It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Geologist: ''Jesus was married with a child and tomb found''

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Lol now you are bringing up hoax number 2 The Sudarium which has been Carbon dated to 700 AD. You are really falling into the "I DESPERATELY want to believe camp".


BTW, did you even read from that blog you posted?...

Let me help you.


That link was used to debunk the Sudarium. Not the Shroud. The fact that it is a pro-Shroud site as well really puts holes in your story that they are both real objects.


You, and some others still are not understanding that the shroud and the Sudarium have been in many cities throughout Europe, and in the Middle East. Both had been handled by multitudes of nobles and high members of the clergy which would have tainted the cloth with their sweat, skin oils, and fibers from their own clothes.


Yea, I've heard this poor rationale before too.


Think about it. To this day no one can imprint with ancient technology the image of a person in 2 micro-fibers of a piece of cloth. 2 micro-fibers are smaller than one single hair. But somehow, you among some others want to claim this was "forged" in Medieval times?...


Just because the technique to create the Shroud may be lost to time doesn't mean that you can push the date of its creation back just because you want to believe. Also, this is the newest Scientific idea of what the shroud was created for.
Turin shroud was made for medieval Easter ritual, historian says


In any court of law evidence that is tainted with the dna in sweat and skin oils of hundreds of people would not be accepted as "evidence".


You're the one trying to push the Shroud as viable evidence of Jesus. Not me.


In fact what the carbon dating of the Sudarium proves is that the Sudarium existed and was handled in the 600s-800s AD. It doesn't prove that it was made then.

The same thing for the Shroud of Turin.


Yeah... Try again. The Carbon dating tells when the object was created.

Rogers' conclusions are thought to be suspect.
Radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin


Raymond Rogers [61] argued in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta that the presence of vanillin differed markedly between the unprovenanced threads he was looking at, which contained 37% of the original vanillin, while the body of the shroud contained 0% of the original vanillin. He stated that: "The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicate that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years".[41] Rogers concluded from this that the Shroud is much older than the earlier purported estimates.[62][63][64][65][unreliable source?] Rogers also noted that the thread he examined contained a significant amount of cotton, and stated that cotton was absent in the main-body of the Shroud.[65][66][67][unreliable source?]

It has further been stated that Roger’s vanillin-dating process is untested, and the validity thereof is suspect, as the deterioration of vanillin is heavily influenced by the temperature of its environment - heat strips away vanillin rapidly, and the shroud has been subjected to temperatures high enough to melt silver and scorch the cloth.[68] Rogers’ analysis is also questioned by skeptics such as Joe Nickell, who reasons that the conclusions of the author, Raymond Rogers, result from "starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence".[69]


But hey, wikipedia may not be the best source. Here is a scientific breakdown of Rogers' work by an actual scientist. By the way, he's Geologist. So he is qualified to speak on this subject.
A Skeptical Response to Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin


What happens when dozens, or even hundreds of people handle and touch a piece of cloth without gloves? Their sweat, and their skin oils are transferred unto the piece of cloth.

You see, what many people fail to understand is that unlike other artifacts which have been excavated by archeologists, who follow rigorous steps to not taint whatever artifact they uncover, the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium have been handled for centuries by people who did not follow the rigorous steps used to date when excavating archeological artifacts.


None of this matters to the testing that has been performed on the Shroud. You are just trying to make up loopholes to get out of the fact that the Shroud and Sudarium has been proved to be fakes.




posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: edward777

a reply to: whitewave



I don't read Hebrew so I wouldn't be qualified to determine if the translation were correct or not. The point, totally unrelated to spin doctors, was that the person we call "Jesus" would not have been called that in his time. Joshua (or Yeshua) would not have the letter "J" in the spelling. For that matter, Jehovah wouldn't be a word either; more like a bad translation of YHWH. I'm not sure what "James" would be but, again, no letter "J".


