My last posting on the Shroud received all the same old tired and predictable responses.  Why are people afraid of the Shroud?  Anyone who would maintain the Shroud is a "painting" are either ignorant or biased (e.g.- Walter McCrone).  This has been proven to be an absurd impossibility.  The scientific community (not Christians) has determined that the carbon dating sample was flawed, and there are a number of other dating methods that point to it being from the 1st century.  Finally, Leonardo Da Vinci was a brilliant man...but was he able to accomplish what our technology can't?  Where did Leonardo supposedly get the 6 foot sheet of clear glass that he would need to even attampt such an act?  If this would work, why can't we duplicate it today?\n\nThe chances of the Shroud being a forgery appear to be nil.\nThe chances of the Shroud not belonging to Christ would seem to be the same.\n\nDo the math...\n\nwww.shroud.com\nwww.shroudstory.com\nwww.SkepticalSpectacle.com
126118
Are you afraid you might be wrong? You write off responses that don't agree with you as "the same old tired and predictable responses" yet give the same old tired and predictable arguments that it is genuine.\n\nPlus I would love to know what scientific community said the dating was flawed? (You are aware it was dated more then once)
231646
Why would someone concern themselves with theories when we have the Truth available to us. \n\n\nhttp://www.chick.com/information/general/salvation.asp
617997
It's absurd to believe that ANYTHING passed down for hundreds of years, and translated into hundreds of languages could be EXACTLY the way it was in it's original form. Not to mention that there are now different versions of the bible, King James Version, etc. \n\nLike now with all the hype over the Da Vinci code, people should ask questions and understand the origin of the religion that they believe so deeply in instead of just following it blindly.
337484
How does a person decide to look for a code in paintings? He is an artist too. Writing the code as he claims to find it. I believe the scrolls may be valid but not any code. Its a hoax.
65917
Well, since the Bible is referenced in historical texts, more than any other book, and the story of Jesus is told in the Bible, I think that is considered historical proof. These stories are not new. The concept of Jesus' existance is harder for the modern day person to believe because we are 2000 years removed from that time. However, several texts, scrolls, letters, etc. were written soon after the death and resurection of Christ. Also, do not forget that zealous Jewish priests were persecuting Christians in order to try and get them to deny the message of Christ. This went on for a long time, and yet, the message has survived until now...2000 years later. Is it possible that it is all made up? I suppose there is no 100% evidence that it existed. But then, can you 100% proove that your great (time 5) grandfather existed? If you never met him and no one alive on this earth ever met him, how can you "proove" he existed. The simple fact is, you can't. But you believe because 1) you have faith. and 2) all the evidence presented supports that he did exist. All the evidence supports the existance of Christ. \n\nI suggest you pick up a copy of the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroble. This presents the stories in a very "judicial" method. Giving the evidence and the opposing sides views and why the evidence supports the message of Christ.
37594
I looked at the reviews of the books you mentioned on amazon.com. From what I can tell, I am afraid they do not offer much in the way of solid technical arguments or new discussions or reasons that creationism or a young earth hypothesis must be chosen over the current dominant accepted theories. The "experts" in the book "In Six Days" offer little that has not been dismissed before as specious arguments. Unfortunately, although these 50 gentlemen have PhDs, they are offering opinions in areas well outside their areas of expertise, in most cases. Many of arguments violate well-known scientific principles and laws.  \n\nI do applaud the creationists for trying to compile books that state their arguments and reasoning. We definitely need more of these, and we need to approach this subject with more intellectual honesty and integrity than has been evidenced in the past. \n\nI myself feel I could write a far more compelling book supporting faith that would be far more careful, if I was so inclined. I feel more of a general awe of creation, somewhat similar to that of Einstein, or Thomas Jefferson, or Newton. \n\nIt is disappointing and disconcerting that so far, these kinds of products produced by the religious community have hurt more than they have helped, have discredited those of religious faith and cast them in a bad light. They have tended to lend support for the opposite point of view, and have not succeeded as intended I am sorry to say.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \n\nAddendum:\n\nYes I am being honest. I have often been struck by some of the most amazing structures in science when I have been doing scientific investigations or learning about science. Unfortunately, I did not keep notes. I think that this is where religious people should direct their attention if they want to grasp the incredible majesty of creation. And it has the advantage that it is beautiful in structure, and unassailable, and compltely scientifically rigorous. \n\nHowever, I am not sure how many people of faith want to undertake a 15+ year journey into abstruse mathematics and physics, or are willing to approach it with a completely open mind. In fact, what I would ask is, if one is absolutely sure of one's faith, then would it not make sense to allow science to continue to unravel the mysteries of nature? After all, if you are positive what the conclusion will be, let them bolster your arguments with facts. If I am not mistaken, this has been the Vatican's approach for some decades.
