Turin Shroud breaking news!

ScumLord · 12-02-2014 04:46PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

You might want a better source than that mate. And again i'll state other than the bible which is fictional there is no proof of a jesus of nazareth let alone one that goes around healing leprosy and walking on water.

Just because there isn't a wealth of references to Jesus doesn't mean he wasn't a real man of the time. The accounts we have from the bible and other Christian records would be considered as much a historical document as any of the time. Not much remains of ancient and prehistoric Ireland, we've had to depend on stories being passed down verbally.

I'm not saying he walked on water but I think it's highly likely some guy called Jesus had a big influence on some people and whatever he said or didn't say, that mans life was the catalyst for some major changes.

Ghost Buster · 12-02-2014 04:48PM

Hitchens wrote: »

Irish people who scoff at the Shroud will go over the top buying Man Utd, L'pool, Chelsea etc, jerseys, for their children to worship at. Strange :rolleyes:

I scoff at the shroud and have not a clue about any team sport. i know a little about stretching and generalising however.

Mr Freeze · 12-02-2014 04:49PM

Putin wrote: »

Science, it's been around for awhile you know.

:rolleyes:

Qualitymark · 12-02-2014 04:50PM

Tzardine wrote: »

The windows in my car keep fogging up no matter what I do. I have tried all sorts of cleaning products.

Maybe a bang of this cloth will do the job. We will see then if it has magic powers.

Shaving foam, then polish them dry. Miraculous!

Ray Palmer · 12-02-2014 04:58PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

You might want a better source than that mate. And again i'll state other than the bible which is fictional there is no proof of a jesus of nazareth let alone one that goes around healing leprosy and walking on water.

You seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter if Jesus existed. The shroud doesn't show an image of the person of the time and background Jesus would have been. It is no different if somebody showed an image meant to be Saint Patrick and he was 7 feet tall and black. It wouldn't match with Welsh lad of the time and would have been mentioned in any account of him.

The shroud of Turin doesn't look like a Jewish guy of the time nor is the right height. I don't need to prove it is Jesus just it isn't a guy of the time and place they claim.

You insisted on proof about whether people were as tall as they are now even though it is a well known fact. They weren't unless you have proof they were the same height back then.

Ghost Buster · 12-02-2014 05:00PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

From what source? how can you say he was tall when there is no evidence a Jesus of Nazareth even existed?

Its pretty much a given that a bloke named Jesus existed and he , along with a whole hape o political agitators through out that area, came to be known to the guards Romans. Everything else is just nonsense.

Ghost Buster · 12-02-2014 05:01PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Just means you are ignorant

http://remnantofgiants.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/how-tall-were-the-biblical-giants-a-comparative-chart/

2 seconds to search for that

In fairness thats how it works. You cant just make a claim and just say 'find out for your self'. Thats how religion works.:eek:

Ghost Buster · 12-02-2014 05:03PM

Qualitymark wrote: »

Shaving foam, then polish them dry. Miraculous!

Yup. The same is done with motorbike helmets. A dab o fairy liquid on the inside and polish away!

ScumLord · 12-02-2014 05:06PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The shroud of Turin doesn't look like a Jewish guy of the time nor is the right height. I don't need to prove it is Jesus just it isn't a guy of the time and place they claim.

I don't know how you can tell skin colour from the image in the shroud. Jesus could have been a weird looking tall guy, maybe that's why he stood out to people of the time.

You insisted on proof about whether people were as tall as they are now even though it is a well known fact. They weren't unless you have proof they were the same height back then.

The average height was lower than today, but they still had people that would have been above average, it's not impossible he was tall.

Ray Palmer · 12-02-2014 05:16PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

In fairness thats how it works. You cant just make a claim and just say 'find out for your self'. Thats how religion works.:eek:

Like I said I don't need to tell you water is wet. I would consider it common knowledge in the same way knowing they didn't have electronics either

Ray Palmer · 12-02-2014 05:19PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know how you can tell skin colour from the image in the shroud. Jesus could have been a weird looking tall guy, maybe that's why he stood out to people of the time.

The average height was lower than today, but they still had people that would have been above average, it's not impossible he was tall.

It isn't the colour of his skin it is complete appearance. Looking like what people think he looks like at the time the image was created. Namely a white guy with white guy features. As Tommy Tiernan said Jesus would have looked like Danny Divito not a Bee Gee.

If he was so different looking people would have mentioned it in any account.

Ghost Buster · 12-02-2014 05:23PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Like I said I don't need to tell you water is wet. I would consider it common knowledge in the same way knowing they didn't have electronics either

Get out of it!!! I know that the human race have been getting taller but not every body knows that to the same degree that they know 'water is wet'. You spoke of tons of studies and reports. Not every body has read the same studies and reports as you so if asked it is up to you to supply a link. Im not picking a row here its just that poster cannot just make a claim and reply "SHEESH I THOUGHT EVERYBODY KNEW THAT!!!!!!:rolleyes: when asked to back the claim up.

