Crosswords1 min ago
Who was Jesus?
130 Answers
Any idea?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro - “... why would anyone want to protect a blood-stained piece of linen if it belong to an anonymous person?”
This is circular reasoning. What you are saying is that the shroud must be the image of Christ because the shroud is protected. Why is the shroud protected? Because is bears the image of Christ. And round and round we go...
This is circular reasoning. What you are saying is that the shroud must be the image of Christ because the shroud is protected. Why is the shroud protected? Because is bears the image of Christ. And round and round we go...
Temper, temper, Khandro.
My views are not getting in the way of anything. If you have read so much about this shroud as you claim then you will know that there is a huge amount of debate in the scientific community about whether or not the shroud is genuine. Swearing at those of us who have yet to be convinced doesn't strengthen your argument.
My views are not getting in the way of anything. If you have read so much about this shroud as you claim then you will know that there is a huge amount of debate in the scientific community about whether or not the shroud is genuine. Swearing at those of us who have yet to be convinced doesn't strengthen your argument.
From wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
“... Scientific and popular publications have presented diverse arguments for both authenticity and possible methods of forgery... The shroud is one of the most studied artefacts in human history, and one of the most controversial...”
Hmmm. Hardly what one would call 'historical fact' then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
“... Scientific and popular publications have presented diverse arguments for both authenticity and possible methods of forgery... The shroud is one of the most studied artefacts in human history, and one of the most controversial...”
Hmmm. Hardly what one would call 'historical fact' then?
Sorry for the hiatus but I was away for a day or two.
I have bored veterans of this site stiff with my analyses as to why there is no historical evidence for the existence of the NT Jesus. Rather than continue that line I think it's best to shift the onus onto those who - rather than just believe the Jesus story as a matter of faith, which is fair enough - claim that it has historical authenticity.
Where is the evidence? I know the stories; I have heard the speculation many times. Where is the evidence?
Starting from the fact that there is not a trace of Jesus during the time he is supposed to have lived, that there are no eye- or ear-witness accounts of anything he is supposed to have done or said; that the only people who first wrote about him never knew him and were writing years after the supposed events - where is the evidence?
(The Turin shroud deserves a separate thread, I think. I'll start one.)
I have bored veterans of this site stiff with my analyses as to why there is no historical evidence for the existence of the NT Jesus. Rather than continue that line I think it's best to shift the onus onto those who - rather than just believe the Jesus story as a matter of faith, which is fair enough - claim that it has historical authenticity.
Where is the evidence? I know the stories; I have heard the speculation many times. Where is the evidence?
Starting from the fact that there is not a trace of Jesus during the time he is supposed to have lived, that there are no eye- or ear-witness accounts of anything he is supposed to have done or said; that the only people who first wrote about him never knew him and were writing years after the supposed events - where is the evidence?
(The Turin shroud deserves a separate thread, I think. I'll start one.)
Thing is Khandro it's only a duck if you look at the evidence on both sides for and against.
A duck-billed platypus looks like a duck if you only look at the Bill and the eggs.
And you're only looking at the bill and the eggs aren't you?
For example there's a lot of really good negative criticism on that pollen evidence, and you seem to have rather ignored that.
A duck-billed platypus looks like a duck if you only look at the Bill and the eggs.
And you're only looking at the bill and the eggs aren't you?
For example there's a lot of really good negative criticism on that pollen evidence, and you seem to have rather ignored that.
But Jake, The platypus doesn't WALK like a duck :0) Can you quote me that negative evidence on the pollen, I am referring to the work done in 1973 by the Swiss botanist and forensic scientist, Dr Max Frei, using an electron microscope.
Jom. you seem to be completely missing the point that the Vatican doesn't want it's authenticity to be to be proven scientifically; the entire structure of Christianity is based on the fact that Jesus died on the cross.
Jom. you seem to be completely missing the point that the Vatican doesn't want it's authenticity to be to be proven scientifically; the entire structure of Christianity is based on the fact that Jesus died on the cross.
Khandro, I don't believe that I am missing any point, whether or not the shroud had blood sweat or tears one it, even if they were somehow proven to be from christ does not prove that he did not die from the wounds received during the crucifixion. There are many possibilities and combinations of possibilities some more probable than others. Possibilities are not probablities and also not certainties. People see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe, they do not change the facts especially not retrospectively.
All that the pollen can prove is that the shroud did or didn't come from an are with a similar flora to that of the area and at the time where and when Jesus died (allegedly). A lot of material has been brought to Europe from the holy land and elsewhere, it isn't all of necessity connected to jesus.
The question is ‘Who was Jesus?’
This is just a thought, but could he have been the rightful heir to the throne of Israel?
The evidence (if we can call it that) strongly suggests that he wasn’t supernatural (his own family questioned his sanity – and if anyone should have known he was the Son of God, and therefore possibly a bit ‘odd’, they surely would). Furthermore, as a Jew, he told his followers to ‘keep the law’, which would strongly suggest he had no intention of founding a new religion (Christianity).
Of course, the biblical accounts of specific events in the life of Jesus differ, and dates cannot be relied upon to coincide with recorded history (if they could, Mary would have been pregnant for about 10 years) but I think it would be incredible if we could actually discover who this man really was - and this is just something to think about. Have a look at some of the ‘evidence’ – and at some of the ensuing unanswered questions.
1 The people awaited a ‘Messiah’ (meaning ‘anointed one’), born of the House of David, to lead them in ridding their land of Roman occupation.
2 Joseph was a direct descendent of the House of David – his lineage is recorded twice in the gospels (although the accounts differ in places). However, if Joseph wasn’t the father of Jesus, his genealogy would have had no connection with his step-son whatsoever, so why did the writers bother to record it?
3 Wise men from the East (we don’t know how many there were) came shortly after the birth of Jesus – to visit the child born ‘King of the Jews’.
4 Upon hearing a king had been born, in order to protect his throne (to which he had no genuine claim), Herod slaughtered all male children under the age of 2, and Joseph’s family fled into Egypt (well at least in one account).
5 The bible says nothing of Jesus’ life from the age of 12 until just before he began his ‘Ministry’, it is presumed at around age 30. What was he doing for all those years? Possibly away receiving an education from the ‘wise men’?
6 Jesus was crucified by the Romans on a charge of insurrection – in other words he was a troublemaker. (The gospels record that he told his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords, suggesting he wasn’t the Prince of Peace as we’re led to believe).
7 The sign the Romans nailed to the cross read ‘Jesus of Nazareth - King of the Jews’ – a phrase that recurs from birth to death.
8 Did he die? Doubtful. Crucifixion resulted in a long and torturous death, often lasting many days, but Jesus was on the cross for just a few hours – and although it was customary for the Romans to break the legs of the victim to hurry death along, Jesus was spared that agony. In fact, when his rich friends went to Pilate to ask if they could take ‘the body’ away, Pilate was surprised that Jesus had died so quickly. Were the Roman soldiers bribed?
9 As has already been mentioned here, rumour has it that Jesus spent his remaining days in India. Maybe he found sanctuary with his mentors, the Wise Men from the East, eh?
This theory has been proposed before – in a book, the name of which escapes me at the moment – but it’s on my shelf somewhere. I doubt we’ll ever know the truth, and there are always going to be suppositions and ‘maybes’, but personally, I think Jesus the man existed, and I think it possible that he was, indeed, the rightful King of the Jews. What do you think? Any sleuths out there?
This is just a thought, but could he have been the rightful heir to the throne of Israel?
The evidence (if we can call it that) strongly suggests that he wasn’t supernatural (his own family questioned his sanity – and if anyone should have known he was the Son of God, and therefore possibly a bit ‘odd’, they surely would). Furthermore, as a Jew, he told his followers to ‘keep the law’, which would strongly suggest he had no intention of founding a new religion (Christianity).
Of course, the biblical accounts of specific events in the life of Jesus differ, and dates cannot be relied upon to coincide with recorded history (if they could, Mary would have been pregnant for about 10 years) but I think it would be incredible if we could actually discover who this man really was - and this is just something to think about. Have a look at some of the ‘evidence’ – and at some of the ensuing unanswered questions.
1 The people awaited a ‘Messiah’ (meaning ‘anointed one’), born of the House of David, to lead them in ridding their land of Roman occupation.
2 Joseph was a direct descendent of the House of David – his lineage is recorded twice in the gospels (although the accounts differ in places). However, if Joseph wasn’t the father of Jesus, his genealogy would have had no connection with his step-son whatsoever, so why did the writers bother to record it?
3 Wise men from the East (we don’t know how many there were) came shortly after the birth of Jesus – to visit the child born ‘King of the Jews’.
4 Upon hearing a king had been born, in order to protect his throne (to which he had no genuine claim), Herod slaughtered all male children under the age of 2, and Joseph’s family fled into Egypt (well at least in one account).
5 The bible says nothing of Jesus’ life from the age of 12 until just before he began his ‘Ministry’, it is presumed at around age 30. What was he doing for all those years? Possibly away receiving an education from the ‘wise men’?
6 Jesus was crucified by the Romans on a charge of insurrection – in other words he was a troublemaker. (The gospels record that he told his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords, suggesting he wasn’t the Prince of Peace as we’re led to believe).
7 The sign the Romans nailed to the cross read ‘Jesus of Nazareth - King of the Jews’ – a phrase that recurs from birth to death.
8 Did he die? Doubtful. Crucifixion resulted in a long and torturous death, often lasting many days, but Jesus was on the cross for just a few hours – and although it was customary for the Romans to break the legs of the victim to hurry death along, Jesus was spared that agony. In fact, when his rich friends went to Pilate to ask if they could take ‘the body’ away, Pilate was surprised that Jesus had died so quickly. Were the Roman soldiers bribed?
9 As has already been mentioned here, rumour has it that Jesus spent his remaining days in India. Maybe he found sanctuary with his mentors, the Wise Men from the East, eh?
This theory has been proposed before – in a book, the name of which escapes me at the moment – but it’s on my shelf somewhere. I doubt we’ll ever know the truth, and there are always going to be suppositions and ‘maybes’, but personally, I think Jesus the man existed, and I think it possible that he was, indeed, the rightful King of the Jews. What do you think? Any sleuths out there?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank9 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
