MAN OF THE SHROUD

Various ^ | August 2002

[NYer]

The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern, twentieth century science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages.

Arguments against the Shroud's authenticity are prima facia, supported by carbon 14 dating and a prevailing view of the way things are in the world. On the other hand, the case for authenticity is a compelling preponderance of scientific and historic evidence. So daunting is the evidence that we can only wonder if, as  postmodernists suggest, "no such thing as objective truth exists, that historic reality is an inherently enigmatic and endlessly negotiable bundle of free-floating perceptions."1 The alternative is to consider, as C. S. Lewis contends: rare exceptions to nature are possible. 

On this hot and sultry day in August, I decided to post this thread for those who enjoy mystery, adventure and the thrill of discovery. There are many web sites devoted to this topic. I suggest you begin here:

SHROUD OF TURIN

[Jean Chauvin]

"Please send me your bank account number, a copy of your signature and a blank check. And, also, what's your daughter/sister doing tonight? Got a phone number? I have only the highest intentions! Trust me!"

I know RnMomof7 and I know Wrigley. I know their hearts for certain. I'd have no problems giving them such info.

You on the other hand....(I have no certain knowledge of the status of your soul [are you a true believer? -a 'public' profession wouldn't impress or convince me], therefore I have no reason to trust you.)

Let me ask you a question. Let's say that you were driving through the South Side of Chicago (you can ask Wrigley of his experiences there) and your car blew a tire. It's 11pm. You exit your car to change your tire and notice a gang of shady looking characters walking towards you. Would your anxiety (assuming your a normal human) be relieved if you found out they had just left a Young Men's Bible Study at their church?

I think you get my point!

Jean

[HumanaeVitae]

That's pretty funny. Human nature doesn't apply to you.

Define human nature.

Actually, don't. I'm still laughing at that original statement. Are your eyes normally glassy?

[HumanaeVitae]

"God is not 'really real'????? I don't follow you here."

And the world is of God? What, are you a pantheist?

I'm starting to believe I'm debating below my level...

Do you even understand what "non-falsifiability" means? I mean, seriously. I want to know what kind of intellectual level I am debating at.

[HumanaeVitae]

Have you ever heard of Laplace? Ever read any of the libertarian indeterminists? That would be no.

[Jean Chauvin]

"That's pretty funny. Human nature doesn't apply to you."

"Define human nature."

Well, since you had not bothered to define it and since you had blindly applied it to the natural tendency to lie/cheat/steal..., I identified 'human' nature as our 'sinful nature'. At our regeneration, our 'sinful' (human) nature is 'put off':

Ephesians 4:22-24
You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

Romans 7:5,6
For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Romans 7:17-25
As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Romans 8:5
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.

Romans 8:7-9
the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come.

So, what is ~your~ definition of human nature?

Attention Lurkers: Here we have a discussion between HumanaeVitae and myself regarding 'Human' nature. I want you to notice that Mr. Vitae has no desire to quote from Scripture. In fact, I and some others have been ridiculed by him for doing so. Rather, Mr. Vitae wishes to persuade my and other's opinions regarding the Truth of Scripture by refering to the authority of secular Philosophers such as the ancient Greek philospher Aristotle. I will let the lurker decide the wisdom of such an strategy.

Jean

[HumanaeVitae]

Actually, appealing to secular philosophers is no problem with me, at all.

What I am trying to demonstrate is that predestination, the foolish and well-refuted doctrine under contention, is completely falsifiable by reason. Something God gave us. I don't need Scripture. And if Scripture is so clear why are there 27,000 flavors of Protestants.

I appeal to secular philosophy because your version of determinism (predestination) has so many holes in it that it's simply the easiest way to go.

By the way, asking you to define human nature was purely rhetorical. But of course you've got your NKJV quotes all lined up, just like RNMom.

Finally, in regards to philosophy--if you're going to talk about determinism, you better realize you're outside the bounds of theology.

Attn Lurkers: Note this poster's imperviousness to logic, and his/her disdain therof. If you are as well impervious to logic, please turn off your CPU and continue communicating in a series of grunts and clicks.

[Jean Chauvin]

"And the world is of God? What, are you a pantheist?"

No, and I'm still not following you. And what does the statement "and the world is of God? have to do with whether or not God is 'really real'?

"I'm starting to believe I'm debating below my level..."

No, you've been down debating down their for quite some time. Quit looking down, I'm way up here in the 'reality' level. It's time you start making some sense.

"Do you even understand what "non-falsifiability" means?"

Sure, the 'inability' to prove that something is false. Therefore the 'non-falsifiability' of God would be the understanding that we are unable to 'prove' that God is 'false' (i.e. not real/ does not exist/ imaginary...)

Now tell me, what does that have to do with whether or not God ~is~ 'really real', as you say. Perhaps you could start by defining what it is to be 'really real'.

We are not having a discussion on the plausability of the ability to prove the existance of God (in which 'non-falsifiability' would be an applicable concept). We are ~assuming~ God exists. Thus, the need for proving the existance of God is completely irrelevant.

In other words, what's your point?

"I mean, seriously. I want to know what kind of intellectual level I am debating at."

I'd say your intellectual level needs to be cranked up several notches.