Ray Palmer · 12-02-2014 05:41PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Get out of it!!! I know that the human race have been getting taller but not every body knows that to the same degree that they know 'water is wet'. You spoke of tons of studies and reports. Not every body has read the same studies and reports as you so if asked it is up to you to supply a link. Im not picking a row here its just that poster cannot just make a claim and reply "SHEESH I THOUGHT EVERYBODY KNEW THAT!!!!!!:rolleyes: when asked to back the claim up.

So you knew it was true and insisted on a link? SHEESH I DIDN'T REALISE YOU WERE HERE TO POLICE HOW TO DEBATE ON A WEB FORUM

Maybe you could have agreed it is a known fact not a claim first off rather than insisting on a link. Maybe you should be pedantic on some other point:rolleyes:

Temptamperu · 12-02-2014 05:43PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Just because there isn't a wealth of references to Jesus doesn't mean he wasn't a real man of the time. The accounts we have from the bible and other Christian records would be considered as much a historical document as any of the time. Not much remains of ancient and prehistoric Ireland, we've had to depend on stories being passed down verbally.

I'm not saying he walked on water but I think it's highly likely some guy called Jesus had a big influence on some people and whatever he said or didn't say, that mans life was the catalyst for some major changes.

Thats a fair assessment, but the romans were fastidious in book keeping and history so if there was a jesus and he was a huge influence there would be more of a record about him or even his name on a document. But all we have are second hand stories in the gospels (all of which differ I might add) There is nothing else.Even the Josephus writings are 70 years after he got crucified and all that does is mention a jesus.

ScumLord · 12-02-2014 05:43PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It isn't the colour of his skin it is complete appearance.

I don't think Jewish people look all that different from meditatainian Europeans like Greek or Italians. Its not impossible he could look slightly European or even that the image is distorted enough to obscure prominent Jewish features.

like i said there is a matching face cloth that we know goes back to 300ad that seems to have been ripped from the shroud.

ScumLord · 12-02-2014 05:48PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

Thats a fair assessment, but the romans were fastidious in book keeping and history .

They would also raise entire cities to the ground and erase cultures from the history book if it suited them. They went on a rampage through Jerusalem after Jesus so they could well have erased their own records in the process. While we do have a lot of research done on Rome there's a lot information that simply got destroyed. We are talking about 2000 years ago.

Gotham · 12-02-2014 05:55PM

ScumLord wrote: »

They went on a rampage through Jerusalem after Jesus so they could well have erased their own records in the process.

Is there any evidence of that that doesn't come from the bible?

Ghost Buster · 12-02-2014 06:00PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So you knew it was true and insisted on a link? SHEESH I DIDN'T REALISE YOU WERE HERE TO POLICE HOW TO DEBATE ON A WEB FORUM

Maybe you could have agreed it is a known fact not a claim first off rather than insisting on a link. Maybe you should be pedantic on some other point:rolleyes:

Show me where i asked for a link.

Thats me asking for a link BTW!

Hitchens · 12-02-2014 06:00PM

ScumLord wrote: »

They would also raise entire cities to the ground and erase cultures from the history book if it suited them. They went on a rampage through Jerusalem after Jesus so they could well have erased their own records in the process. While we do have a lot of research done on Rome there's a lot information that simply got destroyed. We are talking about 2000 years ago.

And we did the same here not so long ago, when so many records were destroyed in the Four Courts, it's just the human way

Ghost Buster · 12-02-2014 06:01PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So you knew it was true and insisted on a link? SHEESH I DIDN'T REALISE YOU WERE HERE TO POLICE HOW TO DEBATE ON A WEB FORUM

Maybe you could have agreed it is a known fact not a claim first off rather than insisting on a link. Maybe you should be pedantic on some other point:rolleyes:

Not everything one thinks is common knowledge is so. Thats all. No need to pick fights!
Andf stop insisting i demanded a link., i didnt., that was Hitchins. Its considered good debating practice to bak up your claims when asked to do so. That is the only point i am making.

ScumLord · 12-02-2014 06:03PM

Gotham wrote: »

Is there any evidence of that that doesn't come from the bible?

The wars and revolutions between the Romans and Jerusalem is well documented.

Gotham · 12-02-2014 06:17PM

ScumLord wrote: »

The wars and revolutions between the Romans and Jerusalem is well documented.

But the one about "going after Jesus" doesn't seem to be documented outside the bible...
Can you link to them? Google doesn't tell me there was a war circa 0AD.

ScumLord · 12-02-2014 06:25PM

Gotham wrote: »

But the one about "going after Jesus" doesn't seem to be documented outside the bible...

Going after Jesus?

The other thing about Jesus and the Romans is that they probably wouldn't have seen him as anything other than a troublemaker with a small following. They had bigger things to be writing about than some Jewish troublemaker.

Can you link to them? Google doesn't tell me there was a war circa 0AD.

Rome captured Jerusalem in 37BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem#Roman_Jerusalem_period

Qualitymark · 12-02-2014 06:38PM

Gotham wrote: »

Is there any evidence of that that doesn't come from the bible?

There's that much more reliable source, Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)

More seriously, yes, the Romans themselves kept superb historical records.

Incidentally, in relation to Jesus' appearance, I saw a documentary a year or so ago in which someone tracked down a family reputed to be descended from Jesus' family; they were all blue-eyed. *****(NOT making any points about supposed superiority or inferiority of any eye colour, physical appearance or 'race', I just found it weirdly fascinating.)*****

Temptamperu · 12-02-2014 08:16PM

ScumLord wrote: »

They would also raise entire cities to the ground and erase cultures from the history book if it suited them. They went on a rampage through Jerusalem after Jesus so they could well have erased their own records in the process. While we do have a lot of research done on Rome there's a lot information that simply got destroyed. We are talking about 2000 years ago.

All destroyed by our friends the catholic church after constantine decided what should and should not be in the bible.

But thats the problem with history, it all seems to start 2000 years ago and most of it written by the church who went on to do wonderful things like the crusades and the inquisition.
pretty much anything they didn't like got burnt or sacked leaving very little "truth" for us to view.

He who controls the past and all that jargon.

Gotham · 13-02-2014 12:18PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Going after Jesus?

ScumLord wrote: »

Going after Jesus?
Rome captured Jerusalem in 37BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem#Roman_Jerusalem_period

Qualitymark wrote: »

There's that much more reliable source, Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)***

Clearly my religion knowledge is rusty. I was confusing the roman empire with Herod, who seems to just be a Roman who was king of Judea. Seems he was shit at keeping records.

Calibos · 13-02-2014 01:03PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think Jewish people look all that different from meditatainian Europeans like Greek or Italians. Its not impossible he could look slightly European or even that the image is distorted enough to obscure prominent Jewish features.

like i said there is a matching face cloth that we know goes back to 300ad that seems to have been ripped from the shroud.

Modern Jewish people look European because the Jews were scattered to the four winds across Eurasia over the last 2000 years and interbred with the peoples there. Then returned to Palestine en masse about 70 years ago 'for some unknown reason' :rolleyes:

Think of Modern day Saudi's when imagining what they looked like in the time of the death cult leader called David Koresh Jesus....

Wibbs · 13-02-2014 01:51PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The shroud of Turin doesn't look like a Jewish guy of the time nor is the right height.

Well that's up for debate for a start. The documentary that claimed to show a generic male "Jew" of the time was largely a nonsense. People can vary and by quite a lot within populations. Even low density populations. In an area like the middle east that has been a crossroads of populations for over 100,000 years they had one helluva admixture. No way could you pin down an average guy outa that and even if you could it would still be an average, not taking into account individuals outside that average. Jesus or whoever as a first century Jew could have been tall or short or average. Given he was a carpenter, or came from that background it's more likely he would have been taller than not, as contrary to the picture painted since carpenters were economically and socially a good step above your average peasant of the time, so he would had a better diet. Given that he's described as a learned rabbi type, again this would put him in a class above the average peasant(they tended to come from the wealthier set).

ScumLord · 13-02-2014 02:34PM

Gotham wrote: »

Clearly my religion knowledge is rusty. I was confusing the roman empire with Herod, who seems to just be a Roman who was king of Judea. Seems he was shit at keeping records.

To be fair to Herod he may well have kept great records, it's just that they didn't survive.

There is a lot of study of done on the Romans, such a wealth of information and opinion you'd swear we know everything there is to know about the Romans but the fact is we're talking about 2000 years ago and we don't know everything, there's plenty we take for granted about the Romans that's just pure speculation. We know the Romans kept extensive records for an ancient people but that doesn't mean we have all those records, we just have samples to give us an idea of what was going on.

Frank Lee Midere · 15-02-2014 12:13AM

Temptamperu wrote: »

All destroyed by our friends the catholic church after constantine decided what should and should not be in the bible.

But thats the problem with history, it all seems to start 2000 years ago and most of it written by the church who went on to do wonderful things like the crusades and the inquisition.
pretty much anything they didn't like got burnt or sacked leaving very little "truth" for us to view.

He who controls the past and all that jargon.

That my friend is a nonsense view of history. The Church preserved old Roman texts during the Dark ages, it also protected the Latin language. Christian theology is rooted in Greek and Roman philosophy. It's effectively a Roman invention, almost totally divorcing itself from its Jewish roots.

Scumlord was taking about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. I mean not knowing that? Why do you think Jewish people fled? Why the diaspora? It was almost entirely demolished, it's people evicted, renamed as a roman town. Aelia Capitolina

And who thinks history started 2000 years ago?

Turin Shroud breaking news!

Comments