I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
"Ray Rogers wrote: The main problem surfaces when you look at the times necessary for color formation. If we must consider something less than about 30 hours, simple thermal reactions are highly improbable. The least stable impurities that could be expected on ancient linen (e.g., pentose sugars) would take much too much time at temperatures below 100C. . . Maillard types of reactions can produce colors within the required times at the required temperatures. Can anyone think of other ways? I have been looking for possible reactions for 27 years.
Radiation alone won't do it. Simple thermochemistry alone won't do it. Simple gaseous diffusion alone won't do it. Lots of things alone won't do it. The trick is to find some combination of phenomena that WILL do it. Remember - - - it did happen."
Ray Rodgers happens to be the guy I'm citing stating this process as a possible method. I did a Google search and the only place I'm finding where Rodgers states the above quote is shroudstory.com and I can't find any citation of where and when Rodgers made this statement. This site itself could possibly be bias given the site owner is an Episcopalian.
Yes, but you can also see that there are bloodstains over the head and body that signify the human in question was crucified, and also suffered a lot of beating, and his head was punctured in numerous places. One might leave it at unknown, but this will not disprove that this shroud can belong to Jesus.
Cruxifiction was not uncommon back then either. So, even if it does not disprove Jesus, it certainly adds nothing to that claim. And if the person in question was severly beaten, it's not unlikely that they didn't have a head wound or two.
If it's indeed a real shroud from around that time that covered a body, the only odd thing is that it would a person who was crucified. Rome didn't normally bury people who were crucified. This however doesn't improve the chances of it being Jesus, as Jesus (even from a historical perspective) would not have been likely to meet the criteria to be buried after crucifixion. If there was a historical Jesus who was crucified, it's likely the part of his burial would have been completely fabricated.
Would the name of that chemical have any relation to the word Corpse? Also, what were those shrouds made of? I'd think something akin to wool or some sort of woven cloth.
When the body dies, the intestinal tract stops moving, meaning the roughly 400+ species of digestive bacteria aren't being circulated. As such, they begin to digest their surroundings. As the body breaks down, the rather corrosive and noxious chemicals released (Corpsine for one) would rot and dissolve the cloth shroud.
Unless someone removed it before this could take place. It's quite possible the creation of the image on the shroud was intentional.
See, normal crucifixion was done with ropes, not nails. You have to uncover a possible "nail-worthy" person in the history for a candidate for this shroud.
And if the person in question was severly beaten, it's not unlikely that they didn't have a head wound or two.
If a person would be beaten, then those wounds would be from beating and would be big enough and produce not tiny dots of blood, but big areas instead. The bloodstains on the backhead part of the shroud indicate that wounds were a lot smaller than it's possible to inflict with clubs.
I did a Google search and the only place I'm finding where Rodgers states the above quote is shroudstory.com and I can't find any citation of where and when Rodgers made this statement. This site itself could possibly be bias given the site owner is an Episcopalian.
Yes, a bias is possible, and it's also possible that these words are plain oral quote or even a speculation by whoever rules the site. That's why I decided to not quote this. The only problem is that Maillard reaction is indeed slow to the degree to not providing an effect necessary to display the image this bright. And after the body removal the gases source is also withdrawn so there should be no other way to apply more for the reaction to continue.
(Corpsine for one)
Cadaverine, Wikipedia states - you're close however
All things considered he doesn't look that distorted to me.
See, normal crucifixion was done with ropes, not nails. You have to uncover a possible "nail-worthy" person in the history for a candidate for this shroud
Why does it have to be a special thing? For all we know some guy did something worse than normal and they got creative in punishment. Are there any other cases found/reported of nails used instead of ropes?
The only problem is that Maillard reaction is indeed slow to the degree to not providing an effect necessary to display the image this bright.
there are a number of things that can be done to speed up the process such as treating the shroud with reducing sugars (which evidence suggests it was), having the presence of proteins (which could be provided by the body itself), removing water (easy enough to do in a dry desert environment), increase temperature or pH. Many of these tricks could have been used especially if creating the image on the shroud was done intentionally.
no matter whether the shroud of turin was jesus's or not it doesn't really matter
True it doesn't provide evidence for any of the miraculous claims in the Bible. If it was shown to definitively Jesus's it would only provide evidence for a historical Jesus. Which while I still have my doubts is quite possible to have existed.
Further, a sand mummy are common in Egypt, the poor people would simply wrap the body in a shroud and bury it in the sand.
If there was a historical Jesus with any kind of following, this would have been far more likely a fate for his body after death then being placed in a tomb.
Both sides are doing a poor job representing themselves.
A true athiest dosen't go slamming believers, and trying to prove them wrong. All you are doing is making yourselves look like radical overzealous rebels who can't handle the simple views on self restraint as presented by religion, and lack the self control to uphold it. A true athiest respects the views of others and dosen't go out of their way to alienate them just because they aren't as "enlightened". There's nothing wrong with presenting your views, just don't look kike toddlers doing it.
A true Christian accepts the views of others, and informs their faith with a logical, not literal interpretation of the bible. What astonishes me is that none of you have acknowledged the fact that Christianity and science are completely compatible. Science can only further the understanding of the greatness of God.
While a radical Christian may say "the world was created in 7 days therefore the big bang theory is wrong" A well informed logical Christian will see this as a metaphor, and not take it literally.
I am a Christian and the way I interpret science is this: God initiated the Big Bang. I don't think he snapped his fingers and made all we know appear out of thin air. Why can't God have used the Big bang? THERE IS NO REASON WHY NOT.
Same with evolution.
Science cannot disprove faith, nor can it prove it for the
Non-believer. But for a believer it can illustrate the great care and love God included in the creation of the universe we know.
Its not a competition between religion and science, you CAN have both.
