tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post2952964329188480029..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: Shroud: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-73815994464183194982014-10-12T20:29:36.308+08:002014-10-12T20:29:36.308+08:00[continued]
The Shroud is PROOF beyond REASONABLE...[continued]<br /><br />The Shroud is PROOF beyond REASONABLE doubt that the atheist/agnostics' worst nightmare will INEVITABLY HAPPEN. That is, Christianity is TRUE and we will all stand before Jesus (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/nvkerdq" rel="nofollow">Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5</a>) to give account of how we have spent our lives, either in His service or in rebellion against Him. There is no third option (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ksggwfb" rel="nofollow">Mt 12:30; Lk 11:23</a>). <br /><br />This morning at church we sang the sweet song, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/pyjqfgk" rel="nofollow">Come, now is the time to Worship</a>" which contains for the non-Christian, his/her worst nightmare:<br /><br />"One day every tongue will confess You are God.<br />One day every knee will bow.<br />Still the greatest treasure remains for those<br />Who gladly choose You now!"<br /><br />This is based on <a href="http://tinyurl.com/kvfkley" rel="nofollow">Isa 45:23</a>, where Jehovah predicts of Himself: <br /><br />"By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: `To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’"<br /><br />but which the Apostle Paul applied to Jesus in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ox6nwmf" rel="nofollow">Php 2:9-10</a>:<br /><br />"9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,"<br /><br />Thus proving that it was <a href="http://tinyurl.com/kbk8x23" rel="nofollow">JEHOVAH GOD THE SON, come in the flesh as Jesus</a> (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/l5w8z6w" rel="nofollow">Jn 1:1,14</a>) who allowed Himself to be humiliated and tortured on the Cross to pay the price for the sin of all and procure the salvation of all who believe in Him (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/q3332yk" rel="nofollow">Jn 3:16-18; 2Cor 5:19-21</a>).<br /><br />This is what the writer of Hebrews meant when he wrote in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/lr9vt32" rel="nofollow">Heb 2:3</a>:<br /><br />"how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?"<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />---------------------------------<br />Reader, if you like this my <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin </a> blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank" rel="nofollow">Google PageRank</a> number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-8552660093788191802014-10-12T17:43:59.141+08:002014-10-12T17:43:59.141+08:00[continued]
>The only honest atheist I came ac...[continued]<br /><br />>The only honest atheist I came across in all my discussions with them , ended up becoming an agnostic after being exposed to the evidences .<br /><br />He is the rare exception, but even then he has not yet become a Christian. Most atheist/agnostics, in my experience from debating Creation/Evolution/Design on the Internet against all comers from 1994-2005, emotionally DISLIKE God, rather that DISBELIEVE in Him:<br /><br />"Hopping around their web world, one quickly gets the impression that there are two basic types of atheist. The first is the sincere, scholarly atheist, the type who walked away from the Unitarians when they got too evangelical. The Maine Atheists Union typifies this bunch. They want to `think freely' and `live free,' and one of their main precepts reads: `Nobody has all of the answers and nobody ever will. Take the time to get as close as possible to the truth.' The other group is like Orwell's embittered specimen from `Down and Out in Paris and London,' `the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him.' These shrill types can be found in places like MSN's God is a Lie! chat community and, of all places, high school. ... What do they all have in common? For one thing, a preoccupation with Christianity. Look around the precincts of atheism and you'll see lots of slogans like `The Religious Right is neither,' but you'll never see `Taoism is for dummies.' Or, for that matter, much anti-Judaism or anti-Islam sentiment ..." (Last, J.V., 2002, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/o4jxgk7" rel="nofollow">You Gotta (Dis)Believe</a>," <i>Weekly Standard</i>, 30 July).<br /><br />This is borne out by the God they are against is not that of "Taoism" but of "Christianity." That is, the atheists' `body language' shows that they KNOW, in their hearts that the Judeo-Christian God IS, or at least MIGHT be, true and they don't WANT that! <br /><br />This was even admitted by a leading atheist philosopher, <a href="http://tinyurl.com/bzj846" rel="nofollow">Thomas Nagel</a>, who confessed to "being strongly subject to" the "fear of religion" (that is a fear of "God"), and who stated, "I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A GOD":<br /><br />"The thought that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental makes many people in this day and age nervous. I believe this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life. In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper-namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that." (Nagel, T., 1997, "The Last Word," p.130).<br /><br />But NOT WANTING the Christian God to be true, does not thereby MAKE Him not true!<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-31181615859234891232014-10-12T17:28:45.135+08:002014-10-12T17:28:45.135+08:00Bippy123
