http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210369.stm
Turin shroud.
Even before wehn the carbon dating (like it has any merit anyway) showed it to be younger than expected, the way that the image was imposed on this cloth is found to be through some internal heat. I think that they still don't know how the image got on there....
not to mention blood found around the forehead and hands of the figure on the shroud..... but I guess it could have been anyone who had bloody hands and head....
Also the bits of plant found in the shroud supposedly come from a plant that is only found near Galilee.
So now they find that it is between 1500 and 3000 yrs old...
I'm not going to pass judgement one way or another..... and I know that most here are godless heathans anyway..... but I just thought I'd throw this in here..... because recently it was mentions how even though before it was thought to only be like 600 yrs old... that retarded believeer still put faith in this shroud of Turin.... so now it seems that science was wrong yet again..... unless it's wrong about this as well.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Uh oh! Shroud of mystery continues
Uh oh! Shroud of mystery continuesFollow
I believe it to be the Hurin Shroud, that of Turin's father...
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
THAT would Rock.
But c'mon, everyone know's Hurin was naked wehn Morgoth released him... and if any shroud was provided to him by Morgoth....... well.. I wouldn't go near it.
But c'mon, everyone know's Hurin was naked wehn Morgoth released him... and if any shroud was provided to him by Morgoth....... well.. I wouldn't go near it.
Ok so if it really is the burial cloth of JC, what does that prove/matter?
It proves that GAWWD is in his Holyyy Temple!!
so that mel gibson can apply for gov't funding when he does the sequel to "the passion", this time as a documentary rather than a fantasy sci-fi like the first one.
Esdim wrote:
Ok so if it really is the burial cloth of JC, what does that prove/matter?
All it proves is that back in the day, there was some guy named Christ who wandered the desert preaching his own philosophy. Due to his charisma, people thought he was pretty cool and believed his insane assertion that he was a prophet.
Considering how many prophets there were in his time, it really wasn't that much of a stretch.
So the guy was real, so is the Dalai Lama. Woop-dee-do.
such angsty apathy.
conciderig the debate on his actual existance, i'd say it'd be similar to finding proof of Atlantis.
conciderig the debate on his actual existance, i'd say it'd be similar to finding proof of Atlantis.
Kelvyquayo the Hand wrote:
such angsty apathy.
conciderig the debate on his actual existance, i'd say it'd be similar to finding proof of Atlantis.
conciderig the debate on his actual existance, i'd say it'd be similar to finding proof of Atlantis.
Its hardly apathy, its just realistic. There were quite a few people wandering through modern Israel and Jordan in those days preaching the word of god and claiming to be prophets. He got lucky and developed a following, so did Muhammed, so did lots of people.
And I wasn't aware people debated the EXISTENCE of Christ. He's a historical figure, like Ceasar, no? The faithful believe he is the messiah, the heathens (myself included) don't. Thats where the debate lies. For people to deny whether or not he actually lived is pretty ridiculous IMO. It would be tantamount to arguing against the existence of the Roman Emperor Herod and other HISTORICAL figures from "Biblical" times.
No, it is debatable whether he actually existed or not.
There is one source by a Roman.. I think Josephus.... that mention him... and that was way afterwards..... It says somthing like "there was a guy who said he was king of the Jews and tried to start riots and he was executed"
..and to say he got "lucky" is an understatement and a half, concidering how many people worship him as God.
Edited, Thu Jan 27 12:51:56 2005 by Kelvyquayo
There is one source by a Roman.. I think Josephus.... that mention him... and that was way afterwards..... It says somthing like "there was a guy who said he was king of the Jews and tried to start riots and he was executed"
..and to say he got "lucky" is an understatement and a half, concidering how many people worship him as God.
Edited, Thu Jan 27 12:51:56 2005 by Kelvyquayo
Nasty. That blanket touched a dead body.
Quite a few people debate the existance of Christ as a historical figure. Last time the subject of the Shroud came up on the board, it quickly degenerated into a "was Jesus real?" debate. Personally, I'm waiting on definitive proof that the Shroud is from c.33AD before spending time worrying about whose Shroud it was. Crucifixion was common enough in the Roman Empire back then that a picture of some guy with holes in his wrists doesn't mean it was Jesus.
Wouldn't a 3000 year old Shroud kind of invalidate the idea of it being that of Jesus? In fact, 2/3s of the range they suggest would make it pre-date the time of Christ.
Quote:
So now they find that it is between 1500 and 3000 yrs old...
Wouldn't a 3000 year old Shroud kind of invalidate the idea of it being that of Jesus? In fact, 2/3s of the range they suggest would make it pre-date the time of Christ.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I don't know how they could pin point that.
The main thing about it that interests me is the means by which the image was imposed on the cloth..... they say some sort of radiation...or somthing to that effect..
I could imagine the body of Christ getting all charged with some wierd electro-magnetic force that photosynthesizes the image into the shroud... Just to leave behind to fu[b][/b]ck with the unbelievers.
The main thing about it that interests me is the means by which the image was imposed on the cloth..... they say some sort of radiation...or somthing to that effect..
