My Historian Challenge

[durangodawood]

What does Christian doctrine say about the bones of Jesus?

 

[Speedwell]

Should historians be searching for Jesus' bones?

No. It's up to archaeologists to make searches for things like that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It certainly was not shown to be a hoax!
All the real science ( read Fanti et Al points at first century real.

And the only way to make similar mark is high energy UV laser!
How was that done by hoaxers?

Only schoolboy errors by discredited AMS daters ever said any different, who failed in scientific process to check why their results were not consistent with other evidence, and they were shown up as incompetent

You are quite wrong. It was dated and the dating showed that it was definitely a hoax. And people have reproduced the work of the hoaxer.

There were no errors by the people that dated the shroud. There was dishonesty by those that could not accept the results.

Again, there is no need to worry The fact that the Shroud of Turin was a hoax does not mean that the Jesus story has been proven to be false.. Only an artifcact that was claimed to be a hoax when it was first given to the Catholic Church has been confirmed as a hoax.

 

[Mountainmike]

You don't care about science then.

How do you reconcile that other - better - science - 3 methods -put it around first century, and " beyond reasonable doubt" forensic correspondence with sudarium show it hundreds of years before.

Not least you have no idea how to fake it..

As I have said - the problem with the atheist religion, is their a priori beliefs demand it cannot be true.

So they use any nonsense in place of science, including a long discredited test.

Now please study it before you comment again, dont you dare call me wrong, when you clearly know nothing about it.

Get Fanti's book is a start.
Or won't you read science that challenges the atheist religion beliefs?

You are quite wrong. It was dated and the dating showed that it was definitely a hoax. And people have reproduced the work of the hoaxer.

There were no errors by the people that dated the shroud. There was dishonesty by those that could not accept the results.

Again, there is no need to worry The fact that the Shroud of Turin was a hoax does not mean that the Jesus story has been proven to be false.. Only an artifcact that was claimed to be a hoax when it was first given to the Catholic Church has been confirmed as a hoax.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't care about science then.

How do you reconcile that other - better - science - 3 methods -put it around first century, and " beyond reasonable doubt" forensic correspondence with sudarium show it hundreds of years before.

Not least you have no idea how to fake it..

As I have said - the problem with the atheist religion, is their a priori beliefs demand it cannot be true.

So they use any nonsense in place of science, including a long discredited test.

Now please study it before you comment again, dont you dare call me wrong, when you clearly know nothing about it.

Get Fanti's book is a start.
Or won't you read science that challenges the atheist religion beliefs?

No, I am a fan of the truth and scientific truth especially. You have not provided one bit of evidence that supports your claims. I have looked into the claims of those that still don't believe that the shroud is a hoax. I can support what I said. Can you support your claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And Mountainmike, atheists do not make any false apriori claims. At least none that I have ever seen. It appears that you are projecting your sins upon others.

 

[AV1611VET]

And Mountainmike, atheists do not make any false apriori claims.

Really?

Tell me then:

What's an "ignorant, bronze age, goat herding, desert dwelling, nomad"?

Are you willing to answer that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really?

Tell me then:

What's an "ignorant, bronze age, goat herding, desert dwelling, nomad"?

Are you willing to answer that?

It sounds like an apt description of many of the ancient Hebrews. What is false in that?

 

[joshua 1 9]

What's an "ignorant, bronze age, goat herding, desert dwelling, nomad"?

Perhaps this is a reference to Moses sense he herded his father inlaws animals (Jethro). If they think that Moses was ignorant then what does that make them in comparison? Because Moses was more wise 3500 years ago than a lot of people are today. Esp in comparison to the infidels and the revisionists.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Perhaps this is a reference to Moses sense he herded his father inlaws animals (Jethro). If they think that Moses was ignorant then what does that make them in comparison? Because Moses was more wise 3500 years ago than a lot of people are today. Esp in comparison to the infidels and the revisionists.

No, it's a reference to the fact that ancient Hebrews lived in the desert, were nomads, herded goats, lived in the Bronze Age and were, in comparison to today, ignorant. It's not that complicated.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are numerous problems with the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, from the cloth to the weird anatomy of the image, from the blood (the body should have been washed) to the face - which corresponds to medieval images of Christ, not those of earlier times.

A subject for another thread, perhaps?

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps this is a reference to Moses sense he herded his father inlaws animals (Jethro).

More like it's standard anti-Semitic science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

More like it's standard anti-Semitic science.

It's not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More like it's standard anti-Semitic science.

No, there is nothing anti-Semitic about that. All people of that time would be considered "ignorant" by today's standards.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's a reference to the fact that ancient Hebrews lived in the desert, were nomads, herded goats, lived in the Bronze Age and were, in comparison to today, ignorant. It's not that complicated.

Then why is it applied to Jews in the Promised Land as well?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then why is it applied to Jews in the Promised Land as well?

Because they were still bronze age, desert(well, -ish) dwelling, ignorant goat herders. The only thing that would change was that the majority of them lived in static semi-urban dwellings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why is it applied to Jews in the Promised Land as well?

There is no "Promised Land". That is merely a fiction. And what Jews are you talking about? Once again, all ancient peoples were "ignorant" by today's standards.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not.

Noooo, of course not.

Tell me, are the Jews back in their homeland today because of fulfilled prophecy?

If not, should we expect them to go back into captivity, since the Bible predicts they will be brought back from captivity before the return of the LORD?

If science says there is no such thing as fulfilled prophecy, then should we Christians believe there's no such thing as fulfilled prophecy?

Better yet, since you say science isn't anti-Semitic, let me ask this:

Is that real estate that the Jews are currently living on promised to them from God?

If it is, why do atheists say there is no God?

If it isn't, should that real estate be given back to their "rightful owners"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Noooo, of course not.

Tell me, are the Jews back in their homeland today because of fulfilled prophecy?

If not, should we expect them to go back into captivity, since the Bible predicts they will be brought back from captivity before the return of the LORD?

If science says there is no such thing as fulfilled prophecy, then should we Christians believe there's no such thing as fulfilled prophecy?

Better yet, since you say science isn't anti-Semitic, let me ask this:

Is that real estate that the Jews are currently living on promised to them from God?

If it is, why do atheists say there is no God?

If it isn't, should that real estate be given back to their "rightful owners"?

It's not anti-Semitic.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, there is nothing anti-Semitic about that. All people of that time would be considered "ignorant" by today's standards.

Are you ignorant by tomorrow's standards?

If so, what's with calling them ignorant?