Sam Lowry said:

---

Thank you for including the time stamp, but after watching a few minutes I'm not sure what the video proves. Wrapping can be done in lots of different ways. There's no evidence of a universal rule in Jewish burial practice at the time.

---

What the information from the video and from knowledge about 1st century Jewish burial customs proves, is that the proposed burial method which produced the Shroud of Turin does not have any real historical, archaelogical, or even Scriptural support. Just the argument that "it could have been" based on, well, really nothing at all.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thank you for including the time stamp, but after watching a few minutes I'm not sure what the video proves. Wrapping can be done in lots of different ways. There's no evidence of a universal rule in Jewish burial practice at the time.

---

What the information from the video and from knowledge about 1st century Jewish burial customs proves, is that the proposed burial method which produced the Shroud of Turin does not have any real historical, archaelogical, or even Scriptural support. Just the argument that "it could have been" based on, well, really nothing at all.

---

Well, from what I understand it was pretty common to have a long strip of cloth folded over the head and open at the feet, just like the Shroud.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thank you for including the time stamp, but after watching a few minutes I'm not sure what the video proves. Wrapping can be done in lots of different ways. There's no evidence of a universal rule in Jewish burial practice at the time.

---

What the information from the video and from knowledge about 1st century Jewish burial customs proves, is that the proposed burial method which produced the Shroud of Turin does not have any real historical, archaelogical, or even Scriptural support. Just the argument that "it could have been" based on, well, really nothing at all.

---

Well, from what I understand it was pretty common to have long strip of cloth folded over the head and open at the feet, just like the Shroud.

---

Sam, on this topic I must say I applaud your patience.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thank you for including the time stamp, but after watching a few minutes I'm not sure what the video proves. Wrapping can be done in lots of different ways. There's no evidence of a universal rule in Jewish burial practice at the time.

---

What the information from the video and from knowledge about 1st century Jewish burial customs proves, is that the proposed burial method which produced the Shroud of Turin does not have any real historical, archaelogical, or even Scriptural support. Just the argument that "it could have been" based on, well, really nothing at all.

---

Well, from what I understand it was pretty common to have a long strip of cloth folded over the head and open at the feet, just like the Shroud.

---

Where does this understanding come from?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thank you for including the time stamp, but after watching a few minutes I'm not sure what the video proves. Wrapping can be done in lots of different ways. There's no evidence of a universal rule in Jewish burial practice at the time.

---

What the information from the video and from knowledge about 1st century Jewish burial customs proves, is that the proposed burial method which produced the Shroud of Turin does not have any real historical, archaelogical, or even Scriptural support. Just the argument that "it could have been" based on, well, really nothing at all.

---

Well, from what I understand it was pretty common to have long strip of cloth folded over the head and open at the feet, just like the Shroud.

---

Sam, on this topic I must say I applaud your patience.

---

Translation:

"He's giving arguments that I can't refute, and they go against what I already want to believe. So in lieu of having to actually provide an argument against his, I'll pretend as if what he's saying is so obviously wrong by commenting how "patient" someone has to be to engage his argument".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thank you for including the time stamp, but after watching a few minutes I'm not sure what the video proves. Wrapping can be done in lots of different ways. There's no evidence of a universal rule in Jewish burial practice at the time.

---

What the information from the video and from knowledge about 1st century Jewish burial customs proves, is that the proposed burial method which produced the Shroud of Turin does not have any real historical, archaelogical, or even Scriptural support. Just the argument that "it could have been" based on, well, really nothing at all.

---

Well, from what I understand it was pretty common to have a long strip of cloth folded over the head and open at the feet, just like the Shroud.

---

Where does this understanding come from?

---

Nowhere. It isn't understanding or anything even close to understanding.

canoso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thank you for including the time stamp, but after watching a few minutes I'm not sure what the video proves. Wrapping can be done in lots of different ways. There's no evidence of a universal rule in Jewish burial practice at the time.

---

What the information from the video and from knowledge about 1st century Jewish burial customs proves, is that the proposed burial method which produced the Shroud of Turin does not have any real historical, archaelogical, or even Scriptural support. Just the argument that "it could have been" based on, well, really nothing at all.

---

Well, from what I understand it was pretty common to have a long strip of cloth folded over the head and open at the feet, just like the Shroud.

