JTEM wrote:
>
> The funniest thing about this?  I'm not kidding.
>
> https://youtu.be/tAQQhBnCVQs?feature=shared
>
> This is a really good documentary on the Shroud
> of Turin, the best I ever saw.
>
> If he a little biased?  You are. I am. Everyone
> is. Why should he not be?
>
> He wears his bias on this sleeve. He's not trying
> to recruit you.
>
> Can you say the same?
>
> It's a very well down video.
>
>
>
>

47 mins. can't be bothered

--
“Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!”- hhyapster 7.4.23

"Christian beliefs fail against reason, facts, and knowledge"

"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"

"God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand.
The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation."

"The problem with theism is that it never remains within
the realm of belief, but invariably proceeds to assertion"

Maximus wrote:

> 47 mins. can't be bothered

I mean, right? Especially when you already
know everything!

"Science," right?

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On 5/9/2024 2:09 AM, JTEM wrote:
>  Maximus wrote:
>
>> 47 mins. can't be bothered
>
> I mean, right? Especially when you already
> know everything!
>
> "Science," right?
>

Your scientific hypothesis is simply uneconomical; for it to be true, so
many, many different observations have to be false.

Dawn

Dawn Flood wrote:
> On 5/9/2024 2:09 AM, JTEM wrote:
>>   Maximus wrote:
>>
>>> 47 mins. can't be bothered
>>
>> I mean, right? Especially when you already
>> know everything!
>>
>> "Science," right?
>>
>
> Your scientific hypothesis is simply uneconomical; for it to be true,
> so many, many different observations have to be false.

has it yet been determined how the image was made, other than it's not
painted on?

>
> Dawn
>

--
“Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!”- hhyapster 7.4.23

"Christian beliefs fail against reason, facts, and knowledge"

"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"

"God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand.
The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation."

"The problem with theism is that it never remains within
the realm of belief, but invariably proceeds to assertion"

Dawn Flood wrote:

> Your scientific hypothesis

My... what?

Can you quote me?

Oh. That was a rhetorical question.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Sat, 11 May 2024 03:26:55 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:

>"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:v1ll3t$1fiil$1@dont-email.me...
>> % wrote:
>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>>> 47 mins. can't be bothered
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I mean, right? Especially when you already
>>>>>>> know everything!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Science," right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your scientific hypothesis is simply uneconomical; for it to be
>>>>>> true, so many, many different observations have to be false.
>>>>>
>>>>> has it yet been determined how the image was made, other than it's
>>>>> not painted on?
>>>>
>>>> It was forged, the result of skilled painting. Historians know this
>>>> because one of the Popes at Avignon Clement VII received a letter from
>>>> a Bishop who had identified the forger who had painted the image.
>>>> Radiocarbon dating has placed the date of origin to the exact month
>>>> that the forger confessed to having done the work.
>>>>
>>>> Dawn
>>>>
>>> so you're only an atheist if you forge the right art
>>
>> The forger was a Catholic believer, almost surely. Very few atheists,
>> if any, existed prior to the Early Modern Period.
>>
>> Dawn
>
>Hi Dawn.
>
>I notice that you have re-kindled your interest in the
>Shroud. Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, the
>Son of the Most High God

From *A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin*, we find on page
110 that "Any radiation that is energetic enough to cause direct
color formation on the entire *surface* of a fiber would have to
penetrate the entire *volume* of a fiber. All of the image color is
on the *outer surface* of the linen fibers...Radiation hypotheses for
image formation have to explain penetration, defect formation, and
chemical reactions. They also have to explain the discontinuous
distribution of image color." (Emphasis added)

So apparently the idea that radiation directly caused the Shroud image
(as in a flash of radiation) is refuted by the facts.

>He is the One who loves you greatly and wants you
>to experience the glories of the future home that He
>is preparing for His people.
>
>Peace.

"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:hfc04jtub9aqka998qbvpmoa68rfv2l1nb@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>> % wrote:
>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 47 mins. can't be bothered
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I mean, right? Especially when you already
>>>>>>>> know everything!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Science," right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your scientific hypothesis is simply uneconomical; for it to be
>>>>>>> true, so many, many different observations have to be false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> has it yet been determined how the image was made, other than it's
>>>>>> not painted on?
>>>>>
>>>>> It was forged, the result of skilled painting. Historians know this
>>>>> because one of the Popes at Avignon Clement VII received a letter from
>>>>> a Bishop who had identified the forger who had painted the image.
>>>>> Radiocarbon dating has placed the date of origin to the exact month
>>>>> that the forger confessed to having done the work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dawn
>>>>>
>>>> so you're only an atheist if you forge the right art
>>>
>>> The forger was a Catholic believer, almost surely. Very few atheists,
>>> if any, existed prior to the Early Modern Period.
>>>
>>> Dawn
>>
>>Hi Dawn.
>>
>>I notice that you have re-kindled your interest in the
>>Shroud. Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, the
>>Son of the Most High God
>
> From *A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin*, we find on page
> 110 that "Any radiation that is energetic enough to cause direct
> color formation on the entire *surface* of a fiber would have to
> penetrate the entire *volume* of a fiber. All of the image color is
> on the *outer surface* of the linen fibers...Radiation hypotheses for
> image formation have to explain penetration, defect formation, and
> chemical reactions. They also have to explain the discontinuous
> distribution of image color." (Emphasis added)
>
> So apparently the idea that radiation directly caused the Shroud
> image (as in a flash of radiation) is refuted by the facts.
________________________________________________

Yet the fact remains that the image somehow did
form on the shroud and remains there to this day.

And the scientists who extensively studied the thing
all conclude that ~ "It is not the product of an artist."

If you want the truth, then go with the science.

Summary of the STURP scientists conclusions

"We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that
of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is
not the product of an artist.

"The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also
give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an
ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are
made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by
some scientists in the future, the problem remains
unsolved." https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm

It is "not humanly possible" to duplicate it.

A forger would need to make it appear as
a 'photo negative' (which it is) before the
camera was even invented.

On Sun, 12 May 2024 00:45:33 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:

>"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:hfc04jtub9aqka998qbvpmoa68rfv2l1nb@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>>> % wrote:
>>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 47 mins. can't be bothered
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I mean, right? Especially when you already
>>>>>>>>> know everything!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Science," right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your scientific hypothesis is simply uneconomical; for it to be
>>>>>>>> true, so many, many different observations have to be false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> has it yet been determined how the image was made, other than it's
>>>>>>> not painted on?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was forged, the result of skilled painting. Historians know this
>>>>>> because one of the Popes at Avignon Clement VII received a letter from
>>>>>> a Bishop who had identified the forger who had painted the image.
>>>>>> Radiocarbon dating has placed the date of origin to the exact month
>>>>>> that the forger confessed to having done the work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dawn
>>>>>>
>>>>> so you're only an atheist if you forge the right art
>>>>
>>>> The forger was a Catholic believer, almost surely. Very few atheists,
>>>> if any, existed prior to the Early Modern Period.
>>>>
>>>> Dawn
>>>
>>>Hi Dawn.
>>>
>>>I notice that you have re-kindled your interest in the
>>>Shroud. Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, the
>>>Son of the Most High God
>>
>> From *A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin*, we find on page
>> 110 that "Any radiation that is energetic enough to cause direct
>> color formation on the entire *surface* of a fiber would have to
>> penetrate the entire *volume* of a fiber. All of the image color is
>> on the *outer surface* of the linen fibers...Radiation hypotheses for
>> image formation have to explain penetration, defect formation, and
>> chemical reactions. They also have to explain the discontinuous
>> distribution of image color." (Emphasis added)
>>
>> So apparently the idea that radiation directly caused the Shroud
>> image (as in a flash of radiation) is refuted by the facts.
>________________________________________________
>
>Yet the fact remains that the image somehow did
>form on the shroud and remains there to this day.
>
>And the scientists who extensively studied the thing
>all conclude that ~ "It is not the product of an artist."

It is the product of an artist; from Wikipedia, we have:

"Joe Nickell in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state
that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that
the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the
figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture
was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too
small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and
that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is
non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained
if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.[33][107] As Raymond E.
Brown noticed, a corpse in the relaxed position portrayed on the
shroud could not be positioned such that its hand covers its genitals
as portrayed.[108] The right arm and hand in the image appear to have
been elongated to make this possible."

>If you want the truth, then go with the science.

You mean the fantasy-land of "God did it"?

>Summary of the STURP scientists conclusions

They were not entirely without bias. According to Wikipedia,

" Joe Nickell of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has pointed out
that "STURP’s leaders served on the executive council of the Holy
Shroud Guild, which is devoted to the “cause” of the reputed relic."

>"We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that
> of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is
> not the product of an artist.
>
>"The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also
> give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an
> ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are
> made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by
> some scientists in the future, the problem remains
> unsolved." https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm
>
>It is "not humanly possible" to duplicate it.

We don't know that. It has been duplicated, albeit imperfectly, on a
number of occasions.

>A forger would need to make it appear as
>a 'photo negative' (which it is) before the
>camera was even invented.

Cameras are not the only way to create so-called "photo" negatives.

See

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33164668

Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2024 00:45:33 -0700, "Andrew"
> <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:hfc04jtub9aqka998qbvpmoa68rfv2l1nb@4ax.com...
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>>>> % wrote:
>>>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>>>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 47 mins. can't be bothered
>>>>>>>>>> I mean, right? Especially when you already
>>>>>>>>>> know everything!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Science," right?
>>>>>>>>> Your scientific hypothesis is simply uneconomical; for it to be
>>>>>>>>> true, so many, many different observations have to be false.
>>>>>>>> has it yet been determined how the image was made, other than it's
>>>>>>>> not painted on?
>>>>>>> It was forged, the result of skilled painting. Historians know this
>>>>>>> because one of the Popes at Avignon Clement VII received a letter from
>>>>>>> a Bishop who had identified the forger who had painted the image.
>>>>>>> Radiocarbon dating has placed the date of origin to the exact month
>>>>>>> that the forger confessed to having done the work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dawn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> so you're only an atheist if you forge the right art
>>>>> The forger was a Catholic believer, almost surely. Very few atheists,
>>>>> if any, existed prior to the Early Modern Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dawn
>>>> Hi Dawn.
>>>>
>>>> I notice that you have re-kindled your interest in the
>>>> Shroud. Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, the
>>>> Son of the Most High God
>>> From *A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin*, we find on page
>>> 110 that "Any radiation that is energetic enough to cause direct
>>> color formation on the entire *surface* of a fiber would have to
>>> penetrate the entire *volume* of a fiber. All of the image color is
>>> on the *outer surface* of the linen fibers...Radiation hypotheses for
>>> image formation have to explain penetration, defect formation, and
>>> chemical reactions. They also have to explain the discontinuous
>>> distribution of image color." (Emphasis added)
>>>
>>> So apparently the idea that radiation directly caused the Shroud
>>> image (as in a flash of radiation) is refuted by the facts.
>> ________________________________________________
>>
>> Yet the fact remains that the image somehow did
>> form on the shroud and remains there to this day.
>>
>> And the scientists who extensively studied the thing
>> all conclude that ~ "It is not the product of an artist."
> It is the product of an artist; from Wikipedia, we have:
>
> "Joe Nickell in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state
> that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that
> the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the
> figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture
> was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too
> small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and
> that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is
> non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained
> if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.[33][107] As Raymond E.
> Brown noticed, a corpse in the relaxed position portrayed on the
> shroud could not be positioned such that its hand covers its genitals
> as portrayed.[108] The right arm and hand in the image appear to have
> been elongated to make this possible."

just the length of the arm alone is enough to show it's not the image of
a real person

>> If you want the truth, then go with the science.
> You mean the fantasy-land of "God did it"?
>
>> Summary of the STURP scientists conclusions
> They were not entirely without bias. According to Wikipedia,
>
> " Joe Nickell of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has pointed out
> that "STURP’s leaders served on the executive council of the Holy
> Shroud Guild, which is devoted to the “cause” of the reputed relic."
>
>> "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that
>> of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is
>> not the product of an artist.
>>
>> "The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also
>> give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an
>> ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are
>> made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by
>> some scientists in the future, the problem remains
>> unsolved." https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm
>>
>> It is "not humanly possible" to duplicate it.
> We don't know that. It has been duplicated, albeit imperfectly, on a
> number of occasions.
>
>> A forger would need to make it appear as
>> a 'photo negative' (which it is) before the
>> camera was even invented.
> Cameras are not the only way to create so-called "photo" negatives.
>
> See
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33164668
>
>
>
>
>

--
“Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!”- hhyapster 7.4.23

"Christian beliefs fail against reason, facts, and knowledge"

"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"

"God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand.
The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation."

"The problem with theism is that it never remains within
the realm of belief, but invariably proceeds to assertion"

Andrew wrote:

> "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:v1lj3g$1f3nn$1@dont-email.me...
> > Maximus wrote:
> > > Dawn Flood wrote:
> >>> JTEM wrote:
> > > > > Maximus wrote:
> > > > > > 47 mins. can't be bothered
> > > > >
> > > > > I mean, right? Especially when you already
> > > > > know everything!
> > > > >
> > > > > "Science," right?
> > > >
> > > > Your scientific hypothesis is simply uneconomical; for it to be
> > > > true, so many, many different observations have to be false.
> > >
> > > has it yet been determined how the image was made, other than
> > > it's not painted on?
> >
> > It was forged, the result of skilled painting.
>
> Interesting you believe that someone forged a
> photographic negative on the linen many years before the camera.was
> invented.
>
> It wasn't until 1898 when a photographer took the first photograph of
> the Shroud, which is when the positive image was first revealed.
> https://tinyurl.com/3khpuhvn
>
>

Atheists deny the evidence because they are afraid to know the truth.

--
Always remember, Jesus loves you and so do I! Each and every one of
you! I love you!

