A peer reviewed article in Thermichemica Acta in 2005, later confirmed by Los Alamos Labs, showed that the shroud had been mended in the area which they took the sample.
Newer cotton fibers were spliced with ancient linen ones, rewoven, and then dyed to match the rest of the shroud.
@Illuminati1965 Your argument is invalid, you would have address every detail about the shroud too have an argument, which you fail to do, your only argument is carbon dating, and Och-re, the carbon dating theory was thrown out the window because of invalid material that was used to repair the cloth, Och-re also couldn't be the paint used to create the image, because no sample of Och-re was found on the image itself.
@Illuminati1965 What about the 3d dimensions? And also did Jesus wooly hair or should i say afro type hair straighten up with ALL the blood he shed? Obviously if your smart you will know Jesus was a negroe.
@29condorito Im just saying for those that don't know. And i dont insist. Is NOT a matter of opinion is a fact. Why is it only in the United States we are told that Jesus looks like the man we are use to seeing in paintings. While all the rest of the countries in the world knows he was a dark man. Not only that the book of Revelation ch 1 vs14 it clearly says he had hair like "WOOL". Now i dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure out which race has hair like wool and also feels like wool!
@29condorito First and foremost Jesus was NOT i repeat WAS NOT a "Jew". Jesus was an ISRAELITE from the tribe of JUDAH! Jew does not refer to those of the tribe of Judah. Jew, means those who practice a religion called Judaism. Judaism is a religion of the people called Jews. The Father never gave Israel a religion, let alone one called Judaism. He gave them the LAW! Yeah but im sure they never taught you that in sunday school.
@29condorito (part 2) If your thinking im black or afican american your mistaken. Im Spanish/Mexican. I done tons and i mean 2 years of intense research on this matter is Jesus or Yahshua our Messiah long straight hair feminin looking white guy? Or is he what we know today as an African American man that was 6 feet tall like the shroud of turin shows? The so-called jews of today are VERY short not near 6 feet tall.
@29condorito (part 3) I really suggest you starting out your research with. #1) The story of Joseph being in Egypt. Egyptians were black negroid people. How did the brothers of Joseph didnt recognize him from other Egyptians. Um because he was the same color? #2) Moses. How did Moses pull it off on being the Pharoes step son if he wasnt of their same color. #3) Why did a Roman confuse Paul with an Egyptian?? was Paul a negroe man like the Egyptians??
@29condorito So you say the Real Ancient Egyptians werent black? Im guessing you also think the real Native Americans werent Indian either? Were you born yesterday? Please tell me what race or skin color were the Ancient Egyptians?
@ThaDead949 Um, I don't believe the shroud of shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ, but a God capable of creating the earth, would have no problem making a pregnancy occur like that. The bible said that Jesus had the holes in his hand, he showed them to people, of of course people did spread the word that they had saw the risen Jesus. That's why it expanded so rapidly.
Ochre (dye commonly used in painting at this time) particles were found in shroud. Stop confusing faith with real science. Real science (which seaks the truth regardless of it's impact on a particular religion) indicates this shroud is a fake. Case closed delusional ones.
@Illuminati1965 Real science cannot explain what made the image. Hence the radiation theory. Stop being a biased atheist.
Real science also traded the bone weave pattern to 1st century, ditto with the pollen samples that were found on it being traced to plants indigenous to Palestine.
No. They carbon dated numerous parts of the shroud and dated with multiple methods to +-1300. Why would they just date "repaired" parts. Sorry but science is destroying your fairy tail. Must be rough to have invested so much of your life in something that is not based on reality...
New evidence suggests the Turin Shroud was a source of inspiration for Elgar’s ‘Enigma’ Variations. The timing is right because Secondo Pia’s famous photographic negative became an international sensation five months before Elgar began work on the Variations. To learn more about the multiple connections between the Turin Shroud and the ‘Enigma’ Variations, visit enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com/2011/06/links-between-enigma-variations-and.html
Um scientist now say the shroud is 100% authentic they only carbon dated the damaged pieces of the shroud which had restored in the 1300's .... Its not a painting and the latest scientist say the only way we can recreate this image is wit a extremely accurate and powerful nuclear laser which of course doesn't exist..
If we can replicate it today they certainly couldn't do it then.
I am watching a show on this and 2 things. What is to say that it is not a scourged, crucified person other than Jesus? Also, they are questioning how the image got there, if it was some miraculous light energy, because it’s superficial, down to microfibers, like if you scraped it, it would disappear. There is human blood on it. Couldn’t sweat, blood, body fluids, make this type of image?
didnt all people look like that.. and wasnt the bible a fictional story.. so if its infact a man,. its still not jesus, cause, now i look at it again.. he kinda looks like me OMG>> I AM JESUUSSSS
@TheSeaneriomnicous Yet it looks like the typical European interpretation of Jesus, who was a middle eastern Jew with mostly dark skin and curly hair. Yep, its real alright.
How did a perfect photographic negative (that looks positive) "appear" on the cloth? Including the "images" of a crucified man with all the wounds of Jesus? C'mon. It has been proved that the "bishops letter" was an unsigned fraud. It has also been proved that there are no brush strokes and no paint or ink of ANY kind on the cloth. There IS pollen from Jerusalem of plants that only grow THERE.There is pollen from Turkey, France and Italy..all the places The Shroud has been.
@Slammerworm1 Dear Mr. Worm... Riiiiight. Funny though, "science" itself can't figure out how the image appeared on the cloth...but you can? Hmmm. "You get negative 3d image"....that shows up as a positive image? How do you explain that? Your shallow explaination has been used and debunked by SCIENCE. Maybe you should do a little more research...and then say something.
@bheadh Hey, you asked a question and I gave you an answer. Don't blame the messenger if you don't like it. It depends on which scientists you ask. The 'Sindonologists' make their living off it so you'd naturally hear something different from secular researchers. When the shroud was first photographed, the negative plate showed a 'positive'. Do your research, eh? All that aside, it doesn't say much for a god who demands 'faith alone' and then provides a magic cloth. 1300 years later.
@cb7pwn yes there is such. God is our Father and His only son Jesus died for our sins. All Catholic churches follow his footsteps and with this video, even the greatest Scientists can't figure out the mystery of The Turin. He has given us the world and if you think He is not real, tell me who created the universe. Dont reply to me in any form of bad language.
@paulgnc24 "They" already have. It has since been considered "untestable" by this method because of contamination. Before and after it was "dated". Also, because the cloth has been found to have been repaired in the middle ages (after a fire) with different weaving patterns..etc. The main questions about it is, how, in any time, did a cloth reveal a perfect photographic negative (that appears positive!!??) and how did it "appear" on the cloth hundreds of years before photography? it's impossible
@paulgnc24 if you read any deeper into the shroud, you would know it has been. It was dated to have been created in the 12th to 13th century. But this trial was proven to be false because the sample taken from the shroud was a fix done to the shroud because of damage. They don't have the ability or permission to take a sample from the original portions of the shroud because of contamination, only the edges which are recreations to the whole.
Of course it's a fake, unless god decided faith alone wasn't enough and provided a magical cloth to tip the scales. Worst argument ever (made in a pro-christian documentary) "In order to replicate the accuracy of the shroud image, you would have to actually torture and murder a human being to create it". Persons with such a level of gullibility should avoid the 'Saw' movies at all costs.
Weather you like it or not and weather you believe it or not, this may actually be the actual shroud which Christ was buried in :) As for me, I believe it is real :)
@Lampbeast I believe that to be false can you back that up? OT prophecies say that the Messiah's bones will not be broken b/c he's the fullfillment of the Passover Lamb. It's impossible to drive a nail through the wrist without breaking a bone. The five bones which constiture the palm of the hand, are separate from each other, and thus a nail can be driven between two of them without breaking any. This means that the hand can be pierced by a nail without breaking a bone.
@MasterOranda Sure. Now There are several theories about the exact nail placement, but the most accepted position is between the two bones in the forearm, the radius and the ulna. By doing this it makes a more solid hold on the victim and prevents them from falling off the cross. If you would like more information I would recommend viewing the wiki page about crucifixion. There is a section about the nail placement and about the translation about the hand.
By the way, the Shroud of Turin was C-14 tested to the Middle Ages, but this was later shown to be invalid.
They accurately tested a sample which had been mended in the middle ages, and dyed to match. Newer material was spliced in with the older linen, and rewoven and dyed.
This appeared in the journal Thermochemica Acta, and was later confirmed by Los Alamos Labs.
The online versions of both the NY Times and LA Times mentioned it (if you can believe it).
I'm not saying that belief in Jesus is going to make the pain of the world go away. I'm not saying that a huge chunk of religiosity doesn't boil down to people fearful of the unknown, and wanting to feel safer than they actually are.
This world will still be the world, and a lot of religiosity is childish b.s. (I know that all too well).
Nevertheless, there IS such a thing as Truth out there.
My belief is that Jesus really was the Son of God.
