What impact would finding Noah's Ark have upon the world?

[opali]

[...snip] Remember the whole selling sacred relics business? It even continues into today, but it was rampant during the first handful of centuries as the Church grew. Just think about how much money the "actual" shroud of Christ would fetch.

FaceofJesus4you
Only 21.95 (plus shipping and handling). This deal won't last forever so act now!

There is no proof whatsoever that the shroud is in any way connected to the historical, much less the spiritual Jesus.

Unfortunately it has been sold as his shroud for so long now that the story will persist.

According to the account of it, after he was washed, he was wrapped with 75 pounds of aromatic goodies. They would use strips of cloth to press the various myrrh and spices firmly against the body and wrap it tightly (along with binding the jaw, feet and hands) to keep the extremities from going every which way but loose as the rigor mortis kicked in (2-6 hours after death).

I think what is most amusing to me is the way biblical scholars for years have argued, sometimes vehemently, that Jesus had short hair, not long. Some backtracking may be necessary here, friends. At least in this case, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

Are you referring to this?

http://www.shroud.com/

Because it is most likely a 14th century forgery.

And it has been recreated.

You've proven my point. "The world" has fixated on that one peice of evidence that the shroud is a fake, and totally ignored the literally hundreds of evidences that it is real.

These range from 1st century pollen samples, to the well known 3-D image that can be produced, to first century materials and methods of cloth production, to dozens of Jewish points of interest which lend support to it's authenticity, to it's link with the Sudarium of Oviedo (which is verifiably much older than the 14th century), to the correspondence of evidence with the bibical accounts, to dozens of medical forensic datapoints, to the fact that it's existence explains the origin of several liturgical and iconographical traditions in the early church, to so many more evidences that I can't sit here and list them all at once. Not to mention that the radio-carbon dating has been called into question on several grounds.

And as a matter of fact, that recent alleged "recreation" falls flat on it's face on several counts. http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/arts-and-crafts-is-not-science/The shroud will never be reproduced because no one knows how it was produced. It's not a painting, a burn mark, or any other theory that has been floated to dismiss it's significance.

But since all of this information is readily avaiable on the internet (most likely even in that original link supplied) and it was ignored in support of that one piece of contrary data, the questionably arrived at radiocarbon dating, I don't expect to convince anyone by this post. People's minds have been made up already.

But I'm off topic anyway...

There are also many lines of evidence to indicate the shroud is a fake. The complete lak of reference to it before the 13th century at the absolute earliest; the image on the shroud does not anatomically match up to what you would expect a resurrected figure in the shroud to look like; the fact that it does not match up with the gospel of John's account of the burial of Jesus; and most importantly the radiocarbon dating of the shroud to the 14th century.

No one is ignoring anything. The shroud has been well studied and there are numerous explanations for its creation going back to the 1970's.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No.

There is no discovery about antiquity or ancient religious traditions that could seriously affect the course of modern religion. Institutions simply don't actually work that way; it's the stuff of Irving Wallace and Dan Brown novels.

 

[Mr. B]

There are also many lines of evidence to indicate the shroud is a fake. The complete lak of reference to it before the 13th century at the absolute earliest; ...

I'm not sure how the shroud or it's 'authenticity' are of any particular relevance. It hardly matters if it is real or not. The existence of Jesus Christ is not a matter of debate. At issue is his role as the savior of mankind. A burial cloth isn't going to put an end to that.

 

[-Brett-]

And you could parade every relic (and person) from the bible in front of a atheist and they would just call every bit of it fake.

Atheist: "I denial your very existence!"
Jesus: "I'm standing right in front of you." - wave hand in atheist's face - "Hello ..."

An interesting hypothesis. Too bad the items and people you'd need to test it don't exist.

 

[sidious618]

The existence of Jesus Christ is not a matter of debate.

Sure it is. There's little to no historical evidence he even existed.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Am I the only one here who thinks that it's absolutely fucking hilarious that there are people out there who actually believe in the existence of Noah's Ark?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I think that finding Jesus' bicycle would be more significant.

 

[Amaris]

The existence of Jesus Christ is not a matter of debate.

Sure it is. There's little to no historical evidence he even existed.

Agreed. The more I study, the more I find that a historical Jesus may never have existed in the first place. I can say that the theological/spiritual Jesus spoke of in the Bible is very similar to other God/Man hybrids, including the stories of Osiris and Mithra. They have many similarities, and they are older than the stories involving Jesus.

 

[Roshi]

And the wood survived this long... how exactly?

Petrified Wood

huh-huh-huh-huh-huh you said "wood"!

 

[iguana_tonante]

Atheist: "I denial your very existence!"
Jesus: "I'm standing right in front of you." - wave hand in atheist's face - "Hello ..."

