Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the unexplainable and astonishing shroud of Turin . As a science guy...I can tell it will never be explained and it is the most baffling artifact in human history. It should be the subject of every mystery program it's like we have a UFO, ghost or Bigfoot right before our eyes and in our posession.

You don't sound like a science guy to me.

Perhaps he's a Creation Museum type "science guy." Jesus rode on dinosaurs, you know.

Many scientists have become believers after in depth study of the shroud. It's truly astonishing. Scientists are equally vain and non open minded as creationist types. Both are threatened by contradictory facts that threaten their life beliefs and work.

even if the shroud could be dated back to Jesus time, it wouldn't prove that it was Jesus' shroud and would say nothing about Jesus being the son of god. Could you show us one article from a mainstream news source that names the scientists who have become believers after studying the shroud?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone see this show tonight on "Lost Gospels"? It states that the Christian religion was doctored for the purpose of politics, to unify people. Certain gospels were banned. Later some of them were found but they were very different from the existing Bible. How do Christians feel about this? Do you believe this and, if so, does it disturb you? Would you be interested in knowing what the other gospels state and what Christianity was like before it was changed?

This is the kind of thing that disturbed me when I was a believer -- disturbed me enough to check it out more thoroughly and realize that my religious education had been completely about belief and faith and not at all about the history of religion. Information like this sent me on the road to non-belief.

However, I realize it doesn't have that effect on everyone. facts often don't trump the desire to believe.

I'm glad this kind of information is now more widely available.

[Anonymous]

For me, it just affirms my faith in Islam because Jesus' importance is undeniable but the Quran explicitly denounces his divinity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me, it just affirms my faith in Islam because Jesus' importance is undeniable but the Quran explicitly denounces his divinity.

For me, the importance of Jesus has nothing to do with his divinity or non-divinity. It has to do with his message of non-violence and loving your enemies. I know Muslims are always trying to convert people by saying "Muslims believe in Jesus too, just not that he's divine." For me, however, it's all about the message. I've read the Koran and the Koranic message of retribution and eye-for-eye (which Jesus got rid of) is not a Jesus I could follow.

[Anonymous]

shroud conversion.


Did you know many Jewish scientists converted to Christianity after studying the Shroud of Turin?














http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/jewish-shroud-expert-teaches-at-pontifical-university

Barrie Schwortz was the Official Documenting Photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), the team that conducted the first in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978.

Schwortz: Probably the best part of the experience is the warm reception that I’m given by the faculty and students. That makes me feel that being here is very worthwhile. The response from the students is always so positive.

Of course, being Jewish, it’s sort of ironic. The first time they asked me [to teach], I said, “So, how often do you bring Jews to teach future priests about the Shroud?” We all laughed about that.

It really is a great honor. For me, it makes the work that I’ve done with the Shroud over all these years really meaningful and not just for myself but obviously for the students. And when you are doing something that is of value to other people, that’s a great blessing in its own right.

ZENIT: How long did it take for you come accept the Shroud of Turin as the authentic one belonging to Jesus in the 1stcentury?

Schwortz: At the very beginning of my involvement with the Shroud, I was very skeptical about its authenticity. I had no emotional attachment to Jesus and the subject matter because I was raised as an Orthodox Jew. The main thing I knew about Jesus in those days was that he also was Jewish, and that was about it.

Examining the Shroud, I knew quickly that it wasn’t a painting because when you are up close and you see it, you can tell it’s not a painting. But as far as its authenticity, it took another 18 years after we finished our examination and all the papers were published.

I still wasn’t completely convinced until one of our fellow team members, Allen Adler, another Jewish man who was a blood chemist, explained to me why the blood remained red on the Shroud. I felt that old blood was supposed to be black or brown. The blood on the Shroud is a red-crimson color. So that was a deal breaker for me for a long time. But ultimately, when that was explained to me and especially from my friend Al Adler, may he rest in peace, who also was involved in this not so much from a religious point of view as from a purely scientific point of view, he was the one who put the last piece of the puzzle in for me. It was a shock to me when I came to the conclusion after almost 20 years that this piece of cloth was authentic. And I got there based solely on the science.

ZENIT: Regarding the argument for authenticity, do the results from the 1988 radiocarbon dating remain a thorn in the Shroud’s side?

