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.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".
Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus' death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine. William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.
Van Voorst states that "of all Roman writers, Tacitus gives us the most precise information about Christ". John Dominic Crossan considers the passage important in establishing that Jesus existed and was crucified, and states: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
You didn't say this?
The alternative, of course, is someone taking a live person, scourging them with the intent of creating a fraud, without the knowledge that a live scourging is necessary to produce the shroud. Maybe you figure that there was such an evil genius in the 16th Century, you'll forgive me if I doubt it.
Your abject dismissal of such questions without a valid reason, apart from terms of debate, seems to indicate that you have an steadfast opinion, and the evidence is irrelevant. That's fine, but it's hardly scientific.
Originally posted by garbageface
I find it hilarious how the Jesus depicted on the shroud is the classic "white man's" Jesus.. Sharing no features of what the real Jewish Jesus from that time would have actually looked like.
I'm not convinced that the Bible's Jesus ever even existed, as he's a mishmash of other Pagan prophets that also probably never existed, and I'm definitely convinced that the shroud is a horribly bad fake.
Originally posted by POXUSA
reply to post by adjensen
Please amend the title..........Shroud Of Turin Real!
New Research Dates Relic To 1st Century, Time Of Jesus Christ
The only one's who deny the 'realness' of the Shroud of Turin are the enemies of the Catholic Church.
edit on 29-3-2013 by POXUSA because: Shroud of Turin
John 6:44 Jesus said “no one can come to me unless the Father draws him.”
men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. “For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed (rebuked)" John 3:19-20
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Corinthians 2:14
The only one's who deny the 'realness' of the Shroud of Turin are the enemies of the Catholic Church.
Originally posted by garbageface
I find it hilarious how the Jesus depicted on the shroud is the classic "white man's" Jesus.. Sharing no features of what the real Jewish Jesus from that time would have actually looked like.
Originally posted by stereologist
We all know that C14 dating puts it at a time when it was found, which was during the Crusades.
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
I saw a documentary a while ago where many white American Christians being interviewed refused to believe Jesus didn't speak English and wasn't white, .....
Originally posted by jonnywhite
Even if it's Jesus, so what? Jesus was a man put on a cross because he was a freak.
Let me be straight with you ...
That was a C14 date of THE PATCH materials ... not the shroud itself.
The patch was duirng the time of the crusades. we all know that.
The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas.