/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

If you ever listen to the """"""skeptic""""""s' opinion on the shroud, you'll always hear the debunked claim that it was manufactured during the medieval time, despite the clarification of the data afterwords by scientists.

And those dentialists who know about this, will always try to rationalize their presupposition that the person on the shroud wasn't Jesus. Like some random jew, or any other speculation, but true Christianity is off limits.

This is why I don't trust secularists, they pretend to be neutral, while promote anything that isn't orthodox.

>>710746

It's all a forgery bro. Jesus gave drugs to people to make them think he was making miracles, then after his death his disciples proclaimed His word because they liked to be beaten, poor, stoned beheaded or crucified etc and it was only a coincidence that their writings don't contradict each other. And in fact every miracle that happened after them is the result of the atheist devil trying to fool you so you won't believe that God doesn't exist.

>>710742

of course its a forgery

if it was real it would oppose ressurection

and btw have you ever seen that the face of a dead person gets transfered to the shroud in any other cases?

>>710775

See >>710746

>>710746

>the person who created it is probably one of the most skillful artists in human history.

If it's a forgery, it would have had to have been made by a time traveler. I wouldn't be surprised if that becomes the secularist party line someday, if the evidence for the shroud becomes widely known.

mandylion

A quick Wikipedia search says the carbon dating is from the Middle Ages. According to this paper: Meacham, William: «The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology», Current Anthropology, Volume 24, No 3, June 1983.

Wouldn't this debunk the whole thing? Does anyone know more about this?

>>711112

read

>>710746

>>711112

Every shroud skeptic needs to watch this video

>>711112

Not even rabid atheists who try to actually debunk the shroud use those datings nowadays, which are known to be taken from a fragment of the shroud with different properties

The shroud is authentic. There probably isn't another object that was analyzed by so many inter-disciplinary areas. I recommend the reading of Dr. Zugibe's book: the crucifixion of Jesus, a forensic inquiry.

Anyone who uses the carbon dating to disprove it is acting in bad faith.

>>710742

>>710977

I'm a Christian and I don't think the shroud is authentic (yes I have watched the documentary on it).

Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, on the Shroud, in 1389:

"The case, Holy Father, stands like this. Some time since, in this diocese of Troyes, the Dean of a certain collegiate church, namely, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, on which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and on which the whole likeness of the Savior had remained impressed together in this way with the wounds which He bore. This story was circulated not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. Because many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Savior's likeness imprinted on it like this, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, namely, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."

>>710748

I actually had someone (a devout Catholic) ask me how I could be Christian without accepting the shroud. I wish I was joking.

>>711371

Tradition can err, and no it hasn't been a long-standing part of tradition because it wasn't mentioned before Pierre d'Arcis (who I quoted).

>just because you're a christian doesn't mean anything. how many christians believe in gay marriage.

How can you compare doubting a relic to dispensing with historical and scriptural Christian teachings?

>>711274

If your argument is "it is false because the imprint isnt mentioned in the gospels", as said by someone qho believed it was "cunningly painted" , dont expect anyone to take you seriously

>>711849

If you think I spoke about this because I cared about "being taken seriously", you're under the wrong impression. If I wanted people to agree with me I would spout the same nonsense you're spouting. And if you actually read the quote, you would know the reason d'Arcis thought it was cunningly painted was because the painter confessed.

>>711867

The thing every single modern analysis agrees upon about it is that it's absolutely not paint.

I could confess to killing Lincoln if you want but what do you know, people can lie in confessions.

>>711274

The Turin shroud isn't painted though. d'Acis is clearly talking about some other work.

>>711274

typical, typical prot

>>710744

But they also claim that something like that would be impossible to create without an incredibly bright light. So it can't have been a random criminal, if it's not a forgery it has to be created during a "paranormal" (I hate the word but whatever) event.

>>712245

"Supernatural" is a better term.

>>712276

That's the one, thank you

>>712030

>>712029

>>712057

No need to be so uncharitable towards someone because they disagree with you. No, I'm not a Protestant (and so not a Baptist), I'm an apostolic Christian. I am not arguing for sola scriptura, I just find it doubtful that such a shroud would exist and not be mentioned until the 14th century.

