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.

 

The Shroud of Turin - Did Jesus Resurrect?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: seentoomuch

I REMEMBER!


it was the Talpiot Tomb.

I think it was actually found during the 80s, but got more attention in the late 90s.

There have been a couple documentaries, at least one, and it has been referenced by a bunch of people in other works.




edit on 3 27 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

I'll have a look. I am interested to see what date they assign to it. Thanks for the info.

STM






posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

The image on the shroud was created by some process or method or
as a reaction to something we know nothing about, nor can we duplicate it
today. if we can't produce the same thing today? Then no one could have
produced the image on the shroud ever. That leaves only one avenue for it's
existence.

And every knee will bow.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

Believing in the Shroud is not connected to believing in Jesus's Resurrection for everyone.

The Shroud could be a fake and still not prove or disprove the Resurrection because the Shroud doesn't have to be Jesus. You really have to link the two in your belief for that to occur.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
The validity of the shroud is still debated it is perhaps one of the most tested artifact ever...

It has never been explained or effectively debunked...

I'm not really sure it's up to anyone to debunk it - it's up to the people making claims to provide proof. If someone wants to claim it was used to wrap up Jesus 2000 years ago then they have a long road ahead of them. The provenance of this artefact is murky at best, and there is no record at all of it before 1353 (at the earliest).




There are many extraordinary features found on the shroud...
The location of the wounds through the wrists when most people of the time took the bibles literal translation to mean that the palms of the hands were nailed...

Study has shown that nail placement was done through the wrists...
1 because of the enormous pain the major nerve would cause when damaged there....
2 because of the ability to support the weight of the body...as the crucified individuals would constantly be using thier arms to lift themselves upward to enable them to breath...

etc

The fact that it matches biblical descriptions tells us nothing, apart from the person who created it had read the bible.




The shroud is believed to have been given by Joseph of Aramethia and the fabric is believed to have been made from materials from Scotland....
Which is where Joseph was from....

Whoa, hold up there... Joseph of Aramethia was from Scotland?!? You are now into another field of even more unlikely claims.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
The validity of the shroud is still debated it is perhaps one of the most tested artifact ever...

The shroud is believed to have been given by Joseph of Aramethia and the fabric is believed to have been made from materials from Scotland....
Which is where Joseph was from....

I have never heard of Joseph being Pictish before the Scots were not in the country then , they were a boat race living in what is now Ireland .

Do you have links



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: stonerwilliam

My bad it appears I did make a mistake it was not Scotland it was England that had been referenced I was reciting from my memory and for some reason assumed Glastonbury was in Scotland...

Joseph of Arimathea was, according to all four canonical Gospels, the man who donated his own prepared tomb for the burial of Jesus after Jesus' crucifixion. A number of stories that developed during the Middle Ages connect him with both Glastonbury, where he is supposed to have founded the earliest Christian oratory, and also with the Grail legend.
en.m.wikipedia.org...
It was said that Joseph achieved his wealth in the metals trade, and in the course of conducting his business, he probably became acquainted with Britain, at least the south-western parts of it. Cornwall was a chief mining district and well-known in the Roman empire for its tin. Somerset was reknowned for its high quality lead. Some have even said that Joseph was the uncle of the Virgin Mary and therefore of Jesus, and that he may have brought the young boy along on one of his business trips to the island. Hence the words of Blake's famous hymn, Jerusalem:

And did those feet, in ancient time,
Walk upon England's mountains green?

www.britannia.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

So not knowing exactly how something was made means it must be real?

Hilariously bad logic.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

What is remarkable is that the shroud has not been able to be duplicated despite many many years worth of attempts...



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ericthedoubter
a reply to: ghostrager

Jesus never existed but the church needs evidence showing he did.Why wouldn't they spend vast amounts of money to obtain a superb fake?It's all win for them.

Tired FUD claim is tired. Specifics aside, the fact that the "Jesus never existed" movement pretty much only started 1700 years or more after the time of the purported events is telling, as is the fact that for the first couple hundred years the supposed lie was beginning did not show the Jesus supporters as a massive power structure, but instead a fledgling jewish sect actively persecuted by the existing jewish power structure.

Simply said - there are more readily-available and reasonable options for seizing power instead of coming up with a highly-contested branch theology.

I suppose that's a topic for another many existing or needed newer threads, but when we struggle to find more than a couple contemporaneus historical accounts for non-disputed personages such as Herod the great who also happened to be a full-blown political ruler, claims like this for a backwood and contentious religious leader starting out with a small following in a roman backwater, my annoyance remains boundless.
edit on 3/27/2016 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle
Not to any comparable degree, at least. Amazing how the 'primitives' had such a mastery of anatomy and forensic details even in the later dating at a time where all representations of crucifixion had nails through the palm.

And also amazing that such a master would seek no recognitition.

I've always loved the apparent connection and additional testimony of the sudarium of Oviedo in regards to the Shroud.

Grace and pace.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Thank you 5StarOracle


It was with Glastonbury that i remembered him , but people sure got about back then so anything was possible



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




So not knowing exactly how something was made means it must be real?


No, you're using the term real and of course it's real no matter what it is.
But whether or not you like the idea. If we can't explain how the
image came to be on the shroud or duplicate it today with all our technology?
Then the chances of it being produced by man at all, diminish and whither away.
It's just that simple. But no one says you can't remain in denial. You just can't do
it here.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

You know exactly what I meant by "real". And no, your logic is still awful. But hey, I guess some people gotta believe.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Neither was Roman cement until relatively recently. Doesn't mean that any incredibly improbable recommendation wholly lacking in evidence is a good substitute.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: ghostrager

The image on the shroud was created by some process or method or
as a reaction to something we know nothing about, nor can we duplicate it
today. if we can't produce the same thing today? Then no one could have
produced the image on the shroud ever. That leaves only one avenue for it's
existence.

And every knee will bow.


I do not believe for a second that it cannot be replicated.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

It's full of evidence including the fact it is a 3 dimesional replication that was caused by a burst of radiation so brilliant and so short that the power needed to create the image exceeds even that of gamma rays...

And that is from the opinion of a scientist...

You can ignore the evidence and disbelieve in Christ but neither of those things is any evidence at all...

aside that you have no evidence to back you...
edit on 27-3-2016 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Any attempt to duplicate has to meet all these criteria and more...

Dehydrated/Oxidized Carbohydrate
Absence of inorganic paint or chemical
High Resolution
Full Scalable Compressed Grey Scale
Photo-like Realism
Real Blood Serum Rings/Clotting
No Image Beneath Bloodstain
3D Encoded (Height-Field)
Smooth Transition of Shading
Discontinuity of Color (Pixilated)

Many attempts have been made...
All have failed...



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

There is no evidence that it is actually the shroud of Jesus Christ in the slightest. You have provided nothing of the kind.

And no, I don't need to provide evidence that the shroud is fake. YOU need to provide evidence for the extraordinary claim that the shroud is what it is claimed to be. That's how the burden of proof works.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
NO to the Question asked in the thread title

Jesus did not resurrect...

his dead body was re-animated by an outside force... and the animated body was not a cloned copy or even the Dead Corpse of the former 'suffering Messiah'... hardly any of the Jesus cabal of friends/apostles truly recognized the person in the role of a resurrected Jesus

thus the increased meaning of 'Faith' came into being


just laying out the dots so you the reader can connect them as to the real narrative
edit on th31145911418227292016 by St Udio because: blah-blah







 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join