Would you insist on having a Roman soldier somehow photograph the Resurrection itself, and then have it preserved for generations later. What if this proto-photograph from eons before photography had 3D qualities which no other photo, painting, drawing, etc, ON EARTH has? What if it has ALL KINDS of crazy qualities that only modern science can understand?
@29condorito Contemporary accounts would be nice. Just have some historian or some random person (who doesn't know Jesus or already believes Jesus to be the messiah) that wrote about a person who healed the sick and helped the poor (as described in your history book, the Bible), or how a person was amassing followers or something during Jesus's life.
If that existed, I wouldn't be here arguing with you.
I don't know what deep-seated reason you may have for wishing your position to be true. It could also be that i have deep-seated reasons for wishing MY position to be true.
But whatever the case, Academia, as much as it would desperately wish to, simply CANNOT get away from the fact that belief in Jesus' divinity was an EXTREMELY early phenomenon. Much earlier than the gnostics.
Go argue with them, forever and a day, if you wish.
@29condorito No, academia, being in the back pocket of the Vatican, cannot yet make such a statement. "Go argue with them, forever and a day, if you wish.
it won't change ANYTHING." I'm not the one who needs anything to change in this respect. There is enough evidence and proof of the falsehood of Christianity that one can choose between the intratextual, the intradoctrinal, the historical, the logical, the intertestamental, etc., etc., etc.
..., as stated previously, not ever mentioning "Jesus". You can find the text of this apology on the Forerunner website on the Theophilus of Antioch page. BTW, what was the highly esteemed person's name to whom Luke and Acts were addressed?
Of course, the Jewish demand, in spite of Roman resistance to the idea of crucifying "Jesus" is by far the most severe of the claims made for the sake of justifying the destruction. The progression of gospels, from Mark to John, demonstrates an ever increasing degree of openness from "Jesus" as to his claims of divinity or divine sonship, with Mark's Jesus being the most discreet, and John's openly publishing his divinity. i see this as indicating the ever lessening likelihood of those hearing..
...which the robber demands, along with walking twice the distance which one is forced to go with a person, which was a practice exclusive to the Romans.
Every one of these instances of "Jesus" answering a question regarding the socio political climate of Galilee and Judaea especially during the pre-destruction period favors the Romans. They are a means of attempting to justify the Roman destruction of the two regions by way of the claim that the God of the Jews or his son incarnated previous to the events, and taught the people not to value their lives, not to resist evil, including robbery, in which case they were to give more than that....
Another example of "Jesus" answering a question evasively, in this instance on the issue of his calling himself the son of God, he responds by quoting a verse from the Tanakh which is of no relevance whatsoever to the argument, as opposed to boldly stating that, as Christians believe, he is, in fact, God.
For example, if the majority of Christians world wide either believe or can be persuaded to believe that an evil power must be allowed to rule the world, so long as it fulfills certain conditions as presented in the book of Revelation for example, that way of thinking can obviously be used by those who seek to rule the world and have the technology to falsely create the impression that the events in that book are coming to pass.
Believing in Christianity requires that one exercise a great deal of misplaced faith. That faith is used to manipulate adherents for the sake of monetary, social, and political agendas which most adherents are unaware of.
...who endured torture and death rather than calling any man lord, accepting the rule of any but God, or paying the Roman tax, I would agree that an historical "Jesus" cannot be found in the gospels. If the gospels were accurate, that would mean that the body of "Jesus" was semi divine, meaning that when he died, divinity, which partially comprised his body died, meaning ceasing to be alive, not leaving the body, because it would actually be the body.
I have never heard or read of this being addressed, and thought about this years ago, though I don't spend much time on such nonsense: Is there some reason why the shroud should not be expected to produce a distorted image, which includes the front and sides of the face and head, as a result of being wrapped around the head, or at least the face?
You are lucky that God is good, and only gets angry with people who reject him in full knowledge of what he is (who knows, maybe I'll fit that bill).
Tortured souls who reject the idea of God out of pain don't qualify.
When Jesus said: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", it was a cry of pain from his human mind that had been cut off from being able to see his father.
Well meaning traumatized atheist utter the same thing, in a way.
The pain of being cut off from God and seeing only darkness is as human as having eyes or ears. It is only fitting that God as man uttered this this cry of pain just like the rest of us when on his cross (not to mention it fulfills Psalm 22).
If spirituality is that painful to you, I'd advise staying away from it until it ceases to be painful, and begins to be a possible vehicle for understanding certain truths that lie at the foundation of all things.
@29condorito Actually, many of them state that a "Jesus" existed, but that the gospels do not give an idea as to who this "Jesus" was. Given that the "Jesus" of the gospels just happened to evasively address issues of importance to those living in the first and second centuries under Roman rule, including Roman taxes, calling men lord, and accepting the leadership of someone besides God, these being the issues, according to Josephus, which resulted in the dissention of the real Galileans...
This doesn't mean that the "Jesus of the Gospels" (as you put it) is necessarily true. But it DOES mean that the BELIEF that Jesus was the one from the Gospels, was in fact in the air from very, VERY early on.
MUCH earlier than the "Gnostic" gospels which come to light one or two centuries later.
@29condorito Also, there is a surviving three book apology by Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch until at least the year 180. The Catholic Encyclopedia calls this a Christian apology, in spite of the fact that essentially all of Theophilus' theology is based upon the Tanakh, and he never mentions Jesus. He does mention sayings from what he calls "the gospel" which would come to be placed in the mouth of "Jesus" in the historicized gospels, but does not attribute them to "Jesus".
@29condorito He mentions a saying credited to a person named John, which just so happens to comprise the first few verses in the historicized gospel bearing the name of John. He says that Christians are so called because they are "anointed with the oil of God", whereas the normative orthodox explanation would be that they are followers of "Christ", who is not mentioned at all throughout the entire apology. He devotes chapters to repentance, righteousness, and the word of God, all without ever...
@29condorito Are you aware of the original portion of the Didache, which is dated to the first century by most scholars? It is an instruction manual, credited to the twelve apostles, on observing the practices of those who honored a "Jesus the servant", but not God nor Son of God. It was written in Greek, and contains only one sacrifice, that being the thanksgiving sacrifice, or Korban Todah, with the Greek word for thanksgiving being eucharistos.
Academics would LOOOVE to claim that the belief in Jesus' divinity was something which arose much later than it actually did. They can't get around it.
Academics are:
1) Almost unanimous in saying that Jesus did exist.
2) Almost unanimous in saying that the belief in Jesus' divinity was a VERY early phenomenon. Much earlier than the gnostic gospels which portray Jesus in a radically different light.
Academics would LOOOVE to claim that the belief in Jesus' divinity was something which arose much later than it actually did. They can't get around it.
Academics are:
1) Almost unanimous in saying that Jesus did exist.
2) Almost unanimous in saying that the belief in Jesus' divinity was a VERY early phenomenon. Much earlier than the gnostic gospels which portray Jesus in a radically different light.
Academics would LOOOVE to claim that the belief in Jesus' divinity was something which arose much later than it actually did. They can't get around it.
Academics are:
1) Almost unanimous in saying that Jesus did exist.
2) Almost unanimous in saying that the belief in Jesus' divinity was a VERY early phenomenon. Much earlier than the gnostic gospels which portray Jesus in a radically different light.
1. No historian would say that Jesus was a real person. It's still debated. The only evidence for Jesus is in the Bible. Extra-biblical materials are still being disputed. For example, The passages about Jesus in Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum is considered to be interpolations--modifications not by the author--because it praises Jesus and the Jews too much even though the rest of his works were very sympathetic towards the Romans.
@29condorito They can give me their opinions about it all they want; I'd rather look at the evidence. The evidence, so far, points to Jesus being a fictional character in the Bible. The only contemporary document we have of Jesus is the Bible. The extra-biblical materials come decades or centuries later, and that proves not a god damn thing.
2. Even if people believed in the divinity of Jesus earlier than thought, it casts no light on whether Jesus was a real person, or whether he had any miraculous powers. There are no contemporary accounts of some guy who ran around healing the sick or turning water into wine and doing other magnificent feats.
Contemporary? No. But accounts surface within living memory of the events in question. That is to say, they surface when some people who saw Jesus were still alive.
Another thing to remember is that the earliest documents of the Jews (who didn't become Christians) claim that Jesus was a magician who was executed for blasphemy, and his disciples stole the body from the tomb.
They didn't deny his "miracles", his execution, or the empty tomb.
And again, the vast majority of historians agree that a guy named Jesus DID exist.
There are secular (roman pagan) documents from the early 2nd century which claim that the man DID exist, was executed by the state, and that his followers gather on Sunday to worship him "as if he was a god".
Here's one from the Roman historian Tacitus (c56-c117):
"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."(cont'd)
"..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, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
This is a PAGAN source living within LIVING MEMORY of Jesus, who agrees with the Gospels that: a) he had a following of some kind, b)he was executed under Pontius Pilate in time of Tiberius
I'll contend that these teachings did spread, and it was a religious cult for its time, and people's beliefs in this religion was strong enough that they would endure humiliation, torture, and death for it. After all, history does indeed show it.
