Scientists say Turin Shroud is Supernatural !!!, page 12

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

---

The man depicted in the shroud is exactly how Jesus was depicted in Art post 4th Century BCE, he has European features and long hair. Regardless of how the majority of European and North American Art depicts Jesus he was a Jew and had features that were common to this area, not European features. He did not have long flowing hair if Jesus existed he would have looked like all other men of this period and for Jewish men did not have long hair as it was seen as unacceptable and an affront to God. If you choose to believe the Bible (John 8:59 and Luke 8.30) it states that Jesus looked like all the other men of this period and was able to blend into a crowd, this would never had been possible if he had long flowing hair and everyone else had short hair !

Arab men of this period did not look European and it is insulting to try and depict them as such, it just seems that a lot of Christians have problems with a supposed Saviour who was not white or fair skinned. When Christianity began to take over as the majority religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th Century Jesus was depicted very much as a God the people were familiar with (Zeus with flowing hair, Serapis etc) so that the illiterate masses could look at a depiction and know who it was and that he was a God.

Do I know how the Shroud was made and could I make one ? - probably not but that does not make it a miracle, I don't know how a 747 'plane is built and could not replicate one but that is not a miracle either.

I suppose faith is all about ignoring facts and believing the unbelievable but it is insulting to those of us who actually use our brains (God given or otherwise !) to spout a lot of drivel that is neither historically or Scientifically correct to try and prove a Medieval fake is genuine.

For those interested, a relatively new documentary on the Turin Shroud is available on Youtube.

The upload date is Aug. 2011 and it's called: Shroud of Turin - New Evidence.

It provides a good overview on the continuing scientific and archeological inquiry into this intriguing cloth.

I tend to lean towards a very brilliant hoax, but it is still a powerful christian icon, much like other paintings and sculptures found all over Europe.

reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac

---

Have any Scientists actually come out saying they know how the pyramids were made so accurately and in such a short space of time and can prove it? As far as I know, and I have researched the Pyramids extensively, the pyramids still baffle the best scientists and archaeologists we have.

For instance the tunnel at the bottom of the Great Pyramid, which stretches underground for an unknown distance and is still being explored, should have been impossible for the Egyptians to build with their primitive technologys. The only way we could recreate a tunnel of such length going to such great depth would be with the highest spec drilling machinery using lasers etc.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

---

No way is it a medieval hoax they didn't even have the technology to make such a thing back then.

I think you'd be surprised by the tricks real Alchemists had up their voluminous sleeves, back in the day.

Did you read the article? Scientists have proven that there is no way that could of created this in medieval times. Some how I don't think even the best Alchemists had high-intensity ultra violet lasers back in those days.

edit on 22-12-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

No they haven't. Straight-up lie right there you just told. Scientists haven't proven anything of the sort. They weren't alive in medieval times so how would they know? Just like we have to guess what made the dinosaurs extinct, we have to guess about this particular subject.

My biggest fear in the world are "scientists" calling something supernatural because it is a "science" they don't fully understand yet.

reply to post by SaturnFX

---

You know...as absurd as that sounds....it actually makes some sense

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by SaturnFX

---

You know...as absurd as that sounds....it actually makes some sense

Well, it is consistent with what the findings are. I read through the wiki and some other random links discussing the "peculiar" nature of it...basically, its uv bursting, replicated by a laser beam..and a magnifying glass

..since they didn't have good lasers back then...
Just not sure where the "they didn't have the tech back then" argument came from...sure, they didn't have a laser beam..but they did have all sorts of mag glasses and possibly was a fun art form (if a bit subtle)

Also it is consistent with the european artistic rendition of what they wanted Christ to look like (a nord).

