Relapse said:It says right on the wiki link you gave it was radiocarbon dated to be made around 1260-1390. And I don't really understand how a drawing of a guys face proves he was resurrected from the dead or even has anything to do with JesusDanger Close said:Relapse said:@[Danger Close] I don't really see how the shroud of Turin is sure proof Jesus was alive and resurrected from the dead
In what proof does it have nothing to do with it?
It's over 2,000 years old. It has a mans face on it, which is compared to what Jesus may have looked like.
Dungeoneering said:Relapse said:It says right on the wiki link you gave it was radiocarbon dated to be made around 1260-1390. And I don't really understand how a drawing of a guys face proves he was resurrected from the dead or even has anything to do with JesusDanger Close said:In what proof does it have nothing to do with it?
It's over 2,000 years old. It has a mans face on it, which is compared to what Jesus may have looked like.
They also all get a boner and Say jesus is real when They say they see his face in a potato chip
There is no reasoning with them
They believe -Faith- Non fact
We don't believe
Crucifixion was a popular method of execution from around 600 BC-400 AD(assuming its even that old with absolutely no evidence), and the fact a mans face is imprinted on a cloth somehow proves Jesus, resurrected from the dead. I fail to see the reasoning there.Danger Close said:Wow, I really thought you could do some research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin_Research_Project
"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."
There is plenty of theories out there as to why the dating might be off in the carbon dating, but none of those theories have made any progress nor have any factual basis as to why the date would be off. The fact is all the evidence points too the shroud being made around 1262-1384 AD.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioc..._Turin#Chemical_properties_of_the_sample_site
The shroud was also damaged by a fire in the Late Middle Ages which could have added carbon material to the cloth, resulting in a higher radiocarbon content and a later calculated age.
I'm really not trying to offend people like that I'm simply asking a questionDungeoneering said:Relapse said:It says right on the wiki link you gave it was radiocarbon dated to be made around 1260-1390. And I don't really understand how a drawing of a guys face proves he was resurrected from the dead or even has anything to do with JesusDanger Close said:In what proof does it have nothing to do with it?
It's over 2,000 years old. It has a mans face on it, which is compared to what Jesus may have looked like.
They also all get a boner and Say jesus is real when They say they see his face in a potato chip
There is no reasoning with them
They believe -Faith- Non fact
We don't believe
Crucifixion was a popular method of execution from around 600 BC-400 AD(assuming its even that old with absolutely no evidence), and the fact a mans face is imprinted on a cloth somehow proves Jesus, resurrected from the dead. I fail to see the reasoning there.
There is plenty of theories out there as to why the dating might be off in the carbon dating, but none of those theories have made any progress nor have any factual basis as to why the date would be off. The fact is all the evidence points too the shroud being made around 1262-1384 AD.
I really don't like to get involved in religious debates but I'm getting dragged in.
If you could actually respond to one of my posts with an actual point instead of "do some research" that would be great.Danger Close said:The shroud was taken and used as a form of evidence throughout the years. Basically if you did some research, instead of me having to spoon-feed you the information that could've taken you half the time to reply to this, you would get somewhere.
The carbon dating isn't a theory? It was an actual test done by multiple highly respected sources, which isn't comparable to a far fetched last ditch effort by people to falsify the testing of the carbon dating. And until ACTUAL proof comes up that the carbon dating is wrong and it is ACTUALLY found to be dated around the time Jesus Christ was supposedly alive, than there really is nothing to debate about. PM me than.The "fact" you conclude in your sentence is also a theory. By you saying this makes you have more of a comfort to believe that there really is no God. But, as you have said in your above statement crucifixion was popular before the dates of 1262-1384 AD. Someone with such an "open" mind, you really failed to see what damage has been done to the shroud, and it leaves you narrowly minded.
The carbon dating isn't a theory? It was an actual test done by multiple highly respected sources, which isn't comparable to a far fetched last ditch effort by people to falsify the testing of the carbon dating.
And until ACTUAL proof comes up that the carbon dating is wrong and it is ACTUALLY found to be dated around the time Jesus Christ was supposedly alive, than there really is nothing to debate about. PM me than.
Which is why I'm not going to bother posting in this thread again.
Aidan said:Damn, didn't know a small thought i had would spark such a big debate.
Oh and I'm satanic. I believe in sin as a sign of human nature and Lucifer was using his free will to try and take the power from god whom cast him to hell.
So pretty much, God believed in keeping all the angels/human race as a kind of sheep to worship him.
But that's just me..
Yerp. Read his book a few times. Don't consider it a 'Bible' though.Danger Close said:Aidan said:Damn, didn't know a small thought i had would spark such a big debate.
Oh and I'm satanic. I believe in sin as a sign of human nature and Lucifer was using his free will to try and take the power from god whom cast him to hell.
So pretty much, God believed in keeping all the angels/human race as a kind of sheep to worship him.
But that's just me..
Oh, so what type of Satanist are you?
LaVayan?
Aidan said:Yerp. Read his book a few times. Don't consider it a 'Bible' though.Danger Close said:Aidan said:Damn, didn't know a small thought i had would spark such a big debate.
Oh and I'm satanic. I believe in sin as a sign of human nature and Lucifer was using his free will to try and take the power from god whom cast him to hell.
So pretty much, God believed in keeping all the angels/human race as a kind of sheep to worship him.
But that's just me..
Oh, so what type of Satanist are you?
LaVayan?
Danger Close said:Aidan said:Yerp. Read his book a few times. Don't consider it a 'Bible' though.Danger Close said:Oh, so what type of Satanist are you?
LaVayan?
You realize, the LaVeyan Satanism is more of a Atheist sense?
Aidan said:Danger Close said:Aidan said:Yerp. Read his book a few times. Don't consider it a 'Bible' though.
You realize, the LaVeyan Satanism is more of a Atheist sense?
Yep. Many people I've talked to about it consider it the 'Satanic bible' though.
If I had faith to be a christian it'd be great, but I don't. I went to a christian church for the first 16 years of my life, read the whole old testament.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?