You’re right, Doc. According to his wikipedia article, Publius Quinctilius Varus he crucified 2000 Jewish rebels in 4 BC. When the rebels with Spartacus were put down in 71 BC, more than 11,000 were crucified. There were no shortage of bodies that had been crucified by the Romans.
Although no one has said it explicitly, I’m pretty sure that the match is supposed to be to the flogging, crown of thorns and the spear wound in the side that are mentioned in the different gospels. Although the gospels agree on basics, each has a detail or two that is not present in the others. I think it’s John that includes the spear thrust and the wound that bleeds blood and water.
Doc, no one said the crucifixion is rare , in fact I agree that it’s very common but it was the way that Jesus and the man on the shroud were crucified.
There is no one in recorded history that was crucified with a cap of thorns .
Remember also that in the messianic prophecies that no bone of the messiah would be broken as prophecies in the Old Testament , and just as the gospels say no bone is found broken on the man of the shroud anywhere on his body.
Remember also that there is xray information encoded into the areas of the left femur, hands, wrists, jaw, gums and teeth.
I wonder if anyone in the first century was carrying an xray machine back then
Let’s be clear here. You said we have better evidence for Jesus’s existence than Alexander’s existence. I showed you that your claim is false. You replied not in a relevant way, but instead by explaining why in fact we have (contrary to what you’d originally said) better evidence for Alexander than for Jesus.
What you need to have done instead was to say either “oops, yes, you are right and I was wrong, and I will not use this ‘we have better evidence for jesus than alexander’ argument again,” or else show (in light of what I said) that your original claim was nevertheless true.
Doc that’s not what I was saying . What is said is that no person in recorded history was crucified like Jesus and the man of the shroud .
Did I lie ?
If so show me one person that was and I’ll admit I’m wrong.
Now u want individual records ? Lololol
Now ur being irrational .
Read what I said
If you believe that it wasn’t unique then u should have no problem finding at least one example of it even being talked about . They did indeed talk about the different kinda of ways they crucified them , then finding this kind of crucifixion should be a snap.
What’s next , I know, your going to ask for a drivers license is right to match the animal he rode into the city on.
No it’s not up to me to prove it , just to give evidence towards it ,and I have . If yoir making the claim that the crown if thorns crucifixion was common then show us an example , if not then historically we assume that it wasn’t common since no one in recorded history ever talked about it.
Historical proof isn’t scientific proof , you shoud know this
And your claim that I’m usually wromg is unsubstantiated since I just came to the forum and no I am not usually wrong when it comes to the shroud and u haven’t even showed that .
Maybe if I was a fellow atheist I definately would t be wrong often would I
You have great faith my friend ,see that’s something we both have in common
They assume he existed because of the third-party, hearsay references to him. And yes, there are a bunch of those references; they are operating on the smoke/fire concept, methinks.
But has been pointed out, there is no hard evidence of his existence. There is absolutely nothing contemporary about him. If he had existed and been able to do the things attributed to him, that would have been a BIG deal and somebody, somewhere would have commented on it. There is nothing. People wrote about gladiators who won or died in the arena, but there is not one word about someone who could bring back the dead.
My personal opinion is that there might have been a Jewish rabbi named Jesus (Yeshua) that is the root of the mythology. He might even have been the Jewish king for all we know. But that’s all he would have been; no supernatural woo involved.
Your quoting Walter " I couldmt get it passed through peer review so I published in my own magazine where I am the owner and editor if “” Mccrone ?
Are we talking about same Walter mccrone or a different one .
Or are we talking one of the top blood chemists in the world Alan Adler who through his peer reviewed blood
““Alan Adler, an expert on porphyrins, the types of colored compounds seen in blood, chlorophyll, and many other natural products concluded that the blood is real. In collaboration with John Heller, the conclusions that the blood is real was published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Applied Optics (also 1980). The heme was converted into its parent porphyrin, and this was confirmed with spectral analysis.””
