1818 replies to this topic

[serp777]

 

 

 

Is there any evidence for Zeus, or thor, or Apollo, or Allah, or scietology, or Vodoo, or the God emperor of Japan during WW2, or  Baal, or the celestial teapot?

 

People will claim there is evidence, but realistically it's all human constructs. How can anyone know what they cannot know? They can't; Prophets are con artists or schizophrenics most likely, just like mormonism. There's no good reason to believe one unprovable proposition over another. Otherwise leprechauns and santa clause become possible

 

Is there evidence of anything?  Yes and there is historical evidence for Christianity.  What do you think evidence is?  How do you know what  you can know.  How do you know there is no good reason to believe?  What is  your evidence?  Did you prove it.  You have shown zero evidence

 

vote
Mormons claim there is historical evidence for mormonism. islam will claim there is historical evidence for them,etc. All religions give the same arguments you give now. At best one religion can be correct. In that case, the probability of any religion being correct is 1/(#of religions)

i can't possibly provide any evidence for unprovable propositions. For example:

How do you know there is no good reason to believe in Leprechauns or Santa Clause? What is  your evidence?  Did you prove it.  You have shown zero evidence

How do you know we don't live in the matrix? What is  your evidence?  Did you prove it.  You have shown zero evidence

How do you know the flying spaghetti monster didn't create everything from a magical pasta steamer? What is  your evidence?  Did you prove it.  You have shown zero evidence

 

Here's evidence for science: I just typed up this post on a computer, which uses the fundamental laws and equations created by physicists and logiticians. Science works and makes predictions. Religion doesn't make predictions and doesn't make anything tangible.

 

 

 

So you have no evidence and you are throwing out all kinds of unrelated stuff hoping it es evidence for something.

vote
 

Actually I do have evidence and i gave it to you. I said the probability of any religion being correct is 1/(#of religions) assuming that a single religion is correct. That is a scientific distribution of probability; just like quantum physics or statistics. I like how you only accept evidence that you agree with. It means that Christianity is probably not true.

 

vote, strawman . Fallacy card given to you. You have also provided no evidence supporting Christianity. You thought a piece of cloth was evidence, and you also admitted there was much controversy about it anyways. Even if it were true, all you proven is that a piece of cloth touched jesus' face.

 

More evidence against: mormon's have "proof" that the gold tablets are real and that reveleations occured in the United States

http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/

 

[serp777]

 

Shadowhawk

 

Suppose that this shroud thing is 100% true and did come into contact with the individual known as jesus.

 

Well, that still wouldn't prove anything about Christianity. It's just a piece of cloth. If they did a DNA analysis and showed that he had no father, that would evidence in favor of christianity.

in fact the blood on the shroud is XX

Then Jesus has XX male syndrome assuming that's actually him. You still have a father even if you have XX. Biology is more complicated than that

http://en.wikipedia....X_male_syndrome

 

 

 

[serp777]

I'd also like to say that you heavily use the fallacy fallacy. Everything that does not fit with your conception of Christianity is labelled a fallacy.

[shadowhawk]

serp777:  Actually I do have evidence and i gave it to you. I said the probability of any religion being correct is 1/(#of religions) assuming that a single religion is correct. That is a scientific distribution of probability; just like quantum physics or statistics. I like how you only accept evidence that you agree with. It means that Christianity is probably not true.

You gave no evidence of probability of anything.  Well I see you are flaming many topics at once so CU.

[serp777]

 

serp777:  Actually I do have evidence and i gave it to you. I said the probability of any religion being correct is 1/(#of religions) assuming that a single religion is correct. That is a scientific distribution of probability; just like quantum physics or statistics. I like how you only accept evidence that you agree with. It means that Christianity is probably not true.

You gave no evidence of probability of anything.  Well I see you are flaming many topics at once so CU.

 

 

If you don't realize that a probability distribution is evidence then you are extremely ignorant. Computers are based on probability disbutions. You, in fact, gave no evidence of anything. keep making ridiculous arguments and rejecting logical ones. Actually, you don't seem to even understand what evidence is. How you got a degree is beyond me.

 

Your flaming is compartively 100 times more than mine.

Edited by serp777, 24 May 2014 - 04:35 AM.

[serp777]

Is this shadowhawk guy for real or have I just been trolled into obvlivion? 