However, the existence of a Jesus character is not a given because the only contemporary account of him is from the Bible.
@29condorito Even though historical evidence doesn't really support the existence of a person named Jesus, I'll contend that there might have been a person like Jesus (and possibly named so) that amassed followers with his teachings. There's nothing wrong with that claim.
I can believe that there was a person who believed that he was the son of some God, but I will not accept the existence of someone who is the son of some God because it is an extraordinary claim.
Remember, crucifixion was a humiliation intended to show, among other things, just how much of a low-life the executed actually was. Why were they celebrating something which society saw as reviled?
E) Pliny, who lived just outside living memory, gives us a clue and says that it has something to do with Sunday morning, when they gather to worship Jesus like a god.
F) Pliny CONFIRMS in 111/112 what Christians say their behavior should be.
@29condorito You seem to think that having crazy, fanatical devotion to a belief. one that places your religious beliefs above all else, renders that belief true.
If I accept that premise, then Islam is the truest religion in the world.
@29condorito History does not help your case for even the existence of a person of Jesus Christ.
However, even if Jesus was a real person, nothing--history or science--will help your case that Jesus was the son of the Judeo-Christian God. Claiming this means that you're claiming that the Judeo-Christian God exists, and that, in itself, has absolutely no evidence.
G) The Talmud (70-200), written by the people who MOST hated Christ and his followers, and would have had EVERYTHING to gain by denying he existed, or that he worked miracles, did NOT do so. The earliest documents of the non-christian jews say that he was a "magician" who seduced the people, and was executed for blasphemy.
FishFactory. You can remain skeptical as to whether Jesus was the Son of God, but you cannot deny that the record shows he was BELIEVED to have been from VERY early on.
@29condorito The reason is I'm asking for contemporary evidence, and you're giving me accounts of people who lived 70-100 years after Jesus supposedly died. That's like if I wrote a book about Harry Potter today, knowing intimate details about his life, and a thousand years later you cite my writings as proof that someone named Harry Potter existed.
@29condorito Tacitus is not a contemporary source considering that he did not live when Jesus was supposedly alive. How can Tacitus have living memory of Jesus if he was born 50-60 years after this person has died? Just in case you didn't know, contemporary means an account of a person when that person was still alive.
Also, there is evidence shown that the text of Tacitus had been altered.
You obviously don't know what "living memory" actually means. It means that some people who were alive at time A, are STILL alive at time B.
WWII is within living memory for us. There are old-timers around to tell us about it. The civil war is not.
You realize that you are supposing that the Romans were SO incompetent and stupid, as to NOT know who the fuck ruled the empire just a few decades earlier. That is like our own gov't not knowing J. Kennedy.
@29condorito That still presents a problem. We know the Civil War and World War II existed because it also had contemporary accounts. From all sides. The losers and the winners. The people who didn't like it and the people who thought it was a good idea.
What about Jesus? We only know from one side: his followers. The Romans had no contemporary knowledge of such a person. And if the Romans crucified Jesus, you'd think they'd keep tabs on that kind of thing.
@29condorito@29condorito That still presents a problem. We know the Civil War and World War II existed because it also had contemporary accounts. From all sides. The losers and the winners. The people who didn't like it and the people who thought it was a good idea.
What about Jesus? We only know from one side: his followers. The Romans had no contemporary knowledge of such a person. And if the Romans crucified Jesus, you'd think they'd keep tabs on that kind of thing.
What you are saying is that the accounts the Romans wrote (one to the emperor HIMSELF), are not valid because these surviving accounts come from a few decades afterwards. This is two THOUSAND years ago, buddy. These accounts are lucky to have survived AT ALL.
You are implicitly calling the Roman goverment SO unbelievably incompetent and imbecilic, as to NOT KNOW their own government a few decades earlier. Now THAT, my friend, is total horseshit.
@29condorito No, that's what you're saying. I'm saying that the reason why the Romans didn't document a person named Jesus is because there was no such person.
You, on the other hand, are saying that a Jesus existed, and the only reason there are no contemporary documents of such a person is because the Romans were too incompetent and imbecilic to have written about this person.
@29condorito I was not brought up with a Christian background, so I'm looking at this from a neutral point of view. The evidence leads me to conclude that a Jesus most likely did not exist.
And you know what I'm gosh-darn saying, too. You want me to believe that post-contemporary accounts of Jesus survived while NO contemporary accounts of Jesus survived other than the Bible.
First you say that there isn't any evidnece for Jesus, THEN you say that there is, but that there is no evidence for the belief in his divinity within a lifetime, and THEN you go back to saying "the evidence leads me to conclude that Jesus most likely did not exist."
I was brought up in a Christian background, but am honest enough to say that Jesus almost certainly existed (rather than saying he DID exist).
You don't seem honest enough to stick with you you YOURSELF have already existed: namely that the evidence shows that he almost certainly DID exist.
First no, then yes, then no again.
Either way you slice it, the evidence that he almost certainly existed, and that a belief system based on his divinity existed within a lifetime of his death, is overwhelming.
It isn't "proof", mind you, but it IS overwhelming evidence.
@29condorito So what if there are people who believed in Jesus's divinity? I believe that Harry Potter is a wizard, does that mean that Harry Potter is real?
@29condorito I never said there was evidence for a Jesus Christ, and if I did, I was saying that his followers believed a whole lot about him, and I believe that they believe that.
A) That the documents from a time period of LESS than on person's lifetime well over TWO THOUSAND years ago were lost to time,
or,
B) That the Roman empire was so incompetent, and so imbecilic, as to NOT KNOW what happened just 30 or 40 years earlier?
The Romans both knew AND no doubt had records. Only the records for 30+ or 40+ years later remain now, which is still amazing, since this is 2,000 yrs ago.
A) We're talking about a person that had miraculous, divine healing powers here, right?
B) You're telling me that not one person decided to write anything about a person that was going around healing the sick and helping the poor until decades later?
C) I shouldn't be surprised that you are asking me to accept the fact that all contemporary accounts of Jesus Christ has been lost except for the Bible--the one document that glorifies him as a living god.
A) We're talking about a person who performed divine feats, right?
B) How can you sit there and tell me that NOBODY thought about writing about Jesus when he was still alive? Now if the emperor wrote about him 40 years after Jesus died while historians wrote about him while he was still alive, then sure.
C) So you're telling me that ALL contemporary accounts of Jesus have been lost, except for the one document that glorifies him as a living God: the Bible.
@29condorito I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. There's a large difference between having accounts of someone while they're still alive and having accounts of someone when they're dead. If you have both, that's great, too.
If you are a good guy at heart, its not like you go to hell or anything. But there IS such a thing as the Truth, and its not like it is going to bite you, unless of course you choose to be a terrible human being.
I would say that you essentially ask for a photograph of the resurrection as evidence.....but we are on a thread for WHAT again?
You may resist, but the evidence sure as hell has nothing to do with it.
@29condorito I'm not resisting anything. If evidence of a Jesus was shown, then fine, Jesus existed. Big whoop. That still proves nothing about the historicity of the Bible, nor does it prove that a God exists.
I'm only asking for contemporary evidence. If Roman documents are found that talked about Jesus, what he did to be sentenced to death, or his crucifixion, and it was shown to be dated to around the time Jesus was alive, then that's good evidence right there.
No, you are not "asking for evidence", but are narrowing the bounds of acceptable evidence as to be utterly ridiculous, JUST so you can feel secure in deying the obvious: the belief in Jesus' divinity existed within living memory of his death -- pagan sources attest to this.
No, you are not "asking for evidence", but narrowing the bounds of what you deem acceptable as to deliberately exclude the overwhelming evidence that DOES exist.
The belief that Jesus was divine is DOCUMENTED within LIVING MEMORY by PAGAN sources.
In fact, the documents that speak of Julius caesar come from much much later than his existence, than do the pagan documents speaking of Jesus.
By your standards of "evidence", the belief that Caesar existed is pure rubbish.
@29condorito And once again you are completely ignoring why that "living memory" argument doesn't work. How can you have no evidence of a person when they were supposed to be alive, but have this "living memory" evidence?
Julius Caesar HAS contemporary accounts of his existence (from Cicero and Sallust, for example).
No, fishy. The "contemporary" accounts of Cicero & Co. are copies of copies of copies that surface much much later than Caesar's life.
The first evidence for Jesus shows up MUCH earlier......and from pagan sources.
Either way, it seems that you are hell-bent on denying the obvious.....even that Jesus existed (which is a hell of a lot more than the majority of academics).
It isn't my job to crawl into your mind and be as honest as they are.
@29condorito Those are examples. Doesn't mean that there are others, which I don't care about (Nepos, Catullus, Asinius, Virgil, Ovid, Paterculus, and so on). Hell, an unflattering sculpture of Caesar has been found--carved during his lifetime. But this is merely a non sequitur.
