Jump to content

Happy Easter! Let's look at the Jesus image on the Shroud of Turin.


servantx
 Share

Recommended Posts

To celebrate Easter 2015, let's have a look at the infamous 3D image on the Shroud of Turin again, on it is a crucified man with blood stain and various marks that strangely resemble to Jesus Christ's journey to the cross to die for the sins of mankind. This cloth was traditionally viewed as the burial cloth of Christ when his body was laid into the tomb. There is no paint on the cloth and there is a two side image of the same man, one showing the front and the other showing the matching image of his back. It seems to be the same cloth was wrapped on top and bottom of the man and some radiation/light source projected the image of the person onto the cloth. But if it was project both front and back of the person, where did light come from?When photography was invented in the 20th century, a photographer took a photo of the cloth and find out that it was a negative image like a film. And the truth image of black/white reversed photo appeared on his film in the dark room.The forehead of image has blood stain around it, both front and back of his head. With mark of swallowing bruise near the right eye.

 

[ATTACH]491[/ATTACH]

 

The waist and angle of the man has blood stain of the sign of Roman crucifixion. The side of the body also has blood stain with a wound.[ATTACH]492[/ATTACH]

 

The back bear marks of flogging and the back of head also has stain.The cloth material contains plant DNA that only exists with 50km from Jerusalem.According to historical records, it was brought back to Europe from Jerusalem by the Templar / crusader knights in the 12th century to keep it safe because of the lost of Jerusalem to the Muslims.[ATTACH]491[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]492[/ATTACH]

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 18
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The faulty carbon-14 testing conducted in 1988 has been debunked.

 

The results of that testing, according to which the Shroud was created during the period between 1260 and 1390, reflected tests only to tiny pieces of border additions known to have been used to repair the cloth after it was damaged by a fire in the 16th century.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416411/what-does-shroud-turin-prove-about-easter-myra-adams

 

In a 2011 imaging science paper, with microscopic studies of the fiber, it says:

 

"To summarize, the superficiality of the TS body image consists of a redox chemical reaction involving the primary cell walls. This chemical modification (regardless of mecha- nism) involves only the outermost (two or maximum three) linen fibers of the image carrying threads."

 

Download the scientific paper here:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k9wujcsez956lt1/Microscopic and Macroscopic Characteristics of the Shroud of Turin Image Superficiality.pdf?dl=0

 

It has been tested that the 3D image contains distance information used by NASA for 3D mapping, it might be result from corona discharge radiation.

 

Download the scientific paper here:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ee6s7ne3kpgc2uf/corona.pdf?dl=0

 

The scientists also tried to stimulate with direct laser beam, as the 2008 paper suggested that:

 

"...after laser irradiation that at first did not generate a clear image. The results are compared with the characteristics of the Turin Shroud, reflecting the possibility that a burst of directional ultraviolet radiation may have played a role in the formation of the Shroud image."

 

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-47-9-1278

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The faulty carbon-14 testing conducted in 1988 has been debunked.The results of that testing, according to which the Shroud was created during the period between 1260 and 1390, reflected tests only to tiny pieces of border additions known to have been used to repair the cloth after it was damaged by a fire in the 16th century.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416411/what-does-shroud-turin-prove-about-easter-myra-adams

 

In a 2011 imaging science paper, with microscopic studies of the fiber, it says:

 

"To summarize, the superficiality of the TS body image consists of a redox chemical reaction involving the primary cell walls. This chemical modification (regardless of mecha- nism) involves only the outermost (two or maximum three) linen fibers of the image carrying threads."

 

Download the scientific paper here:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k9wujcsez956lt1/Microscopic and Macroscopic Characteristics of the Shroud of Turin Image Superficiality.pdf?dl=0

 

It has been tested that the 3D image contains distance information used by NASA for 3D mapping, it might be result from corona discharge radiation.

 

Download the scientific paper here:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ee6s7ne3kpgc2uf/corona.pdf?dl=0

 

The scientists also tried to stimulate with direct laser beam, as the 2008 paper suggested that:

 

"...after laser irradiation that at first did not generate a clear image. The results are compared with the characteristics of the Turin Shroud, reflecting the possibility that a burst of directional ultraviolet radiation may have played a role in the formation of the Shroud image."

 

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-47-9-1278

It's funny that the image of the man in the TS looks exactly like the image portrayed by the artists the catholic church hired. You know, to give a palestinian man more of a caucasian look, with his long straight hair and all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny that the image of the man in the TS looks exactly like the image portrayed by the artists the catholic church hired. You know, to give a palestinian man more of a caucasian look, with his long straight hair and all.