[shadowhawk]

serp777:  If you don't realize that a probability distribution is evidence then you are extremely ignorant. Computers are based on probability disbutions. You, in fact, gave no evidence of anything. keep making ridiculous arguments and rejecting logical ones. Actually, you don't seem to even understand what evidence is. How you got a degree is beyond me.
Your flaming is compartively 100 times more than mine

More evidence I see.  I recognize probability evidence when I see it.  This is a joke of course because you have produced nothing of the kind.  All you can do is call names.     Have a good night

[Lewis Carroll]

Is this shadowhawk guy for real or have I just been trolled into obvlivion? 

 

He is definitely quite the character. His fallacy call-outs caused the majority of original posters to stop posting and unfollow the thread. He also refuses to respond to questions/comments he is unable to answer or provide Youtube video evidence regarding. And no one is quite sure if English is his 2nd or 3rd language or if he just simply lacks proper writing/grammar skills.

 

However, he is obviously extremely passionate (and close-minded), and, in my opinion, is not trolling. 

[serp777]

 

serp777:  If you don't realize that a probability distribution is evidence then you are extremely ignorant. Computers are based on probability disbutions. You, in fact, gave no evidence of anything. keep making ridiculous arguments and rejecting logical ones. Actually, you don't seem to even understand what evidence is. How you got a degree is beyond me.
Your flaming is compartively 100 times more than mine

More evidence I see.  I recognize probability evidence when I see it.  This is a joke of course because you have produced nothing of the kind.  All you can do is call names.     Have a good night

Apparently you don't recognize probability evidence. I gave it to you, and your counter argument is because you can't recognize it, it must be wrong.

• Appeal to Complexity: Concluding that just because you don’t see the argument, nobody can.

 It clearly makes you a troll since you deny that 1/(#of religions) is not a probability distrivution. There's no way you could be for real.

 

All you can do is deny. It's very sad actually. You don't explain how it's wrong or why it's wrong, you just say it is wrong because you can't see it that way. Laughable. You could use a little ad hominem, troll.

[serp777]

 

Is this shadowhawk guy for real or have I just been trolled into obvlivion? 

 

He is definitely quite the character. His fallacy call-outs caused the majority of original posters to stop posting and unfollow the thread. He also refuses to respond to questions/comments he is unable to answer or provide Youtube video evidence regarding. And no one is quite sure if English is his 2nd or 3rd language or if he just simply lacks proper writing/grammar skills.

 

However, he is obviously extremely passionate (and close-minded), and, in my opinion, is not trolling. 

 

 

Huh, you very likely could be right. I think that religious arguments mainly come from an emotional context rather than a rational one, which is why religious people tend to construct arguments around their emotions. So your hypothesis seems very reasonable. From an evolutionary perspective, it also makes sense why you see religious resistance in the face of undeniable logic (like the fact that other religions exist) . Religion flourished because it brought communities together and enchanced law/culture, which is essential for the advancement of a  civilization. Those civilizations that were more advanced were more likely to survive. The humans in those societies who maintained their religion, even in the face of certain contradictions, had more stable societies that existed for longer periods of time and were more likely to pass on their genes. The result today is that you get a wide variety of religious communities, even though they all know other religions exist! I think I could make a reasonable case for why religious belief is entirely genetic ( most likely stemming from early human shaminism)
 

[Castiel]

 

Shadowhawk

 

Suppose that this shroud thing is 100% true and did come into contact with the individual known as jesus.

 

Well, that still wouldn't prove anything about Christianity. It's just a piece of cloth. If they did a DNA analysis and showed that he had no father, that would evidence in favor of christianity.

in fact the blood on the shroud is XX

 

 

What do you suppose this means?  That someone covered themselves in a woman's blood(menstrual blood might not've been that difficult to obtain and would certainly pass as human blood)?(likeliest)  That it is actually a man who has an X chromosome with some of Y gene(s) accidentally merged in to the X chromosome?(possible)   OR do you suppose there was divine intervention not just at conception but all throughout embryological development, and the mrna? or the proteins? or the interactions of the proteins? were miraculously ocurring or replaced by mysterious powers to develop a man without the necessary genes to develop male genitalia?*(preposterous nonsense)

 

Actually if he didn't need proper development and need only be half human, was it actually stated the virgin had to be female?  Could he have not formed just as miraculously from the father's gamete simply outside the body?

 

Notice that the “virgin” of the King James Bible has transmogrified into a “young woman.” This is because the Greek of the New Testament and the Septuagint had one word, parthenos, that could be rendered both as “virgin” and “unmarried woman,” whereas the Hebrew scriptures used two words. One, bethula, means specifically “virgin.” The other, almah, means simply a young woman. The word used in Isaiah. 7:14 is almah. Ergo, it is not a prediction of the Virgin Birth-T Callahan

 

Interesting, so what the old testament predicted(if that quote is correct) is a young woman giving birth not an actual virgin giving birth... it couldn't be a virgin father then.