>... this is exactly the same thing t...Bippy123<br /><br />>... this is exactly the same thing that happened to me while I was debating an atheist ... I presented many of the great evidences ... and after 3 days of this he couldn't deal with the evidences and resorted to the ole guilty by association game that this posted just used.<br /><br />As the Wikipedia quote above says, this is just an EMOTIONAL (not a rational) argument. Logically it makes no sense that because MOST Roman Catholic claimed relics are fakes, therefore ALL of them are. But unfortunately most people are swayed by this Association Fallacy.<br /><br />Even I was, as I mention in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/kv42gqn" rel="nofollow">my 2007 first post to this blog</a>:<br /><br />"Before then [January 2005] I knew very little about the Shroud and, to the extent that I thought about it at all, I assumed it was just another medieval fake relic."<br /><br />>All of those other ones were exposed as fakes , but there is a reason why the shroud is one if the most scientifically studied objects on earth .<br /><br />Agreed. But the Vatican's policy of refusing to confirm or deny which of its thousands of relics are authentic, including the Shroud, doesn't help. Presumably it does this because otherwise it would then have to admit that most of its relics are fakes. <br /><br />But lumping the Shroud in together with other medieval fakes, creates a problem for the Shroud sceptic. As Wilson points asks of the Shroud's claimed medieval forger: <br /><br />"[why should] this unknown individual ... have gone to so much ... effort to deceive in an age in which ... a large proportion of the populace would have been very easily duped by a feather of the Archangel Gabriel ...?":<br /><br />"Thus it was that on the morning of 14 October 1988 most of the world woke up to newspaper headlines - by no means always front-page news - that the Shroud had been `proven' to be a mediaeval fake. ... On the same day <i>Independent</i> newspaper journalists Michael Sheridan and Phil Reeves cheerfully linked the Shroud to other products of `mediaeval tricksters' such as 'a feather from the Archangel Gabriel ... the last breath of St Joseph, several heads of St John the Baptist',' rather as if the Shroud were in the same mould as these and that its fraudulence should all along have been obvious to everyone. ... Of course, even if he [a medieval forger] had managed all this, how he managed to get the image onto the cloth still remains unexplained. Also is it not rather incredible that this unknown individual should have gone to so much trouble and effort to deceive in an age in which, as twentieth-century journalists have reminded us, a large proportion of the populace would have been very easily duped by a feather of the Archangel Gabriel or a phial of the last breath of St Joseph?" (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud,"1998, pp.7-8, 60).<br /><br />>This is what separates it from all of those other fake relics . It has withstood the test of time and it keeps getter better .<br /><br />Agreed. As I have posted before, the RC Church tacitly admits that the Shroud is one of its few authentic relics (others include the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/4ha6c3c" rel="nofollow">Sudarium of Oviedo</a> and possibly the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/lz6hlre" rel="nofollow">Crown of Thorns</a> and the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/nswozxt" rel="nofollow">Tunic of Argenteuil</a>) because of the MANY MILLIONS of dollars equivalent it has spent housing, protecting, preserving, restoring and exhibiting the Shroud.<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-29632303508145672162014-10-12T13:06:41.205+08:002014-10-12T13:06:41.205+08:00Stephen this is exactly the same thing that happen...Stephen this is exactly the same thing that happened to me whje I was debating an atheist from yahoo answers on the shroud . I presented many of the great evidences that you have tirelessly researched and posted here , and after 3 days of this he couldn't deal with the evidences and resorted to the ole guilty by association game that this posted just used .<br /><br />All of those other ones were exposed as fakes , but there is a reason why the shroud is one if the most scientifically studied objects on earth .<br /><br />This is what separates it from all of those other fake relics . It has withstood the test of time and it keeps getter better .<br /><br />The only honest atheist I came across in all my discussions with them , ended up becoming an agnostic after being exposed to the evidences .<br /><br />Hope all is ok with you and ur family my friend <br />God bless <br />BippyBippy123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-64725805387225823282014-10-08T07:38:10.584+08:002014-10-08T07:38:10.584+08:00Anonymous
>I am sorry but if " Cross, nai...Anonymous<br /><br />>I am sorry but if " Cross, nails, lance, sponge, reed, crown of thorns, sindon, and sandals ." we exposed, then it was certainly fake objects sold by crooks.<br /><br />No. This is an example of the "Association Fallacy":<br /><br />"Association fallacy ... An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy" rel="nofollow">Association fallacy</a>," Wikipedia, 30 August 2014).<br /><br />AKA "Guilt by Association Fallacy":<br /><br />"Guilt by Association. Alias: Bad Company Fallacy ... Guilt by association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it. This is the reverse of an appeal to misleading Authority, which argues in favor of an idea based upon associating a favored person or group with the idea, whereas guilt by association argues against an idea based upon associating it with a disfavored person or group." ("<a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html" rel="nofollow">Guilt by Association</a>," <i>The Fallacy Files</i>, 2 January 2014).<br /><br />But the <i>sindon</i> can be authentic (and the evidence is OVERWHELMING that it is) and all the other claimed relics can be (and the evidence is that they were) fakes.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-85967168834546711252014-10-08T01:50:49.270+08:002014-10-08T01:50:49.270+08:00"...ordered to be exposed the relics of the s..."...ordered to be exposed the relics of the saints, the most precious evidence of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is the .."[70].<br /><br /><br />In the accompanying French text the sindon was further described as:<br /><br />"...the cloth which is called the sisne [Old French variant of sindon[71]] in which he was wrapped ..." [72].<br /><br /><br />This can only be the Shroud, 89 years before the earliest 1260 date of the 1988 radiocarbon dating[73]!<br /><br />I am sorry but if " Cross, nails, lance, sponge, reed, crown of thorns, sindon, and sandals ." we exposed, then it was certainly fake objects sold by crooks.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com