---

Where does this understanding come from?

---

Nowhere. It isn't understaning.or anything even close to understanding.

---

Ahh. Then apparently, I'M the one demonstrating the patience here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thank you for including the time stamp, but after watching a few minutes I'm not sure what the video proves. Wrapping can be done in lots of different ways. There's no evidence of a universal rule in Jewish burial practice at the time.

---

What the information from the video and from knowledge about 1st century Jewish burial customs proves, is that the proposed burial method which produced the Shroud of Turin does not have any real historical, archaelogical, or even Scriptural support. Just the argument that "it could have been" based on, well, really nothing at all.

---

Well, from what I understand it was pretty common to have a long strip of cloth folded over the head and open at the feet, just like the Shroud.

---

Where does this understanding come from?

---

I really don't remember. I'm not the biggest Shroud enthusiast, but I haven't seen anything to conclusively disprove it, particularly not the arguments about image distortion. There is also some question about the carbon dating.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thank you for including the time stamp, but after watching a few minutes I'm not sure what the video proves. Wrapping can be done in lots of different ways. There's no evidence of a universal rule in Jewish burial practice at the time.

---

What the information from the video and from knowledge about 1st century Jewish burial customs proves, is that the proposed burial method which produced the Shroud of Turin does not have any real historical, archaelogical, or even Scriptural support. Just the argument that "it could have been" based on, well, really nothing at all.

---

Well, from what I understand it was pretty common to have long strip of cloth folded over the head and open at the feet, just like the Shroud.

---

Sam, on this topic I must say I applaud your patience.

---

Translation:

"He's giving arguments that I can't refute, and they go against what I already want to believe. So in lieu of having to actually provide an argument against his, I'll pretend as if what he's saying is so obviously wrong by commenting how "patient" someone has to be to engage his argument".

---

You are very, very wrong, BusyTarpDuster. You spend so much time bitterly attacking others that you miss much of the conversation. For example, you would know if you paid attention that I disagree with Sam on a great number of issues, including religious doctrine. Certainly doctrine is a trigger for you; anyone who believes differently, you attack.

Now on the matter of the Shroud, there is a wealth of information but also an ocean of argument. If you have paid any attention to what I posted in this thread, you would know that I find the available evidence credible for the Shroud being a valid artifact of a supernatural event, not least because even now no one has been able to replicate the thing.

You would also know that I do not consider the Shroud essential to believing the Gospel; that decision is one of faith and absolutely rooted in individual will. There is tremendous evidence for believing the Gospel and accepting Jesus Christ as Lord, yet sadly billions reject Him through willful ignorance. The Shroud has the potential to be supporting evidence for a decision to believe, or a distraction leading a person to focus on details and not the substance of Christ. No one will say on Judgment Day that the Shroud is what saved them, nor will God decide a person's final account because of the Shroud.

You have long challenged the Shroud's authenticity on the argument that Satan is using the thing to lead people away from Christ, but you have provided no evidence to prove your case. In fact, what you do is attack peripheral details and ignore the center of the discussion, and you act as if the evidence presented is false just because you do not like it.

My respect for Sam's patience comes from him staying on the subject and not straying, and for him attempting to reason with you on established evidence rather than emotion.

I also have a similar respect for Sam. Additionally I agree with much of what you say in your post, especially about the shroud and the vital part faith has in the discussion. I don't have as much command of the language as you; however, I do think your post summed up my current understanding quite well.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You debunked the "Scripture is the only infallible source" claim? I really think you're creating your own reality.

You're not realizing that your own theory, such as the shroud being wrapped by the strips of linen, would most certainly create significant folds and buckles in the shroud and would prevent such a clean image from being formed, like the one seen in the Shroud of Turin.

Regarding the shroud "drawing minds and hearts to Christ's passion" - it also has the potential to draw minds and hearts to a false image, which can be later used to deceive them. It bears repeating - there is a good reason why Scripture, or oral tradition for that matter, never gives us a physical description of what Jesus looked like. God didn't want us to know. He doesn't want us to see Jesus as an image, but rather for us to "see" Jesus with our hearts. He doesn't want us to have relics either. He wants us to relate to Him personally and spiritually, not through any physical object. He doesn't want another golden calf. Plus, I truly believe that God knew that if Jesus appearance was described or depicted in some form (like the Shroud) there would have been many impostors to mislead people. And Satan being one of them is certainly no exception.