Jean

[JesseShurun]

Attn Lurkers: Note this poster's imperviousness to logic, and his/her disdain therof. If you are as well impervious to logic, please turn off your CPU and continue communicating in a series of grunts and clicks.

I'm probably the only lurker out tonight and not for long. I have read much of Aristotle and more of the Word. Reason is a mental understanding but faith is a spiritual understanding. Though Jean C. can react to you on your level, you cannot really converse with him on his, as spiritual knowledge is not something you can get or give yourself, and never will receive from above unless you open yourself up to an understanding of scripture.

[Jean Chauvin]

"Actually, appealing to secular philosophers is no problem with me, at all."

So, does the 'reason' of secular philosphers 'trump' scripture? Are we to interpret scripture in the light of secular philosophers?

"What I am trying to demonstrate is that predestination, the foolish and well-refuted doctrine under contention, is completely falsifiable by reason. Something God gave us."

Sure, God gave us reason (when yours will start to kick in is another question!). However, there are concepts which are 'beyond' reason and logic. The Trintiy is one of them. You admit this. Creatio ex nihilo is another. The Incarnation is another.

I'll run this simple 'logic' by you and see what you think:

Certain true concepts about God are concepts which are illogical, therefore, concepts which are illogical are not necessarily false.

"I don't need Scripture."

Well, nothing more needs to be said:

"And if Scripture is so clear why are there 27,000 flavors of Protestants."

If Catholocism is correct why are there 27,000,000 flavors of Catholics?

"By the way, asking you to define human nature was purely rhetorical. But of course you've got your NKJV quotes all lined up, just like RNMom."

For the third time, what is behind the comments regarding the NKJV? (Oh, and by the way, I was quoting from the NIV.)

"Finally, in regards to philosophy--if you're going to talk about determinism, you better realize you're outside the bounds of theology."

Actually, no. The great Protestant Reformer Philip Melanchthon was well known to appeal to secular philosophers. The fact that he took quite a similar position, albeit slightly different, on predestination (and just as illogical) might suprise you. The 'Great' Humansist Philosopher Erasmus raved about the cognative abilities of Melanchthon.

"Attn Lurkers: Note this poster's imperviousness to logic, and his/her disdain therof. "

Goodness! I love 'logic'. It is quite illogical for you to state that my presumption that Scripture trumps logic necessitates my 'disdain' for 'logic'. And speaking of computers, I happen to be a rather large endorser of RPN Logic!

Jean

[RnMomof7]

Any entity that would condemn innocent babies to "hellfire and damnation" is not God, but Devil.

I did not say I was condeming infants to hell...that is your opinion

I simply said babies are born in sin and they are sinners because of the fall of Adam...they are born in the spiritual image of their father Adam (That is why Jesus tells us we must be Born again)

  Gen 5:3   And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

How God deals with the eternity of infants that die is with His mercy and His wisdom and with His justice..I do not presume to tell God what is "fair" or "right" or good"

[RnMomof7]

I think I'll go back to debating atheists. At least they have the intellectual honesty to admit when they're contradicting themselves.

You are a spiritual light weight kid..you want to suck at the nipple and never use your teeth on meat.

Eithor you want to stretch yourself to grow or you want to stay a child

No one is saying you should or have to agree with us ..this is about mature debate and apologetics...This is the argument that was fought by your church fathers and ours..this is no small matter

Get involved and stop running

[RnMomof7]

What I am trying to demonstrate is that predestination, the foolish and well-refuted doctrine under contention, is completely falsifiable by reason. Something God gave us. I don't need Scripture. And if Scripture is so clear why are there 27,000 flavors of Protestants.

Says it all ..

[RnMomof7]

"I mean, seriously. I want to know what kind of intellectual level I am debating at."

Pro 16:18 Pride [goeth] before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

[RnMomof7]

Though Jean C. can react to you on your level, you cannot really converse with him on his, as spiritual knowledge is not something you can get or give yourself, and never will receive from above unless you open yourself up to an understanding of scripture.

You and I do not always agree...but on this we do...

[Right To Life]

...the fall of Adam...

Wasn't The Fall pretty much all Eve's fault?

"Here, Adam, eat, this apple!"

[Conservative til I die]

If Catholocism is correct why are there 27,000,000 flavors of Catholics?

A piss-poor attempt at a parallel. There is one Catholic teaching, one Catholic leadership. That is what we are talking about here.

[Jean Chauvin]

"A piss-poor attempt at a parallel. There is one Catholic teaching, one Catholic leadership. That is what we are talking about here."

Whether there is 'one' Catholic teaching or not, that is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the multitude of people who comprise the Catholic Church are ~not~ all of one 'accord'. In other words, the Catholic leadership can claim they are all of one accord (they aren't) and that there is one 'official' Catholic teaching (which changes from time to time), but the people in the pew are not 'of the same accord'.

Whether there are 2 different 'thoughts' pervading the laymen of the RCC or there are 27,000,000 -they are ~not~ of one accord.

What I have never understood from this common objection is how it ~proves~ that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. Doesn't the Mormon Church teach the same thing? Are they ~necessarily~ the one true church as well?

Jean

[RnMomof7]

"Here, Adam, ea the representative of mankind CHOOSE to sin

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Adam was the "test" vehicle.... and look at how he responded? It was the woman you gave me"...like all sinful men. looking for an out

[redhead]

Bumping