Thoughts?
>>1130099
Collar says kiddie toucher.
The amount of mental gymnastics people will go through to keep a bronze age belief system relevant to modern-day life is amazing.
well spoken and intelligent
I watch his videos often and I'm a godless pinko bastard.
>>1130145
>and I'm a godless pinko bastard.
Why exactly do you watch him then? Do you just watch his videos to disagree with him?
>>1130412
I think some people may actually endeavor to consider multiple viewpoints,
including those which may conflict with their own.
>>1130412
I'm a different godless pinko bastard, but I can still agree with some tenants of Catholicism, and I honestly find apologetics very interesting, even if I completely disagree with it on a fundamental level.
>>1130127
>mental gymnastics
nice buzzword athecuck
>>1130127
>bronze age
The Word became flesh during the Iron Age.
>>1130099
A
F*CKING
WHITE
MALE
>>1130099
>Maybe if I insulate myself within an Aristotelian framework I can keep masturbating to a doomsday cult figure from ancient Israel whom I am deeply invested in psychologically, dedicated years of my life to, and to whom my belief in is necessary for my income and status.
>Not Fr. Mike Schmitz
What a beautiful man. The fact God called him to the priesthood and not allowed him to spread his beautful genes tells me god isnt benevolent.
>>1130578
Is your disagreement irrational or do you view your outlook as more valid than the Aristotlean one>?
>>1131200
>The fact God called him to the priesthood and not allowed him to spread his beautful genes tells me god isnt benevolent.
Kekd
Schmitz tries to hard to be funny and hip, but besides that he has some interesting stuff to say.
Blessed be the Church for placing Bishop Barron in Los Angeles. I eagerly await his mainstream television productions. He's going to be our new Fulton Sheen.
He's also right about nearly everything.
>>1132739
>>1132787
If he was the worlds most notorious atheist how come I never heard of him? was he the guy who accepted some minimalist from of deism?
>>1132767
>shitposts an atheistic comment with no real argument
>gets a meme in reply, without an argument
>complains about an argument not being presented
>>1130099
Based
He'd make an excellent pope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyS75Eg9XM
>>1132799
Because notoriety shifted to a new faggot with smug sophomoric opinions.
>Elvis is one of the most rebound musicians ever, why hasn't my 9 year old niece hear of him?
>>1132833
come on, she's at least heard the name Elvis
>>1132799
he actually was a very famous atheist
>>1132799
Because you aren't the bar upon which fame is measured
>>1132735
protestacucks on suicide watch
>>1132735
It seems as though this study is missing a very relevant fact.
That is, any available statistics of sexual misconduct within the Catholic church are going to be inherently flawed due to missing those instances which have been systematically covered up by the church itself.
Protestant preachers do not have the luxury of being a member of a sprawling organization which has proven itself willing and able in numerous instances to shield them from public & legal scrutiny for their predatory sexual practices.
>>1134668
>Protestant preachers do not have the luxury of being a member of a sprawling organization which has proven itself willing and able in numerous instances to shield them from public & legal scrutiny for their predatory sexual practices.
You're right, they have the luxury of using the money they make to bribe officials. They also have the advantage of home field, where no one can touch them.
>>1134696
>You're right, they have the luxury of using the money they make to bribe officials
Surely you jest.
>>1134714
Look at those fucking massive churches with fucking capitalistic greed inside of them. Are you telling me they aren't rich? That they have no money? At least the fucking Catholic Churches have art, not greed inside of them.
He's good but not as good as the theologians he leans on.
He'd probably agree.
Read Hans Urs von Balthasar and Rene Girard.
>>1131182
why is it always weeaboos that have the most pleb opinions? There should be a way to filter anyone who posts an anime picture, because they literally never say anything of worth
>inb4 triggered weeaboos posting anime pictures acting smug whie they tremble and shit themselves irl
>>1134725
>Are you telling me they aren't rich?
No. I'm saying those megachurches are less than 1 in 100.
>>1134736
Yet they still exist, with degeneracy and greed inside of it. Why do you support Jesus yet want to fucking sell goods in a house of worship?
>>1131096
>>The Word became flesh
Nonsensical statement about an event that didn't happen in the first place.
>>during the Iron Age
Parts of the bible were probably written during the bronze age.
>>1134728
>>pleb opinions
Amusing stuff coming from somebody with the most pleb opinion of all.
>>2016 CE
>>Still taking fairy tales seriously
>>1134748
>Parts of the bible were probably written during the bronze age.
You mean the old testament?
>>1134763
>CE
>still uses the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ as the starting point
What a fucking cuck.
>>1134745
Maybe you should ask them that. It's not something I care about.
You've only shifted this discussion from my claim that statistics concerning pedophilia among the clergy is going to be inherently incomplete due to the Catholic Church's proclivity for systematically covering up sex abuse scandals to your hang up about megachurches.
>>1134668
10 P E R C E N T
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
>>1134764
>>You mean the old testament?
Yeah, probably. Although I'm not precisely sure when the canaanite tribe known as the hebrews stopped using bronze and started using iron and honesty I don't really care.
>>1134770
>>cuck
Nice meme word.
The days of our week are largely named after the Norse Pantheon, are you cucked by them then?
>>1134773
>Catholic Church's proclivity for systematically covering up sex abuse scandals
Because the fucking faggot priests don't have any money to bribe. So the Catholic Church has to defend itself by trying to systematically purge and or move the fucker away from the area and try to pay for the damages.
>>1134725
this
>>1134728
His post was of a considerably higher quality than yours.
>>1134791
>The days of our week are largely named after the Norse Pantheon, are you cucked by them then?
It's all about getting faggots to convert.
>>1134793
>Because the fucking faggot priests don't have any money to bribe
Neither does your typical preacher. The difference between them is the priests have the resources of an international organization at their backs.
>>1134806
They make more money than the fucking Catholic priests. Plus again, the thing you're missing the most is, it's fucking in the homeland and they can get away with it because it's a protestant country.
>>1134802
Yeah right, nice dodge. I have no interest in converting and frankly I consider abrahamic monotheism to be poison to sensible decent human beings.
Call me a faggot all you please, at the end of the day you are still the idiot seriously buying into not just made up bullshit but reprehensible made up bullshit.
>>1134748
>Nonsensical statement
John chapter 1.
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
>There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
>The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
>And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
John 1:1-18
>>1134819
>said the westerner
>he also endorses the fall of the west by degeneracy and decay
![fr-robert-barron-1-featured-w480x300[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/hsTLKv1.jpg "fr-robert-barron-1-featured-w480x300[1].jpg")
>>1130099
He's one of those people that looks better older than younger.
>>1134748
>>1134822
>The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.
John 1:29-34
>>1130099
That looks like a Catholic monk or priest.
>>1134833
Because he is.
>>1134822
Oh boy it's this autist again. Bible quotes mean nothing to people like myself who don't consider the bible to be a reliable source for anything. Why is this such a hard thing for you to understand?
>>1134826
Uh oh.
>muh degeneracy.
We've got another /pol/ weirdo on our hands, lads.
>>1134826
>>degeneracy
Oh look more meme words.
>>1134843
>he supports the falling of moral support in the west
Why do you hate the west anon?
>>1134841
>All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
>>1134814
>They make more money than the fucking Catholic priests
And? It's the not the priests paying the families of victims hush money. It comes from the Church itself.
>>1131200
Seems like the celibacy shit is a catholic invention. But I might be wrong.
>>1134795
proddies BTFO
>>1134846
It sounds I like it more than you. Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia is more up your street. Just look at how much extreme religious shrieking about "degeneracy" helps a nation to develop!
>>1134859
The Word became flesh.
What don't you understand?
>>1134870
Iran is pretty shit mate and so is your vision of society.
>>1132735
The primary reason for the venom spewed at the Catholic church is that they covered up the crimes. I'm sure the Proddies are plenty scummy on they're own but since they aren't centralized it's a more individual church problem rather than a problem with a global organization.
I would agree though that dragging Priests through the mud over the issue is unfair. In particular because a lot of high level clergy, such as Benedict (who is also unfairly characterized as malicious and creepy because he looks like lord palpatine), were wholly disgusted with the scandal and worked hard to persecute those responsible.
>>1134877
>Iran
>shit
If the women are cute, it's all I care about desu.
>>1134869
I don't believe that happened because there is no reliable evidence to suggest and even less so to prove that it did happen.
What don't you understand?
>>1134880
>Benedict (who is also unfairly characterized as malicious and creepy because he looks like lord palpatine)
this, he aged like milk
>>1134886
>What don't you understand?
That you're blind to the truth.
>>1134883
They'd be cuter if they could wear yoga pants and a tank top T B H
>>1134895
Not my fault the socialists had no balls and couldn't fight the Islamic faggots.
>>1134886
But it all happened actually and there is evidence.
>>1134899
Well it's not your personal fault but if you live in the UK or the US then the country you live is has rather a lot of the responsibility for overthrowing the democratic government of Iran.
>>1134906
Shah a good boy, literally dindu nuffin, should of sent more money to aid him and put down the armed Shia shitheads.
>>1134908
Isn't English, Germanic kinda.
>>1134892
What truth? That the bible is made up horseshit? I'm well aware of this.
>>1134902
No there isn't actually.
>>1134908
Interesting information, thanks anon.
>>1134961
No shit, and we should of supported the Shah and we could of gotten qt Persian girls.
>>1134968
>That the bible is made up horseshit?
Proofs?
>>1134748
>Parts of the bible were probably written during the bronze age.
No. They weren't.
It's ok to mock beliefs, but you better stick to a language related to your knowledge. Using the edgy fedora expression "bronze age" it's ok if you know what the bronze age was, and if you're using to emphazise the temporal aspect of the belief you're mocking, you should know when it ended. Green text proves you obviously don't.
Protip: Reading History books helps.
>>1134969
We did support the shah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
>>1134972
Complete and utter lack of any sort of reliable non-biblical evidence. Especially when you're talking about this supposed resurrection and the supernatural events surrounding it, there would have been some mention from say Pontius Pilate that survived until now.
>>1134974
Dude, it doesn't matter whether the OT of the bible was written when the hebrews were using bronze or not. And honestly I don't really care when jews first figured out iron.
>>1134968
>No there isn't actually.
There is plenty and even actual physical evidence that you could touch, but as always, you atheists just deny everything.
>>1134978
>resurrection and the supernatural events surrounding it
There's evidence from non-Christian sources, dimwit.
>>1134994
>There's evidence from non-Christian sources, dimwit.
And what would those be?
>>1134986
The lack of evidence is the proof.
>>1134991
No there is not.
>>1134998
>The lack of evidence is the proof.
The lack of what evidence? The evidence is in the bible.
>>1134994
Nothing reliable, sorry. The most you have is stuff where the original doesn't exist anymore and the copies were made by a christian scribe. That isn't reliable.
>>1135002
>>Complete and utter lack of any sort of reliable non-biblical evidence
>The lack of what evidence? The evidence is in the bible.
>mfw christcucks really don't see why people consider them morons
>>1135011
>said the moron that wants to see the west fall
>>1135002
Firstly, this is circular logic, secondly I specifically mentioned reliable non-biblical evidence. I know reading is difficult for the mentally challenged such as yourself but try and read the fucking posts you dolt.
>>1134998
>No there is not.
There is.
>>1135011
>>1135020
>secondly I specifically mentioned reliable non-biblical evidence
And specifically mentioned that it doesn't matter, what country you from?
>>1135021
You can keep claiming that until the cows come home, at the end of the day you are wrong and there is no such evidence.
>>1134991
The "physical evidence" better not be your fucking crackers.
>>1135012
The Roman Empire, Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Persia, the civilizations around the Indus valley and the civilizations around the yellow river would like to have a word with you
>>1135023
>Abrahamic religion = all religion
>>1134994
There's absolutely no non-Christian sources for the Resurrection, stop talking shit.
