Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Yet another opinion about the Shroud of Turin

How "divine" is the Bible if it gets the details of the religions central event wrong?

If it's wrong about that, what else is it wrong about?

And if the authenticity of the Shroud being impossible to determine? Or are the certain cult of Italians claiming it to be authentic?

Christianity is based on an inerrant Bible. The shroud contradicts the descriptions in the Bible. If the shroud is real, then the Bible is in error. If its in error there, who knows where else it errors.

There is no mention of a shroud used in Jesus' burial. As said before, his body was wrapped in linen clothes and a napkin of some sort covered his head.

I'm not sure this is accurate but I've read it about Jewish customs of the time. Note that the Bible clearly states that the napkin on his head was carefully folded and left separate from the other burial clothes. The custom at banquets at the time relates to that. If a person left the table intending to return, he folded his napkin and left it by his plate. The servants would leave his place alone until he came back. When he was done eating and ready for them to clear his place, he would wad up his napkin and throw it on the table.
Jesus folded his napkin...he's coming back.

I guess the divinity of the book would be important if you worshipped the book.

What this demonstrates is the Gospels are really four separate stories, for different interpretations of the same alleged event. These four tellings conflict with each other, and conflict with what's contained on the Shroud of Turin. If the Shroud was "proven authentic", it would nail down actual details demonstrating these conflicts. Of course there is no scientific test for "Jesus Christ" beyond a demonstration of the super natural, so this will remain a contest between Faith and Reason.

I believe that the Bible is the Word of God written by men inspired by Almighty God.

The Shroud... not so much.. Maybe, maybe not. It is good for an Italian Chamber of Commerce.

Maybe it is to you. There's no certainty that the Bible is 'inerrant'.

Others feel it is based on a one-on-one relationship with a loving God who sent His son to reveal just how good He is.

And what is the Primary Source document regarding this God and his Son?

'Primary Source document'...? It's simply the Bible, along with the heart and mind. But there's no certainty that the Bible is 'inerrant'.
Biblical 'inerrancy' isn�t Biblical.
A relationship with our Creator through His son 'is' Biblical.

antlers,

Where do we find information about A Creator Who has a Son with Whom we can have a relationship?

You loose the logic argument.

Logic...! What would you know about 'that' Ringman...?

Is your 6,000 year old earth 'logical'...?

Is your 'dinosaurs went on the ark with Noah and the other animals' logical...?

I'm glad you posted that........ saved me the trouble.

You will get hammered by the Blblialetors 0n here. [that is a real word, but I might have it misspelled]

You admit your source document has errors. The next question is how many, how big, and where are they? As we discussed before, before the advent of the printing press, all we had were copies of copies of copies, each one slightly different from the one before. Since our copies today are full of errors, and we do not have a single original NT text, not one scroll written by the hand of Jesus, a disciple, or even one written by the hand of Paul....So how can you really know your God?

The same way Peter did.

Matthew 16:13-17

If you read carefully these passages are not about how individuals can know God, but establishing the providence of the Catholic Church, all the Popes who follow Peter, and Rome as the center of the Orthodoxy. The lead in actually speaks to the confusion to whom Jesus may, or may not have been, in the minds of the people at that time.

Not exactly a ringing enforcement of how a Protestant can "know Jesus".

Where can anyone have a logical argument about matters of faith?

I guess that's where me and the Catholics part ways. I see no slot in the chain of command for a pope to fit into...
I have no problem with or argument for those that do however..

Peace!

The physical laws which govern the universe can be observed and tested. They operate whether a man accepts them, or not.

The Spiritual Laws are just as operative whether a man accepts them, or not.

The human ego embraces the physical laws and rejects the spiritual laws.

Been that way a long time.

I said that there was no certainty of an 'inerrant' Bible. That's different from 'admitting that the source document has errors'. It might, or it might not. Some think that if you allow for any errors in the Bible, then how can you trust any of it? The answer to that question is quite simple.

Faith.

The same faith that allows us to believe in a God that none of us have seen. Faith requires an element of doubt. We 'choose' to believe...even though the evidence might be incomplete or imperfect.

Does anyone actually base his faith on the Shroud of Turin? I think not. Does anyone try to discredit Christianity with it? Apparently so. But it's a curiosity. That's all it is.

Steve.