Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Shroud of Turin may not be a hoax after all. I'm not saying it's Jesus, but it's Jesus   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Shroud of Turin, carbon datings  
•       •       •

14942 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:43 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



433 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
rpm
2013-03-29 12:35:54 PM  

jjwars1: rpm: jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Yes.  If you observe and analyze a "miracle" you'll find either A: The miracle can't be explained, or B. Science proves how the miracle occurred in which case it isn't a miracle- it's just science.


And the thing about (A) is it's "Can't be explained yet", you still need to show goddidit in that case, just saying you don't know now doesn't mean you can't know, nor does it mean your alternate explanation is correct.
 
2013-03-29 12:36:22 PM  
www.religioustolerance.org

img69.imageshack.us

Hail Ragnar! and hail Ragnar's beard!
 
2013-03-29 12:37:13 PM  
New research from the Institute of Findings We Were Hoping For suggest this isn't a hoax.
 
2013-03-29 12:37:16 PM  

jjwars1: rpm: jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Yes.  If you observe and analyze a "miracle" you'll find either A: The miracle can't be explained, or B. Science proves how the miracle occurred in which case it isn't a miracle- it's just science.


So what you're saying is there's no such thing as a miracle.
 
2013-03-29 12:37:44 PM  

StashMonster: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/another_easter_for_the_tu r in_shroud/


huzzah for you, sir!! i didn't even bother reading the fox news article; joe nickell has debunked the shroud so many times.

I_C_Weener: The Pope of Manwich Village: [users.stargate.net image 800x1066]

Corner water damage Jesus is watching you mastrubate.


this made me laugh waaaay to hard.
 
2013-03-29 12:38:17 PM  
It's a Fanti see.
 
2013-03-29 12:40:16 PM  

colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.


Meh. More eyewitnesses have seen Bigfoot, and he ain't real either.
 
2013-03-29 12:42:47 PM  

s2s2s2: Who? Please show their work.


His name is Nicholas Allen, and here you go http://www.reviewofreligions.org/385/is-the-shroud-of-turin-a-medieva l -photograph-a-critical-examination-of-the-theory/

And here's the image he made

www.reviewofreligions.org

Nothing but a camera obscura, a piece of cloth and some photosensitive chemicals
 
2013-03-29 12:43:33 PM  

s2s2s2: JasonOfOrillia: Those results, Fanti said, were "false" because of laboratory contamination, the Telegraph reported.

Sounds legit.

It was contaminated.



Did you read your link?

Out of the scientists listed under the contamination section, a few said it might have been contaminated, listing unusual and hypothetical circumstances. Others said they had experimental results indicating contamination, but were later shown to have been lying and were "arrested in 1997 on American soil under allegations of accepting bribes by magazine editors to produce manufactured evidence and false reports"?

Do you have anything to back up your flat statement that "it was contaminated"? At best, your link supports "it may, possibly, hypothetically have been contaminated."
 
2013-03-29 12:43:38 PM  

s2s2s2: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.


The shroud could have been forged by draping it over pigment applied to a person's face, which would deposit varying levels of pigment in proportion to the "elevation" of each facial feature. Scans of other objects can exhibit "3D" characteristics when there's a correlation between depth and dark/light value:

http://gizapyramid.com/LECTURE-SHROUD3.htm

Doesn't require magical resurrection Jesus beams at all. Just means that the pigment on the shroud is proportional to depth, rather than a static depiction of a fixed light source falling on a 3-dimensional face as in most paintings or drawings.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 12:45:04 PM  

kobrakai: jjwars1: rpm: jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Yes.  If you observe and analyze a "miracle" you'll find either A: The miracle can't be explained, or B. Science proves how the miracle occurred in which case it isn't a miracle- it's just science.

So what you're saying is there's no such thing as a miracle.


yes
 
2013-03-29 12:52:55 PM  

malfist: I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14.


Your postings would perhaps carry more authority if you showed the slightest knowledge of how C14 dating works.

Hint: at the this time of year, the sun is up for 12 hours and down for 12 hours. Do sundials only work to a resolution of 12 hours?
 
2013-03-29 12:53:28 PM  

WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.


It's not an artifact any more than a Polaroid of a Bible is a religious text. It's a piece of cloth, yes, but I really don't see what makes it any more a "fascinating artifact" than any other piece of cloth from around that time period, which it isn't even from. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I doubt 2000 years from now people are going to "Oooo" and "Ahhhh" over some random bed sheet. Unless, of course, they were trying to use that bed sheet as proof of that money-making religion they made up.
 
