Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you used the word bigot on post 299, you brought race into the issue
Only in your own warped little mind. It should be expected that you would see it that way, considering how you intreprete anything to fit your bigotted agenda.
Quote:
And then your tried to deny that bigot had anything to do with race. Yet I took your advice and look up the word bigot, and I discovered you were wrong.
You truly are blind. I never said bigot had nothing to do with race, I said it had other meanings which I pointed out in your own reply. Seriously dude, get help.
Quote:
FOUND ON YOUR POST 299, YOU signed off with. A TRULY BLIND MORONIC BIGOT.
BIGOT- One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, (RACE), or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Now, can you tell us you did not bring race into the post ? Especially when all here can see you signed off on post 299 with, Truly blind moronic (BIGOT).
As usual, you see only what you wish to see, setting forth your own (racial) agenda and blaming it on others. By your own posts, you once again portray what a bigot you are. Leave your favorite word, race, out of it and it is a perfect description of you. The remaining definition fits you perfectly.
I'm still waiting for an answer to these two questions:
So why does this shroud not fall in line with Jewish burial practices of the day wherin they used a two piece shoud - one for the body and a separate one for the head? Even the Gospel of John (19:40 and 20:5-7) speakes of the multiple piece shroud and is, again, consistant with 1st Century Jewish burial practices. With this shroud being one-piece, does that mean that the gosepl of John is incorrect?
Why is it that this shroud uses a complex 3-1 weave rather than the simple one over one weave consistant with weaving techniques of 1st Century Jerusalem? These are problems with the Shroud of Turin that cannot be ignored.
I'm still waiting for an answer to these two questions:
So why does this shroud not fall in line with Jewish burial practices of the day wherin they used a two piece shoud - one for the body and a separate one for the head? Even the Gospel of John (19:40 and 20:5-7) speakes of the multiple piece shroud and is, again, consistant with 1st Century Jewish burial practices. With this shroud being one-piece, does that mean that the gosepl of John is incorrect?
Why is it that this shroud uses a complex 3-1 weave rather than the simple one over one weave consistant with weaving techniques of 1st Century Jerusalem? These are problems with the Shroud of Turin that cannot be ignored.
I asked several times, no answer,I dont think you will get one either, at least one that will make sense.
Your belief that the Gospels are anonymous is an opinion of yours.
No, it is the opinion scholars who have spent their lives doing reliable research on the subject rather than just believing what they read from Christian apologetics.
Quote:
Yet others do not share that view.
The only people that don't share that view are rabid fundamentalists who desperately want the Bible to be true.
Quote:
As far as Luke goes, it is true there is no evidence He actually saw Jesus. Yet he did personally know the disciples, and thus, live in a time where he received first hand accounts of the miracles that Jesus performed.
Oh dear! You just don't get it do you? If Luke wrote down what others told him then they are not first hand accounts are they? How did Luke know that what he was being told actually happened? He wasn't there, didn't see anything and relied on others for his information. That is not first hand accounts.
The Gospels of Matthew and John were written decades after the fact, most likely around 70-85 CE, if not later. Paul is estimated to have died around 65 CE, and throughout all his letters you will notice he never quotes from any of the Gospels, which is very unusual given that he often quoted from the Old Testament. The names of Matthew and John, as well as with other gospels, were applied to the writings to help lend them an air of authenticity. Justin Martyr doesn't mention any Gospels until the 2nd century.
If you actually EXAMINED the evidence old fruit rather than blindly swallowing what Christian apologetics feed you, you would see that there is absolutely no evidence that the Gospels were circulating in the first century. The first epistle of Clement of Rome, which is reasonably dated to 95 CE, makes no mention of any of the Gospels although it does mention the epistles of Paul. This is a strange omission had the Gospels been circulating at that time.
The Gospel of Luke borrows heavily from material in Josephus’ later works implying that the Gospel of Luke was not composed, much less published, until after 100CE, since Josephus’ later works weren’t published before 95 CE. None of the Gospels are mentioned in the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, which can be dated from 110 CE.
The earliest allusion to any of the Gospels is from about 130 CE in the works of Bishop Papias, who refers to a collection of Jesus’ sayings/oracles in a Hebrew book which suggest that some things resembling the Gospels were in circulation after 130 CE. Yet they were certainly not very well known since other prominent Christian writings from Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Exigetica, The Book of Hermasfrom this period do not contain any references to them.
Now old horse. What we find is that the first mention of the 'Gospels', as we know them, comes around 140 CE in the work of a dude called Aristides of Athens who refers to "the holy Gospel writing". Shortly thereafter, a Christian reformer named Marcion broke with the traditional church over the issue of Jesus’ divinity, and set up his own church, including in its writings a stripped down version of the Gospel of Luke. In 150 CE. Justin Martyr of Rome composed the first of his two Apologies, in which he specifically refers to the writings of Luke, Matthew, and Mark but clearly not in the form of the Gospels as we know them. About 10 years later, Tatian, brought together the four Gospels and combined them into one harmonized book which he called the Diatessaron. Now our friend Irenaeus comes along in 180CE and writes in his principal work, 'Against Heresies', that: "The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these…"
So you see old chum, the evidence points to nobody even hearing of these 'Gospels' until well into the 2nd century. Makes you wonder why that would be if they were published and circulating in the 1st century... huh?
Dude seriously what are you smoking. They didn't have any of the 3-d imagining back then when this shroud was made either, so if something was made today it could be easily be checked because we do have it. And Yes if you had looked at he link, yes he made it with the same material and things they had back then, he reproduced the SHROUD which can easily be examined today. This shroud was supposedly placed over a human after death, how hard exactly do you think that would be to do today? Sorry to burst your bubble dude, it is not Jesus. NO WHERE does any of this so called evidence prove it was Jesus.
Sorry to burst your bubble Nea1, yet if science placed a cloth over a dead body today. And then looked at it. There would be no 3D image with a negative print. And if this was not the case, why then do we not see thousands of burial cloths with 3D images, and negative prints? Why do you continue to ignore the obvious?
Outside of the shroud Nea1, can you show us all the thousands of other burial cloths with such images on them? If this is easy to reproduce, where are all the other burial cloths showing us 3D images, and negative prints? (WHERE ARE THEY?)
Oh, they did not have 3D imaging back then? Wow, are you on top of things. Of course they did not have any device that would reveal such an image. And that was my point, Nea1. How could they produce such an image, when they never heard of a 3D image? That was an obvious question that just went right over your head. How did they produce a negative print, when photography would not be invented for another 1500 years or more. And they had no knowledege of negative prints. Here again, another question going right over your head.
Your belief that they could reproduce this print because they had all the materials is nonsense. Science cannot produce such a combination of a negative print and 3D image today from a dead body. Can you show us a link that proves your point? Can you show us where science made both a negative print, and a 3D image from a dead body? Don't worry, I'm not going to hold my breath Nea1.
Sorry to burst your bubble Nea1, yet if science placed a cloth over a dead body today. And then looked at it. There would be no 3D image with a negative print. And if this was not the case, why then do we not see thousands of burial cloths with 3D images, and negative prints? Why do you continue to ignore the obvious?
Outside of the shroud Nea1, can you show us all the thousands of other burial cloths with such images on them? If this is easy to reproduce, where are all the other burial cloths showing us 3D images, and negative prints? (WHERE ARE THEY?)
Oh, they did not have 3D imaging back then? Wow, are you on top of things. Of course they did not have any device that would reveal such an image. And that was my point, Nea1. How could they produce such an image, when they never heard of a 3D image? That was an obvious question that just went right over your head. How did they produce a negative print, when photography would not be invented for another 1500 years or more. And they had no knowledege of negative prints. Here again, another question going right over your head.
Your belief that they could reproduce this print because they had all the materials is nonsense. Science cannot produce such a combination of a negative print and 3D image today from a dead body. Can you show us a link that proves your point? Can you show us where science made both a negative print, and a 3D image from a dead body? Don't worry, I'm not going to hold my breath Nea1.
That's awesome bro, but are you ever gonna address the other statements and questions put forth by me and others in this thread?
As I understand from the teachings I have been given, there isn't any evidence of Jesus. There were forces at work beyond our imaginings that made sure that Jesus body was returned to dust just after He was entombed. The tasks was afforded to the Midwayers and they dispensed of the body. In no way was His image transferred to a shroud because there was no slow degeneration. It only took an instant for His body to decompose.
Now, I have no idea how much of that is true but given who Jesus was, I'd say it's probably the most accurate since Jesus was fully Divine upon His death. Since that time, there has been none to equal His soul condition so we have nothing to compare.
But hey, it's just my opinion and my source is Celestials and other angelic beings.
Sorry to burst your bubble Nea1, yet if science placed a cloth over a dead body today. And then looked at it. There would be no 3D image with a negative print. And if this was not the case, why then do we not see thousands of burial cloths with 3D images, and negative prints? Why do you continue to ignore the obvious?
Outside of the shroud Nea1, can you show us all the thousands of other burial cloths with such images on them? If this is easy to reproduce, where are all the other burial cloths showing us 3D images, and negative prints? (WHERE ARE THEY?)
Oh, they did not have 3D imaging back then? Wow, are you on top of things. Of course they did not have any device that would reveal such an image. And that was my point, Nea1. How could they produce such an image, when they never heard of a 3D image? That was an obvious question that just went right over your head. How did they produce a negative print, when photography would not be invented for another 1500 years or more. And they had no knowledege of negative prints. Here again, another question going right over your head.
Your belief that they could reproduce this print because they had all the materials is nonsense. Science cannot produce such a combination of a negative print and 3D image today from a dead body. Can you show us a link that proves your point? Can you show us where science made both a negative print, and a 3D image from a dead body? Don't worry, I'm not going to hold my breath Nea1.
Ok, you are a complete waste of time. You dont understand things and live in your own little world. You completely ignore the facts and dwell on things that have little bearing. Last tidbit, if they could make it back then, we can make it now. Simple as that. The Scientist did it, and of course you know nothing about the findings because you didn't bother to examine any of it. The only thing that goes over my head is Bulls***, for you knowledge goes right over your head.
Notice the links to INFORMATION, 3d, negative and others
Ok, you are a complete waste of time. You dont understand things and live in your own little world. You completely ignore the facts and dwell on things that have little bearing. Last tidbit, if they could make it back then, we can make it now. Simple as that. The Scientist did it, and of course you know nothing about the findings because you didn't bother to examine any of it. The only thing that goes over my head is Bulls***, for you knowledge goes right over your head.
Notice the links to INFORMATION, 3d, negative and others
Ok, you are a complete waste of time. You dont understand things and live in your own little world. You completely ignore the facts and dwell on things that have little bearing. Last tidbit, if they could make it back then, we can make it now. Simple as that. The Scientist did it, and of course you know nothing about the findings because you didn't bother to examine any of it. The only thing that goes over my head is Bulls***, for you knowledge goes right over your head.
Notice the links to INFORMATION, 3d, negative and others
Well the first problem with your link Nea1, is that your scientist keep repeating the lie that C-14 testing shows us that the shroud comes from the 14th. century. This has been proven to be false, and this error has been spoken of in peer review publications. It's obvious, your scientist are pushing false information. And if your scientist keep repeating obvious lies, why would you believe anything else they have to say? Now if you can ignore the vast body of scientific evidence that has confirmed the C14 test results were wrong, then perhaps your living in your own little world. Our beliefs should never be based on obvious lies, that have been exposed as such long ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