>>712314

>your original argument was that it wasn't mentioned in the bible

No it wasn't, I didn't make an argument initially, I just quoted a Catholic bishop.

>when speaking of tradition you said it was unreliable

Late tradition (like the shroud) is absolutely unreliable.

Listen, there's 2 big things in the Shrouds favor.

1. It is not reproducible.

If it is faked, it should be reproducible.

2. It is legit dated to when it is claimed to be dated.

Which is 2nd Century.

If we cannot reproduce the Shroud nor can we prove that it was created later than claimed, then it can be believed.

>>712372

>1. It is not reproducible.

it is, red ochre

>2. It is legit dated to when it is claimed to be dated.

no it wasnt, carbon dates it to middle ages around when the vatican got it

>>712411

>it is reproducible

ok, then show me where someone has reproduced it and disproved it once and for all

>no it wasnt, carbon dates it to middle ages around when the vatican got it

read >>710746 pic

>>712029

>bappie

Your babytalk makes me want to slap a bitch, namely you.

the veracity of the shroud should be nobody's deciding factor in faith, acceptance and belief in God

>>711867

I dont think you understand. We know it isnt painted. There are no pigments, nos any directional paint. So you can see where your (and his) willful thinking led you

>>710963

>"Jesus doesn't exist! There is absolutely no scientific proof behind it whatsoever!"

>"How do you explain the Shroud, then?"

>"lol, time travel bro, what are you high or something?"

It's just hypocritical and contradictory enough and lacking in self awareness that I could definitely see the lying press try to push that angle.

>>711274

Wasn't the image in the shroud only able to be seen with modern technology?

>I actually had someone (a devout Catholic) ask me how I could be Christian without accepting the shroud. I wish I was joking.

Casual Christians do that a lot. Actually, all types of casuals do that. Grab onto anything that helps or confirms their point of view and defend it rabidly, ridding themselves of common sense and critical thinking. God does not command us to believe blindly, he asks us to search for the Truth.

>>712617

I know this is an old thread, but it didn't make sense to start another one just to discuss the same topic.

The "invisible repair" claim had been debunked, and to date there has never been any evidence with confirmed samples from the shroud itself that it is any older than medieval, but the process by which it was made is still unexplainable.

I saw the lignen bit, so it poses the question: Which dating method is wrong? So far there has not been a single hypothesis that explains the carbon dating age being so far off that holds up to investigation.

>>712479

But we can evidently have a lot of great science fun studying it.

Even in death, God has a sense goodly purpose.

>>710742

I honestly don't think about it. The authenticity of the shroud is not important to my faith.

>>710742

Has he ever taken a crack at the tulpa image of Our Lady of Guadalupe? I'd be interested in what he has to say about that.

I have a stupid question.

I read >>710746 and did my best to understand it, but how do we know that the shroud wasn't simply 'moved?' Not like Jesus getting up and removing it like a blanket, but someone went into the tomb, grabbed the shroud, and walked out with it. The reason I ask is that although it is accurate, I find it unlikely that this shroud could last 2000 years without it being torn to shreds one way or another.

To be clear, I doubt it's a forgery, but I find that the only thing more surprising than faith is luck.

I thought the Romans didn't nail through the hands?

The shroud cannot be from Jesus, because it's one large cloth covering head to toe

The Bible reports that there was a separate cloth over Jesus' head

>And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. (Jn. 20:7 KJV)

>>733050

There were two of these, as the scripture says. One is missing. The shroud could have covered the same area in another layer and touched more directly by wrapping the upper areas of the head.

The larger shroud need not to have touched directly to have been affected anyways. The main imprint is not "blood".. or any known kind of marking, for that matter. It's not a mark from Burial.. but a supernatural mark from Resurrection.

>>733050

Sudarium of Oviedo

I never heard about this before.

The dude is talking shit.

Btw could someone else get me the NatGeo article? Id like to hear a profession investigating showing the shroud is true.

>>733006

Back to college faggot. Light is an electromagnetic oscillating field and it's intensity is mesuared in watts. It's the average of the Poynting vector.

And besides electricity burns. Put your hand on a socket and you'll see.

https://youtu.be/WRB16BARvz0

Shroud is real

i dont endorse this youtube channel

>>733239

Share these with normies and """skeptics"""

https://youtu.be/pa9PajEabSI

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150417-shroud-turin-relics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science/

Uh oh

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/989579/shroud-of-turin-jesus-christ-fake-proof-religion-news-bible

>>733289

Thank you brother this is what I was looking for.

Although I doubt normies will even care about this.

The normies in Jesus' times saw him raising Himself from the dead and even then didn't believe.

>>733289

The carbon dating has never been disproven and the invisible repair theory was debunked. Also the Bible itself says his head had a separate cloth

>>720919

>there has never been any evidence with confirmed samples from the shroud itself that it is any older than medieval

read >>710746

it's amazing how much I have to refer the ignorant to this post, over and over again,

it's not a matter of picking and choosing "which experiment" you like, the claim is that the original cloth is unable to be dated in the medieval

>>733405

>Also the Bible itself says his head had a separate cloth

see >>733259

You should quit ignoring posts that rip apart your claims, d56596

>>733259

Doesn’t debunk the carbon dating

>>733405

>US guy who performed original carbon dating confirmed his sample had both cotton and linen

>Somehow debunked just because

>>733423

you are a disingenuous ignoramus

This is so awesome.

>>733289

why is the second half just the first half backwards.

It doesn't confirm or deny anything.

>>733481

probably to avoid copyright detection

>>733423

I'm pretty sure nobody will care to answer since your statement is pure idiocy, but read through >>710746 again.

>>733414

Thanks.

At the end of the day, most people will always choose to believe whatever they want to believe. No evidence would ever be enough to convince them.

>>734612

Good thing evidence is on our side for once.

>>733636

When the image is incorrect (because the carbon dating has in fact never been debunked) don’t use it to dismiss the actual issue

>>734732

>because the carbon dating has in fact never been debunked

The physics of radiocarbon dating of course isn't at stake here. What matters here is the piece of cloth that was analysed. And surprise everything else in the shroud points out that the dating method was shit.

And to assume it was a forgery takes even a greater leap of faith.

A dude in the 14th century who alone invented 23th century technology just to make fun of Christians deserves 10 nobel prizes.

>>733423

In all honesty carbon dating tends to debunk itself most of the time.

>>734790

Does what Jesus looked like matter to your faith?

>>734800

Does missing the point matter to your argument?

Protip: It REALLY does

>>710742

I recommend watching Father Spitzer's presentation on the shroud.

The moderators used to have an unspoken “no shroud discussions” rule. What changed your mind mods?

>>734790

Reminds me of one of my uncles; Mediterranean/Levantine rather than a tigga...

>>734790

Looks like an Arab Car Salesman.

>>734790

Just more of the endless jewish slander against Christ.

>>734957

Why wouldn't we be allowed to discuss the shroud?

>>733423

>The cloth has been dated to around 700 AD by radiocarbon dating. However, at the same conference at which this information was presented, it was noted that in actuality the cloth has a definite history extending back to approximately 570 AD. The laboratory noted that later oil contamination could have resulted in the late dating.

Buts lets not even pretend that radiocarbon dating is at all accurate. It's been performed on things with known dates and resulted in WILDLY erroneous results.

>>734790

I remember having to do a big take-down of that image for a secularist. I wish I still had that argument I typed up. If you look at the method they used to come up with that image of "Jesus," you'll see that its completely bunk and ridiculous. It'd be amazing if that that's what any ol' person from that time period and locale looked like, much less the specific person of Jesus.

>>733289

The last part of the documentary is a winnie the pooh joke.

Somehow Jesus didn't die after being beaten for hours crucified, stabbed in the chest but had been transported to the tomb so Joseph could heal him lol.

What made me laugh was that the german who proposed that theory said that after two days a person is completely healthy because irl we see people who are badly hurt getting up in 2 days and having no pain and being able to go during a whole afternoon walking (the disciples of Emaus part). And everything that followed with miracles and stuff.