I could imagine the body of Christ getting all charged with some wierd electro-magnetic force that photosynthesizes the image into the shroud... Just to leave behind to fu[b][/b]ck with the unbelievers.
Quote:
Crucifixion was common enough in the Roman Empire back then that a picture of some guy with holes in his wrists doesn't mean it was Jesus.
I think the fact that the image on the shroud look eerily like the widely accepted image of Christ and that there is evidence that the person was cruxified makes people believe the shroud to be that of Jesus.
I doubt if some shroud of a cruxified guy was found and the image on it didnt resemble modern day images of Christ the following would be anywhere near as large.
Meh.. the modern depiction of Christ was a mideval European invention. It's not like bearded guys were a rarity anyway.
I have a hard time accepting the Biblical Christ leaving behind holy relics anyway, regardless of the Catholic Church's stance on the issue. Which, I guess, is part of the point: even if you prove it's from c.33AD you'll have people saying it's a relic (as they do now) and people saying it's probably a forgery or that of some other person (as they do now). I guess dating it is interesting from an archeological standpoint but it proves little from a theological one.
I have a hard time accepting the Biblical Christ leaving behind holy relics anyway, regardless of the Catholic Church's stance on the issue. Which, I guess, is part of the point: even if you prove it's from c.33AD you'll have people saying it's a relic (as they do now) and people saying it's probably a forgery or that of some other person (as they do now). I guess dating it is interesting from an archeological standpoint but it proves little from a theological one.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I debate the exsistance of christ because no one has provided independant proof he exsisted.
Untill they do i will believe that while it is more likely that he did exsist it is by no means a certainty.
For those who don't know there are only 3 historical references to christ that are no connected to the cult of christianity forming 300 years after his supposed death.
1. the first is and obscure reference to Christus <a common greek name
2. the second is a text written over 200 years after his death and as such can hardly be seen as accurate
3. the third by a roman scholar refers to him by name but is so out of context with the rest of his work it is widely dismissed as a fake.
Untill they do i will believe that while it is more likely that he did exsist it is by no means a certainty.
For those who don't know there are only 3 historical references to christ that are no connected to the cult of christianity forming 300 years after his supposed death.
1. the first is and obscure reference to Christus <a common greek name
2. the second is a text written over 200 years after his death and as such can hardly be seen as accurate
3. the third by a roman scholar refers to him by name but is so out of context with the rest of his work it is widely dismissed as a fake.
I just don't believe in coincidences.
If it was found to be exactly from 33AD and from the area of Galilee (remember that plant..some kind of thistle i think) and the person was crucified and had a bloody forehead..... Then I would have to think that it belonged to Jesus.
It wouldn't change my Faith or anything... It would just be intriqing.
But I honestly don't think that we can Ever find concrete proof of this kind of thing. Ever.
Now even if they did say that they have PROVEN it to be Christ, in wahtever way... I would Never believe them.. Even if I thought that it was.
Edited, Thu Jan 27 13:23:43 2005 by Kelvyquayo
If it was found to be exactly from 33AD and from the area of Galilee (remember that plant..some kind of thistle i think) and the person was crucified and had a bloody forehead..... Then I would have to think that it belonged to Jesus.
It wouldn't change my Faith or anything... It would just be intriqing.
But I honestly don't think that we can Ever find concrete proof of this kind of thing. Ever.
Now even if they did say that they have PROVEN it to be Christ, in wahtever way... I would Never believe them.. Even if I thought that it was.
Edited, Thu Jan 27 13:23:43 2005 by Kelvyquayo
Quote:
Meh.. the modern depiction of Christ was a mideval European invention. It's not like bearded guys were a rarity anyway.
That's kind of my point Joph. I would say if you asked most people to picture in their minds what Christ looks like it ends up being the Mideval depiction of Him.
Since the image on the Shroud is similiar to that image it lends it more credibity with alot of people.
Kelvyquayo the Hand wrote:
I just don't believe in coincidences.
If it was found to be exactly from 33AD and from the area of Galilee (remember that plant..some kind of thistle i think) and the person was crucified and had a bloody forehead..... Then I would have to think that it belonged to Jesus.
It wouldn't change my Faith or anything... It would just be intriqing.
But I honestly don't think that we can Ever find concrete proof of this kind of thing. Ever.
Now even if they did say that they have PROVEN it to be Christ, in wahtever way... I would Never believe them.. Even if I thought that it was.
If it was found to be exactly from 33AD and from the area of Galilee (remember that plant..some kind of thistle i think) and the person was crucified and had a bloody forehead..... Then I would have to think that it belonged to Jesus.
It wouldn't change my Faith or anything... It would just be intriqing.
But I honestly don't think that we can Ever find concrete proof of this kind of thing. Ever.
Now even if they did say that they have PROVEN it to be Christ, in wahtever way... I would Never believe them.. Even if I thought that it was.
Thus illustrating the rigid, inflexible, self-delusional mentality of religious zealots. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
LET ME IN!!
YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIE IN THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIE IN THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Recent Visitors: 185
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (185)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Uh oh! Shroud of mystery continues
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC