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: ElectricUniverse
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Lol now you are bringing up hoax number 2 The Sudarium which has been Carbon dated to 700 AD. You are really falling into the "I DESPERATELY want to believe camp".
BTW, did you even read from that blog you posted?...
Let me help you.
You, and some others still are not understanding that the shroud and the Sudarium have been in many cities throughout Europe, and in the Middle East. Both had been handled by multitudes of nobles and high members of the clergy which would have tainted the cloth with their sweat, skin oils, and fibers from their own clothes.
Think about it. To this day no one can imprint with ancient technology the image of a person in 2 micro-fibers of a piece of cloth. 2 micro-fibers are smaller than one single hair. But somehow, you among some others want to claim this was "forged" in Medieval times?...
In any court of law evidence that is tainted with the dna in sweat and skin oils of hundreds of people would not be accepted as "evidence".
In fact what the carbon dating of the Sudarium proves is that the Sudarium existed and was handled in the 600s-800s AD. It doesn't prove that it was made then.
The same thing for the Shroud of Turin.
Raymond Rogers [61] argued in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta that the presence of vanillin differed markedly between the unprovenanced threads he was looking at, which contained 37% of the original vanillin, while the body of the shroud contained 0% of the original vanillin. He stated that: "The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicate that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years".[41] Rogers concluded from this that the Shroud is much older than the earlier purported estimates.[62][63][64][65][unreliable source?] Rogers also noted that the thread he examined contained a significant amount of cotton, and stated that cotton was absent in the main-body of the Shroud.[65][66][67][unreliable source?]
It has further been stated that Roger’s vanillin-dating process is untested, and the validity thereof is suspect, as the deterioration of vanillin is heavily influenced by the temperature of its environment - heat strips away vanillin rapidly, and the shroud has been subjected to temperatures high enough to melt silver and scorch the cloth.[68] Rogers’ analysis is also questioned by skeptics such as Joe Nickell, who reasons that the conclusions of the author, Raymond Rogers, result from "starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence".[69]
What happens when dozens, or even hundreds of people handle and touch a piece of cloth without gloves? Their sweat, and their skin oils are transferred unto the piece of cloth.
You see, what many people fail to understand is that unlike other artifacts which have been excavated by archeologists, who follow rigorous steps to not taint whatever artifact they uncover, the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium have been handled for centuries by people who did not follow the rigorous steps used to date when excavating archeological artifacts.
Why do some people freak out at the idea that Jesus was married? Is the notion of celibacy being superior to marriage and family a holdover from the Catholic philosophies?
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Agartha
I am sorry but you are wrong.
For example, the Roman historian and Senator Tacitus mentions the "execution of Christ" (Christus) as the beginning of Christianity, which he wrote in the "Annals" on book 15 chapter 44.
This work was published in 116 AD, and is considered by historians as authentic and a non-Christian Roman source that verifies that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate.
However, there are serious problems with using this passage as independent corroboration of Jesus:
Jeffery Jay Lowder states:
"There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices..."
It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?
www.infidels.org...
originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
I am very interested in how you can prove that Jesus DID not exist, imo it is up to to the people that deny his existence to prove it not the other way around.
originally posted by: DJanon
It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: DJanon
It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?
When William Lane Craig doubts sources that purport to back jesus, it's an indication they might be more than a little problematic, to say the least. He is smitten to the extent that he argues (as a supposed "academic") that the resurrection of jesus is plausible.
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: DJanon
It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?
When William Lane Craig doubts sources that purport to back jesus, it's an indication they might be more than a little problematic, to say the least. He is smitten to the extent that he argues (as a supposed "academic") that the resurrection of jesus is plausible.
Do you know what an overlay idea form is?
Were do i find information about "common"names of THAT era and THAT region... NOT biblical, but other FACTS. I find it hard to belive James, Jacob, Thomas and other names were inFACT common there by that timeperiod.
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?
vhb: Do you know what an overlay idea form is?
Cogito Ero Sum: Hi Vethumanbeing. How've you been?
CES: If you can provide the genuine relevance of your question (how it would make it more/less probable) to the Craig argument that the resurrection of jesus as described in the bible, was a genuine physical and historical event that did really happen...?
Without this, I can only offer you a similarly vexing poser, by way of the following conundrum. Do you know what a "quantumflapdoodle" is?
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?
When William Lane Craig doubts sources that purport to back jesus, it's an indication they might be more than a little problematic, to say the least. He is smitten to the extent that he argues (as a supposed "academic") that the resurrection of jesus is plausible.
vhb: Do you know what an overlay idea form is?
Cogito Ero Sum: Hi Vethumanbeing. How've you been?
Awesome as usual.
CES: If you can provide the genuine relevance of your question (how it would make it more/less probable) to the Craig argument that the resurrection of jesus as described in the bible, was a genuine physical and historical event that did really happen...?
Without this, I can only offer you a similarly vexing poser, by way of the following conundrum. Do you know what a "quantumflapdoodle" is?
The relevance is this world is a 'managed system' by others that created it. Many personalities involved from different dimensions and history. This is a living library. If you think you are in control of the outcome you would be wrong; all cataloged as an experiment to be duplicated again (perfected). Many things existing within this physical world are overlays of thought forms (will this work or this). Christ Consciousness, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam are all idea forms to explain a God form (which one sticks). Its a game the demi-gods play. Humans did not invent these religious belief systems. We are responding to dogmatic beliefs placed upon us; because God wants our love and trust and is doing this as an Autistic God that may be insane.
PraeterLambo: Lassie? L'assis! Leve-toi.
There's no need to fall back on France, Sanders, Craig, Kentucky or anyone like that. Use some common sense. The Book of John was written in 100AD. It uses a lot of legal terminology and includes a live testament from John the Baptist under oath. The other gospels had him dead by 50AD. The other gospels don't swear the truth, so John wins. John was written after Revelation and John 2 overlays Revelation 12. Both books are therefore prophecies. Jesus never existed. The Jews and the Muslims were right.
PraeterLambo: There will be an individual who proves God is not autistic or insane through sane, rational logic that even a child can comprehend. The old ways will crumble. God doesn't want love and trust. Where did you get that from? God wants justice as does the majority of the species, who are incapable of meeting out true, objective justice. That's why he used to step in. Then he decided to take a step back, and what happened? Look at the divergence between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All supposedly have the same God. Two are waiting for the Messiah. All three are the chosen ones. All speak for God... Absolutely bonkers. It's not God who is mad. It's the tradition leaders generation after generation.
PraeterLambo: Sit on your arse and you can't make a difference. Watch as one person does, eat humble pie and then learn from it.
Basically, the historical existence of Jesus is more of a given than Buddha and half of early medieval rulers AND many events in Europe