New Evidence: Shroud of Turin Older Than Thought

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by techumseh


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.

You should read The Case for Christ. I think you'll be quite surprised at what you'll find.

[techumseh]

If you don't mind saving me the trouble, why don't you cite his most relevant evidence regarding the existence of Jesus, and the authenticity and validity of the gospels? I'd be much obliged.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by techumseh
If you don't mind saving me the trouble, why don't you cite his most relevant evidence regarding the existence of Jesus, and the authenticity and validity of the gospels? I'd be much obliged.

I would, but I don't have the book with me. I borrowed it from a friend and read it, but now I've returned it to him.

Besides, the book full of evidence from cover to cover and I wouldn't classify any of it as the more relevant than any other evidence presented in the book.

If I were you, I'd go and check it out at your local library. And btw, much of the evidence regarding the authenticity and validity of the gospels in presented in Part 1 of the book: Pages 19-110.

[GePap]

Arguments based on a single source are poor ones, as you work under the assumption the author presented everything correctly, or fairly, without self-serving acts.

A bad assumption certainly.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by GePap
Arguments based on a single source are poor ones, as you work under the assumption the author presented everything correctly, or fairly, without self-serving acts.

A bad assumption certainly.

HA!

Then also read a book with a competing philosophy and decide for yourself if you really want to learn something.

[Spiffor]

Is that idol really important? What's the difference between the shroud of Turin and other idols?

Yet another gadget for the weak in faith to worship.

[Spiffor]

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

You mean, like the one stating that there is an all-knowing, all powerful entity? I agree, it's most certainly empty

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Here is one right here: The Case Against Christianity

This is a book, written by Michael Martin (an atheist), that Lee Strobel actually mentions and criticizes in The Case For Christ.

Would it not be fun to read about an Atheist and a Christian making their cases for and against Christianity?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You mean, like the one stating that there is an all-knowing, all powerful entity? I agree, it's most certainly empty

There's another smartellic remark. You sound like tinyp3nis!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
There's another smartellic remark. You sound like tinyp3nis!

You are eager to dismiss the claims that religious symbols have been manipulated by the secular needs (political power) of the Church. You consider these claims to be conspiracies theories, and empty ones at that because they cannot be proven.

However, you adamantly defend the claim that there is a God whose son is Jesus, knowing full well these claims cannot be proven.

I can understand that your faith leads to have double standards. But you shouldn't use arguments like "conspiracy theory" evey time somebody points out that the Church had something to win by manipulating religious symbols. It certainly doesn't add to your ability to convince others.

[Dinner]

So what the scientists are saying is that C14 dating works just fine in its effective range but that the previous sample came from a piece of patching naterial and not from the original faberic. The new date still says this is a fake just an older fake.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You are eager to dismiss the claims that religious symbols have been manipulated by the secular needs (political power) of the Church. You consider these claims to be conspiracies theories, and empty ones at that because they cannot be proven.

However, you adamantly defend the claim that there is a God whose son is Jesus, knowing full well these claims cannot be proven.

I can understand that your faith leads to have double standards. But you shouldn't use arguments like "conspiracy theory" evey time somebody points out that the Church had something to win by manipulating religious symbols. It certainly doesn't add to your ability to convince others.

You know what. These cheapshots people are taking at me are really getting boring.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Oerdin
So what the scientists are saying is that C14 dating works just fine in its effective range but that the previous sample came from a piece of patching naterial and not from the original faberic. The new date still says this is a fake just an older fake.

Yeah, put that winky smiley out there, cuz you know it can't be proven nor disproven.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
You know what. These cheapshots people are taking at me are really getting boring.

I took care to explain my position, precisely because I want it not to be a cheap shot.

But go ahead and continue to rudely dismiss well-meaning advice (or well meaning posts in general). It will result in you only getting cheap shots, and no serious discussion.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I took care to explain my position, precisely because I want it not to be a cheap shot.

But go ahead and continue to rudely dismiss well-meaning advice (or well meaning posts in general). It will result in you only getting cheap shots, and no serious discussion.

No, look. You're trying to change the subject on me. You are wandering into territory that isn't even relevant to the thread.

And by the way, when I was talking about an empty conspiracy theory I was referring to this one:

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.

Go figure.