---

You life is so skewed toward being anti-Catholic I don't believe you think before you type some of these responses.

Where does the Bible EVER state that God didn't want us to have an image of Jesus just because it doesn't list a description of him? You are clearly giving YOUR fallible opinion here that NOONE is bound to follow.

Are people led to Christ with great movies like The Passion of Christ or The Greatest Story Ever Told? What about shows like The Chosen?

Are these leading people to Christ or is Satan using them to "deceive them?"

What about stain glass windows in Churches (which predate your made-up religion by 500 years) to help illiterate people recall the biblical stories? Are they being used to "deceive the people?"

Your "deception argument" is so bad, it's almost embarrassing. People have used the bible to deceive others, are you arguing that we should get rid of it?

Just because people misuse an object doesn't mean that that object is bad. I can use fire to cook my food or to burn down a house. They both have different moral outcomes, but the fire is not bad.

Relics have been collected since the beginning of the Church age. If it draws them closer to Christ, that's awesome. God NEVER makes a decree about NOT using relics. 2 Kings 2 shows the Elijah's mantle striking the water. Chapter 13 shows the bones of Elisha bringing a dead man back to life. Handkerchiefs and aprons cured illnesses and drove out evil spirits.

You are ONCE again, imposing YOUR fallible beliefs into the situation.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You debunked the "Scripture is the only infallible source" claim? I really think you're creating your own reality.

You're not realizing that your own theory, such as the shroud being wrapped by the strips of linen, would most certainly create significant folds and buckles in the shroud and would prevent such a clean image from being formed, like the one seen in the Shroud of Turin.

Regarding the shroud "drawing minds and hearts to Christ's passion" - it also has the potential to draw minds and hearts to a false image, which can be later used to deceive them. It bears repeating - there is a good reason why Scripture, or oral tradition for that matter, never gives us a physical description of what Jesus looked like. God didn't want us to know. He doesn't want us to see Jesus as an image, but rather for us to "see" Jesus with our hearts. He doesn't want us to have relics either. He wants us to relate to Him personally and spiritually, not through any physical object. He doesn't want another golden calf. Plus, I truly believe that God knew that if Jesus appearance was described or depicted in some form (like the Shroud) there would have been many impostors to mislead people. And Satan being one of them is certainly no exception.

---

You life is so skewed toward being anti-Catholic I don't believe you think before you type some of these responses.

Where does the Bible EVER state that God didn't want us to have an image of Jesus just because it doesn't list a description of him? You are clearly giving YOUR fallible opinion here that NOONE is bound to follow.

Are people led to Christ with great movies like The Passion of Christ or The Greatest Story Ever Told? What about shows like The Chosen?

Are these leading people to Christ or is Satan using them to "deceive them?"

What about stain glass windows in Churches (which predate your made-up religion by 500 years) to help illiterate people recall the biblical stories? Are they being used to "deceive the people?"

Your "deception argument" is so bad, it's almost embarrassing. People have used the bible to deceive others, are you arguing that we should get rid of it?

Just because people misuse an object doesn't mean that that object is bad. I can use fire to cook my food or to burn down a house. They both have different moral outcomes, but the fire is not bad.

Relics have been collected since the beginning of the Church age. If it draws them closer to Christ, that's awesome. God NEVER makes a decree about NOT using relics. 2 Kings 2 shows the Elijah's mantle striking the water. Chapter 13 shows the bones of Elisha bringing a dead man back to life. Handkerchiefs and aprons cured illnesses and drove out evil spirits.

You are ONCE again, imposing YOUR fallible beliefs into the situation.

---

Coke Bear,
Your response appears to present some good points, a few of which I had thought of as well.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You debunked the "Scripture is the only infallible source" claim? I really think you're creating your own reality.

You're not realizing that your own theory, such as the shroud being wrapped by the strips of linen, would most certainly create significant folds and buckles in the shroud and would prevent such a clean image from being formed, like the one seen in the Shroud of Turin.

