Snipping to the topic...
otseng wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:33 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 7:44 am
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:55 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:41 pm
My point is that one can doubt the shroud represents Jesus, but still consider him a half god.
Can you point to any Christian doctrine that states Jesus was a "half god"? Who believes Jesus was a "half god"? Evidence please, otherwise it's just another baseless opinion.
In the human species, at least during the time in question, a pregnancy occurs when a female is empregnated by a male. In the Christian story, God empregnates Mary, thereby producing a half human / half god hybrid.
Again, it's just your personal unsupported opinion since
you have not provided any reference.
I'm content in having the observer decide if my comment is an accurate take on the biblical tale.
otseng wrote:
C'mon, you attack fundamentalist Christians all the time about them not providing evidence and backing up their claims. Why do you fail to do what you continually demand others to do?
I've repeatedly said I do not know how the shroud came to be. I simply point out the following facts for consideration...
1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
otseng wrote:
JK wrote:
I've merely pointed out that the blood and image on the shroud can't be confirmed as belonging to a half human / half god hybrid as related in biblical tales.
It's not pointing out anything. It's you stating your
opinion on something. More than that, it's simply ranting by the sheer number of times you've stated this opinion.
I stand by the three facts I've presented. That you find these facts to be "opinions" is indicative of your faulty thinking on this matter.
otseng wrote:
JK wrote:
I do not know, nor have any means to confirm who, or what, is involved in the shroud image. I can only maintain that it does strike a human appearance.
We agree it was a human involved.
I accept it's most probably human, while maintaining I can't confirm it to be.
otseng wrote:
But I maintain it is Jesus and you do not. So, you have to provide the evidence why it's not Jesus. Otherwise, you have no justification for it being someone other than Jesus.
I merely noted it has not been confirmed to be Jesus. That's different than claiming it ain't.
otseng wrote:
JK wrote:
My argument, as I've said over and over, is...
1. There's no confirmed record of a human / god hybrid ever producing viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been confirmed as belonging to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been confirmed as belonging to the human / god hybrid in question.
More ranting.
We've gone from these facts being "silly claims", to "irrelevant", and now we're at "ranting".
I'm content having the observer decide if these facts rise to the level of " ranting".
I remind folks I've snipped stuff I didn't think was directly related to the shroud.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin