Christian Conspiracy...... BE AWARE

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

As for Lucian he was a 2nd century satirist? And Celsus also 2nd century! You might as well mention the Pope none of them lived in the relevant era. So you’re so called historical evidence isn’t evidence at all it’s more of a wish list. This is why religious followers hate archaeologists, researchers and historians so much because you’re belief is starting to slowly unravel.

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: redchad

Wow you almost have yourself convinced. No scholar of any merit denies
that a man called Jesus by the Romans. Was tried by Pilate, crucified and
that he walked out of the grave he was buried in.

I would also say that despite what anyones says about the Shroud of
Turin. If science can't identify how the image was created there on?

Then no one can say the shroud isn't evidence. No one in the past needed
proof of what was accepted as common knowledge.

Without Christ there simply would be no Christians.

What you're spreading is a lie

I'm not spreading lies! I'm unpicking historical fact. Please explain where the evidence is that a man called Jesus by the Romans was tried by Pilate and then crucified? And please don't refer to the bible. I wait in anticipation.

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

As for Lucian he was a 2nd century satirist? And Celsus also 2nd century! You might as well mention the Pope none of them lived in the relevant era. So you’re so called historical evidence isn’t evidence at all it’s more of a wish list. This is why religious followers hate archaeologists, researchers and historians so much because you’re belief is starting to slowly unravel.

Um I wanted to be an archeaologist and researcher and historians
have done far more to affirm the history of the Bible then to
refute it. So you're lying again.

a reply to: redchad

I'm not spreading lies! I'm unpicking historical fact. Please explain where the evidence is that a man called Jesus by the Romans was tried by Pilate and then crucified? And please don't refer to the bible. I wait in anticipation.

You can't even use the current calender without saying the "Year of our Lord"

Who burned Rome according to Nero? The Christians of whom many
went to horrible deaths because they wouldn't renounce Jesus Christ
was God. Without Christ you have no Christians.

Not only are you spreading a lie? It's not even a good lie.

And Christianity you will never unraval. But knock yourself out.

No one needs a Bible verse to refute something so lame. Common sense will suffice.

a reply to: Saloon

So where is your evidence please that a man called Jesus by the Romans was tried by Pilate and then crucified? And please don't refer to the bible.

a reply to: [post=27103208]redchad


No one needs a Bible verse to refute something so lame. Common sense will suffice

a reply to: Saloon
You can't find one can you! I've posted answers well researched factual from a variety of sources, nothings made up no lies just factual. Research julius ceaser lots written about him from many many sources. But your Godman! Nothing, maybe time to wonder why?

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: Saloon
You can't find one can you! I've posted answers well researched factual from a variety of sources, nothings made up no lies just factual. Research julius ceaser lots written about him from many many sources. But your Godman! Nothing, maybe time to wonder why?

You seem upset?

I thought I cited the shroud? The image on it remaining unexplainable by
science like it or not carries some weight as for evidence.

If the Romans had a Ceasar then the Christians must have had a Christ right?
I don't need any proof for Ceasar's existence do I?

I could argue that everytime the Christians are mentioned is proof of Christ!

a reply to: Saloon

I’m sorry lol! How does the shroud of Turin prove that a man called Jesus by the Romans tried by the Romans and was crucified by the Romans. You’ve got me interested now so please explain!

a reply to: redchad

Keep in mind it is the primary fact that science can't identify
how the image is on the shroud that qualifies it as evidence.
Science failed to disqualify it. And that in turn becomes evidence
in my mind.

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: redchad

Keep in mind it is the primary fact that science can't identify
how the image is on the shroud that qualifies it as evidence.
Science failed to disqualify it. And that in turn becomes evidence
in my mind.

Say again over! I haven’t a clue what you’re trying to infer, so il ask you again how does the shroud prove a man called Jesus was tried by Pilate then crucified? Please make it simple not as if you don’t know the answer and are trying to avoid answering it. Please

a reply to: redchad

Do some research by watching the vid. Then you'll understand.

Or don't because your mind is closed. Either one doesn't matter
to me.

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: redchad

Do some research by watching the vid. Then you'll understand.

Or don't because your mind is closed. Either one doesn't matter
to me.

Okay sorry I get it now! I apologise what would be a good idea is you take on board everything I’ve pointed out then go and ask your parents or teacher or maybe your priest/vicar. They will obviously explain the research and evidence in front of you and clarify that the shroud of Turin does not prove in any way that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Oh by the way at the time of your Jesus birth there was no place called Nazareth. Have a good day hope you get the exam results you want.

a reply to: redchad

Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

I knew you were more comfortable persisting in ignorance.
At the very least I expected at least a more benign remark.
Something like, I see your point as reasonable and must agree
to disagree. But the mind is often educated only for closure.

Hardly scientific.

I honest to God do not know what all the ranting is about this thread. Is it the pronunciation of Jesus's name? I believe that the divine one (whoever that may be) would know if we, in our hearts and mind, do believe in him and I think this is why I have become not a non believer, but a believer that there is something bigger then us. Reincarnation? I do not know but if I die and come back, I hope who ever is in charge would stop with the flashing pictures of kimono dragons eating me alive.

originally posted by: redchad
So where is your evidence please that a man called Jesus by the Romans was tried by Pilate and then crucified? And please don't refer to the bible.

To show you how off-kilter your thinking process is, answer me this and you'll see for yourself how you've lost your way.

Where is your evidence, please, that a man called Abraham Lincoln existed? Remember, documents can be falsified, and images can be photoshopped, so you can't use those kind of "proofs." You can only use first-hand information, e.g., somebody that actually knew him and lived during the same period of time as Lincoln did. And you can't say he really existed because there's a big statue of him in Washington, D.C. That proves nothing. I've got a picture of a statue of Pinocchio. Does that prove he really existed? No, it does not. Like you, I will only accept proofs that I approve of, and no others.

Now, do you see how the parameters you've couched your stance in is all slanted your way? And how doing so, fails to include other methods of proof that are acceptable to real, thinking and intelligent people?

What does prove that Abraham Lincoln existed? The fact that he's so engrained into society is what does. He meant something and the people recognize that. And he did so in the same manner that Jesus Christ did.

But, go ahead now and try to prove Abraham Lincoln existed. I'll just say that any kind of proofs you provide are not real proofs. Do you see how that works, now? Your attempts to refute the existence of Jesus are fruitless and are most definitely satanic-inspired. And you can't prove that it isn't.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
"There is no contemporary, first-hand evidence Jesus existed."
Does that prove that there never was any contemporary evidence? The absence of proof is not proof of absence. But you already knew that, didn't you?

And as for the rest of your statement: So, you're saying that all these people, from different periods of time and from different parts of the world, all created this same exact mythical person named Jesus, spontaneously out of thin air, just so that you could come along 2000 years later and say it's just hearsay? Maybe those people referred to contemporary evidence that existed in their time, but is lost now? Could that have been possible? You people will just reach for anything.

The Bible does mention how Satan thinks very highly of himself, so his minions might exhibit those traits as well. Are you for or against Jesus?


TCB

My post contained two statements of fact. They are not intended to prove a negative, just to prove your post was incorrect. But, ultimately you're right; there is no absolute proof that (whatever his name was) didn't exist, but also no proof that he did.

I don't resent that religious texts exist, nor that religion was invented. It's given us the basis for a good code of laws, among a couple other good things. Obviously, it has also brought many horrific acts with it too.

I don't believe in any gods, so it goes without saying that I don't believe in Satan either. You claiming that I do because I question your statements is, frankly, inane.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

In the current climate the only way to prove anything legally is through the court system. So if it’s good enough for the legal system I suppose it’s good enough for you. This involves 7 types of documentary evidence. So in the case of Abraham Lincoln.
1.  Official documents
These are things like, powers of attorney, birth and marriage certificates, grants of probate, land certificates and contracts. They have legal authority and are highly reliable. Lincoln had a mountain of this type of evidence.
2.  Witness statements
Witness statements from witnesses who can confirm all or a part of what you’re alleging are very important.
A witness statement is a document laid out in a specified way, setting out the evidence of the person writing the statement and ending with a statement of truth. By signing the document the author confirms it is true.  A witness statement should be factual and state what was seen or heard by the person writing the statement. In the case of Lincoln we’re lucky because he was murdered so lots of witnesses. There will be many original witness statements available
3.  Photographs and videos
It is important that the date of all photos or videos evidence is clear and available. In Lincoln’s case yet again because of his murder there are many many photos and originals available for inspection and unlike today fraudulent photos are easy to identify.
4.  Correspondence
all letters and correspondence between the person and any others such as government, solicitors military etc. same again there is a mountain of this type of correspondence.
5.  Notes of meetings
all the meetings with the people involved in your case (stating who was present and when and where it happened). Yet again Lincoln will have a substantial amount of notes from meetings
6.  Medical reports
I’ve no doubt Lincoln will have medical records all available today!
7.  Reports by other experts 
Can you imagine how many experts in politics, law, military, journalism etc etc etc came into contact with Lincoln.
Documentary evidence is gold dust in proving your case.  Gather and keep it carefully.
So case proven I’d say! With the material required above any court of law would find the case proved that Lincoln existed.
Now try and do the same thing with Father Christmas, the tooth fairy or Jesus Christ.

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: redchad

Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

I knew you were more comfortable persisting in ignorance.
At the very least I expected at least a more benign remark.
Something like, I see your point as reasonable and must agree
to disagree. But the mind is often educated only for closure.

Hardly scientific.

You continue to just blather on! Criticising me! Don’t shoot the messenger. Just put down your evidence, first of all what does the shroud prove and how? we are all waiting in anticipation but you know what? I know you won’t try because the evidence isn’t there. You will just continue to have a go at the messenger. By the way did you know that the original old translation of angel is messenger.

originally posted by: redchad

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: redchad

Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

I knew you were more comfortable persisting in ignorance.
At the very least I expected at least a more benign remark.
Something like, I see your point as reasonable and must agree
to disagree. But the mind is often educated only for closure.

Hardly scientific.

You continue to just blather on! Criticising me! Don’t shoot the messenger. Just put down your evidence, first of all what does the shroud prove and how? we are all waiting in anticipation but you know what? I know you won’t try because the evidence isn’t there. You will just continue to have a go at the messenger. By the way did you know that the original old translation of angel is messenger.

Time to be more open minded?
www2.cbn.com...

Now, a new scientific procedure dates fabric from the Shroud to roughly 2,000 years ago. That Italian study is just the latest in a long series of scientific testing,

"The pollen samples that were gathered they, a lot of them are from plants that are native to not just the Middle East, but specifically the area around Judea, Palestine, and Syria and stay where it was in that time period," said Hyland.

British filmmaker David Rolfe said of the Holy Grail theory, "You realize that the cloth is a vessel that's containing Christ's blood. I mean, there it is, and it is blood, and not only is it blood, it is type AB, which is the type that's consistent with Palestinian Jews."

I’m really not sure why it is so difficult for some people to believe … after all archaeologists have had carbon dating methods for some time now, so we know that the bones of dinosaurs date back a pretty long time ago and fossils of “cro mignon like humans” dating back 43,000 years exist,.. unless you don’t believe the science of archaeology. fossil.fandom.com...#:~:text=%5B1%5D%20The%20earliest%20known%20remains,the%20ancestors%20of%20modern%20Europeans.
So it’s entirely possibke the shroud of Turin may truly be that of Jesus. I saw a documentary in the early 80’s which included sone of the interesting things around the Shroud of Turin. The recent science is that there is no paint on it to suggest that it was painted. According to accounts of it, there seems to be a mystifying action of a burning into the cloth, by a mysterious process, of the face and body of a crucified man, potentially indicating the process of the resurrection.
I personally met Dr. Elizabeth Caspari, who documented her trip to Hemis where the lama there showed her documents that a Saint Issa was there, which corresponds to the story that Jesus traveled to
India.
Atheists and secular humanists particularly have trouble believing in hinge of this nature, yet somehow believe the very unsound theories of Climate Change.