Jesus has been Ressurected

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Watch the show Sat., and it will explain it. I have no other source than the show. I do not know what sources they used.

I'd be surprised if your claim was verified.

Blood on a sheet is certainly no proof of crucifixion.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Blood on a sheet is certainly no proof of crucifixion.

Here is the end all be all way to find out if it's Jesus Christ. Contrary to popular belief, human cloning has been achieved through science. If "science" suggests that there is blood on this turin, take the samples of the dna and attempt to do a cloning. If a clone of this person is a success, then it is not Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ/ God cannot be cloned. To me that would be the best way to end the mystery behind this shroud. See, I know scientists have succeeded in human cloning. I have first hand knowledge of this. If the scientist want to find out if this is really Jesus, that would be the quickest way to find out. Instead of trying to do the cloning, they are trying pull some kind of mis-leading trick here. To me, although I admit it is very interesting, it seems they are using this shroud like a carrot and everyone is chasing it around like rabbits. (no offense)

Like I said, deception.

Just my take on it of course. Its up to everyone else to draw their own conclusions on this one.

~ Zeus



[edit on 31-3-2010 by Zeus2573]

Originally posted by theonlyrusty

prove to me jesus existed...

Scholars agree that Jesus existed. It is not even disputed.

Cornelius Tacitus
Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories.

Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.

Suetonius
Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus .

Pliny the Younger
Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.

Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

I guess all of these people are wrong and you are right?

If you care to read more:
Link: www.sowhataboutjesus.com...

If you don't like the above source, all of the information can be confirmed on each person above by doing a search at:

Link: www.wikipedia.org...

There are numerous texts throughout history that reference that Jesus existed.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Blood was not their only proof. These are not my claims, they are the claims of the people in the documentary which I agree with.

The shroud is a fake but that IS what Jesus would look like.

Gday,

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Scholars agree that Jesus existed.

Faithful Christian 'scholars' all repeat to each other that Jesus existed.
How many ATHEIST scholars agree?

Originally posted by lpowell0627
It is not even disputed.

It is much disputed.
By modern historians such as Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, and many others.

Cornelius Tacitus

TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.

Suetonius

SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 45 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Pliny the Younger

PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

This is completelt an utterly FALSE.
It shows just how DESPERATE Christians are to find anything that seems to support their MYTH of Jesus.

We do NOT have either of their works existing anymore.

But from what we know - neither Thallus nor Phlegons said ANYTHING about Jesus what-so-ever.

They merely mentioned eclipses which DID happen - but did NOT sayinfg anything about Jesus, or that these eclipses were anything special.

But LATER Christians centuries layer, saw these referebces to eclipses, and said "aha, that must be OUR darkness".

And nowadays, uninformed Christians insist Thallus and Phlegon are evidence for Jesus - how ridiculous.


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
www.infidels.org...

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
I guess all of these people are wrong and you are right?

None of them are actual hard evidence for Jesus.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
There are numerous texts throughout history that reference that Jesus existed.

But NONE from the time of Jesus.

There is NO historical or acheological evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.

NOT ONE single person in history recorded meeting Jesus.

In fact not even a single CHRISTIAN claimed to have met Jesus, or anyone who had met Jesus (apart from the 2nd century forgery 2 Peter.)

Jesus was a myth.


K.


[edit on 22-4-2010 by Kapyong]

On the shroud -

It was denounced as a fake when it was painted in the 14th century.

It was recently proven to be a fake using carbon dating.
NO, they did NOT stupidly date a patched repair cloth;
NO, the fire did NOT skew the dating;
NO, there was no bio-patina;

NO, scientists did NOT find blood on the DNA.
Real scientists DID find pigment on it.

It's a clear and proven fake.

But faithful believers will continue to ignore the facts.


K.

It`s a very interesting technology. Nobody will ever know if it was Jesus or if Jesus was Holy. I don`t go looking for faces of Jesus, Moses, or Mother Mary, OR archeological evidence in order to be able to say: "I TOLD you so! " To all the other religions and atheists etc. Although I do enjoy archeology very much and Biblical or other religious or so called mythical archeology is always a bonus, but thats all it is, a bonus. It`s not something that confirms my faith. If that were the case that would be like saying my faith wasn`t as strong before I came across the alleged evidence. That defeats the whole purpose of having faith in the first place! It`s like saying, "ok this sounds pretty cool ill check it out but im not going to be fully on board with it until i see some proof. That`s what people don`t understand. Let`s say for example the reward was a billion dollars instead of going to heaven. If I just popped open some briefcases containing your money and showed it to you and said to sign the dotted line, and follow my 10 commandments for a set amount of time which only I know how long it will be, all you know is you will get the billion dollars sometime and that you`d have plenty of time to enjoy it because I would reset your age and keep it where you wanted it, then EVERY single person would want to sign up. even those with bad intentions. they could just pretend to be good people until after they got the reward. the way heaven is supposed to work is that you get to go there if you are willing to be a good person with no guarantee you will be rewarded except for gods word. What that does is it causes people to get into the habit of doing good judst for the sake of doing good. At least when its taught and practiced properly it can have that effect. I don`t go for todays religion. Too many charlatans with a twisted definition of "doing good". Im very interested in the coptic church and gnosicism. I`ve always had faith, it has just developed and evolved as I grew and learned. I don`t think faith has to be one certain way for every person. That wouldn`t be fait smuch While I enjoi personally d on my faitach any rules just looking whin and going


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

dang it, phone messed me up again. as I was saying, its not the same for everyone. that would not be fair in a world where there is so much we dont know. you just have to look within and go on gut feeling. And when you reach a certain maturity level, your gut feeling will be composed of pure love. You must completely let go of the ego and all that baggage so you can care about something beyond yer own arse!


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Wasn't jesus the most popular name during the time that the biblical jesus is said to have lived? Just saying because everyone talks of jesus like their is only one.

Wasn't the shroud supposedly dated back to the 1500's by scientists on 2 different occasions. I know dating isn't an exact science, but it just seems so convenient that religion only uses dating when it supports their theories and dismiss it when it doesn't. Anyone can form any data and make it into what they want in order to make money as many of the religious do.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Funny how it turns out he looks exactly like modern representations, eh?

Gday,

Originally posted by A Novel
Wasn't the shroud supposedly dated back to the 1500's by scientists on 2 different occasions.

Yes.
It has been comprehensively proven to be a forgery.

Indeed - it was known to be a forgery when it was forged in the 14th century.

Scientists have found PIGMENT on it.

They claim that BLOOD has been found is completely false.
And the idea that is has DNA is a crazy fantasy - completely false.



K.

Why is the discussion about the historical records of Jesus being duplicated? It's currently being threaded more appropriately at the same time here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 23-4-2010 by saint4God]

reply to post by Kapyong


I posted a source, do you have a source for all your claims? Because everything your saying, has been disputed by other scientists, so who's right? Yours, I'm sure.