On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:19:18 +0000, "Professor Love" <jesus@loves.you>
wrote:

>Andrew wrote:
>
>> "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:v1lj3g$1f3nn$1@dont-email.me...
>> > Maximus wrote:
>> > > Dawn Flood wrote:
>> >>> JTEM wrote:
>> > > > > Maximus wrote:
>> > > > > > 47 mins. can't be bothered
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I mean, right? Especially when you already
>> > > > > know everything!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Science," right?
>> > > >
>> > > > Your scientific hypothesis is simply uneconomical; for it to be
>> > > > true, so many, many different observations have to be false.
>> > >
>> > > has it yet been determined how the image was made, other than
>> > > it's not painted on?
>> >
>> > It was forged, the result of skilled painting.
>>
>> Interesting you believe that someone forged a
>> photographic negative on the linen many years before the camera.was
>> invented.
>>
>> It wasn't until 1898 when a photographer took the first photograph of
>> the Shroud, which is when the positive image was first revealed.
>> https://tinyurl.com/3khpuhvn
>>
>>
>
>Atheists deny the evidence because they are afraid to know the truth.

Theists dream up "scientific" hokum to support their beliefs because
they have no real evidence in their personal lives that God exists.

In article <m0s14j5lhuj5ml28q27mhgoqnbv4bolosi@4ax.com>,
maycock@gmail.com says...
>
> On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:19:18 +0000, "Professor Love" <jesus@loves.you>
> wrote:
>
> >Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:v1lj3g$1f3nn$1@dont-email.me...
> >> > Maximus wrote:
> >> > > Dawn Flood wrote:
> >> >>> JTEM wrote:
> >> > > > > Maximus wrote:
> >> > > > > > 47 mins. can't be bothered
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I mean, right? Especially when you already
> >> > > > > know everything!
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > "Science," right?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Your scientific hypothesis is simply uneconomical; for it to be
> >> > > > true, so many, many different observations have to be false.
> >> > >
> >> > > has it yet been determined how the image was made, other than
> >> > > it's not painted on?
> >> >
> >> > It was forged, the result of skilled painting.
> >>
> >> Interesting you believe that someone forged a
> >> photographic negative on the linen many years before the camera.was
> >> invented.
> >>
> >> It wasn't until 1898 when a photographer took the first photograph of
> >> the Shroud, which is when the positive image was first revealed.
> >> https://tinyurl.com/3khpuhvn
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Atheists deny the evidence because they are afraid to know the truth.
>
> Theists dream up "scientific" hokum to support their beliefs because
> they have no real evidence in their personal lives that God exists.

and you can't prove otherwise

On 13/05/2024 12:19 am, Professor Love wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:v1lj3g$1f3nn$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>> 47 mins. can't be bothered
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean, right? Especially when you already
>>>>>> know everything!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Science," right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Your scientific hypothesis is simply uneconomical; for it to be
>>>>> true, so many, many different observations have to be false.
>>>>
>>>> has it yet been determined how the image was made, other than
>>>> it's not painted on?
>>>
>>> It was forged, the result of skilled painting.
>>
>> Interesting you believe that someone forged a
>> photographic negative on the linen many years before the camera.was
>> invented.
>>
>> It wasn't until 1898 when a photographer took the first photograph of
>> the Shroud, which is when the positive image was first revealed.
>> https://tinyurl.com/3khpuhvn
>>
>>
>
> Atheists deny the evidence because they are afraid to know the truth.

Well, that much is true.

Michael Christ

--
God is God in all His Being.

Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Lord. John
10:30  I and Father are one. If you can't see that the Lord Jesus is the
everlasting Father you are not born again and can't see the Kingdom of God.

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt
are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that
hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory."

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."

"What makes the bible the truth? The resonance (voice, the Person) of
God. When you find Him you have found the author."

"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul, and mind. An abomination. Therefore,
sin is not what you do; it is what you are."

"Compromise will condemn you."

"There are no sinners in Christ Jesus."

"My sons are born of Me. In them is no darkness at all."

"You can't learn righteousness. Haven't you had enough time already to
know that?"

"The way of truth is the testimony of life."

"I merely speak the truth, what is revealed to me, and the cards fall
where God intends."

"Nothing that is produced is produced without first being faith."

"You can only find proof of God through faith because that is how we all
live, by faith."

"It is not what you do that matters, it is how you treat Me."

"Keep going forward. Forget about the past. Lift up your head, look
ahead."

"You cannot be free and free indeed with guilt in your heart."

"Priority is everything."

"The truth doesn't need evidence, it is evidence."

"There is no greater possession a man has than his own will, to squander
it or to place it where it truly belongs."

"An atheist is a fool who thinks truth is found in living a lie."

"Saying "prove it" [as a foundation] is merely an ignorant straw man, to
an ignorant straw man."

