Incontrovertible Proof the Jesus Rose from the Grave

tbeachhead

tbeachhead

Well-known member
I just wrote this in another thread in answer to Mike T, who claims that there is no evidence of the Resurrection.

In fact there is indeed incontrovertible evidence for the resurrection:

What do you know of the most recent studies of shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo? If your knowledge dates from 1988 where Faucian "scientists" faked a Carbon 14 dating of a medieval border of the shroud and published a date from the Middle Ages, that has been proven an egregious fake. Most recent dating using 21st century technology dates the shroud to the first century.

In fact, what you actually have is photographic evidence of a Jew who was crucified in the first century being raised from the dead. A single artifact destroys your bluster, if you have a shred of interest and a willing and honest mind.

We have:
  1. The Shroud--made from quality 1st century linen and a 1st century weave.
  2. The pollen dates the shroud to the 1st century, and includes flora that has since gone extinct.
  3. The image on the shroud is of a crucified Jewish man, 5'11" tall, whose body was pummeled with a Roman flagellum, and whose had was crowned, not with a wreath of thorns, but with a full cap of thorns of a species identifiable and indigenous to Jerusalem and vicinity.
  4. The blood stains saturate the fabric, and the blood type is AB+, a very rare type, but for the Jews of Judea.
  5. The image is not pigment, but the effect of extremely intense UV light pulses that left an image of a person in motion, as he awakens. (There are multiple images of the coins on the eyes as the body moves.)
  6. The image is found ONLY on the surface of the linen in the topmost fibers. It could be scraped off with ease.
  7. On the image, the coins on the eyes, holding the cadaver's eyes closed, are 1st century "widow's mites" identifiable by any nusmismatist familiar with the coinage of Pontius Pilate's day.
  8. On the image, a phylactery is identifiable on his right arm.
  9. The person depicted is wearing a pendant with writing that is clearly written in 1st century Aramaic/Hebraic script. The actual inscription is being debated...
  10. The Sudarium of Oviedo is purported to be the head cloth of which John spoke in his eyewitness account of the first run to the tomb, that was found folded beside the "linen strips."
  11. The history of the Sudarium dates back to the seventh century, and the DNA provides the same traces back to Jerusalem.
  12. The Sudarium has been dated to the first century.
  13. The Sudarium is saturated with blood of the same type as that on the shroud.
  14. There is no image on the Sudarium, but the blood stains perfectly match the blood stains at the head of the shroud, though there is no evidence that the paths of the two cloths have ever crossed since the day Jesus rose from the dead.
If you have said there is no evidence, you are and have always been wrong. The evidence is there for anyone who cares about his own destiny, and the choice he has to make. Jesus, as it turns out, took the world's first selfie for your sake and for your enjoyment.
 
tbeachhead said:
I just wrote this in another thread in answer to Mike T, who claims that there is no evidence of the Resurrection.

In fact there is indeed incontrovertible evidence for the resurrection:

What do you know of the most recent studies of shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo? If your knowledge dates from 1988 where Faucian "scientists" faked a Carbon 14 dating of a medieval border of the shroud and published a date from the Middle Ages, that has been proven an egregious fake. Most recent dating using 21st century technology dates the shroud to the first century.

In fact, what you actually have is photographic evidence of a Jew who was crucified in the first century being raised from the dead. A single artifact destroys your bluster, if you have a shred of interest and a willing and honest mind.

We have:
  1. The Shroud--made from quality 1st century linen and a 1st century weave.
  2. The pollen dates the shroud to the 1st century, and includes flora that has since gone extinct.
  3. The image on the shroud is of a crucified Jewish man, 5'11" tall, whose body was pummeled with a Roman flagellum, and whose had was crowned, not with a wreath of thorns, but with a full cap of thorns of a species identifiable and indigenous to Jerusalem and vicinity.
  4. The blood stains saturate the fabric, and the blood type is AB+, a very rare type, but for the Jews of Judea.
  5. The image is not pigment, but the effect of extremely intense UV light pulses that left an image of a person in motion, as he awakens. (There are multiple images of the coins on the eyes as the body moves.)
  6. The image is found ONLY on the surface of the linen in the topmost fibers. It could be scraped off with ease.
  7. On the image, the coins on the eyes, holding the cadaver's eyes closed, are 1st century "widow's mites" identifiable by any nusmismatist familiar with the coinage of Pontius Pilate's day.
  8. On the image, a phylactery is identifiable on his right arm.
  9. The person depicted is wearing a pendant with writing that is clearly written in 1st century Aramaic/Hebraic script. The actual inscription is being debated...
  10. The Sudarium of Oviedo is purported to be the head cloth of which John spoke in his eyewitness account of the first run to the tomb, that was found folded beside the "linen strips."
  11. The history of the Sudarium dates back to the seventh century, and the DNA provides the same traces back to Jerusalem.
  12. The Sudarium has been dated to the first century.
  13. The Sudarium is saturated with blood of the same type as that on the shroud.
  14. There is no image on the Sudarium, but the blood stains perfectly match the blood stains at the head of the shroud, though there is no evidence that the paths of the two cloths have ever crossed since the day Jesus rose from the dead.
If you have said there is no evidence, you are and have always been wrong. The evidence is there for anyone who cares about his own destiny, and the choice he has to make. Jesus, as it turns out, took the world's first selfie for your sake and for your enjoyment.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church doesn’t even recognize the Shroud of Turin as an authentic relic.

Beyond that, there in undeniable scientific evidence of its origins in the Middle Ages, even if you try to dismiss that as some huge conspiracy. A conspiracy that makes absolutely no sense.
 
Backup said:
The Catholic Church doesn’t even recognize the Shroud of Turin as an authentic relic.
Click to expand...
And the "catholic" church is the judge of what, exactly?

Since when do you lend the Catholic Church credence?

Beyond that, there in undeniable scientific evidence of its origins in the Middle Ages, even if you try to dismiss that as some huge conspiracy. A conspiracy that makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...
No...there isn't, and you're only proving your own ignorance.

All the latest research proves the fraud of the "scientists" who "dated" it in the eighties.
 
tbeachhead said:
And the "catholic" church is the judge of what, exactly?

Since when do you lend the Catholic Church credence?

No...there isn't, and you're only proving your own ignorance.

All the latest research proves the fraud of the "scientists" who "dated" it in the eighties.
Click to expand...
I looked up this new dating you mentioned. Generally considered bogus and not substantiated.

This might be hard for you to grasp, but the Catholic Church are much more likely to be biased in favor of the shroud’s authenticity than to be part of a huge, international conspiracy to make themselves look stupid.
 
tbeachhead said:
Incontrovertible Proof the Jesus Rose from the Grave
Click to expand...
First, you need incontrovertible proof that Jesus was dead, and not in a deep coma, when placed in the grave. Without "incontrovertible proof" of death, there is no incontrovertible proof of the resurrection. Recovery from a deep death-like coma will have appeared miraculous in 30 AD, but today we know that it is not. It is unusual, but not miraculous.

Your reliance on Catholic relics is also very controvertible, there were over a dozen 'Holy Foreskin' relics at one time. IIRC, if you add up the weight of the wood in all the 'True Cross' relics in various churches, the original must have weighed over a ton.
 
tbeachhead said:
I just wrote this in another thread in answer to Mike T, who claims that there is no evidence of the Resurrection.

In fact there is indeed incontrovertible evidence for the resurrection:

What do you know of the most recent studies of shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo? If your knowledge dates from 1988 where Faucian "scientists" faked a Carbon 14 dating of a medieval border of the shroud and published a date from the Middle Ages, that has been proven an egregious fake. Most recent dating using 21st century technology dates the shroud to the first century.

In fact, what you actually have is photographic evidence of a Jew who was crucified in the first century being raised from the dead. A single artifact destroys your bluster, if you have a shred of interest and a willing and honest mind.

We have:
  1. The Shroud--made from quality 1st century linen and a 1st century weave.
  2. The pollen dates the shroud to the 1st century, and includes flora that has since gone extinct.
  3. The image on the shroud is of a crucified Jewish man, 5'11" tall, whose body was pummeled with a Roman flagellum, and whose had was crowned, not with a wreath of thorns, but with a full cap of thorns of a species identifiable and indigenous to Jerusalem and vicinity.
  4. The blood stains saturate the fabric, and the blood type is AB+, a very rare type, but for the Jews of Judea.
  5. The image is not pigment, but the effect of extremely intense UV light pulses that left an image of a person in motion, as he awakens. (There are multiple images of the coins on the eyes as the body moves.)
  6. The image is found ONLY on the surface of the linen in the topmost fibers. It could be scraped off with ease.
  7. On the image, the coins on the eyes, holding the cadaver's eyes closed, are 1st century "widow's mites" identifiable by any nusmismatist familiar with the coinage of Pontius Pilate's day.
  8. On the image, a phylactery is identifiable on his right arm.
  9. The person depicted is wearing a pendant with writing that is clearly written in 1st century Aramaic/Hebraic script. The actual inscription is being debated...
  10. The Sudarium of Oviedo is purported to be the head cloth of which John spoke in his eyewitness account of the first run to the tomb, that was found folded beside the "linen strips."
  11. The history of the Sudarium dates back to the seventh century, and the DNA provides the same traces back to Jerusalem.
  12. The Sudarium has been dated to the first century.
  13. The Sudarium is saturated with blood of the same type as that on the shroud.
  14. There is no image on the Sudarium, but the blood stains perfectly match the blood stains at the head of the shroud, though there is no evidence that the paths of the two cloths have ever crossed since the day Jesus rose from the dead.
If you have said there is no evidence, you are and have always been wrong. The evidence is there for anyone who cares about his own destiny, and the choice he has to make. Jesus, as it turns out, took the world's first selfie for your sake and for your enjoyment.
Click to expand...
Irrespective of any issues relating to its date, how does this shroud prove the resurrection?

Shrouds are cloths used to wrap the bodies of the dead, so at best, the image on the shroud represents a dead body.
 
tbeachhead said:
I just wrote this in another thread in answer to Mike T, who claims that there is no evidence of the Resurrection.

In fact there is indeed incontrovertible evidence for the resurrection:

What do you know of the most recent studies of shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo? If your knowledge dates from 1988 where Faucian "scientists" faked a Carbon 14 dating of a medieval border of the shroud and published a date from the Middle Ages, that has been proven an egregious fake. Most recent dating using 21st century technology dates the shroud to the first century.

In fact, what you actually have is photographic evidence of a Jew who was crucified in the first century being raised from the dead. A single artifact destroys your bluster, if you have a shred of interest and a willing and honest mind.

We have:
  1. The Shroud--made from quality 1st century linen and a 1st century weave.
  2. The pollen dates the shroud to the 1st century, and includes flora that has since gone extinct.
  3. The image on the shroud is of a crucified Jewish man, 5'11" tall, whose body was pummeled with a Roman flagellum, and whose had was crowned, not with a wreath of thorns, but with a full cap of thorns of a species identifiable and indigenous to Jerusalem and vicinity.
  4. The blood stains saturate the fabric, and the blood type is AB+, a very rare type, but for the Jews of Judea.
  5. The image is not pigment, but the effect of extremely intense UV light pulses that left an image of a person in motion, as he awakens. (There are multiple images of the coins on the eyes as the body moves.)
  6. The image is found ONLY on the surface of the linen in the topmost fibers. It could be scraped off with ease.
  7. On the image, the coins on the eyes, holding the cadaver's eyes closed, are 1st century "widow's mites" identifiable by any nusmismatist familiar with the coinage of Pontius Pilate's day.
  8. On the image, a phylactery is identifiable on his right arm.
  9. The person depicted is wearing a pendant with writing that is clearly written in 1st century Aramaic/Hebraic script. The actual inscription is being debated...
  10. The Sudarium of Oviedo is purported to be the head cloth of which John spoke in his eyewitness account of the first run to the tomb, that was found folded beside the "linen strips."
  11. The history of the Sudarium dates back to the seventh century, and the DNA provides the same traces back to Jerusalem.
  12. The Sudarium has been dated to the first century.
  13. The Sudarium is saturated with blood of the same type as that on the shroud.
  14. There is no image on the Sudarium, but the blood stains perfectly match the blood stains at the head of the shroud, though there is no evidence that the paths of the two cloths have ever crossed since the day Jesus rose from the dead.
If you have said there is no evidence, you are and have always been wrong. The evidence is there for anyone who cares about his own destiny, and the choice he has to make. Jesus, as it turns out, took the world's first selfie for your sake and for your enjoyment.
Click to expand...
By what means was the pollen dated to the 1st century? That I haven't seen.
 