2013-03-29 01:02:35 PM  

munko: white Jesus or black Jesus?


i141.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-29 01:12:12 PM  
This pic always makes me smile, and I don't know why. I guess there's something about Toshiro Mifune as Jesus that tickles me!


mattstone.blogs.com
 
2013-03-29 01:14:53 PM  
I blame this guy.

jerryandmartha.com
 
2013-03-29 01:16:00 PM  
i1168.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-29 01:25:05 PM  

Close2TheEdge: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.


I'm not sure 'believe' is the right word... Christianity is a faith system... It surely exists... You might just choose not to 'subscribe' to it, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a thing out there called Christianity.

And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.   You might not 'believe' he's the son of the God, with magical powers, though that doesn't mean the Shroud of Turin for sure didn't belong the earthy man known as Jesus Christ.
 
2013-03-29 01:31:56 PM  

WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.


I am not so sure it would have been that important. We forget for the first few centuries the cult of Jesus was a small offshoot of Judaism, that was persecuted and there wasn't all that many artifacts kept during the period. It was only after Constantine that the artifacts started appearing left, right, and centre. Even if it had been put away, it would have gone into the catecombs for a couple of centuries to rot away.

It the old reliquaries used to convince people it is holy and donate money to the location that keeps it shtick that has been popular for centuries. Now a days however they all turn out to be burnt pieces of toast and dog's arses for some reason.
 
2013-03-29 01:35:17 PM  

s2s2s2: PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.*

John 18:36:  Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

*Yup
Like to hear a song about it? Here it go.


Just like a star:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmZg7tvGN9o
 
2013-03-29 01:45:27 PM  
Here's the thing. Suppose Jesus was a real man. Suppose he had some sort of following and became popular in among a group of people, hypothetically a significant number of people. Suppose he dies. Suppose someone, still caught up in his cult of personality (or on its fringes) decides to manufacture a holy relic to keep his movement inspired (or to turn a quick buck among the followers). In that framework, it would not be inconsistent that the shroud dates back to that period.

It would still not be an indication that Jesus was some sort of god incarnate. In fact it would suggest, though not prove, the opposite. It would also be a more statistically likely scenario.

It would, if it could be proven, invalidate the notion that the shroud is the result of some supernatural occurrence.
 
2013-03-29 01:45:49 PM  

T.rex: Close2TheEdge: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.

I'm not sure 'believe' is the right word... Christianity is a faith system... It surely exists... You might just choose not to 'subscribe' to it, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a thing out there called Christianity.

And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.   You might not 'believe' he's the son of the God, with magical powers, though that doesn't mean the Shroud of Turin for sure didn't belong the earthy man known as Jesus Christ.


it did not, and if you purport that it did you are either a liar or a fool.  fact is that "historians" have zero evidence that Jesus was real.  They gave up on trying to prove his (non) existence because believers just won't have it any other way other than he DID exist, but the simple truth is that the chances of biblical or even historical Jesus having been flesh and blood are slim to none.  The religion was pieced together from older crap and given a "modern" spin by including the anti-jewish stance stuff about a savior that the Jews didn't believe in.  A few scraps of writing, written decades or centuries later do not prove a damn thing.  I am sorry that religions based on magic and fairy tales are in fact just that, fairy tales, but shiat is what shiat is.  I am also sorry that humans are often so stupid that they will believe in this crap, but once again shiat is what shiat is.

in the year 2013 it is farking SAD that humans are debating whether or not a magical being rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.  MAGIC IS NOT REAL.  Period.  MAGIC WAS NEVER REAL.  Period.
 
2013-03-29 01:48:38 PM  

WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.


Well said, although I disagree with the last paragraph IF it is authentic.
 
2013-03-29 01:58:16 PM  

Chach: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

Well said, although I disagree with the last paragraph IF it is authentic.


if it is real, it is THE ONLY piece of evidence that proves Jesus was real.  Christians NEED it to be real.  That is why even tho they know damn well that it is fake, how it was faked, how old it really is, that people keep "researching" it.

That is the only reason the "controversy" continues.  It is a medieval fake.  Once again, anyone that says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.
 
2013-03-29 01:58:44 PM  
Jesus was probably real. He wasn't born in Bethlehem. That was made up after the fact to fit with prior prophecies. The whole idea Romans sent people to where they were born to do a census is ludicrous... they did it to see how much tax money they should be receiving in areas.

We have multiple sourced documented evidence of this.


His mother wasn't a virgin either. That like the "Bethlehem birth myth" was probably taken from older scripts. There are numerous religions that predate Christianity that involve virgin births.

It is also possible she had been screwing round and was as convincing as Joseph was a gullible fool. Either that or they were practicing the pull out method prior to wedding.


