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: 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
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.
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: 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: 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.
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.
Jesus of Nazareth never existed.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."