You claim these pagan sources exist... are they were when Jesus was alive, or are they decades later?
Like you said, just because a person believes that Harry Potter is somehow real, it does NOT mean that it is true.
This is precisely why Academics have no problem acknowledging that Jesus did exist, and that the belief he was divine also DID exist at least within a lifetime of his death.
At least be as honest as they are. It doesn't hurt.
@29condorito We also have Caesar's memoirs. I guess those are accounts of accounts of accounts, too. Historians are in a consensus that Caesar existed. Christ, on the other hand, not so much (theologians are not historians).
It's not obvious. It's like you're saying, "you just don't want to see the obvious evidence that there is a God." What evidence?
You're giving me non-contemporary sources. That's all you've given me. It isn't striking evidence that Jesus existed.
Remember, I am NOT talking about 100% proof, here. I never have. What I am talking about is: a) the existence of Jesus, and b) whether or not the BELIEF that he was a miracle existed very early on.
The Romans acknowledge in documents written VERY early on, some within LIVING MEMORY of Jesus, that he existed, was executed, and had a religious following that spread like wildfire.
@29condorito Okay, ask yourself this: why would the Romans maintain silence about a Jesus character for 50 or so years, and then all of a sudden come out and talk about him? That doesn't ring any alarms of suspicion or anything? They produced no documents about this Jesus character; no historian at the time talked about a person that was going around and healing the sick and helping the poor. No talk about a mass of followers... all until decades later?
@29condorito Can I get a source on that "early documents"? I'm sorry, but the Romans were pretty good at keeping history, and if none of the contemporary Roman historians kept any documents about a person that had divine powers, then it casts huge doubt on the existence of such a person.
I don't care either way if Jesus was a real person or not, but I do care about the claims that this person had divine healing powers.
@LainOpenLog you fucking douche bag have u even seen the real shroud of turin u bitch? its dusty got wrinkles small holes and its kept in a clean glass compressed tight so its cant be skahing!!!!! these people cant touch the shroud of turin u know it would tear apart for its age and so their not allowed this is a remake of the shroud of turin that means their showing it in another cloth and let us experience how it was for him that time u stupid fucking bitch!
How does moving it around effect radiometric dating. Test were done on fabric itself. Face it. You've wasted your life on a myth.
Illuminati1965 2 weeks ago
@Illuminati1965
They figured out why the test was inaccurate.
A peer reviewed article in Thermichemica Acta in 2005, later confirmed by Los Alamos Labs, showed that the shroud had been mended in the area which they took the sample.
Newer cotton fibers were spliced with ancient linen ones, rewoven, and then dyed to match the rest of the shroud.
The tests were accurate, but invalid.
29condorito 1 week ago
@Illuminati1965 Your argument is invalid, you would have address every detail about the shroud too have an argument, which you fail to do, your only argument is carbon dating, and Och-re, the carbon dating theory was thrown out the window because of invalid material that was used to repair the cloth, Och-re also couldn't be the paint used to create the image, because no sample of Och-re was found on the image itself.
DukeDouglasTV 1 week ago
@Illuminati1965 What about the 3d dimensions? And also did Jesus wooly hair or should i say afro type hair straighten up with ALL the blood he shed? Obviously if your smart you will know Jesus was a negroe.
killdevilz4 4 days ago
@killdevilz4
It doesn't matter what color he was.
But if you insist, Jesus was a semite, and looked as such.
29condorito 1 day ago
@29condorito Im just saying for those that don't know. And i dont insist. Is NOT a matter of opinion is a fact. Why is it only in the United States we are told that Jesus looks like the man we are use to seeing in paintings. While all the rest of the countries in the world knows he was a dark man. Not only that the book of Revelation ch 1 vs14 it clearly says he had hair like "WOOL". Now i dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure out which race has hair like wool and also feels like wool!
killdevilz4 17 hours ago
@killdevilz4
A dark man and a black man are not the same thing, you know.
There are plenty of people who have wool-like hair in the world who are not black.
Perhaps Revelations is symbolic.
Who knows, and ultimately, who cares.
Except for you, of course, and everyone else whith racial hang-ups.
The guy on the Shroud looks like a Jew.
Believe what you want, though. Your perogative.
Do you go to church with Jeremiah Wright or something?
29condorito 13 hours ago
@29condorito First and foremost Jesus was NOT i repeat WAS NOT a "Jew". Jesus was an ISRAELITE from the tribe of JUDAH! Jew does not refer to those of the tribe of Judah. Jew, means those who practice a religion called Judaism. Judaism is a religion of the people called Jews. The Father never gave Israel a religion, let alone one called Judaism. He gave them the LAW! Yeah but im sure they never taught you that in sunday school.
(continue)
killdevilz4 12 hours ago
@29condorito (part 2) If your thinking im black or afican american your mistaken. Im Spanish/Mexican. I done tons and i mean 2 years of intense research on this matter is Jesus or Yahshua our Messiah long straight hair feminin looking white guy? Or is he what we know today as an African American man that was 6 feet tall like the shroud of turin shows? The so-called jews of today are VERY short not near 6 feet tall.
(continue)
killdevilz4 12 hours ago
@29condorito (part 3) I really suggest you starting out your research with. #1) The story of Joseph being in Egypt. Egyptians were black negroid people. How did the brothers of Joseph didnt recognize him from other Egyptians. Um because he was the same color? #2) Moses. How did Moses pull it off on being the Pharoes step son if he wasnt of their same color. #3) Why did a Roman confuse Paul with an Egyptian?? was Paul a negroe man like the Egyptians??
Good luck on your research buddy!
killdevilz4 12 hours ago
@killdevilz4
The egyptians weren't black. They weren't white either.
Believe what you want.
Have fun with Jeremiah Wright.
29condorito 10 hours ago
@29condorito So you say the Real Ancient Egyptians werent black? Im guessing you also think the real Native Americans werent Indian either? Were you born yesterday? Please tell me what race or skin color were the Ancient Egyptians?
killdevilz4 9 hours ago
Lol Jesus wasnt White. Its fake. Your argument is Invalid
samsaint11 3 weeks ago
Satan!!!!!!!! You and your army are defeated when are you going to give up!
MegaGangaking 3 weeks ago
Creepy nonetheless
lost619 3 weeks ago
@ThaDead949 Um, I don't believe the shroud of shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ, but a God capable of creating the earth, would have no problem making a pregnancy occur like that. The bible said that Jesus had the holes in his hand, he showed them to people, of of course people did spread the word that they had saw the risen Jesus. That's why it expanded so rapidly.
DH1986 3 weeks ago
BRIAN LEONARD GOLIGHTLY MARSHALL
2424yahweh 3 weeks ago
Ochre (dye commonly used in painting at this time) particles were found in shroud. Stop confusing faith with real science. Real science (which seaks the truth regardless of it's impact on a particular religion) indicates this shroud is a fake. Case closed delusional ones.
Illuminati1965 4 weeks ago
@Illuminati1965 Real science cannot explain what made the image. Hence the radiation theory. Stop being a biased atheist.
Real science also traded the bone weave pattern to 1st century, ditto with the pollen samples that were found on it being traced to plants indigenous to Palestine.
EquitesVeritatis 2 weeks ago
No. They carbon dated numerous parts of the shroud and dated with multiple methods to +-1300. Why would they just date "repaired" parts. Sorry but science is destroying your fairy tail. Must be rough to have invested so much of your life in something that is not based on reality...
Illuminati1965 4 weeks ago
@Illuminati1965
Hey, F uck you.
You don't know anything
You are probably a 50 year old living in your grandmas basement
the date that your so called"science"proved was not an accurate test
for the test to be accurate, the conditions would have had to be the same for the entire time where it was at
but as you probably dont know, it was moved around jack-ass
That is why it is called faith. You have to believe. Science does cannot prove everything.
TheOcchiuto90 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
New evidence suggests the Turin Shroud was a source of inspiration for Elgar’s ‘Enigma’ Variations. The timing is right because Secondo Pia’s famous photographic negative became an international sensation five months before Elgar began work on the Variations. To learn more about the multiple connections between the Turin Shroud and the ‘Enigma’ Variations, visit enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com/2011/06/links-between-enigma-variations-and.html
Sirpadgett 1 month ago
Radiometric dated to between 1260 and 1390 Ocre painted. Epic fail for Christianity. Next...
Illuminati1965 1 month ago
@Illuminati1965
Um scientist now say the shroud is 100% authentic they only carbon dated the damaged pieces of the shroud which had restored in the 1300's .... Its not a painting and the latest scientist say the only way we can recreate this image is wit a extremely accurate and powerful nuclear laser which of course doesn't exist..
If we can replicate it today they certainly couldn't do it then.
