New evidence suggests burial cloth ‘showing imprint of Jesus’ is REAL
- Thread starter NoleATL
- Start date
I couldn't disagree more. I've never had an atheist knock on my door to try to convert me, or met a street Evangelist advocating for non-belief. I don't see a lot of atheist billboards while traveling but I sure see a lot of Christian ones.
The only “eyewitnesses” are those claimed in the Bible. None of them…not a single one…recorded an independent account of what they supposedly saw. Furthermore, the 500 eyewitnesses are only mentioned by Paul - there is no account of this appearance in any Gospel. And Paul’s account has numerous problems that call it - charitably - into question.
I always found it interesting that Paul’s letters came before any of the gospel accounts.
The shroud is of a man’s face.
For crying out loud.
You’re being lied to—a consistent theme throughout organized religion. Why is that?
Jesus was written about by Josephus (Jewish historian) and Tacitus (Roman historian.)
Dude, it’s been debunked. It’s proven to be a fake. Even the pope at the time said it wasn’t authentic. (Thankfully, that was before Vatican I and the doctrine of “papal infallibility,” so I guess you Catholics could have a little wiggle room for that pope to be wrong.)
Regardless, the historicity of Jesus and the crucifixion don’t hinge on this forgery, so why do you feel the need to double down on this nonsense that had already been debunked?
I'm 50/50 on it being real. It's an interesting shroud for sure. It's no big deal to me either way.
Also, the Pope can be wrong. Papal infallibility is only used in rare situations when the Pope is teaching about faith and/or morals.
Papal Infallibility
Catholic teaching on papal infallibility is often misunderstood by Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians." Find out what the Church really teaches.
Last edited:
Oh. Interesting.I'm 50/50 on it being real. It's an interesting shroud for sure. It's no big deal to me either way.
Also, the Pope can be wrong. Papal infallibility is only used in rare situations when the Pope is teaching about faith and/or morals.
Papal Infallibility
Catholic teaching on papal infallibility is often misunderstood by Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians." Find out what the Church really teaches.www.catholic.com
OV's simple minded thoughts on the matter:
1) I agree with @binsfeldcyhawk2 reference to that sermon in that Jesus's message is different that the old testament
2) I feel like Jesus was like "ok Jews, here I am, I am the guy you have been waiting for. I am a Jew, I practice Jewish law, but here are the things that need to change so follow me" and then they were like "nah, we're good, i think we'll just kill you"
3) So ultimately, true Christianity today should probably be more or less Judaism that believes in Jesus as the messiah or whatever. That's not how I practice things.....but in a literal sense Jesus wasn't like "lets ditch ALL things Jewish and lets all become Catholic!"
4) All modern day Christian religions (Catholicism, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.) only exist because one person didn't like how the other guy was doing it and started their own branch.
5) Tied to #4, I feel Paul had WAAAAY too much influence in modern religion if we are being honest. Here are the gospels of the guys that were with Jesus for like 2 years.......but then we take Paul who saw a vision of Jesus on the roadway a couple years later and then he basically makes up most of the new testament?
- to me Paul has always just seemed like a preacher you see on the religious TV stations just blowing smoke. I have a hard time believing God was like "well I guess this whole Jesus and the disciples thing wasn't enough so I better reach out to this Paul guy like 2 years later and make sure he gets the message out"
I pretty much stick to the gospels of the new testament and that's about it. I focus on what that means to me and don't pay much attention to any certain church or other stuff in the bible to be honest.
Last edited:
Yep.
Most people think the Pope is never wrong but he can be.
Peter, the first Pope, denied Jesus 3 times.
To me, you have some directionally good and correct stuff in here, though I'm not sure why Judaic practices would be a binary choice; Christianity sort of views Judaism as "chapter 1", and has for a long time, with the covenants, the law, and the prophets all being steps in a continuous salvation process. And "Christianity" is Chapter 2, and like any good story, it evolves. Your and a couple of other posts did get me thinking though that there's a bit of a "sola scriptura" underpinning to Binsfield's original comment. I agree that Paul has always seemed a little weird as a post-Jesus prophet of sorts. But as a Catholic, fwiw, I don't really come from that position, and instead view the tradition of how early Christians practiced, taught, and confessed as being nearly as informative as to what they believed/how they understood the faith, as simply reconciling or rejecting scripture.