>>1135027
Where did I say that reliable evidence doesn't matter exactly?
>>1135011
what makes the bible different from tomb paintings or any other source
>>1135028
>there is no such evidence
There is.
>>1135029
What do you mean?
>>1134984
This is /his/. You're not supposed to troll here, but if you come for the banter, please stick to historiographical accurate language. That way you won't look like an idiot. If that is beyond your abilities, read history books and then come back. In the meantime there mught be other sites where pleb language is acceptable. Allow me to recommend Reddit. That might be a good place to start.
>>1135036
Pic related, the civilization and culture you're leeching off is Christian.
>>1135038
The Resurrected Christ has only shown Himself to Christians. As for the supernatural events, non-Christian sources support their occurence.
>>1135048
Yeah, that's why we don't use math, philosophy, democracy, freedom of speech, the golden rule, or the rule of law any more
Oh wait
>>1135046
>>This is /his/
Not in this thread this is /allbiblebangingretardsunloadtheirverbaldiarheahereinavainattempttoconvertpeopleon4chanofallplaces/
And you can take your autistic ranting elsewhere faggot. I can and will post whatever I damn well please in order to counter these stupid faggot.
>>1135052
>As for the supernatural events, non-Christian sources support their occurence.
He says, subtly moving the goalposts after making a stupid claim.
So now we are agreed the 'evidence' is just a bunch of hee-hawing by fantasists.
>>1135058
>diarhea
Learn how to spell you atheist imbecile.
>>1135061
>moving the goalposts
Huh?
>>1135048
>>Are you telling me that you told me that it doesn't matter, because it sounds like to me it doesn't matter.
I said that there is no reliable non-biblical evidence for the supernatural claims of the bible. This is simple fact.
>>1135052
>>non-Christian sources support their occurence
No they do not.
>>1135062
Piss off christard. Learn how to not be a gullible idiot.
Also criticizing spelling and/or grammar errors is literally bottom tier as far as refuting an argument is concerned.
>>1135079
>No they do not.
They do, do your own research instead of shitposting you clueless little shit.
>>1135084
Nice non-argument. Funnily enough the girls down at one of the local massage parlors could very easily confirm my non-virgin status for you, but I really see no reason to involve them in this internet shitflinging contest.
>>1135096
I have actually. Guess what? There are no reliable non-christian sources for the resurrection, the miracles, the whatever, it just isn't there.
>>1135085
>there was nothing and then BAZINGA! out of nothing came everything
I just can't take you kids seriously. I used to be a cringey fedora lord like you btw.
>For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.
Romans 1:19-22
>>1135084
Another fine post.
The religious always make such quality "arguments".
Did you ever stop and think why it might be that the vast majority of religious posts consist of nothing more than slinging insults?
>>1135108
You're only fooling yourself pal.
>>1135112
>fedora
me too, I eventually grew out of it
When will atheists learn? It's just a matter of time really.
>>1135112
Let me guess you had a fight with your Mummy when you were 12 and now you're 14 you post on 4chan about your "atheist" phase.
>>1135098
>>1135114
>more and more butthurt with every post
I simply pointed out that weeaboos have pleb opinions and that they get anally triggered when somebody points it out. You posts literally prove me right, so here's your argument. But please, go on, your neckbeard tears are delicious to say the least
>>1134880
You mean prosecute?
Persecute is a very different thing.
>>1135122
>projecting this hard
Is this you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVmRui1oFF0
>>1135127
I don't see me posting anime.
I guess you didn't think about it and decided to humiliate yourself further.
>>1135134
Post more home videos.
>>1135143
>nu-male fedora rebuttal skills
>"n-no u"
thank you for the laughs anon
>>1135112
>fedora maymay again
Gif related, retard.
>>1135115
Says the guy who seriously believes this stupid shit.
>>1135164
When have I said "no u"?
You seem to be struggling to read.
>>1135130
Whatever captain of the grammar club. Go to a party and have a drink for once.
>>1135165
Where do you see a fedora?
>ughh the bible is just boring stupid shit lol xD
Sure thing kiddo.
>The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
1 Corinthians 2:14
>>1135187
He didn't say boring, he said stupid shit.
The Bible can certainly be very entertaining. I like stories about talking animals and giants and magic.
>>1135127
>>1135196
Sure thing friendo.
>>1135200
If you think posting image macros makes your case your mistaken. this isn't pol so maybe you should step up your game
>>1135201
You replied to two different posters.
>>1135203
Sure thing kiddo.
>>1135042
Nothing does
Actual historical scholars use it as textual evidence
>>1135220
athecucks on suicide watch
>>1135217
![s21[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/58au6e7.jpg "s21[1].jpg")
Who /karlbarth/ here?
>>1135220
Yeah, with an extremely skeptical eye they do. Most of them think Jesus was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher whose cult lived on after he died
>>1135217
>You replied to two different posters.
Your powers of observation are incredible.
Yes, lad, I was asking both of you.
>>1135228
>evidence you're wrong
You wish kiddo.
>>1135237
shut up nerd
>>1135240
That has nothing to do with anything
I was answering anon's question
Yes "the bible" is treated as historical evidence
>>1135245
>>1135228
>>1135245
Actually this kinda pissed me off.
Pic related (Holy Shroud) is evidence for the divinity of Jesus Christ. *GASP*
Here we go.
I'll give you tons of text like in your meme pic to prove your denial wrong.
>>1135245
Nice edit, you faggot.
>>1135250
Yes, they use almost every period piece as historical evidence.
>>1135263
Nice paranoia you dork.
>>1135262
>>1135262
Not wanting to start another one of these threads but any people still consider it a medieval hoax, and until new carbon dating is done to show its older that is probably going to be the majority opinion among historians and scientists
>>1135262
>Pic related (Holy Shroud) is evidence for the divinity of Jesus Christ. *GASP*
>Here we go.
>I'll give you tons of text like in your meme pic to prove your denial wrong.
You better start with some evidence to begin with.
