r/europe • u/JackRogers3 • 2d ago

News Newly discovered document adds evidence that Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' crucifixion shroud

https://www.euronews.com/culture/2025/08/29/newly-discovered-document-adds-evidence-that-shroud-of-turin-is-not-jesus-crucifixion-shro
148 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

93 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/atchijov 2d ago

Do you need any evidence that physical object has nothing to do with fairy tale character?

21

u/Petrarca_e_grappa Italy 2d ago edited 2d ago

He is an historical figure. He surely existed. Then you can believe he is the son of God or not, but Jesus was a human being that lived during the reign of Augustus and Tiberius. Saying he didn’t exist is just as stupid as saying Fredrick the 2nd (holy roman emperor) was not real.

12

u/Kradara_ 2d ago edited 2d ago

Jesus of Nazareth the person actually did exist though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically.[g]

1

u/Larkson9999 2d ago

The only "proof" is that someone named Jesus appeared in Roman execution records. All else are simply third or fourth hand assertions dating back to around fifty years after Jesus supposedly died.

All accounts of any words, followers, and actions are more dubious than just an agreement that someone named Jesus existed.

7

u/TheDuckFarm 2d ago

Socrates left no writings of his own. We only know of him through the writings of his students.

There are more independent sources about Jesus than Socrates and I absolutely believe that Socrates was a real person.

-11

u/HenryTheWho Slovakia 2d ago

Outside of bible, there is very little evidence to support that claim

13

u/Otsde-St-9929 2d ago

But there is some evidence though and to have two independent sources at all is very unusual

1

u/HenryTheWho Slovakia 2d ago

If you are referring to Flavius(born 37AD) and Tacitus(born 52AD) than those could be hardly considered a primary source if they are describing events that supposedly happened generation or two before they were even born

1

u/Otsde-St-9929 2d ago

Perhaps I am being sloppy with terms but I think the sources are quite good quality for someone so long ago.

-6

u/ChampionshipOk5046 2d ago

As much as Gandalf 

11

u/Kradara_ 2d ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically.[g]

1

u/AmonMetalHead 2d ago

Sure, they agree a person with that name existed and was killed, that doesn't mean he walked around performing miracles or was the messiah

4

u/Kradara_ 2d ago

Ain’t what I claimed

-7

u/ChampionshipOk5046 2d ago

I believe in Gandalf

And Gandalf followers aren't hatefilled c*nts

15

u/Kradara_ 2d ago

Does he have historical evidence of existing?

1

u/PuzzleheadedAge8572 2d ago

That a old man with a white beard who had short friends and went on a hike with them existed? Sure.

-6

u/ChampionshipOk5046 2d ago

There's no proof of Jesus, but let alone the ridiculous magic he performed, and which ruins your credibility, and and you know it. 

I get "belief",  and I'm not wasting my time arguing lol. JFC! 

13

u/Kradara_ 2d ago

Except there is proof..? lol. The Wikipedia article has an entire section dedicated to it. It’s the Historical Views section. Knock yourself out.

I’m not saying that religious claims of miracles are real, what I am saying is that it’s an undisputed fact that a person called Jesus did exist in 1st century Palestine.

-2

u/gehenna0451 Germany 2d ago

It’s the Historical Views section. Knock yourself out.

The reason historians are quite reluctant to question the historicity of Jesus is because there's a lot of assumed historical figures who you'd have to question by the same standards, not because there's a lot of compelling evidence by modern empirical standards.

All the evidence there is outside of the gospels are Josephus and Tacitus. If you consider what we in the 21st century consider to be fool-proof evidence for an event that's hardly it

2

u/sub_WHISTLE 2d ago

We're talking about people who lived 2000 years ago. Most people from that time period are generally only known from a few text references. Jesus is referenced by near-first hand accounts, by assumed credible historians. If that isn't enough evidence, then what is? Why would we assume they lied?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/cardboardunderwear 2d ago

By this comment your argument is not based on evidence..  It's just based your dogma and beliefs....kinda like those of the folks you apparently despise.

-1

u/Mysterious_Monk4322 2d ago

go to wikipedia- jesus then to- talk:
Q3: Did Jesus exist?

6

u/Kradara_ 2d ago

tl;dr the consensus is yes, a few dispute the exact timeline of events