So in your absurd example, does this man claiming to be Jesus have any way of demonstrating his status as such? Or is he just some guy waving at me going "Hey, i'm jesus, now you MUST believe me!"

What reason do you have for thinking that when presented with rational and conclusive evidence, Atheists would still not believe in something? Because your statement flies right in the face of why a great deal of atheists actually are atheists.

Please, explain yourself.

Hey, I'm glad someone else picked up on this. it's total BS. Opposite of reality infact, because in reality people may believe stuff with no shred of evidence to back it up. That in my opinion is very wrong.

Yeah. I find it really funny that some religious people accuse atheists, whose foundation is skepticism, of the very thing they do on daily basis, i.e. believing without proofs. But when they do it, it's a virtue (faith), but when accusing others, it's a fault. Cognitive dissonance at its very finest.

There are also many lines of evidence to indicate the shroud is a fake. The complete lak of reference to it before the 13th century at the absolute earliest; the image on the shroud does not anatomically match up to what you would expect a resurrected figure in the shroud to look like; the fact that it does not match up with the gospel of John's account of the burial of Jesus; and most importantly the radiocarbon dating of the shroud to the 14th century.

No one is ignoring anything. The shroud has been well studied and there are numerous explanations for its creation going back to the 1970's.

No but you know, it was magic. So you can pick and choose whatever "evidences" you like, and discard all the others. Because magic leave scientifically valid traces and proofs that biblical scholars can find everywhere, but at the same time, science doesn't matter and when it goes against their beliefs it must be discarded as the work of the devil. As I said, cognitive dissonance.

There are also many lines of evidence to indicate the shroud is a fake. The complete lak of reference to it before the 13th century at the absolute earliest; ...

I'm not sure how the shroud or it's 'authenticity' are of any particular relevance. It hardly matters if it is real or not. The existence of Jesus Christ is not a matter of debate.

Actually, it is.

 

[Rincewiend]

And the wood survived this long... how exactly?

Petrified Wood

huh-huh-huh-huh-huh you said "wood"!

 

[ryan123450]

Ok However, that information cannot be taken on any level of certainty. Just as the writings of Josephus were tampered with to include a quick account of Jesus, this is something that could have been easily forged. Remember the whole selling sacred relics business? It even continues into today, but it was rampant during the first handful of centuries as the Church grew. Just think about how much money the "actual" shroud of Christ would fetch.

There is no proof whatsoever that the shroud is in any way connected to the historical, much less the spiritual Jesus.

But the shroud has never been bought or sold by anyone. It has been protected by believers in it's authenticity in the face of danger and even death. No one has ever tried to profit from it's existence.

There are also many lines of evidence to indicate the shroud is a fake. The complete lak of reference to it before the 13th century at the absolute earliest; the image on the shroud does not anatomically match up to what you would expect a resurrected figure in the shroud to look like; the fact that it does not match up with the gospel of John's account of the burial of Jesus; and most importantly the radiocarbon dating of the shroud to the 14th century.

No one is ignoring anything. The shroud has been well studied and there are numerous explanations for its creation going back to the 1970's.

It DOES have history before the 13th century. And as I said, things which it can be linked to (the Sudarium of Oviedo, liturgical and iconographic traditions in the Church) go back all the way to the 1st century. I've also heard a linguistic/translation explantion of how it matches exactly with the Gospels account of the burial. And the doubts cast on the radiocarbon dating, as I said, are well known. There isn't a single explantion that accounts for the shroud's creation, let alone "numerous" ones. If there were, people wouldn't still be trying, and failing, to recreate it.

The existence of Jesus Christ is not a matter of debate.

Sure it is. There's little to no historical evidence he even existed.

That's so laughably ridiculous I won't even comment further.

 

[Amaris]

But the shroud has never been bought or sold by anyone. It has been protected by believers in it's authenticity in the face of danger and even death. No one has ever tried to profit from it's existence.

Oh, there's always profit to be made.

http://turin-shirts.net/default.aspx

http://www.zazzle.co.uk/shroud+of+turin+gifts

http://search.catholiccompany.com/catholic/shroud%20of%20turin

http://www.pophouse.com/display.php?cat=23&item_id=P328

http://www.cafepress.co.uk/+shroud-of-turin+clocks

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Shroud-Turin-Solving/dp/product-description/159698600X

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/catholic-gifts/Walnut-Holy-Shroud-of-Turin-Crucifix/sku/12437

http://www.selloffdeals.com/338578/14012379.html

http://store.discovery.com/detail.php?p=107095

http://shop.focustvonline.com/p-387-shroud-of-turin-medal.aspx

http://www.shroudstore.com/

http://shroud2000.com/ShroudStore.html

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/shroud-of-turin-gilberto-viciedo.html


The Shroud of Turin is one of those things that makes money. LOTS of money.
Let's also not forget the amount of money in tourist income that will be made by this showing.

