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?
>>17996233I 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
>>17996233That'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 deathYet they still refused.It was never a matter of evidenceIt's a matter of prideTo recognize that Jesus is God is to recognize that his judgment is rightAnd his judgment is that we are all failures and we have to do his wayThis is something that the proud ones can never accept
>>17996233No, 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.
>>17996267Jesus 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 leistesThere'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.
>>17996576lmao butthurt muzzie
Maybe if I was some superstitious grandma.
You need a relic to have faith?
>>17996233No 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 deathDo 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
>>17996267BTW, this is low IQ cope to deal with the fact that there is no actual evidence and your religion isn't true.
>>17996577he's a yid or fecaloidI'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)
>>17996233No. 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.
>>17997152Why 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 evidenceThe 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>thinkI 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
>>17997270Jesus said he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel. Are you of the chosen people?
>>17997264The 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
>>17996945What is a woman
>>17996233Given 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.
>>17997899I 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 Jesuspeople 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
>>17998064Read your own post>he cannot be real because he does miracles>if he doesn't do miracles, then he cannot be GodYou 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 miracleshe 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
>>17998089If 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
>>17997264there are extra-biblical writings of a "wise man traveling and preaching by the name of 'Jesus'".Look it up.
>>17998089dragons could have very well been real.
>>17996615It helps unlike your dishonesty
>>17996233It 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.
>>17996233I’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.
>>17996233No, 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 trueI 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.
>>17996233Probably not. If I wanted to larp as a jew I'd just skip the middle man and go straight for Judaism.
>>17996233If I carbon tasted the dried cum on L Ron Hubbard's occult sex paraphernalia, would you convert?
>>17998566Relics help you have faith?
>>17996233I'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
>>17996233No. 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.
>>17996233No? 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 pedophileHard to believe desu
>>17997877>If you want to reject Jesus, you also have to reject every ancient figure everNo, 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.
>>17998273Liars burn in hell fire anon. Post these sources, repent or burn. Your choice.
>>17996233>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?
>>17999144Haha no.We have entire kings, wars, and even seas from the Welsh and France that vanishedThe only evidence we have of them is random manuscriptsJust look up Cambrian Chronicles.History, as you know it, never existed until the 1700's
>>17998596>God was gonna do something but failed because the man he knit in the womb and predestined to do something failed to do the thing.Omnipotent? Perhapa not.
My faith is not based on a piece of cloth. My faith is based on the teachings in the bible
THE CLOTH OF JESUS I YIELD I YIELD
>>17996233Religion isn't above demonstrable evidence. Its about personal experience, something atheists can't experience because their brains are wired differently. The phenomena and noumena are separated in their perception.
>>17997877>The only evidence of every ancient person ever is random scribbles. Yeah and we don't blindly believe everything they say about other people either, even when they don't involve miracles. Or do you believe everything that was written about Muhammad and the Buddha as well? The fact is most Christians give the gospels a benefit of the doubt they would not afford to other sources.
>>18000542The Bible was originally written on clothCheck mate
>>18000558Who said that we blindly believe?The very concept of "Objective Truth" comes from Christian philosophy. Before that, everything is whatever the gods wish. Hence why you get treatments like gladiator's sweat, hand of a hanged criminal, and spells carved on lead tablets.It was Christianity that started the concept of a fundamental truth based on its belief that God is the God of Truth and order. He enforces his rule, and even his adversaries are forced to follow it. If something works, it must have a fundamental element to it that can also be done in another way. Trying to figure out the fundamental truth is what created Alchemy and ChemistryBut to answer your question, no historian would ever argue that Jesus never existed, he died of crucifixion, and his followers are convinced that he returned back to life.Why?Because you have to explain how Christianity started, and there is no evidence that contradicts its humble and deathly funding
>>18000558Forgot to answer>Muhammad Definitely existedThe quran never mentions him performing any miracles, though.His miracles are all in the Hadith, which is basically just rumors>BuddhaDefinitely existedHowever, the oldest account of him portrays him as just an ordinary monk.Claims of supernatural abilities started sprouting 300 years after his death.He is the basic definition of a meme
>>18000555why god wired my brain to be hyllic? ;(
>>17998574Only a subset of the faithful would care about those clarifications, but the existence of such a person, proven beyond doubt, would have an immeasurable effect. I have a hard time imagining anything in Genesis as literal history.
>>18000790The concept of objective truth originates with ancient Greek philosophers like Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle who believed in truths that exist independently of human opinion or perception. This idea of a truth rooted in an objective reality that can be discovered and described through reason and observation is foundational to correspondence theories of truth. LYING SO MUCH
>>18001150Matter of fact, no, lmaoPlato was the guy who made the book asking What is Truth and it was there where he laid down the groundwork for it but he never quite got there because it concludes with "whatever the gods wish"I am not even kidding. That's really how his arguments wentA mortal's truth is not objective because one's perception is different from another'sTruth is based only on the judgment of the gods by the fact that they can see the bigger picture and the intended designBut since the gods are fickle, jealous, and ever changing....Objective Truth is from Christianity and can only come from Christianity because the basis of Truth comes from the diety.But only the Christian God is unchanging, unmade, and eternal. The Way, The Truth, and the The Life
>>18001176no, you are lying. Everyone have the fucking monotheist aspect always have that object truth. But about philosophy only greek can explain like that. This is from ai not your mexico brown can give. The fact that object truth is from greek philosophy not your jesus faggot.
>>18001176Plato believed in an objective, eternal realm of "Forms," where ultimate truths reside. For him, true knowledge was the rational apprehension of these Forms, which are independent of human consciousness. He used geometry as an example of objective truth, applying its rigor to ethical concepts like justice. LYING SO MUCH.
>>18001188Theory of Forms and Objective Reality are not the same as Objective Truth, wtf are you on?To start with, Aristotle himself criticized his own belief that, while objective truth is possible, it is only the truth if it corresponds to reality. But because humans have fallible and differing interpretations of the same reality, truth becomes a very nuancedStop flattering the Greeks so much, ladThey were never a big deal compared to Egypt and PersiaThey only got big because Rome, and in turn Christians, loved them.
>>18001190Plato believed that there are truths that exist independently of human perception and that these truths can be apprehended through proper use of reason.He used the example of geometry to show how ethics could be considered a precise and objective enterprise with impartial standards, similar to mathematical principles, as discussed in his work The Republic.His distinction between objective truths and subjective opinions became a foundational concept for Western philosophy, influencing how philosophers later approached questions of reality, truth, and existence.
>>18001202Yes, he did, and he also believed that it is almost impossible to reach because human perception is flawed and unreliableHe equated objective truth with a mythical enlightenment instead of the Christian "duh!"It is hilarious, reallyGreeks were running around trying to find a solid anchor for their philosophyBut Christians say, "We are made in his image. Therefore, anyone can have some common sense"
>>18001214so STFU AND SAY YOUR FAGGOT KIKE CREAT THAT SHIT OBJECT TRUTH. SO WHY CREAT THE FUCKING IMAGE OF GOD WHY HE HAS THAT IMAGE LIKE PEOPLE WHO CREAT THAT IMAGE FOR HIM.
>>18001220So we can understand him, duh!
>>18001220*SO WHY GOD HAS THE IMAGE OF HUMAN BODY? AND WHO CREAT THAT IMAGE FOR HIM? YOU ARE NOTHING LIKE MUSLIM OR JEW SAY THEIR GOD IS OBJECT TRUTH. NOTHING IS SPECIAL. AT LEAST PHILOSOPHY GREEK CAN THINK YOU CAN ACHIVE THE OBJECT TRUTH THROUGH REASON. YOUR FAGGOT KIKE TALK THEIR APOSTLE DON'T WASH THE FUCKING HAND WITH WATER.
>>18001222SO YOU ARE WRONG YOUR GOD DON'T CREAT ANY SHIT ABOUT OBJECT TRUTH FIRSTLY. STOP LYING. GREEK PHILOSOPHY CREAT OBJECT TRUTH FIRST BUT THEY DON'T DUMB ENOUGH TO BELIVE SOME JEW GOD IN DESERT TALK YOU DON'T WASH YOUR HAND WITH WATER. ARISTOTLE EVEN DON'T BELIEVE IN GREEK GODS.
>>18000790>The very concept of "Objective Truth" comes from Christian philosophy. Before that, everything is whatever the gods wish. Hence why you get treatments like gladiator's sweat, hand of a hanged criminal, and spells carved on lead tablets.A bunch of nonsense. People already addressed the truth claim, but Christians from their origins and even into the early modern period indulged in supersitious practices.>, no historian would ever argue that Jesus never existed, That is true. But we are not talking about existence, but miracles. >>18000794The gospels were written decades after the fact by people who never met Jesus in a language he did not speak, and include literary flourishes such as references to Homer. Critical scholars have concluded that they are literary works first and foremost rather than pure historical accounts. So I don't see why they should be given much more credit than something like the Hadiths.