608747
Do you people not realize that "Jesus" was just a man like any other man. Historical facts. Let me guess, the bible? The word of "God"? What did they hold a press conference so that they could get all the facts from "Jesus" and print them in one "historically accurate book"? I don't think so. I'm sorry but the bible is nothing more than a person or group of peoples perspective on a point in time. \nJesus was a human being! He had needs and desires just like every one else. Religion doesn't want to admit that because what, it will make him seem less "God like"? \nI think you people need to re-read the book. Yes "The Da Vinci Code" is a work of fiction. But I believe that a lot of the historical premises is based in truth. To what extent I don't know. The same with the bible. There may be a lot of truth there, but just like so much other written history, facts get lost or changed to suit the intentions of the author. \nCall it what you will, but I like to believe that maybe, just maybe the bloodline of Christ still exist out there today. What would be so wrong with that?
361505
I don't know why they keep asking this question....it's rather annoying if you ask me. I think I'd fancy it much better if the questions about "if ghosts are real" stopped. If I never saw or heard of this question again it would be too soon! People also ask questions about Jesus too much...apparently they can't do their own damn research...
93946
Many of the hypotheses and conjectures proposed in the Da Vinci Code are not able to be proven.  However, it is a very interesting read and it has ignited a great deal of interest in history, travel and religion. Isn't that worth something?\n\nHere are some interesting comments regarding the religious aspects of the book:\n\nDa Vinci Code Movie on the Way!\nhttp://www.ubiquityinternational.com/drtom/2006/01/da-vinci-code-movie-is-on-its-way.htm\n\nDa Vinci Code Redux\nhttp://www.ubiquityinternational.com/drtom/2006/03/da-vinci-code-redux.htm
355722
I think anything is possible.  I mean, if we are to believe it was God's plan for immaculate cnception in the birth of Christ (which I am sure most of the ppl who answered on here, that DONT think this story could happen, believe it).  Why couldn't he also allow for a situation like this?  Do I believe it?  No.  But I don't believe in immacualte conception, either.  And just because MYTH BUSTER's does a story on it, doesn't make them the truth.  They were disputing a story and a concept.  But never did they actually attempt this experiment as it is described to see if it would work.
566969
News flash:  The last supper is not a photograph.  It was painted 1500 years after the event.  If it tells us anything at all, it tells us about what DaVinci believed but it does not tell us that his beliefs were correct.  Furthermore, the notion that he planted clues to his beliefs seems rather far-fetched to me.
663294
I am a Christian. Honestly, I don't think we'll ever know for sure. It is unlikely, but we'd all like to believe it. To me, though, in the end, it's really not all that important.\n\nFor you guys that say you don't know: \n\nThe shroud of Turin is supposedly the cloth that Jesus was wrapped in when he was put in the tomb. It was left after he ascended into heaven.
