Proof of the existence of Christ

createdtoworship · Apr 12, 2020

Carbon dating assumes a constant rate of carbon in all living creatures, that is a constant C factor. That is all animals eat plants, plants have carbon from atmosphere. What about an all meat eater? How will they have as much carbon as a vegitarian? It is not the same, yet carbon dating assumes a constant here. So carbon dating is the more objective of dating methods, however it's not solid evidence. Even if it was, we are not given access to the original peer review of the carbon dating of this find. We don't know where the sample was taken. If it was me, touching a 2000 year old cloth, I would do the patchwork myself, I would not want to destroy the original. But in doing so you are dating when the patch was done not the original. I hope you can see the logic in this. Almost all forgery allegations are based on the one carbon dating.

Ken-1122 · Apr 12, 2020

createdtoworship said:
yes if one were to fabricate a shroud you would expect this to be the case, right? I mean the only way this could be a fraud is for someone to use sunlight art four hundred years before it was invented and while that is possible, it's not probable.

Rather than trying to explain how it could be a fraud, (considering your limited imagination in this area) why don’t you explain how it could be authentic considering a real image would not look like a flat picture as SkyWriting has been pointing out countless times?

createdtoworship · Apr 12, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
Rather than trying to explain how it could be a fraud, (considering your limited imagination in this area) why don’t you explain how it could be authentic considering a real image would not look like a flat picture as SkyWriting has been pointing out countless times?

I believe I addressed this issue, but I don't mind revisiting it. we don't know how the shroud was wrapped, many times spices were wrapped into the burial cloth, if this was the case, that would explain why there was not blood stains on the sides. I hope that makes sense. For example if you wrap a sponge in a bunch of herbs, you will only get partial liquid leaking through simply because of the herbs acting like insulation. Since this was only a day and half later, there is no need to think these herbs would not be intact still. Remember the person alleged to bury christ was a rich man, so the herbs would have been available.

SkyWriting · Apr 12, 2020

createdtoworship said:
The only way for this to happen would be a sunlight type of art which would not come on the scene for 400 years, and in a fashion that was a negative. Negative photography would not appear for 700 years. again they date this around 1200. So your looking at even further, you are approaching a thousandyears at this point. So say someone had invented sun art and negative photography a thousand years ahead of time, in 900 a.d. Then perhaps this would be the case, that a forger could use known existing tactics. So even if every piece of historical information was true presented that refutes the shroud, the blood was fake, the patterns were fake, the pollen was fake, there still is not technology to create the image 1000 years ago in 1200 A.D.

Modern scientific Historical timelines are completely conjecture. They are invented based on limited intellect and limited knowledge of history. Check out actual recorded history:

Adam
Cain - Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.
- Enoch
- Irad
- Mehujael
- Methushael
- Lamech
- Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock.
- Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes.
- Genesis 4:22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of g bronze and iron.

So does your source on magnifying glass art mention that tools were forged from iron nine generations after Adam? That would be about 200 years after Adam.
Some 4000 years BC.

createdtoworship · Apr 12, 2020

SkyWriting said:
Modern scientific Historical timelines are completely conjecture. They are invented based on limited intellect and limited knowledge of history. Check out actual recorded history:

Adam
Cain - Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.
- Enoch
- Irad
- Mehujael
- Methushael
- Lamech
- Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock.
- Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes.
- Genesis 4:22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of g bronze and iron.

So does your source on magnifying glass art mention that tools were forged from iron nine generations after Adam? That would be about 200 years after Adam.
Some 4000 years BC.

sir I am just saying that sunlight art did not exist a thousand years ago. In fact I made a mistake I said it was early 1900's however sunlight art was invented in 2012 by Michael Papadakis, I found a link to 'sunlight' a painting, but yeah it's even newer than I imagined. He was the first to use it and sell the art. So again that is roughly a thousand years before it's invention. While yes magnifying glasses were used for opticals and for starting fires way before then, there is evidentially no evidence people created art with this technology, when the very first magnification was not even common but was brand new back in the 1200's. So in order to believe this, we must not only believe that magnification by lens was common in the first few years it was invented, but that it developed into an art form 1000 years before the first sunlightart was ever sold. Lastly we must believe and hope that negative art was also around a thousand years before camera's. Negative portraits became popular only after negative film came on the scene. So you expect me to believe no only was sunlight art around a thousand years a head of schedule, but also negative portraits were as well? That's a lot of patents this person could have had, and became rich, instead of making a fraudulent anonymous shroud. I find this line of thinking very far fetched indeed. In conclusion there are several veins of evidence indicating the technology apparently did not exist a thousand years ago. And quoting the Bible on this issue, I am not sure helps your evidence. As most readers of this thread don't even believe the Bible. I do. But again many tools in history existed, but we cannot prove it. So I am not saying it's not possible such devices existed it is possible, but it is not evident.

NxNW · Apr 12, 2020

createdtoworship said:
they hold to the view that the universe itself spontaneously com-busted from nothing.

I'm not aware of anyone making this claim. The Big Bang Theory certainly does not claim this.

But then refuse solid evidence such as this.

I haven't seen any solid evidence.

So it is clear to see this is not an intellectual issue for them, but this is a moral issue. They love their inappropriate contentography, they love their sex with their girlfriends, they love their sin. It's pleasurable to them, and they don't desire to believe in a deity that would tell them how to live their life. I get it.

Not sure who you're describing here, but it seems to be a rant against some ill-defined segment of the population.

createdtoworship · Apr 12, 2020

NxNW said:
I'm not aware of anyone making this claim. The Big Bang Theory certainly does not claim this.

I don't think you have a choice to believe the universe came from nothing, either it was created by something else, which came from nothing, it it itself came from nothing. God does not need cause because God by definition is outside of time and space, without time there is no beginning.

I haven't seen any solid evidence.

then explain how an image created by light or radiation occurred a thousand years before technology for this existed.

Not sure who you're describing here, but it seems to be a rant against some ill-defined segment of the population.

I once asked 10 atheists why they stopped being christian, and they all mentioned intellectual arguments. But then I asked them a simple question: "when you became a christian, did you repent of sin?" And none of them said yes. That proves to me, it was a moral issue not an intellectual issue.

ToddNotTodd · Apr 12, 2020

createdtoworship said:
The more I talk to you guys about this the more convincing the shroud becomes to be honest.

That’s what rampant confirmation bias does to people.

At this point we’re not posting for your benefit, we’re posting for the people without blinders on...

ToddNotTodd · Apr 12, 2020

createdtoworship said:
I once asked 10 atheists why they stopped being christian, and they all mentioned intellectual arguments. But then I asked them a simple question: "when you became a christian, did you repent of sin?" And none of them said yes.

Not buying that for a second.

I’ve never met a former Christian that would have said such a thing, myself included.

createdtoworship · Apr 12, 2020

ToddNotTodd said:
Not buying that for a second.

I’ve never met a former Christian that would have said such a thing, myself included.

Well sir did you repent when you received christ? It's an easy question. Did you repent of inappropriate contentography and adultery, theft and lust? It does not mean we are perfect but it means we don't anY longer live in and/or practice sin. An athiest has no motive for refraining from sin. A christian does. And if an athiest does not repent when saved, then they don't partake fully of salvation so if christianity didn't work for them that is why. For me Christ allowed eventually me to be free from homosexuality, lust, self gratification, and inappropriate contentography. So I can testify of the power of the gospel personally speaking.

createdtoworship · Apr 12, 2020

ToddNotTodd said:
That’s what rampant confirmation bias does to people.

At this point we’re not posting for your benefit, we’re posting for the people without blinders on...

Again sir anyone can read that no one has refuted anything about the shroud. So I am thankful you are bringing up other posters. I simply ask them to look at it with an open mind and that this discussion has further proved to me the technology was literally not available for another thousand years to forge this. So we must evidentially accept it as genuine.

Nihilist Virus · Apr 12, 2020

SkyWriting said:
On his own terms of "evidence" his argument fails. The only evidence for the resurection is the content of scripture and Matt claims that the original writings were altered, when all the solid evidence says they were not.

Er, what? Open up any annotated Bible and it will tell you that early manuscripts of Mark don't include the last several verses of the last chapter. The adulterous woman in John is also a later addition.

These are polite ways of saying that they are forgeries.

So based on the evidence, the scriptures are accurate. It's an obvious point Matt must avoid to succeed. Plus he has to discredit his mom to retaliate for being named Matt. So that's sad.

Uh, OK. I didn't watch the video so I can't comment on Matt vs his own name.

John Helpher · Apr 12, 2020

Jok said:
And it’s a double dose of absurdity. First they’re claiming that Rome botched a crucifixion and that Jesus must have held his breath long enough to fake his asphyxiation death. But second, how can someone then believe that you won’t shortly die (very shortly) if somehow you survived it? I mean do they not think about what CRUCIFIXION was lol?

Agreed. Also, the roman centurion stabbed a spear into his side precisely for the purpose of testing whether he really was dead. There's not much point in performing this test if you only poke the spear in an inch or two. No, you ram it in deep as confirmation; deep enough that even if he was still alive, the new puncture would ensure death. You can't fake your way through what is meant to be a fatal stab in the torso by an experienced soldier.

John Helpher · Apr 12, 2020

Mitty said:
But more important is the fate of the rotting corpses after they crawled out of their graves and wandered around down-town Jerusalem.

They wouldn't be rotting corpses any more after resurrecting; that's the point of resurrection; no longer dead but alive. That you'd refer to them as something contrary to the provided information shows that you haven't thought about the issue carefully or that you're trying to distort the information.

ToddNotTodd · Apr 12, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Well sir did you repent when you received christ? It's an easy question.

Of course.

Did you repent of inappropriate contentography and adultery, theft and lust?

Since I was young, none of those were exactly an issue...

It does not mean we are perfect but it means we don't anY longer live in and/or practice sin. An athiest has no motive for refraining from sin. A Christian does.

An atheist refrains from doing bad things when they have empathy, no god needed. If you’re saying you need a god to be good, then you lack the basic empathy that I do.

And if an athiest does not repent when saved, then they don't partake fully of salvarious so if christianity didn't work for them that is why. For me Christ allowed eventu ally me to be free from homosexuality, lust, self gratification, and inappropriate contentography. So I can testify of the power of them he gospel personally speaking.

Or it was just you that did it, no god needed...

ToddNotTodd · Apr 12, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Again sir anyone can read that no one has refuted anything about the shroud. So I am thankful you are bringing up other posters. I simply ask them to look at it with an open mind and that this discussion has further proved to me the technology was literally not available for another thousand years to forge this. So we must evidentially accept it as genuine.

Take a poll on this site. Ask if anyone has changed their minds on whether the shroud is genuine based on your recent posts.

Dare ya...

Nihilist Virus · Apr 12, 2020

Jok said:
I have a hard time thinking that people are being serious with apparent death theory, especially 2000 years ago with no modern day ER to rush Jesus to. I’m convinced that people who use that objection are trying to be funny. I mean what kind of resurrection would that be? Jesus would be such a weak & bloody mess that they’d have to carry him around on a stretcher, and tell everyone to shut up and gather close so they could hear Jesus quietly & painfully moan that He is risen. It would not at all portray any type of triumphant conquering (of death). And do these people forget that everyone turned on Him and spit on Him for letting Himself get arrested? The reaction to a Jesus within an inch of his life would be more like someone put that false prophet out of his misery!

And it’s a double dose of absurdity. First they’re claiming that Rome botched a crucifixion and that Jesus must have held his breath long enough to fake his asphyxiation death. But second, how can someone then believe that you won’t shortly die (very shortly) if somehow you survived it? I mean do they not think about what CRUCIFIXION was lol?

What is the timestamp in the video where apparent death theory is proposed?

createdtoworship · Apr 12, 2020

ToddNotTodd said:
Take a poll on this site. Ask if anyone has changed their minds on whether the shroud is genuine based on your recent posts.

Dare ya...

Sir on this side of the thread most Christians don't even venture. The majority is in the christian onlY section. They don't like you guys mocking them. So only the christians that are ok with being mocked are typically on the outreach section. So to answer your challenge. I would have to create another thread in the christian only section, and point it here, but I don't think rules allow it. But all of your allegations did not withstand scrutiny. I simply don't see technology available in 1200 to make this type of forgery. But if you challenge that idea go ahead and prove it. But you wont, so I guess it was fun while it lasted. Take care sir.

Jok · Apr 12, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
What is the timestamp in the video where apparent death theory is proposed?

I think you just exposed me as the guilty OP derailment guy who didn’t watch the video lol. I gotta do a better job at not just commenting on the first random post that I notice. I noticed my mistake afterwards and thought I got away with it lol

ToddNotTodd · Apr 12, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Sir on this side of the thread most Christians don't even venture. The majority is in the christian onlY section. They don't like you guys mocking them. So only the christians that are ok with being mocked are typically on the outreach section. So to answer your challenge. I would have to create another thread in the christian only section, and point it here, but I don't think rules allow it. But all of your allegations did not withstand scrutiny. I simply don't see technology available in 1200 to make this type of forgery. But if you challenge that idea go ahead and prove it. But you wont, so I guess it was fun while it lasted. Take care sir.

What a cop out. There’s nothing stopping you from creating a poll in this section, where both Christians and non Christians post. You said yourself that the shroud is a reason for anyone to believe in the authenticity of Jesus. That would include non Christians. So the poll wouldn’t only pertain to the multitude of Christians that don’t believe the shroud is genuine.

The only thing stopping you is that we both know what the outcome would be.

And since you’re the one putting forth the position that the shroud is genuine, the burden of proof is on you to show that it’s impossible for it to be a forgery.

Arguments from incredulity don’t cut it...

Proof of the existence of Christ

In the grip of grace

Newbie

In the grip of grace

The Librarian

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

Iconoclast

Iconoclast

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Infectious idea

John 3:16

John 3:16

Iconoclast

Iconoclast

Infectious idea

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

Iconoclast

Similar threads