(April 8, 2018 at 7:44 pm)orthodox-man Wrote: Apparently though the carbon dating was flawed because they took a piece of the cloth that wasn't an original piece of cloth, and many of the attributes are equivalent in the bible

The worlds top textile experts were dragged in as the sample was taken, for just that reason. The sample was not from a patched area. And before you claim invisible mending or other such bollocks, no, invisible mending is impossible even today, it will always show up under a microscope.

I heard that the semen stains were legit.

(April 9, 2018 at 6:45 am)Little lunch Wrote: I heard that the semen stains were legit.

From the Semen on the Mons?

Apparently he came twice?

(April 9, 2018 at 7:39 am)ignoramus Wrote: Apparently he came twice?

Once on Friday and again on Sunday?

(April 7, 2018 at 11:04 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I’ll take, “I don’t give a shit” for $1,000, Alex!

Final Jeopardy answer, "What is, NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN."

LadyForCamus is our Jeopardy Champion.

---

(April 9, 2018 at 6:45 am)Little lunch Wrote: I heard that the semen stains were legit.

Joseph, "I did not have sex with that.......Note to self, sue Bill"

(April 8, 2018 at 7:44 pm)orthodox-man Wrote:

(April 8, 2018 at 7:13 am)Grandizer Wrote: OP, I thought that NDEs were the only reason you remain a Christian? Were you not telling us the truth when you said that, or is this recent new information for you?

I never even considered the shroud, but I never really researched it either. Because it was recently Easter many members of my congregation were talking about DNA proof that it was really Jesus (a man with xx chromosome), they said research and examination found there were no paint brush strokes meaning it could not have been painted, said that forensic testing in the past was proven to be flawed, and that some incredible light (as mentioned in the bible) came about when he came back to life, also creating the image, and they found 3D imagery. They also found marks on his back and areas which the bible also mentioned, so I thought it was interesting.

Ok, please try to consider this from my perspective. From my perspective, would you honestly think this would really convince me that there is something supernatural going on here, or would you say that I would simply be very skeptical here because some extraordinary claim is being made, and all I'm getting as support is "he said, she said" arguments?

It's so easy to brag about how some expert said this or that, even when that person isn't really a relevant expert on the matter or even when they get misquoted just to make one's view more favorable. But what we need are the hard cold facts, the evidence, the stuff that we can observe for ourselves and say "yep, something fucked up is happening here, and I don't know what it is". But all I get is "yeah, this guy who is so expert at bla bla bla said something awesome and smart, and they concluded that we were right about this and that, so believe me!" So disappointing.

Shroud proponents have two methods, "gotcha" and "yeah, but!", to support their claim. As those can't be worked in a coherent whole there's really no argument on their side.

Quote:I watched a video

Apparently your single biggest problem.

It seems to me that you want to believe in bullshit so you do.  This makes you a typical believer but not someone to take seriously.

(April 8, 2018 at 8:25 pm)Lutrinae Wrote:

(April 8, 2018 at 8:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You obviously don't know much about painting.

Neither do you, apparently.

Actually, I wrote an instruction manual for intermediate oil painters, have given gallery talks on painting methods, and am a semi-professional oil painter with gallery representation in Chicago. First, the pigments available to medieval artists were made almost exclusively from finely ground minerals none of which are present on the shroud. Secondly, no artist in the medieval period would have been familiar with the geometry necessary to produce a distorted image that could be translated accurately into a 3D model (as has recently been done). Nor does the image reflect any of the artistic conventions of the period. Personally, I haven't a clue about how the image got on to the cloth. But one thing is certain. It is definitely not a painting.