New Evidence: Shroud of Turin Older Than Thought

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by GePap
Ah, no, they were all writen about 60-70 years after his supposed death- if they were eye witness accounts by contemporaries, they should not be so different and vary on basic facts.

Gepap,

Recommended Reading: "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

The evidence really shows that the Gospels began to be written only about 2 years after Christ's death.

[Jon Miller]

that is sort of the extreme other side

somewhere in between sceptics (60-70, 80 at the latest) and the other end (right after...) is probably correct

I, for example, no longer think that Mathew was written by a disciple, although I think that John was

and I also think that Mathew, Mark, and Luke were created from an early source in combination with talking to eyewitnesses and the like

if you think about it, Paul didn't even see Jesus before His Death

Jon Miller

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


Eh eh um. Have you completly missed the story about the new evidence found that I posted in the first post of this thread?

No, but I don't see that tentative evidence as changing the basic premise that it was murder with the intent to produce a relic for the faithful.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Dauphin
No, but I don't see that tentative evidence as changing the basic premise that it was murder with the intent to produce a relic for the faithful.

Nice conspiracy theory, but no dice cumberbund.

[Dauphin]

I'd love it if it was Jesus' shroud, I just don't believe that it is.

[Jon Miller]

honestly?

neither do I

Jon Miller

[Mr. Nice Guy]

A conspiracy theory that can not be proven neither disproven really is nothing but an empty conspiracy theory.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Heresson
And Boris, the technique needed to put such an image on the shroud was not possible until modern times.

We had this argument before, and this is simply not necessarily true. In fact, I had linked to a website where a guy made a "shroud" using techniques easily available to people in the late middle ages, and it was indistinguishable in form from the actual shroud (meaning while the image looked different, microscopic analysis was identical).

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
A conspiracy theory that can not be proven neither disproven really is nothing but an empty conspiracy theory.

Well the theory that the shroud is genuine can´t be proven either.
So it´s all the same,
those who want to believe that it´s the shroud of Jesus will continue to believe
and those continue to believe otherwise

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
A conspiracy theory that can not be proven neither disproven really is nothing but an empty conspiracy theory.

Christianity is what? Huh?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Well the theory that the shroud is genuine can´t be proven either.
So it´s all the same,
those who want to believe that it´s the shroud of Jesus will continue to believe
and those continue to believe otherwise

Well, at least there is evidence that it's the shroud of Jesus, even though it's not conclusive.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

Christianity is what? Huh?

Smartellic.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Heresson
The skeptics were yet sure that the cloth can not be original, that it is younger than Jesus.
As the tradition is that it is the shroud of Jesus,
and there's nothing yet that can be put against it,
You should believe it. And as the shroud is supernatural...

Again, there's nothing among skeptics that hinges on the cloth itself not being old. There's no reason to think that an image wasn't put onto an old cloth.

There's no evidence of any supernatural powers at work here, so I don't see why we should believe anything.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


Gepap,

Recommended Reading: "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

The evidence really shows that the Gospels began to be written only about 2 years after Christ's death.

Biblical scholars (as opposed to evangelical propagandists) suggest that the the gospels were written between 70 and 100 AD, by people who had not witnessed the ministry of Jesus. As they were originally circulated anonymously, the real authors (and their real names) are unknown.

Even so, they make a somewhat better foundation for an argument than Mel Gibson's movie.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Again, there's nothing among skeptics that hinges on the cloth itself not being old. There's no reason to think that an image wasn't put onto an old cloth.

There's no evidence of any supernatural powers at work here, so I don't see why we should believe anything.

As I've written before, the technique that would have to be needed to put this picture onto the shroud was not available in Middle Ages. This shroud is known since then, and is probably the same as Mandillion, an image of Christ (story of St Veronica etc), originally at Edessa (Sanliurfa today), later captured by Byzantines during their reconquista and led to Constantinople, from where it disappeared during IV crusade - some time before the shroud is witnessed in Western Europe...

In another words: the picture on the shroud is at least 700 years old, likely more than 1500. And then, people did not care for such details as modern forgers would.