"Wait, rest, be still, and know."

"No man can wash his own hands!!!"

"I find this in the Christianity religions: 'Nobody's perfect' they say,
and they use that as an excuse not to do what is perfect."

The Atheist: "They don't believe and put their faith in a Creator (the
obvious). So no evidence and proof is to be found!!"

"The world is the way it is because God can't compromise who He is."

"Man is not the centre of being."

"Man is incompatible with the natural world because of his sinful nature."

"And then the Lord said, "I see everything."

"Man has no greater idol than his own will."

"Where is God hiding? He isn't."

"If you don't keep all the scriptures, you can't keep any of them."

"You can't prove anything because everything depends on a person's
willingness to believe."

"Atheists are ultimately trying to be pointlessness, meaninglessness,
and purposelessness in their point, meaning, and purpose."

"The last day of creation will be the last day of time. God is always
full of hope."

"The veil of the temple was rent in twain, not to have a book pass
through it so that a sinner could play God."

"A phylactery does not a heart for God make. Not back then, and not today."

"No one in heaven is better (or higher) than what makes it heaven. Such
is the love of God."

"The definition of an atheist: A man full of bluster and bullshit
pretending he is the meaning of life."

"Free will is not power; it is the choice that I allow; that choice is
still according to my power," says the Lord.

What does a fool do? A fool looks for a "nothing" in a "something" in
order to explain the existence of existence.

"Unless you do all because He is who He is, all your religion is in vain."

"Every man is subject to God; He judges every man, and He is reality.
 What a gift in a fallen world!"

"Love MUST be a choice or it is nothing but a law!"

"Why were all men born sinners? So that God could reveal Himself, so
that we would behold the glory of God, and that we should bring forth
the glory of God"

"God does not and will not arbitrate for any man to love Him! If God
isn't everything to you, He is nothing to you where the rubber meets the
road."

"It is the unforgivable sin not to love God with all your heart, soul,
and mind. What do you have that is lasting? It is not so much being
punished; it is what you are left with."

"Love isn't worth anything without first a free will choice for God to
birth it in a man."

"The point of salvation: desperation. Anything less than that is
self-righteousness."

"A sinner is not a believer in God; a sinner is a believer in sin."

"A piece of dirt is not the promised land; that is only a reflection.
The promised land is knowing Me, says the Lord."

"It is all about God or it is all about idolatry."

"The Lord Jesus is coming soon. He has always come soon."

"There is no revolving door of self-worship in a son of God's life!"

"There is no such thing as random!"

"You can't truly love without it being with all your heart."

"No one can see God without their whole heart. Unless you can see God,
you know nothing."

"You can't learn God, God has to reveal Himself to you."

"No sinner is sinless in any way."

"Only God is life; only the Kingdom of God of His "Nature" is life."

"What you believe is just a leaning on your own understanding; faith is
a leaning on the one you have chosen to trust."

"God uses the "letter" to crucify a man and raise him from the dead."

"Not fearing God is sheer stupidity for sinners."

"Self-righteousness is any exclusion of God in your heart, because any
exclusion reveals that you think more about yourself than what you
really are."

"Atheism: "The claim that life received from itself."

On 13/05/2024 2:40 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2024 14:19:18 +0000, "Professor Love" <jesus@loves.you>
> wrote:
>
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:v1lj3g$1f3nn$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>>> 47 mins. can't be bothered
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I mean, right? Especially when you already
>>>>>>> know everything!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Science," right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your scientific hypothesis is simply uneconomical; for it to be
>>>>>> true, so many, many different observations have to be false.
>>>>>
>>>>> has it yet been determined how the image was made, other than
>>>>> it's not painted on?
>>>>
>>>> It was forged, the result of skilled painting.
>>>
>>> Interesting you believe that someone forged a
>>> photographic negative on the linen many years before the camera.was
>>> invented.
>>>
>>> It wasn't until 1898 when a photographer took the first photograph of
>>> the Shroud, which is when the positive image was first revealed.
>>> https://tinyurl.com/3khpuhvn
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Atheists deny the evidence because they are afraid to know the truth.
>
> Theists dream up "scientific" hokum to support their beliefs because

> they have no real evidence in their personal lives that God exists.

That is some truth in that.

But it is absolutely not the truth with all.

Michael Christ

--
God is God in all His Being.

Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Lord. John
10:30  I and Father are one. If you can't see that the Lord Jesus is the
everlasting Father you are not born again and can't see the Kingdom of God.

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt
are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that
hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory."

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."

"What makes the bible the truth? The resonance (voice, the Person) of
God. When you find Him you have found the author."

"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul, and mind. An abomination. Therefore,
sin is not what you do; it is what you are."

"Compromise will condemn you."

"There are no sinners in Christ Jesus."

"My sons are born of Me. In them is no darkness at all."

"You can't learn righteousness. Haven't you had enough time already to
know that?"

"The way of truth is the testimony of life."

"I merely speak the truth, what is revealed to me, and the cards fall
where God intends."

"Nothing that is produced is produced without first being faith."

"You can only find proof of God through faith because that is how we all
live, by faith."

"It is not what you do that matters, it is how you treat Me."

"Keep going forward. Forget about the past. Lift up your head, look
ahead."

"You cannot be free and free indeed with guilt in your heart."

"Priority is everything."

"The truth doesn't need evidence, it is evidence."

"There is no greater possession a man has than his own will, to squander
it or to place it where it truly belongs."

"An atheist is a fool who thinks truth is found in living a lie."

"Saying "prove it" [as a foundation] is merely an ignorant straw man, to
an ignorant straw man."

"Wait, rest, be still, and know."

"No man can wash his own hands!!!"

"I find this in the Christianity religions: 'Nobody's perfect' they say,
and they use that as an excuse not to do what is perfect."

The Atheist: "They don't believe and put their faith in a Creator (the
obvious). So no evidence and proof is to be found!!"

"The world is the way it is because God can't compromise who He is."

"Man is not the centre of being."

"Man is incompatible with the natural world because of his sinful nature."

"And then the Lord said, "I see everything."

"Man has no greater idol than his own will."

"Where is God hiding? He isn't."

"If you don't keep all the scriptures, you can't keep any of them."

"You can't prove anything because everything depends on a person's
willingness to believe."

"Atheists are ultimately trying to be pointlessness, meaninglessness,
and purposelessness in their point, meaning, and purpose."

"The last day of creation will be the last day of time. God is always
full of hope."

"The veil of the temple was rent in twain, not to have a book pass
through it so that a sinner could play God."

"A phylactery does not a heart for God make. Not back then, and not today."

"No one in heaven is better (or higher) than what makes it heaven. Such
is the love of God."

"The definition of an atheist: A man full of bluster and bullshit
pretending he is the meaning of life."

"Free will is not power; it is the choice that I allow; that choice is
still according to my power," says the Lord.

What does a fool do? A fool looks for a "nothing" in a "something" in
order to explain the existence of existence.

"Unless you do all because He is who He is, all your religion is in vain."

"Every man is subject to God; He judges every man, and He is reality.
 What a gift in a fallen world!"

"Love MUST be a choice or it is nothing but a law!"

"Why were all men born sinners? So that God could reveal Himself, so
that we would behold the glory of God, and that we should bring forth
the glory of God"

"God does not and will not arbitrate for any man to love Him! If God
isn't everything to you, He is nothing to you where the rubber meets the
road."

"It is the unforgivable sin not to love God with all your heart, soul,
and mind. What do you have that is lasting? It is not so much being
punished; it is what you are left with."

"Love isn't worth anything without first a free will choice for God to
birth it in a man."

"The point of salvation: desperation. Anything less than that is
self-righteousness."

"A sinner is not a believer in God; a sinner is a believer in sin."

"A piece of dirt is not the promised land; that is only a reflection.
The promised land is knowing Me, says the Lord."

"It is all about God or it is all about idolatry."

"The Lord Jesus is coming soon. He has always come soon."

"There is no revolving door of self-worship in a son of God's life!"

"There is no such thing as random!"

"You can't truly love without it being with all your heart."

"No one can see God without their whole heart. Unless you can see God,
you know nothing."

"You can't learn God, God has to reveal Himself to you."

"No sinner is sinless in any way."

"Only God is life; only the Kingdom of God of His "Nature" is life."

"What you believe is just a leaning on your own understanding; faith is
a leaning on the one you have chosen to trust."

"God uses the "letter" to crucify a man and raise him from the dead."

"Not fearing God is sheer stupidity for sinners."

"Self-righteousness is any exclusion of God in your heart, because any
exclusion reveals that you think more about yourself than what you
really are."

"Atheism: "The claim that life received from itself."

"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:me614jtmjpnae3dl9gmvq6k4210nbmc5su@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>>>> % wrote:
>>>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>>>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 47 mins. can't be bothered
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I mean, right? Especially when you already
>>>>>>>>>> know everything!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Science," right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your scientific hypothesis is simply uneconomical; for it to be
>>>>>>>>> true, so many, many different observations have to be false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> has it yet been determined how the image was made, other than it's
>>>>>>>> not painted on?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was forged, the result of skilled painting. Historians know this
>>>>>>> because one of the Popes at Avignon Clement VII received a letter from
>>>>>>> a Bishop who had identified the forger who had painted the image.
>>>>>>> Radiocarbon dating has placed the date of origin to the exact month
>>>>>>> that the forger confessed to having done the work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dawn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> so you're only an atheist if you forge the right art
>>>>>
>>>>> The forger was a Catholic believer, almost surely. Very few atheists,
>>>>> if any, existed prior to the Early Modern Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dawn
>>>>
>>>>Hi Dawn.
>>>>
>>>>I notice that you have re-kindled your interest in the
>>>>Shroud. Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, the
>>>>Son of the Most High God
>>>
>>> From *A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin*, we find on page
>>> 110 that "Any radiation that is energetic enough to cause direct
>>> color formation on the entire *surface* of a fiber would have to
>>> penetrate the entire *volume* of a fiber. All of the image color is
>>> on the *outer surface* of the linen fibers...Radiation hypotheses for
>>> image formation have to explain penetration, defect formation, and
>>> chemical reactions. They also have to explain the discontinuous
>>> distribution of image color." (Emphasis added)
>>>
>>> So apparently the idea that radiation directly caused the Shroud
>>> image (as in a flash of radiation) is refuted by the facts.
>>________________________________________________
>>
>>Yet the fact remains that the image somehow did
>>form on the shroud and remains there to this day.
>>
>>And the scientists who extensively studied the thing
>>all conclude that ~ "It is not the product of an artist."
>
> It is the product of an artist; from Wikipedia, we have:
>
> "Joe Nickell in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state
> that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that
> the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the
> figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture
> was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too
> small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and
> that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is
> non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained
> if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.[33][107] As Raymond E.
> Brown noticed, a corpse in the relaxed position portrayed on the
> shroud could not be positioned such that its hand covers its genitals
> as portrayed.[108] The right arm and hand in the image appear to have
> been elongated to make this possible."

You cite a known skeptic who enters debate with a
closed mind and an agenda, who is not interested in
real science or truth.

Facts: The cloth is made of handspun flax. Historians
have determined that the weave of the Shroud cloth is
woven in a 3-over-1 herringbone pattern.

These dimensions correlate with ancient measurements
of 2 cubits x 8 cubits - consistent with loom technology
of the 1st century AD. <-------- *****

The fine weave of 3-over-1 herringbone confirms the
NT statement that the "sindon" (or shroud) was a "fine
linen cloth." Such a cloth would have been purchased
by a wealthy man. Joseph of Arimathea, the owner of
the cloth, was a wealthy trading merchant who traveled
outside of Jerusalem."
https://www.signfromgod.org/shroud_of_turin_facts

This has been extensively studied by professional
scientists using the best science of that day (1978).

But you are not interested in the words of scientists.

Because you, like Joe Nickell, have an agenda.

>>If you want the truth, then go with the science.
>
> You mean the fantasy-land of "God did it"?

Your prejudice is palpable.

>>Summary of the STURP scientists conclusions
>
> They were not entirely without bias. According to Wikipedia,
>
> " Joe Nickell of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has pointed out
> that "STURP's leaders served on the executive council of the Holy
> Shroud Guild, which is devoted to the "cause" of the reputed relic."
>
>>"We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that
>> of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is
>> not the product of an artist.
>>
>>"The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also
>> give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an
>> ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are
>> made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by
>> some scientists in the future, the problem remains
>> unsolved." https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm
>>
>>It is "not humanly possible" to duplicate it.
>
> We don't know that.

They do know that.

> It has been duplicated, albeit imperfectly, on a
> number of occasions.

No.

Not having the same characteristics.

>>A forger would need to make it appear as
>>a 'photo negative' (which it is) before the
>>camera was even invented.
>
> Cameras are not the only way to create so-called "photo" negatives.

Explain the motive to do so centuries before the camera was invented.

> See
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33164668

On Mon, 13 May 2024 03:22:39 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:

>"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:me614jtmjpnae3dl9gmvq6k4210nbmc5su@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>"Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>>>>> % wrote:
>>>>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 47 mins. can't be bothered
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I mean, right? Especially when you already
>>>>>>>>>>> know everything!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Science," right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your scientific hypothesis is simply uneconomical; for it to be
>>>>>>>>>> true, so many, many different observations have to be false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> has it yet been determined how the image was made, other than it's
>>>>>>>>> not painted on?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was forged, the result of skilled painting. Historians know this
>>>>>>>> because one of the Popes at Avignon Clement VII received a letter from
>>>>>>>> a Bishop who had identified the forger who had painted the image.
>>>>>>>> Radiocarbon dating has placed the date of origin to the exact month
>>>>>>>> that the forger confessed to having done the work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dawn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so you're only an atheist if you forge the right art
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The forger was a Catholic believer, almost surely. Very few atheists,
>>>>>> if any, existed prior to the Early Modern Period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dawn
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi Dawn.
>>>>>
>>>>>I notice that you have re-kindled your interest in the
>>>>>Shroud. Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, the
>>>>>Son of the Most High God
>>>>
>>>> From *A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin*, we find on page
>>>> 110 that "Any radiation that is energetic enough to cause direct
>>>> color formation on the entire *surface* of a fiber would have to
>>>> penetrate the entire *volume* of a fiber. All of the image color is
>>>> on the *outer surface* of the linen fibers...Radiation hypotheses for
>>>> image formation have to explain penetration, defect formation, and
>>>> chemical reactions. They also have to explain the discontinuous
>>>> distribution of image color." (Emphasis added)
>>>>
>>>> So apparently the idea that radiation directly caused the Shroud
>>>> image (as in a flash of radiation) is refuted by the facts.
>>>________________________________________________
>>>
>>>Yet the fact remains that the image somehow did
>>>form on the shroud and remains there to this day.
>>>
>>>And the scientists who extensively studied the thing
>>>all conclude that ~ "It is not the product of an artist."
>>
>> It is the product of an artist; from Wikipedia, we have:
>>
>> "Joe Nickell in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state
>> that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that
>> the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the
>> figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture
>> was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too
>> small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and
>> that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is
>> non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained
>> if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.[33][107] As Raymond E.
>> Brown noticed, a corpse in the relaxed position portrayed on the
>> shroud could not be positioned such that its hand covers its genitals
>> as portrayed.[108] The right arm and hand in the image appear to have
>> been elongated to make this possible."
>
>You cite a known skeptic

That's right. We're skeptics and you're believer.

> who enters debate with a
>closed mind and an agenda, who is not interested in
>real science or truth.
>
>Facts: The cloth is made of handspun flax. Historians
>have determined that the weave of the Shroud cloth is
>woven in a 3-over-1 herringbone pattern.
>
>These dimensions correlate with ancient measurements
>of 2 cubits x 8 cubits - consistent with loom technology
>of the 1st century AD. <-------- *****
>
>The fine weave of 3-over-1 herringbone confirms the
>NT statement that the "sindon" (or shroud) was a "fine
>linen cloth." Such a cloth would have been purchased
>by a wealthy man. Joseph of Arimathea,

There is no such town as Arimathea.

> the owner of
>the cloth, was a wealthy trading merchant who traveled
>outside of Jerusalem."
> https://www.signfromgod.org/shroud_of_turin_facts
>
>This has been extensively studied by professional
>scientists using the best science of that day (1978).

From Wikipedia:

In 1998, shroud researcher Joe Nickell wrote that no examples of
herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus. The few samples of
burial cloths that are known from the era are made using plain
weave.[33] In 2000, fragments of a burial shroud from the 1st century
were discovered in a tomb near Jerusalem, believed to have belonged to
a Jewish high priest or member of the aristocracy. Based on this
discovery, the researchers concluded that the Turin Shroud did not
originate from Jesus-era Jerusalem.[95][96][97]

>But you are not interested in the words of scientists.
>
>Because you, like Joe Nickell, have an agenda.

Don't you have an agenda to convert souls to Christ?

>>>If you want the truth, then go with the science.
>>
>> You mean the fantasy-land of "God did it"?
>
>Your prejudice is palpable.

What?! You don't recognize yourself? Maybe a better mirror is needed
or something. Talking about "fantasy" is exactly what you do to us
when we confront you with scientific evidence against your Bible
beliefs.

>>>Summary of the STURP scientists conclusions
>>
>> They were not entirely without bias. According to Wikipedia,
>>
>> " Joe Nickell of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has pointed out
>> that "STURP's leaders served on the executive council of the Holy
>> Shroud Guild, which is devoted to the "cause" of the reputed relic."
>>
>>>"We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that
>>> of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is
>>> not the product of an artist.
>>>
>>>"The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also
>>> give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an
>>> ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are
>>> made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by
>>> some scientists in the future, the problem remains
>>> unsolved." https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm
>>>
>>>It is "not humanly possible" to duplicate it.
>>
>> We don't know that.
>
>They do know that.
>
>> It has been duplicated, albeit imperfectly, on a
>> number of occasions.
>
>No.
>
>Not having the same characteristics.

Not all of them, no, but many of them.

>>>A forger would need to make it appear as
>>>a 'photo negative' (which it is) before the
>>>camera was even invented.
>>
>> Cameras are not the only way to create so-called "photo" negatives.
>
>Explain the motive to do so centuries before the camera was invented.

It was probably a byproduct of something else they were doing, e.g.,
forming faint images for relics for the gullible using images painted
on glass and projected onto linen ("cleverly painted" as described by
someone who actually knew the forger).