Slamman Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Just something I'd thought to share, because Creation and Faith found place for discussion on a GTA gaming site, this may also be of interest. The thing I find interesting is all over the World, at different times, the likeness of Jesus himself is often contrasted differently. I had a feeling about how he looked, but compare THAT to the actual Shroud.... http://news.aol.com/article/shroud-of-turi...emplar%2F414857 BTW, weren't there more then one horror movies based on the acts of the Templar Knights? I recall one with Pierce Brosnan, it was a good movie, the others were known for their horrific effects of the Knights, I forget the titles, but they were Italian low budget ones, which makes sense, I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 It has been proven to be a fake a long time ago. Plus, the Vatican and Knights are in kahootz! $$H New York Crew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagelzilla Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Yeah, I saw a special on the Discovery channel a while ago where they carbon dated the cloth and found that it wasn't old enough to be Jesus. Cool cloth though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuirt Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Radiocarbon dating has proven that the Shroud was made about 1300 years after Jesus was alive. Damn Medieval tricksters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEoS Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Obviously the knights accidently spilled BBQ sauce on the original and made a fake so the Pope wouldn't be pissed. Most logical explanation for it, duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 ...about 1300 years after Jesus was believed to have been alive. There we go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTA3Rockstar Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 ...about 1300 years after Jesus was believed to have been alive. There we go How are we supposed to know when anyone was alive long ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhus Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Relics used to provide big moneymaking opportunities. The Catholic priests would hack up skeletons in order to provide a blessed skull or shin bone or whatever the f*ck and then charge the simple rubes money to stare at it. Amusing, isn't it? The whole saint system calls into question just how monotheistic Catholicism really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Statutory Ray Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 ...about 1300 years after Jesus was believed to have been alive. There we go Pretty sure Jesus actually existed. Whether or not he was the son of God or could actually perform miracles is another debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saggy Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 ...about 1300 years after Jesus was believed to have been alive. There we go Pretty sure Jesus actually existed. Whether or not he was the son of God or could actually perform miracles is another debate. I remember reading or seeing a documentary about when they did the study. They originally set out to get the DNA of Christ, and then wound up carbon dating it to the 14th century. The Vattican claimed that it was because of a fire that happened in the 16th century, and then didn't allow any more testing to be done on it. (Makes said conspiracy theories juicier). In my opinion it was probably something more simplistic, like the church wanting to give Christ a face similar to the masses they were trying to get to follow. Obviously it probably wouldn't be available to them anyway, but there's the question of whether he would have looked like a Caucasian male. In any case, they probably fabricated it, and then when it almost came out that it was fake, they panicked and thought, "Oh sh*t, they're going to catch us lying." Also, I've read some pretty interesting ( to say the least ) things written by David Icke ( now you know what I'm saying ), that speak about a lot of other cultures which have stories similar to that of Jesus which predate the time we thought he existed. So who knows, maybe it the whole thing is just made up. Though I'd rather believe some of the more credible historical sources than David Icke. Otherwise the reptiles might attack me from the fourth dimension. Btw, that first bit wasn't to discount the existence of Jesus, just commenting on something I saw about the whole "it being dated back to so-and-so" thing. QUOTE (K^2) ...not only is it legal for you to go around with a concealed penis, it requires absolutely no registration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overmorrow Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Relics used to provide big moneymaking opportunities. The Catholic priests would hack up skeletons in order to provide a blessed skull or shin bone or whatever the f*ck and then charge the simple rubes money to stare at it.Amusing, isn't it? The whole saint system calls into question just how monotheistic Catholicism really is. Actually, it's whole trinity thing that calls into question just how monotheistic Catholicism really is. Whether or not Joshua (not Jesus, Joshua) ever existed is highly doubt-able when you consider that there is absolutely no historical evidence of him. It's also very arrogant when you consider how many different religions exist to think that Christianity is true, when they're all pretty much as stupid as one another. I'd be more inclined to follow Islam, at least Muhammed existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voteneg Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 (edited) Insane. I just finished watching an entire special on the Shroud of Turin on the History channel not more than 30 minutes ago. Turns out the radio carbon dating they took was not a good sample, the patch they cut off was reweaved with 16th century fabric. Basically that means it was expertly repaired by adding new cloth into it. The mixture of new cloth and old linen from the original carbon dated sample gave them the 1200 ad figure. Many figure it was reweaved after the fire that occurred in 1532. Whether or not this definitively proves anything I don't know. But it would seem to indicate that a different sample from a central location of the cloth (with a single type of fabric woven together) would probably yield the most accurate carbon dating results. Of course those History Channel expose pieces tend to highlight one side of the story. Edited April 6, 2009 by voteneg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTA3Rockstar Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Yeah, I saw a special on the Discovery channel a while ago where they carbon dated the cloth and found that it wasn't old enough to be Jesus. Cool cloth though Speaking of which, its on now actually. Its all a prophecy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 ...about 1300 years after Jesus was believed to have been alive. There we go How are we supposed to know when anyone was alive long ago? Exactly sire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
860 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 you really dont even need any fancy carbondating to figure out it is a fake. if it was real the face wouldnt look normal but far wider than a normal face because it was around the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhus Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 It's also very arrogant when you consider how many different religions exist to think that Christianity is true. It only seems arrogant to a militant Atheist. Because that's what you sound like. It's arrogant to believe in Christ? Therefore you are calling all Christians arrogant. And that sir is the very definition of bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breaking Bohan Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 It's an interesting topic - thanks for the information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overmorrow Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) It's also very arrogant when you consider how many different religions exist to think that Christianity is true. It only seems arrogant to a militant Atheist. Because that's what you sound like. It's arrogant to believe in Christ? Therefore you are calling all Christians arrogant. And that sir is the very definition of bigotry. Uh, no not really. I'm just saying it's kinda self-righteous, sanctimonious, arrogant, whatever, to claim that Christianity is correct (provided being said by a Christian) just as much as it is for a Muslim to claim Islam is correct. Call me a bigot if you want, hey, call me a blasphemist while you're at it. I've gotta say, this whole religion thing is kinda like patriotism. I and mine are better than yours, because I say so. To be fair, you've never claimed to be better than anyone else because you're a Christian, and many don't, but it's pretty common. I mean come on, use common sense about these things. Your God offers you love and forgiveness, but if you don't accept him and his ways, then he condemns you to an eternity of torture? Sure sounds like a great guy. Oh, wait, what do I know? I'm just a militant atheist! Edited April 23, 2009 by Overmorrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pico Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 It's also very arrogant when you consider how many different religions exist to think that Christianity is true. It only seems arrogant to a militant Atheist. Because that's what you sound like. It's arrogant to believe in Christ? Therefore you are calling all Christians arrogant. And that sir is the very definition of bigotry. That gave me a good laugh, thanks. This topic was actually good for something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Statutory Ray Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 It's arrogant to believe in Christ? Therefore you are calling all Christians arrogant. "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time." - Mohandas Gandhi The worst part about Christianity is that the Old Testament is left in. Jesus was a pretty cool dude for the most part. edit: Overmorrow we disagreed a bit in the other topic but I pretty much agree with you here man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creed Bratton Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Jesus was a pretty cool dude for the most part. I'd smoke a blunt with him too Seriously now, Christianity is falling apart. More and more Christinas are becoming Atheists. And it's about time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now