07 Dec 16
Originally posted by divegeesterThe Scriptural 'evidence' to which you refer is what subsequent Christians wanted people to think the Jewish leaders were up to. And they were at pains to paint the Jewish religion in a particular light in order to distance themselves from it.
Again, as I said before, what you think is just that...what opinion you personally hold to and we all know what opinions are worth. You have been given unequivocal scriptural evidence of why the Jews wanted Jesus dead, you just don't like it because it contradicts your opinion.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116950
07 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusAh I see, so now you can't refute what was said, you can't discredit the Jewish leader as being a "shrieker" you now downshift into the bible is incorrect. Got it.
The Scriptural 'evidence' to which you refer is what subsequent Christians wanted people to think the Jewish leaders were up to. And they were at pains to paint the Jewish religion in a particular light in order to distance themselves from it.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by chaney3Without knowing the precise method which was used to produce this beguiling fraud, it is difficult to say if any of the processes already used to duplicate the type of imaging on the Turin shroud have produced an exactly comparable result. To claim that it cannot be duplicated however, is a rather irrational and indefensible claim.
It does not mean God didn't do it.
Your science cannot duplicate an image from thousands years ago.
Keep your atheism to yourself, unless you can produce a shroud.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by stellspalfieIt was produced as a relic to ooh and aww the congregation. To further the grand scam.
Can anybody tell me what the point is of the turin shroud? Are we saying that Jesus left a mark on purpose or that the side effect of a god's dead body is to leave a grubby stain on material?
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by stellspalfieIt would prove an unknown, miraculous energy source for the resurrection of Jesus.
Hypothetically though, if it was real.....what would be the point?
It's not the crucifixion of Jesus that makes Christianity what it is, but the resurrection.
This 'unkown energy source' cannot be duplicated, even with todays modern science.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by chaney3
It would prove an unknown, miraculous energy source for the resurrection of Jesus.
It's not the crucifixion of Jesus that makes Christianity what it is, but the resurrection.
This 'unkown energy source' cannot be duplicated, even with todays modern science.
It's not the crucifixion of Jesus that makes Christianity what it is, but the resurrection.
Really? Might want to rethink that one, it's both. The crucifixion is very important.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by leunammiI didn't say the crucifixion was not important, of course it is. But without the resurrection, the crucifixion would have been meaningless.It's not the crucifixion of Jesus that makes Christianity what it is, but the resurrection.
Really? Might want to rethink that one, it's both. The crucifixion is very important.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by chaney3Where do you get this idea that the shroud can't be duplicated? It's not true.
It would prove an unknown, miraculous energy source for the resurrection of Jesus.
It's not the crucifixion of Jesus that makes Christianity what it is, but the resurrection.
This 'unkown energy source' cannot be duplicated, even with todays modern science.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIt most certainly is true.
Where do you get this idea that the shroud can't be duplicated? It's not true.
The shroud cannot be duplicated.
It is the fact that no other 'cloth' can produce a picture on a photo negative, which is not supposed to be possible.
08 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3Of course it can be duplicated. Have a bit of a google before you make such outlandish claims.
It most certainly is true.
The shroud cannot be duplicated.
It is the fact that no other 'cloth' can produce a picture on a photo negative, which is not supposed to be possible.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by chaney3So the purpose of a man looking smudge on some cloth is to prove the existence of a miraculous energy source, and that somebody was resurrected.....can you explain how it successfully proves either of those things?
It would prove an unknown, miraculous energy source for the resurrection of Jesus.
It's not the crucifixion of Jesus that makes Christianity what it is, but the resurrection.
This 'unkown energy source' cannot be duplicated, even with todays modern science.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by stellspalfieA photo of a cloth should not produce an image on a film negative.
So the purpose of a man looking smudge on some cloth is to prove the existence of a miraculous energy source, and that somebody was resurrected.....can you explain how it successfully proves either of those things?
This cannot be produced today, despite some posters implying it can.
They are wrong!!
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
08 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3I'm not sure I understand your first sentence, could you clarify for me, thanks.
A photo of a cloth should not produce an image on a film negative.
This cannot be produced today, despite some posters implying it can.
They are wrong!!