The Bible and Christianity

[DrunkenDeath]

I wish I had something to say

Just enjoy the show

This is the first post I fully read in this topic...

[DrunkenDeath]

in debates like this, both sides say the other is wrong and there's no evidence and it's fantasy.


it's boring.

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

The thing about the Shroud of Turin is that its negative photographic image bears the face of Jesus. You can only see it in the negative, not just by looking at the Shroud.

There have been several cases of eucharistic miracles. In these, the host becomes real flesh.
Scientists studied it and found that it was striated cardiac muscle. The blood of the flesh was uncoagulated. The most striking fact is this: when the flesh was weighed whole, the weight was noted. The flesh was cut into 5 pieces and each piece was weighed individually. Each piece alone weighed the exact same as the whole piece did, indicating that the body of Christ cannot be separated.

Source?

- The Bomber

http://www.zenit.org/article-12933?l=english
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

[DrunkenDeath]

in debates like this, both sides say the other is wrong and there's no evidence and it's fantasy.


it's boring.

Mostly, but both are bringing up points and events I either forgot occurred and didn't know.

yeah but i've heard it all before.

[mrjizzbomber]

Oh man, where to begin.

So, in the eighth century this miracle occurred. Over one thousand years later the Church has a scientist examine the relics, which were kept in the cathedral for over one thousand years since the miracle. The church-hired doctor confirmed that the relics were actual flesh and blood.

Should I begin with the fact that flesh - even when BEST preserved, decays completely in a couple of hundred years (and I mean, this is complete mummification with flesh kept in ideal environmental conditions)?

Or that there is absolutely no way to verify the relics from the eighth century are the same relics that were given to this doctor? No way to verify those relics even still existed...

Or, should I give you a bone to chew on and go the conspiracy route, pointing out that this is a Catholic doctor in Rome appointed to do the examination by a high ranking official in the Catholic Church?

These findings are only found on Catholic websites. I even ran the doctors name through a search in a database of all scientifically credited journals, not a single publication.

It is not very hard to take what you are giving me and add it to my evidence that the Catholic Church is a lying, deceptive, evil organization, yada yada yada...

- The Bomber

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

Oh man, where to begin.

So, in the eighth century this miracle occurred. Over one thousand years later the Church has a scientist examine the relics, which were kept in the cathedral for over one thousand years since the miracle. The church-hired doctor confirmed that the relics were actual flesh and blood.

Should I begin with the fact that flesh - even when BEST preserved, decays completely in a couple of hundred years (and I mean, this is complete mummification with flesh kept in ideal environmental conditions)?

Or that there is absolutely no way to verify the relics from the eighth century are the same relics that were given to this doctor? No way to verify those relics even still existed...

Or, should I give you a bone to chew on and go the conspiracy route, pointing out that this is a Catholic doctor in Rome appointed to do the examination by a high ranking official in the Catholic Church?

These findings are only found on Catholic websites. I even ran the doctors name through a search in a database of all scientifically credited journals, not a single publication.

It is not very hard to take what you are giving me and add it to my evidence that the Catholic Church is a lying, deceptive, evil organization, yada yada yada...

- The Bomber

You're reaching for straws now.
In lieu of accepting the doctor's findings (which don't remotely prove God's existence in the first place), you attack his credibility as a physician.
That's why you find them on secular websites, because the non secular scientific community wants to hide the evidence.
Ah, the conspiracy theory works both ways, doesn't it?
And your "fact that flesh decays" observation is exactly the point: the impossible was made possible.
Also, this isn't the only documented case, it's just the most famous.
This time it is the atheist who ignores the scientific evidence of the supernatural...
tsk, tsk, tsk.

[mrjizzbomber]

Oh man, where to begin.

So, in the eighth century this miracle occurred. Over one thousand years later the Church has a scientist examine the relics, which were kept in the cathedral for over one thousand years since the miracle. The church-hired doctor confirmed that the relics were actual flesh and blood.

Should I begin with the fact that flesh - even when BEST preserved, decays completely in a couple of hundred years (and I mean, this is complete mummification with flesh kept in ideal environmental conditions)?

Or that there is absolutely no way to verify the relics from the eighth century are the same relics that were given to this doctor? No way to verify those relics even still existed...

Or, should I give you a bone to chew on and go the conspiracy route, pointing out that this is a Catholic doctor in Rome appointed to do the examination by a high ranking official in the Catholic Church?

These findings are only found on Catholic websites. I even ran the doctors name through a search in a database of all scientifically credited journals, not a single publication.

It is not very hard to take what you are giving me and add it to my evidence that the Catholic Church is a lying, deceptive, evil organization, yada yada yada...

