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.
Originally posted by Observer_X
Shroud of Turin...
Another one?
When will it end......
Originally posted by Observer_X
Shroud of Turin...
Another one?
When will it end......
The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.
The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.
The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.
The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.
The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.
The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.
The individual in question was one and the same omnipresent,omnipotent,omniscient being, claimed to be the creator of all that there is that appears in the old testament.
The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.
We are then left with probability and belief, do we choose the observe the uncertainty and "let it ride" or do we ignore it and claim certainty based on wishful thinking?
Whether a missing person or a murder, a CSI team uses physical evidence first hand witnesses reason and probability to make deductions.
In an imaginary situation in the future the UK Royal family tomb is found and very little writings of them is still in existence.
Their all there Philip queenie Charles William and harry the lot, based on where the tomb is located and royal crest etc it is highly probable that this indeed is the tomb of the Windsor but of course one cannot be certain as there's no first hand witness account or bodies.
Then a discrepancy is observed there are two names that are not so familiar one is Debbie and one is Camilla.
Both Camilla and Debbie are in the same box as Charles Harry and William.
What is left of historical documents (tabloid newspaper clippings) show no account of a Debbie although a Camilla was mentioned several times but the documents also clearly state that Charles was married to one Diana.
From what your implying, the CSI should now conclude that Camilla and Debbie were wife and daughter of Charles as it would be highly improbable that anyone other would be with him which is reasonable.
However you also seem to be implying that the CSI team then conclude that these people could not be the royal family, because what documents they have allude to Charles' wife being one Diana and make no mention of a daughter.
The CSI team the shut shop announcing that the tomb is probably not that of the royal family it's just a group of people who happen to share almost identical attributes.
Diana isn't there Camilla and Debbie are, can't be them time for bed.
If you are saying this is how modern archeological methodology operates then there is something very wrong.
Christian reasoning appears to be somewhat insane, the claim is that Batman is real because he appears in a book which chronicles his adventures in the US.
However when a Batmobil is found they claim it can't be Batmans' because his car didn't have shields.
If this wasn't silly enough, the likes of AshleyD claim that a sketch of Batman found, must be of the "other" Batman and completely ignores the Batmobil.
Where in the Gospels does Jesus say he is "Yahweh"?
Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by A Fortiori
Where in the Gospels does Jesus say he is "Yahweh"?
I was responding to AshleyDs preposterous claim that the cartoon jesus is likely to be jesus of the gospels because its' attributes are "claimed" to match that of the jesus of the gospels which the "jury is out" on leaving uncertainty .
Originally posted by A Fortiori
Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by A Fortiori
Where in the Gospels does Jesus say he is "Yahweh"?
I was responding to AshleyDs preposterous claim that the cartoon jesus is likely to be jesus of the gospels because its' attributes are "claimed" to match that of the jesus of the gospels which the "jury is out" on leaving uncertainty .
I'm confused. Cartoon Jesus? Do you mean the Shroud?
Originally posted by Lister87
Originally posted by micpsi
Originally posted by Lister87
Great post, thanks for that!
I've always thought the shroud was absolute rubbish anyway, so it comes as no suprise.
Carbon dating quite clearly stated it was from the 1200-1300's, that kills it already.
It's as phony as catholicism.
[edit on 5-10-2009 by Lister87]
That's a laugh. Even Professor Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, who did the carbon dating, has now admitted his method of using bacteria-contaminated samples from the edge of the sheet was wrong and recommends a fresh dating be taken.
www.telegraph.co.uk...
Firstly:
".. is investigating claims that its findings were wrong."
Secondly,
"The results, which are due next month, will form part of a documentary on the Turin Shroud that is being broadcast on BBC 2 on Easter Saturday."
What were these results? That article is February 2008, we're now over a year further ahead. I guess nothing major, because it wasn't publicized?
Lynn Picknett, a Shroud researcher and author, said: “The faker of the shroud had to be a heretic, someone with no fear of faking Jesus’ holy redemptive blood.
“He had to have a grasp of anatomy and he had to have at his fingertips a technology which would completely fool everyone until the 20th century.
"He had a hunger to leave something for the future, to make his mark for the future, not just for the sake of art or science but for his ego."