What is the Shroud of Turin, /his/?
>>832004
A mystery.
False relics was an industry during the crusades.
Any big european cathedral had a splinter of the cross, the head of John the Baptist, Jesus foreskin or whatever
>>832016
Can you explain how the shroud was made?
>>832016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRB16BARvz0
An attested medieval forgery.
>>832016
This, the shroud has even been carbon dated to well after christ lived and died
>>832015
Carbon-dating on the shroud has revealed it to be from the 13th century.
The first mention of the shroud in the historical record is a memorandum written by a certain Frankish bishop in the 13th century, in which he explicitly states the shroud is a forgery crafted by a local artist/alchemist/con-man who tried to make a profit by selling it to the local parish.
>>832019
There's a number of methods that researchers agree could have been used and that were well known during to the artisans, technicians, artists, and alchemists of Medieval Europe. I believe an Italian researcher/chemist in 2009 managed to replicate the shroud using acid pigmentation, which was a method that alchemists were familiar with (even if they did not know its true nature).
Also, believing in any 'relic' as genuine is idiotic, considering we know Constantinople and regions of Southern coastal France were considered 'relic factories' , with an entire industry devoted to manufacturing these and selling them to churches.
>>833142
>Carbon-dating on the shroud has revealed it to be from the 13th century.
>the C-14 sample area was contaminated by cotton and that the sample gave a positive test for vanillin which shows that the material was much younger relative to the rest of the shroud which does not test positive for vanillin
https://shroud.wikispaces.com/CARBON.14.DATING
>>833249
Actually, regarding the vanillin:
>"...Roger’s vanillin-dating process is untested, and the validity thereof is suspect, as the deterioration of vanillin is heavily influenced by the temperature of its environment - heat strips away vanillin rapidly, and the shroud has been subjected to temperatures high enough to melt silver and scorch the cloth.."
http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm
The overwhelming consensus is that the shroud is a forgery from the Middle Ages. The carbon-dating is accurate. Confirmed by three laboratories, independently.
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/1254/1259
>>833298
>/freeinquiry/skeptic/
*tip*
>The overwhelming consensus
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150417-shroud-turin-relics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science/
>>833928
>"The Oxford lab insists that the 1988 conclusions were accurate, and rejects arguments that the test samples were flawed."
Delusional Christfag, keep worshiping your cum-rag then. The evidence - scientific, historical - all points to it being a forgery.
>>833955
>The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/
>>832004
Have Christians ever tried simply get the paints and brushes, sitting down with the image and paint icon of real Jesus Christ based at Shroud of Turin?
>>832004
It's a hoax.
John 20
Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself.
>>832016
There were enough true splinters of the cross to rebuild Noah's ark!
ITT: We mindlessly spout memes about medieval veneration of relics
>>833986
>USAToday
How about quoting scholarly articles instead of for-profit news sites, you mong? I gave you a source from a radiocarbon dating specialist from the Nuclear Structure Research lab of Rochester, and you give me a USAToday?
As for your claim concerning the experiments in the University of Padua: first of all, these new 'tests' are held as pseudo-scientific, considering the researcher you mentioned thinks the image was formed due to some 'emission of radiation' that - according to Christcucks - occurred at the Resurrection.
The researcher in question is a devout Catholic with ties to the Church organization dedicated to 'proving' that the Shroud is a miraculous image. Mind you, that most of its organization is composed of clergy without any scientific backgrounds, and they only handpick a few Catholic scientists with bias.
The experiment you mention is a joke. No one takes it seriously. No wonder it appeared on all these sensationalist sites. Even the Church itself didn't comment on the subject.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers8.pdf
>>834008
While it wasn't 'painted', per se, the known methods that could have been used were all known to Medieval artists and alchemists. Couple that with the 'relic race' in the Middle Ages, and you have your answer. The first appearance of this cum-rag on the historical record is in the 13th century, written by a Bishop who explicitly stated it was a forgery made by a con-man/alchemist.
>>834105
>The truth is that there is no known way to reproduce the image.
>the result of the 1988 radiocarbon dating is statistically wrong and other three new dating methods demonstrate that the Shroud has an age compatible with the epoch in which Jesus Christ lived in Palestine.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2015/08/17/the-newest-news-on-the-authenticity-of-the-shroud-of-turin/
>>834127
1 Corinthians 11:14
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
>>832004
>>834130
>>The truth is that there is no known way to reproduce the image.
Someone from your dear University of Padua already reproduced it using acid pigmentation techniques in 2009, dumb fuck, which the Byzantines were known to use. The replica looks almost the same.
There's a myriad of ways it could have been produced. Other researchers have used other methods to recreate images that look extremely similar, and one even used a technique involving a bas-relief that endowed the image the three-dimensional nature that Christcucks always go on about.
The proportions aren't even realistic on the figure, but you're telling me it's 'real'? Not to mention the dead body is covering its genitals - how convenient. More like said artist didn't want to draw his genitals because of the scandal.
>>834165
>almost the same.
>Dr. Keith Propp, a physicist who is also a colleague of Jackson's, told CNA that while Garlaschelli’s shroud “does create an image that could’ve been done in medieval times,” there are a many things that “are not consistent with what the actual shroud shows us.”
>For example, he continued, we know that the blood contacted the shroud before the body “because there’s no image beneath the shroud.” He added that this image pattern would be difficult to duplicate “because it would ruin the blood stains.”
>Another area concern for the scientists is the three dimensionality of the shroud.
>Propp explained that while Garlaschelli’s cloth does have some aspects of light and dark to create a three-dimensional perspective, “it’s nowhere near as sophisticated as the shroud” and that “it misses out on the accuracy and subtleties that are in the actual image.”
>Dr. Jackson from the Turin Shroud Center also touched on the same point, saying, “The shroud’s image intensity varies with” the distances in between the cloth and the body. While he admitted that the images of Garlaschelli’s shroud on the internet look authentic, when taken from a 3-D perspective, “it’s really rather grotesque.”
>“The hands are embedded into the body and the legs have unnatural looking lumps and bumps,” he explained.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/experts_question_scientists_claim_of_reproducing_shroud_of_turin/
>>834142
1st. Remember Samson and his hairs.
2st. All relative. This picture is about the long hairs, and the hairs to shoulder is not long, just normal.
>>834130
>>834182
>sourcing non-technical Catholic blogs
You're a fucking idiot.
And the three-dimensional nature isn't a problem, faggot. There's a number of methods that could have been used to give it this quality. Like a researcher has already demonstrated, a bas-relief could have been used, or a statue, or even the corpse of someone else. It wouldn't be unknown, considering grave-robbing and selling random bones as relics was a well-known form of racketing at the time.
>Turin Shroud Center
Seriously? The one group with the most bias imaginable? The same ones who got destroyed when the three independent labs confirmed that the rag was from the 13th century? Zero credibility.
>>834182
You know the Catholics have a lot of scientists who go around arguing for the authenticity of relics, even after the mainstream scientific community has dismissed them.
>>834188
Probably why Nazarites had to take that vow, to separate them from, you know, everyone else.
>>834165
Catholics. Christians don't have "holy relics". "Holy relics" are for people who do not have the Holy Spirit.
>>834312
Fuck off, you Protestants are just as bad as Catholics with your convoluted theology and your constant splintering and your predisposition for fundamentalism and Biblical literalism.
Seeing Protestants and Catholics fight is the equivalent of shippers on Tumblr who fight over their favorite shipping from their fictional TV show.
>>834378
There's nothing convoluted about being dead, and the need to be born again.
>>834304
Not him, but Nazirites didn't take a vow of separation, you could be a nazirite and hang around town like everyone else.
Not to mention, while Sampson is probably the most famous Nazirite, nazirites for life seem to have been the exception, much more common was you took the oath for a month or two and then went back to your life.
>>834446
If you had long hair as a man in Israel, it was known you were a Nazarite.
Not sure why this is such a difficult concept. It's just a further extension of the kosher laws used to separate the hebrews from the gentiles..
>>833298
>The overwhelming consensus is that the sample area of the shroud is from the Middle Ages.
Fixed it for you.
It was shown that the sample area for the carbon-dating was the worst area that they could have taken it from.
>>834430
You need to die and not be born again, that's what'd make everyone happy.
>>834542
The carbon dating was performed three times by three different labs using three separate parts of the rag.
The scientific consensus is that this thing is a forgery. What the fuck is so hard to understand about that?
>>834520
>If you had long hair as a man in Israel, it was known you were a Nazarite.
Yeah, like Absolom! Oh, wait....
> It's just a further extension of the kosher laws used to separate the hebrews from the gentiles..
Because it has nothing to do with such? How the Nazirite vow would entail a sin offering at the end of it, although it's unclear if the sin is ending the "Naziriteness" or if the vow was supposed to be some kind of remedial or detoxing program? Because Nazirites hung out with everyone else, and would be no more or less seperated from the goyim than any other Hebrew?
