Thread 17996233

If they re-did the carbon dating on the shroud of Turin and it came out to be 2000 years old would that convince you to convert to Christianity?

>>17996233 (OP)
I already did before I knew about the Shroud

The wounds on the figure are not crucifixion wounds, they are compatible with a medieval artistic depiction of the crucifixion.(1)
It's a fake, period.
>(1) Nickell, Joe (2018). "Crucifixion Evidence Debunks Turin 'Shroud'". Skeptical Inquirer. 42 (5): 7

>>17996233 (OP)
That's a good question. Maybe. It depends on what the findings are aside from the date. If the imprint turned out to be beyond a shadow of a doubt miraculous I would convert.

He walked amongst them, performed miracles, and conquered death
Yet they still refused.

It was never a matter of evidence
It's a matter of pride

To recognize that Jesus is God is to recognize that his judgment is right
And his judgment is that we are all failures and we have to do his way

This is something that the proud ones can never accept

>>17996233 (OP)
No, I know Jesus is real, I just don't agree with him

I'll accept Jesus was real and maybe if I was Jewish I might even accept him as my Messiah. But under no circumstances will I convert as a goyim to a religion who's founder is quoted IN THEIR HOLY BOOK as saying he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel. Paul's reversals of core doctrines notwithstanding, it's clear Christianity was meant to be a type of Reformed Judaism and not a religion for people besides Jews.

>>17996267
Jesus was a pedophile.
>Every one of Jesus’ apostles besides Peter was underage (neaniskos is the Greek word used)
>When a woman questions why he hangs out with kids he says “don’t scandalize me”
>Tells these boys he will make them “fishers of men”
>Goes into upper rooms and washes their feet while naked
>Tells them to “eat his flesh and drink his haima” (if you think this means “blood” here, see Ezekiel 23:20)
>Is arrested in a public park at 4am with a naked boy (see Mark 14:51-52)
>When the cops show up he says “why do you come for me with swords and clubs like I’m some kind of leistes”
>The word leistes, which gets translated as “thief” is actually “pirate” and was used in contemporary texts (many examples such as Lucian’s Alexander) to refer to sex traffickers
>Sex trafficking was a big problem in the Mediterranean and one of the big things the Romans did was crack down on the pedo pirates. Julius Caesar himself was kidnapped by them as a kid and afterwards had them all crucified
>Jesus Christ was in fact crucified between two other leistes
There's a reason Jesus's "Most Beloved Disciple" is always depicted as a beardless boy whereas the rest of his followers had beards. Dude liked em young.

>>17996576
lmao butthurt muzzie

Maybe if I was some superstitious grandma.

You need a relic to have faith?

>>17996233 (OP)
No because the shroud isn't described anywhere in tge bible like the shroud of turin

Every serious historian already accepts that Jesus was a real historical person. The question is the resurrection not his basic existence. The shroud having his blood on it wouldn't prove he rose from the dead.

To be frank, probably not. Even if the fabric dated to ~1st century CE, there’d still be disagreement about whether the image was actually formed at the correct time, and whether it matches burial practices described in the Gospels. Scholars, theologians, and skeptics would continue to debate interpretation.

It doesnt matter if its real, jesus its not the messiah, and he didnt perform any miracles or exorcisms because none of them are real. Its all just mythology.

>>17996267
>performed miracles, and conquered death
Do I think this is true?

it is stupid to convert because some person existed in history
only philosopical and theological debates will prove
Abrahamics miserably fail in that

>>17996267
BTW, this is low IQ cope to deal with the fact that there is no actual evidence and your religion isn't true.

>>17996577
he's a yid or fecaloid
I've never met a Muslim who disrespects either Jesus or Mary

Would I become Jewish if an amateurish illustration of Jesus was contemporary to the subject? Why the fuck would I? I guess that would make it a more impressive idol given that ancient Jews were talentless compared to Gothic artists, but hardly miraculous.