Jesus is Jewish, and the Jews have Caucasian looks, for example, like Natalie Portman or Seinfield and Elane in the TV show Seinfield. What is the image portrayed by artists hired by the Catholic Church looks like?One of the earliest portrayal of Jesus is on the Roman Constantinople coin issued by Roman Emperor Justinian II in 692 A.D.Here is the coin: [ATTACH]493[/ATTACH]

JUSTINIAN II. First reign, 685-695 AD. AV Solidus (4.45 g, 6h). Constantinople mint. Struck 692-695. Facing bust of Christ; cross behind head / Justinian standing facing, holding cross potent on three steps; I/CONOP. DOC II 7 var. (officina); MIB III 8a; SB 1248. Sharp strike on a full flan with complete legends. Arguably one of the finest known specimens[ATTACH]493[/ATTACH]

 

spacer.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jewish? There isn't evidence that he even existed.Lol, I just imagined Jerry Seinfeld with straight long hair

That could make a funny skit.

There was historical documents supporting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

In Rome, 93 A.D., Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account:

 

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

 

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, no evidence Jesus existed.

 

Before I get into Josephus argument, let me just say that there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus Christ from any source. Not even the gospels in the Bible were written by eyewitnesses. That fact alone lowers the hopes of credibility when trying to prove a man with superpowers died long before any of the texts about him were written.

 

Anyhow, among the analysis that indicates Josephus text as being adulterated, what strikes me as the more convincing one is the fact that this particular fragment does not appear until the 4th century. You see, during centuries Josephus histories were hugely popular and were more read in Europe than any other book, losing only to the Bible. But somehow no one seemed to know it was there. That includes, Origen, one of the early christian writers who leaned massively on Josephus. This was the man that when his opponent Celsus asked him details on Jesus' life, answered "but from what other source we can furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives?" (Contra Celsum, 2.33). In the same book, 1.47, Origen even quotes Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews in order to prove the historical existence of John the Baptist, then adds that Josephus didn't believe in Jesus, once he didn't mention Jesus in that book.

 

Because this passage wasn't there at first.

 

That is, until some 300 years later, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea starts quoting it regularly. And well, if you don't know the reputation of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, I'll leave you with the opinion of Constantine biographer Jacob Burckhardt on him: "the first thoroughly dishonest and unfair historian of ancient time."

 

The Holy face of Edessa is one of his most famous forgeries, look it up.

 

Now if you excuse me, I'll enjoy the rest of this lovely Easter with my wife and daughter (who's still in her mother's womb :lol:)

 

Have a good one!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Matthew and John are eyewitnesses of Jesus.

 

Roman historian and senator Tacitus also mentioned about Jesus and early Christians.

 

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind". - Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, ch. 44

 

Have a nice holiday Nicolas. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning!

 

Both Matthew and John are eyewitnesses of Jesus.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Have you actually read the four gospels? They describe 4 different Jesuses! Specially John, he depicts a Jesus VERY different from the other three. One would expect that if two people are eyewitnesses of a fact, they will have at least similar reports. And that's when we talk small facts. But if we are talking about the visit of no other than the son of god himself, that my friend, would not leave any room for discrepancies let alone contradictions. Specially if you call the collection of these texts the infallible word of God.

 

For instance, how is it possible that John doesn't mention Matthew's Jesus's Sermon on the Mount? He didn't have to repeat it all, but if he was there sitting right next to Matthew, why not mention it at all? John also never say a word about the Sermon on the Plain as written by Luke. These are just two "small" discrepancies. As for contradictions, how would you explain the fact that Matthew's Jesus fulfills a prophecy at his trial by never saying a word, "silent as sheep", when on the other hand, John's Jesus, just won't have it quiet and gives some witty answers to both the high priest and the roman governor? (John 18:20-21, 23, 18:34,36,37 and 19:11).

 

It's also very clear that Matthew was writing about something that happened in the past, as stated by him in the following verses:

 

  • Matthew 27.8 - The field of blood story: "Wherefore that field was called the field of blood unto this day", and;
     
     
  • Matthew 28:15 - On the Jewish cover-up of the resurrection: "this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day".
     
     

 

But anyway, tell me why do you think those two gospels were written by eyewitnesses and we can dive more in this matter.

 

Roman historian and senator Tacitus also mentioned about Jesus and early Christians.

Well, as for Tacitus' report, that isn't evidence that Jesus existed at all. By the second century, when this was written, all Christians had heard of the legend of Jesus' crucifixion under Pilate, of course. He isn't claiming to be quoting any eyewitness report. All Tacitus did was lay a base on the beliefs of these people for the readers, as he continued discussing something else.

And if this is a true report. You see, the mere suggestion that the words "Christus" or "christians" would have been found in a Roman official record is nonsense. The word "Christ" is the Greek translation of a Jewish religious title. It wasn't Jesus' name. If indeed this document were to have any credibility, it would have mentioned "Jesus Ben Joseph of Nazareth" or some Latin equivalent.

 

To believe in Jesus is a strict matter of faith. Until today, no hard evidence has been found to corroborate his existence, let alone his supernatural features. It's quite the opposite actually, the contradictions are everywhere.

 

If I may, which Christian denomination do you identify yourself with?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an addition to Nicholas's reply re: Tacitus. It is very possible (though unlikely) that the actual source for Tacitus account of Jesus could have come from the hearsay of Christians.

 

Also, it is also worthwhile considering that some of the events mentioned in the Bible, such as Herod's infamous murdering of the "innocents" is not mentioned elsewhere in any other source outside of the Bible. This is food for thought.

 

Additionally, the Bible states that Jesus was well known, that multitudes of people from beyound Jordan, from Jerusalem, from Decapolis etc came to listen to him preach. If this was indeed the case, then why did no scribes or jewish historians who lived at the same time as Jesus not ONCE mention his name in their writings? For example, Philo of alexander, a Jewish historian, lived during Jesus' lifetime, and in his vast volumes of writings, there is no single reference to Jesus "the Christ"; not once!

 

But if Jesus did NOT exist, then WHY were literally thousands of "Christians", in the 1st century AD, willing to die for Jesus, and live their lives as martyrs? This is a question that I have not seen adequately answered yet.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to join this discussion, but what the hell;

 

Is the shroud of Turin the actual burial cloth of Jesus?

 

We can never know for sure, unless Jesus himself stands before us and says, "Yep, that's mine." Although, I imagine He will have one hell of a time "proving" to skeptics that he exists.

 

For every argument a believer may present to validate the existence of an historical Jesus, a non-believe will offer a counter argument. So it's been for almost 2000 years.

 

Let's see, what did I care most about when I was in my late 20's and early 30's? Ah, I remember, Biology. I was studying it in college and I was planning a future around it. Many credit hours, from many classes, over several years...straight A's (yep, no modesty with this. I am damn proud of straight A's in ALL of my science related classes).

 

Time to write my memoirs of the time I spent with my professors. Let's see now, what do I recall from each of those, I don't know, hundreds of lectures?

 

What do you want to bet, I will forget parts of those lectures? Maybe even important parts, that really affected my thoughts at the time. My money says I will.

 

There are discrepancies between the Gospels; written by four different men; possibly the actual man; possibly being transcribed by a younger person listening to an old man relate stories from many years ago.

 

So what?!

 

You know, to give a palestinian man more of a caucasian look, with his long straight hair and all.

Caucasoid is a biological classification used in forensic anthropology. Palestinian is an ethnic classification. Jesus was a Jew, ethnically, and caucasiod, biologically.

Does anyone else notice how much effort is put into denigrating one religion, one God, and one Man, who's existence is fervidly denied with, no proof that he didn't, other than denying the proof that he did.

 

Non-believers operate under the same two informal fallacies;

 

argumentum e silentio: where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

 

argumentum ad ignorantiam: assuming that a claim is false (true) because it has not been or cannot be proven true (false), (vice versa).

 

I see the situation quite simply:

 

I believe Jesus is the son of God; He paid the price for my sins, having lived a sinless life himself; because of His death and resurrection, I have a path to an eternal afterlife with Him and God. (what it might be like I have no idea but that doesn't matter)

 

If I am wrong and at my death everything I am ceases to exist, I loose nothing.

 

If I am right, I gain everything.

 

Not a hard choice for me.

 

Nothing anyone can say would change my belief. No one has that control over me.

 

As it has been said many times before...It is a matter of faith, not proof.

 

If you don't believe...that's fine.

 

Is that a reason to ridicule someone that does? Is it, somehow, your responsibility to destroy anyone else's faith. If that is your goal and it turns out you are wrong...

 

Matthew 18:6

 

If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

 

Mark 9:42

 

If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

 

Luke 17:2

 

It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

 

The Bible, New International Version

 

Seems three out of four agree on this one.

 

Let the attack begin.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the situation quite simply:

 

I believe Jesus is the son of God; He paid the price for my sins, having lived a sinless life himself; because of His death and resurrection, I have a path to an eternal afterlife with Him and God. (what it might be like I have no idea but that doesn't matter)

 

If I am wrong and at my death everything I am ceases to exist, I loose nothing.

 

If I am right, I gain everything.

 

Not a hard choice for me.

"I believe Jesus is the son of God; He paid the price for my sins, having lived a sinless life himself; because of His death and resurrection, I have a path to an eternal afterlife with Him and God. (what it might be like I have no idea but that doesn't matter)

If I am wrong and at my death everything I am ceases to exist, I loose nothing."

 

Does the fact that you say "if I am wrong...." mean your belief is just based on faith? You are not absolutely sure that what you believe is true? This is a genuine enquiry on my part.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "If I am wrong" is a speculative proposition offered from an observers perception and does not reflect my belief. I am absolutely sure, within my own heart, that what I believe is true.

 

As a scientist and biologist I know some things appear inconsistent with nature and biblical accounts, but I can see ways to reconcile them without conflict.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to join this discussion, but what the hell;

Excellent! Thanks for joining in!

Before I go on, I'd like to say that in no way I aim to attack any of you. I might attack your faith as an idea, but I think that's acceptable to do since, well, this is a forum, and we are discussing the subject. Everything I write is supposed to be impersonal (unless when I mention otherwise).

 

Is the shroud of Turin the actual burial cloth of Jesus?We can never know for sure, unless Jesus himself stands before us and says, "Yep, that's mine." Although, I imagine He will have one hell of a time "proving" to skeptics that he exists.

Well, I'll try a different approach: Let's say the shroud is real. It is a 2000 years old relic that involved the body of a man called Jesus the Christ. What does it mean? I can think of a few hypothesis:

 

  1. It's a miracle of god;
     
     
  2. It's man-made;
     
     
  3. It's the result of a natural process as observed in other medias.
     
     

 

If hypothesis 2 or 3 are correct, then there isn't a miracle and case is closed. But, if hypothesis 1 is to be true, then God printed that image with the intention of what exactly? Prove his existence? By drawing that in a piece of fabric? That thing is the undisputed proof that God in omnipotent?

 

Caucasoid is a biological classification used in forensic anthropology. Palestinian is an ethnic classification. Jesus was a Jew, ethnically, and caucasiod, biologically.

I do lack knowledge on that subject. I haven't researched anything on it as it really wouldn't make any difference to the whole story. For some reason I thought it would be impossible for a man in the middle east to have straight long hair like that back in those times. Since this is based only on my personal unverified opinion, I abdicate of this argument :lol:. The capillar quality of the Christ would not change anything.

 

Non-believers operate under the same two informal fallacies;argumentum e silentio: where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

argumentum ad ignorantiam: assuming that a claim is false (true) because it has not been or cannot be proven true (false), (vice versa).

It always makes me giggle when I hear a theist using the word "non-believers". We are all non-believers to the gods of other religions! But I digress.

The hypothesis from silence is a very good indicative tool used by historians. We can't ignore the fact that a writer who allegedly had access to X, doesn't mention X in any of his letters. If historians worked like that, well, we wouldn't have history as we know. Can you imagine a historian saying:

 

"This writer never wrote anything on X, although X was contemporary to him. I'm not a bit curious to why that is, I'll go do history somewhere else."?

 

The lack of written references, specially when we know an author had plenty access to it should lead the historian in a long path of questioning: Why would he not mention it? Did he not find it relevant? Why not? What are the chances his writings were adulterated? If not adulterated then why? Bad translation? What do other writers say about this? And so on...

 

The fallacy you mentioned derives from using the absence of any mention of X as proof that X doesn't exist. Which is just silly.

 

As for the argument from ignorance, it is very important to understand where lies the burden of proof. In this case it's clear to me that whoever declares Jesus/Thor/Mithra/Osiris/Santa to be real, it's up to that person to present evidence. I basically went ahead and brought up some of the most commom arguments for Jesus' existence, like the validity of the gospels and all. Because I've had this discussion before.

 

If I am wrong and at my death everything I am ceases to exist, I loose nothing.If I am right, I gain everything.

Ah, Pascal's Wager... The thing that throws me off about it is that it only considers the possibility of the existence of only one god. Which we know it isn't true. There are hundreds of gods out there. What if Krishna is the right god? What if Allah? Olorun? Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent? Tangaroa? Baldr? Ganesha? If the hebrew tribal god Yahweh isn't real, and one of these are... Well, I wouldn't like to be in your place.

That's why I don't think this is the more honest approach on defining what I will believe in for the rest of my life with penalty of eternal suffering if I'm wrong. I wouldn't personally gamble with any of these gods as I imagine since, well, they are gods, they would know I believe in them just because I'm betting on whether or not they are true. But hey, we live in free countries, we have the right to choose anything to believe in.

 

Nothing anyone can say would change my belief. No one has that control over me.

I agree, and no one should [have that control over you]. Unless that someone is yourself.

I myself am a bit more open to changing my opinions though. As I have over the years many times. To me it's been a matter of analyzing data and giving myself honest conclusions based on reality.

 

As it has been said many times before...It is a matter of faith, not proof.

Yep, I said that.

 

If you don't believe...that's fine.Is that a reason to ridicule someone that does?

I'm not sure you're talking directly to me but since I'm the one making the case against it, I assume it is.

Well, if I did ridiculed someone, I apologize. It wasn't my intention. Like I said in the beginning, this is all meant to be impersonal, it's all about the ideas we're discussing, not the people.

 

Is it, somehow, your responsibility to destroy anyone else's faith. If that is your goal and it turns out you are wrong...

I think we both agree that no one has the power to change anyone else's faith. Faith is a very personal thing.

 

Matthew 18:6If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Mark 9:42

 

If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

 

Luke 17:2

 

It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

Great! Typical vindictive Yahweh, even in the New Testament! These are the passages that actually make the case against christianity. This reaction of "well, you better go die if you don't agree with me" is so human, almost infantile, that hardly fits as divine, in my opinion. I would expect a more transcendental positioning from the Son of God himself, when addressing his so beloved but confused creation. I get it though. Yaweh has been threatening us humans with violence throughout the whole Bible. And that's only because it works.

Well, sometimes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat

 

(yea, I had to look that up. I wish I had taken Latin instead of Spanish... can't speak either one anyway.)

 

We could enter into a protracted debate on the existence of an historical Jesus. I could cite a source of evidence in favor. You would cite a source against, perhaps a source debating the exact source I offered. We could continue that until we filled the memory allotted by Cosmo's server. It's a debate that will not end.

 

One thing to consider is;

 

Most historians do not deny the existence of an historical Jesus, only atheists do.

 

The divinity of Jesus is the most debated and validly debatable point of the subject.

 

That, the Divinity, can only be accepted by faith.

 

The scientist in me accepts that proving this "belief", in deference to a theory, would require developing a valid experiment. I can only develop one. It is a valid experiment in that, it can be and has been, repeated by others. It falls short when the comparison of results is attempted. No one, as yet, with of course one notable exception and the basis behind this experiment, has been able to publish their results. There are examples of other individual results being presented but the actual methodology of the experiment remain in question.

 

Quite simply, no one, beside Jesus, has ever; died; been dead for 3 days, or more; returned to describe the experience. That is the only way absolute proof could be presented... and it would probably still be denied.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

 

What does it mean? I can start guessing that onus probandi is burden of proof... "The burden of proof lies upon that who affirms, not on the one who denies." Is that it? Did I just translate a whole phrase in Latin by myself? :eek:

 

We could enter into a protracted debate on the existence of an historical Jesus. I could cite a source of evidence in favor. You would cite a source against, perhaps a source debating the exact source I offered. We could continue that until we filled the memory allotted by Cosmo's server. It's a debate that will not end.

 

I'm not that sure we could do a whole lot of that. I think the servers are safe @Cosmo1598825723, at least for now. The "evidence" gathered by the Church up to today is scarce and weak. The fact that they grabbed on to that fragment from Tacitus and preserved it as evidence for Christ merely because of an incidental mention, is a fine example of that. Just think of how they would have gone crazy if Pontius Pilate himself had written anything about Jesus.

 

I know I would have to reconsider my thoughts if such a document were to be found.

 

Most historians do not deny the existence of an historical Jesus, only atheists do..

 

We both know that in Science, the number of people supporting an idea has exactly zero meaning to its credibility. Evidence on the other hand...

 

That, the Divinity, can only be accepted by faith.

 

Not only that divinity but all the others out there.

 

Quite simply, no one, beside Jesus, has ever; died; been dead for 3 days, or more; returned to describe the experience. That is the only way absolute proof could be presented... and it would probably still be denied.

 

I'm guessing you're using the Gospels to assert that. Well, it's already known that the Gospels aren't reliable. These texts were not only written decades after the alleged death of Jesus but they also have a lot of contradictions between them. Like you would expect of a story being told over and over again by generations. Like any of the other "Gospels" of other religions.

 

If that's the logic we're following here, then all the other gods that have their lives described in holy books ought to be true.

 

Also, the myth of a super powered baby, born out of an immaculate conception between a woman and a god, isn't exclusive to Jesus. Zeus had affairs with mortal women and impregnated a lot of them. Heracles in one example. Dionysus is an even better example, since he died and resurrected. When Krishna died, although he didn't wait for the earth to spin three times around its axis to reappear, he also ascended to heaven. Whatever that means.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...