|
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 5:47
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] new dating for
Turin Shroud
Blaine Borrowman wrote:
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Thursday, April 08, 2004 11:36 AM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] new dating for Turin Shroud
Blaine Borrowman wrote:
Well and good comments,
Terry, but not everyone accepts the "givens" of religious belief as
we do. Since the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ are in one way
or other tied up with the shroud, it is a critical evidence of the reality
of the Savior's mission on the earth--not merely that he lived, died and
was buried--which is accepted by most. The negative image on the
shroud is believed by many scientists to have been caused by a burst of
radiation, since it shows bone structure as well as surface image of the
corpse. For instance, the left thumb of the man enwrapped in
the shroud was underneath the right hand, both being clasped
together, yet the shroud image shows the bone structure of that hidden
thumb. It shows bone structure throughout the body as well.
Blaine
Terry wrote: I appreciate your response Blaine, but I am still lost.
Would this prove that Jesus was radioactive? If
so, would that prove He was the
Messiah?
Terry
**Blaine writes: I am sorry
you are still lost Terry, some of us do seem to get lost easily.
(:>)
There is no
doubt a lot of confusion in the world today, especially regarding what does
or does not constitute proof. As far as proof is
concerned, however, I don't see that the visibility of bone
structure in the shroud image proves anything. For that
matter, science and religion, especially religion, seldom prove
anything. Would you agree with this?
Judging from my
observations, the best we usually get in science is support
for a point of view, or theory--and with regards to
religion, support for a belief. Those
scientists who tout the radiation point of view apparently feel the
visibility of bone structure on the Shroud of Turin supports their
belief that the negative images came about as the
body of Christ was being resurrected, the burst of radiation being part of
the resurrection process. No proof of this, of course,
just evidence that supports their belief system. If we want to believe
something bad enough, we can always find support for it, right? Some,
for example, want to believe grace without works is a part of the gospel of
Jesus Christ, so they find a few isolated passages to support this
feel-good belief. Boys (of all ages) who want to have sex with their
girlfriends, or view photos of naked women, find a few isolated passages in
the Bible, or lack thereof, to support their desire to do these
things, and then feel good about doing such. Same
difference, I think, what do you think, brother
Terry?
================================================================================
I
dunno Blaine. Seems to me that people who keep looking for proof are
a little confused. If we had all the facts, we would not be walking
in faith. I guess maybe they just think differently than I do.
I don't have to find the ark, or examine a shroud,
or feel the warm fuzzies, or have a near death experience. I have
just made up my mind to follow Jesus, and I have made up my
mind that the best way to do that is to know what the Bible says about
doing that.
Blaine: Yeah, that's how I feel about the Book of
Mormon. There is a lot of evidence, though, and it all fits.
Following the Book seems to really give me a beacon in a world darkened by
the traditional Belief System of the so-called Christian
Church. Now there is confusion, if you want
confusion!
I guess it would be nice in a weak moment to
have absolute proof of the truth, but then that would mean walking by
information, not faith. Blaine: Faith is the
substance of things not seem, as I recall it being defined. I would
think some information might be referred to as "substance." The
Bible itself is "substance," as are all things God has created. Am I
right on
this?
Just an afterthought. I think I would be troubled by a Savior that
glowed in the dark.
Terry
Blaine: I
don't recall even suggesting he glowed in the dark. But if he did, and I
was sure it was him, I would have no trouble with it. But I would need
some substantial evidence--as the scripture says, "prove all
things."
|