348411
I found this ,it may answer some of your questions.(these or not my writings)\n\nA would-be historian and wannabe scholar by the name of Hugh Schonfield who did a book titled something like, “In Search of Historic Jesus.” It didn’t take long to realize that this man was out to prove that the divine Jesus, the Son of God, didn’t exist, and that he – Schonfield – had an anti-God, anti-Faith agenda behind his writings. He made the outrageous supposition that “the early Church fathers may have rewritten some of the New Testament books and influenced others to rewrite the story of Jesus” despite a total absence of any historical or documentary proof to support such a thesis.\n\nAnother wannabe historian, Gary R. Habermas, took it even a step father with his claim that “the Gospels represent the teachings of the early church and not those of Jesus himself.” These kinds of spurious claims are johnny-come-lately efforts of liberals and leftists who neither know, nor have a relationship with Jesus Christ, nor have they ever even made an effort to personally put Jesus’ claims to the test.\n\nThat said, let’s examine some of the historical evidence that does exist. \n\nMany years ago, my father made reference to a volume of historical documents he had looked at when he was studying in Bible College. He later obtained a copy and sent it to me. The book was titled, The Archko Volume, and represented the culmination of many years of effort of two eminent scholars, Drs. McIntosh and Twyman of the Antiquarian Lodge in Genoa, Italy. Published in 1887, the work provided copies of writings and works taken from the Talmud and the Sanhedrin contemporary to the time of Christ, along with a copy of “Acta Pilati,” which was a report sent by Pontius Pilate – the Roman procurator or governor of Judaea – to Caesar detailing the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Some of the other documents included Gamaliel’s interview with Joseph and Mary concerning Jesus. Gamaliel, you may remember, was the Pharisee at whose feet Paul the apostle sat while he was yet a Pharisee, being instructed in the ways of the sect.\n\nThe Archko Volume also includes some documented reports of Caiaphas, the High Priest who presided over the Jewish trial and judgment of Jesus prior to His being brought before Pilate, as well as his report to the Sanhedrin concerning the resurrection of Jesus.\n\nAccording to the testimony of the two researchers and archeologists who came up with the documents, the sources of these documents were ancient libraries in Constantinople and the Senatorial Docket in Rome.\n\nWhen you read these documents, it provides an interesting perspective and an otherwise not-considered view of others who either participated in or observed events and people who were involved in some way with Jesus Christ.\n\nOne of the things often overlooked by those who seek to authenticate the historical Jesus is the fact that what we now refer to as the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written as personal testimonies of men who walked and talked with Jesus. These were eyewitness accounts. What makes them all the more intriguing is the fact that they were written at different times, in different places, and in three different languages (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic), and yet they agree with each other. Each of the writers has a distinct personality and a perspective that differs from the others; and that personality comes through in the writing style. Nevertheless, there is synoptic agreement between Matthew, Mark and Luke. \n\nJohn writes from a totally different perspective as Jesus’ best friend, and the majority of what he writes details the final week of Jesus’ life and what He taught before He was crucified.\n\nBut, let’s step away from the accepted canon for a moment and look at the works of historians who were contemporary to the time.\n\nPhilo Judaeus of Alexandria, Egypt was a contemporary of both Jesus and the apostle
592264
I took a class my freshman year in college called "Early Christian Writings"......Jesus the man did exist.....historically .....there is proof of it......but many things do not fall in line the way the Bible and Christian Theoligans would like to believe or preach.  E.g. he was born 6 BC.....six years than earlier thought...which would make this year...1991?.....Also..he was very open minded.....the missing years of his life when everyone else would like to believe he was making chairs in his father's workshop....he was in the east studying eastern religions.....which is why he is so openminded.   A lot of things he said were not his words originally.   E.g.  His Sermon on the Mount was a direct quotation from Moses.......from the first five books of the bible.....this was how "The Word" was passed down in those times....orally......teachers would walk around....and his students...or "disciples" would follow him as he recited these verses.   When people asked him "are you the son of God?"....he was like...."hello McFly???? we are all the sons of God"........so they killed him.....just because he wasn't a hyprocrite.....do I think he was the Son of God?....of course....we are all...just look around you....do I think he performed miracles?......yes!!! anything is possible through God......and I believe he is the same God for everyone...just called different names....Allah, God....etc...Does God exist???is there proof??? it depends on what you believe is proof....proof has many dimensions.......and I believe faith to be one of them...you can be an Atheist....but It feels so much better to believe in something....
312202
The only possible way to prove it was used on any particular person would be to have the DNA of that person and match it to DNA on the cloth. If that happened, it would prove it was not used on Jesus, or that Jesus was not resurrected and zoomed off to heaven.\n\nAs it stands, there is no objectively verifiable evidence proving Jesus (as depicted in the bible) even existed, much less was buried in a piece of cloth.\n\nThe Turin shroud is totally irrelevant except as a way for the Catholic church to get free publicity.
403803
Hayden, i am a religious studies major and among the things i am looking into right now is contemporary Christmas as compared to biblical Christmas.  it is so hard to know with the Christian bible if ppl mentioned are actually in it b/ of the translations..... as of yet, i have read nothing of Jeannette or Isabelle.\n\n**In its original form i have great respect for Christianity (although i am not Christian), but so many things have been lost and others picked up form diff cultures. the tree and the date are specifically from paganism. the snowman and such (wintery characters) actually originated here in the West. aside from the nativity scene which would be grossly incorrect historically, very little is taken from the bible.\n\n i would urge today's Christians to resume Christmas as it was intended. i think you have a beautiful faith and if you believe it to be from God then changing and adapting should not be necessary. moreover, Hayden may be slightly bold in the way he addresses his topics, but his challenges should only allow true Christians a chance to really learn their bible. It is a shame how much is believed by the majority of Christian ppl that is in fact untrue.\n\npeace and blessings to all\n\nps in response to your question....it was scriptural. and if you find anything interesting or if you'd like to see any of my research feel free to email me.
334542
Cutting and pasting this from an earlier question "Is there a god?" Easier than typing it all out again.\n\nNo. It's really a question that shouldn't even exist really, kinda like "What kind of shark repellant works best in Wisconson?" But sadly, millions of people think that it IS a question. Even sadder, millions more think that the answer is "yes," or at least pay lip service to the idea. Then they pass this mental illness on to their children.\n\nBy that reasoning at least, it could be considered a valid question, since apparently so many people seem to think that there IS some divine authority.\n\nI used to think that it was simply fear of death and herd instinct that kept this rather silly con-game going. For years I puzzled over just why otherwise intelligent people could swallow such unmitigated hogwash. Earlier this year, I found part of the answer in a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Dr. Julian Jaynes. Hell of a title, I know, but it's written in a very friendly style that any reasonably bright layman can follow.\n\nWhile I disagree with the title, it would be more accurate to call it the "Origin of Sentience," the essence of what Dr. Jaynes had to say is very logical and answers many questions about why humans act as they do when it comes to religion and other bad ideas. What follows is a gross oversimplification of the theory, but you'll get the gist.\n\nNot to put too fine a point on it, but the urge to blindly follow some higher authority, real or imagined, is a byproduct of the process by which humans developed a spoken language and started to live together in larger groups. When given a command, a tribe member would essentially hallucinate a version of his leader giving him the command to keep him busy at complex tasks. Primitive man wasn't so hot at grasping the concept of death, so when a tribal leader would die they would venerate the corpse as the source of the ideas rattling in their head. When the corpse rotted, they replaced it with an effigy of the leader, a permanent copy of him if you will, and worshipped that as they would have the leader when he was alive. As society became more complex, this led to the development of writing to make the "god's" commands even more permanent.\n\nJaynes theorized that at this time the two hemispheres of the brain weren't connected quite like they are these days, and that the "voice of god" was really just a hallucination provided by the brain's right hemisphere. Humans of this early era were not self-aware as we understand the concept, rather they operated mechanically on the hallucinated orders of thier internalized gods. Once civilization reached the point that different cultures were forced to interact, the bicameral way of life eventually broke down.\n\nThe breakdown of the bicameral thinking did not mean the end of gods, rather, it heralded the beginning of what we call religion today. Since men no longer had an interalized god to call upon, they were forced to invent external, invisible gods to take their places.\n\nLike I said, this was a gross oversimplification of Jaynes' work. But as one can see, the urge to follow something else is practically hard wired in to the human brain. Religion was a crutch to aid man in the transition from the bicameral state to full self-awareness and self-authorization. The problem we face these days is that humans have apparently never gotten past that stage en masse. Religion remains in the collective conciousness exactly in the same way that a virus lives in a computer network.\n\nNo, there are no gods, save those man creates. Heaven isn't up there, Mount Olympus is barren. There's no Santa Claus, tooth fairy, or monster under your bed either.\n\nAn earlier poster suggested that you "Read the Bible and the Qu'ran and follow the advice of the prophets and see if you f