Shroud of Turin more legit after research?

[Mister Agenda]

Agreed, it's not a painting in any traditional sense. It likely involved pressing the wet cloth against a bas relief sculpture and using a browning agent or process, but which of the available agents or processes was actually used is not readily apparent.

[Minimalist]

Funny.  People in the 14th century had no such problem.

https://www.livescience.com/9740-shroud-...loser.html

There's another very good reason to suspect that the Shroud of Turin is a fake: the forger admitted it. As Joe Nickell, author of "Relics of the Christ," noted, a document by "Bishop Pierre d'Arcis claimed that the shroud had been 'cunningly painted,' a fact 'attested by the artist who painted it.'" Not only did Bishop d'Arcis attest to knowing that the shroud was a fake in 1390, but even Pope Clement acknowledged the forgery. (The Catholic Church does not officially endorse the shroud as authentic.)

Now none of this will stop an idiot who wants to believe in miracles but for sane people it is sufficient.


https://www.skeptical-science.com/religi...lly-jesus/

You have folks who have a specific religious agenda and so will never accept that it is what it actually is (a medieval forgery), and will often not only promote criticism of the radiocarbon dating without pointing out that such criticism itself does not withstand any critical analysis.
There is a great deal more, I’ve only scratched the surface, so if curious, then the Wikipedia page covers rather a lot more.
The TL;DR; version is that there is no robust evidence that the Shroud of Turin is 1st century, but instead there is an un-refuted clear decisive radiocarbon dating that nails it as medieval.

We already know what you are, Chad.

[JackRussell]

Yet again, CLEAR evidence of god.

This divine game of hide and seek is a little old hat.

The creator of the universe is a dumb-fuck at revelation to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, perhaps he loved Neanderthals.

[orthodox-man]

For all of you who still don't believe, beast your eyes on this:

A lad on reddit has enlightened me

"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...-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/...blood.html http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_E...icance.htm

"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...per-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...6_ENEA.pdf http://www.realscience.us/2011/12/23/sci...snt-faked/ http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.es/...ional.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scienc...79512.html

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....et-of.html 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."

[Minimalist]

A lad on reddit has enlightened me

You're an idiot.

You have now been dismissed as such.

[GrandizerII]

For all of you who still don't believe, beast your eyes on this:

A lad on reddit has enlightened me

"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...-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/...blood.html http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_E...icance.htm

"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...per-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...6_ENEA.pdf http://www.realscience.us/2011/12/23/sci...snt-faked/ http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.es/...ional.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scienc...79512.html

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....et-of.html 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."

He said, she said ...

Misinterpretations ...

Selective observations ...

Appeal to false/irrelevant experts ...

Thinking that saying scientific-sounding words means speaking the truth ...

Need I go on?

[The Valkyrie]

Someone on reddit enlightened you?

Then it must be true!

Was it on an incel board, too?

If I want enlightenment I get it from a pixie named Arnold. (His read name is Shinybutt Neonknickers, but he's an big - well, small - Arnie fan).

If I want TO enlighten something or someone I just set it on fire.

[vorlon13]

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?

 ()

(bolding mine)

Luke 23 KJV
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.


Jesus said He was going straight up to Heaven that very day.  And one of the thieves crucified with Him too.  Otta be good enough for all of us to take Jesus at His word there.  Consider your error to be rebuked.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Agreed, it's not a painting in any traditional sense. It likely involved pressing the wet cloth against a bas relief sculpture and using a browning agent or process, but which of the available agents or processes was actually used is not readily apparent.

I suppose that's possible and if produced naturally that would have been the most likely method. At the same time, the range of chemicals available during the period was pretty limited...we're taking about the age of alchemy here, although it was also the age of guild trade secrets and the formula could have been easily lost and forgotten. After all, no one knows exactly how Rembrandt achieved his impasto textures either - whether he used some kind of meglip or egg whites. (I think resins have been ruled out).

I don't have dog in this fight. As a Christian I don't rule out miracles but at the same time my faith doesn't hinge on a piece of cloth. Hoaxes were pretty common during the middle ages. You could build a small village from pieces wood said to have come from the True Cross. My only point was that naive skepticism, like assuming it was painted, is nearly as bad a naive gullibility.

---

Someone on reddit enlightened you?

Are we sure it wasn't from 4chan?