Has the Face of Jesus Christ Been Revealed?

[snoopy]

I'm not convinced on the authenticity of the shroud of turin, but I don't see that it matters much either way.
If authentic it would certainly be of incredible historic and archaeological significance, but it would have no theological significance at all.

Yeah, as a Christian, it's kinda a "who cares" for me.

[Ferno]

As for the shroud of Turin, what's it matter if it's real or not, I thought it was the thought that counts. If it wasn't that, they'd find some other "relic" to smoot over.

It's simply a case of false hope. If you believe in something that's been shown as false, what's that say about you?


Let's say the weave is the same for arguments' sake. How does that have any bearing on wether it's authentic or not?

For example: I could say that since I'm wearing a piece of clothing made of wool, and it has the same weave as something abraham lincoln wore. does that mean I'm wearing lincoln's clothing? Not in the least.

It's simply means that it's a coincidence, and nothing more.

Getting mad at me for what I say isn't going to help you any insurrectionist. If you took the time to sit back, read and try to UNDERSTAND what i'm saying, you would find that it's quite helpful. It will allow you to step back and ask the important questions that are NEEDED to be asked these days and maybe not accept things at face value unless they pass the critical thinking regimen.

but I fear you're going to reply with a half-cocked emotional tirade.. just like last time.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Did Ferno just try to claim the high ground? Hehe

[AlphaDoG]

Maybe, just maybe, you should educate yourselves.

http://www.shroudstory.com/

Whatever the Turin Shroud is, it is not a medieval fake relic.

[The_Traveler]

The reason I haven't discussed the weave is because it's inconsequential.

Well if this was the truth. You would not have brought it up in the first place. So you must have thought it had some kind of meaning to you.

Funny how you reached out and called the person a lair when the 5x5 people doesn't even mention the weave as he pointed out to you. Then you call him dangerous. No wonder Insurrectionist is calling you a troll.

[AlphaDoG]

The reason I haven't discussed the weave is because it's inconsequential.

Well if this was the truth. You would not have brought it up in the first place. So you must have thought it had some kind of meaning to you.

Funny how you reached out and called the person a lair when the 5x5 people doesn't even mention the weave as he pointed out to you. Then you call him dangerous. No wonder Insurrectionist is calling you a troll.

Fernii is a troll from the stone-age.

[CUDA]

I'm not convinced on the authenticity of the shroud of turin, but I don't see that it matters much either way.
If authentic it would certainly be of incredible historic and archaeological significance, but it would have no theological significance at all.

agreed if the shroud is discovered to be the actual burial cloth of Christ then it will become a idol. much like when people that flock to see image of Christ in a Grilled cheese sandwich

[Isaac]

hahahah!

[Thenior]

Seems strange to me that the 3D model is in Maya, which is primarily an artists tool, not a research tool.

[d0ggY]

To those who believe in the Shroud based on alleged scientific evidence, I laugh at the fact you place any bearing whatsoever on scientific evidence, since science is probably your greatest \"enemy\". For all accounts I've read and heard about, \"science\" has conclusively proven that the shroud was created sometime in the 13th-14th century. Furthermore, the image of Him, not in blood but in mercuric sulphide (paint), which is more commonly known as cinnabar (etymology of around the 14th century, the time the shroud is scientifically dated) depicts a poor tracing of a figure that would, if he existed, have suffered from a bone disorder.

Perhaps more significant is that science and history have yet to even prove \"Jesus Christ\" existed as a being. Many historians have shown that Jesus was the modern-day equivalent of \"John\" or \"Chris\" - a very popular name. And yet, despite the multitude of followers and gospels with many many many people in attendance, none of the many scribes and nobility once mention him in historical texts of the time until much later after his death.

I would tend to agree that someone was martyred, historically, much like the crucifixion story and I believe that man was a very charismatic leader and had close followers, but his grandiosity was a result of creative writers a few generations later. Historically, in the short years after his death, the Christians, Jews, and Palestinians are consistently persecuted by the Romans, especially from Claudius, Nero, and General Titus. It seems likely that the stories of Jesus were inspirational and uplifting and for that fact alone, the story of Jesus is most important. I relate it to Vasily the sniper in Enemy At The Gates. Through his heroics and word of mouth, people are elevated to a new level of progressive movement for their people.