Simple facts
Raizo1988 1 month ago
@ThaDead949 the Bible doesn't mention about cumming or not. the Bible says that Jesus was born from a virgin which is possible.
mat31new 1 month ago
@ThaDead949 Yeah, I am fine buddy. I didn't read a word past that though, chum. How are you, btw?
dakjargen 1 month ago
I am watching a show on this and 2 things. What is to say that it is not a scourged, crucified person other than Jesus? Also, they are questioning how the image got there, if it was some miraculous light energy, because it’s superficial, down to microfibers, like if you scraped it, it would disappear. There is human blood on it. Couldn’t sweat, blood, body fluids, make this type of image?
dakjargen 1 month ago
Goodbye Athiesm
iAppleinyourface 1 month ago
jaques demolay
alfaromeoash 1 month ago
@xsafa Not sure if believing it's real...
Or thinking it's fake
TheSeaneriomnicous 1 month ago
you have all been trolled. the shroud is a fake. wake up people.
RiggyBail 1 month ago
fake. jesus was not born in europe. christianity is plagirized egyptian mythology
differentandalike 1 month ago
didnt all people look like that.. and wasnt the bible a fictional story.. so if its infact a man,. its still not jesus, cause, now i look at it again.. he kinda looks like me OMG>> I AM JESUUSSSS
HighNooT 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@HighNooT haha complete opposite my friend. your the complete opposite
'
elephantpersonthingy 1 month ago
23 people are Atheist. This is real.
TheSeaneriomnicous 1 month ago
@TheSeaneriomnicous Yet it looks like the typical European interpretation of Jesus, who was a middle eastern Jew with mostly dark skin and curly hair. Yep, its real alright.
xsafa 1 month ago
I'm to religious but this is interesting.
scottieman2 1 month ago
This is the real shroud and it is not magical where would anyone get the idea of God being magical? He is the true Father
josephjose1 1 month ago
How did a perfect photographic negative (that looks positive) "appear" on the cloth? Including the "images" of a crucified man with all the wounds of Jesus? C'mon. It has been proved that the "bishops letter" was an unsigned fraud. It has also been proved that there are no brush strokes and no paint or ink of ANY kind on the cloth. There IS pollen from Jerusalem of plants that only grow THERE.There is pollen from Turkey, France and Italy..all the places The Shroud has been.
bheadh 1 month ago
@bheadh They did it like a brass rubbing. No brush strokes and you get a 'negative' 3d image. No supernatural trickery needed.
Slammerworm1 1 month ago
@Slammerworm1 Dear Mr. Worm... Riiiiight. Funny though, "science" itself can't figure out how the image appeared on the cloth...but you can? Hmmm. "You get negative 3d image"....that shows up as a positive image? How do you explain that? Your shallow explaination has been used and debunked by SCIENCE. Maybe you should do a little more research...and then say something.
bheadh 1 month ago
@bheadh Hey, you asked a question and I gave you an answer. Don't blame the messenger if you don't like it. It depends on which scientists you ask. The 'Sindonologists' make their living off it so you'd naturally hear something different from secular researchers. When the shroud was first photographed, the negative plate showed a 'positive'. Do your research, eh? All that aside, it doesn't say much for a god who demands 'faith alone' and then provides a magic cloth. 1300 years later.
Slammerworm1 1 month ago
@cb7pwn yes there is such. God is our Father and His only son Jesus died for our sins. All Catholic churches follow his footsteps and with this video, even the greatest Scientists can't figure out the mystery of The Turin. He has given us the world and if you think He is not real, tell me who created the universe. Dont reply to me in any form of bad language.
josephjose1 1 month ago
why don't they carbon date the thing?.
paulgnc24 1 month ago
@paulgnc24 "They" already have. It has since been considered "untestable" by this method because of contamination. Before and after it was "dated". Also, because the cloth has been found to have been repaired in the middle ages (after a fire) with different weaving patterns..etc. The main questions about it is, how, in any time, did a cloth reveal a perfect photographic negative (that appears positive!!??) and how did it "appear" on the cloth hundreds of years before photography? it's impossible
bheadh 1 month ago
@paulgnc24 if you read any deeper into the shroud, you would know it has been. It was dated to have been created in the 12th to 13th century. But this trial was proven to be false because the sample taken from the shroud was a fix done to the shroud because of damage. They don't have the ability or permission to take a sample from the original portions of the shroud because of contamination, only the edges which are recreations to the whole.
madoggyd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NO. SUCH. THING. AS. GOD.
cb7pwn 1 month ago
Of course it's a fake, unless god decided faith alone wasn't enough and provided a magical cloth to tip the scales. Worst argument ever (made in a pro-christian documentary) "In order to replicate the accuracy of the shroud image, you would have to actually torture and murder a human being to create it". Persons with such a level of gullibility should avoid the 'Saw' movies at all costs.
Slammerworm1 1 month ago
This is not the real shroud. If it were, it would say something about it in the scripture
TheThacker1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also Jesus did not have long hair because it was considered shameful in that day (1 Corinthians 11:14)
MasterOranda 2 months ago
Comment removed
MasterOranda 2 months ago
Weather you like it or not and weather you believe it or not, this may actually be the actual shroud which Christ was buried in :) As for me, I believe it is real :)
28804ecorrell 2 months ago
@28804ecorrell weither, not weather.
amandartr1984 2 months ago
@amandartr1984 correction wiether sorry.
amandartr1984 2 months ago
@loveintheparanormal Mary found The Shroud of Turin under my bed with cum stains on it. GODDAMNIT!
PenisOfNazareth 2 months ago
Nail wounds in wrists? Gospels say Jesus was nailed in the hands.
MasterOranda 3 months ago
@MasterOranda during the time the gospels were written, the wrist was considered part of the hand.
Lampbeast 2 months ago
@Lampbeast I believe that to be false can you back that up? OT prophecies say that the Messiah's bones will not be broken b/c he's the fullfillment of the Passover Lamb. It's impossible to drive a nail through the wrist without breaking a bone. The five bones which constiture the palm of the hand, are separate from each other, and thus a nail can be driven between two of them without breaking any. This means that the hand can be pierced by a nail without breaking a bone.
MasterOranda 2 months ago
@MasterOranda Sure. Now There are several theories about the exact nail placement, but the most accepted position is between the two bones in the forearm, the radius and the ulna. By doing this it makes a more solid hold on the victim and prevents them from falling off the cross. If you would like more information I would recommend viewing the wiki page about crucifixion. There is a section about the nail placement and about the translation about the hand.
Lampbeast 2 months ago
@Lampbeast Thanks for that. I'll check it out :D
MasterOranda 2 months ago
Comment removed
MasterOranda 2 months ago
the shroud of turn has the power to create or to destroy; what will it do for YOU?????
porkwilliam 3 months ago
shroud of urine
amazingaustin13 3 months ago
@amazingaustin13 lmao
joseffatrip 3 months ago
@joseffatrip it's a song by exodus
amazingaustin13 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
osama bin laden
sirpico123 4 months ago
@Fishy
By the way, the Shroud of Turin was C-14 tested to the Middle Ages, but this was later shown to be invalid.
They accurately tested a sample which had been mended in the middle ages, and dyed to match. Newer material was spliced in with the older linen, and rewoven and dyed.
This appeared in the journal Thermochemica Acta, and was later confirmed by Los Alamos Labs.
The online versions of both the NY Times and LA Times mentioned it (if you can believe it).
29condorito 4 months ago
@Fishy.
I'm not saying that belief in Jesus is going to make the pain of the world go away. I'm not saying that a huge chunk of religiosity doesn't boil down to people fearful of the unknown, and wanting to feel safer than they actually are.
This world will still be the world, and a lot of religiosity is childish b.s. (I know that all too well).
Nevertheless, there IS such a thing as Truth out there.
My belief is that Jesus really was the Son of God.
29condorito 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
What are you waiting to call "evidence", then?
Would you insist on having a Roman soldier somehow photograph the Resurrection itself, and then have it preserved for generations later. What if this proto-photograph from eons before photography had 3D qualities which no other photo, painting, drawing, etc, ON EARTH has? What if it has ALL KINDS of crazy qualities that only modern science can understand?
Would you at least CONSIDER things THEN?
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito Contemporary accounts would be nice. Just have some historian or some random person (who doesn't know Jesus or already believes Jesus to be the messiah) that wrote about a person who healed the sick and helped the poor (as described in your history book, the Bible), or how a person was amassing followers or something during Jesus's life.
If that existed, I wouldn't be here arguing with you.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
The Shroud of Turin has already been shown to be a hoax cooked up around the 1400's.
However, even if the Shroud of Turin were real, and let's say that it was shown to cover some dude and that that dude was named Jesus. Two points:
1. This does not prove that anything in the Bible is true.
2. This does not prove that a God exists.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
And what is the stated purpose of their being written and sent?
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9
I don't know what deep-seated reason you may have for wishing your position to be true. It could also be that i have deep-seated reasons for wishing MY position to be true.
But whatever the case, Academia, as much as it would desperately wish to, simply CANNOT get away from the fact that belief in Jesus' divinity was an EXTREMELY early phenomenon. Much earlier than the gnostics.
Go argue with them, forever and a day, if you wish.
it won't change ANYTHING.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito No, academia, being in the back pocket of the Vatican, cannot yet make such a statement. "Go argue with them, forever and a day, if you wish.
it won't change ANYTHING." I'm not the one who needs anything to change in this respect. There is enough evidence and proof of the falsehood of Christianity that one can choose between the intratextual, the intradoctrinal, the historical, the logical, the intertestamental, etc., etc., etc.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
..., as stated previously, not ever mentioning "Jesus". You can find the text of this apology on the Forerunner website on the Theophilus of Antioch page. BTW, what was the highly esteemed person's name to whom Luke and Acts were addressed?
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
is a fake... get over it
arcz10 4 months ago
...or reading them having access to anyone who could either confirm or refute their claims.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
Of course, the Jewish demand, in spite of Roman resistance to the idea of crucifying "Jesus" is by far the most severe of the claims made for the sake of justifying the destruction. The progression of gospels, from Mark to John, demonstrates an ever increasing degree of openness from "Jesus" as to his claims of divinity or divine sonship, with Mark's Jesus being the most discreet, and John's openly publishing his divinity. i see this as indicating the ever lessening likelihood of those hearing..
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
...which the robber demands, along with walking twice the distance which one is forced to go with a person, which was a practice exclusive to the Romans.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
Every one of these instances of "Jesus" answering a question regarding the socio political climate of Galilee and Judaea especially during the pre-destruction period favors the Romans. They are a means of attempting to justify the Roman destruction of the two regions by way of the claim that the God of the Jews or his son incarnated previous to the events, and taught the people not to value their lives, not to resist evil, including robbery, in which case they were to give more than that....
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Another example of "Jesus" answering a question evasively, in this instance on the issue of his calling himself the son of God, he responds by quoting a verse from the Tanakh which is of no relevance whatsoever to the argument, as opposed to boldly stating that, as Christians believe, he is, in fact, God.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
Comment removed
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
For example, if the majority of Christians world wide either believe or can be persuaded to believe that an evil power must be allowed to rule the world, so long as it fulfills certain conditions as presented in the book of Revelation for example, that way of thinking can obviously be used by those who seek to rule the world and have the technology to falsely create the impression that the events in that book are coming to pass.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
Believing in Christianity requires that one exercise a great deal of misplaced faith. That faith is used to manipulate adherents for the sake of monetary, social, and political agendas which most adherents are unaware of.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
...who endured torture and death rather than calling any man lord, accepting the rule of any but God, or paying the Roman tax, I would agree that an historical "Jesus" cannot be found in the gospels. If the gospels were accurate, that would mean that the body of "Jesus" was semi divine, meaning that when he died, divinity, which partially comprised his body died, meaning ceasing to be alive, not leaving the body, because it would actually be the body.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
Comment removed
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
I have never heard or read of this being addressed, and thought about this years ago, though I don't spend much time on such nonsense: Is there some reason why the shroud should not be expected to produce a distorted image, which includes the front and sides of the face and head, as a result of being wrapped around the head, or at least the face?
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
i can't wait for the return of Jesus, so we can fucken kill him again!!!haha!!!!
Wreckeningbassist666 5 months ago
@Wreckeningbassist666
By the look of things, he's coming back real soon. Maybe you can prepare what you will say to him as the world implodes.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito i'll spit on his face, i spit on your face, i spit on Christianity.
you're controlled by the Government AND Religion.
you and your kind are scum.
btw, i don't believe in that biblical bullshit, but apparently you do.
making you the one with a mental disorder.
Wreckeningbassist666 4 months ago
@Wreckeningbassist666
You are lucky that God is good, and only gets angry with people who reject him in full knowledge of what he is (who knows, maybe I'll fit that bill).
Tortured souls who reject the idea of God out of pain don't qualify.
When Jesus said: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", it was a cry of pain from his human mind that had been cut off from being able to see his father.
Well meaning traumatized atheist utter the same thing, in a way.
29condorito 4 months ago
(cont'd)
The pain of being cut off from God and seeing only darkness is as human as having eyes or ears. It is only fitting that God as man uttered this this cry of pain just like the rest of us when on his cross (not to mention it fulfills Psalm 22).
If spirituality is that painful to you, I'd advise staying away from it until it ceases to be painful, and begins to be a possible vehicle for understanding certain truths that lie at the foundation of all things.
Good luck.
29condorito 4 months ago
Byzantine is QUEEN OF ENGLAND and she is a snake worshipper. She hates Jesus. Order of the garter is a snake. Regina is a snake. and I could go on.
But I'll have to make a video about all this cause I'm sick of typing it in youtube boxes.
Pandamonia 5 months ago
Brian Leonard Golightly Marshall reincarnated Jesus. The shroud is not a 33 year old man it is an old man. The return of JEsus.
Pandamonia 5 months ago
@Pandamonia The "Jesus" of the gospels never existed in the first place.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9
Most academics would disagree with you......as much as they would like not to.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito Actually, many of them state that a "Jesus" existed, but that the gospels do not give an idea as to who this "Jesus" was. Given that the "Jesus" of the gospels just happened to evasively address issues of importance to those living in the first and second centuries under Roman rule, including Roman taxes, calling men lord, and accepting the leadership of someone besides God, these being the issues, according to Josephus, which resulted in the dissention of the real Galileans...
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
Oh...
I mistook your post to mean that Jesus himself never existed. Your post claims that the Jesus of the Gospels never existed. That is different.
Point taken.
However, Roman writings from the 2nd Century claim that Christians gathered on Sunday to worship the historical Jesus, as if he was a God.
This shows that the idea that Jesus was the Son of God, and had resurrected on Sunday was in fact an EXTREMELY early belief.
29condorito 4 months ago
(cont'd).
This doesn't mean that the "Jesus of the Gospels" (as you put it) is necessarily true. But it DOES mean that the BELIEF that Jesus was the one from the Gospels, was in fact in the air from very, VERY early on.
MUCH earlier than the "Gnostic" gospels which come to light one or two centuries later.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito Also, there is a surviving three book apology by Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch until at least the year 180. The Catholic Encyclopedia calls this a Christian apology, in spite of the fact that essentially all of Theophilus' theology is based upon the Tanakh, and he never mentions Jesus. He does mention sayings from what he calls "the gospel" which would come to be placed in the mouth of "Jesus" in the historicized gospels, but does not attribute them to "Jesus".
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
@29condorito He mentions a saying credited to a person named John, which just so happens to comprise the first few verses in the historicized gospel bearing the name of John. He says that Christians are so called because they are "anointed with the oil of God", whereas the normative orthodox explanation would be that they are followers of "Christ", who is not mentioned at all throughout the entire apology. He devotes chapters to repentance, righteousness, and the word of God, all without ever...
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9
Believe what you want.
The belief that Jesus was divine and rose on Sunday was a VERY early belief. Much earlier than the gnostic gospels.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito Are you aware of the original portion of the Didache, which is dated to the first century by most scholars? It is an instruction manual, credited to the twelve apostles, on observing the practices of those who honored a "Jesus the servant", but not God nor Son of God. It was written in Greek, and contains only one sacrifice, that being the thanksgiving sacrifice, or Korban Todah, with the Greek word for thanksgiving being eucharistos.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9
I'm not going to argue with you.
Academics would LOOOVE to claim that the belief in Jesus' divinity was something which arose much later than it actually did. They can't get around it.
Academics are:
1) Almost unanimous in saying that Jesus did exist.
2) Almost unanimous in saying that the belief in Jesus' divinity was a VERY early phenomenon. Much earlier than the gnostic gospels which portray Jesus in a radically different light.
Argue with them, not me.
29condorito 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9
I'm not going to argue with you.
Academics would LOOOVE to claim that the belief in Jesus' divinity was something which arose much later than it actually did. They can't get around it.
Academics are:
1) Almost unanimous in saying that Jesus did exist.
2) Almost unanimous in saying that the belief in Jesus' divinity was a VERY early phenomenon. Much earlier than the gnostic gospels which portray Jesus in a radically different light.
Argue with them, not me.
29condorito 4 months ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9
I'm not going to argue with you.
Academics would LOOOVE to claim that the belief in Jesus' divinity was something which arose much later than it actually did. They can't get around it.
Academics are:
1) Almost unanimous in saying that Jesus did exist.
2) Almost unanimous in saying that the belief in Jesus' divinity was a VERY early phenomenon. Much earlier than the gnostic gospels which portray Jesus in a radically different light.
Argue with them, not me.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito
1. No historian would say that Jesus was a real person. It's still debated. The only evidence for Jesus is in the Bible. Extra-biblical materials are still being disputed. For example, The passages about Jesus in Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum is considered to be interpolations--modifications not by the author--because it praises Jesus and the Jews too much even though the rest of his works were very sympathetic towards the Romans.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
Go argue with your local history department at the local university.
See what THEY say about whether or not he existed.