I apologize for seeming so rude whitewave -- I have that bad habit of being obnoxious and discourteous on the keyboard.
You are correct. It is somewhat complicated in a sense. The new testament documents come to us in mostly Greek and then translated from Greek to what ever language of the reader and in the time frame of the translator. That is very important because language meanings do change in times of cultures.

You are right when you say that most English people spell Joseph with a J but there are also some who spell Joseph with a Y. Some spell His name Yoseph and not Joseph. Some spell the Greek to English Jesu or Jesus. Some spell the Hebrew to English as Yahusha or Yahushua or Yeshua.

The Soncino Talmud is a Hebrew to English rendition and they spell Jesus as Jesus even though they are Jewish and in Hebrew they call Jesus Yahusha (Ya-hoo-sha). But it is a matter of translation from the Hebrew into what you can understand in English. My bible is Eth Cepher and in Cepher they use Yahusha as Jesus and at times Yahuah as God. It all depends upon the translator to English.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: edward777


Why do some people freak out at the idea that Jesus was married? Is the notion of celibacy being superior to marriage and family a holdover from the Catholic philosophies?

The first century Christians had no restrictions of marriage to my knowledge. It was the second Lateran Council of 1139 CE that made it into church law that the Catholic Priests be celibate.

It is offensive to some who believe that Jesus was God and therefore God would not need a mate like that of which He created. Some others who do not believe that Jesus was God but was an angel are likewise offended because some do not believe angels are corporal (capable of procreation.) Naturally if Jesus was an angel then He would have been incapable of sex and therefore no need of a woman. Then there are some that believe that sex is a perversion unless used for procreation only. And there are also some who believe that sex is dirty and sinful and never to be practiced under any conditions.

So to keep peace and unity a decree was issued to abstain from sex. It helps to keep ones mind upon the things of God. Or so they believe.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Celibacy? Uh, its in the bible, just like every other teaching of The Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus started.

a reply to: Seede



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ignatian
Celibacy? Uh, its in the bible, just like every other teaching of The Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus started.

a reply to: Seede



Jesus didn't start the Catholic Church..



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

For those religious folk wishing this to be true I ask you to remember one thing:

If this proves Jesus, this also proves he did not rise from the grave...........
edit on 20-11-2015 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Agartha

I am sorry but you are wrong.

For example, the Roman historian and Senator Tacitus mentions the "execution of Christ" (Christus) as the beginning of Christianity, which he wrote in the "Annals" on book 15 chapter 44.

This work was published in 116 AD, and is considered by historians as authentic and a non-Christian Roman source that verifies that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate.



However, there are serious problems with using this passage as independent corroboration of Jesus:

Jeffery Jay Lowder states:

"There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices..."

It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?
www.infidels.org...


www.rationalresponders.com...

Edit: Additionally, a synthesized thesis on why Jesus didn't exist:


edit on 20-11-2015 by DJanon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Were do i find information about "common"names of
THAT era and THAT region...
NOT biblical, but other FACTS.

I find it hard to belive James, Jacob, Thomas
and other names were inFACT common there
by that timeperiod.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
I am very interested in how you can prove that Jesus DID not exist, imo it is up to to the people that deny his existence to prove it not the other way around.


This is history, we're not talking about a well supported theory of science here that can be falsified by experiments and the like. How do you propose it would ever be possible to prove such a negative?

The notion that because enough believers really believe it, so this makes it a fact, is an appeal to numbers fallacy to begin with. It does in many ways seem to be the one that religious scholars cling to in effort to keep their belief as the status quo, but it's not how real academia works. It works by appraising the evidence (historical, archeological etc.) as objectively as possible and even "reappraising" it. The "historical jesus" belief was never based on genuine evidence to begin with.

It's universally agreed by (genuine) academics and historians that the "walking on water/ miracle working" magic man who was famous far and wide type jesus, as portrayed in the bible , didn't exist. With the "son of god" type claims being basically irrelevant. Jesus gets no more special dispensation this way than countless other similar figures with similar claims of being magical/holy. So the question is mute anyway re the beliefs of christianity and more similar to questioning the historicity of say Paul Bunyan. There could have been a historical person used as the inspiration for the character in the story, but the character in the story itself was not a historical figure.

The question is really whether an ordinary unremarkable man named jesus existed as the seed that would later sprout into the magical christ of myth. That's possible, there were probably thousands of ordinary people of that name, some of them might have been carpenters. Trouble is there is no historical evidence indicating that the story is based on any of them.

So, unless you are prepared to accept the gospels as historically reliable, the personal belief that jesus existed is not one that is based on evidence. If you are prepared to accept the gospels as reliable, there are then all sorts of stories of heroes and their claims going back to antiquity that need to be reconsidered.



edit on 20-11-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJanon

It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?


When William Lane Craig doubts sources that purport to back jesus, it's an indication they might be more than a little problematic, to say the least. He is smitten to the extent that he argues (as a supposed "academic") that the resurrection of jesus is plausible.



edit on 20-11-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

edit on 20-11-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: double post.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: DJanon

It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?


When William Lane Craig doubts sources that purport to back jesus, it's an indication they might be more than a little problematic, to say the least. He is smitten to the extent that he argues (as a supposed "academic") that the resurrection of jesus is plausible.

Do you know what an overlay idea form is?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: DJanon

It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?


When William Lane Craig doubts sources that purport to back jesus, it's an indication they might be more than a little problematic, to say the least. He is smitten to the extent that he argues (as a supposed "academic") that the resurrection of jesus is plausible.

Do you know what an overlay idea form is?


Hi Vethumanbeing. How've you been?

If you can provide the genuine relevance of your question (how it would make it more/less probable) to the Craig argument that the resurrection of jesus as described in the bible, was a genuine physical and historical event that did really happen...?

Without this, I can only offer you a similarly vexing poser, by way of the following conundrum. Do you know what a "quantumflapdoodle" is?



edit on 20-11-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Miccey




Were do i find information about "common"names of THAT era and THAT region... NOT biblical, but other FACTS. I find it hard to belive James, Jacob, Thomas and other names were inFACT common there by that timeperiod.




you do realize that that James, Jacob, Thomas are english translations right.


james,jacob, james is a variant of jacob in hebrew it is Yaakov,
thomas, Didymus in greek or tə'ōm in hebrew means twin, and most was likely a nickname, some say that he looked like Jesus, others say he was judas's brother. he was refered to a couple of times as judas thomas and some say he was also named judas so they used the nick name.

here is a link on name origins. the list is for biblical names, if you click the name it gives you the info.
Behind the Name - the etymology and history of first names



edit on 20-11-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?


When William Lane Craig doubts sources that purport to back jesus, it's an indication they might be more than a little problematic, to say the least. He is smitten to the extent that he argues (as a supposed "academic") that the resurrection of jesus is plausible.


vhb: Do you know what an overlay idea form is?



Cogito Ero Sum: Hi Vethumanbeing. How've you been?

Awesome as usual.


CES: If you can provide the genuine relevance of your question (how it would make it more/less probable) to the Craig argument that the resurrection of jesus as described in the bible, was a genuine physical and historical event that did really happen...?
Without this, I can only offer you a similarly vexing poser, by way of the following conundrum. Do you know what a "quantumflapdoodle" is?

The relevance is this world is a 'managed system' by others that created it. Many personalities involved from different dimensions and history. This is a living library. If you think you are in control of the outcome you would be wrong; all cataloged as an experiment to be duplicated again (perfected). Many things existing within this physical world are overlays of thought forms (will this work or this). Christ Consciousness, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam are all idea forms to explain a God form (which one sticks). Its a game the demi-gods play. Humans did not invent these religious belief systems. We are responding to dogmatic beliefs placed upon us; because God wants our love and trust and is doing this as an Autistic God that may be insane.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   




originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?




When William Lane Craig doubts sources that purport to back jesus, it's an indication they might be more than a little problematic, to say the least. He is smitten to the extent that he argues (as a supposed "academic") that the resurrection of jesus is plausible.


vhb: Do you know what an overlay idea form is?



Cogito Ero Sum: Hi Vethumanbeing. How've you been?

Awesome as usual.


CES: If you can provide the genuine relevance of your question (how it would make it more/less probable) to the Craig argument that the resurrection of jesus as described in the bible, was a genuine physical and historical event that did really happen...?
Without this, I can only offer you a similarly vexing poser, by way of the following conundrum. Do you know what a "quantumflapdoodle" is?

The relevance is this world is a 'managed system' by others that created it. Many personalities involved from different dimensions and history. This is a living library. If you think you are in control of the outcome you would be wrong; all cataloged as an experiment to be duplicated again (perfected). Many things existing within this physical world are overlays of thought forms (will this work or this). Christ Consciousness, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam are all idea forms to explain a God form (which one sticks). Its a game the demi-gods play. Humans did not invent these religious belief systems. We are responding to dogmatic beliefs placed upon us; because God wants our love and trust and is doing this as an Autistic God that may be insane.


Lassie? L'assis! Leve-toi.

There's no need to fall back on France, Sanders, Craig, Kentucky or anyone like that. Use some common sense. The Book of John was written in 100AD. It uses a lot of legal terminology and includes a live testament from John the Baptist under oath. The other gospels had him dead by 50AD. The other gospels don't swear the truth, so John wins. John was written after Revelation and John 2 overlays Revelation 12. Both books are therefore prophecies. Jesus never existed. The Jews and the Muslims were right.

There will be an individual who proves God is not autistic or insane through sane, rational logic that even a child can comprehend. The old ways will crumble. God doesn't want love and trust. Where did you get that from? God wants justice as does the majority of the species, who are incapable of meeting out true, objective justice. That's why he used to step in. Then he decided to take a step back, and what happened? Look at the divergence between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All supposedly have the same God. Two are waiting for the Messiah. All three are the chosen ones. All speak for God... Absolutely bonkers. It's not God who is mad. It's the tradition leaders generation after generation.

Sit on your arse and grumble you can't make a difference. Watch as one person does, eat humble pie and then learn from it.
edit on 21-11-2015 by PraeterLambo because: Quote

edit on 21-11-2015 by PraeterLambo because: v



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
originally posted by: [post=20059953]PraeterLambo[/post



PraeterLambo: Lassie? L'assis! Leve-toi.
There's no need to fall back on France, Sanders, Craig, Kentucky or anyone like that. Use some common sense. The Book of John was written in 100AD. It uses a lot of legal terminology and includes a live testament from John the Baptist under oath. The other gospels had him dead by 50AD. The other gospels don't swear the truth, so John wins. John was written after Revelation and John 2 overlays Revelation 12. Both books are therefore prophecies. Jesus never existed. The Jews and the Muslims were right.

NO ONE WAS RIGHT. There is not a single Dogma existing here on earth that tells the truth of why the human was created; who accomplished it or why. No one knows who the AUO is.


PraeterLambo: There will be an individual who proves God is not autistic or insane through sane, rational logic that even a child can comprehend. The old ways will crumble. God doesn't want love and trust. Where did you get that from? God wants justice as does the majority of the species, who are incapable of meeting out true, objective justice. That's why he used to step in. Then he decided to take a step back, and what happened? Look at the divergence between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All supposedly have the same God. Two are waiting for the Messiah. All three are the chosen ones. All speak for God... Absolutely bonkers. It's not God who is mad. It's the tradition leaders generation after generation.

God is incapable or unwilling to keep the peace between the human specie it created. It refuses to intervene. There is no divergence of religious factions; they are all programs to control the human or at its best have them kill each other over differing Dogmas deciphering their particular definition of a GOD that is at odds from another.


PraeterLambo: Sit on your arse and you can't make a difference. Watch as one person does, eat humble pie and then learn from it.

You are one of the judgmental type; not so much interested in the complexities of bi-focal observation.


edit on 21-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join