Resurrection Of Jesus Christ Alive Evidence Appears

reply to post by abbey7777


LOL!!!
Jesus nor aliens are coming to save us, we are gonna have to dig ourselves out of this mess.
Didn't have time to watch the video, it would all be lies anyway.

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by abbey7777

 

You do realise that there is zero evidence that the Jesus depicted in the NT ever actually existed?

You do realise that the Turin Shroud was carbon dated quite some ago?

You do realise that this is baloney?

Actually so is carbon dating.....Not arguing, just making a point

here's the skinny.......anyone bashing about abbeyy77 is probably a victim of this worlds crazy hate and confusion....REFUSE to be a victim of this worlds lies. Today's top athiest author wrote in his recent book......
that anyone who doesn't realize the literary wonder of the bible either hasn't read it ....or is illiterate. That Book has all the answers....and tells one what to do and think in any situation....they're all covered.....Oh, one more thing......about the prophecy written in the Bible...........here it comes......

Originally posted by redNyx

Originally posted by abbey7777
www.youtube.com...


I find this quite exciting that an amateur film scientist has processed the face of the resurrected Christ from the second face of the Turin Shroud. Its amazing that news papers and news media have not made this known. Before debunking this as a hoax or scam the researcher has placed processing instructions

Oh please, not this again *facepalm

So let me guess, you thought you could re-post this bogus "science" on the same website that you did 2 years ago, almost word for word, and no one would notice? Your previous incarnation "shroudnews77" was banned and you will be reported for this.


shroudnews77 thread from 2011

,
Heh...snitch. you like tattling to mods?

It's okay. I know life can get a little boring. Try some fresh air.

?]

reply to post by christina-66


I think it is unrealistic to expect contemporaneous accounts of Jesus outside of the New Testament. Isn't it logical that the most verifiable and authentic accounts were the ones that became the gospels?

Originally posted by Josephus
reply to post by christina-66

 

I think it is unrealistic to expect contemporaneous accounts of Jesus outside of the New Testament. Isn't it logical that the most verifiable and authentic accounts were the ones that became the gospels?

so we can expect to see romans recording the names of those they have executed .. except for jesus?
teh romans, one of the most prolific records keeping races ever (a trait we carry with us today) recorded so much of their information for the ages,
but no actual contemporary records of any events with jesus until after his death (by 25-75 years??!)

this is your contention?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by abbey7777


I am sorry... Vincenzo

The Tacitus point still remains uncontested.

This was my first discovery from 2011 when I processed the Vatican Veronica Veil, the cloth that wiped the face of Jesus Christ before He was crucified. This cloth appeared on the scene hundreds of years before the Shroud of Turin. I have placed it side by side to the front face images of the Shroud. The injuries and markings and facial features are identical. I used the same film process as used in the ''second face'' Shroud Turin 2013.

www.youtube.com...

These 2 cloths I have now processed confirm the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and the Veronica Veil.

reply to post by RadarOReilly


The Roman 2nd century writings are authentic. They confirm the movement and beginnings of Christianity. Emperor Constantine 4th century AD would not have converted his entire Government system to Christianity Catholocism without investigating the actual existance of Jesus Christ.

There has been some qualified scientific interest in my process. Bill Chalker Australias most renoun UFO expert and academic scientist came to my home in late 2011 and witnessed first hand my filming technique. This was in relation to the Vatican Veronica Veil processing. He was impressed and told me to record every angle and camera info.

Originally posted by okamitengu

Originally posted by Josephus
reply to post by christina-66

 

I think it is unrealistic to expect contemporaneous accounts of Jesus outside of the New Testament. Isn't it logical that the most verifiable and authentic accounts were the ones that became the gospels?

so we can expect to see romans recording the names of those they have executed .. except for jesus?
teh romans, one of the most prolific records keeping races ever (a trait we carry with us today) recorded so much of their information for the ages,
but no actual contemporary records of any events with jesus until after his death (by 25-75 years??!)

this is your contention?

Do you contend that the romans recorded the names of every single person they executed over the span of their empire? Jesus wasn't even a roman citizen. His name would not have been recorded as some sort of important person/event. He was executed like hundreds (if not thousands) of other upstarts and messiahs in the region of his day.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


The Romans did record through Tacitus, Pliny The Younger that Jesus was crucified,they called him Cristus

Yawning at this thread....it's ridiculous. If there was ANY real solid evidence that the Jesus depicted in the Bible existed other than the Bible itself we would ALL be fully aware of it (Christian or not).

And the idea that his face is purportedly imprinted on a shroud when the Bible itself states a separate cloth covered his head destroys the credibility of the claims in the op.

John 20:6-7 'Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.'

Shroud or not, the whole Jesus things bothers me a bunch. i was raised Catholic and had this crap thrown at me day after day. If Jesus really was the son of God and ass such he couldn't really be killed, then why give so much importance to the resurrection? Who of us would not sacrifice ourselves if we knew that 3 days later we would be back? It seems as more of a parlor trick than anything else given the facts behind it.

All that said, I do try to live my life according to his message. I just think organized religion has perverted his message so i belong to none.

Originally posted by christina-66
Yawning at this thread....it's ridiculous. If there was ANY real solid evidence that the Jesus depicted in the Bible existed other than the Bible itself we would ALL be fully aware of it (Christian or not).

And the idea that his face is purportedly imprinted on a shroud when the Bible itself states a separate cloth covered his head destroys the credibility of the claims in the op.

John 20:6-7 'Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.'

edit on 11-5-2013 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)

There is a wealth of solid evidence that Jesus existed. You seem to be one of the few people who remain willfully ignorant to it.

Let's say bshut111

Historical evidence for Jesus all depends on which scholars you believe. The two points that seem best supported, are his baptism and crucifixion, but even those sources are certainly less than verifiable. Then again, what really is, that long ago?

Many of the references (like Josephus or Tacitus) are controversial as being heresay vs. historical fact. What I do know, is that the actual shroud contradicts what is in scripture (which plainly describes a separate wrap for the head, in line with the times). Furthermore, if you wrap a shroud around a body, you will get a LOT of distortion, not this pristine image you see in the shroud. The image will be distorted, like any 3d structure draped with material to form a 2d image.

Did he exist? I feel that will always be a question of faith, not history. I think there's enough evidence to support it, personally, but I think his role was greatly exaggerated when they decided on his deification during the Council of Nicaea.

But hasn't the Turin Shroud already been debunked?