- The Bomber

You're reaching for straws now.
In lieu of accepting the doctor's findings (which don't remotely prove God's existence in the first place), you attack his credibility as a physician.
That's why you find them on secular websites, because the non secular scientific community wants to hide the evidence.
Ah, the conspiracy theory works both ways, doesn't it?
And your "fact that flesh decays" observation is exactly the point: the impossible was made possible.
Also, this isn't the only documented case, it's just the most famous.
This time it is the atheist who ignores the scientific evidence of the supernatural...
tsk, tsk, tsk.

Or the validity of what the doctor was studying in the first place!

EVEN if I did accept that this doctor examined a sample and concluded it was flesh and blood, I would need to see evidence that the flesh and blood were 1200 years old.

EVEN if there was evidence that the sample of flesh and blood were 1200 years old, and there are ways to make those conclusions - tests that can be run - there's still no verification that the flesh and blood were originally bread and wine!

What I would need would be a sample of bread and wine, verified as bread and wine, to be converted into flesh and blood and subsequently confirmed to be flesh and blood. And all I am doing is demanding that these miracles and theology be held to the same standard that science is held to!

- The Bomber

[mrjizzbomber]

Oh, and if you think I am asking for too much, all I am asking for is real proof. I will take a quote from your own article...

"A Basilian monk, who had doubts about the real presence of Christ in the sacred species, was offering Mass, in a church dedicated to St. Legontian in the town of Lanciano. When he pronounced the words of the consecration, the host was miraculously changed into physical flesh and the wine into physical blood."

Your own article is claiming that to clear up doubt about the real presence of Christ, God performs miracles. Well then, now that we have both scientific tools to authenticate such a 'miracle' as well as documenting tools to preserve evidence of the action, lets see some miracles.

Kind of funny how as soon as we become capable to prove or disprove, as well as document miracles, they seem to stop happening. What, after the eighth century God ran out of juice? Or did he just become camera shy?

- The Bomber

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

How about this one: The blood is type AB. That's the same blood type found on Christ's shroud (not to mention the unexplainable image of Christ that's only shown in negative contrast (for which the technology to make that image appear on purpose wasn't even around in the late middle ages (which the cloth is scientifically proven at least older than that))).

Speaking of technology, it obviously wasn't there at the time for proper study in the early middle ages.

Plus, Edoardo Linoli and Ruggero Bertelli (both professors in anatomy and pathological histology and in chemistry and clinical microscopy) were NOT the first physicians or historians to study that particular piece of flesh.

It was studied in 1574, 1636, 1777, and 1886 before Linoli and Bertelli in 1971, and the same results were found each time (spanning almost 400 years in that period alone).

So... hopefully they'll take the flesh (yes, it's still on display) out of its glass case and do another study soon. Then we'll both be a little more satisfied.

But you have to admit- my arguments are a bit stronger than "you can't disprove...", aren't they?

EDIT: No, I cannot directly prove the miracle, but I do know that something is up with that piece of heart. That leads to a chain of thought...

And, no, I don't know if miracles happen for sure today. For all I know, they happen every day.

There have been cases of so-called "medical miracles" where the patient seems to magically recuperate, but no, those can never be proven as divine.

[mrjizzbomber]

According to the Wikipedia article (which I never like to use as my main source) on the Shroud, the issue with the AB blood type is that type AB blood originated hundreds of years after Christ's life. I feel like this goes against the notions that either the shroud or the flesh came from the time periods they were said to come from. My personal guess is that the cloth came from someone else who was crucified and buried many years after Jesus (many many people have been crucified over the years... even through the 1600s). But thats no more than a personal hunch.

I don't think the fact that the image appears clearly only in negative, in particular, is shocking. I'm not an image technician, but I feel like using an image's negative to create contrast is a common technique. The origin of the image itself, however, seems to remain very mysterious.

Now, all of that aside, if the Shroud were indeed the burial cloth of Jesus Christ and the image came about because of Jesus Christ's lying beneath it, I would not be surprised. I don't question the existence of Jesus Christ. And from what I gather he was truly a great martyr. Spreading word of love, peace, unity, and dying for his beliefs. Like I said earlier, I think his teachings had all the best intentions in the world. It was the fact that he was associated with a holy power that has allowed future people to use what he did as leverage to do horrible things. As a second point, there are several working theories as to how the image arose in the shroud, and if a body were laying under a piece of cloth for centuries I don't think there is anything too shocking that an after-image is left in the fabric. So I don't think theres anything too miraculous about that neither.

Either way, the fabric is a tremendously intriguing piece of history. If it were truly used to cover Jesus Christ, it might be the one of the most important relics of all history.

Sure, you're arguments are tremendously more satisfying than having me fail to disprove a negative. You still have not proved anything.

- The Bomber

[mrjizzbomber]

Mr. Isaac is not going to be happy with the direction this thread headed.

So I want to follow up my previous post with a second, even though double-posting seems to be unpopular here... clean slate.

I still hold my belief that Jesus Christ wanted to set up a religion of love and peace. The first hippie, if you will. And I think I have an overwhelming amount of history on my side that the Catholic Church has strayed far from his messages. I'm surprised no one has tried to justify the Crusades, as there were political and other reasons behind them, but the Witch Trials and Inquisition are inexcusable. Either way, they're not the only organization who has past horrors; America had slavery, Germany was a Nazi-run state, many cultures have scarred pasts. The thing about the Church is they are bound to return to the same set of scriptures, they have more than just a bad history to overcome.

As the most powerful (and richest) organization in the planet, can the future of the Catholic Church change? For example, can their principals change over time to meet modern demands? I will use one specific example - contraception. The AIDS crisis in Africa suffers from the Catholic Church's condemnation of condoms, causing millions to die unnecessarily. The world is a changing place, we have a black president, we are more tolerant and understanding than ever. Can the Church adapt in light of this? Will it only take a new Pope with a better grasp of the world of today, or does the entire organization need an overhaul? If the Church can not keep up, what are the possible ramifications?

- The Bomber

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

Because Christ never reproduced or had bloodwork done, I guess we'll never know in our lifetimes what type of blood he had.

But I suppose a virgin bearing a son would pass on an interesting genotype, if the virgin birth indeed happened.

That is, of course, not provable, although the Septuagint scholars maintain the veracity of their translation.

From a religious point of view, keep in mind that believing in God is NOT the primary basis of all Christianity (keeping with the thread's intention).

The biggest possible happening in Christianity and the following of Christ is his resurrection and ascension. That is what the entire religion is based on, more than the teachings of Christ, more than following the commandments, and more than belief in an omnipresent, all loving God. The teachings and commandments were merely tools of God advocated through His son, who became the witnessed example of its rewards by ascending into Heaven.

This is when the religion was born, after Christ's ascension was documented by its witnesses, not during Christ's teachings.

This is purely speculative, because all we can do is place our trust in Christ's witnesses, but this is where my strongest reasoning comes from:
1.) -Christianity has between 1.2 billion and 2.2 billion followers as of now, making it the word's most practiced religin.-
Not that I'm citing popularity for the sake of it, but it suggests credibility. Following Christ's ascension, his witnesses were certainly convinced enough to passionately convert skeptics. The number of true post resurrection Christians increased and multiplied, starting a base of very quickly gained believers. Children are then born into the families of Christians and inherit their beliefs. That's where counter arguments are made easier, but the primary basis of my first point is that a very large and exceptionally passionate base of present day (back then) believers had to have been established for there to have been any chance of not only survival, but sheer dominance today in terms of practice.
2.) -It has spread to virtually everywhere in the world.-
This indicates that the generations following the primary believers had the trust in the credibility of their not-very-long-ago ancestors to spread the religion. Keep in mind, the Bible was spread word of mouth back then.
3.) -It continues to thrive in an era more technological and proof demanding than ever.-
I think it's healthy to question religion. The fact that many do and decide to keep their faith is a testament to our true pathos as people; our need to feel something that we have to search for to remind us it's there. This one is obviously more personal, and is different person to person.

Please note, I CHOSE this religion after many years of deep pondering., I didn't just accept it blindly.

There IS logic in my fath. No, it's not proof by any stretch of the imagination. It is however fueled by reasoning, and, in a life where so little is certain, I'm satisfied with just that.

I'm in no way presenting an argument, rather I'm simply telling of my philosophy and how it was to be.

[mrjizzbomber]

Yeah, well I was entered into Christianity before I knew how to walk. I was forced through Church-school before I had any grasp of history, science, math or any understanding of the word. Like the majority of Christians, they entered me into their cult before I even knew what they were doing. And I had no choice about it. And I am very resentful about that, I feel wronged.

In my community if I were to meet a random person, I assume they are not a true Christian, even if they were forced to go through the motions as a 10 year old. What I mean is, at least where I am from, the majority of people do not believe in God. I don't see Christianity as thriving... at least where I am from.

- The Bomber

[Knight-ofthe-Pen]

it may clears a few things, if you think about how christianity evolves.
Because Jesus just meant to reform Judaism. He wasn't the first Christ, but just a man who thought charity and that stuff should be weight more in society. And while it was invented in the few hundred years after Jesus it was the religion of the poor and lazars etc. til Constantine I declared it as major religion of the Rome empire and the success story began.

Unless the Bibles says the truth or just lessons - it was written 1500 and even younger and the church did not include everything, what they might have could. So whatever it says in a way referrs to the society back then and it's hardly to translate in modern culture and for that surely not to be taken too literally. And of course, the Bible as we know is chosen by a council (with Constantine i again, when I remember it right. i was all a political choice) - so surely cencored as they liked it to be back then.

So and even the Christs don't believe in "one god" at all. All the saints they have were used to replace heathen/germanic gods back in the Middle Age. And for example the cult around the "big mother" (which is meant to be a common religous subject for fertility and life in most polytheistic believs) is still alive in the strong believe in the Virgin Mary, so many European churchs are dedicated to her and her role next to her son has grown during the Middle Age (and maybe even before).

And hell even is just a construct by the church council back in the first centuries Christanity had to admit, Jesus was not comming back tomorrow and brought them back to paradise. So the people asked, where the souls of already dead men/women will wait til the Last Judgments arrives on earth. So they first create the "earthy paradise" (I'm not sure, what the right term in English is) as a waiting station, but because you don't want murders etc in something like that, they create the purgatory as well and said: if you pray for yourself and your loves, they have the chance to wait in the "earthy paradise". of course that led to rich people trying to buy them a place in "earthy paradise" and selling of indulgences was a result of that as well as churchs/writes satisfied the folks hunger for sex & crime and invent the hell we know today.
(so that's I remember it now, it doesn't have to be perfect, but you surely can look up the correct happenings)

So and why Christianity dooms everyone who's not believing in their god is even said in the first/seconed of the Ten Commandments, when God says: You must not worship other gods than me (or something like that, I'm not good in English Christian terms).

I personally cannot agree with the Catholic Church, even if I'm baptized - but it wasn't my choice hanging above the basin and be sprinkeld with water when I was a couple of weeks old. but my family was never that religious, even if we live in one of the last catholics villages in the north of Germany, all around us are Protestants, but I don't like that either - because I think it's still the same

and I have to say something: not only the Catholic religion caused people so much - we're in like the same position now as it was back then with the crusades - but now talking about terror and this god's war or whatever it's called. it's just like the same, but with modern weapons

[mrjizzbomber]

it may clears a few things, if you think about how christianity evolves.
Because Jesus just meant to reform Judaism. He wasn't the first Christ, but just a man who thought charity and that stuff should be weight more in society. And while it was invented in the few hundred years after Jesus it was the religion of the poor and lazars etc. til Constantine I declared it as major religion of the Rome empire and the success story began.

Unless the Bibles says the truth or just lessons - it was written 1500 and even younger and the church did not include everything, what they might have could. So whatever it says in a way referrs to the society back then and it's hardly to translate in modern culture and for that surely not to be taken too literally. And of course, the Bible as we know is chosen by a council (with Constantine i again, when I remember it right. i was all a political choice) - so surely cencored as they liked it to be back then.

So and even the Christs don't believe in "one god" at all. All the saints they have were used to replace heathen/germanic gods back in the Middle Age. And for example the cult around the "big mother" (which is meant to be a common religous subject for fertility and life in most polytheistic believs) is still alive in the strong believe in the Virgin Mary, so many European churchs are dedicated to her and her role next to her son has grown during the Middle Age (and maybe even before).

And hell even is just a construct by the church council back in the first centuries Christanity had to admit, Jesus was not comming back tomorrow and brought them back to paradise. So the people asked, where the souls of already dead men/women will wait til the Last Judgments arrives on earth. So they first create the "earthy paradise" (I'm not sure, what the right term in English is) as a waiting station, but because you don't want murders etc in something like that, they create the purgatory as well and said: if you pray for yourself and your loves, they have the chance to wait in the "earthy paradise". of course that led to rich people trying to buy them a place in "earthy paradise" and selling of indulgences was a result of that as well as churchs/writes satisfied the folks hunger for sex & crime and invent the hell we know today.
(so that's I remember it now, it doesn't have to be perfect, but you surely can look up the correct happenings)

So and why Christianity dooms everyone who's not believing in their god is even said in the first/seconed of the Ten Commandments, when God says: You must not worship other gods than me (or something like that, I'm not good in English Christian terms).

I personally cannot agree with the Catholic Church, even if I'm baptized - but it wasn't my choice hanging above the basin and be sprinkeld with water when I was a couple of weeks old. but my family was never that religious, even if we live in one of the last catholics villages in the north of Germany, all around us are Protestants, but I don't like that either - because I think it's still the same

and I have to say something: not only the Catholic religion caused people so much - we're in like the same position now as it was back then with the crusades - but now talking about terror and this god's war or whatever it's called. it's just like the same, but with modern weapons

Broken English aside, I agree with everything you said. Not only was the Bible 'constructed' by a Roman emperor (or a Roman tribunal? I'm not entirely sure), the ideas and concepts from the Bible are just ripped from previous religions. They weren't even very original.

- The Bomber