hello again,
did some further research on the Shroud of Turin, and William Guy made an outstanding documentary about the it. He gives proofs for its authenticity, or at least that it wasn't a forgery including:
he said that crucifiction was invented by persians and perfected by romans. He said at that time, no one wore those thorns on their heads other than Jesus, therefore it proves it was him, and that it couldn't have been a forgery as real blood was used which had some chemical balance demonstrating the person was suffering. He said a forger wouldn't have put blood into the shroud, and he said pollen was found there that is native to ancient palestine. The most recent carbon dating seemed to suggest it was from a time period from about 1000 years BC to 1000 years after, so the timeframe could be right.
He also said that one geologist actually studied the shroud and found remnants of tomb stone on it. He tested it, and found that it matched with Jerusalem lime stone in tombs, not even limestone in other parts of Israel.
These seems really hard to refute.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
No.
It proves that you should stop watching YouTube videos.
@Algebe, but how do you explain the limestone, pollen from Israel and the blood which had chemicals in it proving it was stressed along with the thorns in the head and the nails of the cross being in the wrists when people of the 1200s drew Jesus with nails in hands?
@Russian-Tank: but how do you explain the limestone, pollen from Israel
Poor science. No science. Tabloid sensationalism. Frauds wanting to sell books or lecture tickets. Wishful thinking by god-addled loonies. YouTube is for entertainment, not for science and truth.
Absolutely. A dirty cloth proves your god, why didn't I think of that? Break out the champagne.
@RT
I don't think you could have missed the recent "Shroud of Turin is Proof of God" thread we recently had here Tank.
The author of that tedious exchange referenced a you tube video too, probably the same one you are citing, much the same claims were made and they were rejected with the contempt they deserved.
So I wouldn't expect this thread to get many answers beyond telling you its all bullshit. The shroud of turin (trademark here) is a business, its big money for carpetbaggers to con naïve johns.
You must know by now NDEs and flying saucers, evangelical christians in tears about their last stop over in Hell, shrouds from anywhere, haunted toilets, authentic street directories of Atlantis, and aliens teaching Egyptians how to build pyramids, just don't cut it here.
I understand that you are young but I don't understand how you get sucked in all the time with youtube testimonials and fake information. Its not like its the History channel or anything even vaguely intelligent.
Go find a copy of Isaac Asimov's Encyclopaedia of Science and READ IT! It will change your life, make you happier than you ever hoped to be, your skin will glow, you will suddenly be able to run very very fast, and it will leave you incredibly intelligent and women will want to talk with you about all the fabulous facts you know. Your friends will be astounded. If you don't believe me I will make a you tube video about it.
Over and most definitely, out!
Even IF the evidence supported the shroud being from the era of Jesus (which it doesn't),
You still cannot prove it actually belonged to the Jesus character, You cannot prove he was the son of a god
and you still cannot prove a god actually exists.
Unfortunately Russian-Tank, it is too easy to refute. How do you know, and can you prove that it was the Persians who invented crucifixion? How do you know, and can you prove that only jesus wore a crown of thorns? Roman practice for crucifixion was to first strip the prisoner, then scourge them. Can you prove any imaginary bleeding in the head area was not a result of the scourging?
As far as radiocarbon dating, independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD. When those results were made public, the Holy See stopped any further dating. All legitimate scientific testing has never proven that the shroud belonged to jesus, that it was even a shroud, and definitely do not prove in any way that it is what many religious people believe.
Bullshit. It seems your "source" is a liar.
RT, do you find the possibility that your stance on a/theism is wrong a frightening thing?
the shroud of turnip
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
The chance of the Shroud of Turin representing a supernatural event is still 0%, as it was the last time we had a thread on the subject.
@Sapporo, how is it 0? They found residue of Jerusalem limestone, pollen and plants from Israel, so it proves that the shroud is likely from that time, and Jesus wore a crown of thorns, no one else ever crucified did. So? Seems like it was likely in fact Jesus, or at least not a forgery
Read what he said. He didn't say the chances of it being proof of Jesus was 0, but that the chance that it represents a supernatural event is 0. The resurrection is infinitely less likely than forgery of evidence. And even if the evidence isn't forged, that only proves that a crucified man was interred there. And even if that man was Jesus, that does not prove he was resurrected. The fact is that the shroud is a fake from a time long after Jesus supposedly lived, covered in things people thought would be on it, which are really easy to get your hands on. Need blood that contains stress chemicals? Kill someone. People did it all the time in those days. Need pollen and limestone residue from Jerusalem? Go there. Need the imprint of a white guy's body wearing a crown of thorns to be pressed on a piece of fabric? Coat some guy in your sample blood and lay him in it.
The imprint on the shroud doesn't even resemble what a Jewish man would look like. He looks like a freaking Anglo-European, just like all the ethnocentric Europeans of 1260-1390 painted him as. And those hips! Those wide birthing hips! Ever looked at the hips in the imprint? It looks like a 2-D representation of Kim Kardashian's lower half.
Honestly the gullibility you display makes me ashamed to be part of the same species as you and people like you.
1) The shroud of Turin only dates back 500 years.
2) How the fuck do you know that no one else besides jesus was crucified with a crown of thorns? You don't!
3) Prove jesus existed. You can't!
4) Prove jesus was crucified. You can't.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33164668
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MoDMrcXXj8
For all of you who still don't believe, beast your eyes on this:
"I understand that most of you will be quick to point out that the C-14 tests conducted on the Shroud placed it around the 14th Century. Here are academic papers explaining why those tests are invalid, and that the Shroud is in fact much older http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF (the paper above is the most important) http://shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/aimeta-fanti.pdf http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/brown1.pdf
"It can't be Christ's burial cloth - the Bible claims He was wrapped in 2 separate pieces" Please read the following: http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.es/2007/08/bogus-shroud-of-turin-10... http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Evangelical_Theological_Soc/Haber...
"I read somewhere that the image on the shroud is completely wrong from an anatomical perspective" Nope http://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marineli.pdf
"It's a scorch mark" Nope http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/scorch-paper-en.pdf
"It contains red ochre, a pigment used for making red dye. Therefore, fake" Nope The following papers dealt with this issue 6. Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "Blood on the Shroud of Turin," Applied Optics, Vol. 19, No. 16, 1980, pp. 2742-2744. 7. Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1981, pp. 81-103. Check out the following too: http://shroudstory.com/fact-check/
"No human blood was found on the shroud" False http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse1.pdf
"Why is the blood on the shroud bright red, and not dark, as would be expected of ancient blood?" http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p04.pdf
"Well... it's just an old burial cloth, there's nothing particularly fascinating or mysterious about it!" http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/accett2.pdf (nuclear imaging on the shroud) http://shroud.com/pdfs/whanger.pdf http://opac.bologna.enea.it:8991/RT/2012/2012_16_ENEA.pdf http://www.realscience.us/2011/12/23/science-finds-shroud-of-turin-wasnt... http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/john-p-jackson-unconvent... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is...
From the above, we can deduce without dispute that: - The image on the shroud contains 3d and holographic information. - The image on the shroud has soft xray emissions of some kind on the hands and parts of the skull. - The image DOES NOT date back to the 13th century - No forger, medieval or ancient, could have gone to such incredible lengths to make such a relic http://shroud2000.com/Introduction.html
*Please read the links before jumping to conclusions * "I can't be bothered reading any of the links. Instead, I'll comment on another video of Bill O'Reilly being retarded and attributing his God of the Gaps mentality to 'intellectual laziness' and await the slew of upvotes" The information is there. Whether or not you choose to expose yourself to it is up to you, but ignoring it does not make it untrue
(For a bibliography of Shroud of Turin Research Project published peer-reviewed papers: http://shroud.com/78papers.htm )
Travertine aragonite was found on the shroud, an element found in ancient Jerusalem tombs http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com.es/2007/06/bogus-shroud-of-t... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin 'Joseph Kohlbeck from the Hercules Aerospace Company in Utah and Richard Levi-Setti of the Enrico Fermi Institute examined some dirt particles from the Shroud surface. The dirt was found to be travertine aragonite limestone' Is this indisputable proof that the shroud itself is from Jerusalem? No. However, is it likely that a medieval forger would have added such details? Of course not."
All respected testing was conducted under the STURP umbrella, and in 1981 they issued their final report.
https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm
The last line is:
"We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved."
That is it, it does not prove it was jesus, it does not prove the time frame.
@Russian-Tank
By definition, the supernatural does not produce phenomena. The Shroud of Turin can only be proof of a natural event.
Sun, 04/08/2018 - 21:13
Russian-Tank "These seems really hard to refute."
No they don't, but that's a moot point as nothing in those claims evidences anything supernatural at all, and I'm astounded anyone would be gullible enough to think otherwise. Is it impossible to forge thorns? Is it impossible to get some rock from Jerusalem, it is impossible to smear blood on the forgery? The answer is no to all of those. Now is it impossible for someone to come back to life after they have been dead long enough for rigor mortis to set in, do take your time with this one as it's not at all tricky to understand...
"The Turin Shroud is a fake… and it’s one of 40: Historian claims linen cloths were produced 1,300 years after crucifixion"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157217/The-Turin-Shroud-fake-Em...
Ordinarily I wouldn't trust the Mail to predict a sunrise, but since they're not the source fill your boots.
***IT'S A FAKE***
Quelle surprise.
@Sheldon
How the heck then does the image have such amazing 3D imagery? And how would a forger have known to draw Christ with nails inplanted in the wrist rather than the hands? At that time in europe depictions often were images with nails in the hands. Scientifically, nails in the hands wouldn't work, but nails in the wrists would. And how would a forger make a negative image so 3D that under positive it has so much detail? And blood on it is AB, which is common for Middle Eastern people. There are so many questions.
Watch just a few minutes of this video and I'm sure you will change your mind.
https://youtu.be/H0JBberCqw4
@RT
In the arts there is a thing called convention, its depicting things not as they really are but as people expected to see, like halos. There are countless paintings of halos above the heads of Jesus and saints, but no one has ever seen a halo. The painters of the time were usually commissioned by wealthy patrons to produce portraits and landscapes and religious works like the crucifixion. The convention at the time was to portray Jesus with holes in his palms, its what the bible says and for that reason alone its probably what the patron and public wanted. Don't want to paint holes in the hands, no work for you. The painters were not concerned with accuracy, they were concerned with patronage and what little fame they could attract. Holes in the palms was what the public wanted. Besides how many painters do you think crucified people in their spare time?
The shroud was a religious commission, the patron, probably a representative of the Catholic church had an agenda, to produce something to support the whole Jesus myth and give the masses something new to worship and the church would certainly have known through the academic resources available to it, ie documents from the Roman Empire, to know that victims were nailed to crosses either through the very base of the palm or through the lower extremity of the arm bones.
Gawd and I thought I was done.
You're using argumentum ad ignorantiam, it's a common logical fallacy. I have already explained that not knowing something doesn't justify making unevidenced claims for the supernatural. It is an unequivocal fact that the cloth was offered by the Vatican for testing and has been dated by 3 independent objective sources and they all got precisely the same results, showing unequivocally it was a 14th century forgery.
"There are so many questions."
Questions are not evidence, just why you can't grasp this simple logical fact is unclear. You have offered not one shred of evidence for anything supernatural.
"Watch just a few minutes of this video and I'm sure you will change your mind."
No I won't, and no offence intended but this is your problem in a nutshell, do you seriously think the world would be unaware of a supernatural miracle, and all the while the evidence is bouncing around on YouTube? That's just so sad.
1m 42 seconds into that video and the guy's bias is nauseating, he briefly mentions the shroud then starts attacking atheism and atheists and ranting about atheist conspiracies and antagonism towards christianity in the US. He's clearly a theist, and his views are astonishingly biased, so much so he doesn't pretend to be objective. His claims are entirely based on his religious beliefs not on any scientific evidence, he mostly uses what you've regurgitated, wild conjecture and appeals to ignorance.
Tell you're kidding RT, you didn't really find that nonsense compelling did you? It's laughable for goodness sake.
@Russian Tank
You should be wary when people begin from a conclusion.
@Sapporo
The thing is that there are many question marks. It seems there are too many variables here whicb would have had to have been considered by fakers to make this shroud as believeable as it is today, from DNA samples, to blood samples, to plants and limestone remains, the fact Jesus is the only guy known to have worn the thorns on the head, the fact that the image positive is so detailed in 3D, the fact that the marks on the body were obviously used from Roman weaponry, etc. There are even more points that William Guy points out. I just doubt it was a forgery very much.
I doubt the Shroud could even represent an anatomically correct Homo sapiens, nevermind one from the 1st century AD. The shroud cannot be used to "prove" Jesus, nevermind a resurrection. It only shows what some Christians believe it should show - including some attributes informed by the shroud in the first place.
You are reeling off claims as if they evidence something supernatural when they absolutely don't. Look at this ffs...
"Jesus is the only guy known to have worn the thorns on the head, "
How exactly do you know this? You're begging the question, you are making claims about Jesus in an argument for his existence, that's the very definition of begging the question. Please look the phrase up and understand why it renders your claim irrational.
" the fact that the marks on the body were obviously used from Roman weaponry,"
Sigh, what does that even mean and how on earth does it evidence anything supernatural?
" There are even more points that William Guy points out"
He's a christian apologist, and his spiel was biased nonsense from start to finish.
"I just doubt it was a forgery very much."
Despite it being dated as originating in the 14th century, which unsurprisingly is precisely the limit anyone can trace its provenance back to, quelle surprise, again. You're far too quick to believe things that are not properly evidenced and the root cause is your lack of understanding of what logically fallacious arguments are, and what constitutes objective evidence.
If something is 99% accurate to reality but messes up 1% of its conclusion, it's false. Only one discrepancy is needed to disprove an entire idea. You've been presented with multiple. Give it up. The shroud may have been expertly faked, but it was still faked.
The conclusion of that paper is that the part of the shroud given to the scientists (by the RCC) to test, was added to the shroud in (approx) 1300 C.E. So in other words it is claiming the radiometric dating is accurate; but that the Catholic Church gave the scientists a part of the Shroud that is a fraud. Can't you see that this doesn't help your case at all?
So your next question should be, why don't they date a sample from a different part of the shroud? Simple: the church won't give out another sample after the first sample blew up in their face. Instead they keep it vague enough that people who really want to believe (like yourself) and still do so.
--------------------------------------------------
Also I should mention; this notion that the sample came from a fraudulent part of the shroud (but that the rest of the shroud is authentic) is dubious at best. The sample was composed of the same weave as the rest of the shroud, and was contiguous before it was cut from the shroud by the church.
Pages