Regarding the shroud "drawing minds and hearts to Christ's passion" - it also has the potential to draw minds and hearts to a false image, which can be later used to deceive them. It bears repeating - there is a good reason why Scripture, or oral tradition for that matter, never gives us a physical description of what Jesus looked like. God didn't want us to know. He doesn't want us to see Jesus as an image, but rather for us to "see" Jesus with our hearts. He doesn't want us to have relics either. He wants us to relate to Him personally and spiritually, not through any physical object. He doesn't want another golden calf. Plus, I truly believe that God knew that if Jesus appearance was described or depicted in some form (like the Shroud) there would have been many impostors to mislead people. And Satan being one of them is certainly no exception.

---

You life is so skewed toward being anti-Catholic I don't believe you think before you type some of these responses.

Where does the Bible EVER state that God didn't want us to have an image of Jesus just because it doesn't list a description of him? You are clearly giving YOUR fallible opinion here that NOONE is bound to follow.

Are people led to Christ with great movies like The Passion of Christ or The Greatest Story Ever Told? What about shows like The Chosen?

Are these leading people to Christ or is Satan using them to "deceive them?"

What about stain glass windows in Churches (which predate your made-up religion by 500 years) to help illiterate people recall the biblical stories? Are they being used to "deceive the people?"

Your "deception argument" is so bad, it's almost embarrassing. People have used the bible to deceive others, are you arguing that we should get rid of it?

Just because people misuse an object doesn't mean that that object is bad. I can use fire to cook my food or to burn down a house. They both have different moral outcomes, but the fire is not bad.

Relics have been collected since the beginning of the Church age. If it draws them closer to Christ, that's awesome. God NEVER makes a decree about NOT using relics. 2 Kings 2 shows the Elijah's mantle striking the water. Chapter 13 shows the bones of Elisha bringing a dead man back to life. Handkerchiefs and aprons cured illnesses and drove out evil spirits.

You are ONCE again, imposing YOUR fallible beliefs into the situation.

---

When a religion rejects images of God, it confirms the message that God is only a spirit, and that He has no physical form. A lot of evangelical calvinist types are neo-gnostic in this way and so are muslims because they reject the Incarnation, therefore their rules are that mosques must have bare walls and no images of God.

Iconoclasm makes sense before the Incarnation. Before the Incarnation, it was impossible to make an image of the invisible God without misrepresenting Him. Once God became flesh in the Incarnation of Jesus, the invisible God became visible, the immaterial God was suddenly material.

After Christ came, He referred to His own body as the true Temple.
Instead of continuing to bow down toward a Temple building like God wanted us to before the incarnation, we now bow down toward images of Jesus. This is not worship of the icon any more than bowing towards the Temple was worship OF the Temple...but boomer evangelicals get off condemning others, it makes them feel superior.

When the Word became flesh, iconoclasm became idolatry.

" A lot of evangelical calvinist types are neo-gnostic in this way and so are muslims because they reject the Incarnation, therefore their rules are that mosques must have bare walls and no images of God."

I think you wrongly equate Evangelicals with Muslims, and demonstrate a false conception of what Evangelicals really believe.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" A lot of evangelical calvinist types are neo-gnostic in this way and so are muslims because they reject the Incarnation, therefore their rules are that mosques must have bare walls and no images of God."

I think you wrongly equate Evangelicals with Muslims, and demonstrate a false conception of what Evangelicals really believe.

---

I didn't equate them on grounds of the Incarnation. I equated that they both believe its sinful to create a depiction of God and that's exactly what BusyT wrote: "God didn't want us to know. He doesn't want us to see Jesus as an image". He thinks its sinful for us to see a physical depiction of Christ.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" A lot of evangelical calvinist types are neo-gnostic in this way and so are muslims because they reject the Incarnation, therefore their rules are that mosques must have bare walls and no images of God."

I think you wrongly equate Evangelicals with Muslims, and demonstrate a false conception of what Evangelicals really believe.

---

I didn't equate them on grounds of the Incarnation. I equated that they both believe its sinful to create a depiction of God and that's exactly what BusyT wrote: "God didn't want us to know. He doesn't want us to see Jesus as an image". He thinks its sinful for us to see a physical depiction of Christ.

---

I agree with you that seeing a physical depiction of Christ is not sinful. The Evangelicals I know have never claimed it was.

