SCIENCE FINALLY PROVES....

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

As a semi-professional artist who has actually used a camera obscura, I can say with absolute certainty that the image on the shroud was not produced by using one. To suggest it was demostrates laughable ignorance about those kinds devices and their limitations.

Does it matter? The Shroud is unquestionably a medieval artifact and not the burial cloth of Jesus.

Boru

[LinuxGal]

As a semi-professional artist who has actually used a camera obscura, I can say with absolute certainty that the image on the shroud was not produced by using one. To suggest it was demostrates laughable ignorance about those kinds devices and their limitations.

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

See that? If the Holy Shroud was like one big piece of photographic film it shouldn't have an image of the head.

[Anomalocaris]

You were the only one interested in some logical debate on the shroud. All your questions are answered in the 
longer versions of the videos.

Galileo: "The Vatican isn't interested in any evidence for the geocentric model.  I centered a waxing gibbous Venus in my telescope and they wouldn't even look in the eyepiece!"

Ronedee: "I'm just like Galileo!  They wouldn't even surf to my Holy Shroud video!"

to the fool,  the fact that some geniuses had been mistaken for fools proves all fools like themselves are geniuses.

[Bucky Ball]

There were at least 26 "authentic" burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one.... The Shroud of Turin is one of the many relics manufactured for profit during the Middle Ages. Shortly after the Shroud emerged it was declared a fake by the bishop who discovered the artist. This is verified by recent scientific investigation which found paint in the image areas. The Shroud of Turin is also not consistent with Gospel accounts of Jesus' burial, which clearly refer to multiple cloths and a separate napkin over his face.

Carbon-14 dating has demonstrated that the shroud is a 14th-century forgery and is one of many such deliberately created relics produced in the same period, all designed to attract pilgrims to specific shrines to enhance and increase the status and financial income of the local church.

About 1200, Constantinople was so crammed with relics that one may speak of a veritable industry with its own factories. Blinzler (a Catholic New Testament scholar) lists, as examples: letters in Jesus' own hand, the gold brought to the baby Jesus by the wise men, the twelve baskets of bread collected after the miraculous feeding of the 5000, the throne of David, the trumpets of Jericho, the axe with which Noah made the Ark, and so on...

At one point, a number of churches claimed the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the "True Cross" that Calvin said the amount of wood would make "a full load for a good ship." The list of absurdities and frauds goes on, and, as Pope Leo X was depicted as exclaiming, the Christ fable has been enormously profitable for the Church.

Despite claims to the contrary, carbon-14 dating conducted in 1988 has proved the shroud cloth was created during the 13th or 14th centuries CE.

After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud. 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.... In 2008 former STURP member John Jackson rejected the possibility that the C14 sample may have been conducted on a medieval repair fragment, on the basis that the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP in 1978 clearly show that the natural colour bandings present throughout the linen of the shroud propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would later provide the sample for radiocarbon dating. Jackson stated that this could not have been possible if the sampled area was a later addition.

Although some claim the shroud impression contains human blood, that contention has never been proved by science, and the trickles of blood on the head appear to confirm that the image is a forgery, as the blood would have been matted in the hair, not running down the scalp.

BLOOD. The Associated Press reported claims that the shroud bears type AB blood stains. Perhaps this erroneous information has its origin in other fake shrouds of Jesus, since the Shroud of Turin's stains are not only suspiciously red (unlike genuine blood that blackens with age) but they failed batteries of tests by internationally known forensic experts. The "blood" has been definitively proved to be composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint."

In 2009, the discovery of a "Jesus-era" shroud in a tomb of a Jewish priest in Jerusalem demonstrated the primitive nature of weaving at that time and place. This fact was not lost on the researchers, who released statements to the press that this rare discovery essentially proved the Turin shroud to be a much later fabrication with a twill weave far too complex and intricate for the appropriate period.

In addition to this discrepancy in the weave, the burial cloth genuinely dating to the relevant era is composed of two pieces, whereas the Shroud of Turin is a single cloth. As MSNBC concludes: "If the remains in the Jerusalem tomb represent typical burial shrouds widely used at the time of Jesus, this casts strong doubt that the Turin Shroud originated from Jesus-era Jerusalem."

A type of "soft-brush" technique can be found in books from the relevant era that specifically address the painting of a dead man and wounds. In this regard, Craig and Bresee also remark:

...the 12th century work of Theophilus, De diversis artibus, and the 14th or 15th century work of Cennino d'Andrea Cennini, Il libro dell'arte, revealed step-by-step procedures for artists of that period. Cennini's handbook includes instruction for grinding pigment into powder, brushing charcoal with feathers, and burnishing an image onto cloth. His handbook contains chapters containing specific instructions on "how to paint a dead man" and "how to paint wounds."

These considerations indicate that the inspiration, knowledge and tools necessary for an artist to create the image on the Turin cloth were probably available during the 12th and 13th centuries, although the specific combinations of individual techniques we used in our dust drawing technique may not have been described. It is clearly possible that an artist created the image on the Turin cloth. Of course, radiocarbon dating also supports this hypothesis, because this analytical technique determined that the Turin cloth originated between 1260 and 1390 CE.

Nickell, in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.

https://www.inquisitr.com/1559438/turin-...-says-yes/

The Turin Shroud never touched Jesus Christ — it was just a prop for medieval Easter celebrations, according to British scholar Charles Freeman. Freeman’s theories are in line with the carbon dating analysis that puts the shroud’s creation at about the 14th century, which challenges the wide-spread speculation that it is the real deal.

The 14-foot-long, 3-foot-wide brown cloth stained with the impression of Jesus Christ is one of the most scrutinized artifacts in the modern world. If real, the cloth gives indisputable proof that Jesus Christ was a real person.

But scientific evidence points to the Turin shroud being a fake. In 1988, three laboratories used carbon dating to determine that the cloth was created sometime between 1260 and 1390, a date that matches with the first medieval references.

According to The Guardian, Charles Freeman goes one step further to say that the shroud was a prop used to celebrate Jesus Christ in medieval Easter rituals, using ancient descriptions of the cloth to put its history together.

The first reference to the Turin Shroud came in 1355, when it was in the chapel in Lirey near Troyes in France. The House of Savoy then got the cloth in 1453, and from that point forward, the history of the shroud was well recorded — as far medieval record keeping goes.

Aside from claiming that Jesus Christ was never wrapped in the cloth, one of the more shocking revelations from Freeman’s research is that the shroud appears to have changed.

“Astonishingly, few researchers appear to have grasped that the shroud looked very different in the 16th and 17th centuries from the object we see today.”

Freeman turned up a little-known, meticulously-made engraving by Antonio Tempesta emphasizing Jesus’ blood and scourge marks, traits that are reinforced by ancient descriptions, but are not apparent today. The blood and scourge marks are more consistent with the earlier medieval depictions of Christ, and naturally makes for a better stage prop.

The theatrical ceremony Freeman believes the shroud was used in is called the “Quem quaeritis?” or “whom do you seek?” According to the researcher’s explanation, it may have been a bit creepy.

“On Easter morning the gospel accounts of the resurrection would be re-enacted with ‘disciples’ acting out a presentation in which they would enter a makeshift tomb and bring out the grave clothes to show that Christ had indeed risen.”

Despite the thorough explanation and historical references for the shroud, it seems likely that believers will continue to believe the cloth is the actual death shroud of Christ. Some scientific theories have said there is a possibility that the carbon dating tests were inaccurate.

[Silver]

But, you know, when you have found the one from the many, you just know.

[Ahriman]

But, you know, when you have found the one from the many, you just know.

What does that mean?

[Silver]

But, you know, when you have found the one from the many, you just know.

What does that mean?

It is sarcasm.

[LinuxGal]

If you collect all the Splinters of the True Cross, you have enough gopher wood to reconstruct the Ark.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If you collect all the Splinters of the True Cross, you have enough gopher wood to reconstruct the Ark.

Simony is a recession-proof industry.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

If you collect all the Splinters of the True Cross, you have enough gopher wood to reconstruct the Ark.

if you collect all the splinter of the true cross you have to believe jesus is actually lord Vishnu.