The answer: he almost certainly did.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito They can give me their opinions about it all they want; I'd rather look at the evidence. The evidence, so far, points to Jesus being a fictional character in the Bible. The only contemporary document we have of Jesus is the Bible. The extra-biblical materials come decades or centuries later, and that proves not a god damn thing.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@29condorito
2. Even if people believed in the divinity of Jesus earlier than thought, it casts no light on whether Jesus was a real person, or whether he had any miraculous powers. There are no contemporary accounts of some guy who ran around healing the sick or turning water into wine and doing other magnificent feats.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
Contemporary? No. But accounts surface within living memory of the events in question. That is to say, they surface when some people who saw Jesus were still alive.
Another thing to remember is that the earliest documents of the Jews (who didn't become Christians) claim that Jesus was a magician who was executed for blasphemy, and his disciples stole the body from the tomb.
They didn't deny his "miracles", his execution, or the empty tomb.
29condorito 4 months ago
(cont'd)
And again, the vast majority of historians agree that a guy named Jesus DID exist.
There are secular (roman pagan) documents from the early 2nd century which claim that the man DID exist, was executed by the state, and that his followers gather on Sunday to worship him "as if he was a god".
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito Okay, you don't see a problem about a document that talks about this TWO HUNDRED YEARS after it supposedly happened?
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
Actually, there are sources that are earlier.
Here's one from the Roman historian Tacitus (c56-c117):
"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."(cont'd)
29condorito 4 months ago
(Tacitus, cont'd).
"..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, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
This is a PAGAN source living within LIVING MEMORY of Jesus, who agrees with the Gospels that: a) he had a following of some kind, b)he was executed under Pontius Pilate in time of Tiberius
29condorito 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory (Cont'd).
Here's one from Roman official Pliny written to the emperor Trajan around 111 AD:
"‘They asserted that this was the sum and substance of their fault or their error; namely that
they were in the habit of meeting before dawn on a stated day and singing alternately a
hymn to Christ as to a god, and that they bound themselves by an oath, not to the
commission of any wicked deed,..."(cont'd)
29condorito 4 months ago
(Pliny, cont'd).
"...but that they would abstain from theft and robbery and
adultery, that they would not break their word, and that they would not withhold a deposit
when reclaimed. This done, it was their practice, so they said, to separate, and then to
meet together again for a meal, which however was of the ordinary kind and quite
harmless."
(Non Christian) Jewish sources (70-200 AD) do NOT deny that Jesus performed miracles (they call him a 'magician'), or that he was executed.
29condorito 4 months ago
(Pliny, cont'd).
"...but that they would abstain from theft and robbery and
adultery, that they would not break their word, and that they would not withhold a deposit
when reclaimed. This done, it was their practice, so they said, to separate, and then to
meet together again for a meal, which however was of the ordinary kind and quite
harmless’."
(Non-Christian) Jewish sources (the Talmud 70-200 CE), do NOT deny Jesus' miracles (called "magic"), or that he was executed for blasphemy.
29condorito 4 months ago
@FishFactory
And this isn't all the evidence, by ANY means.
Does this "prove" the existence of Jesus the miracle worker, the Son of God? No, not in any definitive sense.
But what it DOES show is that
A) Jesus of Nazareth DID exist.
B) He had a following which spread like wildfire in the empire.
C) It was a religious movement, as Tacitus calls it a "mischievous superstition".
D) Jesus' followers celebrated him DESPITE the humiliation of the crucifixion under Pilate, Tiberius. (WHY??)
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito
I'll contend that these teachings did spread, and it was a religious cult for its time, and people's beliefs in this religion was strong enough that they would endure humiliation, torture, and death for it. After all, history does indeed show it.
However, the existence of a Jesus character is not a given because the only contemporary account of him is from the Bible.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@29condorito Even though historical evidence doesn't really support the existence of a person named Jesus, I'll contend that there might have been a person like Jesus (and possibly named so) that amassed followers with his teachings. There's nothing wrong with that claim.
I can believe that there was a person who believed that he was the son of some God, but I will not accept the existence of someone who is the son of some God because it is an extraordinary claim.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
(D, cont'd).
Remember, crucifixion was a humiliation intended to show, among other things, just how much of a low-life the executed actually was. Why were they celebrating something which society saw as reviled?
E) Pliny, who lived just outside living memory, gives us a clue and says that it has something to do with Sunday morning, when they gather to worship Jesus like a god.
F) Pliny CONFIRMS in 111/112 what Christians say their behavior should be.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito You seem to think that having crazy, fanatical devotion to a belief. one that places your religious beliefs above all else, renders that belief true.
If I accept that premise, then Islam is the truest religion in the world.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
I'm not saying that Jesus was the Son of God with 100% certainty. I never have.
I believe that there is good reason to BELIEVE that he was the Son of God, and the historical record actually helps out.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito History does not help your case for even the existence of a person of Jesus Christ.
However, even if Jesus was a real person, nothing--history or science--will help your case that Jesus was the son of the Judeo-Christian God. Claiming this means that you're claiming that the Judeo-Christian God exists, and that, in itself, has absolutely no evidence.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
G) The Talmud (70-200), written by the people who MOST hated Christ and his followers, and would have had EVERYTHING to gain by denying he existed, or that he worked miracles, did NOT do so. The earliest documents of the non-christian jews say that he was a "magician" who seduced the people, and was executed for blasphemy.
FishFactory. You can remain skeptical as to whether Jesus was the Son of God, but you cannot deny that the record shows he was BELIEVED to have been from VERY early on.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito The reason is I'm asking for contemporary evidence, and you're giving me accounts of people who lived 70-100 years after Jesus supposedly died. That's like if I wrote a book about Harry Potter today, knowing intimate details about his life, and a thousand years later you cite my writings as proof that someone named Harry Potter existed.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@29condorito Tacitus is not a contemporary source considering that he did not live when Jesus was supposedly alive. How can Tacitus have living memory of Jesus if he was born 50-60 years after this person has died? Just in case you didn't know, contemporary means an account of a person when that person was still alive.
Also, there is evidence shown that the text of Tacitus had been altered.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
You obviously don't know what "living memory" actually means. It means that some people who were alive at time A, are STILL alive at time B.
WWII is within living memory for us. There are old-timers around to tell us about it. The civil war is not.
You realize that you are supposing that the Romans were SO incompetent and stupid, as to NOT know who the fuck ruled the empire just a few decades earlier. That is like our own gov't not knowing J. Kennedy.
Ridiculous
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito That still presents a problem. We know the Civil War and World War II existed because it also had contemporary accounts. From all sides. The losers and the winners. The people who didn't like it and the people who thought it was a good idea.
What about Jesus? We only know from one side: his followers. The Romans had no contemporary knowledge of such a person. And if the Romans crucified Jesus, you'd think they'd keep tabs on that kind of thing.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@29condorito @29condorito That still presents a problem. We know the Civil War and World War II existed because it also had contemporary accounts. From all sides. The losers and the winners. The people who didn't like it and the people who thought it was a good idea.
What about Jesus? We only know from one side: his followers. The Romans had no contemporary knowledge of such a person. And if the Romans crucified Jesus, you'd think they'd keep tabs on that kind of thing.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
What you are saying is that the accounts the Romans wrote (one to the emperor HIMSELF), are not valid because these surviving accounts come from a few decades afterwards. This is two THOUSAND years ago, buddy. These accounts are lucky to have survived AT ALL.
You are implicitly calling the Roman goverment SO unbelievably incompetent and imbecilic, as to NOT KNOW their own government a few decades earlier. Now THAT, my friend, is total horseshit.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito No, that's what you're saying. I'm saying that the reason why the Romans didn't document a person named Jesus is because there was no such person.
You, on the other hand, are saying that a Jesus existed, and the only reason there are no contemporary documents of such a person is because the Romans were too incompetent and imbecilic to have written about this person.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
Lie to yourself, Fish Factory, not to me.
You know darn well what I'm saying.
I'm saying that earlier records were no doubt there, but were probably lost to time (you know, the two thousand years which have passed since then).
That is a hell of a lot more reasonable, than to suppose the Romans didn't know their own friggin gov't, even when within LIVING MEMORY.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito I was not brought up with a Christian background, so I'm looking at this from a neutral point of view. The evidence leads me to conclude that a Jesus most likely did not exist.
And you know what I'm gosh-darn saying, too. You want me to believe that post-contemporary accounts of Jesus survived while NO contemporary accounts of Jesus survived other than the Bible.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
Be clear on what you wish to say.
First you say that there isn't any evidnece for Jesus, THEN you say that there is, but that there is no evidence for the belief in his divinity within a lifetime, and THEN you go back to saying "the evidence leads me to conclude that Jesus most likely did not exist."
I was brought up in a Christian background, but am honest enough to say that Jesus almost certainly existed (rather than saying he DID exist).
29condorito 4 months ago
You don't seem honest enough to stick with you you YOURSELF have already existed: namely that the evidence shows that he almost certainly DID exist.