""Various chemical tests by E. J. Jumper, A. D. Adler, J. P. Jackson, S. F. Pellicori, J. H. Heller, and J. R. Druzik are documented in a peer-reviewed scientific papter “A comprehensive examination of the various stains and images on the Shroud of Turin,” ACS Advances in Chemistry, Archaeological Chemistry (1984)
Other analysis by J. H. Heller and A. D. Adler in “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin,” Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal and by L. A. Schwalbe and R. N. Rogers, Analytica Chimica Acta (1982)“”
As for your statement that if it is a medieval creation wouldn’t it also match the gospels, please show me medieval artwork that shows Christ with nails through the wrist and not the hand ? Please show me medieval art with Christ having a miser of thorns on his head instead of a crown ?
I’ll take peer reviewed hard chemical evidence any day over the non peer reviewed opinion of someone whose opinions couldn’t even be confirmed , but are going to believe the peer reviewed blood chemical work? Of course not . Now the question u need to ask urself is why?if you want to deny it be my guest but u surely are abandoning science to do so?
Why?
As fir my statement that there is no one in ancient recorded history as being crucified as jesus and the man of the shroud is , yes it’s a fact . I didn’t say that there couldn’t be be anyone rant has ever been crucified this way. I said in recorded history .
Now ur job would be to find one
I have looked for 5+ years and I am OCD like in my research
If you can find one that’s a point in your favor , and you will make history and you will probably be included in a peer reviewed historic journal .
Just pretend your researching it and find atom of evidence supporting atheism . I guarantee your skepticism will not be as extreme as it is here .
Using Walter mccrone’s work isn’t very scientific .
Ok cool, God bless you , and I’m an inclusivist Catholic so I respect all religious beliefs as with inclusivism as lomg as you seek God with all yoir heart you can be saved even if your not a Christain. For some reason I thought u were an atheist so I apologize fir my error .
Here is the Schwortz video
He believes in the authenticity of the shroud and is still an or gnosis Jew so what’s the problem .
Again there is a reason almost all New Testament experts agree on the existence of Jesus . Again I point out that this was a very small sect of Judaism and the fact that there are quite a few secular accounts if him , especially by Josephus is amazing for how small Christianity was at that time. This is why almost all scholars whether atheist , agnostic or Christian believes this.
Your forgetting , that most if not all the known world never heard of him , now if you want to side on the side of fringe history that is ok as it’s your free will opinion .
But it’s nit how scholars do their history my friend . I’ll stick with the experts
To each their own
god bless
Irishman also you are referring to the Luigi replica . Did you even bother trying to debunk that replica because if you had actually spent a few minutes you would have seen that it was debunked a long time ago and is no longer viewed as any serious replica as it didn’t duplicate many of the shroud’s unique characteristics including true 3 d spatial information encoded.
The first thing that disqualifies this replica by itself is the fact that Luigi put the image first then had the blood put over it . Even Luigi himself the guy who tried to replicate the shroud admits to this .
There are many other debatable claims in the Italian paper of L.G. that will not be discussed here, except, briefly, the question of the blood. L.G… wrote: “I have absolutely not tackled the problem of blood stains (…)” (personal communication). At least, it should have been interesting to try to know why and how the artist could have painted the “blood” before the image (it is proved that there is no image color under the blood) and how one could explain the presence of a fluorescent halo (not seen with the naked eyes) around his “blood stains”. (“The stains are not fluorescent and have no halo” L.G., personal communication).“”"
This is only one if amongst many problems that Luigi couldn’t deal with. This is why your claim that it’s been replicated fails on so many accounts including his inability to deal with the blood coming on first.
I stand by my claim that no 21st century scientist has replicated the shroud.
Irishman do u admit this or do u want to take another crack at it?
My response to doc
""He believes in the authenticity of the shroud and is still an or gnosis Jew so what’s the problem “”
Should have been ""He believes in the authenticity of the shroud and is still an orthodox Jew so what’s the problem “”
