No, I accused you of being closed minded because you refused to continue to debate the Shroud, unfortunately being a Christian you never stuck to that but started on a rant because you imagined I was a mythicist, you created a strawman and now continue to argue with yourself. I am not interested in your imaginings or your rants about something I am not, or your agenda against anyone who chooses not to agree with you,can you comprehend that? Do try.
I can and I do make that statement. Do you have the DNA of Jesus? Can you prove that this is HIS shroud. The Romans crucified thousands. There is no evidence that this was from Jesus body and not that of another crucified 'messiah'. There were several around at the time of Jesus. The shape of the cross you see depicted in Christianity was not decided upon until the 2nd century. The Romans used 5 types of cross. Almost certainly the cross you see Jesus dragging through the streets was not what actually happened. At most he would have carried the crosspiece - if he actually used the cross described. The upright would already have been in place. If just the upright pole - another Roman cross - had been used, the same wounds would have been inflicted. A lot of the story has been embellished. Crucifixion had been in use for at least 5 centuries in the middle east. It wasn't a unique Roman execution. Did you know that the crucifixion went against Jewish belief? They did not believe in it. Their death sentence was usually stoning. It's not me who should do the studying. The Via Delarosa - path that Jesus was supposed to have walked to Golgotha - has been changed several times over the centuries. Which route did he really take? The Roman Church has propagated many half-truths and rituals over the centuries. Provided many 'relics' which are clearly - to the thinking person - fraudulent.
Asking you to provide evidence for your Jesus shroud claim or document your boni fedes as a claimed researcher results in (drum roll).....nothing. Provide a post number with the evidence that you say I ignored. You don't have to hold my hand intellectually. Just provide a post number. Should take you 30 seconds. Right? And my assertion that you provide no proof is proven true by this threat.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/fivereasons.pdf https://www.nbcnews.com/news/religi...once-again-suggests-shroud-turin-fake-n892251 https://www.livescience.com/63093-shroud-of-turin-is-fake-bloodstains.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/07/italy.turin.shroud/ http://www.unmuseum.org/notescurator/shroud.htm http://www.truthbeknown.com/shroud.htm http://shroudturinfake.yolasite.com/ https://www.sbs.com.au/news/shroud-of-turin-a-man-made-fake https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...originated-1-300-years-AFTER-crucifixion.html And the list could go on for pages.
Show Me the link again and I’ll debunk it jet . Remember when I say replicate it I mean replicate it with all of its unique characteristics . Now gimme that link again and again I’ll refuye you
Again your giving links without knowing whether these things have been refuted . Your basically slipping **** on the wall hoping something would stick and your doing it because of emotion . You can’t demonstrate your position intellectually and since I’m not going to go through every link I’m gonna demonstrate your ignorance by taking the last link This is a claim made by Antonio lombatti And the list could go on for pages.[/QUOTE] Again your giving links without knowing whether these things have been refuted . Your basically slipping **** on the wall hoping something would stick and your doing it because of emotion . You can’t demonstrate your position intellectually and since I’m not going to go through every link I’m gonna demonstrate your ignorance by taking the last link This is a claim made by Antonio lombatti That the shroud is one of many fakes produced in 1330 . This one is automatically crushed by the fact that we have the Hungarian pray codex which has been dated to between 1192 - 1195 which blows that link out of the water . “” that Antonio Lombatti is claiming that the Shroud of Turin was forged about 1330. But then (for starters) Lombatti would have the problem of explaining away the Pray Manuscript, which is securely dated 1192-95 (i.e. about 135 years before Lombatti claims the Shroud was forged), and shares at least 12 unique features with the Shroud (see "My critique of "The Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 1 May 2011"). These include the following seven main features [my numbering in square brackets]: "Perhaps most compelling of all is a drawing on a page of the Hungarian Pray manuscript preserved in the National Szechenyi Library, Budapest ... [Berkovits, I., "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," 1969, pl.III] Not only do we yet again see the awkward [1] arm crossing, this time, most unusually, Jesus is represented as [2] totally nude, exactly as on the Shroud. Again exactly as in the case of the Shroud, all four fingers on each of Jesus's hands can be seen, but [3] no thumbs. Just over Jesus's right eye there is a [4] single forehead bloodstain. Delineated in red, this is located in exactly the same position as that very distinctive reverse '3'-shaped stain on Jesus's forehead on the Shroud that we noted earlier. Exactly as in the case of the Shroud, the cloth in which Jesus is being wrapped is of [5] double body length type, the second half, as known from other versions of the same scene, extending over Joseph of Arimathea's shoulder. If all this is not enough, the cover of what appears to be the tomb is decorated with a [6] herringbone pattern in which can be seen [7] four holes in an identical arrangement to the so-called 'poker-holes' on the Shroud that we have suggested were sustained during Caliph Mu'awiyah's 'trial by fire' experiment back around 680." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," 2010, pp.183-184). So unless Lombatti can provide a plausible, comprehensive and point-by-point, explanation of those unique shared features on the Pray Manuscript and the Shroud (for starters), his theory that the Shroud was f orged in Turkey in about 1330 must be rejected as inadequate.”” As can be seen above, many (if not most) of these copies of the Shroud state on them that that they are copies of the Shroud, including who was the artist, the date they were copied, and for whom they were copied. If Lombatti has included in his "at least 40" copies of the Shroud any of these which state they are copies of the Shroud, then again he is misleading his readers by giving the impression that these were all independent originals in competition with the Shroud So in essence if you had looked through your links and researched the other side you would have spared yourself the embarrassment of looking foolish but I’m Not done refuting this All of these other duplicates are known to be paintings which possess none of the unique characteristics of the shroud . Your job is to show me how these duplicates have any of the shrouds unique features .