First no, then yes, then no again.
Either way you slice it, the evidence that he almost certainly existed, and that a belief system based on his divinity existed within a lifetime of his death, is overwhelming.
It isn't "proof", mind you, but it IS overwhelming evidence.
Anti-christian academics admit as much.
29condorito 4 months ago
Correction on earlier post:
"You don't seem honest enough to stick with what you YOURSELF have already said existed: evidence that shows Jesus almost certainly DID exist."
Sorry.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito So what if there are people who believed in Jesus's divinity? I believe that Harry Potter is a wizard, does that mean that Harry Potter is real?
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
No, it doesn't.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito I never said there was evidence for a Jesus Christ, and if I did, I was saying that his followers believed a whole lot about him, and I believe that they believe that.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
What is more likely, Fishy?
A) That the documents from a time period of LESS than on person's lifetime well over TWO THOUSAND years ago were lost to time,
or,
B) That the Roman empire was so incompetent, and so imbecilic, as to NOT KNOW what happened just 30 or 40 years earlier?
The Romans both knew AND no doubt had records. Only the records for 30+ or 40+ years later remain now, which is still amazing, since this is 2,000 yrs ago.
B)
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito
A) We're talking about a person that had miraculous, divine healing powers here, right?
B) You're telling me that not one person decided to write anything about a person that was going around healing the sick and helping the poor until decades later?
C) I shouldn't be surprised that you are asking me to accept the fact that all contemporary accounts of Jesus Christ has been lost except for the Bible--the one document that glorifies him as a living god.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@29condorito
A) We're talking about a person who performed divine feats, right?
B) How can you sit there and tell me that NOBODY thought about writing about Jesus when he was still alive? Now if the emperor wrote about him 40 years after Jesus died while historians wrote about him while he was still alive, then sure.
C) So you're telling me that ALL contemporary accounts of Jesus have been lost, except for the one document that glorifies him as a living God: the Bible.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
Forty fucking years over 2000 years ago????
Give it up, pal.
Listen, fishy. I'm not one of those christians who say that if you don't believe in Jesus, you go to hell. Following Jesus can be done UNKNOWINGLY.
Nevertheless, you ARE responsible for what you choose to call "true".
Deep, down, you know your position is horse manure.
At least be honest enough to say that you don't believe, but that the belief in Jesus' divinity WAS there from EXTREMELY early on.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. There's a large difference between having accounts of someone while they're still alive and having accounts of someone when they're dead. If you have both, that's great, too.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
Believe what you feel you need to believe.
If you are a good guy at heart, its not like you go to hell or anything. But there IS such a thing as the Truth, and its not like it is going to bite you, unless of course you choose to be a terrible human being.
I would say that you essentially ask for a photograph of the resurrection as evidence.....but we are on a thread for WHAT again?
You may resist, but the evidence sure as hell has nothing to do with it.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito I'm not resisting anything. If evidence of a Jesus was shown, then fine, Jesus existed. Big whoop. That still proves nothing about the historicity of the Bible, nor does it prove that a God exists.
I'm only asking for contemporary evidence. If Roman documents are found that talked about Jesus, what he did to be sentenced to death, or his crucifixion, and it was shown to be dated to around the time Jesus was alive, then that's good evidence right there.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
No, you are not "asking for evidence", but are narrowing the bounds of acceptable evidence as to be utterly ridiculous, JUST so you can feel secure in deying the obvious: the belief in Jesus' divinity existed within living memory of his death -- pagan sources attest to this.
29condorito 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
No, you are not "asking for evidence", but narrowing the bounds of what you deem acceptable as to deliberately exclude the overwhelming evidence that DOES exist.
The belief that Jesus was divine is DOCUMENTED within LIVING MEMORY by PAGAN sources.
In fact, the documents that speak of Julius caesar come from much much later than his existence, than do the pagan documents speaking of Jesus.
By your standards of "evidence", the belief that Caesar existed is pure rubbish.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito And once again you are completely ignoring why that "living memory" argument doesn't work. How can you have no evidence of a person when they were supposed to be alive, but have this "living memory" evidence?
Julius Caesar HAS contemporary accounts of his existence (from Cicero and Sallust, for example).
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
No, fishy. The "contemporary" accounts of Cicero & Co. are copies of copies of copies that surface much much later than Caesar's life.
The first evidence for Jesus shows up MUCH earlier......and from pagan sources.
Either way, it seems that you are hell-bent on denying the obvious.....even that Jesus existed (which is a hell of a lot more than the majority of academics).
It isn't my job to crawl into your mind and be as honest as they are.
Nice talking to you though
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito Those are examples. Doesn't mean that there are others, which I don't care about (Nepos, Catullus, Asinius, Virgil, Ovid, Paterculus, and so on). Hell, an unflattering sculpture of Caesar has been found--carved during his lifetime. But this is merely a non sequitur.
You claim these pagan sources exist... are they were when Jesus was alive, or are they decades later?
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
The WRITTEN records attesting to caesar, are not contemporary of his life. They are copies of copies.
Coins, sculpture etc are another matter.
So for you sculpture and coins matter more than documents?......or do they only matter more when it is convenient for you.
Listen, fishy.
I'm not going to argue something until I'm blue in the face. If a person doesn't want to see the obvious, it is not MY problem.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito
Like you said, just because a person believes that Harry Potter is somehow real, it does NOT mean that it is true.
This is precisely why Academics have no problem acknowledging that Jesus did exist, and that the belief he was divine also DID exist at least within a lifetime of his death.
At least be as honest as they are. It doesn't hurt.
See ya.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito It doesn't matter to me or anyone if Jesus was a real person, but the evidence isn't exactly favoring it.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
Caesars memoirs are COPIES of COPIES, buddy.
Find whatever excuse to believe what you wish to believe.
Just know that Academics who despise Christianity are more honest than you are.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito So because they are copies of copies (I'm just taking your word here for it), that must mean that they did not originate from Caesar?
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
According to you, they are insufficient evidence to believe Caesar existed at all.
After all, the copies we DO have, are not "contemporary" with his life. Isn't that your all-or-nothing standard?
That the WRITTEN evidence (leaving aside coins and sculpture) must be contemporary with what happens in order to be held valid?
In your world, absent of coins or sculpture, there is no reason to believe Julius Caesar ever existed.
29condorito 4 months ago
whoops.
That last post was not meant to be @me.
It was meant to be @fish
"Like you said, just because....".
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito We also have Caesar's memoirs. I guess those are accounts of accounts of accounts, too. Historians are in a consensus that Caesar existed. Christ, on the other hand, not so much (theologians are not historians).
It's not obvious. It's like you're saying, "you just don't want to see the obvious evidence that there is a God." What evidence?
You're giving me non-contemporary sources. That's all you've given me. It isn't striking evidence that Jesus existed.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
(Ridiculous, cont'd).
Remember, I am NOT talking about 100% proof, here. I never have. What I am talking about is: a) the existence of Jesus, and b) whether or not the BELIEF that he was a miracle existed very early on.
The Romans acknowledge in documents written VERY early on, some within LIVING MEMORY of Jesus, that he existed, was executed, and had a religious following that spread like wildfire.
29condorito 4 months ago
@29condorito Okay, ask yourself this: why would the Romans maintain silence about a Jesus character for 50 or so years, and then all of a sudden come out and talk about him? That doesn't ring any alarms of suspicion or anything? They produced no documents about this Jesus character; no historian at the time talked about a person that was going around and healing the sick and helping the poor. No talk about a mass of followers... all until decades later?
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@29condorito Can I get a source on that "early documents"? I'm sorry, but the Romans were pretty good at keeping history, and if none of the contemporary Roman historians kept any documents about a person that had divine powers, then it casts huge doubt on the existence of such a person.
I don't care either way if Jesus was a real person or not, but I do care about the claims that this person had divine healing powers.
DeadFishFactory 4 months ago
@29condorito You are forgetting that Roman historical writings had to pass through the hands of such church officials as Eusebius.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 4 months ago
@LainOpenLog you fucking douche bag have u even seen the real shroud of turin u bitch? its dusty got wrinkles small holes and its kept in a clean glass compressed tight so its cant be skahing!!!!! these people cant touch the shroud of turin u know it would tear apart for its age and so their not allowed this is a remake of the shroud of turin that means their showing it in another cloth and let us experience how it was for him that time u stupid fucking bitch!
jake17124 5 months ago
Comment removed
jake17124 5 months ago
Hi everyone who wrote here and like me read the comments. Its awesome to see how people think so differently. :-) Really! human mind is amazing.
i request people who believe , if you believe its perfectly fine, but why do u have to put somebody else down and get into an argument.
Let the one who Believes believe and the one who doesn't also is perfectly fine.
If there is a God he wont leave us wondering. If not lets depend on opinions.
i believe in Jesus, shroud or no shroud, i love him. LUV
milliemercedes 6 months ago