Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Okay. I'll agree. A man named Jesus could have existed and he could have been a cult leader of the time.
There is little doubt, however, that the character of Jesus the alleged Christ (the messiah of the Jewish people and the son of a god who performed sorcery and magic) could not have existed as portrayed in the New Testament. If a man named Jesus was a religious figure in antiquity, it isn't the same character of the bible.
For that Jesus (clearly a different person), there is no evidence.
And what's so incredible of the man named Jesus might be the Jesus talked about in the Bible?
Is it the fact the man supposedly worked miracles? For the longest time they thought certain cities didn't exist until they found them. If they've had problems tracking down a city, do you really think you can say definatively that a man didn't exist?
He came to his conclusion after re-examining a theory from two amateur scientists that he had earlier dismissed as being from "the lunatic fringe".
Sue Benford and Joe Marina, from Ohio, suspected the 1988 sample was from a damaged section of the linen shroud repaired in the 16th century after being damaged in a fire.
Rogers said: "I was irritated and determined to prove Sue and Joe wrong."
However, when he came to examine threads taken in 1978 - luckily from the same section as the 1988 sample - he found cotton in them.
He said: "The cotton fibres were fairly heavily coated with dye, suggesting they were changed to match the linen during a repair.
"I concluded that area of the shroud was manipulated by someone with great skill.
"Sue and Joe were right. The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken.
So now that might be the actual burial shroud...