Shroud of Turin more legit after research?

[Anomalocaris]

Question from Bubsy:

this is a question I found on "AsktheAtheist" and I would like to get some of your impressions. Jesus was only in a tomb for 3 days, and yet the shroud seems very impressive! 

"I suggest you watch this video, which is a summary video that shows all the relevant articles from 2009 upwards instead of going to the articles one by one. It’s faster and easier. [2018 UPDATE! SHROUD OF TURIN REVEALS SECRETS | STRANGE END TIMES SIGNS () Within it at the 3:25 minute marker it has information on: The ultraviolet light necessary to do so “exceeds the maximum number release from all ultra-violet light sources available today” and It would require “pulses having durations shorter than one-forthy-billionth of a second, and intensities on the order of several billion watts” ***********

Back to my point: * The evidence they have found is that the image is no oil painting and it is caused by light in the UVB range at burst of several million micro seconds and energy release of everal billion kilowatts. * Science has literally confirmed it is a crucified man and that the image has been produced by no natural light but a light that is several billion kw of energy and bursts of light as short as a millionth of a second. * It was highly superficial but strong enough to cause an imprint. * Christian imagines what Jesus looks like and this comes indirectly from the Shroud image that was responsible for most of the early portraits of Jesus from 300 A.D. Therefore: Since our greatest minds can not conceive of how the image was made except by supernatural means, perhaps logic dictates the Shroud is physical evidence of a supernatural event – the resurrection of Jesus."

Thoughts about the light burst?

 ()

Power at “several billion kw” for “as short as a millionth of a second” will deposit energy on the order of millions of joules, even if we take the most favorable interpretation of “several” = 1, and “as short as a millionth of of a second” to be not even one fraction more than exactly one millionth of a second.    One million joules will consume 1 kg worth of fabric in your precious shroud and turn that into ash.   Any less stringent interpretation of “Several” and “as short as” will make things proportionally worse for your shroud than being turned into ash. How many kgs is your precious shroud?

You quote people who feel entitled to throw around sciency sounding words, yet exhibits no hint of any grasp of their meaning and magnitudes.   This is not a merely an error or mistaken estimate of their own power of comprehension.   This is the very essence of Christian apology, which is to gleefully deploy any world that might  sound to the uneducated like it might support the Christian fable and justify Christian crimes and excesses, while in reality holding in utter contempt the real meaning of these very same words.

[Minimalist]

Actually, if you look at a close up of the head



you can see that "jesus" is about a half-inch thick as that is roughly the gap between the front and back, as if the artist laid the linen over a thin board so he could work on either side.  That would make "jesus" the skinniest motherfucker in history.

[orthodox-man]

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.

---

Question from Bubsy:

this is a question I found on "AsktheAtheist" and I would like to get some of your impressions. Jesus was only in a tomb for 3 days, and yet the shroud seems very impressive! 

"I suggest you watch this video, which is a summary video that shows all the relevant articles from 2009 upwards instead of going to the articles one by one. It’s faster and easier. [2018 UPDATE! SHROUD OF TURIN REVEALS SECRETS | STRANGE END TIMES SIGNS () Within it at the 3:25 minute marker it has information on: The ultraviolet light necessary to do so “exceeds the maximum number release from all ultra-violet light sources available today” and It would require “pulses having durations shorter than one-forthy-billionth of a second, and intensities on the order of several billion watts” ***********

Back to my point: * The evidence they have found is that the image is no oil painting and it is caused by light in the UVB range at burst of several million micro seconds and energy release of everal billion kilowatts. * Science has literally confirmed it is a crucified man and that the image has been produced by no natural light but a light that is several billion kw of energy and bursts of light as short as a millionth of a second. * It was highly superficial but strong enough to cause an imprint. * Christian imagines what Jesus looks like and this comes indirectly from the Shroud image that was responsible for most of the early portraits of Jesus from 300 A.D. Therefore: Since our greatest minds can not conceive of how the image was made except by supernatural means, perhaps logic dictates the Shroud is physical evidence of a supernatural event – the resurrection of Jesus."

Thoughts about the light burst?

 ()

The quoted figures are not from an examination of the shroud itself, but from attempts to replicate the result.  The final efforts were close, but not complete matches.  All this shows is that if you assume the shroud had to be created by a burst of light, then startling conclusions may follow.  But the problem lies in that initial assumption that the shroud could only have been produced in that manner.  We don't know how the shroud image was produced, and we may never know.  That doesn't justify any conclusion other than agnosticism about the shroud's origin.  What we do know is that radiocarbon dating indicates that the shroud is far less than the required two thousand years old.  Partisans of the authenticity of the shroud don't like that, and so they attempt to cast doubt upon the dating itself.  This is nothing more than an example of shooting the messenger because you don't like the message.

Di Lazzaro and his colleagues at Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) conducted five years of experiments, using state-of-the-art excimer lasers to train short bursts of ultraviolet light on raw linen, in an effort to simulate the image’s coloration. The ENEA team, which published its findings in 2011, came tantalizingly close to approximating the image’s distinctive hue on a few square centimeters of fabric. But they were unable to match all the physical and chemical characteristics of the shroud image. Nor could they reproduce a whole human figure.

The ultraviolet light necessary to do so “exceeds the maximum power released by all ultraviolet light sources available today,” says Di Lazzaro. It would require “pulses having durations shorter than one forty-billionth of a second, and intensities on the order of several billion watts.”

If the most advanced technologies available in the 21st century could not produce a facsimile of the shroud image, he reasons, how could it have been executed by a medieval forger?

Why Shroud of Turin's Secrets Continue to Elude Science

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

[Minimalist]

they said

Words which should never be relied upon.

[Foxaèr]

they said

Words which should never be relied upon.

Indeed.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The best explanation to date is that the Shroud is a painting, not a burial cloth, and dates from the Middle Ages, not the 1st century.  No burst of ultraviolet light required.

Boru

You obviously don't know much about painting.

[Foxaèr]

The best explanation to date is that the Shroud is a painting, not a burial cloth, and dates from the Middle Ages, not the 1st century.  No burst of ultraviolet light required.

Boru

You obviously don't know much about painting.

Neither do you, apparently.

[Minimalist]

Actually, in an amazing find, Israeli Archaeologist, Shimon Gibson, found a first century burial shroud.  It is far more similar to the gospel descriptions* and nothing at all like the fucking SofT.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news...prosy.html

Shroud of Turin Not Jesus', Tomb Discovery Suggests

The weave of the Tomb of the Shroud fabric, the new study says, casts further doubt on the Shroud of Turin as Jesus' burial cloth.

The newfound shroud was something of a patchwork of simply woven linen and wool textiles, the study found. The Shroud of Turin, by contrast, is made of a single textile woven in a complex twill pattern, a type of cloth not known to have been available in the region until medieval times, Gibson said.

*Before any of the xristards wet their pants all that means is that the gospel writers were far closer to ancient jewish custom than the medieval artist who painted the SofT.

[orthodox-man]

I watched a video by william guy who tries to prove the shroud and 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...0JBberCqw4

(34:53)

the bible also got the right amount of scars (372) which was counted on the shroud.

Does this prove it was real?

[Rev. Rye]

many of the attributes are equivalent in the bible

I take it you didn't actually read my first post where I pointed out that the simple fact that we can see Jesus' face on the Shroud actually runs counter to the Gospel of John

6 Then Simon Peter came up, following him, and went into the tomb and saw the linen wrappings [neatly] lying there; 7 and the [burial] [a]face-cloth which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the [other] linen wrappings, but [b]rolled up in a place by itself.

Once again, the Gospel of John itself states that the burial shroud DID NOT COVER his head, and therefore, that face should not even be on the Shroud, if it's genuine. Or maybe John the Evangelist got his information wrong...

And rather amusingly, there is a cloth claimed to be the facecloth that covered Jesus, the Sudarium of Oviedo, and it has a longer documented history than the Shroud of Turin, by about 800 years.

Also, Jewish burial custom demanded that bodies be cleaned of blood before being wrapped in their shrouds. There should not be blood on the Shroud. The fact that you're even claiming there is and it proves that it's real shows you have no idea what the fuck you're even talking about.