They played hoops against each other?
I can understand that Chapter 1 vs Chapter 2 point of view.....I guess in the most simplistic terms, I can't imagine if Jesus showed up today that he would think the current Church structures as laid out by Catholics, Methodists, Etc. is really what he was going after.
I know WHY church's exist like they do, and not to say they don't provide value......just the core message of the gospels VS. a church service in todays world to me, are not necessarily dependent on each other.
Is a guy that listens to the gospels on audible in the car on the way to work and self reflects during this time any better or worse or get anything more or less out of religion than the guy that goes through the motions at services on Sunday?
(***fwiw I grew up Methodist, the No-Pic is Catholic and we go to Catholic mass most Sundays, although I will never convert to Catholic, which is totally fine with me as I attend service as the wife likes to and I take that time to get what I can personally out of the service....even if I don't do or know all the Catholic traditions and such***)
Now I DO have a problem with me not being ale to take communion in a catholic church.....seems like the most un-Jesus thing of all time, but I digress.
Last edited:
I think it is worth pointing out that Paul's letters were written before the gospels. He is very influential and I would agree that he isn't interested in Jesus teachings. In fact I would suggest he down plays Jesus life because his authority is dependent on his relationship with a resurrected Jesus. He is basically arguing that he has the latest news from Jesus.
I suspect you are right about Church structures, though I'm not even sure that the churches themselves - even the Catholic church - would argue their structure is as important as their teaching, and even as to their teaching, as Pelikan put it:
"Doctrine is not the only, not even the primary, activity of the church. The church worships God and serves mankind, it works for the transformation of the world and awaits the consummation of its hope in the next. 'Faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love' - love, and not faith, and certainly not doctrine."
I was you until 25 years after I married no pics wife, when I converted.
I don't know that "not interested in" is really fair.......not sure how to maybe accurately convey this.....just seems there is a pretty large disconnect between Bible Jesus and Bible Paul and ultimately Paul is who shaped Christianity as it is today logistically I would say.
Almost a little bit like "yes Jesus is the vocal point, but we're going to do it my way" - Paul
***the letters vs. gospel timeline is interesting too.....while I won't argue the letters were "published" prior to the gospels, you woudl also have to take into account the oral history of the gospels that led to the writing of them and I would also argue the "Q-source" would predate Paul's letters technically (Q-Source being the overlapping material shared across certain Gospels....which assumes there was some central source prior to the gospels that they pulled from when compiling)
They should look for some DNA and clone him.I believe Jesus was a real person. I just don't believe the fantasy around being the son of God etc...
Shock evidence suggests burial cloth 'showing imprint of Jesus' is REAL
SCIENTISTS have made a shocking new discovery which suggests a burial cloth claimed to show an imprint of Jesus could be real. The famed Shroud of Turin – a piece of linen imprinted with the …www.the-sun.com
But the latest scientific revelation has revealed the cloth was first made around 2,000 years ago. The same time as when Jesus was said to be alive and ultimately crucified. Italian researchers used specialist x-ray technology to examine the linen sheet so they could place a date on when it was first manufactured. The Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council studied eight small samples of fabric to uncover tiny details of the linen's structure and cellulose patterns. They used specific ageing metrics such as temperature and humidity to conclude the results. Most predictions say Jesus was crucified on Friday, April 3, AD 33 based on the Julian calendar, Bible passages and gospels from the time. Meaning if the cloth was used for Jesus it would have been needed around 1,991 years ago. Leading people to believe the timelines may be accurate to determine the importance of the Shroud of Turin.
And the reason Jesus came to teach and die for our sins.
The other thing I always thought interesting in the Paul debate was the way I understand it , Paul did meet some of the apostles (Peter and James at least I think), but ultimately disagreed with them on a lot of things?
So on one hand, it seems crazy that again Paul was even needed (I realize the theme here is he brought Christianity to the Gentiles), but then he actually met the Apostles in some capacity and disagreed. One would think God/Jesus woudl have had this rollout on lockdown......
......but maybe that's the point to keep this whole thing relatable in that man is not perfect.
Like wouldn't it have made more sense to have Jesus lay out Paul's "role" per se to one of the current apostles?
Hot take: What if Paul just made up his Damascus Road experience and just went rogue with power preaching his way to the masses to build a church he could control? (not saying I believe that....just pointing out the contrast of people who actually walked with Jesus VS just a guy that saw him in a vision on the road)
So on one hand, it seems crazy that again Paul was even needed (I realize the theme here is he brought Christianity to the Gentiles), but then he actually met the Apostles in some capacity and disagreed. One would think God/Jesus woudl have had this rollout on lockdown......
......but maybe that's the point to keep this whole thing relatable in that man is not perfect.
Like wouldn't it have made more sense to have Jesus lay out Paul's "role" per se to one of the current apostles?
Hot take: What if Paul just made up his Damascus Road experience and just went rogue with power preaching his way to the masses to build a church he could control? (not saying I believe that....just pointing out the contrast of people who actually walked with Jesus VS just a guy that saw him in a vision on the road)
Last edited:
May have been included in the video, but have seen that the body was covered in a burial oil common for that time frame. That and a sort of exposure similar to exray from inside of the Shroud. As mentioned there are stains consistent with wounds and thorn crown.
If it's fake it's a spectacular work of art. You can Google a 3D renditions of his face and body positioning.
If it's fake it's a spectacular work of art. You can Google a 3D renditions of his face and body positioning.
You don't think anything was written down that wasn't included in the Bible? Do you know that for a fact? Where does the number 500 come from? There were many interactions with people and the writers of the gospels all had first hand accounts of Jesus acts.
Still after Paul's letters, most likely from the late 40s to 50s.
Mark almost certainly came around 70. Luke and Matthew copied large sections of Mark so sometimes after that. John most likely 90 at the earliest but possibly 110 or later.
That would mean that every single contemporaneous account not found in the Bible was lost. Every one. The writers of the gospels don’t mention Jesus appearing before 500 followers as documented by Paul and Paul fails to mention the women at the tomb who were the first to witness a risen Jesus. He does mention Jesus appearing to “the twelve” whoever they were and separately to “the apostles” so it’s hard to tell what Paul was talking about.
Apparently several of these authors have made claims in the past regarding the shroud that later were retracted after further review.
Interesting take but I’d say not likely. Paul persecuted Christians and was very good at it. If he thought he could seize control he would know he would be signing up for a lot of suffering and his own death warrant. Typically not things people sign up for.
His conversion led to his own persecution and death.
What I find amusing is the nonbelievers are just that nonbelievers until someone in their family is dying or has contracted some fatal disease then they drop to their knees and pray.
They also have some minister, priest, etc. perform their wedding ceremony and speak at their funerals but they still claim to be nonbelievers.
Not sure how they can explain that.
They also have some minister, priest, etc. perform their wedding ceremony and speak at their funerals but they still claim to be nonbelievers.
Not sure how they can explain that.
Not a single eyewitness recorded their account. So, no, we don’t know there were eyewitnesses to anything.
I've never seen a non-believer knock on a strangers door to try to convert them to non-belief. I've never seen non-believers with signs on the side of the road saying honk if you don't believe in Jesus and come to this house of non-worship. I've never seen billboards advertising the fact that there is no god. I don't hear radio stations for non-belief or TV stations for non-belief.
I'd say the believers side is incredibly louder.
A single mention that was likely fraudulently added after the fact ain’t much.
Ain’t nobody got time for that. We found someone telling us what we want to hear, that’s all we need.
Similar threads