Ahh your claim that it was duplicated in the oven . This is the friking Luigi replica which I already destroyed many posts ago which you completely ignored . Luigi did this first by creating the image then putting the blood marks on it and as I already showed scientists already determined that the blood came first then the image . This alone destroys it . Like I said when anything threatens the faithbof the adherent of the religion of atheism they abandon all Honest rational and scientific enquiry and start posting links like idiots without doing a thorough study to see if they have been debunked or not. The luigi replica isn’t even peer reviewed lol Jet your wasting my precious time dude by acting like a flat earth conspiracy loon type thinker If I keep answering you I’ll become an idiot too just Just ignore this thread if it makes you so insecure about your religion of atheism that you abandon all rational thought
All of those words and you can't provide your claimed proof? LOL. At least you people are consistent. There is NEVER any proof of religious claims. Atheism is not a religion BTW. Would you call not believing in the Easter Bunny a religion? Funny you should mention flat earth theories. If you are a Christian and a Bible proponent it is you who who are a flat earther.
By 'studied' you mean watched dumbass tv shows that are made by the same people who make ancient aliens? All that studying and your only argument is basically 'I know an you don't'
Again your giving links without knowing whether these things have been refuted . Your basically slipping **** on the wall hoping something would stick and your doing it because of emotion . You can’t demonstrate your position intellectually and since I’m not going to go through every link I’m gonna demonstrate your ignorance by taking the last link This is a claim made by Antonio lombatti That the shroud is one of many fakes produced in 1330 . This one is automatically crushed by the fact that we have the Hungarian pray codex which has been dated to between 1192 - 1195 which blows that link out of the water . “” that Antonio Lombatti is claiming that the Shroud of Turin was forged about 1330. But then (for starters) Lombatti would have the problem of explaining away the Pray Manuscript, which is securely dated 1192-95 (i.e. about 135 years before Lombatti claims the Shroud was forged), and shares at least 12 unique features with the Shroud (see "My critique of "The Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 1 May 2011"). These include the following seven main features [my numbering in square brackets]: "Perhaps most compelling of all is a drawing on a page of the Hungarian Pray manuscript preserved in the National Szechenyi Library, Budapest ... [Berkovits, I., "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," 1969, pl.III] Not only do we yet again see the awkward [1] arm crossing, this time, most unusually, Jesus is represented as [2] totally nude, exactly as on the Shroud. Again exactly as in the case of the Shroud, all four fingers on each of Jesus's hands can be seen, but [3] no thumbs. Just over Jesus's right eye there is a [4] single forehead bloodstain. Delineated in red, this is located in exactly the same position as that very distinctive reverse '3'-shaped stain on Jesus's forehead on the Shroud that we noted earlier. Exactly as in the case of the Shroud, the cloth in which Jesus is being wrapped is of [5] double body length type, the second half, as known from other versions of the same scene, extending over Joseph of Arimathea's shoulder. If all this is not enough, the cover of what appears to be the tomb is decorated with a [6] herringbone pattern in which can be seen [7] four holes in an identical arrangement to the so-called 'poker-holes' on the Shroud that we have suggested were sustained during Caliph Mu'awiyah's 'trial by fire' experiment back around 680." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," 2010, pp.183-184). So unless Lombatti can provide a plausible, comprehensive and point-by-point, explanation of those unique shared features on the Pray Manuscript and the Shroud (for starters), his theory that the Shroud was f orged in Turkey in about 1330 must be rejected as inadequate.”” As can be seen above, many (if not most) of these copies of the Shroud state on them that that they are copies of the Shroud, including who was the artist, the date they were copied, and for whom they were copied. If Lombatti has included in his "at least 40" copies of the Shroud any of these which state they are copies of the Shroud, then again he is misleading his readers by giving the impression that these were all independent originals in competition with the Shroud So in essence if you had looked through your links and researched the other side you would have spared yourself the embarrassment of looking foolish but I’m Not done refuting this All of these other duplicates are known to be paintings which possess none of the unique characteristics of the shroud . Your job is to show me how these duplicates have any of the shrouds unique features .[/QUOTE] So if someone presents a flawed argument that the Easter Bunny is fake this means the Easter Bunny is real?
The Shroud displays the white Jesus created by western believers so is likely a product of them. The actual Jesus would have looked like everyone else in the area which means whatever the shroud is, it's not Jesus. I do not know how or why it was made and neither does anyone else, but It cannot be the product of resurrection as that is impossible.
Are there any fairy tales that you don't believe in? It is so sad and pathetic to see modern people who believe in ancient ethnocentric Middle Eastern religious fairy tales when the people who lived during those times thought that the tales were BS. As a recent study revealed, people are becoming less intelligent as time passes.
Wyrd , let me clue you in on something hugely important . Calling something a fairy tale doesn’t magically make it a fairy tale . But then again you just made a knowledge claim so please back it up with evidence . The Bible and other religions say we have a soul and there is an afterlife . Now with this in mind wyrd please tell us where do the scientists that study these 2 subjects lean towards on them ? That the afterlife and soul are real or that they are fairy tales ?? Just because a view point is ancient doesn’t make it invalid . You are correct people are getting dumber each day . You are showing yourself as a classic example of this here on this forum .
It’s obvious that you didn’t witness computer animation specialist ray downing junior make a real Life image based upon the shroud and he didn’t look white at all . In fact he looked like a middle eastern mountain man . Being middle eastern he kind of looked like us . Your simply making assertions from ignorance on holes this shroud will go away because it seems to have an emotional effect on you . As I said , when atheists these days are faced with anything that has the potential to make them Insecure about their religion of atheism They quickly abandon reason logic and even their beloved science in order to stay an atheist . If you want true atheist intellectuals to follow try Stuart hameroff , Roger penrose , David chalmers and john beloff . Sheesh even when I was an atheist I was never this intellectually insecure , ignorant and emotional
So if someone presents a flawed argument that the Easter Bunny is fake this means the Easter Bunny is real?[/QUOTE] Again a false caricature since there is solid evidence that the historic Jesus exists Plus the authentic shroud has unique characteristics that none of the replicas possess plus it can’t even be replicated by science today . Comparing it to the Easter bunny is like saying you have actually studied the shroud evidences thoroughly . Both are called logical contradictions . Wow this is faulty reasoning at best and complete intellectual insecurity at worst .
So if someone presents a flawed argument that the Easter Bunny is fake this means the Easter Bunny is real?[/QUOTE] As I said I have to take a few days off from here . My brain can only take being exposed to so much stupidity at one time .
Golly...another proud Christian Atheist Basher....so very nice to meet you. I would highly recommend you avoid trying to insult me or my intellect going forward as it irritates me and may lead me to focus my limited abilities and poor knowledge base as well as my wit and ire directly on you. As for "assertions from ignorance", you should probably review what you just posted using you own criteria if your mental prowess and dogma allow for it. Also...since you so enjoy computer animation.
It is a pity this thread has turned into Atheist v Theist because that is not a reflection in the real world. The Roman Catholic Church are quite specific that the Shroud is a religious piece of ART they do not claim it is the burial shroud of christ. It is widely thought that the Carbon 14 dating has been debunked whereas it is the only peer reviewed, scientifically based procedure carried out on a verified piece of the cloth. It is very difficult to follow exactly what has and has not been done to VERIFIED samples of the Shroud because of all the rubbish that exists on the internet, however Wiki actually has a pretty good synopsis of who has done what to what. The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth that tradition associates with the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, has undergone numerous scientific tests, the most notable of which is radiocarbon dating, in an attempt to determine the relic's authenticity. In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of 1260–1390 AD, which coincides with the first certain appearance of the shroud in the 1350s and is much later than the burial of Jesus in 30 or 33 AD.[1] Aspects of the 1988 test continue to be debated.[2][3][4] Despite some technical concerns that have been raised about radiocarbon dating of the Shroud,[5][6] no radiocarbon-dating expert has asserted that the dating is unreliable. Harry E. Gove helped to invent radiocarbon dating and was closely involved in setting up the shroud dating project. He also attended the actual dating process at the University of Arizona. Gove has written (in the respected scientific journal Radiocarbon) that: "Another argument has been made that the part of the shroud from which the sample was cut had possibly become worn and threadbare from countless handlings and had been subjected to medieval textile restoration. If so, the restoration would have had to be done with such incredible virtuosity as to render it microscopically indistinguishable from the real thing. Even modern so-called invisible weaving can readily be detected under a microscope, so this possibility seems unlikely. It seems very convincing that what was measured in the laboratories was genuine cloth from the shroud after it had been subjected to rigorous cleaning procedures. Probably no sample for carbon dating has ever been subjected to such scrupulously careful examination and treatment, nor perhaps ever will again." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin If you are looking for proper evidence the above may save you a lot of time and trouble. Good luck in your debate with Bippy he clearly has a big issue with anyone who does not agree with him. For me it remains a very interesting piece of religious art from the middle ages and it is nice for once to be able to say the biggest christian denomination in the world agrees with me!