Beyond that, though, faith and science truly clash and to use science selectively (and incorrectly) to prove a faith-based fact is no more absurd than a scientist using religious faith to fill the holes of a theory of the universe which he cannot conceive of an answer. What I don't get is why it is sometimes so hard to simply say \"I don't know!\" when we are confronted with the unknown.

I have great faith only in the fact that we are not meant to know how certain things work. All that matters for our own existence is that they do, and they work quite well. The only evil on this earth is created by our own greed and self-servance and if there really were deities, then I'm afraid Satan has clearly won the battle.

As I said in another post on this forum, when all is said and done, I believe in the certainty of none and the possibility of all. That holds with God, Jesus, and the possibility that either exist or never did exist. The irony is I won't know until I die but I trust if there is a deity, he's got bigger fish to fry then to worry about one little internet troll, such as myself, really truly believes in him. If he does care that much, then God needs a serious ego check.

[CUDA]

To those who believe in the Shroud based on alleged scientific evidence, I laugh at the fact you place any bearing whatsoever on scientific evidence, since science is probably your greatest "enemy". For all accounts I've read and heard about, "science" has conclusively proven that the shroud was created sometime in the 13th-14th century. Furthermore, the image of Him, not in blood but in mercuric sulphide (paint), which is more commonly known as cinnabar (etymology of around the 14th century, the time the shroud is scientifically dated) depicts a poor tracing of a figure that would, if he existed, have suffered from a bone disorder.

personally I dont care if it is or is not the burial cloth of Christ. but the sceintific "proof" as you call it for dating the shroud if flawed.

The mended corner of the Shroud of Turin was the cause of the carbon 14 dating failure
Carbon 14 dating in 1988 supposedly proved that the Shroud of Turin was medieval. But not everyone was convinced. An overwhelming amount of other data suggested that the Shroud was indeed much older, perhaps first century and from the environs of Jerusalem.

New in 2008: A team of nine scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory has confirmed that the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin is wrong. See the Fact Check page at Shroud of Turin Blog

Many researchers who were not experts in radiocarbon dating attempted to explain why the carbon 14 dating was wrong. Several ideas were put forward. Some of these explanation gained traction in the media and with the public.

One hypothesis was that a serious fire in 1532 that nearly destroyed the Shroud had somehow changed the measurement age of the cloth. Another theory was that a bioplastic-polymer growing on the cloth contaminated the sample. These ideas were scientifically insupportable. Scientists, who were knowledgeable in radiocarbon dating, science dismissed these ideas as preposterous.



Photomicrograph of fibers from a warp segment of carbon-14 sample. Chemically, it is unlike the rest of the Shroud.
In 2005 an article appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, which demonstrated that the carbon 14 dating was flawed because the sample was invalid. It turns out that the corner from which the sample was taken for carbon dating had been mended. As a result, the sample included a significant amount of newer material.

Moreover, this article, by Raymond N. Rogers, a well-published chemist, and a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, explained why the cloth was much older. It was at least twice as old as the radiocarbon date, and possibly 2000 years old.

[Kilarin]

And yet, despite the multitude of followers and gospels with many many many people in attendance, none of the many scribes and nobility once mention him in historical texts of the time until much later after his death.

There is really nothing unusual about that at all. Messiah's were a dime a dozen at that time.

As for "much later", Josephus is the first "Non Christian" source referencing Christ that I am aware of, around 93AD. there are several others from around the same time period. There are early church documents from around 100ad.

but his grandiosity was a result of creative writers a few generations later.

Even the most skeptical of Biblical Scholars date all 4 of the canonical Gospels as having been written between AD 65 and 110. More conservative scholars put Mark at around AD 55, Luke around 61, and John around 85. Add to that the Apostolic and Pauline epistles and you've got an incredibly solid batch of very early documentation.

[CUDA]

If he does care that much, then God needs a serious ego check.

Thats because you dont understand WHY he cares

I would tend to agree that someone was martyred, historically, much like the crucifixion story and I believe that man was a very charismatic leader and had close followers, but his grandiosity was a result of creative writers a few generations later. Historically, in the short years after his death, the Christians, Jews, and Palestinians are consistently persecuted by the Romans, especially from Claudius, Nero, and General Titus. It seems likely that the stories of Jesus were inspirational and uplifting and for that fact alone, the story of Jesus is most important. I relate it to Vasily the sniper in Enemy At The Gates. Through his heroics and word of mouth, people are elevated to a new level of progressive movement for their people

well it seems that many scholars would disagree with you.