It's so incredibly telling when *this* is the best you got (and it's fake)

>>17996233 (OP)
No. I choose to be christian, because it is the right thing to do. Some old crusty rag from 2000 years ago has nothing to do with my ability to know that crucifying a man for claiming to be equal to God is wrong.

>>17997152
Why do you think being Christian is the "right thing to do"? Why not Islam/Judaism/Buddhism/Hinduism/Sikhism/Jainism/Daoism/Confucianism/Shintoism/Mormonism/JWism/Zoroastrianism?

Have you even researched these religions or did you just choose the religion your parents or society had?

Btw, how do you know you picked the RIGHT version of Christianity, even if we are extremely charitable to your position and posit that Christianity is true?

>>17996267
>It was never a matter of evidence
The only evidence that Jesus existed is the bible. Why should i trust that? I don’t believe spider man is real because someone wrote a book about him

>>17997254
>think
I dont "think" it is the right thing to do. I know it is, by definition. I dont need to learn a bunch of other languages (your list of religions) in order to know that my experiments are working and make sense. The bible is a dictionary. It defines the terms. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and Jesus is the salvation of God. The framework all fits logically within the theology. Go study the nomenclature if you want to understand it. You go learn one of your other languages, and enjoy where they take you.

>>17997270
>You go learn
*or go learn

>>17997270
Jesus said he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel. Are you of the chosen people?

>>17997264
The only evidence of every ancient person ever is random scribbles.
If you want to reject Jesus, you also have to reject every ancient figure ever

>>17996945
What is a woman

>>17996233 (OP)
Given all of the evidence we have, the Shroud of Turin being 2000 years old is so unlikely that I would more likely take it to be the case that there was an error in the carbon daring.
Direct religious experience could convert me, but not so much one scientific data point.

>>17997899
I literally can't stop thinking about trannies

If they re-did the carbon dating on the shroud of Turin and it came out to be 700 years old (again) would that convince you to convert to Atheism?

>>17997877
>If you want to reject Jesus
people reject Jesus performing miracles and being god
>you also have to reject every ancient figure ever
Historical sources describing supernatural or otherwise science defying persons/events are rejected for the same reason

>>17998064
Read your own post
>he cannot be real because he does miracles
>if he doesn't do miracles, then he cannot be God

You have already made your decision to reject God. You just want to add some excuse to it

>>17998071
>he cannot be real because he does miracles
he was most probably a real person, but there is no more reason to believe in his supernatural deeds than believing in dragons because of some ancient chinese text describing them

>>17998089
If he is incapable of supernatural, he cannot be God.

Again, you have already made your decision to reject God. You just want an excuse to justify it

>>17997264
there are extra-biblical writings of a "wise man traveling and preaching by the name of 'Jesus'".

Look it up.

>>17998089
dragons could have very well been real.

>>17996615
It helps unlike your dishonesty

>>17996233 (OP)
It would help immensely for us moderns if a miracle working saint or Pope would clarify the truth about Genesis 1-12. If it is largely metaphorical because people back then were too primitive to understand the real creation and origin of sin then a commentary on Genesis inspired by God by this saint/Pope would help the faith of many.

>>17996233 (OP)
I’m a Christian and even I think the Shroud of Turin is absolute bullshit. Carbon date it again, and if it is 2000 years old, that would give it more credibility, but that still isn’t good enough. It needs to be proven that it wasn’t a painting, stained, or some other artistic method that was available at the time. Unless you can somehow definitively prove that crazy theory about it being a highly concentrated rapid burst of extremely intense light, then the shroud means fuck all.

>>17996233 (OP)
No, why would it?
>Well, you see, if Jesus's burial shroud has an image of him and we can't explain how it was made, that means that like, it was a miracle, which in turn proves that everything in the Bible about him walking on water and rising from the dead and being the Son of God who will judge the world in the end times is true
I don't really see the chain of reasoning that gets us from A to B when there are so many other possibilities. What if the shroud is authentic but the image was added later by some unknown yet natural process? What if it was magic but not divine, like it was made by fairies or something? In my view, that hypothesis is no less fanciful than the one you want me to accept. Finally, what if Jesus did a bunch of godly miracles, but what we call Christianity is a misrepresentation of his true teachings? To put it simply, a piece of cloth can't prove Christianity.

>>17996446
>and not a religion for people besides Jews.
According to Catholicism (Universal) the Jewish religion was already beginning to be spread to the gentiles in the times of King Solomon but he didn't fully live up to his task so that was delayed until the time of the Messiah.

>>17996233 (OP)
Probably not. If I wanted to larp as a jew I'd just skip the middle man and go straight for Judaism.

>>17996233 (OP)
If I carbon tasted the dried cum on L Ron Hubbard's occult sex paraphernalia, would you convert?

>>17998566
Relics help you have faith?

>>17996233 (OP)
I've read that it might be a gnostic forgery from the 1-2nd century, not sure if I believe it though.
https://www.amazon.com/Search-Shroud-Turin-History-Origins/dp/0847673499

>>17996233 (OP)
No. The book of Genesis, especially chapters 1 to 11, is incredibly wrong according to our current understanding of physics, genetics and biology. It also contains numerous internal contradictions, for example, the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Girgashites, and Jebusites are listed in Deuteronomy 7:1 as distinct nations from the Canaanites, yet in Genesis 10:15-18 they are described as descendants of Canaan, and therefore Canaanites; as well as many anachronisms, such as the city of Dan being mentioned in Genesis 14:14 centuries before the tribe of Dan conquered Laish and renamed it as such. Additionally, it is replete with blatant Jewish narcissim.

I could imagine converting to Christianity if its core text were the New Testament, with its vague creation story that is easily amenable to reinterpretation, but Genesis is obviously wrong. Even then, I likely still wouldn’t convert, since the New Testament is filled with the same Jewish narcissistic views, e.g. for John 4:22, as the Old Testament, which is certainly not something the Creator of the entire universe would inspire.

>>17996233 (OP)
No? I don't doubt anything in the bible, but to me they are just layers and layers of exagerations and interpretations. This confirming Jesus existed doesn't affect my opinion of it that much

>>17996576
>be jewish
>be pedophile
Hard to believe desu

>>17997877
>If you want to reject Jesus, you also have to reject every ancient figure ever
No, because such people have evidence of their existence. Multiple writers mention them, they show up in records/family trees, and their activities are well recorded.

Jesus has none of these. Jesus has dubious unoriginal manuscripts written hundred+ years after Jesus had died by anonymous strangers. He doesn't show up anywhere else (no, Christian scribes corrupting manuscripts does not count) and no one has seemed to of met him ever.

>>17998273
>there are extra-biblical writings of a "wise man traveling and preaching by the name of 'Jesus'".
Deboonked: Christ cucks meant to copy down manuscripts slipped in a vauge reference to John the Baptist which they used to being Jesus up out of nowhere in a document he has no place being.

If they re-did the carbon dating on the shroud of Turin and it came out to be 700 years old (again) would that convince you to convert to Atheism?

>>17998273
Liars burn in hell fire anon. Post these sources, repent or burn. Your choice.

>>17996233 (OP)
>the followers of an ancient religious leader preserved his burial shroud (but made it look medieval for some reason)
interesting story which would rewrite a lot of what we know about both early Christianity and the history of textiles, but I still don't get how that would make Christianity true?

If they re-did the carbon dating on the shroud of Turin and it came out to be 700 years old (again) would that convince you to convert to Atheism?

>>17999144
Haha no.
We have entire kings, wars, and even seas from the Welsh and France that vanished
The only evidence we have of them is random manuscripts
Just look up Cambrian Chronicles.

History, as you know it, never existed until the 1700's