What made me even laugh more is that he says that Jesus was afraid of dying and ask the Father to take away his pain, and according to him the loving father did it lol. Jesus knew form the beggning he would ressusrect and did many miracles showing that He and the Father were one. An then he says it was the oils in Jesus body that made the imprint. I challenge him to tell me how a man can survive in a closed tomb with those toxic smells, with another dude inside healing him and then break a giant rock to get out while having his internal organs winnie the poohed up, unless he was superman (my bet on the next atheistic theory) and being able to elude the Roman soldiers. And if that was the case I dare him to made a replica, which he won't because he can't.

Tldr: the documentary has some good parts, but it's too short to cover all evidences and ends up with a far fetched conspiracy theory dating to 33AD to show its "possible" that the shorud is real but to be on the side of the atheists.

Nicely done short video summarizing the more recent discoveries about the Shroud.

>>735436

Look at Nassim Taleb's article "No Jesus wasn't a nonwhite refugee" article. Straight from the eternal Levantine's mouth. He even uses a depiction of Lucian of Samosata (Syrian satirist who made fun of the early church) as evidence for the populations who lived in the eastern Mediterranean.

Would it matter if Jesus were an Arab? No. However, we can't go around calling him Maori just to make people feel better either. So why should we let people say that Christ was any other ethnic group, that he was not, for political reasons?

>>736779

What's the problem with the article?

The thing that bothers me the most about the Shroud is how the picture is like a photograph, despite the Shroud supposedly having been placed over the body. Shouldn't the image be distorted, if it was truly generated by the body being in contact with the cloth?

>>747782

the picture looks like a photograph because of 20th century technology, the actual outer part of the shroud was re-clothed, hinting that the shroud may have been large enough to envelop Christ with

>>710746

Just looking at the first part of that image there are some serious issues - that vanillin test has never been used to successfully date any other ancient or medieval material likewise it seems to imply that despite the difficulty of the weave an unrecorded repair was made that was so expertly done as to render it invisible.

>>747822

it's not being used to "successfully date", it's merely being used to disprove the notion that it is from the medieval era specifically; there should be some vanillin, rather than a complete absence

>>747828

>it's not being used to "successfully date", it's merely being used to disprove the notion that it is from the medieval era specifically; there should be some vanillin

I say successfully date I mean in the sense of it being able to say "this fabric was from 33AD or from 1453AD" but simply demonstrate the kind of claims like "this is or is not a medieval fabric" or "this is an ancient fabric".

There does not seem to be any real track record of this method being able to determine the era of a fabric hence it doesnt really make sense to say that you can date something based on the levels. This is why it seems like a poor test/proof to use.

>>747839

Because the entire point of the test in the first place is to disprove the very popular assertion that is it a medieval forgery. It's not attempting to prove it's from 33AD, it's attempting to disprove.

>>747842

Sorry I misstyped I meant to say " *not* in the sense of it being able to say "this fabric was from 33AD or from 1453AD" which will make the other half of the sentence make sense

>>734805

Amazing, I really enjoyed the video. Going to share the content with my family.

>>749229

that's not the "same results", the student's copy is not proportional at all

>>749229

All the materials needed to land on the moon were available then too, but that doesn't mean they went to the moon. The results are not the same, either.

>>749229

First its nothung like it as seen in ypur picture and that in your link: there is no gradation of depth, only painted area. Second, its made with pigment. The image of the shroud is known to not ti be made with pigment.

Here is a through debunking of your cheap replica: http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2009/10/italian-scientist-says-he-has.html

Recent developments got out in favor of it's authenticity, they made another statue of it, etcetera, why don't we talk about that

There's a story that NBC during the Turin winter olympics called it Torino (the local name) which they don't usually do, so as not to bring attention to the Shroud.

I mean if they can't replicate it, you're looking at something miraculous. Wonder if they found it during the crusades.

>>749284

It was just formerly known as the image of edessa, which is described several times as a full body image on a cloth and depicted as such in images related to its transport (if you fold the shroud 4 times you get only the face) . From edessa to constantinople, depicted then in the pray codex, then moved after the crusades.