Let's pretend you have rock solid evidence of a shroud dated to Jesus' lifetime with some dude's face in it, how does that prove that Jesus was the creator of the Universe?
>>1135280
This paradigm assumes that the radiocarbonists’ claim that the Shroud of Turin is a 14th century forgery is correct. It is based on what that conclusion tells us about the forger. It tells us that:
1. The forger first painted the bloodstains before he painted the image.
2. The forger integrated forensic qualities to his image that would only be known 20th century science.
3. The forger duplicated blood flow patterns in perfect forensic agreement to blood flow from the wrists at 65� from vertical to suggest the exact crucifixion position of the arms.
4. The forger "painted" the blood flows with genuine group AB blood that he had "spiked" with excessive amounts of bilirubin since the forger knew that severe concussive scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice.
5. The forger "plotted" the scourge marks on the body of the "man in the shroud" to be consistent under forensic examination with two scourgers of varying height.
6. The forger also duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders to suggest to 20th century forensic examiners that the "man in the shroud" had carried a heavy weight following the scourging.
7. The forger, against all convention of medieval artistry, painted the body he was "hoaxing" as Jesus of Nazareth, nude to conform to genuine Roman crucifixions.
>>1135291
He already state his standard. Until a new carbon dating is done. it's an assumed hoax. Get over it.
>>1135262
>>However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.
Somebody actually confessed to forging this thing in the middle ages. You are stupid.
>>1135280
>>1135291
8. The forger, as the forensic genius he was, illustrated the nails of crucifixion accurately through the wrists rather than the hands as in all other conventional medieval representations. He also took into account that the thumbs of a crucified victim would rotate inward as a result of median nerve damage as the nails passed through the spaces of Destot.
9. The forger was clever enough to "salt" the linen with the pollens of plants indigenous only to the environs of Jerusalem in anticipation of 20th century palynological analysis.
10. The forger was an artist who surpassed the talents of all known artists to the present day, being able to "paint" an anatomically and photographically perfect human image in a photographic negative manner, centuries before photography, and be able to do so without being able to check his work, close up, as he progressed.
11. The forger was able to paint this image with some unknown medium using an unknown technique, 30-40 feet away in order to discern the shadowy image as he continued.
12. The forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited pony-tail, sidelocks and a beard style consistent with a Jewish male of the 1st century.
13. The forger thought of such minute details as incorporating dirt from the bare feet of the "man in the shroud" consistent with the calcium carbonate soil of the environs of Jerusalem.
14. This forger was such an expert in 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensic pathology and anatomy, botany, photography and 3-D computer analysis that he has foiled all the efforts of modern science. His unknown and historically unduplicated artistic technique surpasses all great historical artists, making the pale efforts of DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael and Botticelli appear as infantile scribblings.
>>1135280
>>1135291
>>1135301
It is an irrefutable fact that there is NO paint or pigment on the Shroud of Turin leaving the only explanation of the technique of the forger to have used "photography" to manufacture the relic in the THIRTEENTH CENTURY!! Some authors have gone so far as to suggest exactly that. This is patently absurd!
CONCLUSION:
The Shroud of Turin is a genuine artifact of a first century Roman crucifixion of an adult Jewish male. The radiocarbon dating placing the manufacture of the linen in the 14th century was flawed by extrinsic C14 accumulated over centuries of fungal growth, candle smoke and the intense heat of the fire of 1532. There is NO paint on the linen of the shroud and is not the artifice of a forger.
>>1135291
>>However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.
Somebody actually confessed to forging this thing in the middle ages, you are stupid.
>>1135280
>until new carbon dating is done
New experiments date the Shroud of Turin to the 1st century AD. They comprise three tests; two chemical and one mechanical. The chemical tests were done with Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy, examining the relationship between age and a spectral
property of ancient flax textiles. The mechanical test measured several micro-mechanical characteristics of flax fibers, such as tensile strength.
The results were compared to similar tests on samples of cloth from between 3250 BC and 2000 AD whose dates are accurately known. FTIR identifies chemical bonds in a molecule by producing an infrared absorption spectrum. The spectra produce a profile of the sample, a distinctive molecular fingerprint that can be used to identify its components. Raman Spectroscopy uses the light scattered off of a sample as opposed to the light absorbed by a sample. It is a very sensitive method of identifying specific chemicals.
The tests on fibers from the Shroud of Turin produced the following dates:
FTIR = 300 BC ± 400 years; Raman spectroscopy = 200 BC ± 500 years; and multi-parametric mechanical = 400 AD ± 400 years. All the dates have a 95% certainty.
The average of all three dates is 33 BC ± 250 years (the collective uncertainty is less than the individual test uncertainties). The average date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus’ death on the cross in 30 AD, and is far older than the medieval dates obtained with the flawed Carbon-14 sample in 1988. The range of uncertainty for each test is high because the number of sample cloths used for comparison was low; 8 for FTIR, 11 for Raman, and 12 for the mechanical test.
The scientists note that “future calibrations based on a greater number of samples and coupled with ad hoc cleaning procedures could significantly improve its accuracy, though it is not easy to find ancient samples adequate for the test.”
(1/2)
>>1135291
dating is dating and it supersedes any supposed unusual or unexplainable attributes of the artifact.
redue the carbon dating on a different part, confirm its two thousand years old and then we can talk
>>1135305
>>However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.
Somebody actually confessed to forging this thing in the middle ages, you are stupid.
>>1135280
>>1135309
They used tiny fibers extracted from the Shroud by micro-analyst Giovanni Riggi di Numana, who gave them to Fanti. Riggi passed away in 2008, but he had been involved in the intensive scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin by the STURP group in 1978, and on April 21, 1988 was the man who cut from the Shroud the thin 7 x 1 cm sliver of linen that was used for carbon dating.
These tests were carried out in University of Padua laboratories by professors from various Italian universities, led by Giulio Fanti, Italian professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua’s engineering faculty. He co-authored reports of the findings in 1) a paper in the journal Vibrational Spectroscopy, July 2013, “Non-destructive dating of ancient flax textiles by means of vibrational spectroscopy” by Giulio Fanti, Pietro Baraldi, Roberto Basso, and Anna Tinti, Volume 67, pages 61-70; 2) a paper titled “A new cyclic-loads machine for the measurement of micro-mechanical properties of single flax fibers coming from the Turin Shroud” by Giulio Fanti and Pierandrea Malfi for the XXI AIMETA (Italian Association of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics) congress in 2013, and 3) the 2013 book “Il Mistero della Sindone” (The Mystery of the Shroud), written by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta in Italian.
(2/2)
http://www.newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf
Fuck this thread. I just wanted to discuss Bishop Robert Barron.
What's your favorite video of his?
Here's mine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-I15pSP9YE
>>1135281
In 2002, a team of experts did restoration work, such as removing the patches from 1534 and replacing the backing cloth. One of the specialists was Swiss textile historian Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. She was surprised to find a peculiar stitching pattern in the seam of one long side of the Shroud, where a three-inch wide strip of the same original fabric was sewn onto a larger segment.
The stitching pattern, which she says was the work of a professional, is quite similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada. The Masada cloth dates to between 40 BC and 73 AD.
This kind of stitch has never been found in Medieval Europe.
can copy pastas be banned from /his/ please?
>>1135313
>>>However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.
Somebody actually confessed to forging this thing in the middle ages, you are stupid.
>>1135319
>>However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.
>>Somebody actually confessed to forging this thing in the middle ages, you are stupid.
>>1135315
This one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwe8xmoqK7A
>>1135324
Nah. Lets ban religious preaching.
>>1135280
>that is probably going to be the majority opinion among historians and scientists
That's where you're wrong and the more you do research on the Holy Shroud, the more you realize how authentic it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZKocFGQf24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp8AF7i9A3U
Summary of scientific and historical evidence supporting the authenticity of the Shroud:
http://www.newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf
Shroud-like coloration of linen by nanosecond laser pulses in the vacuum ultraviolet (it explains that they replicated the shroud's qualities using laser pulsations, which so far is the only way anyone has been able the replicate the shroud's qualities):
http://www.sindone.info/DILAZZA3.pdf
Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of Turin:
http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF
Nuclear imaging:
http://shroud.com/pdfs/whanger.pdf
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/accett2.pdf
3D holographic information:
http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p24.pdf
Raymond N. Rogers' observations and conclusions:
http://shroudnm.com/docs/2013-01-10-Yannick-Cl%C3%A9ment-Reflections-on-Ray-Rogers-Shroud-Work.pdf
Also, here's some secular peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on the Shroud of Turin:
http://shroud.typepad.com/topics/2005/10/secular_peerrev.html
>>1135319
Your moving the goal posts.
Let's say I grant you that you have 100% proven the shroud is from Jesus' lifetime and you have 100% proven from all those contemporary drawings and statues of Jesus the face in it is definitely him.
How does that prove Jesus is a God?
Your argument is a complete non-sequitur.
>>1135333
How about we ban all discussion.
>>1135335
>>However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.
Somebody actually confessed to forging this thing in the middle ages, you are stupid.
>>1135310
See >>1135309 >>1135313
The 1988 Carbon-14 tests done at Oxford, Zurich and Arizona Labs used pieces of the same sample cut from a corner.
1. A paper published in Jan 20, 2005 in the journal Thermochimica Acta by Dr. Ray Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and lead chemist with the original STURP science team (the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project, involving approximately 35 scientists directly examining the Shroud for five days), has shown conclusively that the sample cut from The Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from an area of the cloth that was re-woven during the middle ages. Here are some excerpts:
"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."
"As part of the Shroud of Turin research project (STURP), I took 32 adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud and associated textiles
in 1978." "It enabled direct chemical testing on recovered linen fibers and particulates".
"If the shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1390 AD, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in 1260 AD would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978...The Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens, gave the test [i.e. tested positive] for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."
(1/2)
>>1135310
>>1135350
"The fire of 1532 could not have greatly affected the vanillin content of lignin in all parts of the shroud equally. The thermal conductivity of linen is very low... therefore, the unscorched parts of the folded cloth could not have become very hot." "The cloth's center would not have heated at all in the time available. The rapid change in color from black to white at the margins of the scorches illustrates this fact." "Different amounts of vanillin would have been lost in different areas. No samples from any location on the shroud gave the vanillin test [i.e. tested positive]." "The lignin on shroud samples and on samples from the Dead Sea scrolls does not give the test [i.e. tests negative]."
"Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test [i.e. test negative], the cloth must be quite old." "A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000- years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years."
"A gum/dye/mordant [(for affixing dye)] coating is easy to observe on...radiocarbon [sample] yarns. No other part of the shroud shows such a
coating." "The radiocarbon sample had been dyed. Dyeing was probably done intentionally on pristine replacement material to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth." "The dye found on the radiocarbon sample was not used in Europe before about 1291 AD and was not common until more than 100 years later."
"Specifically, the color and distribution of the coating implies that repairs were made at an unknown time with foreign linen dyed to match the older original material." "The consequence of this conclusion is that the radiocarbon sample was not representative of the original cloth."
(2/3)
>>1135353
>>>address
>No.
English isn't my native language. Nice try though. Still waiting for your response to >>1135291 >>1135301 >>1135305
>>1135310
>>1135350
>>1135356
"The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud."
"A significant amount of charred cellulose was removed during a restoration of the shroud in 2002." "A new radiocarbon analysis should be done on the charred material retained from the 2002 restoration."
Raymond N. Rogers. 20 January 2005. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin. Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Issue 1-2, Pages 189-194.
2. The Fire-Model Tests of Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov in 1994 and Drs. John Jackson and Propp in 1998, which replicated the famous Fire of 1532,
demonstrated that the fire added carbon isotopes to the linen.
Dmitri Kouznetsov, Andrey Ivanov, Pavel Veletsky. 5 January 1996. Effects of fires and biofractionation of carbon isotopes on results of radiocarbon dating of old textiles: the Shroud of Turin. Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 109-121. doi:10.1006/jasc.1996.0009
Jackson, John P. and Propp, Keith. 1997. On the evidence that the radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was significantly affected by the 1532 fire. Actes du III Symposium Scientifique International du CIELT, Nice, France.
(3/3)
http://www.newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf
>>1135228
How does it feel to get BTFO by your own image?
>address all this shit
Oh my god, this is the worst sort of weaselry. You bury your opposition in text that nobody could possibly entirely answer in the span of a 4chan thread, and then declare victory because no one is willing to bother. Fuck you, and fuck your bullshit.
>>1135363
>English isn't my native language. Nice try though
Then what is it? Is it Polish?
>>1135349
cringe
>>1135346
>>This is a pathetic non-argument which has already been refuted.
No it hasn't actually.
>>Address
No. The consensus among most of the scientific establishment is that the shroud is from the middle ages. That trumps any and all of your copy pasta.
>LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU SOMEONE CONFESSED SOMEONE CONFESSED LALALA STOP TALKING ABOUT IT LALALA SOMEONE CONFESSED
holy cringe
>>1135345
Don't be silly, we can discuss things just fine without the bible bangers intruding.
>>1135382
So I should listen to a cuckold atheist bitch about how the bible is evil?
>>1135380
>somebody confessed to forging the cloth in question
>this doesn't refute the cloth's supposed authenticity because some autistic sperglord is dumping his text walls all over the thread like a a drunken spastic pukes all over the floor after multiple glasses of schnapps.
Yeah no, logic doesn't work this way.
>>1135384
Well, the fact you take the assumption by default that's how people want to discuss the bible (rather than being able to discuss it as a historical document) shows why you clearly aren't capable of discussing things like an adult.
>>1135378
The Shroud of Turin’s images are superficial and fully contained within a thin layer of starch fractions and saccharides that coats the outermost fibers of the Shroud. The color is a caramel-like substance, probably the product of an amino/carbonyl reaction. Where there is no image, the carbohydrate coating is clear. There is also a very faint image of the face on the reverse side of the Shroud of Turin which lines up with the image on the front of the cloth. There is no image content between the two superficial image layers indicating that nothing soaked through to form the image on the other side.
Until recently, it was widely believed that the images on the Shroud of Turin were produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the linen fibers. This is incorrect. The coating, whether imaged or clear, can be reduced with diimide or removed with adhesive leaving clear cellulose fiber.
The images as they appear on the Shroud of Turin are said to be negative because when photographed the resulting negative is a positive image.
The Turin Shroud was examined with visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, thermography, pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, lasermicroprobe Raman analyses, and microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments (paint, dye or stains) or artist’s media was found anywhere on the Shroud of Turin.
No ''artist'' ''made'' the Holy Shroud, sorry.
>>1135399
>said the man that wants to defend whatever the hell this is
How about you get out of here.
>>1135384
No given religious text is either good or evil, and the reason why 4chan has so many obnoxious atheists on it is because many of us have had to deal with obnoxious christians all our lives.
>>cuckold
Nice meme word btw.
>>1135378
>The consensus among most of the scientific establishment is that the shroud is from the middle ages
Saying this doesn't make it true. You are clueless.
See >>1135335
Problems for the forgery theory.
The scourge marks on the Shroud are physiologically accurate. When examined under a microscope, each scourge mark reveals a slightly depressed center and raised edges. Under ultraviolet light each scourge mark can be seen to have a "halo" of lighter colour surrounding it. These halos were chemically tested and found to be blood serum which is left behind after a blood clot forms and then retracts inwards as it dries, a process called syneresis. These scourge mark indented centres and raised edges on the Shroud are not visible to the naked eye, but can only be seen when examined under a microscope and the serum halos can only be seen under ultraviolet light. This is further evidence that the Shroud could not have been created by an artist in the Middle Ages, or earlier, because that knowledge about blood clot structure, let alone a microscope and an ultraviolet light source to see it, did not then exist for many centuries into the future.
Each one of the over 100 scourge wounds on the Shroud matches exactly what would have been caused by a type of Roman flagrum buried in the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in AD 79. So a fourteenth century or earlier forger would have had to possess a faultless archaeological knowledge of a first century Roman scourging with a flagrum as well as make no normal artists' mistakes since each one of the over 100 scourge marks has identical dimensions. Only from the Middle Ages did artists depict the scourging of Jesus and even the best of them were vague about the details. But the scourge-marks on the Shroud are depicted with a realism that is unknown to the art of any period.
Pic related, "Flagellation of Christ" by Duccio di Buoninsegna (c. 1255-1319). "The scourge marks are represented as red dribbles all over the body, including the arms but not the legs".
Agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow states:
"Once again, though, it [the Shroud] differs dramatically from anything envisaged in the Middle Ages. The vast majority of medieval images of the dead or dying Christ fail to depict any scourge marks at all ... Christ is sometimes shown bleeding in depictions of the flagellation, but the effect is always rather crude. In Duccio's rendering of the scene, for example, the scourge marks are represented as red dribbles all over the body, including the arms but not the legs ...The artist displays no knowledge of the Roman flagrum, nor any conception of how it was wielded. Even a fifteenth-century artist as accomplished as Jean Colombe, who definitely knew the Shroud, was unable to reproduce its convincing pattern of scourge marks ... To attribute the marks on the Shroud to a provincial unknown working in the mid fourteenth century is therefore ridiculous"
Pic related, "Man of Sorrows" by Jean Colombe (c. 1430-1493). "Colombe, who definitely knew the Shroud, was unable to reproduce its pattern of scourge marks."
Moreover, the medieval or earlier forger would have had to use goniometry, the science of calculating angles, to correctly work out the angle of each one of the over 100 scourge marks on the Shroud, but the first goniometer was not invented until 1780.
In conclusion, the pattern of scourge wounds on the Shroud correlates remarkably closely with the Gospels' description of the scourging of Jesus[64] and with what has, since the fourteenth century, been discovered by modern archaeology about first century Roman scourging.
Holy Shroud's blood test results? AB-
Sudarium of Oviedo's blood test results? AB-
Lanciano Miracle's blood test results? AB-
AB- = 1% of the population
Pic related.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_distribution_by_country
>>1135390
I'm still waiting for someone to actually make the argument of the anon that bought the Shroud of Turin up >>1135262
He claimed it proved Jesus' divinity. Instead all I am hearing is claims that it is authentic.
A bit like claiming your trainers are God and then starting an argument about how nice the laces are.
Let's assume it is 100% authentic.
How does a rag with Jesus' face on it prove he is the creator of the Universe?
>>1135404
Yeah no.
>>However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.
A guy admitted forging it, combine that with the fact that first real reliable historical mention of this thing is from the 14th century and what you have is a forgery.
No amount of text walls will change this.
>>1135408
And now I gotta deal with annoying obnoxious atheists all my life and I gotta deal with shits like you.
By the way, if you read the ''Studies'' part of the Sudarium of Oviedo's article on Wiki, you'll read:
>The cloth has been dated to around 700 AD by radiocarbon dating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo#Studies
But if you look at the source (pdf below) provided in the ''Notes'' which is supposed to support that statement, you'll read:
>The sample from the Sudarium was dated to around 700 AD. Scientist César Barta spoke about the carbon dating process, emphasising the fact that if carbon dating is always absolutely accurate, then we could just as well finish the congress there and then. However, there were several points to bear in mind – in specialist carbon dating magazines, about half the samples dated come up with the expected date, around 30% with an “acceptable” date, and the other 20% is not what one would expect from archaeology.
>The laboratory used (via the National Museum in Madrid) said they were surprised by the result and asked if the cloth was contaminated with any oil based product, as oil is not cleaned by the laboratory processes used before carbon dating and if oil is present on a sample, the date produced by carbon dating is in fact the date of contamination. Finally, the history of the Sudarium is very well established and there are definite references to its presence in Jerusalem in AD 570 and at the beginning of the fifth century.
>As has already been mentioned, there are definite references to the Sudarium’s presence in Jerusalem in the 5th and 6th centuries, two hundred years before the carbon 14 date.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part6.pdf
Gee! I wonder why the person who wrote the wiki article didn't include that additional information!
Hopes were soon dashed in 1988 when the cloth was carbon dated by three laboratories in Zurich, Oxford and Arizona. They came back with a date range of 1260 to 1390 declaring the cloth only 600-700 years old. So much for the Shroud being authentic. The New York Times announced that the Shroud was a fake, end of story.
But the story has a plot that few know about and is starting to make the news. But lets go back to 1988 first. The three dating labs, according to a scientific protocol agreed upon in 1985, were supposed to cut several samples of the Shroud from different locations. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. Instead, the scientific adviser to the Arch Diocese of Turin, Luigi Gonnella, decided to violate the protocol and allowed only one sample to be cut from an outside corner where it had been handled hundreds of times over the centuries as it was held up for public viewing.
One would think that a sample is a sample and why would it make any difference? That is like saying DNA is DNA, but not if you have the wrong DNA. How could it be a bad sample? The Shroud was in a fire in 1532 that nearly destroyed the cloth. Eight gaping holes were patched up and the entire cloth was attached to a backing cloth for support. This occurred in 1534 at a time when weaving had become an art and professional weavers were called upon to do “invisible mending” on fine tapestries restoring them to their original condition.
(1/2)
>>1135413
It doesn't prove anything about the divinity of jesus. At best you have a cloth with some peculiar properties.
None of the text walls this guy has posted in this thread are proof for said divinity either.
Now for what’s making the news. The violation of the sampling protocol in 1988 appears to have been a colossal mistake. Recent micro-chemical tests performed on thread samples from the area cut for carbon dating have been compared with threads taken from the main body of the Shroud and low and behold they are not the same! It appears that Gonella and the carbon labs were fooled by the handiwork of highly skilled French re-weavers according to museum textile experts.
Another violation of the protocol now seems more important too. The labs were supposed to do micro-chemical tests on the sample to make sure it was representative of the entire cloth. Guess what, they didn’t do that either. It seems like they just looked at it and said, “Yep, sure looks like the Shroud to me. Let’s cut it and get out of here.”
(2/2)
More: http://shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html
>>1135418
Dude, this other cloth here? It's like a rorsharch test for christards.
>>1135408
No you didn't
>>1135415
And yet there's no record of who this forger was, just "It's a forgery let's ignore it!"
If it WAS a forgery, the forger would be well known.
And another thread ruined by atheists...
>>1135415
>A guy admitted forging it
cringe
>>1135433
>>If it WAS a forgery, the forger would be well known.
Nah, making relics was big business in the middle ages. The forger in question was one among many making various fake artifacts at the time.
>>1135413
See >>1135404 and >>1135335
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZKocFGQf24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp8AF7i9A3U
>>1135404
>The Turin Shroud was examined with visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, thermography, pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, lasermicroprobe Raman analyses, and microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments (paint, dye or stains) or artist’s media was found anywhere on the Shroud of Turin.
atheists BTFO
>>1135437
Really? Because it wasn't an atheist who started spamming shit about some stupid cloth. That guy was a christian.
>>1135463
I mean a faggot atheist asked for proof, he got it.
>>1135468
Yeah, how dare he ask a question, obviously forcing that poor Christian to start spamming shit from sub-infowars tier websites as proof.
>>1135456
Both of those clips are entitled "the Scientific Authenticity of the Holy Shroud".
So neither answer what I said.
>>1135474
>he asked for proof and he got the fucking proof
Are you triggered that someone is posting proof?
>>1135454
See >>1135291 >>1135301 >>1135305
The negative photographs of the Holy Shroud are actually positives and it looks unimpressive to the naked eye. See >>1135410 >>1135411
Also, Max Frei, a Swiss police criminologist who initially obtained pollen from the shroud during the STURP investigation stated that of the 58 different types of pollens found, 45 were from the Jerusalem area, while 6 were from the eastern Middle East, with one pollen species growing exclusively in İstanbul, and two found in Edessa, Turkey.
>>1135470
>>1% of the population
Is still a stupidly large segment of the population, even in early times.
Nice try.
>>1135479
There's still no 'proof' posted of his actual claim.
This cuck right here >>1135228 asked for it.
Good job shroudposter, keep triggering atheists.
>>1135486
Are you moving the goalpost here? Stop getting upset that you brought this upon yourself.
>>1135463
Click on the "top" button. You will see a picture of a priest and a request for opinions. Right then, two posts with trolling by atheists.
So yes. Really.
>>1135479
Nope, I'm triggered that someone is spamming bullshit under the expectation no one will go to the effort of refuting it all, since they don't have the time or inclination to argue with crazy people.
He can post something from a credible institution of learning, subject to proper peer review, rather than bullshit from conspiracy websites.
>>1135498
>being triggered
Is this what an atheist is?
>>1135480
>>Also, Max Frei
He's either a liar or the evidence he gathered was unreliable then, because the shroud is an admitted forgery with no reliable mentions of it in the historical record before the 14th century.
>>1135058
>I can and will post whatever I damn well please in order to counter these stupid faggot.
Actually, tumblr would be even better for you than reddit.
>>1135506
>not one academic website
My case rests.
>>1135511
>academic website
Are you jewish?
>>1135492
That doesn't change what I said. 1 percent out of the population is a huge fucking number of people, even way back when.
Oh and this still doesn't prove the divinity of jesus. All you have at best is a cloth with peculiar properties.
>>1135496
The claim was that the Shroud of Turin proved Jesus' divinity. Here is the first post on the topic.>>1135262
I replied with this......>>1135281
I'll say again, let's say the Turin Shroud is 100% authentic HOW does that prove Jesus' divinity?
It very clearly doesn't.
One thing has been claimed and then an argument started about something else as if that proved the first claim.
>>1135511
>le website which hosts the pdf is le one who made it
>let me ignore the sources and references
>hurrr
durrr
>>1135514
Doesn't matter.
>>However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.
This cloth is an admitted fraud from the middle ages. Combine this with no reliable mention of said cloth before the 14th century and what you have is pious fraud.
>>1135404
Not an artist, but probably a chemist employed by clergymen. Or a chemist/clergyman.
Albertus Magnus, for instance, knew of the photochemical effects of silver nitrate as far back as the 1200s, and the camera obscura had been known since the ancient Greeks.
A combination of photochemicals, long exposure, a cadaver, and knowledge of the camera obscura are the four prerequisites to being able to create a hoax shroud. Everything else, like the presence of human blood stains, or the older weaving methods used in the cloth, is a superficial implementation detail. Older methods could have been mimicked. Roman-era artifact linen could have been used in the hoax. Human blood could've been easily acquired.
Cities and towns in the middle ages loved the economic effects of pilgrimage tourism. I imagine the shroud of Turin was an undeniably powerful device in stirring religious certainty in travelers.
The Shroud reminds me of how Heron of Alexandria made primitive steam engines to power automatic doors, so that worshipers at Greek temples, when throwing sacrifices into the flames, could gaze in awe as the power of their Gods literally opened the temple doors. Nobody used that technology again for a long time.
There were many sanctuaries in the middle ages that laid claim to Lances of Longinus, fragments of Christ's crucifix, pieces of Noah's ark, etc. Not all of them could be real, and it is possible that none of them are. The shroud of Turin is among the most impressive and potentially convincing of these artifacts. but I fail to be convinced that a man-God came to Earth, was ressurrected, and shot light out of his body that somehow burned magically into his death shroud.
I find it a lot more convincing, though still impressive, that it is a photochemical hoax, and an early attempt at photography, whose methods were kept secret for obvious reasons.
>>1135503
If it was admitted forgery, and it was a one-of-kind relic forgery, why didn't the guy who made it get documented?
And why are scientists today concluding it couldn't have been made in 14th century because far too much of the thing would've been impossible to do with art tech of the era?
>>1135524
>it was le super genius xD
'no'
Fun fact: it hasn't been reproduced yet without using modern technology
inb4 Garlaschelli
Remember:
>>1135404
>The Turin Shroud was examined with visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, thermography, pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, lasermicroprobe Raman analyses, and microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments (paint, dye or stains) or artist’s media was found anywhere on the Shroud of Turin.
>>1135480
>Also, Max Frei, a Swiss police criminologist who initially obtained pollen from the shroud during the STURP investigation stated that of the 58 different types of pollens found, 45 were from the Jerusalem area, while 6 were from the eastern Middle East, with one pollen species growing exclusively in İstanbul, and two found in Edessa, Turkey.
>>1135462
Because it is photochemically made.
Silver nitrate + Linene + Cadaver + Camera obscura + Long Exposure + human blood = photographic negative of "Jesus", made in an era where everyone was faking religious relics.
>>1135527
>>However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.
>Respond to
No. Take your text walls and shove them,
>>1135538
It still hasn't been reproduced without using modern technology.
See >>1135404
You haven't ''figured it all out xD'', sorry. Take off your fedora.
As I said, the more you do research on it, the more you realize how authentic it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZKocFGQf24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp8AF7i9A3U
>>1135533
Who says it is one of a kind? This thing was made back in the 1300s. There were probably tons of things like it around at the time. This is just one the ones that survived the passage of time.
>One-of-kind relic forgery
Not necessarily, we've lost all sorts of stuff from the past.
>>why didn't the guy who made it get documented?
Why would he? Forging a relic isn't some big deal, lots of people were doing it.
>>1135536
Way to dismiss everything I said with "it was le super genius XD"
The methods were known and available. People used the camera obscura as a drawing aid in creating almost-photographic sketches.
I even provided a much earlier example of an under-utilized technology being used earlier than most of its practical applications, for the purposes of creating an illusion of divine intervention (Heron's automatic doors.)
Fun fact. It HAS been reproduced using chemicals and methods that were available to people in the middle ages.