The second video is ray downings recreation of the shroud image by computer . The first one is an older one that’s no longer accurate or credible . He sure doesn’t look like a white man to me . As far as atheist basher, I’m against any worldview that tries to teach people that they are ultimately meaningless pieces of meat . Sounds familiar???????? It should
Sorry bear but your mischaracteriaing the Catholic Churches position on the shroud . As a Catholic and someone that has studied the shroud for 10 years I know the churches position on the shroud . It is neither pro or con . It is neutral on the shroud and says that it is for science and other experts to determine whether it is real or fake but most importantly we don’t need the shroud for our faith . And it’s not a catholic relic as the Catholic Church wasn’t given ownership to the shroud until very recently in the late 20th century
And no bear I don’t have a problem with someone who doesn’t agree with me . I have a problem with people that either are ignorant about the shroud and make assertions from ignorance or people that outright lie about it . You bear think that it’s ok to ask a theist to give peer reviewed study links but absolutely ignore asking your fellow atheist for the same standard of evidence . This is called being a hypocrite . I debated one of the top shroud sceptics in the world to a draw years ago and this person wasn’t an atheist . If your an expert in evolutionary biology you would also get frustrated with someone like Kent hovind outright lying about evolution wouldnt you ?? I use my areas of expertise not to prove Christianity but to expose atheism as being a worldview based on emotion and dislike towards the god they suspect does exist . When I was an atheist I was a reluctant atheist who stayed that way for about 4 years . Notice I said reluctant atheist , not one like you that wants atheism to be true . What I hate most are people that pretend to be unbiased and even state it when it’s quite easy to see that they aren’t . I have stated my position on the shroud many times and it depends on the day of the week you ask me about it
Again bear you produce old evidence supporting your side only and conveniently forgetting that thermal chemist ray Rogers subjected the fibers from the same area tested on the shroud to microchemical analysis found gun and madder dye as well as cotton in that area that wasn’t indicative of any other area of the shroud. How microchemical analysis was published in thermochimica acta and his finding were later verified by an expert microscopist john l brown of Georgie tech . I have posted these links and you keep ignoring them and when you get caught doing this you resort to calling me bias . This doesn’t surprise me . It actually proves what I said before that when an atheist is faced with evidence that could go against his atheism even indirectly he abandons honest intellectual enquiry and deep research intro the subject and will try anything to steer people away from the FULL evidence of the subject , whether it’s the shroud or ndes or anything . Your Wikipedia links don’t magically make these microchemical analysis and it’s verification ginaway Again here is ray Ray Rogers http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF Abstract Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005) 189–194 Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin Raymond N. Rogers Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, 1961 Cumbres Patio, Los Alamos, NM 87544, USA Received 14 April 2004; received in revised form 14 April 2004; accepted 12 September 2004 In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth’s production lay between a.d. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample. Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. 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. These are hard science observations of that area being tested . What he was was verified by the naked eye of the expert microscopist john l brown here https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/brown1.pdf Complete with pictures of the area in question showing what ray found physically on these fibers . You also didn’t post that the 1988 c14 tests violated up to 15 protocols that would have invalidated any other c14 test . There was also no microchemical analysis done by any of the labs to determine whether the piece was chemically indicative of the rest of the shroud . What neuter bear or these c14 experts don’t tell you is that instead of taking samples from 3 different areas of the shroud the team took one sample from the most contested area of the shroud and cut it into 3 giving one piece to each of the 3 labs . What bear also doesn’t tell You is that the weave pattern was later to be found to be a totally different pattern then any other area of the shroud which is indicative of an invisible French reweave as found by Marino and benford . https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf And one of the few companies in the world that still does the invisible French reweave also ageeed that this kind of weave is impossible to detect by the naked eye Bear what your doing is bringing forth 10% of the evidence that favors your side and then accusing me of extreme bias and at the same time ignoring the wealth of evidence that’s against your side . My knowledge of the shroud is vastly superior to yours and my posts are showing this . Despite your ignorance and the ignorance of the other atheists here it is you and they that have taken a definitive stance on the shroud NOT ME . I find that incredibly astonishing and extremely ironic that the people who hold a worldview that claims to favor science , reason and logic suddenly abandon all 3 when it comes to the shroud .