Alternatively, if we are going to go with it being supernatural..perhaps it was just a vampire left out in daylight covered by only a thin cloth

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

---

Why is it you Christians always cry supernatural when there's something you can't explain. This whole posting is B.S. for several reasons. 1. You can't spell correctly and there should be an intelligence level required to be able to use ATS to eliminate stories like yours. 2. The article NEVER said the word Supernatural. All they were stating is it would have been impossible for them to create it. 3. Um, why does the shroud necessarily belong to Jesus? Couldn't any dead body laid out in the sun too long have produced the effect? How do they know it belonged to Jesus, THEY DON'T!! 4. Lastly, You only posted this article to argue with people. You have commented on everyone's argument for another option. You asked what we think, and then argue with us because you have some little man syndrome that needs to be right all the time. SO WHAT EVER!!

reply to post by jahn369

---

There are other choices besides "Religious or atheist" scientists you know. There are people like myself, a scientist, that is not a religious person, but also not an atheist. I approach each theory with an open mind no matter how ridiculous it sounds to me, because theories are what keep human ingenuity and intrigue alive. Also for every scientist when we are being trained we are taught that the goal of every theory is to disprove it, so write your theories with this in mind. The goal of science is progression of thought!

i'm sorry, but i have never been able to trust articles like this, thanks to the rise in scientific degree programs available at religious universities, such as these:
Biola University
Abilene Christian University

to cut it short, most can be found in a directory like the one below:
Christian Universities

to get to the point though, There are schools like this all over the world. I would look into the background of the scientists themselves, and where their respectable degrees are from, because if they did graduate from such a school, there would be too much bias already placed on the theory before studies even came to fruition (just my opinion, of course)

It would be like a nutritionist, who attended the University of McDonalds, producing an independant study that concluded Burger King is bad for you.
I call it hoax.

Originally posted by secretagentwomyn
reply to post by jahn369

---

There are other choices besides "Religious or atheist" scientists you know. There are people like myself, a scientist, that is not a religious person, but also not an atheist.

No, that is a simple sentence that doesn't understand the definition of a theist/atheist. People tend to write that to feel they are above everyone, when it only demonstrates their poor grasp of the terms.

Theist = Belief in a deity
Atheist = Non belief in a deity

Gnostic = Has knowledge
Agnostic= Has no knowledge.

So, for instance, I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know all the answers, but I do not believe in deitys (not that I cannot believe in them, just that there is no reason to believe in them because I do not have any evidence or knowledge of them...same with aliens from Zeta..don't believe in them, but they may be real, I just haven't found any proof yet, so until that time comes, I am going with..don't know, its a unicorn for now

Most people are Agnostic Theists..meaning they don't have proof, or any real evidence, but they believe in some sort of deity anyhow because they have been scared into believing in something, and its the social norm

Fundys are Gnostic Theists...they know there is a God because of (x).

So, you are either theist, or atheist. You are also either gnostic or agnostic.

Its hair splitting, I know..but the more this becomes muddied, the less people will fully understand what the concepts are in general...and the less people understand what an atheist is..which I suspect lots and lots of people are atheist at heart..just too confused or frightened to admit it..(I hear atheists are baby eating devils whom demand there are no gods)

its not just the shroud thats supernatual ..... look

look supernatual frying pan


look supernatual toast


and my personal favorate supernatual A-hole

Muslim group, Ansar al-Sunna, demand breakaway Islamic nation in Norway or another 9/11 threatened
  Posted 4 days ago with 41 member flags

New Testament Fairy Tales
  Posted 7 days ago with 25 member flags

Who Are The "Synagogue of Satan", The "Jews" Who Are Not Jews", Mentioned In Revelation?
  Posted 7 days ago with 24 member flags

A Brief Rant On Religion
  Posted 2 days ago with 24 member flags

The Star of David is not a Jewish symbol. The seal of Solomon is a tool of Jinn control.
  Posted 7 days ago with 23 member flags

Obama has declared himself the messiah?
  Posted 3 days ago with 13 member flags

Pastor who "kicked" Holy Spirit into woman banned from UK! Religious discrimination?
  Posted 18 days ago with 8 member flags

Catholic TV Star, the Rev. Benedict Groeschel, Defends Child Sex Abusers
  Posted 12 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: