>JWs "debunking" the most miraculous relic in Christianity, the one that makes even skeptics uncomfortable
Let's say, hypothetically, that you belonged to a satanic sect dedicated to subverting and undermining Christianity, how would you be able to tell the difference?
What a garbage translation of 2 Samuel 22:36, what do you think that verse is even supposed to mean like that?
2 years ago
Anonymous
It means the laboratories subjected the samples to radiocarbon dating, each one concluded that the shroud was from the 13th or 14th century.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Am I talking to a bot?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The jwtard is clearly talking about your magical bedsheet.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Aren't you guys creationists?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The tests were invalidated because they used a rewoven sample.
A peer reviewed scientific paper by Raymond N. Rogers, retired Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory was published on January 20, 2005, in the journal Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425, Issues 1-2, Pages 189-194. Titled "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," the paper concludes, >"As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud. Pyrolysis-mass spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the Shroud."
Source: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n61part6.pdf
The Rogers article is behind a paywall,* but commentary and discussion is found in the above pdf link.
Rogers's findings were subsequently criticized by Timothy Jull. Jull, in turn, is critiqued here: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/oxley.pdf
For anyone interested in the subject, shroud.com is an *extremely* comprehensive, well-organized database on the subject which is kept up to date with autistic thoroughness.
Nope. Read the links I posted -- the alleged debunk consists of rhetorical handwaving, without specifics. That's a debunk fail, m8.
>The $1m challenge: ‘If the Turin Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/17/the-1m-challenge-if-the-turin-shroud-is-a-forgery-show-how-it-was-done
2 years ago
Anonymous
If you want to rebunk it, try dating a different piece.
I don't know enough about the involved disciplines to judge who is right or wrong there, but what I can recognize is that the shit you posted was written by some rando who has about as much relevant training as me. >If the Turin Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done
Brought to you by the creators of "aliens built the pyramids using laser cutters".
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If you want to rebunk it, try dating a different piece.
That may happen someday. Until then, the argument is over the analysis of the strands that were used.
>Brought to you by the creators of "aliens built the pyramids using laser cutters"
Eh, it's the same instinct that drove James Randi's one million dollar paranormal challenge, which all the fedora tippers approved of. Sauce for the goose.
>Eh, it's the same instinct that drove James Randi's one million dollar paranormal challenge
Only the concept of a challenge is the same, not its content. There are many people who claim to be able to do paranormal shit, but the same can't be said for people claiming to know how exactly the Shroud was produced. That's why I mentioned the ancient aliens shit. We don't know how exactly some historical artifacts were produced, that's not unique to the Shroud. Claiming that an object like that had to be created by some paranormal/extraterrestrial/transdimensional shit is just picrel.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>We don't know how exactly some historical artifacts were produced, that's not unique to the Shroud.
Your analogy doesn't apply. The claim being addressed via the challenge is that the Shroud is a **fraud,** a fake. That's not the case with other historical artifacts about which we are not quite sure how they were produced.
The gist of the challenge is thus: If you're saying it's a fraud, demonstrate it. That's a perfectly reasonable challenge, under the circumstances. Besides, people have already been trying to duplicate it for decades, without success -- although frequently generating a good deal of publicity in their efforts to debunk the Shroud.
Why do Christians want the shroud to be real so badly?
We already have historical accounts of Jesus, it's not like some old scrap of fabric is a revolutionary piece of proof that he existed.
Because at heart white western christians are actually materialists and need logical, indisputable evidence the same as atheists. That's why you have moronic shit like biblical archaeology which is just a coping mechanism for christians desperate to justify their beliefs and prove to themselves and the world that they're not moronic.
>Why do Christians want the shroud to be real so badly?
The existence of an image that is a photographic negative - much less one of this size - created centuries before the invention of photography has not remotely been explained. It is a unique, otherwise inexplicable object.
Because at heart white western christians are actually materialists and need logical, indisputable evidence the same as atheists. That's why you have moronic shit like biblical archaeology which is just a coping mechanism for christians desperate to justify their beliefs and prove to themselves and the world that they're not moronic.
The vast majority of Christians don't gives two shits about the shroud or biblical archeology.
Never heard of this before.
Thought the image was an imprint of a statue or something.
Looked it up - oh, Jesus shit.
Oh, plenty of people came to the same conclusion as me and have replicated it.
Christgays BTFO yet again
My main criticism is that it looks like a poorly proportioned piece of medeival art. If there was proof that it was literally the cloth the wrapped Jesus I would still think the image was added later because it's not especially well done.
What does that have to do with what I said? The proportions of the face are wrong. I don't care what kind of special technique they used the create the image.
You make it sound like some subpar artist drew it wrong.
The "special technique they used", regardless of whether it's authentic or a forgery, was impressing a bloodied face and body on the cloth. (the "blood" maybe have been some other substance but either way.)
That's why it doesn't look like much to the naked eye, it's literally a smudge on the cloth.
Here's a similar japanese "relic", kabuki actors would impress their painted faces on a cloth, as an autograph of sort.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Really? Your pic only looks like faces because it's elaborate face paint. Smear blood on your face and try to make something even kinda close to the shroud of Turin. I seriously doubt it's possible, even if you went slowly and tried to make it perfect.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Your pic only looks like faces because it's elaborate face paint.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Yes, the facepaint they use leaves a pretty good impression on cloth, which is probably how they got the idea (noticing they left a mark of their face on a towel while cleaning themselves after a play)
Are you implying sweat and blood would leave less of a mark? Well, I guess that's true, because the shroud is far less striking than those oshiguma cloths without the use of software imagery.
>Smear blood on your face and try to make something even kinda close to the shroud of Turin.
I invite you, one day when you come back from working outside and you're covered in sweat and dust, to gently but tightly apply a cloth or paper to your face. You might be rather surprised.
>a 3d shroud laid flat and then scanned >muh proportions
i have never been a fanboi of the shroud, but atleast think through your argument before presenting your nignog conclusions
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ok why doesn't it look wider then? I will admit he has nice wide hips, but that's it.
You make it sound like some subpar artist drew it wrong.
The "special technique they used", regardless of whether it's authentic or a forgery, was impressing a bloodied face and body on the cloth. (the "blood" maybe have been some other substance but either way.)
That's why it doesn't look like much to the naked eye, it's literally a smudge on the cloth.
Here's a similar japanese "relic", kabuki actors would impress their painted faces on a cloth, as an autograph of sort.
These face prints are wider than a regular face too.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Your pic is a 360° texture skin.
>These face prints are wider than a regular face too.
That's because they actually pressed their face very flat on them rather than having a cloth lain on it, besides mongoloids naturally have wide "moon" faces.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The cloth didn't drape around Jesus's face and remained perfectly flat. Got it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Probably not perfectly flat, but certainly not like this.
2 years ago
Anonymous
NTA No matter how you put a cloth on a face, the outline of the face is going to be wildly distorted. Come on man figure it out in your head
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's right, fingerprints aren't real either.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Holy shit you actually don’t understand..
Anon you can flatten a fingerprint, a face is inherently not flat so when you try to make a 2d image by putting a cloth on a face the face does not give a 1 to 1 image, it’s going to be much much wider.
Why is this board so dumb and full of Christians? It’s baffling
2 years ago
Anonymous
Cloth can wrap around a face, why is this board so dumb and full of subhuman ape-brained atheists?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah and a face print from a cloth wrapped around a face will look nothing like the actual face, lol.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're a fricking moron. That other anon made a total clown of you and you should just hide this thread and pretend you never posted in it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That wasn't even me, but I think it's fair to point out that you're a barely sentient degenerate who can't visualize how objects interact in 3d space.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You're a degenerate because I'm a moronic subhuman atheist who refuses to consider ANYTHING AT ALL that might support the truth
Go hide under a rock, Black person, God and Christ being the messiah is a proven fact. You just refuse to see the truth because you're a slave to sin, go watch your weabpedo cartoons of under-dressed, underage anime girls now, israelite.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not an argument. Nice projection with the weebshit btw, it seems like frustration brings out the Catholic guilt in you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You might notice I posted a print of the whole hand, not just the fingerprints.
But you know, there's a bunch of other things that got printed like that before photography existed.
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
Sure, fish are somewhat flatter than human faces, but the shroud of turin isn't such a perfect print either.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ah, how about a lobster? That's neither very flat nor easy to flatten.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And even seashells.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Sure, fish are somewhat flatter than human faces, but the shroud of turin isn't such a perfect print either.
The side of a fish is way flatter than the front of a human face.
Ah, how about a lobster? That's neither very flat nor easy to flatten.
Yeah anon you can actually see that lobster looks fat and wider than a real one, it’s distorted. A human face especially including the nose is not flat and gets radically distorted if you use a flat cloth to trace its outline
I think the most confusing thing about that sort of skepticism about the shroud is, you believe medieval forgers would go through the trouble of making such an elaborate drawing that is mostly invisible to the naked eye, when they could have just wrapped a body in a cloth.
I'm honestly more willing to believe that an ancient conman somehow forged it using a technique we are currently unaware of than something as absurd as the doctrine of the Incarnation. The first explanation, though certainly unlikely, does not conflict with any of the fundamental laws of reality. The second one (i.e. the idea that God became man, that the infinite somehow became finite, that an omnipotent being somehow became impotent) is so absurd at a metaphysical level that any "evidence" in favour of it should be held to an extremely high standard. I mean, just look at Chalcedonian Christology and how moronic it is. I'm not going to buy that just because we may not have a complete explanation of the shroud right now.
I just don't understand why they didn't roll his body in the fabric like pic related. Instead they supposedly lie him down on one half of the shroud and just folded the other half on him? That's fricking moronic.
>our results show that the shroud is not as old as you think >NO THAT'S A SCRAP FROM A RESTORATION >Ok show us which parts of it are the original and we will test that >NO WE WON'T EVER LET YOU DATE IT AGAIN DEUS GEVALT
To be fair, using carbon atoms to date an artifact that was known to have survived a fire to the century that the fire happened is pretty moronic. What do you think smoke is gonna deposit on the surface of the fabric? That's right, carbon.
What are you talking about. The fire happenned in 1532, while the carbon dating's results established that the shroud was from the 13th or 14th centuries (1260-1390 aproximately).
to do a proper dating non moron people would pick samples from various parts of the shroud because its known that it has repairs.
but maybe they actually did, but only publicized the results from the recent patches because they are sore losers.
It's a fake
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/shroud-of-turin-jesus-burial/
>JW
>JWschizo pushing back against other cathschizos
based
>JWs "debunking" the most miraculous relic in Christianity, the one that makes even skeptics uncomfortable
Let's say, hypothetically, that you belonged to a satanic sect dedicated to subverting and undermining Christianity, how would you be able to tell the difference?
>my faith relies on a piece of clothe !
Sorry, but we have a religion of spirit and truth
What a garbage translation of 2 Samuel 22:36, what do you think that verse is even supposed to mean like that?
It means the laboratories subjected the samples to radiocarbon dating, each one concluded that the shroud was from the 13th or 14th century.
Am I talking to a bot?
The jwtard is clearly talking about your magical bedsheet.
Aren't you guys creationists?
The tests were invalidated because they used a rewoven sample.
A peer reviewed scientific paper by Raymond N. Rogers, retired Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory was published on January 20, 2005, in the journal Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425, Issues 1-2, Pages 189-194. Titled "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," the paper concludes,
>"As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud. Pyrolysis-mass spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the Shroud."
Source: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n61part6.pdf
The Rogers article is behind a paywall,* but commentary and discussion is found in the above pdf link.
Rogers's findings were subsequently criticized by Timothy Jull. Jull, in turn, is critiqued here: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/oxley.pdf
For anyone interested in the subject, shroud.com is an *extremely* comprehensive, well-organized database on the subject which is kept up to date with autistic thoroughness.
*See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040603104004745
That's already been debunked you moron.
Nope. Read the links I posted -- the alleged debunk consists of rhetorical handwaving, without specifics. That's a debunk fail, m8.
>The $1m challenge: ‘If the Turin Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/17/the-1m-challenge-if-the-turin-shroud-is-a-forgery-show-how-it-was-done
If you want to rebunk it, try dating a different piece.
I don't know enough about the involved disciplines to judge who is right or wrong there, but what I can recognize is that the shit you posted was written by some rando who has about as much relevant training as me.
>If the Turin Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done
Brought to you by the creators of "aliens built the pyramids using laser cutters".
>If you want to rebunk it, try dating a different piece.
That may happen someday. Until then, the argument is over the analysis of the strands that were used.
>Brought to you by the creators of "aliens built the pyramids using laser cutters"
Eh, it's the same instinct that drove James Randi's one million dollar paranormal challenge, which all the fedora tippers approved of. Sauce for the goose.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/magazine/the-unbelievable-skepticism-of-the-amazing-randi.html
>Eh, it's the same instinct that drove James Randi's one million dollar paranormal challenge
Only the concept of a challenge is the same, not its content. There are many people who claim to be able to do paranormal shit, but the same can't be said for people claiming to know how exactly the Shroud was produced. That's why I mentioned the ancient aliens shit. We don't know how exactly some historical artifacts were produced, that's not unique to the Shroud. Claiming that an object like that had to be created by some paranormal/extraterrestrial/transdimensional shit is just picrel.
>We don't know how exactly some historical artifacts were produced, that's not unique to the Shroud.
Your analogy doesn't apply. The claim being addressed via the challenge is that the Shroud is a **fraud,** a fake. That's not the case with other historical artifacts about which we are not quite sure how they were produced.
The gist of the challenge is thus: If you're saying it's a fraud, demonstrate it. That's a perfectly reasonable challenge, under the circumstances. Besides, people have already been trying to duplicate it for decades, without success -- although frequently generating a good deal of publicity in their efforts to debunk the Shroud.
Why do Christians want the shroud to be real so badly?
We already have historical accounts of Jesus, it's not like some old scrap of fabric is a revolutionary piece of proof that he existed.
>We already have historical accounts of Jesus
like what? I am not very educated on this topic so please pardon my lack of knowledge
The new testament
Because at heart white western christians are actually materialists and need logical, indisputable evidence the same as atheists. That's why you have moronic shit like biblical archaeology which is just a coping mechanism for christians desperate to justify their beliefs and prove to themselves and the world that they're not moronic.
>Why do Christians want the shroud to be real so badly?
The existence of an image that is a photographic negative - much less one of this size - created centuries before the invention of photography has not remotely been explained. It is a unique, otherwise inexplicable object.
The vast majority of Christians don't gives two shits about the shroud or biblical archeology.
Because it would be cool.
Mark Antony was his grandad.
Paaneach (anakin) was his daddy.
Star Wars is schizo disclosure on the secret of Jesus.
Never heard of this before.
Thought the image was an imprint of a statue or something.
Looked it up - oh, Jesus shit.
Oh, plenty of people came to the same conclusion as me and have replicated it.
Christgays BTFO yet again
My main criticism is that it looks like a poorly proportioned piece of medeival art. If there was proof that it was literally the cloth the wrapped Jesus I would still think the image was added later because it's not especially well done.
You know the "image" is only faintly visible without the use of software and you're looking at negatives, right?
What does that have to do with what I said? The proportions of the face are wrong. I don't care what kind of special technique they used the create the image.
You make it sound like some subpar artist drew it wrong.
The "special technique they used", regardless of whether it's authentic or a forgery, was impressing a bloodied face and body on the cloth. (the "blood" maybe have been some other substance but either way.)
That's why it doesn't look like much to the naked eye, it's literally a smudge on the cloth.
Here's a similar japanese "relic", kabuki actors would impress their painted faces on a cloth, as an autograph of sort.
Really? Your pic only looks like faces because it's elaborate face paint. Smear blood on your face and try to make something even kinda close to the shroud of Turin. I seriously doubt it's possible, even if you went slowly and tried to make it perfect.
>Your pic only looks like faces because it's elaborate face paint.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Yes, the facepaint they use leaves a pretty good impression on cloth, which is probably how they got the idea (noticing they left a mark of their face on a towel while cleaning themselves after a play)
Are you implying sweat and blood would leave less of a mark? Well, I guess that's true, because the shroud is far less striking than those oshiguma cloths without the use of software imagery.
>Smear blood on your face and try to make something even kinda close to the shroud of Turin.
I invite you, one day when you come back from working outside and you're covered in sweat and dust, to gently but tightly apply a cloth or paper to your face. You might be rather surprised.
You know fingerprinting exists, right?
>a 3d shroud laid flat and then scanned
>muh proportions
i have never been a fanboi of the shroud, but atleast think through your argument before presenting your nignog conclusions
Ok why doesn't it look wider then? I will admit he has nice wide hips, but that's it.
These face prints are wider than a regular face too.
Your pic is a 360° texture skin.
>These face prints are wider than a regular face too.
That's because they actually pressed their face very flat on them rather than having a cloth lain on it, besides mongoloids naturally have wide "moon" faces.
The cloth didn't drape around Jesus's face and remained perfectly flat. Got it.
Probably not perfectly flat, but certainly not like this.
NTA No matter how you put a cloth on a face, the outline of the face is going to be wildly distorted. Come on man figure it out in your head
That's right, fingerprints aren't real either.
Holy shit you actually don’t understand..
Anon you can flatten a fingerprint, a face is inherently not flat so when you try to make a 2d image by putting a cloth on a face the face does not give a 1 to 1 image, it’s going to be much much wider.
Why is this board so dumb and full of Christians? It’s baffling
Cloth can wrap around a face, why is this board so dumb and full of subhuman ape-brained atheists?
Yeah and a face print from a cloth wrapped around a face will look nothing like the actual face, lol.
You're a fricking moron. That other anon made a total clown of you and you should just hide this thread and pretend you never posted in it.
That wasn't even me, but I think it's fair to point out that you're a barely sentient degenerate who can't visualize how objects interact in 3d space.
>You're a degenerate because I'm a moronic subhuman atheist who refuses to consider ANYTHING AT ALL that might support the truth
Go hide under a rock, Black person, God and Christ being the messiah is a proven fact. You just refuse to see the truth because you're a slave to sin, go watch your weabpedo cartoons of under-dressed, underage anime girls now, israelite.
Not an argument. Nice projection with the weebshit btw, it seems like frustration brings out the Catholic guilt in you.
You might notice I posted a print of the whole hand, not just the fingerprints.
But you know, there's a bunch of other things that got printed like that before photography existed.
Sure, fish are somewhat flatter than human faces, but the shroud of turin isn't such a perfect print either.
Ah, how about a lobster? That's neither very flat nor easy to flatten.
And even seashells.
The side of a fish is way flatter than the front of a human face.
Yeah anon you can actually see that lobster looks fat and wider than a real one, it’s distorted. A human face especially including the nose is not flat and gets radically distorted if you use a flat cloth to trace its outline
Didn’t carbon dating debunk this thing?
Yes
I think the most confusing thing about that sort of skepticism about the shroud is, you believe medieval forgers would go through the trouble of making such an elaborate drawing that is mostly invisible to the naked eye, when they could have just wrapped a body in a cloth.
I'm honestly more willing to believe that an ancient conman somehow forged it using a technique we are currently unaware of than something as absurd as the doctrine of the Incarnation. The first explanation, though certainly unlikely, does not conflict with any of the fundamental laws of reality. The second one (i.e. the idea that God became man, that the infinite somehow became finite, that an omnipotent being somehow became impotent) is so absurd at a metaphysical level that any "evidence" in favour of it should be held to an extremely high standard. I mean, just look at Chalcedonian Christology and how moronic it is. I'm not going to buy that just because we may not have a complete explanation of the shroud right now.
I just don't understand why they didn't roll his body in the fabric like pic related. Instead they supposedly lie him down on one half of the shroud and just folded the other half on him? That's fricking moronic.
maybe because it was a burial shroud for a funeral and not a way to soak up blood before dumping a body in the river?
>our results show that the shroud is not as old as you think
>NO THAT'S A SCRAP FROM A RESTORATION
>Ok show us which parts of it are the original and we will test that
>NO WE WON'T EVER LET YOU DATE IT AGAIN DEUS GEVALT
To be fair, using carbon atoms to date an artifact that was known to have survived a fire to the century that the fire happened is pretty moronic. What do you think smoke is gonna deposit on the surface of the fabric? That's right, carbon.
What are you talking about. The fire happenned in 1532, while the carbon dating's results established that the shroud was from the 13th or 14th centuries (1260-1390 aproximately).
Carbon dating isn't very exact in those sorts of environments.
to do a proper dating non moron people would pick samples from various parts of the shroud because its known that it has repairs.
but maybe they actually did, but only publicized the results from the recent patches because they are sore losers.
i think the figure in the shroud looks a bit older, 50 or 60 maybe, while we know christ died at 30