BTD is his own brand. Most Evangelicals also do not believe that accusations and attacks are a good way to win people to Christ.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" A lot of evangelical calvinist types are neo-gnostic in this way and so are muslims because they reject the Incarnation, therefore their rules are that mosques must have bare walls and no images of God."

I think you wrongly equate Evangelicals with Muslims, and demonstrate a false conception of what Evangelicals really believe.

---

I didn't equate them on grounds of the Incarnation. I equated that they both believe its sinful to create a depiction of God and that's exactly what BusyT wrote: "God didn't want us to know. He doesn't want us to see Jesus as an image". He thinks its sinful for us to see a physical depiction of Christ.

---

I agree with you that seeing a physical depiction of Christ is not sinful. The Evangelicals I know have never claimed it was.

BTD is his own brand. Most Evangelicals also do not believe that accusations and attacks are a good way to win people to Christ.

---

Most evangelicals don't know anything about this topic at all.

Those against depictions of Christ are typically reformed Calvinists. That's obviously what BTD is. Evangelicals and reformed aren't the same, but they overlap significantly. A Reformed Calvinist can be an evangelical, but not all evangelicals are Reformed Calvinists.

I'm speaking more on Calvinists and the arguments Calvin made against depictions of Christ which he totally rejected. He was hostile toward religious images, statues, and icons. He didn't just view them as a minor distraction, he saw them as a direct violation of the Second Commandment and a font of spiritual corruption. He argued that humans possess an innate, corrupt craving for a visible, tangible god because we struggle to conceptualize a purely spiritual being...which is insane considering Christ is the Incarnation of God in human flesh.

Those that adhere to Calvinistic dogma are the guys that think I'm a pagan who worships Mary, idols and doesn't really love God.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" A lot of evangelical calvinist types are neo-gnostic in this way and so are muslims because they reject the Incarnation, therefore their rules are that mosques must have bare walls and no images of God."

I think you wrongly equate Evangelicals with Muslims, and demonstrate a false conception of what Evangelicals really believe.

---

I didn't equate them on grounds of the Incarnation. I equated that they both believe its sinful to create a depiction of God and that's exactly what BusyT wrote: "God didn't want us to know. He doesn't want us to see Jesus as an image". He thinks its sinful for us to see a physical depiction of Christ.

---

I agree with you that seeing a physical depiction of Christ is not sinful. The Evangelicals I know have never claimed it was.

BTD is his own brand. Most Evangelicals also do not believe that accusations and attacks are a good way to win people to Christ.

---

Most evangelicals don't know anything about this topic at all.

Those against depictions of Christ are typically reformed Calvinists. That's obviously what BTD is. Evangelicals and reformed aren't the same, but they overlap significantly. A Reformed Calvinist can be an evangelical, but not all evangelicals are Reformed Calvinists.

I'm speaking more on Calvinists and the arguments Calvin made against depictions of Christ which he totally rejected. He was hostile toward religious images, statues, and icons. He didn't just view them as a minor distraction, he saw them as a direct violation of the Second Commandment and a font of spiritual corruption. He argued that humans possess an innate, corrupt craving for a visible, tangible god because we struggle to conceptualize a purely spiritual being...which is insane considering Christ is the Incarnation of God in human flesh.

Those that adhere to Calvinistic dogma are the guys that think I'm a pagan who worships Mary, idols and doesn't really love God.

---

I think you are maybe a bit too quick with labels. I also know a lot of Calvinists, and most are far nicer and open to discussion than BTD.

BTD made a great noise about Satan leading people away from Christ, something I do agree happens. But I think it's far more common for Satan to try dividing believers from one another by turning unimportant details into irreconcilable feuds based on pride.

Therefore I counsel us all to consider the spirit behind our words on these topics before posting words which can do not good, but only create spite.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Still wondering how many of you firm believers in the Shroud can deal with the elephant in the room - Scripture described the cloths as "strips of linen" and a separate cloth that covered his head, not one single long sheet. And if that head cloth is the Sudarium of Oviedo - then why doesn't it have the same kind of image as what's on the Shroud?

---

The Sudarium of Oviedo was applied to the body as it was being removed from the cross. It was removed before the Shroud covered the body.

The Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud share 120 points of coincidence in the bloodstains.

Both cloths show similar trauma with respect to nasal area, facial swelling, and punctures wounds.

