, you are wrong. Just as Jesus won his merit by undergoing his passion and crucifixion, and then rising from the dead, we on earth gain the merits in this treasury in our suffering and works.

---

What?

Jesus, did not win any merits through his suffering and crucifixion. His theosis was quite complete before these events. These events reconciled us to God the Father, for as it says in Romans 5:10 "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." They did not reconcile the Son with the Father.

As the scriptures say, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Hebrews 13:8). The second person of the Trinity, fully God and fully man, possessed all possible merits from time immemorial.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Check that image of the shroud out. Did anyone see the AI images?

---

I don't use, or believe anything AI. But this is a fantastic video that overlays the face of the Veil of Manopello (aka Veil of Veronica, probably the Mandylion, and the handkerchief/facecloth of John's Gospel) over the face on the Shroud of Turin.

---

Are there images on the veils? Are they Similar to the one on the Shroud?

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Check that image of the shroud out. Did anyone see the AI images?

---

I don't use, or believe anything AI. But this is a fantastic video that overlays the face of the Veil of Manopello (aka Veil of Veronica, probably the Mandylion, and the handkerchief/facecloth of John's Gospel) over the face on the Shroud of Turin.

---

You've got to be kidding. That clearly is a drawing, and not a very good one, either. And it doesn't look anything like what's on the Shroud.

You guys really worry me.