For such a big event as told in the bible the fact that there are zero contempary accounts mean it is a story that was embellished over a generation or two.
 
2013-03-29 02:02:34 PM  
Christianity = messianic Judaism of the Roman occupation + Roman Paganism

religion in evolution.  Idea of God being himself + earthly representative (Jesus) = Roman Pagan idea
God being a 'singular' entity- all other gods false = Jewish idea
Idea of 'savior' = Jewish idea
Idea of young deity dying to teach us a lesson= Pagan idea
etc...
 
2013-03-29 02:04:17 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-29 02:06:39 PM  

colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.


are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.
 
2013-03-29 02:10:18 PM  

frepnog: T.rex: Close2TheEdge: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.

I'm not sure 'believe' is the right word... Christianity is a faith system... It surely exists... You might just choose not to 'subscribe' to it, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a thing out there called Christianity.

And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.   You might not 'believe' he's the son of the God, with magical powers, though that doesn't mean the Shroud of Turin for sure didn't belong the earthy man known as Jesus Christ.

it did not, and if you purport that it did you are either a liar or a fool.  fact is that "historians" have zero evidence that Jesus was real.  They gave up on trying to prove his (non) existence because believers just won't have it any other way other than he DID exist, but the simple truth is that the chances of biblical or even historical Jesus having been flesh and blood are slim to none.  The religion was pieced together from older crap and given a "modern" spin by includi ...


I find it interesting that you say there is no evidence to support historical Jesus, while conveniently saying the Shroud doesn't count...   Sure, if you just say this and that don't count, i think one will be eventually be left with no evidence.

I'm not even Christian. I'm just saying that i'm open-minded enough to accept the plausible chance that a man named Jesus Christ once walked the earth, whom people believed was the Son of God.   You don't need to invoke 'magic' or even the existence of God to accept this scenario as being possible.
 
2013-03-29 02:11:07 PM  

killdawabbitt: Christianity = messianic Judaism of the Roman occupation + Roman Paganism

religion in evolution.  Idea of God being himself + earthly representative (Jesus) = Roman Pagan idea
God being a 'singular' entity- all other gods false = Jewish idea
Idea of 'savior' = Jewish idea
Idea of young deity dying to teach us a lesson= Pagan idea
etc...


wow.  it's almost like people just make stuff up when it come to religion.

/you are correct.  that is exactly what it is.  most of Christianity is pagan crap mixed with Jewish crap mixed with pure crap.
 
2013-03-29 02:17:51 PM  

trappedspirit: munko: white Jesus or black Jesus?

[i141.photobucket.com image 300x363]


Jason Moma?
 
2013-03-29 02:18:41 PM  

T.rex: frepnog: T.rex: Close2TheEdge: WanPhat:


I find it interesting that you say there is no evidence to support historical Jesus, while conveniently saying the Shroud doesn't count...   Sure, if you just say this and that don't count, i think one will be eventually be left with no evidence.
I'm not even Christian. I'm just saying that i'm open-minded enough to accept the plausible chance that a man named Jesus Christ once walked the earth, whom people believed was the Son of God.   You don't need to invoke 'magic' or even the existence of God to accept this scenario as being possible.

if Jesus wasn't magic then there is no farking POINT to his existence or non-existence.  Why can't you get that?  If he wasn't magic then it doesn't MATTER if he was real, since if he wasn't magic then the entire religion is a lie.

Jesus wasn't magic, because magic isn't real.  Period.  Therefore it stands to reason that Jesus as a figure was an invented device.

Just like Moses, Abraham, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Satan ...............  All made up fairy stories.
 
2013-03-29 02:18:44 PM  
sharetv.org
Look, buddy, if I trusted the word of every customer that comes in saying that they have Jesus Christ's death shroud, I would be out of business really fast.  Do you have any provenance with this cloth?  Well, without any, the best I can do is $20, cash money.
 
2013-03-29 02:27:40 PM  
Bull...shiat
 
2013-03-29 02:27:55 PM  

T.rex: frepnog: T.rex: Close2TheEdge: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.

I'm not sure 'believe' is the right word... Christianity is a faith system... It surely exists... You might just choose not to 'subscribe' to it, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a thing out there called Christianity.

And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.   You might not 'believe' he's the son of the God, with magical powers, though that doesn't mean the Shroud of Turin for sure didn't belong the earthy man known as Jesus Christ.

it did not, and if you purport that it did you are either a liar or a fool.  fact is that "historians" have zero evidence that Jesus was real.  They gave up on trying to prove his (non) existence because believers just won't have it any other way other than he DID exist, but the simple truth is that the chances of biblical or even historical Jesus having been flesh and blood are slim to none.  The religion was pieced together from older crap and given a "modern" spin by includi ...

I find it interesting that you say there is no evidence to support historical Jesus, while conveniently saying the Shroud doesn't count...   Sure, if you just say this and that don't count, i think one will be eventually be left with no evidence.

I'm not even Christian. I'm just saying that i'm open-minded enough to accept the plausible chance that a man named Jesus Christ once walked the earth, whom people believed was the Son of God.   You don't need to invoke 'magic' or even the existence of God to accept this scenario as being possible.


I know we stepped on each other's toes a tad yesterday, so I'm not going to go off on a rant here on the off-chance you take it personally. That's not my intention. That being said, the first paragraph of that post was flawed from the get-go. You're saying that it is not fair to state that there is no proof while at the same time setting aside "proof". I suppose that would be correct if there were any REAL evidence that the Shroud of Turin is what it is claimed to be. But there's not. It's not that it can't be explained, it's not that it's a mystery. We know exactly what it is; a hoax. It is disingenuous. So to claim that you can't disprove something that has supporting proof is ludicrous because the proof isn't proof at all. It's a man-made attempt at "proof". It's no more proof of God than those famous pieces of toast. It's really not even anything that needs to be argued. If you want to occasionally use science to prove your insane theories, you actually have to accept the science that says your wrong, not spread disinformation about carbon dating or revert back to the "miracles could never be explained by science". Science was good enough when you thought it would support your belief, but it's not good enough when it completely annihilates your argument/religion? That doesn't add up. Kind of like organized religion.

/again, nothing personal, feel free to ignore this post
//I know they're not "your theories", just speaking generally
 
2013-03-29 02:31:50 PM  
T.rex:
And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.

They are just being polite.
 
2013-03-29 02:33:46 PM  

wildcardjack: The most remarkable thing would be that they had a few yards of cloth woven with an 11th century technique that far in advance.

Seriously, the type of loom required to produce this linen fabric didn't exist until much later. You don't need to go any further. The only reason to try to prove it's older is cognitive dissonance.


This.

I'm Christian (and YES, I know that 9/10th of the Bible is parable..) and I absolutely hate it when someone tries to prove the "authenticity" of the SoT.

Keep your BS to yourself, Mr. Christian "Scientist" man.
 
2013-03-29 02:58:11 PM  

frepnog: T.rex: frepnog: T.rex: Close2TheEdge: WanPhat:

I find it interesting that you say there is no evidence to support historical Jesus, while conveniently saying the Shroud doesn't count...   Sure, if you just say this and that don't count, i think one will be eventually be left with no evidence.
I'm not even Christian. I'm just saying that i'm open-minded enough to accept the plausible chance that a man named Jesus Christ once walked the earth, whom people believed was the Son of God.   You don't need to invoke 'magic' or even the existence of God to accept this scenario as being possible.

if Jesus wasn't magic then there is no farking POINT to his existence or non-existence.  Why can't you get that?  If he wasn't magic then it doesn't MATTER if he was real, since if he wasn't magic then the entire religion is a lie.

Jesus wasn't magic, because magic isn't real.  Period.  Therefore it stands to reason that Jesus as a figure was an invented device.

Just like Moses, Abraham, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Satan ...............  All made up fairy stories.


You're not magic either... So are you saying there is no point that you are on this earth?
 
2013-03-29 03:02:03 PM  

mooseyfate: T.rex: frepnog: T.rex: Close2TheEdge: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.

I'm not sure 'believe' is the right word... Christianity is a faith system... It surely exists... You might just choose not to 'subscribe' to it, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a thing out there called Christianity.

And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.   You might not 'believe' he's the son of the God, with magical powers, though that doesn't mean the Shroud of Turin for sure didn't belong the earthy man known as Jesus Christ.

it did not, and if you purport that it did you are either a liar or a fool.  fact is that "historians" have zero evidence that Jesus was real.  They gave up on trying to prove his (non) existence because believers just won't have it any other way other than he DID exist, but the simple truth is that the chances of biblical or even historical Jesus having been flesh and blood are slim to none.  The religion was pieced together from older crap and given a "modern" ...


I would never take offense or take it personally, just because we are coming into a conversation from two different viewpoints... In fact, i greatly respect when someone is able to make a point, regardless of whether or not i agree with it...  and you have done that... 

I agree with you some data suggests the Shroud is a fake, and if its a fake, then it certainly isn't proof of the existence of the earthly being known as Jesus.... But, is the door 100% closed on the matter?   Do we know it conclusively to be a fake?   Heck, it probably is a fake, though i wouldn't bet anything on it.
 
