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 alive photographic face of Jesus Christ was discovered in 2013 by the experimental film scientist Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello in the second face on the back of the Shroud of Turin. Originally detected by Fanti and Maggiolo in 2002 during the restoration as faint red marks,they were thought to be spillover or leakage from the front. These astounding and now historical processed images show Jesus Christ with his eyes open and a different countenance to His face. Injuries sustained to the right eye from the bashing are also evident
Injuries sustained to the right eye from the bashing are also evident
Originally posted by Danbones
well they can see the face of jesus in a 3 day old grilled cheese sandwich
why not on a shroud that already has someone alse's face on it?
its jesus becaus only jesus could imprint his face into a shroud...
...except for this other guy
ets
also:
Injuries sustained to the right eye from the bashing are also evident
from the off sight quote from the link in the OP
I always thought Jesus was unabashed
edit on 25-4-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by adjensen
Jesus wasn't buried alive.
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by tropic
To begin with, when was it established that Jesus was definitely a real person and not a myth?
Originally posted by borntowatch
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by tropic
To begin with, when was it established that Jesus was definitely a real person and not a myth?
This is pure gold on a website that states "Deny Ignorance". Guess you dont read much
www.reddit.com...
If He was God and performed miracles is debatable but His existence.
Good luck
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Glad I could supply you with such copious amounts of precious metals (in the poetic sense). Apart from the logically fallacious rebuttal you have provided (appeal to authority, appeal to numbers etc.) are you, or the (ahem) "scholars" able to provide genuine evidence that might unburden myself of the ignorance you so graciously claim is all mine?
We are not really talking about something verifiable by experiment here (his non/existence to begin with), as much as opinion. From what I see, generally the relevant "scholars" are not so much that, as religious delusionals who begin with the acceptance of the myth and take it from there. Looking for/interpreting anything that might strengthen their position with the word "scholar" in such instances, quite an exaggerated claim of it's own. In this context, I don't see religious based scholar as any more relevant than a "bigfoot" scholar might be (except that bigfoot has slightly better evidence for existence IMO, with many first hand claims, though I have reservations about it also).
In the end it doesn't really matter who believes what, secular, religious or otherwise. It matters more what (genuine) evidence can be provided. Where is it?
We know the stories of magic are just that, tall stories (they can't happen, unless you can show how such observable laws of nature can be/ have been broken). With no reliable first hand accounts of such, or that the claimed progenitor of such supernatural things even existed, it doesn't seem unreasonable to wonder if the whole thing might be mythology. It would seem consistent with similar mythology.
edit on 27-4-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.
a soldier thrust a spear into his side, out of which came blood and water (indicative of heart trauma).