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

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Just because of your attitude and ferocity against others.

Lol, what attitude and ferocity?...

All I did was show what the evidence actually says...

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you have proof of all this? And by proof, I want actual primary sources that state that Pilate was recalled for not issuing a Roman court order for Jesus' death.

Sorry but you will have to do your own homework on that. I have it but buried in Library.

Psh! That's certainly convenient. Lol. "I have a bunch of definitive evidence that would prove that not only did Jesus exist but was actually persecuted by the state, but I... uh... don't know where it is right now. So go find it yourself."

Very little is known about Pontius Pilate's birth place or child hood. In fact it is almost as obscure as Jesus.
There was a limestone bearing his name which was discovered in 1961and proves that he was the prefect of Judah but little else of physical nature.

Philo mentions Pilate and also the historian Tacitus as well as Josephus mentions Pilate. Eusebius relates in Historia Ecclesiae ii:7 that Pilate was recalled, exiled to Gaul and committed suicide in Vienne. I had made a study of that some years ago but would have to do a search on my work. I believe this is enough to give you a search if you have a mind to do so. But if you need manuscripts as evidence you will not ever get them as of today.

I'm not questioning if pilate exists. I'm questioning your claims in relation to Jesus existing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was making a point... We don't have the blood of Jesus to test against the blood in the shroud, and all the claims made in that blog you posted are claims with no evidence. They point to other blogs with no real evidence but just claims made.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

We don't have the blood of Jesus to test against the blood in the shroud, and all the claims made in that blog you posted are claims with no evidence.

Then, since we don't have the blood of Jesus to test against ANYTHING, it follows that there is NO EVIDENCE of anything attributed to the legendary "Jesus", except hearsay and wishful thinking.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


As for "plethora of evidence that shows it fake", can you actually show evidence, not from blogs or "claims"?

BTW, I feel sorry for you, even with evidence and scientists saying it is real you simply don't want to believe.

One more thing, i am not even Catholic. IMO ancient texts like "the Gospel of Thomas" are more in par with what Jesus actually taught. Those texts were not changed.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Except that we have a shroud which dates to the time of Jesus, showing a man with the wounds of Jesus, and his image was imprinted in a manner that cannot be replicated and cannot be entirely understood.

Do yourself a favor, read and watch the evidence I provided and then try to debunk what it is said by those scientists.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What? No it references REAL studies that were made on the Shroud. But regardless of which studies it does or doesn't mention. The first test in 1988 said definitively that it was a fake. It's a fake. You are being duped by a 800 year old hoax.

Even the account in the bible doesn't match up with the shroud. Like believing the Shroud is real takes a certain type of cognitive dissonance that is quite amazing. You have to disbelieve the VERY book you base belief of the character depicted on the Shroud.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

We don't have the blood of Jesus to test against the blood in the shroud, and all the claims made in that blog you posted are claims with no evidence.

Then, since we don't have the blood of Jesus to test against ANYTHING, it follows that there is NO EVIDENCE of anything attributed to the legendary "Jesus", except hearsay and wishful thinking.

The only evidence, is time. And, during that time, an enormous impact on the world.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are again ignoring the fact that the shroud had to be repaired. The darker scorch marks seen in the shroud were made from a fire in medieval times, and in medieval times, and later on, the shroud had to be repaired. The three tests that said it was from medieval times were done on fibres that were used to repair the shroud.

...
Their report is sure to draw criticism from skeptics while sparking new interest in the Shroud of Turin, which has been subjected to numerous examinations over the years. By implying that the relic might date back to ancient times, the new analysis contradicts a landmark 1988 study that cast doubt on its supposed age. At that time, three independent laboratories relied on radiocarbon testing to conclude that the shroud originated between 1260 and 1390, many centuries after Jesus’ lifetime. Since then, however, further studies have called those findings into question, suggesting that the researchers inadvertently tested material grafted onto the original shroud during repairs made in the Middle Ages.
...

www.history.com...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

BTW, the first tests done by scientists was in the late 1970s and early 1980s. i have already posted that information.

...
The first direct examinations of the cloth were conducted in the 1970s, most famously by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), a team of scientists led by physicist John P. Jackson of the University of Colorado. The group found that the markings on the cloth were consistent with a crucified body and that the stains were real human blood; they also suggested that the image’s shading patterns contained three-dimensional information. However, they could not explain how the imprint ended up on the fabric in the first place.
...

www.history.com...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I'm not ignoring it. I am well aware of that silly claim. Again, the Catholic church was 100% on board with testing this thing back in 1988. The claim that they would have provided the wrong sample bit to be tested is ludicrous. It wasn't until AFTER the test result came back negative that all these stupid rationalizations came out.

I notice you completely ignored my point about the Shroud not aligning with the account in the bible.

dbl post

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do yourself a favor, read and watch the evidence I provided and then try to debunk what it is said by those scientists.

I've read and watched for decades about studies of the "Shroud."
It doesn't stick the landing.

I was very impressed with the 'somehow irradiated' theory. Honestly.
I just in the end didn't buy it. Although, I think it would be profoundly important for mankind to make sense of how the Shroud was produced -
just so you know.

It would be miracle enough that he survived the crucifixion, and the possibility that the body was wrapped in herbal ointments and linens as healing agents, and then spirited away by Joseph of Arimathea (a rich man) and his friends...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

As for your claim about the history channel's story...

Here is the actual link.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I am sorry, who is making claims with no evidence whatsoever?...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes you are ignoring it. First of all the claims from that Bishop was that it was painted... Yet there is no paint in the shroud. Only the first two micro fibers, thinner than a human hair, have the image. Which is not possible to reproduce. it wasn't painted.

Beginning at 20 minutes in the video you can hear corroboration of what I wrote above.

One more thing, starting at 29 minutes in the video you can watch and see the information in 3d that is imprinted in the shroud. It wasn't painted, it has 3d information in the surface of the shroud, just in the first 2 micro fibers.

Not to mention the latest tests which show the shroud is from the time of Jesus.

a reply to: Ignatian
Several things:

1) According to scripture, Joseph had other sons. He was a widower, when he was introduced to and married Mary. He did have children, including sons, namely James. This is stated clearly in the Gospels of Mark, (Mark 6.3) and Matthew, (Matthew 13:55-56) The same versus mention unnamed half Sisters of Jesus.
2) The virgin birth is a leap of faith. To believe that Joseph and Mary would not have had sex after the birth of Jesus or had other children, that is well just sheer hypocrisy. Mary was the wife of Joseph, they would have been expected to have normal marital relations, and to have other children.
3) Jesus was raised as a Jew, expected to do as other Jewish men did in his day and age, that would have been get married and have children. Now as to who they may have been, no one really knows. But consider that the man was a rabbi, he did a lot of teaching. Even if he was starting or trying to redirect the faith, he still would have been expected to follow in the traditions of the community, and any violation of such, could have resulted in some very bad things happening to him. Even if you look at him challenging the authority of the High council, would show that he would have been known for his wisdom and ultimately for being a teacher, or a rabbi.

Think about it, do you honestly think that the Church would have wanted information about his family life getting out? It would raise more questions than they would be wanting to answer and ultimately take away from the main teachings and cause them to lose credibility. And if someone back then could prove that they were descended from such, it would have been viewed as a threat to their authority and that of most of the monarchies. So it would be more politically convienent to keep such quiet and to push the fact that he was never married or had siblings. And if you also consider that before 1350 the bibles were in latin, and for a long time were in Greek. It was not until 1611 that the bible was fully translated into English where those who only spoke such could read it.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Ahhh......

That guy. Got it now.

In this case I am at loss to understand how his claim is "evidence". A name carved on stone? I see the part about all the right names being present but that is compelling, not definitive.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I do not like to admit it but this is accurate.

I find the shroud (what it is and isn't) very compelling and worthy of study. My faith tells me the possibility of it matching that which they claim is strong. But my love of science tells me a "solid" connection will be difficult to "prove". What would that proof even look like? Regardless, the shroud seems a much more compelling item than the names carved on stone.

Plus the history of other-than-genuine archaeological items floating around Israel is robust. Not sure on this one.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Peer reviewed article that explains that the abrupt changes in the yellowed fibril density in the dorsal part of the shroud have not been caused by light emission or any other type of anomaly: it's simply due to the original presence of aromatic burial ointments. ( LINK )

This is a peer reviewed article by Curciarello, De Leo, Fazio and Mandaglio.
Published in 2012 - Radiation Effects and Defects in solids (journal). Volume 167, Issue 3.

There is a lot of evidence out there, peer reviewed by opposing experts, that show there is nothing out of this world regarding the shroud.

Also, as we have said to you before, even if it is proven to be the real image of a man who have died, that does not prove in any way that the man was Jesus of Nazareth. And before you repeat that only his body could have irradiated a light that left an imprint on the linen, let me guide you to the article above that explains how that is not the case.

You say we do not want to believe your evidence.... I say: ditto.