Always a good laugh when lunatics try to use science to justify their delusions

(September 14, 2015 at 1:12 am)Minimalist Wrote: Israeli archaeologist, Shimon Gibson, found an actual first century shroud in an actual tomb in Jerusalem.  Oddly, it is consistent with the bible bullshit which noted separate wrappings and not one big piece of cloth.

Wouldn't this be another example of the New Testament authors having accurate knowledge of first-century Jewish culture?

And if so, wouldn't this suggest that the NT was written earlier than mythicists normally admit?

And if the author of gJohn was reliable in this small detail (among numerous others that have been archaeologically verified), doesn't this general reliability of the author suggest that he can be deemed reliable regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as a whole?

It's been two weeks already?

(September 14, 2015 at 11:43 am)Minimalist Wrote: What you know about C14 dating could be written on a postage stamp.

Not if the stamp is very small.

(September 14, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: And if the author of gJohn was reliable in this small detail (among numerous others that have been archaeologically verified), doesn't this general reliability of the author suggest that he can be deemed reliable regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as a whole?

Oh, wait, you're serious....

(September 14, 2015 at 4:18 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: It's been two weeks already?

I know, man.  I know.

(September 14, 2015 at 4:43 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(September 14, 2015 at 4:18 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: It's been two weeks already?

I know, man.  I know.

*Sighs and pours a stiff drink*

(September 14, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Wouldn't this be another example of the New Testament authors having accurate knowledge of first-century Jewish culture?

And if so, wouldn't this suggest that the NT was written earlier than mythicists normally admit?

And if the author of gJohn was reliable in this small detail (among numerous others that have been archaeologically verified), doesn't this general reliability of the author suggest that he can be deemed reliable regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as a whole?

It doesn't suggest he's reliable at all, nor does it suggest when the bible was written.  We don't know how long the custom persisted, and how widespread it was.  I do find it interesting however that you're willing to accept this as evidence for the bible being reliable, but still are ready to accept the Shroud of Turin as the burial cloth of Jesus.

(September 14, 2015 at 6:09 pm)Cecelia Wrote:

(September 14, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Wouldn't this be another example of the New Testament authors having accurate knowledge of first-century Jewish culture?

And if so, wouldn't this suggest that the NT was written earlier than mythicists normally admit?

And if the author of gJohn was reliable in this small detail (among numerous others that have been archaeologically verified), doesn't this general reliability of the author suggest that he can be deemed reliable regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as a whole?

It doesn't suggest he's reliable at all, nor does it suggest when the bible was written.  We don't know how long the custom persisted, and how widespread it was.  I do find it interesting however that you're willing to accept this as evidence for the bible being reliable, but still are ready to accept the Shroud of Turin as the burial cloth of Jesus.

Why is that interesting?

Does John or any of the other gospels specify exactly how many linen cloths were used?

But again, this thread is supposed to be about the bones of Peter which may have been found in the necropolis under St. Peter's Basilica.