 

The take face recognition software just like they now do at airports to look for terrorists and other wanted individuals.  The width of the eyes, nose head face. Lips etc..  If they have 40 points, they have a match.  They did this with the face on the shroud and this Icon and they have a match on 170 points.

Either the software they used was archaic, or the results are likely compromised either by overfitting or fraud.   I would like multiple analysis from third unaffiliated parties before I even began to contemplate this as even remotely likely.
If you see your own video of the 3d rendering and compare it to the pantocrator it is quite evident that vast differences exists.   Aside from long hair and moustache and beard these are entirely different looking persons.

The oldest known icon of Christ Pantocrator, encaustic on panel (Saint Catherine's Monastery).-Shadowhawk

The oldest known surviving example of the icon of Christ Pantocrator was painted in encaustic on panel in the sixth or seventh century , and survived the period of destruction of images during the Iconoclastic disputes that twice racked the Eastern church-wiki

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_5234109.html
[if I'm not mistaken short curly hair, similar date]

6th or 7th century

Just as old

From a long-sealed cave tomb, archaeologists have excavated the only known Jesus-era burial shroud in Jerusalem, a new study says...

 

The weave of the Tomb of the Shroud fabric, the new study says, casts further doubt on the Shroud of Turin as Jesus' burial cloth.
The newfound shroud was something of a patchwork of simply woven linen and wool textiles, the study found. The Shroud of Turin, by contrast, is made of a single textile woven in a complex twill pattern, a type of cloth not known to have been available in the region until medieval times, Gibson said...

 

Assuming the new shroud typifies those used in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus, the researchers maintain that the Shroud of Turin could not have originated in the city.

 

"There have now been only two cases of textiles discovered in Jewish burials from this period," said archaeologist Amos Kloner of Bar Ilan University. And both appear to contradict the idea that the Shroud of Turin is from Jesus-era Jerusalem.

http://news.national...usalem-leprosy/

 

 

Of course pantocrator is not the oldest image, but one after the fiction of long hair was established

 

The conventional image of a fully bearded Jesus with long hair did not become established until the 6th century in Eastern Christianity, and much later in the West. Earlier images were much more varied. Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created. Beliefs that certain images are historically authentic, or have acquired an authoritative status from Church tradition, remain powerful among some of the faithful, in Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism.

 

The oldest known portrait of Jesus, found in Syria and dated to about 235, shows him as a beardless young man of authoritative and dignified bearing. He is depicted dressed in the style of a young philosopher, with close-cropped hair and wearing a tunic and pallium – signs of good breeding in Greco-Roman society. From this, it is evident that some early Christians paid no heed to the historical context of Jesus being a Jew and visualised him solely in terms of their own social context, as a quasi-heroic figure, without supernatural attributes such as a halo (a fourth-century innovation).-wiki

 

 

-

Edited by Castiel, 24 May 2014 - 07:50 AM.

[addx]

Evidence is different than proof.  Things such as the Big Bang only happen once.  So does a murder and so does a miracle.  The resurrection only happened once but we do have evidence.
 
vote

The evidence you present wouldnt be enough to identify jesus beyond reasonable doubt in court, let alone prove he resurrected. You know that very well. And im tired of reading you ignoring your own sanity.

[shadowhawk]

The evidence i present is the same evidence used to establish the existence of any person in history. 

The instant the future becomes present it also becomes history, never to be repeated again.  What happened?  That is the kind of evidence I have presented.  For example I have said the Shroud matches the oldest Icon of Christ.  Here is how that is evidence.

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 May 2014 - 07:43 PM.

[serp777]

The evidence i present is the same evidence used to establish the existence of any person in history. 

The instant the future becomes present it also becomes history, never to be repeated again.  What happened?  That is the kind of evidence I have presented.  For example I have said the Shroud matches the oldest Icon of Christ.  Here is how that is evidence.

 

Anyone with a degree in anything would know that evidence for a person in history is not evidence for other religions. Otherwise many other religions could be justified in the same regard. There is evidence for Mohammad and the Mormon guy too. We also know Elron Hubbard existed because of his scifi and various interviews, so that must mean there is evidence for scientology!!!!!!!! Good job dude, you helped me find evidence for scientology. 

Edited by serp777, 24 May 2014 - 08:06 PM.

[serp777]

And lets also talk about the premise of Christianity: God sent himself to Earth, to sacrifice himself to himself, in order forgive us from himself, and therefore to save us from himself

[shadowhawk]

WHAT WE KNOW OF THE IMAGE ON THE SHROUD

 

• The blood is real.
• The image is of a man who was crucified.
• The wounds are identical to those inflicted upon Jesus.
• The scourge marks are historically consistent.
• 99 percent of scientists world wide who has studied the cloth up close, have found that is not a painting.
• The process causing the yellowness of the top most fibers of the threads responsible for the image is unknown.
• The shading quality of the image is more like the results of modern printing technology.
• The shroud micrographs showed no residue of paint or powder.
• If the image was created by contact, it would be grotesque and distorted, with the blood marks out of alignment.
• The image is not produced by a contact process.
• The image is complex, with photographic, three-dimensional and x-ray-like qualities.
• The information indicates that this was a Jewish burial.
• The faint flower images seen on the cloth are all flowers that grow in the Holy Land. These flowers bloom in spring at Passover time.
• There are what appear to be shadows on the body image.
• The hair falls down to the shoulders and the soles of the feet are seen on the shroud.
• It appears that this dead man has been lifted from the position of burial and is now upright as if suspended in midair.
• VOTE

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 May 2014 - 08:38 PM.

[addx]

Jesus was crucified in the same manner as thousand of others, including jews. To distinguish jesus from either of those others after 2000 years is impossible, especially with only a piece of cloth as evidence, which hasnt even firmly been linked to jesus and appears in history centuries after the deed. Christians were busy writing down gospels and everything but noone made a record of his burial shroud. And even if you do you only prove he existed, not that he was a son of god.
Ive been to topkapi palace museum and seen moses staff and davids sword among other relics... So what, theyre just items with questionable credibility but it has been questioned for so long they are now interesting just because of the controversy they cause.
Interestingly these christian and jewish relics were preserved by the heretic muslims...

Edited by addx, 24 May 2014 - 10:23 PM.

[shadowhawk]

We have very little evidence of Crucifixion though we know from historical writings the Romans practiced it.  Same kind of writings as the Bible.  I have already given evidence why the Shroud uniquely fits Christ.  There is nothing else like it.  Nothing you are saying has any evidence.  If you don’t believe than that is your choice.  I have not used any Muslim sources though Islam believes in a historical Jesus but that is not what we are talking about here.  So I am going on with the subject of the image itself.

[Castiel]

The evidence i present is the same evidence used to establish the existence of any person in history. 

The instant the future becomes present it also becomes history, never to be repeated again.  What happened?  That is the kind of evidence I have presented.  For example I have said the Shroud matches the oldest Icon of Christ.  Here is how that is evidence.

 

 

again passing resemblance.  Just look at the moustache, the way facial hair grows cannot be changed without chemical additives not present at that time, or makeup again not used (and for what reason would it be used?)
at that time.    The way the facial hair on the moustache grew in the turin case is thick and bushy, not fine and thin like in the pantocrator.   There are icons just as old as pantocrator recently found with short hair.   IMAGES PREDATING PANTOCRATOR BY CENTURIES vary in depictions, and the OLDEST IS WITH SHORT HAIR.

 

 

 

WHAT WE KNOW OF THE IMAGE ON THE SHROUD

 

• The blood is real.
• The image is of a man who was crucified.
• The wounds are identical to those inflicted upon Jesus.
• The scourge marks are historically consistent.
• 99 percent of scientists world wide who has studied the cloth up close, have found that is not a painting.
• The process causing the yellowness of the top most fibers of the threads responsible for the image is unknown.
• The shading quality of the image is more like the results of modern printing technology.
• The shroud micrographs showed no residue of paint or powder.
• If the image was created by contact, it would be grotesque and distorted, with the blood marks out of alignment.
• The image is not produced by a contact process.
• The image is complex, with photographic, three-dimensional and x-ray-like qualities.
• The information indicates that this was a Jewish burial.
• The faint flower images seen on the cloth are all flowers that grow in the Holy Land. These flowers bloom in spring at Passover time.
• There are what appear to be shadows on the body image.
• The hair falls down to the shoulders and the soles of the feet are seen on the shroud.
• It appears that this dead man has been lifted from the position of burial and is now upright as if suspended in midair.
• VOTE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The textiles are those of medieval time textiles, and contradict the type of textiles found in burials from Jesus's time. 

Some of the earliest images of christ predating pantocrator by centuries show him with short hair which contradict the shroud.

THE BLOOD IS SUPPOSEDLY XX SUGGESTING THAT IF IT IS ACTUAL BLOOD IT IS LIKELY WOMEN'S BLOOD PROBABLY MENSTRUAL BLOOD

 

length discrepancy between the front and back images of the man in the Shroud -N.D wilson

 

It is claimed the carbon dating by 3 independent laboratories of carefully chosen non patched non burned samples were measured.  These 3 laboratories independently verified a medieval time period for the shroud

 

 

Remember earlier this year (2014) they retested carbon 14 and it showed a dated age of BC300 to AD 400 as the date.  This puts the New Testament period, right in the target.

 

If there are tests by 4 labs and 3 show one date and one shows something different it draws suspicion upon the one, especially if it is by fervent religious believers.

 

 

 

They instead say that the shroud may have been contaminated by a layer of bacteria, or altered by the fire in 1532, or that radiation emitted by Jesus as he was resurrected altered the shroud, etc. These have all been shown to be false, but they are legitimate possibilities as to why the shroud dated to the Middle Ages.

The conclusion of the Nature article is very clear. There is no confusion, no debate, no controversy, no conspiracy:

"Nature: Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval."

...And of course, as I've already mentioned, there are evidently serious anatomical problems with the image — "Jesus' face, body, arms, and fingers were unnaturally thin and elongated, one forearm was longer than the other, and his right hand is too long. The man is improbably tall, between 5' 11½" and 6' 2" tall. Jews who lived in the 1st century were much shorter than this." (As someone has commented, if Jesus was really this tall he would have really stood out and there would have been no need for Judas to point him out to the Romans). "The head is disproportionately small for the body, the face unnaturally narrow and the forehead foreshortened, and ears lost. The front and back images, in particular of the head, do not match up precisely, and the back image is longer than the front.-sillybeliefs.com

 

 

[shadowhawk]

I posted what comments I have on long hair.  Not good enough for those who think it matters that Christ had short hair, OK.  The Shroud is only one small part of the evidence which I presented before we started talking about the Shroud.  I think it is strong historical evidence. http://www.longecity...-33#entry663991

THE IMAGE ON THE SHROUD

The shroud is rectangular, measuring approximately 4.4 × 1.1 m (14.3 × 3.7 ft). The cloth is woven in a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils. Its most distinctive characteristic is the faint, brownish image of a front and back view of a naked man with his hands folded across his groin. The two views are aligned along the midplane of the body and point in opposite directions. The front and back views of the head nearly meet at the middle of the cloth.
Reddish brown stains that have been said to include whole blood are found on the cloth, showing various wounds that, according to proponents, correlate with the yellowish image, the pathophysiology of crucifixion, and the Biblical description of the death of Jesus

    one wrist bears a large, round wound, apparently from piercing (the second wrist is hidden by the folding of the hands)
    upward gouge in the side penetrating into the thoracic cavity. Proponents say this was a post-mortem event and there are separate components of red blood cells and serum draining from the lesion
    small punctures around the forehead and scalp
    scores of linear wounds on the torso and legs. Proponents aver that the wounds are consistent with the distinctive dumbbell wounds of a Roman flagrum.
    swelling of the face from severe beatings
    streams of blood down both arms. Proponents state that the blood drippings from the main flow occurred in response to gravity at an angle that would occur during crucifixion.
    large puncture wounds in the feet as if pierced by a single spike

The details of the image on the shroud are not easily distinguishable by the naked eye, and were first observed after the advent of photography. In May 1898 amateur Italian photographer Secondo Pia was allowed to photograph the shroud and he took the first photograph of the shroud on the evening of May 28, 1898. Pia was startled by the visible image of the negative plate in his darkroom. Negatives of the image give the appearance of a positive image, which implies that the shroud image is itself effectively a negative of some kind. Pia was at first accused of doctoring his photographs, but was vindicated in 1931 when a professional photographer, Giuseppe Enrie, also photographed the shroud and his findings supported Pia's. In 1978 Miller and Pellicori took ultraviolet photographs of the shroud.

The image of the "Man of the Shroud" has a beard, moustache, and shoulder-length hair parted in the middle. He is muscular and tall (various experts have measured him as from 1.70 m, or roughly 5 ft 7 in, to 1.88 m, or 6 ft 2 in). The shroud was damaged in a fire in 1532 in the chapel in Chambery, France. There are some burn holes and scorched areas down both sides of the linen, caused by contact with molten silver during the fire that burned through it in places while it was folded. Fourteen large triangular patches and eight smaller ones were sewn onto the cloth by Poor Clare nuns to repair the damage.

Also on the Shroud are found images of many kinds of flowers made at the same time the image was made.  This is not in question
There is also a Greek, Hebrew and Latin  inscription on the Shroud which seems to be the death certificate which scholars say reads “Jesus of Nazareth.”   (Owen, Richard (21 November 2009). "Death certificate is imprinted on the Shroud of Turin, says Vatican scholar". The Times. Retrieved 24 October 2010. "."Daily Telegraph: "Jesus Christ's 'death certificate' found on Turin Shroud") This is highly disputed presently.

Also debated is whjether there are coins placed over the eyes of the man on the Shroud and whether you can see enough to date them.  I cant see them.
 

[Castiel]

While looking into the shroud I found the following interesting quote
 

I defy someone to come up with one statement in the Old Testament which is specifically fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus that can legitimately be understood as a prophecy and singularly points to Jesus as the Messiah using today’s historical-grammatical hermeneutical method. It cannot be done.- John W. Loftus, [slightly related link with examples of the kind of incredible extrapolations that appear to've been made by the gospel writers] Link

Very interesting quote,  I did not know that the connection to the old testament was tenuous enough that such challenges could even be made, let alone seemingly go without being successfully challenged.
 
 
If that quote is RIGHT, there is serious problems.

[shadowhawk]

It is not right but I am not going down that rabbit trail and off discussion.  Hope you feel good about Christs haircut discussion. 

[serp777]

It is not right but I am not going down that rabbit trail and off discussion.  Hope you feel good about Christs haircut discussion. 

 

People, don't even bother debating with this guy. He will reject arguments just because they don't align with his point of view. If an argument doesn't make sense to him, then, in his mind. the argument must be wrong. It is impossible to prove anything to people like this, and not worth the time and effort ultimately. He cannot get over this dumb shroud thing, as if the shroud proves anything assuming it were true. It certainly is not evidence for Christianity. He also rejects any evidence that you might give him, so why even bother providing him evidence? You cannot convince religious fundamentalists of anything, and this shadow guy is the embodiment of religious fundamentalism

Edited by serp777, 25 May 2014 - 04:00 AM.

[shadowhawk]

You want to derail the discussion from the Shroud to Old Testament issues and then again change it again.  I spent some time talking about haircuts with Castiel because it was about the Shroud but this is a derailing rabbit trail and I suspect he will change the subject again as soon he gets a hankering to.  So I am going to stick on subject.

 

vote

[shadowhawk]

Cold Case approach to the evidence.

 

 

 

 

Cold Case approach to the evidence.  vote

 

 

 

 

 

[serp777]

Cold Case approach to the evidence.

 

 

 

 

Cold Case approach to the evidence.  vote

 

 

 

 

So a youtube video from some random guy is now evidence.

 

Here is a video from Tom Cruise showing that scientology is real. Why do you keep saying vote to? What are you voting for? Vote is guess.

 

 

[shadowhawk]

vote  read it because it is the forum guidelines on marking people up and down.

[Castiel]

Cold Case approach to the evidence.

 

 

 

 

Cold Case approach to the evidence.  vote

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what he means by eye witnesses, the gospels are decades after the fact some clearly based on the preceding others so they're not even independent accounts.  It is not known whether they're even the actual persons the gospels are named after or some other people writing under those names.   Do we have multiple INDEPENDENT direct eye witnesses? in most probability no.   This is ignoring the fact that all those supernatural claims in the text make it no different from a spiderman comic, if a spiderman comic said Obama flew to the moon it would mean nothing in terms of real world implication.  Texts full of self evident fiction cannot be trusted as legitimate testimony.

 

The earliest gospel does have some comments that hint the whole godyhood had not even been fully introduced yet.

 

Mark 10:18

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Yeshua said to him, “Why do you call me good? There is no one good but The One God.”

 

English Standard Version
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

-http://biblehub.com/mark/10-18.htm

 

[shadowhawk]

Evidence they were not eyewitnesses.   The New testament was written in Greek.  This is a translation but it says the same thing.  You obviously don t understand how translation works.  Google the Bible in different translation.

 

vote

Edited by shadowhawk, 26 May 2014 - 10:22 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Notice the X ray quality of the image.  The hands show the bones.

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 26 May 2014 - 10:10 PM.