Schwortz: It is the primary piece of evidence that points in the opposite direction, but of course I had the benefit by 1988 of having more than 10 years of study, and I knew about historical objects like the Hungarian Pray Codex that indicate this cloth was around much earlier than the earliest dates given by the carbon dating.

Now I’m not a physicist, so I didn’t necessarily understand why the radiocarbon dating was so skewed. It bothered me, and of course it was a huge setback because for the 10 years after we examined the cloth, the consensus publicly was, “This thing is probably real.” And then the carbon dating came out and it knocked it down. And from that point forward the world began to believe that it couldn’t be authentic.

This was frustrating for me because the evidence is so powerful in my mind that this has to be the real thing. As Sherlock Holmes said, “eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

ZENIT: What would you say is the message or meaning of the Shroud?

Schwortz: I always say, the Shroud did not come with a book of instructions, and consequently, the meaning isn’t on the cloth but in the eye and in the heart of the beholder. Each person has to regard it, study it or not, and make up his own mind. It’s not the kind of thing that forces itself upon you, and I think that’s as it should be. It will not push to open your heart. You have to open your heart to it.

[Anonymous]

I am a Christian and yeah I could believe it. In fact, I have always figured that yes there was some doctoring of the bible to fit situations as needed.

I still believe in God but I am not the type of Christian who believe sin the literal word for word interpretation of the bible.

[Anonymous]

Woo boy. When did DCUM become a conversion site? First we have a Muslim trying to convert people with that old line about believing in Jesus too (but they won't tell you the Muslim Jesus likes dietary restrictions, animal sacrifice and blood vengeance). Now we have a Christian aiming at Jews. As a Christian, I'm a little embarrassed and I apologize for him.

[Anonymous]

Didn't Anglican Bishop Spong question the divinity of Christ? Just goes to show that you can let your search for the historical Jesus take you where it will, and still conclude that Christianity is the best religion for you (and still do quite well in the Anglican Church).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:shroud conversion.


Did you know many Jewish scientists converted to Christianity after studying the Shroud of Turin?


http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/jewish-shroud-expert-teaches-at-pontifical-university

Barrie Schwortz was the Official Documenting Photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), the team that conducted the first in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978.

Schwortz: Probably the best part of the experience is the warm reception that I’m given by the faculty and students. That makes me feel that being here is very worthwhile. The response from the students is always so positive.

Of course, being Jewish, it’s sort of ironic. The first time they asked me [to teach], I said, “So, how often do you bring Jews to teach future priests about the Shroud?” We all laughed about that.

It really is a great honor. For me, it makes the work that I’ve done with the Shroud over all these years really meaningful and not just for myself but obviously for the students. And when you are doing something that is of value to other people, that’s a great blessing in its own right.

ZENIT: How long did it take for you come accept the Shroud of Turin as the authentic one belonging to Jesus in the 1stcentury?

Schwortz: At the very beginning of my involvement with the Shroud, I was very skeptical about its authenticity. I had no emotional attachment to Jesus and the subject matter because I was raised as an Orthodox Jew. The main thing I knew about Jesus in those days was that he also was Jewish, and that was about it.

Examining the Shroud, I knew quickly that it wasn’t a painting because when you are up close and you see it, you can tell it’s not a painting. But as far as its authenticity, it took another 18 years after we finished our examination and all the papers were published.

I still wasn’t completely convinced until one of our fellow team members, Allen Adler, another Jewish man who was a blood chemist, explained to me why the blood remained red on the Shroud. I felt that old blood was supposed to be black or brown. The blood on the Shroud is a red-crimson color. So that was a deal breaker for me for a long time. But ultimately, when that was explained to me and especially from my friend Al Adler, may he rest in peace, who also was involved in this not so much from a religious point of view as from a purely scientific point of view, he was the one who put the last piece of the puzzle in for me. It was a shock to me when I came to the conclusion after almost 20 years that this piece of cloth was authentic. And I got there based solely on the science.

ZENIT: Regarding the argument for authenticity, do the results from the 1988 radiocarbon dating remain a thorn in the Shroud’s side?

Schwortz: It is the primary piece of evidence that points in the opposite direction, but of course I had the benefit by 1988 of having more than 10 years of study, and I knew about historical objects like the Hungarian Pray Codex that indicate this cloth was around much earlier than the earliest dates given by the carbon dating.

Now I’m not a physicist, so I didn’t necessarily understand why the radiocarbon dating was so skewed. It bothered me, and of course it was a huge setback because for the 10 years after we examined the cloth, the consensus publicly was, “This thing is probably real.” And then the carbon dating came out and it knocked it down. And from that point forward the world began to believe that it couldn’t be authentic.

This was frustrating for me because the evidence is so powerful in my mind that this has to be the real thing. As Sherlock Holmes said, “eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

ZENIT: What would you say is the message or meaning of the Shroud?

Schwortz: I always say, the Shroud did not come with a book of instructions, and consequently, the meaning isn’t on the cloth but in the eye and in the heart of the beholder. Each person has to regard it, study it or not, and make up his own mind. It’s not the kind of thing that forces itself upon you, and I think that’s as it should be. It will not push to open your heart. You have to open your heart to it.

So one photographer (not a scientist) thinks the shroud is authentic but provides no evidence for it and the carbon dating indicates otherwise

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it just affirms my faith in Islam because Jesus' importance is undeniable but the Quran explicitly denounces his divinity.

For me, the importance of Jesus has nothing to do with his divinity or non-divinity. It has to do with his message of non-violence and loving your enemies. I know Muslims are always trying to convert people by saying "Muslims believe in Jesus too, just not that he's divine." For me, however, it's all about the message. I've read the Koran and the Koranic message of retribution and eye-for-eye (which Jesus got rid of) is not a Jesus I could follow.

I just said it reaffirms MY faith, but you managed to twist this around into proselytizing. Do I need to follow up every post about Jesus with a disclaimer? Or should Muslims just be prohibited from mentioning Jesus? What do you expect us to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Anglican Bishop Spong question the divinity of Christ? Just goes to show that you can let your search for the historical Jesus take you where it will, and still conclude that Christianity is the best religion for you (and still do quite well in the Anglican Church).

If you're religion-prone and liberal, I think Anglican/Episcopalian is an excellent choice - great music and ceremony and costumes too! If you'e not as big on dress-up, then the UCC is another good choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it just affirms my faith in Islam because Jesus' importance is undeniable but the Quran explicitly denounces his divinity.

For me, the importance of Jesus has nothing to do with his divinity or non-divinity. It has to do with his message of non-violence and loving your enemies. I know Muslims are always trying to convert people by saying "Muslims believe in Jesus too, just not that he's divine." For me, however, it's all about the message. I've read the Koran and the Koranic message of retribution and eye-for-eye (which Jesus got rid of) is not a Jesus I could follow.

I just said it reaffirms MY faith, but you managed to twist this around into proselytizing. Do I need to follow up every post about Jesus with a disclaimer? Or should Muslims just be prohibited from mentioning Jesus? What do you expect us to do?

Meh. If you weren't always talking about this particular issue, as you just agreed you do, then people wouldn't wonder about your motives.

[Anonymous]

The shroud is the only artifact in existence that nobody can replicate or figure out how it was created. The image of Christ is a photographic negative with 3dimentional properties and the pigment and method of creation is unidentifiable and impossible for humans to replicate scientifically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The shroud is the only artifact in existence that nobody can replicate or figure out how it was created. The image of Christ is a photographic negative with 3dimentional properties and the pigment and method of creation is unidentifiable and impossible for humans to replicate scientifically.

Making unsupported statements in a sincere way doesn't make them true -- and I doubt it convinces many people who are smart enough to know that if a shroud that covered Jesus had truly been authenticated, you wouldn't be hearing about it first on DCUM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it just affirms my faith in Islam because Jesus' importance is undeniable but the Quran explicitly denounces his divinity.

For me, the importance of Jesus has nothing to do with his divinity or non-divinity. It has to do with his message of non-violence and loving your enemies. I know Muslims are always trying to convert people by saying "Muslims believe in Jesus too, just not that he's divine." For me, however, it's all about the message. I've read the Koran and the Koranic message of retribution and eye-for-eye (which Jesus got rid of) is not a Jesus I could follow.

I just said it reaffirms MY faith, but you managed to twist this around into proselytizing. Do I need to follow up every post about Jesus with a disclaimer? Or should Muslims just be prohibited from mentioning Jesus? What do you expect us to do?

Meh. If you weren't always talking about this particular issue, as you just agreed you do, then people wouldn't wonder about your motives.

So what do you want of me or any/all Muslims? Are you saying we have no right to talk about Jesus unless we can expect to be accused of proselytizing?