Backup said:
I looked up this new dating you mentioned. Generally considered bogus and not substantiated.
Click to expand...
You didn't look it up. You'll have to do actual research.

Any claim to "bogus" has to explain
  • like stains on head cloth and shroud.
  • Identifiable coins on the eyes...and the technology "used" by the medieval genius that did it.
  • The oxidation of the fabric, produced by extreme UV radiation in the Middle Ages.
  • The DNA of flora from 1st Century Jerusalem that is now extinct and that was already extinct in the Middle Ages.
  • a phylactery faked by a medieval fraudster.
  • The matching bloodstains.

Any claim to "bogus" is proof of ignorance. The evidence is, as I've said, incontrovertible.

This might be hard for you to grasp, but the Catholic Church are much more likely to be biased in favor of the shroud’s authenticity than to be part of a huge, international conspiracy to make themselves look stupid.
Click to expand...
This might harder for you to grasp. Your bluster is proof of your ignorance. Nothing more. The Catholic Church has never been a bastion of scientific inquiry. Ever.
 
Algor said:
By what means was the pollen dated to the 1st century? That I haven't seen.
Click to expand...
It was in a report I read. Everything here is current. If you can't find it, let me know, and I'll find the report again. The summary of the report on CBN is a good one, and has references. I did this post from memory, because I was researching the shroud for the Resurrection this year. I was overwhelmed by the new discoveries from improved technology.
 
tbeachhead said:
It was in a report I read. Everything here is current. If you can't find it, let me know, and I'll find the report again. The summary of the report on CBN is a good one, and has references. I did this post from memory, because I was researching the shroud for the Resurrection this year. I was overwhelmed by the new discoveries from improved technology.
Click to expand...
OK. Tnx, I'll usethat and look around.
 
tbeachhead said:
You didn't look it up. You'll have to do actual research.

Any claim to "bogus" has to explain
  • like stains on head cloth and shroud.
  • Identifiable coins on the eyes...and the technology "used" by the medieval genius that did it.
  • The oxidation of the fabric, produced by extreme UV radiation in the Middle Ages.
  • The DNA of flora from 1st Century Jerusalem that is now extinct and that was already extinct in the Middle Ages.
  • a phylactery faked by a medieval fraudster.
  • The matching bloodstains.

Any claim to "bogus" is proof of ignorance. The evidence is, as I've said, incontrovertible.


This might harder for you to grasp. Your bluster is proof of your ignorance. Nothing more. The Catholic Church has never been a bastion of scientific inquiry. Ever.
Click to expand...
You claim is that this is proof of the resurrection, but it is, at best, documentation of a dead body.

Also, the Catholic Church learned its lesson from its wrong-headed opposition to Galileo.
 
vibise said:
Irrespective of any issues relating to its date, how does this shroud prove the resurrection?
Click to expand...
This is a good question, and I acknowledge that fact. Here's my off the cuff response, and let me k now what you think:

The shroud is
  • photographic evidence of a crucified Jew.
  • It was made by a light so intense that the technology does not exist today to produce a like image...a unified quality image of the whole body of a man, front and back, 5'11" tall, with constant intensity
  • The images of the coins are clear enough to be recognized and identified by a numismatist as the "widow's mite" of Jesus' day. These images are multiplied, indicating a pulsating light and movement as the body is rising, like a picture of a ballerina taken in a strobe light produces multiple images of the same dancer.
The light and the motion captured by the "selfie" are consistent with the claims of the resurrection, and they are incontestable. If you have a better explanation, remembering that this was produced in the first century, I'm open.

Shrouds are cloths used to wrap the bodies of the dead, so at best, the image on the shroud represents a dead body.
Click to expand...
Well...you've got the beginning of the resurrection in your conjecture. He was indeed dead until he arose.
This is what it would have looked like, with the shroud from feet to head to feet, and the Sudarium, like a pillow case over the bleeding head, with linen strips to hold it all in place. 00 Jesus wrapped in shroud.jpg
 
Last edited:
tbeachhead said:
You didn't look it up. You'll have to do actual research.