2013-03-29 03:02:32 PM  

Tom_Slick: Another Fun Fact, until the shroud was "Discovered" in the 1300s


One Dude:  "He ascended into heaven! He rose from the dead! He is truly the Lord! Maybe we should hold onto some stuff as a souvenir?"

Another Dude: "Oh, hell yeah. That cross, his sandals..."

Third Guy:  "Joseph of Aramathea, grab that burial cloth!"

Joseph:  "Oh, grody... no. He DIED in that thing. It's got blood and pus and dirt all over it. Plus, I think, down there... you know.. his bowels..."

ALL:  "Ewwwww....Christ Crap!"

First Dude:  "Just have Mary wash the thing. Mary!"

Mary:  "Oh for goodness sakes, get rid of that thing. I'm not putting it in with my unmentionables. Plus I already did whites yesterday."

Second Guy: "Okay, well, let's just leave it over here and we'll figure it out later."

1300 years later...

Knight of Crusades: "Hey, what's this thing?"

Wounded Arab: "Jesus's Burial cloth."

Knight of the Crusades:  "Is that..."

Wounded Arab:  "Yeah."

Knight of the Crusades:  "Ewww... Christ Crap. fark it. It's worth some gold either way. Take it with us."
 
2013-03-29 03:03:44 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Must have been a study last month proving it was fake. This back and forth has been going on for decades now.


Actually, its going back on public display soon, and Leno didn't want it.
 
2013-03-29 03:08:05 PM  
Just watched Passion Of The Christ on some cable station. First time since it came out on dvd a few years ago. Just as hard to watch 2nd time around.
 
2013-03-29 03:15:52 PM  

malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.


You need to read up.  Try +/- 40 years.  Two full orders of magnatude better than your drivel.
 
2013-03-29 03:22:45 PM  

T.rex: most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.


[citationneeded.jpg]

Wishful thinking ≠ facts
 
2013-03-29 03:23:20 PM  
btw the weave of the cloth of the shroud of Turin is a pattern, herringbone, that was not found in any early first century middle eastern linen or other fabrics. Didn't show up until much later, and not in the middle east.
 
2013-03-29 03:26:27 PM  

MadHatter500: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You need to read up.  Try +/- 40 years.  Two full orders of magnatude better than your drivel.


How would carbon dating work if the shroud was from the future? Has anyone checked this yet? It seems plausible enough, given a few other assumptions.
 
2013-03-29 03:31:37 PM  
Wouldn't a turian shroud look more like this:
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-03-29 03:33:40 PM  
The research linking the shroud to between 280 B.C. and A.D. 220 was published in book by Giulio Fanti, a professor at Padua University, and journalist Saverio Gaeta.


So I assume I won't be the first to note that this date would still make it fake?

Also, isotope dating is pretty reliable and takes like an  hour(I would say "a few minutes", but you do have to verify chain of custody and load samples and so on).  The  only reason for it to take 15 years is if you're deliberately falsifying the data via cherry-picking.  Just pointing that out as a scientist.

It's also worth noting that the Catholic Church actually doesn't really care.  There's an old saying that dates back to the middle ages that if one took all of the totally real and legit fragments of the true cross in the church's possession one could rebuild the forests of Germany ten times over.  They're pretty well not bothered by most relics being fake, as technically they reject the worship of idols so their iconography and relics serve a symbolic and not literal purpose in the first place.
 
2013-03-29 03:39:23 PM  

olddinosaur: Here's what's wrong with the Shroud:

1. The man is tall and thin, most men of the times had short stocky physiques;
  blah blah blah

Everyone who wrote about Jesus considered him important, and no one mentions anywhere that he looked any different from the common men of his place and time.  When the Romans came to take him, they had to ask who he was, which proves it even more conclusively.  Jesus did not look any different from the average man of his place and time, the facts do not support any other conclusion.


You are trying to reason about a holy relic from a mythical figure.  Why even go through all this goofy analysis?

It's like being a ghost detective.   Sherlock Holmes using logic to disprove the Loch Ness Monster.
 
2013-03-29 03:40:31 PM  

sxacho: MadHatter500: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You need to read up.  Try +/- 40 years.  Two full orders of magnatude better than your drivel.

How would carbon dating work if the shroud was from the future? Has anyone checked this yet? It seems plausible enough, given a few other assumptions.


Serious answer to a silly question: Humans do shiat with nuclear reactions now, so carbon dating is not reliable past 1945.  The steady-state function underlying the paradigm has been undermined.

Actual answer: the chromatograph operator wearing a gold lame suit and pointy sunglasses telling you the results are "excellent" would be the only major difference.

/Party on.
 
Displayed 50 of 433 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report