Red Pill me on this thing. Is it legit? I keep hearing that apparently this is some of the strongest evidence of Jesus' resurrection.
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Shroud of Turin
Red Pill me on this thing. Is it legit? I keep hearing that apparently this is some of the strongest evidence of Jesus' resurrection.
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Is true
What exactly is it though? And what does it prove? And why?
>what does it prove
It proves that YHWH has a physical presence on earth, and isn't "non-existent". It arose from the memory of a dead guy, and its manifested in a deed that occurred. If YHWH didn't manifest in reality, then how do you explain this 100% verifiable artifact exists? YHWH clearly inspired some dude to paint this bed sheet, and therefore, the concept of YHWH has axtuaklt manifested into something tangible.
Believe means "plan".
Faith means "understand intended semantics".
It doesn’t
Radiocardbondated to the Middle Ages, Medieval pope said it was a hoax since it appeared
That old testing has been debunked so hard -'the raw data from the 1988 tests showed that the test samples were heterogeneous, invalidating the results.' And they had to be sued to share their crap results.
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-shroud-turin.html
Also it has a bilion characteristics that are impossible to explain or reproduce. Namely, the image being imprinted solely on the surface of the fabric, as if radiation pulsed from within and formed a negative on it. No paint, no nothing.
Too bad that's far from the scientific consensus:
In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballestrero announced the official results, i.e. that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260–1390 AD, with 95% confidence. The official and complete report on the experiment was published in Nature.[1] The uncalibrated dates from the individual laboratories, with 1 standard deviation errors (68% confidence), were as follows:
Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years;
Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old;
the unweighted mean was "691 ± 31 years", which corresponds to calibrated ages of "1273–1288 AD" with 68% confidence, and "1262–1312, 1353–1384 AD cal" with 95% confidence.
As reported in Nature, Anthos Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin, "confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable."[1]
>Namely, the image being imprinted solely on the surface of the fabric, as if radiation pulsed from within and formed a negative on it. No paint, no nothing
This is complete bullshit btw. Paint residue was found
sure it was
'1. It's a painting
If this were true, it should be possible to identify the pigments used by chemical analysis, just as conservators can do for the paintings of Old Masters. But the Sturp team found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in sufficient amounts to explain the image. '
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33164668
Yes it was
In October 1978, a team of scientists affiliated with STURP took 32 samples from the surface of the Shroud, using adhesive tape. Of those samples, 18 were taken from areas of the Shroud that showed a body or blood image, while 14 were taken from non-image areas. The chemical microscopist Walter McCrone, a leading expert in the forensic authentication of historical documents and works of art, examined the tapes using polarized light microscopy and other physical and chemical techniques. McCrone concluded that the Shroud's body image had been painted with a dilute pigment of red ochre (a form of iron oxide) in a collagen tempera (i.e., gelatin) medium, using a technique similar to the grisaille employed in the 14th century by Simone Martini and other European artists. McCrone also found that the "bloodstains" in the image had been highlighted with vermilion (a bright red pigment made from mercury sulfide), also in a collagen tempera medium. McCrone reported that no actual blood was present in the samples taken from the Shroud.[5]
>If this were true, it should be possible to identify the pigments used by chemical analysis, just as conservators can do for the paintings of Old Masters.
They have so you can concede it's a painting.
>But the Sturp team found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in sufficient amounts to explain the image. '
This is a blatant lie. Some members of Sturp claimed there are none and got refuted by the actual chemical analyst of STURP.
It's a painting and pretending against better knowledge that the only physical evidence of god is a confirmed medieval shroud shows your desperation.
>And they had to be sued to share their crap results
lel
>yeah its late medieval
>trust us
lmao
True what? A israeli necromancer that’s the avatar of a Canaanite demon baked his image into a fricking shroud?
It is from medieval times.
?si=XSsczoMlJ5AdC9G9
Considering that it's literally not in the Bible and no Early Christian author or figure was even aware that it existed, I don't see why any Christian would give a shit beyond an outmoded obsession with relics (which is the age this thing was from, a time when relics were being "discovered" regularly).
Its not even the only shroud, its just the least obviously ludicrous and silly one.
Check out Reasontodoubt, they made a long ass series with all sorts of experts proving it’s a hoax.
Recent results have demonstrated that it does go back to to the time of Jesus
https://catholicherald.co.uk/new-evidence-indicates-turin-shroud-not-a-european-forgery/
>catholicherald
Nice unbiased source lol
I can't find a non-religious outlet talking about it, the news just recently broke out. Read the article and judge for yourself.
That doesn’t say anything about its date, for that we have c14 studies performed by independent laboratories
New scientific tests conducted on the famous Shroud of Turin have revealed that the flax used to make the linen was grown in the Middle East.
>The results of isotope tests provide new evidence that the shroud is the actual garment that was used to cover the body of Jesus Christ following his crucifixion – and is not a forgery that was created in medieval Europe. Fragments of cloth taken from the shroud show that its flax originated in the western Levant, a swathe of land occupied today by Israel, Lebanon and western parts of Jordan and Syria.
>William Meacham, the American archaeologist who commissioned the study, said: “With a probable near Eastern origin, new doubts must be raised about interpreting the shroud as simply a fake relic made in medieval Europe, and new questions arise about what the image on the cloth signifies.
>“The possibility that this cloth is actually the burial shroud of Jesus is strengthened by this new evidence. In my view, that remains the best explanation for the shroud.”
>Meacham said the Eastern origin of the shroud is important because “it reinforces other features that point in that direction”.
>He explained: “Most notable was the pollen. Even though many identifications have since been discounted, certain species taken together still indicate an Eastern Mediterranean presence.
>“Similarly, the crown of thorns [on the shroud] in helmet style rather than Roman circlet is a feature characteristic of Asia Minor and the Levant.
>“Another is the claim of coins on the eyes in the shroud image that matched a documented instance from a second century burial in Judea.
>“This was an impressive confirmation of a hypothesis generated by computer 3D analysis in 1977, at a time when there was no known instance (outside of Israel) of such a practice in antiquity.”
That says nothing on its date, the claim about coins in the eyes has been refuted:
The existence of the coin images is rejected by most scientists.[97] A study published in 2011 by Lorusso and others subjected two photographs of the shroud to detailed modern digital image processing, one of them being a reproduction of the photographic negative taken by Giuseppe Enrie in 1931. They did not find any images of flowers or coins or any other additional objects on the shroud in either photograph, they noted that the faint images identified by the Whangers were "only visible by incrementing the photographic contrast", and they concluded that these signs may be linked to protuberances in the yarn, and possibly also to the alteration and influence of the texture of the Enrie photographic negative during its development in 1931.[93] The use of coins to cover the eyes of the dead is not attested for 1st-century Palestine.
There is no evidence, both the historical evidence (the pope claiming it’s a hoax as soon as it appeared) and scientific evidence point to it being a hoax
luckily there is enough historical evidence of the resurrection without it. My point is even if it was dated to the first century and we still had no idea how it was made atheists would still dismiss it
There is no historical evidence of the resurrection at all, also it’s funny that you change subject as soon as you get refuted, I don’t have time to lose with you
>u have no ideaaa
We don’t know what exact method was employed that doesn’t mean there aren’t many possible explanations, that goes for several monuments too, it doesn’t mean that aliens le gods made the pyramids
>There is no historical evidence of the resurrection at all
now you're just being dishonest
> it’s funny that you change subject as soon as you get refuted
I wasn't refuted, this was my point from the start. Even if it was dated to the first century atheists would still toss it out
>We don’t know what exact method was employed
You're equivocating we don't know exactly how the Pyramids were made but it's a totally different scenario. They put rocks on top of other rocks as you say we don't know the method, the shroud we have literally no possible explanation
>now you're just being dishonest
I'm not: several well esteemed and major Bible scholars deny the authenicity of the resurrection and claim that the first Christians had dreams and visions of Christ, like Paul, see Bart Erhman or James Tabor. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
There isn't, you quote a disingenous article that present a refuted study that is almost a decade old as "new", try getting your information about a source that isn't a site ran by apologists
Maybe you should open yourself to the possibility that perhaps those previous studies were wrong and new studies are finding interesting details that strengthen the shroud's case.
I said there was evidence not that everyone agreed what that evidence meant. I think we can all agree mass hallucination theory is just as big of a miracle as a resurrection
Netiher non beliving historicists (Tabor, Erhman) nor mythicists ( Thomas Brodie, Robert M. Price., Thomas Thompson, Richard Carrier) suggest mass hallucination as the only explanation
>I think we can all agree mass hallucination theory is just as big of a miracle as a resurrection
Not at all.
Plenty of mass hallucinations or similar phenomena still happen among modern cults, including those apocalyctic cults that got refuted, that doesn't mean much, and we're taking into account contemporary ones that exist and got debunked by their prophecies not being fullfilled.
The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. They don’t even claim to be. Yet were written an average lifetime after the events they relate, in a period when we cannot establish any eyewitness was still alive. And we can neither locate nor name any witness they claim to have consulted. In fact, not a single Gospel claims to have consulted any eyewitness. Luke just says he used prior Gospels (Luke 1:1-4; see my analysis of the underlying Greek in Not the Impossible Faith, Ch. 7). And we know which ones: Mark and Matthew, or some other now-lost Gospel(s) used by them; yet neither Mark nor Matthew claim to be witnesses, nor write like witnesses, nor cite any witness as a source for anything they relate.
Hence Luke just asserts those Gospels contained a tradition passed down by eyewitnesses; he does not cite any evidence of that assertion being true. The Gospels themselves don’t even say that. And even the authors of the Gospel of John (yes, plural), who fabricate an anonymous eyewitness source completely absent from every previous version of the story (as I demonstrate in On the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 500-05), only claim to have read something that unnamed witness wrote…in other words, some previous Gospel, whom they show no sign of having confirmed was actually written by anyone actually there (they just assert they “know” what he wrote is true; giving no indication of how they know that). They don’t even say they’d ever met him.
>Quoting Carrier.
Into the trash you go.
Oh yeah, quoting a PHD scholar who refutes your BS instead of catholic weekly or redeemed zoomer, keep hallucinating
Mythicism is to atheism what YEC is to Christianity.
Mythicism has a stronger case than jesus actually being the son of god
I like how you have to specify "Jesus being the son of God" instead of "Jesus being real" because you know for a fact that the academic consensus disagrees with you.
>immediate whataboutism
You reject the fact that the academic consensus disagrees with you?
I'm not even a mythicist; it is still a better explaination
1) The argument in question has little to do with mythicism 2) Historicts like Tabor hold similar opinions on this matter, that the early Christian like Paul had vision/dreams/inner revelations rather than what is recounted in the alter gospels 3)that's not an argument against mythicism, just an insult, and it's off topic anyway
The substance of their argument is sound. The notion that the Gospels are 4 independent eyewitness accounts is pretty ridiculous. It's obvious from the sequencing and wording of Matthew and Luke, for example, that these Gospels are compiled from pre-existing sources rather than independent pieces of writing. This isn't even a controversial point in serious Biblical scholarship.
Yeah it's not just individual eyewitnesses, it's a collection of many eye witnesses all gathered up and compiled into each Gospel with one main witness in each of the 4 to the major events to verify people's claims
Atheism is on it's last legs if this is the best cope you got. It's not longer an intellectual position to hold and is now just a religion with it's own dogmatic beliefs
No argument?
Correct. Atheism is without logos.
Theism on it's last leg
Did you just parrot what that other Anon said? Is that how you process social interactions? Do you have an objective, or are you the subject of other objectives? Are you reactive, or proactive?
I'm just satanic
People have been saying this forever now and religion never goes away
Clearly
Yeah 2 more weeks bro, just ignore the evidence of Atheism's decline
>muh birthrates it would be rising
Darwinism at play, modern atheists are an evolutionary dead end
You think atheism is genetic?
No from an atheistic perspective religiousness is, atheism is a mutation that is not sustainable long term
Which one is it
Religiousness and atheism genetic or not?
>just ignore the evidence of athiests decline
>literally every stat suggests the exact opposite
>even the most religious states are starting to roll back their religious laws slowly but surely
>pretty much entirely reliant on their followers birthing news kids to keep those numbers up and even then that is also slowing down
ahhh the religious larper, always needing to make up a different reality to cope
On a global scale atheism is dropping sorry bud
except thats also not true as well
Atheists just can't handle evidence
Atheists won.
Religion is falling. Atheism isn't rising. People are "spiritual but not religious" now
>Statistics are wrong because of an anecdote
>intellectual position
They can't hold onto a position. They are without Theism. Like anarchy, they are an unstable concept that does not exist in reality. Their empty position is instantly filled with more theos everytime they try to clean the slate.
So all we have left to count on is Paul, whose letters constitute the only text we have from anyone claiming to be an eyewitness to a risen Jesus, and someone who tells us he knew and met some of the eyewitnesses before him (though he didn’t meet them until years after he himself saw Jesus and was already evangelizing across the Middle East). But here’s the huge disconnect. Nothing in Paul, connects with anything in the Gospels. That’s right. Not a single detail in the Gospels, matches anything in Paul. Paul never mentions anyone hanging out with the undead Jesus eating and drinking and fondling him for weeks on end. And Paul’s only reported sequence of events, corresponds to no Gospel we know.
Paul tells us Jesus was seen, and preached his gospel of resurrection and salvation, in revelations (Romans 16:25-26; Galatians 1:11-16; 1 Corinthians 9:1). Not by showing up at the apostles’ door and asking for a hot breakfast. In fact, what Paul does tell us, rules that out
But Paul tells us what his vision was like. Paul says Jesus appeared to him not as a “man,” not in “flesh and blood,” but “through a revelation” (di’ apokalypseôs: Galatians 1:11-12), which Paul describes as God revealing Jesus “inside me” (Galatians 1:16). He never says anyone saw Jesus in any other way. So we cannot assume he or anyone thought he had. All we have are myths and legends a lifetime later, from no known or credible source.
>resurrection
Whatnl do you think the word resurrection means?
Fuggin Kek. Is this what passes for an in depth study in christcuck apologetics? Try getting that shit published in even a mid tier biology journal and they'll laugh you out of the building
And of course they proved thait dates to the 13-14th century AD, right when it first appeared in the historical records
That’s not a recent study, the study is from over 30 years ago and says nothing about its date
It very clearly demonstrates its origin in the Middle East, not what you'd expect if it was an European forgery.
Execpt that a lot of fake relics were forged in the Eastern Mediterranean, but even the pollen claim is not substantiated:
However Danin stated in 2011, that: "In 2001 we brought most of the slides to Prof. Dr. Thomas Litt who is an expert palynologist and has very sophisticated microscopic equipment. Prof. Litt concluded that none of the pollen grains he saw could be named at a species level. Hence, all the conclusions drawn from previous palynological investigations of Dr. Frei's material should be suspended until a new collection of pollen grains can be carried out and the grains thus obtained can be studied with modern equipment and by an expert of pollen of this area."
Always check your sources
>but even the pollen claim is not substantiated:
It just was, read the article.
Do you have a raging hate boner for the shroud or something?
That article is not a scientific article at all and doesn’t cite one. Do you have a raging boner for actual studies and just want to believe in the supernatural to the point that you take claims from a site called catholicherald at face value?
No? I just find it fascinating that there is a real chance that the shroud is legit.
>catholicherald
great source, comrade.
you think atheists would suddenly believe? They don't care about evidence if it goes against their atheistic beliefs, they would just handwave it away
It would make mythicism disappear overnight, also it would strenghten the legitimacy of the gospels.
>first mention of it is someone saying he found the guy who faked it
Totally legit bro
Maybe he was wrong. Since when does science go by everything the first person who finds it says?
Cope
The catholic church doesn't even recognise it; it was already calked a fake since it appeared and c14 dating puts it in the 14-15th century (there is no evidence the samples were taken from later repairs)
It's fake
A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin†
Matteo Borrini Ph.D., Luigi Garlaschelli M.Sc.
First published: 10 July 2018
>Red Pill me on this thing. Is it legit?
Of course not what an idiotic question .
>I keep hearing that apparently this is some of the strongest evidence of Jesus' resurrection.
That just tells you how dogshit any other evidence is.
>Is it legit?
No.
Why is there a shroud in the first place?
Was it the custom to just drape some cloth over the top of a dead body when buried?
>(Maim., Yad, Evel 4:2), the rabbis' view that anyone who dresses the dead in comely shrouds (takhrikhim, from the Hebrew verb "to wrap up") testifies to a belief in the resurrection
>Tobit (2:8). "Honor of the dead" demands that the proper preparation for a coffin and shrouds be made, and that relatives and friends pay their last respects
> (MK 27b) The victim of an unnatural death is buried in his blood-soaked garments over which the white shrouds are placed in order that all parts of the body should be interred
In first century Judea yes. Some Orthodox israelites still do something similar
So what we're seeing in that photograph is what would have happened to Jesus's body?
This is probably going to sound like a moronic question but is that consistent with the image we see?
I feel like this is the first issue I have, wouldn't the image be more stretched out and reveal stuff from his sides?
Don't you guys ever get worried about the fact that we can't replicate it even in the 21st century?
If your theories about how it was made are based on bursts of radiation, wouldn't that match a burst of radiation from a miracle?
Like God willed the Big Bang into existence and that had a lot of radiation
>Don't you guys ever get worried about the fact that we can't replicate it even in the 21st century?
I'm not sure what you mean, it's easy to replicate, we're told in its first attestation that it was made using acid wash paints. The bishop who caught the forger told us this.
>If your theories about how it was made are based on bursts of radiation
No one has ever said this, no one would suggest that it was made in any other manner than how we're told that it was made.
>burst of radiation from a miracle
Miracles means burst of radiation?
So fricking stupid
God got the superpower to do anything. No radiation required.
How do you know the mechanics of miracles?
E=mc^2
God has created the perfect system and thus when God intervenes, a burst of radiation is created in order to make up for the change of matter
Nuclear fission
I am not Christian, I am just curious
God exists, He told me so
The idea is that there's no "mechanics" to miracles. They are magic.
It's not like Christians are concerned with explaining how Jesus walks on water.
Like, his buoyancy is still less than water, and gravity pulls him down... Why don't he sink???
Maybe his feet is exerting a chemical that increases the surface tension of water. <--- NOT HOW IT WORKS (unless you're a weird German)
>he told me so
You will never not be schizophrenic.
600YO chemical gunk looks weird after decomposing halfway
WOOOOOOOW
0% worried
God, or the specific Canaanite demon you refer to, has never existed so he didn’t will anything sadly
>wouldn't the image be more stretched out and reveal stuff from his sides?
why?
because it's a shroud, not an awning that was stretched over the corpse as a canopy.
No, israelites at the time buried their dead by wrapping one shroud over the body and the other over the face. The painter who got caught making the shroud, and was punished for it in a court of law, was unaware of this as he was illiterate and as such wasn't aware of John saying that Yeshua was buried in the traditional israeli manner (which is how the Catholic Bishop who caught him was aware that it was a 14th-century production and not of ancient origin).
Why don't they just run another carbon dating test? lol
Just make sure to not take this one from the medieval repair job
They have, several portions have been tested. They all say that it's from the 14th-century.
>several portions have been tested
That's just not true.
They were supposed to take samples from several sections of the cloth for the C14 tests, but at the last second they changed their minds and only took samples from a single corner that had previously been damaged in a fire.
I think there's a pretty, petty, explanation for why they (the Vatican) don't feel like running more C14 tests
They already don't recognize it as a relic
>christoschizo gets refuted at every turn
>resorts to whataboutisms and appeals to ignorance
Like fine pottery
Here’s everything you need to know
Bruh, just do another C14 test
>2016
Lol, I remember how that shit got btfo on IQfy. The guy just kept spamming pastas from religious websites and couldn't even argue about anything.
>IQfy
lel
why not plebbit
It belongs to the priest descendants of Drusilla of Cappadocia, whom was Jesus' stepmom via Juba II marrying her in order to replace his dead "lunar goddess" wife.
>Drusilla
oops, meant Glaphyra
There is only God.
Do the math.
You're God.
1 + 1
The devil is just a manifestation of God.
Everything that happens is for your own good.
Knowing that, don't worry with what is about to happen with the North Hemisphere.
Just read the Sacred Scriptures and put in practice its teachings.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2045%3A5-7&version=NIV