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.
Again i ask, how can anyone ever prove it was Jesus' though? IF it's proved to be from the correct era, even then, it could be of any man at all,
Conversely, there are some that would do anything to make it unfit. It could have his name, address, next of kin, and a picture of him drunk at the yearly Sukkot festival and people would still spend countless dollars to figure out how someone might have faked it.
Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by Lister87
Again i ask, how can anyone ever prove it was Jesus' though? IF it's proved to be from the correct era, even then, it could be of any man at all,
Dude, when it comes to the jesus delusion people will make things fit,
if the shroud had the name jesus written on it, this would still be no evidence of anything.
Here's a couple of jesus' that the shroud could also have depicted.
Jesus ben Phiabi,
Jesus ben Sec,
Jesus ben Damneus
Jesus ben Gamalie
Jesus ben Sirach.
Jesus ben Pandira.
Jesus ben Ananias.
Jesus ben Saphat
Jesus ben Gamala
Jesus ben Thebuth.
And these are just some that made the headlines
We also recently learned of the tomb of Jesus son of joseph which has also been rejected by xtianity as their boy.
So who was the real jesus ? Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4) (Although there is no more evidence for St Paul being a real person than there is jesus !)
How about this jesus dude he seems to fit the bill -
Jesus ben Stada
He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.
At the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey.
Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count.
*sigh* How do "we" know this? I don't mean what book or web page you got this out of. I mean the methodology for how they derived this. Was there a gaping void where the region existed with a "DO NOT ENTER LEST YOU FALL INTO A WORMHOLE" sign in front of it? Or was it a region with a different name?
Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.
So where does this leave the shroud of Turin ?
A very interesting image of a man on a piece of cloth, who the man was is no more discernible or important than who was the Mona Lisa, nothing but a clever piece of art, or ( if a shroud) interesting chemistry.
Originally posted by kiwifoot
Well, this must surely be the end of the Turin Shroud as an actual relic from the time of Jesus.
Carbon dating has said as much,
but now this man has reproduced the shroud using materials available in the middle ages.
Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Jim Scott
If the images is real, has anyone perhaps DNA tested the blood on the shroud? You to see if it is actually blood or paint? I think that would be the first place to start.
An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake.
Even if it does prove to be from the same era as Jesus, there is no possible way they could prove it IS Jesus. It could be any bearded man from that era, hundreds of thousands of men lived in that era, if not millions, it could quite easily be a shroud from the burial of any man.
Again i ask, how can anyone ever prove it was Jesus' though?
Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Judging by many of these responses, it merely reinforces the fact that faith is blind. The Shroud doesn't factor in the radius of the head. Try putting some color on your face, place a white tea towel over it, take it off and look at the print left in the tea towel. It's a horrible warped mess due to being placed over the radius of the face. The Shroud is only real to those who put faith ahead of intellect.
IRM :shk:
Just as I would not trust the Pope to give me a fair accounting knowing his inclinations I cannot exactly trust someone who has "I don't hate Christians I just hate what they do" as their tagline. You are hardly impartial and also seek to fit what you desire into the evidence.
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by micpsi
Gotta agree. Being a 'Scientist' today is 99.5% politics, .45% butt kissing, and .05% science. Just take a look at the Al Gore 'scientists' as prime examples. They primarily nowadays come to a conclusion (usually politically based), then fabricate an 'experiment' that agrees with that conclusion. Most of it is just pure unadulterated BS.
Did millions from that era die of crucifixion, have a crown of thorns on their heads (punctures in the head), have a wound with their side where they were pierced with a sword, etc.? Crucifixion victims typically had their legs broken- they were not pierced in their sides like Jesus was.
Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by A Fortiori
My lack of impartiality however, has no bearing on the "lack of evidence" in relation to this shroud.
It is a fair comment to criticize my lack of academic qualification in let's say archeology for example (or anything at all for that matter lol), but we have to bare in mind that these so called experts are not always impartial and can have a tendency to fit what they desire into evidence or lack of.
As I recall it wasn't long back that Lorraine Evans was slated by many of her peers in relation to her conclusions pertaining to Scota. Yet her propositions seemed quite plausible to the non academic such as myself, so what is one to do accept what the individual proposes based on their qualification or read every article or book published on the subject ?
Most commentators on any subject have a bias, however the majority of those with religious leanings that comment on the shroud will not even entertain the thought of being wrong they simply cannot be impartial .
Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Judging by many of these responses, it merely reinforces the fact that faith is blind.
Originally posted by AshleyD
The face is too narrow.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by micpsi
Gotta agree. Being a 'Scientist' today is 99.5% politics, .45% butt kissing, and .05% science. Just take a look at the Al Gore 'scientists' as prime examples. They primarily nowadays come to a conclusion (usually politically based), then fabricate an 'experiment' that agrees with that conclusion. Most of it is just pure unadulterated BS.
Dear Ferris,
intentionally or not, your post is effectively a lie. I worked in science and industry for quite some time and your views of science are sheer nonsense.
The statistical probability of that being the exact cloth is stratospheric. However, if someone discovered the remains of Jesus and then the DNA was resolved on the Shroud enough to perform an analysis and the DNA matched I wouldn't have to recant because I said "most-likely not". I would say: "Fair play!" and "Good job" and then be immensely jealous that I was not the one that made the discovery.