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University

There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.


Clark Pinnock
Mcmaster University

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.


F. F. Bruce
Manchester University

For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White (10 August 1911 – 1 November 1993) was a British historian of Ancient Rome. He was a fellow of St John's College, Oxford, president of the Society for Promotion of Roman Studies, and a fellow of the British Academy. His most important works include a study of Roman citizenship based on his doctoral thesis, a treatment of the New Testament from the point of view of Roman law and society, and a commentary on the letters of Pliny the Younger

[Sergeant Thorne]

The irony is I won't know until I die but I trust if there is a deity, he's got bigger fish to fry then to worry about one little internet troll, such as myself, really truly believes in him. If he does care that much, then God needs a serious ego check.

Most of what you said isn't worth much, in my opinion. And what you're describing above is called agnosticism. I will say of the portion that I quoted, that you've totally created the straw-man that you hacked to pieces (actually it's a lot more likely that you got it from someone else, because I've heard the same thing before). Grow up, man.

P.S. I don't know what to think about the Shroud of Turin, other than that I am suspicious of 'relics'.

I would tend to agree that someone was martyred, historically, much like the crucifixion story and I believe that man was a very charismatic leader and had close followers, but his grandiosity was a result of creative writers a few generations later.

Oh you would? That's funny, that exactly what anyone would tend to believe that can't deny the existence of Christ in history but denies Christianity's claims. How much of your story did you derive from the Bible itself while putting its message and supernatural accounts through the filter of your world-view? Funny how that works.

[The_Traveler]

not in blood but in mercuric sulphide (paint), which is more commonly known as cinnabar

Huh really, I would like to see 2 things out of all the post here I would like to see Ferno throw away his hand book for radicals and prove his claim about the weave not being used before the middle ages. Then doGGey to point to all the things he has been reading pointing to the so called paint.

Using at least one of the researchers.

Joseph S. Accetta
Steven Baumgart
John D. German,
Ernest H. Brooks II
Mark Evans
Vernon D. Miller
Donald Devan
Rudolph J. Dichtl
Robert Dinegar
Donald & Joan Janney,
J. Ronald London
Roger A. Morris
Ray Rogers,
John P. Jackson
Eric J. Jumper
Jean Lorre
Donald J. Lynn
Robert W. Mottern
Samuel Pellicori
Barrie M. Schwortz
Roger & Marty Gilbert
Thomas Haverty
Kenneth E. Stevenson
Thomas F. D'Muhala

Who all had access to the shroud in 1978. Where they released their summary in 1981.

A Summary of STURP's Conclusions
(Final Report 1981)

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography. The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific concensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

[Ferno]

Well if this was the truth. You would not have brought it up in the first place. So you must have thought it had some kind of meaning to you.

mid 14th century <> 1st century. duh.

Funny how you reached out and called the person a lair when the 5x5 people doesn't even mention the weave as he pointed out to you. Then you call him dangerous. No wonder Insurrectionist is calling you a troll.

re-read my post, because you got just about everything wrong.

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

which they've done and concluded that it was paint, not blood. Research from 1978 does not trump research from 1988.

[The_Traveler]

Now if you had listened to the mp3 (which now is painfully obvious that you hadn't) you would know it was proven to be a hoax.

Translation you are a lair. When he even points out that the 5 by 5 skeptics don't bring up the weave

You my friend are what's called a "true believer". That is, one person who believes in something DESPITE evidence to the contrary. Not to mention the confirmation bias and shoestring arguments you've shown. that my friend, makes you dangerous. Any credibility you had, has now gone straight out the window.

Plain as day you called him a lair and dangerous. My assessment is that you did a quick google search and found nothing or that you were wrong and when found wrong you will call people names and then point to every thing else but what you were wrong about, which makes you a liberal troll. So put you money where your mouth is and prove your statement if you can. This should be easy for a smart guy like you. If you come back pointing at anything else I will know I'm right about my assessment about you trolling.

Take the challenge.

[The_Traveler]

Ferno Maybe you should watch the BBC Shroud Of Turin documentary from 2008. We know how liberal the BBC is don't we.

[flip]

There are many non-biblical secular writings to support the existence of Jesus, and that an eclipse DID occur at the moment he was dieing on the cross. they were debating whether the eclipse was caused by his death or just a coincidence.

Thallus
Sometimes we fall into the mistaken belief that the life and history of Jesus can only be found on the pages of scripture, and that belief can cause us to doubt that he really existed at all. If Jesus came into this world and made the impact that he did, wouldn’t we hear about him from other non-religious sources? Well there is a record of Jesus on the pages of secular history. Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient that his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who had previously tried to explain away the darkness that occurred at the point of Jesus’ crucifixion: “Thallus in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun…” This record of Thallus, confirms that Jesus lived, and was crucified and that something spectacular and unexplainable happened on that terrible day. If only more of Thallus’ record could be found, we would see that every aspect of Jesus’ life could be verified with a non-biblical source.

Phlegon
Similarly, Africanus also mentions a historian named Phlegon who wrote a chronicle of history around 140AD. In this history, Phlegon also mentions the darkness surrounding the crucifixion in an effort to explain it, but even more interestingly, he mentions Jesus’ ability to foresee the future in describing the life of our Savior.

Mara Bar-Serapion
Sometime after 70AD, a Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to encourage his son, compares the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The fact that Jesus is known to be a real person with this kind of influence is important. As a matter of fact, Mara Bar-Serapion refers to Jesus as the “Wise King”.

Josephus
In more detail than any other non-biblical historian, Josephus writes about Jesus in his “the Antiquities of the Jews” in 93AD. Josephus was a consultant for Jewish rabbis at age thirteen, was a Galilean military commander by the age of sixteen, and under the rule of roman emperor Vespasian, was allowed to write a history of the Jews. This history includes three passages about Christians, one in which he describes the death of John the Baptist, one in which he mentions the execution of James and describes him as the brother of Jesus the Christ, and a final passage which describes Jesus as a wise man and the messiah, retelling the resurrection story!

Cornelius Tacitus
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emoperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame. In the process, he describes the persecution and execution of Jesus under Pontius Pilate and the persecution of early Christians.

Pliny the Younger
Early Christians are also described in secular history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians. They are said to have unmovable faith in Christ, meeting once a week before the sun rises, sang hymns to Christ, vowed to do good deeds, and ate together in fellowship.

Hadrian
In addition to Pliny the Younger, Hadrian and Lucian of Samosata also describe the lives of early Christians in the Roman Empire.

[CUDA]

flip, do you have any links? some of those I had not heard before and I'd like to look more into them

[The_Traveler]

I like to see those too flip.

[flip]

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/W ... Just_A_Man

I used this link. Some of those I had not heard of myself, but I'm sure they can either be verified or disputed.

[CUDA]

Perhaps more significant is that science and history have yet to even prove "Jesus Christ" existed as a being.

I had to go back and readdress this statement. while doing some research I found this little tidbit

Here is a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:



"Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . ."{5}



What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

so here we have historical evidence of the life and crucifiction of Jesus and the birth of Christianity

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

[Bet51987]

.

[Duper]

Bet, would you PLEASE do some research before you start making a bunch of assumptions. They did tons of tests on it. It's not a fake. They didn't conclude that it is Jesus, but there is enough biomatter on it to rule out a forgery. There are plenty of those. The minute the shroud was recovered centuries ago, there were many forgeries that popped up.

[CUDA]

I dont understand her stance pro or con for the shroud??

[d0ggY]

Perhaps more significant is that science and history have yet to even prove "Jesus Christ" existed as a being.

I had to go back and readdress this statement. while doing some research I found this little tidbit

Since my initial post I've been idly amused by the replies.

1. Nero wasn't around when Jesus was. The fire happened 30-some years after JC's death and all of this was recorded by upper echelon scribes - people instructed to relate specific facts by whatever underlying motive was driving them. They are the olden-day CNN with political agendas of their own or their owners. Very very very few people could write, thus very few could refute written statements, especially as the majority of the populace was without any real power to safely do so.

2. My argument was that the biblical writings all speak of the masses of followings JC had and all these speeches and yadda yadda that he did. Yet nothing is recorded from when he was alive. I find that odd. To me, he was only a "great" being much after his death. In other words, Christians were struggling to gain recognition (and survival) at this time and they needed some kind of uplifting role model - a person of power, martyred, and whose name could travel on the wind. They picked some guy name JC who was obviously well-liked during his time and was "killed in the name of his people". Given the fact that Jesus was a very popular name back then, it's hard to know for sure if it's actually the same guy that was nailed to a cross. I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm saying that there's no real way to tell unless you were born 2100 years ago and watched it all unfold.