---

It's quite stunning the technological analysis that has been done on those two relics. Amazing how precise the ancients were in their forgeries

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Still wondering how many of you firm believers in the Shroud can deal with the elephant in the room - Scripture described the cloths as "strips of linen" and a separate cloth that covered his head, not one single long sheet. And if that head cloth is the Sudarium of Oviedo - then why doesn't it have the same kind of image as what's on the Shroud?

---

The Sudarium of Oviedo was applied to the body as it was being removed from the cross. It was removed before the Shroud covered the body.

The Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud share 120 points of coincidence in the bloodstains.

Both cloths show similar trauma with respect to nasal area, facial swelling, and punctures wounds.

---

First of all, any coincidence of the bloodstains, if that is indeed true, would only mean that both the Shroud and the Sudarium could have come from the same person. But it doesn't necessarily mean it was Jesus.

Secondly, you're still not addressing the elephant in the room. It never ceases to amaze me how people just completely dismiss or ignore this. Scripture is the only infallible voice among all the evidence surrounding this, and it does not support the Shroud narrative. The desire for these cloths to be real trumps Scripture for some of you, I suppose.

---

If you agree that "Scripture is the only infallible voice." then I'm sure you will respect the fact that Scripture describes all three:

• Sindon a large linen sheet, mentioned in Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, and Luke 23:53.
• Othonia strips or wrappings, found in Luke 24:12 and John 19:40.
• Soudarion a face cloth, mentioned in John 20:7.

No mystery. No elephant.

---

Hidden in plain sight lol

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

*** And if you're saying that only the body was wrapped in a single shroud, and a separate linen was used to wrap the face, then you just proved the shroud, which has an image of Jesus' face, and the Sudarium, which doesn't, aren't real.

I agree with you now - there's no elephant. It seems you just turned the elephant into King Kong.

---

I've debunked your "Scripture is the only infallible source" claim and so now you try to jump back to the science.

It's not rocket science but, you are trying your best to deny it.

How hard for you to believe that they wrapped his chin to the top of his head, put him in the shroud, and then wrapped his face with a head covering. They could have easily wrapped the shroud with strips of lined to secure it until the body decomposed to collect the bones.

At the end of the day, whether the Shroud is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus isn't truly important. It's a valuable relic worthy drawing our minds and hearts to Christ's passion.

My faith isn't dependent on the Shroud. My faith is dependent in the man in the Shroud.

The Church has 100's, if not 1000's of miracles that she can point to for belief in God.

---

I do Find it interesting the overwhelming majority of miracles that are approach as close to indisputable as possible, almost always occur with Catholics

Sources indicate that in the days of Jesus Jews were buried with a large body shroud that covered the body head-to-toe, as well as a second, separate piece of linen used specifically to wrap the head and face. This second piece, the face cloth (known in Greek as the soudarion), was used for three specific purposes:

* To absorb and hold blood: In Jewish tradition, blood was considered sacred. Because Jesus bled profusely from his head due to the crown of thorns and beatings, the face cloth was wrapped around his head immediately after he was taken down from the cross to staunch and collect the blood.

* To preserve dignity: A separate cloth was commonly wrapped around the face of a deceased person to keep their jaw closed and hide the disfigurement caused by trauma or rigor mortis.

* To avoid hardening the face: According to the Gospel of John, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus brought 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes to prepare Jesus for burial. These burial spices would act as a resin that hardened the main shroud to preserve the body, but this was generally omitted on the head covering to leave an opening.

BUDOS said:

---

Sources indicate that in the days of Jesus Jews were buried with a large body shroud that covered the body head-to-toe, as well as a second, separate piece of linen used specifically to wrap the head and face. This second piece, the face cloth (known in Greek as the soudarion), was used for three specific purposes:

* To absorb and hold blood: In Jewish tradition, blood was considered sacred. Because Jesus bled profusely from his head due to the crown of thorns and beatings, the face cloth was wrapped around his head immediately after he was taken down from the cross to staunch and collect the blood.

* To preserve dignity: A separate cloth was commonly wrapped around the face of a deceased person to keep their jaw closed and hide the disfigurement caused by trauma or rigor mortis.

* To avoid hardening the face: According to the Gospel of John, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus brought 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes to prepare Jesus for burial. These burial spices would act as a resin that hardened the main shroud to preserve the body, but this was generally omitted on the head covering to leave an opening.

---

"Sources" indicate? Citation?

The information here isn't really clear and even seems contradictory, particularly with regard to the relative positions of the face covering and the shroud. It raises more questions than it answers. It also makes the blood stains less explainable, not to mention the cleanliness of the image.

I came across the article and posted it for discussion, and I don't disagree with some of your comments about it. Personally, no matter whether or nythere is ever enough proof for some, there are some of us for whom it probably will never be enough. A person is saved by the grace of God and belief in His Son. Hopefully a person's actions reflect those beliefs in word and deed as recorded in the Book of Life.

BUDOS said:

---

I came across the article and posted it for discussion, and I don't disagree with some of your comments about it. Personally, no matter whether or nythere is ever enough proof for some, there are some of us for whom it probably will never be enough. A person is saved by the grace of God and belief in His Son. Hopefully a person's actions reflect those beliefs in word and deed as recorded in the Book of Life.

---

the day of Trumpets approaches

BUDOS said:

---

I came across the article and posted it for discussion, and I don't disagree with some of your comments about it. Personally, no matter whether or nythere is ever enough proof for some, there are some of us for whom it probably will never be enough. A person is saved by the grace of God and belief in His Son. Hopefully a person's actions reflect those beliefs in word and deed as recorded in the Book of Life.

---

Where did you get that our actions, words, and deeds are recorded in the Book of Life? Citation?

And if it does, would personally attacking someone continuously, whether direct or passive aggressively, be reflective of one's professed Christianity?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I came across the article and posted it for discussion, and I don't disagree with some of your comments about it. Personally, no matter whether or nythere is ever enough proof for some, there are some of us for whom it probably will never be enough. A person is saved by the grace of God and belief in His Son. Hopefully a person's actions reflect those beliefs in word and deed as recorded in the Book of Life.

---

Where did you get that our actions, words, and deeds are recorded in the Book of Life? Citation?

And if it does, would personally attacking someone continuously, whether direct or passive aggressively, be reflective of one's professed Christianity?

---

Revelation 20
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.

I believe this is the reference.. while it does not say that these are written specifically in the book of life, it does note that your actions are recorded in books used at judgment

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I came across the article and posted it for discussion, and I don't disagree with some of your comments about it. Personally, no matter whether or nythere is ever enough proof for some, there are some of us for whom it probably will never be enough. A person is saved by the grace of God and belief in His Son. Hopefully a person's actions reflect those beliefs in word and deed as recorded in the Book of Life.

---

Where did you get that our actions, words, and deeds are recorded in the Book of Life? Citation?

And if it does, would personally attacking someone continuously, whether direct or passive aggressively, be reflective of one's professed Christianity?

---

It appears that 4th&Inches responded to what I had in mind.

As for your last question, based on your history of responses and what appears to be an impressive knowledge of religion, I'm curious as to how you might answer that question.

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I came across the article and posted it for discussion, and I don't disagree with some of your comments about it. Personally, no matter whether or nythere is ever enough proof for some, there are some of us for whom it probably will never be enough. A person is saved by the grace of God and belief in His Son. Hopefully a person's actions reflect those beliefs in word and deed as recorded in the Book of Life.

---

Where did you get that our actions, words, and deeds are recorded in the Book of Life? Citation?

And if it does, would personally attacking someone continuously, whether direct or passive aggressively, be reflective of one's professed Christianity?

---

Revelation 20
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.

I believe this is the reference.. while it does not say that these are written specifically in the book of life, it does note that your actions are recorded in books used at judgment

---

One has to read carefully: "... and books were opened..... And the dead were judged by what was written in the books". They are being judged by those first set of books mentioned in verse 12. The "book of life" is a separate book, and it is the Lamb's book of life mentioned in chapters 3 and 21 of Revelation. This book is only said to contain the names of those saved. There is nothing in Scripture that tells us otherwise.

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Why would you think that is my interpretation? There is nothing I said in this or in any other thread that would indicate that.

BUDOS said:

---

If someone is saved when they are 13, but their actions fail to reflect a Christian life, by lying, cheating, and being a bully, I take it that they would not be in the Book of Life, by your interpretation?

---

Not believing this would be to dispute OSAS