Any claim to "bogus" has to explain
  • like stains on head cloth and shroud.
  • Identifiable coins on the eyes...and the technology "used" by the medieval genius that did it.
  • The oxidation of the fabric, produced by extreme UV radiation in the Middle Ages.
  • The DNA of flora from 1st Century Jerusalem that is now extinct and that was already extinct in the Middle Ages.
  • a phylactery faked by a medieval fraudster.
  • The matching bloodstains.

Any claim to "bogus" is proof of ignorance. The evidence is, as I've said, incontrovertible.


This might harder for you to grasp. Your bluster is proof of your ignorance. Nothing more. The Catholic Church has never been a bastion of scientific inquiry. Ever.
Click to expand...
The 1988 examinations were legitimate.

I remember some poster on here used to claim that the “healings” at Lourdes was proof of the Christ myths.

You are clearly demonstrating conformation bias here. There are plenty of these kinds of “proofs” of the loch Ness monster and Bigfoot, too, if you are gullible enough.
 
tbeachhead said:
I just wrote this in another thread in answer to Mike T, who claims that there is no evidence of the Resurrection.

In fact there is indeed incontrovertible evidence for the resurrection:

What do you know of the most recent studies of shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo? If your knowledge dates from 1988 where Faucian "scientists" faked a Carbon 14 dating of a medieval border of the shroud and published a date from the Middle Ages, that has been proven an egregious fake. Most recent dating using 21st century technology dates the shroud to the first century.

In fact, what you actually have is photographic evidence of a Jew who was crucified in the first century being raised from the dead. A single artifact destroys your bluster, if you have a shred of interest and a willing and honest mind.

We have:
  1. The Shroud--made from quality 1st century linen and a 1st century weave.
  2. The pollen dates the shroud to the 1st century, and includes flora that has since gone extinct.
  3. The image on the shroud is of a crucified Jewish man, 5'11" tall, whose body was pummeled with a Roman flagellum, and whose had was crowned, not with a wreath of thorns, but with a full cap of thorns of a species identifiable and indigenous to Jerusalem and vicinity.
  4. The blood stains saturate the fabric, and the blood type is AB+, a very rare type, but for the Jews of Judea.
  5. The image is not pigment, but the effect of extremely intense UV light pulses that left an image of a person in motion, as he awakens. (There are multiple images of the coins on the eyes as the body moves.)
  6. The image is found ONLY on the surface of the linen in the topmost fibers. It could be scraped off with ease.
  7. On the image, the coins on the eyes, holding the cadaver's eyes closed, are 1st century "widow's mites" identifiable by any nusmismatist familiar with the coinage of Pontius Pilate's day.
  8. On the image, a phylactery is identifiable on his right arm.
  9. The person depicted is wearing a pendant with writing that is clearly written in 1st century Aramaic/Hebraic script. The actual inscription is being debated...
  10. The Sudarium of Oviedo is purported to be the head cloth of which John spoke in his eyewitness account of the first run to the tomb, that was found folded beside the "linen strips."
  11. The history of the Sudarium dates back to the seventh century, and the DNA provides the same traces back to Jerusalem.
  12. The Sudarium has been dated to the first century.
  13. The Sudarium is saturated with blood of the same type as that on the shroud.
  14. There is no image on the Sudarium, but the blood stains perfectly match the blood stains at the head of the shroud, though there is no evidence that the paths of the two cloths have ever crossed since the day Jesus rose from the dead.
If you have said there is no evidence, you are and have always been wrong. The evidence is there for anyone who cares about his own destiny, and the choice he has to make. Jesus, as it turns out, took the world's first selfie for your sake and for your enjoyment.
Click to expand...
How does any of this serve as evidence that any body that might have been wrapped in it, rose from the dead?
 
Backup said:
It was 3 different labs, all dating independently without communicating with each other.

It’s from the Middle Ages.
Click to expand...
Nope...The image does all the talking. You cannot fraudulently place 1st century coins in the negative image made by intense UV light on linen fabric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top