Scientists Say Shroud of Turin Shows Jesus Was Crucified in 'Very Painful' Position

a reply to: windword

You're correct. There are many scholars that say Jesus did not exist.

But I was surprised to find that the majority of historians agree that Jesus existed and the debate lies in the details of his life.

a reply to: windword

The existence of Jesus is not called into question by anyone who reads and understands because historical accounts of His existence are quite common when reading from historians of the time. What was thought to be the historical Yeshua(His real name) was mentioned not only in The Antiquities of the Jews, the most prominent historical document of the time, widely recognized as the go to document when preparing for archeological understanding of the times in question. He is also thought to have been mentioned in the Talmud, although not very favorably understandably. You can say many scholars but can you name one? I would like to see how many can you actually name? I have provided actual documentation one might peruse. Please do the same.

a reply to: pleasethink

I'll give you more than one!

Jesus Never Existed

Exposing the tragic fabrication of a saviour of the world. Articles and videos by Kenneth Humphreys

Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Anyways, you are correct it is drifting. But in a way, is probably more interesting. But my point has been made very eloquently and thoroughly. I have spoken with honesty and in a logical, easy to understand manor. Just because you probably fashion yourself a "wise" person who doesn't fall for the "sky fairy", it doesn't really show. This is honesty. Many have come here and debated me about these things, and I have clearly shown that they deny their own process that they claim to uphold. Science does not support your beliefs. Of this, I have clearly provided evidence. In fact, the pseudo science you profess is the actual problem with mankind in this time and age. Many greater men then you have found the elements of design. Of this I have also provided evidence. What you sow is unfounded foolishness with an air of "I'm smart". It was born in the writings of men like Adam Weishaupt and Albert Pike. I am also familiar with these as well. The lets blame religion for all that ails us crowd. Lets give up the understanding of wise men to accept the teachings of fools, who teach not from logic, but from emotion. Who believe not from analysis, but from more of a political basis. Well I for one, will decline, sir. I am no sheep. I am no pawn. I was made free from my Creator. I will thank Him, for He has placed it in my heart to do so. There is no doubt, as I have witnessed His works, and have become a vessel for His truth.

In good spirit I will say that may you find happiness and whatever you seek. The road I walk was not made for everyone. Only for the elect. Why some are chosen and others not is purely out of what's in your heart. And what's in your heart is purely up to you.

I leave you with this, to show that this is not new, but truly nothing is new under the sun:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

May your life bring you to the truth, and if not may it be filled with comfort, as bad things appear to be in the distance.
It's been nice talking to you. To prevent further drift, I will decline to post further in this thread.

a reply to: windword

I looked. I wasn't convinced. As soon as I heard him compare Philo to words written by Moses, who predated him by 400-1000 years, you lost me. And I can honestly say I have never heard of those scholars. No offense. But the points I have made are clear. I respect that you have a differing opinion. I base my beliefs not on what someone told me, but what I have derived from desiring to understand the world around me. This undoubtably was influenced by many who came before me, but is entirely my own brain seeing what is apparent from all that is. Complex machinery does not spring forth from nothing. It never has, it never will. If your logic can get over that, then my logic can understand a Creator. It is the only way this makes sense. And Yeshua actually makes more sense in that context. But as I have stated, I will stop posting in this thread, as it has drifted clearly far off topic. Out of respect for my fellow man, I responded to you. I will say to all the same. I hope you find comfort in your understanding, and happiness in your life. If I am right, we are all in trouble. And it is beginning to appear that this is so. But good luck. Pay attention to the signage.

originally posted by: pleasethink


And oh yeah, as far as the historicity of Christ, there is a wiki page. Google it, it contradicts what you have stated quit vividly, with historical accounts to his existence. In fact,almost no scholar worth anything denies He existed, they just refute the miracles.

Thanks, I followed the wiki link below. I also followed the citations, but was unable to find the published poll where the world's Universities and historians were consulted, or what the criteria for "worth anything" was. All I found were a few people who made claims. Though I do note that this page also puts forward known forgeries...

en.wikipedia.org...

It would be more correct to say academics agree the biblical Christ is a myth (real scholars reject magic). This doesn't in any way mean they accept the rest of it. There is much within the "non paranormal" story that is either untrue or very unlikely. Though many scholars agree on the probability that a normal man, unremarkable enough to have been overlooked by all relevant early historians, could have formed the kernel of the resulting myths.

Yet a lot of them accept it without looking further (possibly because they don't give a rat's @--e), some do look further and find it unlikely.

And as far as religious delusionals(bit o irony) and scholars. Einstein believed in G-d. Isaac Newton believed in G-d. Copernicus. Kepler. Wait for it, this one might hurt a bit, Leonardo DaVinci, had a firm belief in G-d.

To hold a "scholarly" view that magic, faith healing and the like are real, certainly requires "delusion" (by laymans definition - to hold a strong belief despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary).

You might wish to look up terms such as "Spinoza's God"and "Pantheism" regarding Einstein, who thought the primitive myths in the Bible were a bit silly. In the end it doesn't matter who believes what, that's just an appeal to numbers.

In fact, despite modern beliefs to the contrary, most of the anti religious stuff dawned with artists, Oscar Wilde(famous homosexual), Mark Twain, etc. etc. This is where you probably come in with the Catholic church ruled the world that I hear so much, despite not having an army or really any power over any nation aside from Spain, Rome for brief periods of time.

What relevance does someone's homosexuality have to this discussion?

The biggest problem with this area of study is that traditionally it was the domain of the church and clergy (who had a penchant for pious forgery). For much of that time, to deny anything in the bible could have resulted in death. We still see people who are believers in the entire story, educated (brainwashed) in religious institutions, sometimes with dual roles (clergy/scholar) trying to be objective about the historicity of their paranormal belief.

This would be like expecting fully audited Scientologists from "Hubbard University" to be objective regarding Scientology. Not likely. The whole area of study needs a good injection of secular scholars.

Think about this: from what I have actually shown you, you should start to perceive that in fact, your ideals are kind of like a religion unto themselves. They require faith. They attempt to explain the world around them in a way that makes sense. And they are actually less scientifically or historically provable then the Bible.

No, my beliefs about the natural world/universe can be falsified. As they say, show us the "fossil rabbits from the pre Cambrian" and watch the phylogenic tree crumble. Show us under controlled conditions that prayer has genuine effects beyond placebo and watch as scientists flock to it.....

a reply to: pleasethink

I'm not like you. I'm not trying to change your mind, to convince you that Jesus never existed. You asked for just one scholar who doesn't believe Jesus Christ existed. I gave you 4. Period.

And, btw, all your citations of your supposed proof of the historic existence of Jesus Christ don't convince me either.

I'm sorry if this offends any one but I thought its was pretty funny and creative.
20 photos of Jesus Doing Halarious Things
www.dailydawdle.com...

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

You do possess the same search engines I do. The page was titled "Historicity of Jesus". Anyways.

Also note that while you attempted to say things involving scientists not believing in G-d, I have clearly shown otherwise. Also note that G-d was used, rather then Yeshua. I clearly understand Einsteins beliefs, and never alluded to his belief in Christianity, only to his belief in G-d, of which you appear to be in agreement.

Homosexuality would be a driving motive for one to denounce a book in which their actions where classified as abominable, would it not? I should have clarified, as I mistook it for being easy to understand, which I see now it was not. My apologies.

As far as prayer, how does one study prayer? I know some have tried, and found success. Others have tried, and found failure. Which would you like to see? It is widely available, as the internet is a great device to find such information.
I never even included prayer in our discussion. The points I made is more the clear disregard for what is apparently evident to any who claim to study such things. Are you aware of the multitude of job bearing proteins in your body, who solely exist to perform certain tasks. Down to the minutest detail, all things work to afford your existence. This is complex machinery upon complex machinery. If one little, seemingly insignificant protein in your body malfunctions, they will name a syndrome after you and you will likely die. There are things that go up and down your DNA looking for things that appear out of place, in order to repair it. Do you know why Einstein believed in G-d? That's why. It is evident through searching through what lies all around you and within you. These things don't happen on accident. Computers don't grow from slop. And your body is, by orders of magnitude, much more complex. One would read in the Bible, in Colossians referencing Yeshua, "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." and say well that's preposterous, until one looks at Laminin, a cell adhesion molecule and curiously it is in the shape of a cross. Did the people back then possess electron microscopes and said "Man let's set this up real nice for those rubes in the future."

You can read in the Bible, in one of the oldest books Job, "He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." Did Job in 2000 bc or earlier have orbital telescopes? Probably not, but today we understand that the universe is, in fact, constantly expanding. Kind of like a stretched curtain. Hmmm. Job is very interesting indeed. Other interesting scientific understandings are commonplace in the Bible, and have actually lead to scientific observation. One such gentleman read about the "treasures of snow" and thought man let me look what it meant "treasures" and found every flake bearing complex geometric alignment and artistic beauty and began to take pictures of it. It describes the hydrologic cycle, in detail, at least 1500 years before its scientifically understood explanation by man. You see, my friend, it is not from the ear that I bear my truth, but in the eye that I perceive it. An eye that Darwin himself said is absurd to think it manifested through natural processes. Kind of like another statement in Job,
from Job himself, after being admonished by G-d Himself,
"I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear, But now my eye sees You. Therefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes"

I can appreciate your viewpoints, but this tires me. As a man once told me "You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make them think". As I have stated, I appreciate our conversation, but we have reached an impasse, and appear to be allowing thread drift. I think it is constructive and worthwhile, but are either of us gonna lead the other to understand when both our hearts are clearly defined? I wish you well. I was just showing that what you believe is just as unbelievable as what appears unbelievable to you. And my appreciation of irony drives me to define it in ways that will make that apparent. I think it follows the "Deny Ignorance" spirit in totality. But out of respect, I believe it's best we move on.

a reply to: windword

Cool. Thanks. Josephus was a shill. The Talmud isn't a respectable historical document, either. It is a plot by those sly Christians to take over the world by the year 2000 when George W can institute a theocracy by the power of the evil Roman overlords, despite him and the old man being Masons, which if one has read Morals and Dogma, could not be further from Christianity if it tried. That is the official theme behind most of what I have heard on ATS in opposition. Doesn't seem logical.

Also, I am merely stating facts. Nobody of note questions that Yeshua existed. They did for awhile, but His impact on the world is evident to anyone with eyes. That doesn't stop political agendas from moving how they move, though. And Christianity is a problem to some. Maybe you read a little of their work?

Like I said, out of respect for my common man, I respond. Good luck with your endeavors. I support your right to feel the way you feel. And in all honesty, I couldn't possibly care less if you don't believe in Yeshua. I just like to display illogic when it attempts to hide in logic. I don't like people to pee on my head and tell me it's raining.

a reply to: pleasethink

I'm afraid that you continue to fall for the pious forgeries that are needed to confirm your faith.

originally posted by: pleasethink

I clearly understand Einsteins beliefs, and never alluded to his belief in Christianity, only to his belief in G-d, of which you appear to be in agreement.

I am also largely in agreement with Einstein regarding his version of God. I highly doubt that you do understand it, or you wouldn't have used it in that context.

Homosexuality would be a driving motive for one to denounce a book in which their actions where classified as abominable, would it not? I should have clarified, as I mistook it for being easy to understand, which I see now it was not. My apologies.

I think it requires further clarification, as to your particular stance on it. Seeing as you thought it pertinent.

As far as prayer, how does one study prayer?

Quite simply pray for something miraculous, under controlled conditions and watch results. Could even have a control group. Possibly quantify if you have even the faith of a mustard seed, pray for a mountain to move etc. Could also indicate that god might exist.

I never even included prayer in our discussion.

So? I did, it is relevant. In fact it formed large part of the post you originally responded to.

One would read in the Bible, in Colossians referencing Yeshua, "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." and say well that's preposterous, until one looks at Laminin, a cell adhesion molecule and curiously it is in the shape of a cross. Did the people back then possess electron microscopes and said "Man let's set this up real nice for those rubes in the future."

One could read the bible and find anything they want, or equally find the lot of it very dubious right after the part where it says "In principio"

I can appreciate your viewpoints, but this tires me.

Of course it does.

As a man once told me "You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make them think".

You have absolutely no idea what views I hold on anything spiritual other than I don't believe in the Christian version of god.

I was just showing that what you believe is just as unbelievable as what appears unbelievable to you.

I already knew that, usually goes without saying.

But out of respect, I believe it's best we move on.

Agree.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: pleasethink

with historical accounts to his existence. In fact, almost no scholar worth anything denies He existed,

Christians love to say that no real scholars say Jesus didn't exist. The fact is, there is no credible evidence to his existence at all.

they just refute the miracles.

Other questionable subjects are , his real name, his date and place of birth, his parentage and lineage, what he did and didn't say and do, if he was crucified, if he died during that ordeal, and on and on and on. Certainly, many scholars agree that the Jesus Christ, the biblical story character, did NOT ever exist.

Bold faced lies. Don't you ever get tired of lying? Not one thing you said above is true. The truth is that the majority of scholars and historians accept that Jesus was a real historical figure. I have this debate with you constantly on these boards and it's like you remain willfully ignorant to everything anyone else has ever said to you on the subject if it happens to run contrary to your opinion.

There are a handful of scholars that deny the historicity of Jesus. They are the minority, and their work has been refuted many times by other scholars. The real truth is that there is plenty of evidence for the historicity of Jesus, you just consistently choose to ignore it, or warp it to your own ends and invent criticisms that nobody in academia takes seriously.

If you're going to ply your trade in my thread, at least stick to the subject: The Shroud. You've already stated you don't believe it's real and that you don't believe Jesus existed (despite the fact you have contradicted yourself on the latter claim many times), so why are you still here?

a reply to: windword

And you have a right to that opinion.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

" This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God." Einstein

I would say that a belief in a superior mind as stated by Einstein is a belief in G-d in any religion or language that exists. As far as me understanding it, who knows. I didn't know the man personally and must rely on sources which are available, not unlike yourself.

I see homosexuality as a sin, not unlike adultery or lustfulness, etc. I do not condemn them to die, and have had friends of the homosexual persuasion. I have also really not liked people who were homosexual. As a counterpoint, I really don't like a lot of heterosexuals as well, and I am a very lustful human being. My personal perspective varies from person to person, I guess would be an honest interpretation. Love should not be denied from a sinful person, as I would have to deny love to everybody, including myself. But if you blatantly attack what I hold most dear in a disrespectful way, then you could probably see me avoid you like you were contagious, and we probably won't be the very best of friends. Does that clarify?

According to the Bible, the devil told Yeshua to throw himself from a cliff and angels would collect Him and protect Him. He replied "Thall shall not tempt the Lord thy G-d" Kind of makes scientific tests implausible for a Christian.

My Bible is in English.

It tires me for the same reason any interaction like this tires me, it's not meant to understand, it is meant to frustrate. My responses to you are more for others who would come upon them, if I was to be quite honest. Just so they don't read something and get fooled or fall under the peer pressure. It is reassuring to those who believe to know that there are those who would willfully come to their defense, even if they aren't as well spoken to do it themselves. I would do it every day all day any day forever. But my point has been made. Anything more is unnecessary. As the Bible says:
"But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven." It is an honor and a duty.

From your "sky fairy" comment, I can guess what you don't believe, surely.

It is more fulfilling and meaningful to accept the beautiful elements of the work of a clearly perfected intellect then to practice enigmatic illogicality. I am thankful and I witness to His nature, to glorify Him before others. It is worthwhile and fills my heart with love. If you enjoy intentionally frustrating another, so be it. It is not frustrating to me, just like beating a dead horse, for lack of a better analogy. Man to man/woman or whatever, could probably be doing something more meaningful then getting on the internet insulting anothers beliefs. It sows discord, not harmony. Calling G-d a sky fairy will not win you any humanitarian awards.

And thanks for the opportunity to show the truth to whoever would receive it. Have a wonderful night.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Bold faced lies. Don't you ever get tired of lying? Not one thing you said above is true.

Shall we start a name calling feud? Everything I said above is true! Grow up!

You have never won debate on the historic Jesus "Christ". Most of the evidence that you have provided is also, like the Shroud of Turin, obvious pious forgeries, or just cultural misunderstandings. There is zero credible evidence for the existence of "Jesus Christ" outside of the Bible.

As far as this being your thread, as long as you author threads promoting religious nonsense, I'll be adding my 2 cents!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Bold faced lies. Don't you ever get tired of lying? Not one thing you said above is true.

Shall we start a name calling feud? Everything I said above is true! Grow up!

You have never won debate on the historic Jesus "Christ". Most of the evidence that you have provided is also, like the Shroud of Turin, obvious pious forgeries, or just cultural misunderstandings. There is zero credible evidence for the existence of "Jesus Christ" outside of the Bible.

Your opinion is in the minority. The fact you refuse to accept that fact and continue to peddle your opinions as irrefutable science is indicative of your level of maturity. Grow up, indeed.

There are extra biblical sources that mention Jesus and early Christians. You simply refuse to acknowledge any of them as credible, and instead choose to suggest a litany of excuses as to why they can't be included in your ridiculous requirements for proof, despite the fact they have proven incredibly accurate in other subjects relating to the history of the region during the relevant time period.

As for "winning" the debate with you, I'm well aware it's impossible to win a debate with someone like you. You are so incredibly stubborn and stuck in your ways that no amount of debate would ever be sufficient to coerce you into admitting you may have been wrong, or "lost" a debate on the subject.

You are fully entitled to your opinion, it would just be nice if you stopped touting it as fact.

Finally, for the record, I never called you a name. I said you were lying (and you are).

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Your opinion is in the minority.

So what?

There are extra biblical sources that mention Jesus and early Christians.

No there aren't, no credible contemporary sources. The silence of Philo the Alexandrian and Plutarch on the subject of Jesus the Christ is deafening! Most scholars agree that the Josephus reference is a pious forgery.

You simply refuse to acknowledge any of them as credible, and instead choose to suggest a litany of excuses as to why they can't be included in your ridiculous requirements for proof, despite the fact they have proven incredibly accurate in other subjects relating to the history of the region during the relevant time period.

There is no record of the "Star of Bethlehem" or a Roman census that included Judea. SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH LUKE'S CENSUS If there are questions as to the historical record of his birth, can we be sure that the Bible even follows the same person and that Jesus isn't a composite of multiple characters both real and mythical? No, we can't!

You are fully entitled to your opinion, it would just be nice if you stopped touting it as fact.

Vice versa!

There is no credible evidence of the birth of Jesus, his mother's virginity, the miracles or the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, let alone his supposed resurrection from the dead. The mythology that he died for the sins of the world and he is God is certainly never been proved. There's no record of the earthquakes or dead people walking around, and a solar eclipse on the Jewish Passover is a scientific impossibility.

Without credible evidence that Jesus Christ even existed, let alone that was divine or that he rose from the dead, we can't accept this cloth as being "his" image. Besides the fact that the Shroud of Turin as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus has been thoroughly eviscerated, insulting me won't change the facts.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Your opinion is in the minority. The fact you refuse to accept that fact

Oh, c'mon now, man.

It's not an established fact. It's a legend.

And as for the opinion being 'in the minority' - what about that "narrow gate"? Huh??

I agree with windword. No evidence of it being anything but legend. Just like King Arthur. Yes, there was a guy named Owain or something like that, and yes, there was a man who Robin Hood is modelled after - but the legends are JUST THAT.
Legends.
Myths.
Tall tales.
Big-Fish stories.

The stories of miracles and ressurection are NOT 'facts', not by any stretch of any imagination - particularly those who use the Bible as their 'resource'!! It's a book! An anthology of tall tales and parables and fables. Aesop did an equally fine job with the fables. And besides that, Jesus definitely (as recorded) taught Eastern mysticism.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The evidence has been provided for you both in spades. You just refuse to accept it. I will not waste my energy any further on either of you, but I have this to say to you, windword:

Why are you here claiming Jesus never existed and there is no proof of his existence, yet you have been quoted in other threads as admitting to his historical existence once you were proven wrong? Why do you have two different stories? I have seen you claim that Jesus existed, but he was an Essene, and his story was blown out of proportion. So which is it Windword? Was he a fairytale, or was the fairytale based on a real man? Why can you never seem to get your story straight?

And if he was an Essene as you claimed elsewhere, Why did you come to that conclusion if there is no proof whatsoever for a historical Jesus?

You are one of the most disingenuous people I've ever talked to. Stick to your story.