 

[iguana_tonante]

But the shroud has never been bought or sold by anyone. It has been protected by believers in it's authenticity in the face of danger and even death. No one has ever tried to profit from it's existence.

You mean, except for the Catholic Church that makes it a focus of pilgrimages and devotion?

It DOES have history before the 13th century.

Not really. Some sources mention "a cloth", but there is no way to link it specifically to the Shroud of Turin.

And as I said, things which it can be linked to (the Sudarium of Oviedo, liturgical and iconographic traditions in the Church) go back all the way to the 1st century.

You mean, like Jesus with short curly hair? Or Jesus clean-shaven? Or Jesus with blond hair? Early church iconography is all over the place.

I've also heard a linguistic/translation explantion of how it matches exactly with the Gospels account of the burial.

Well, if you have heard it, it must be true.

And the doubts cast on the radiocarbon dating, as I said, are well known.

Doubts cast by Catholic Church researchers. Shocker!

There isn't a single explantion that accounts for the shroud's creation, let alone "numerous" ones. If there were, people wouldn't still be trying, and failing, to recreate it.

So the usual jump from "we don't know" to "it must be God!". Not really surprising. I don't know who chipped the bumper of my car yesterday. It must have been God! Damn it, can't He drive straight anymore?

And what about the fact that the image in the verso is a few inches longer than the recto. Like the TARDIS is bigger on the inside, Jesus was longer in the backside?

The existence of Jesus Christ is not a matter of debate.

Sure it is. There's little to no historical evidence he even existed.

That's so laughably ridiculous I won't even comment further.

Maybe you should. I for one could use a good laugh.

The Shroud of Turin is one of those things that makes money. LOTS of money.

Let's also not forget the amount of money in tourist income that will be made by this showing.

Not to mention the time and attention that the media dedicates to it. They used to keep it in the open all the time, but then they realized that they could rise the profits (both in money and in attention) by carefully controlled "shows".

 

[Amaris]

Not to mention the time and attention that the media dedicates to it. They used to keep it in the open all the time, but then they realized that they could rise the profits (both in money and in attention) by carefully controlled "shows".

Yep. They have to put it back in the Disney vault every so often.

 

[iguana_tonante]

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

It DOES have history before the 13th century. And as I said, things which it can be linked to (the Sudarium of Oviedo, liturgical and iconographic traditions in the Church) go back all the way to the 1st century. I've also heard a linguistic/translation explantion of how it matches exactly with the Gospels account of the burial. And the doubts cast on the radiocarbon dating, as I said, are well known. There isn't a single explantion that accounts for the shroud's creation, let alone "numerous" ones. If there were, people wouldn't still be trying, and failing, to recreate it.

There is no record of the existence of the shroud before the 13th century. Your attempt to tie the shroud in so closely with the Sudarium is actually one of the reasons why your argument doesn't hold up. Most arguments for the Shroud, like many evidential religious arguments, work backward. "If we assume the Shroud is valid we will expect to find this. We find this, therefore the shroud is valid". It is the same with the Sudarium. There is no reason to assume the Sudarium is any more valid than the shroud or has any relation to it unless you are assuming both are genuine from the outset. There is no record of the Sudarium before the 8th century The same person who corroborated much of the evidence for the Sudarium is the same person who pronounced the Hitler diaries as genuine.

 

[Davros]

It would not change my opinion about God being evil, if anything it would further confirm such beliefs.

 

[ryan123450]

But the shroud has never been bought or sold by anyone. It has been protected by believers in it's authenticity in the face of danger and even death. No one has ever tried to profit from it's existence.

You mean, except for the Catholic Church that makes it a focus of pilgrimages and devotion?

It DOES have history before the 13th century.

Not really. Some sources mention "a cloth", but there is no way to link it specifically to the Shroud of Turin.


You mean, like Jesus with short curly hair? Or Jesus clean-shaven? Or Jesus with blond hair? Early church iconography is all over the place.


Well, if you have heard it, it must be true.


Doubts cast by Catholic Church researchers. Shocker!


So the usual jump from "we don't know" to "it must be God!". Not really surprising. I don't know who chipped the bumper of my car yesterday. It must have been God! Damn it, can't He drive straight anymore?

And what about the fact that the image in the verso is a few inches longer than the recto. Like the TARDIS is bigger on the inside, Jesus was longer in the backside?

That's so laughably ridiculous I won't even comment further.

Maybe you should. I for one could use a good laugh.

The Shroud of Turin is one of those things that makes money. LOTS of money.

Let's also not forget the amount of money in tourist income that will be made by this showing.

Not to mention the time and attention that the media dedicates to it. They used to keep it in the open all the time, but then they realized that they could rise the profits (both in money and in attention) by carefully controlled "shows".

To all of that...all I can say...is just...one...big...