3. You guys can reference all the historians and researchers you want regarding JC, the shroud, or anything else you want to claim as a fact. The real fact is that NONE of these are proven facts. Everything written down from the past was written by a select few people and if you are naive enough to believe anything written down subjectively, then you must be a mindless person that believes everything on TV. Researchers are often the same way and if they WANT to find a fact, sometimes they do exactly that. Kind of odd how all these tests on the same "item" show different results. Also kind of odd that it hasn't been tested more thoroughly by more researchers, as if there is fear that it will lead to more conclusive results either pro or nay. The main point of my argument on this though was that I found it ironic that those with strictly religious beliefs placed any value on the scientific evidence one way or the other. I actually would have had much more respect if someone had simply answered "well I believe it is the shroud based on faith". I can't dispute that argument. I can certainly, and rightfully so, dispute any arguments made by scientific "evidence" that is VERY inconclusive. Science, above all else, instructs us to "question" results and never to believe what we are told simply because some authority figure says so. Otherwise the world would still be square.

4. I never once disputed the fact JC did or did not exist. I just am hesitant to believe that historians were always talking about the same guy or that the guy they are talking about was what he is said to be ...or if he was actually just more "created" through writing as having done this and that. The biblical AND historical writings of him seem more akin to the Jataka stories of Buddhism than any kind of factual evidence. That said, I do believe there was a very charismatic leader, likely named Jesus, who had very devout followers - I think he was a pacifistic version of Spartacus, quietly but bravely trying to eliminate the persecution of his brethren. I think things got seriously blown out of proportion by a bunch of creative writers, though.

'Nuf said from me. Have fun picking apart my points.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Science, above all else, instructs us to "question" results and never to believe what we are told simply because some authority figure says so.

That is a really strange statement. Science, at its core, is about intellectual honesty, and proving or disproving assumptions experimentally (good science does not make assumptions without testing them). Science is not rebellious by nature, it is inquisitive and thorough.

[Isaac]

And yet somehow you have made science about distrust and questioning authority.

It's how we move forward. Otherwise, all we have is religion.

[Sergeant Thorne]

And yet somehow you have made science about distrust and questioning authority.

It's how we move forward. Otherwise, all we have is religion.

Bull****. "We" still have religion, it just has a different face.

[d0ggY]

Science, above all else, instructs us to "question" results and never to believe what we are told simply because some authority figure says so.

That is a really strange statement. Science, at its core, is about intellectual honesty, and proving or disproving assumptions experimentally (good science does not make assumptions without testing them). Science is not rebellious by nature, it is inquisitive and thorough.

You actually said the same thing I did but in more words. Read what I wrote very carefully ...I stated that it tells us to "question" results - so if you read a science experiment and see some results, YOU should question those results. Analyze them and draw your OWN conclusions and weigh the conclusions of the ones that other researchers have come up with. Just because a bunch of scientists got some results and came to some conclusion does not, in any way, mean it is right. It could be right, but not simply because they said so. Do you see what I'm saying?

To summarize, I agree with your statements, specifically because I was saying the same thing in words more related to the arguments at hand.

[CUDA]

2. My argument was that the biblical writings all speak of the masses of followings JC had and all these speeches and yadda yadda that he did. Yet nothing is recorded from when he was alive. I find that odd.

I really had to go back and re-read this statement several time to realize how little thought actually went into it.

first off since most of the accounts of Christ happened within 20-30 years after his death they were probably 1st hand accounts

PLUS

It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.

not to mention WHY would there have been anything written about Christ during his life????? at best he was a minor annoyance to the Romans. he never left Palastine, he didn't even speak in many major cities in his lifetime. he was a non factor to the Romans, they didnt care, he did nothing during his life to make the Romans notice him.

and your ignoring the Historical FACTS really undermines any argument you put forth.

Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

[The_Traveler]

And yet somehow you have made science about distrust and questioning authority.

It's how we move forward. Otherwise, all we have is religion.

Science is a social and/or cultural construct. Progress is social and cultural. Due to the nature of paradgim shifts, science can not stack up facts one upon another until a certain amount of progress is achieved. Science regularly wipes the slate clean and starts over on new shifts of the paradigms and each new burst of "progress" will be judged relative to many factors, such as it's social effects.

Scientific achievements constitute a paradigm when two criteria's are met:

1) They have to be solid and foundational enough to draw researchers away from other models and other approaches;

2) They have to be open-ended enough to allow for further problem solving to continue;

Some can read more on this subject here

http://www.doxa.ws/science/science2_kuhn.html

A lot of the time if something doesn't fit the paradigm it is out right dismissed like finding carbon 14 in fossils that are millions of years old. The scientist will conclude that the sample is contaminated and throw out the results. Same for coal and oil which have been found to have carbon 14. When the religious right contends the sample was contaminated it's an outrage to the scientific world thus worthy of ridicule.

[d0ggY]

first off since most of the accounts of Christ happened within 20-30 years after his death they were probably 1st hand accounts

The avg lifespan back then was around, what, 25-40 maybe. So that makes these first hand accounts from a bunch of people who were children when Christ died or not even born when he was preaching. Unconvincing.

not to mention WHY would there have been anything written about Christ during his life????? at best he was a minor annoyance to the Romans. he never left Palastine, he didn't even speak in many major cities in his lifetime. he was a non factor to the Romans, they didnt care, he did nothing during his life to make the Romans notice him.

and your ignoring the Historical FACTS really undermines any argument you put forth.

Apparently, according to the gospels, which seem to act as historical fact when other records lack, "multitudes of people followed" and "masses gathered to hear him speak" and so on. You'd think someone would have scribbled something down while he was around? The Romans wrote detailed accounts of the "heretics" that caused them great ill so I contend that if he was an annoyance, you are right about one thing - he wasn't that big of an annoyance while he was alive. You basically just argued in favour of my points from before about the fact that he was "created" to be a role-model by creative writers more-so than he actually was. Thanks.

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Wasn't Jesus real name Joshua and JC was simply a nickname? And weren't there a pile of Joshua's around at that time causing strife for the Roman's? Pretty sure there was. Either way, assuming his nickname had carried onto the ears of Tacitus, again, Tacitus was born 30 some years after JC died so that's basically 2 generations of oral hearsay. Unconvincing.

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian.

Again, you are ignoring my arguments. I don't care who these "historians" are. They have their own political agendas and they write what they want to write about. I question the truth of their writings and that's that, especially when they weren't even alive when JC was.

In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. blah blah blah

Sounds like some nice poetic writing to appease the audience. Unconvincing.

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

They gave their lives to a cause, to a belief, and to an ideal. That's actually more noble then giving your life to one being and JC, if he actually possessed the moral scruples bestowed upon him by the many others after his death, then he would probably, as a man, want people to give their lives to his cause then in his name. How arrogant otherwise. Unless of course you're going to say I'm ignoring the teachings and all that actual religious jazz (because, yes, I am) that someone said in a previous post. Oh, and to say no one will die for what they know to be a lie? Hmmm, pretty sure a lot of people in wars have done exactly that, simply through the pressure of authority and the masses. How naive to think otherwise.


As for all these quotes and historical references and on and on, shall we get into the argument of whether JC had a wife and child (and please don't bring in the Da Vinci code movie)? The whole "this historian said this" argument is a slippery slope. You people are completely overlooking my main point - take what these "historians" and "scientists" are saying with a grain of salt. If you have faith in JC, god, christianity, or in science, than that is good enough. But have faith because YOU believe. Not because someone says it's so. To me, that is where some of you are really walking a line of blind trust and it's a shame to be unable to think for yourself without feeling the need to throw references and sources around because it somehow adds proof (despite the fact that, in the end, we have no "proof" aside from personal belief)

[CUDA]

and your ignoring the Historical FACTS really undermines any argument you put forth.

since you have not made one argument with ANY shred of evidence one can only assume that

1. you have none
2. you dont care to find any.
3. you dont wish to learn the truth and wish to wallow in your ingorance

I have backed up my arguments with historical FACTS, you have provided nothing but your unsupported opinion.

so I say to you

"In reality, there exists only fact and fiction.
Opinions result from a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter."

and here is the stance of someone that knows just a little more on the subject that either you or I

For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

so my advise to you would be to quit while your ahead your only succeeding in making yourself look foolish.

[CUDA]

...

[Isaac]

I would respond but...

[The_Traveler]

I think he is getting his information from here.

http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id13.html

[CUDA]

seems like it, but I tend to lean towards the scholars that have studied this information for decades and put their names to their research as a more relaible source

because in my admited skimming of the website it appears like they too offer their \"OPINIONS\" on the matter without the evidence to substantiate