The Shroud of Turin, compelling evidence..

[Age]

Recently an atheist friend of mine told me that he is now convinced that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the burial shroud of Christ.

What does this perhaps-real atheist friend of yours consider to be the most compelling pieces of evidence that this is in fact the burial shroud of Christ?

Oh, maybe I should give you his phone number?

Did you watch the video? Do you see flaws in the evidence? Make a list..

There is NO flaws, in 'the evidence', of 'the claim' that the sun revolves around the earth. If, 'the EVIDENCE' is 'the observation of the sun going around the earth', then, OBVIOUSLY, there are NO flaws IN 'that evidence'.

However, and ONCE AGAIN, for you VERY SLOW OF LEARNERS, here, 'evidence', itself, is COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT in regards to and in line WITH 'proof', itself.

In fact 'evidence' is NOT even worth 'LOOKING AT', NOR 'DISCUSSING'. Especially when 'proof', itself, will ALWAYS OVERRIDE and OUT SHINE 'evidence' EVERY time.

There is NO WONDER AT ALL WHY these human beings, here, back when this was being written, took SO, SO LONG TO CATCH UP. The ACTUAL Truth of things is FOUND IN 'PROOF' and NEVER necessarily IN 'EVIDENCE'.

For starters, 'the earth is flat, the earth is in the center of the Universe, the Universe began, and the Universe is expanding' were ALL based upon NOTHING AT ALL than so-called 'evidence'. And, OBVIOUSLY, each one of these are COMPLETELY ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect. And, this applies NO MATTER HOW MUCH one BELIEVES the opposite.

[Age]

I didn't ask "what does this guy in this 40-something minute video think is the most compelling evidence?" In the first couple minutes he talks about how you'll have to watch some other video and "see it for yourself", so I'm not even sure that video linked is about the evidence.

No, instead my question was curiosty about what that atheist friend of yours considers the most compelling evidence. I don't care about the guy in the video. What does your friend think?

And, AGAIN: Do you want his (my friends) phone number to find out what he found compelling within the video? (since I don't know, we haven't discussed it at any length).

So, your, supposed, friend, who is, still, a, supposed, "atheist friend", supposedly, says to you, 'I am now convinced that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the burial shroud of Christ', and not A SINGLE SHRED of CURIOSITY ARISES WITHIN you for you to just ASK, CLARIFY, and OBTAIN what was the VERY REASON that COMPELLED 'your friend' to 'now' be CONVINCED, ABSOLUTELY, that 'that rag' is the ACTUAL 'burial shroud that 'that human body' known as "jesus christ" was within, right?

Since then, have you ever CONSIDERED asking your CLAIMED 'friend' what COMPELLED it to be CONVINCED of what you CLAIM it has been CONVINCED of, here?

And, AGAIN: Have you watched the entire video?

Have you watched the entire video?

If yes, then what, EXACTLY, COMPELLED you to be CONVINCED, ABSOLUTELY, that 'piece of material' was wrapped around a human body some 1,992 years ago, from the day when this was written?

[Age]

Why would i watch a 40-something minute video where, in the opening statements, he says I'll have to watch some other video to decide for myself?

Get your friend to make an account here so he can say what he finds to be the most compelling evidence. That way you do'nt have to hand his number out to internet strangers.

I honestly think this is all bullshit. There's no chance that there's enough evidence to trace this shroud to -one-particular-person- who lived 2000 years ago. You could trace it back to the approximate place and century he died at best. I think you're invoking a fictional friend to give more weight to this, when really rationally there's no weight to the claim.

There's a bloody old shroud from jerusalem, from loosely around the time (plus or minus 100 years) that jesus died. People really, really want it to be Jesus Shroud, so they invent atheist friends and make their invented atheist friends say things no atheist in history has ever said.

WHY would some people really want that bit of cloth to be some bit that was wrapped around some human being with the name and label "jesus christ"?

[Flannel Jesus]

WHY would some people really want that bit of cloth to be some bit that was wrapped around some human being with the name and label "jesus christ"?

Try rubbing a couple of the brain cells you have left over together and see if they can come up with a reason.

[attofishpi]

-

[Age]

Why would i watch a 40-something minute video where, in the opening statements, he says I'll have to watch some other video to decide for myself?

He summarises from other scientific sources of analysis which he suggests you can investigate yourself. If you actually watch the video, you'd understand the overall argument being made.

The VERY BEST 'argument' that could be made is:

This cloth was wrapped around a human body.
That human body could have mostly like been dead.
Therefore, that bit of rag was, most likely, wrapped around a, what is called a, 'dead human body', and that one human body could have had the label "jesus christ". But, the likelihood of that is far LESS LIKELY than 'that body' having some other name.

I watched the video about a month ago, so from memory these are key points..
That:
- the image within the shroud is a negative
- the ONLY argument that can attempt to refute the authenticity

To refute the 'authenticity' of 'what', EXACTLY?

is the carbon dating putting it at 15th Century. It happens that in the 15th Century parts of the shroud were reconstructed since a fire had destroyed the edges. It seems that the sample for the carbon dating was from part of the restored cloth.

WHY, EXACTLY?

What, EXACTLY, has led you TO FORM 'this opinion' "yourself"?

Also, WHY does someone NOT just 'carbon date' ALL of the silly bit of woven rag and FIND OUT, FOR SURE, when ALL of that cloth WAS FROM, EXACTLY?

- a photographic negative created LONG before cameras were invented - even if only from the 15th century per the 70s radio carbon dating, the forgery would have been impossible

So, are you saying or suggesting that "jesus christ", or other human beings, had access to what, here, is being called ' photographic negatives', around nearly 2,000 years ago?

If no, then what are you trying to say or suggest, here, EXACTLY?

- the fibres that bear the image are individually 'marked', like irradiated fibres.

So what?

HOW the pyramids were built have NOT YET been explained, well NOT In the days when this was being written. So, does this mean that human beings, like the one, here, known as "jesus christ" built them?

Some people FIND the pyramids and/or other things MORE REMARKABLE than just some silly image on some bit of rag.

- the image is so very detailed that from the grayscale image info within the shroud a 3D construct of the man can be created (using recent NASA tech developed to detail the contours on planets and moons).

So, AGAIN, what has some image of some claimed 'man' got to do WITH "jesus christ", "itself", EXACTLY?

- blood exists in the areas that make up the key positions per the negative image.

Is 'the blood' linked to, directly, to the 'dna' of the one who you are calling "jesus christ", here?

If no, then so what if there is blood in some areas?

- it's impossible to recreate even with our current technology.

It is claimed that it is impossible to recreate the pyramids, even with your 'current' technology, when this is being written, but, AGAIN, so what?

(watch the video FFS)

Some might also be thinking of telling you to clarify and to back up and support your 'current' POSITION and BELIEFS, here, 'FOR FUCK SAKE', AS WELL

Get your friend to make an account here so he can say what he finds to be the most compelling evidence. That way you do'nt have to hand his number out to internet strangers.

Pff, yeah, as if I was going to give u his no.

YET it was you who ASKED the question.

I honestly think this is all bullshit. There's no chance that there's enough evidence to trace this shroud to -one-particular-person- who lived 2000 years ago. You could trace it back to the approximate place and century he died at best. I think you're invoking a fictional friend to give more weight to this, when really rationally there's no weight to the claim.

You're being a fucking idiot. If you watched the video you'd understand that its a bloody miracle the shroud even exists with the image - EVEN - if it was a fake created in the 15C - it's impossible to recreate even with our current technology.

There's a bloody old shroud from jerusalem, from loosely around the time (plus or minus 100 years) that jesus died. People really, really want it to be Jesus Shroud, so they invent atheist friends and make their invented atheist friends say things no atheist in history has ever said.

[Age]

Lol.

I don't know why it's so important anyway. Say it was Jesus shroud - so what? What's the importance of that? Why is it any more important than having Mohammad's Codpiece, or Buddha's belly button lint?

Clearly you are missing the entire point of God creating the shroud.

WHEN, and HOW, did this JUMP, or LEAP OF FAITH, that it was God, Itself, and NOT FROM something ELSE, that 'some shroud' was created, EXACTLY?

Also, the fact that it basically proves Christ and the torture he endured, it wipes the bullshit in the ""holy"" Quran off of the map of Abrahamic divinity, rendering Mohamad the liar false profit that he was.

LOL Could 'this one', here, PROVIDE MORE COMPELLING PROOF of 'confirmation bias' AT its BEST?

[attofishpi]

There's only shortcomings lol.

HELL_O owe...lol

Everything is just goofy and nonsense and it's full of just straight up falsehoods. "The anatomy is perfect" he says, while I'm looking at the longest fucking forearms and fingers in existence. He's a goofy boy, you're a goofy boy. Scientific analysis has this being a painting produced in the 1300s

Where's your evidence? There is no evidence of ANY substance upon the shroud image of a man that could be from some form of material being PAINTED on.

To the contrary, all scientific analysis of the image of the man is clear, it's not painted.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think I broke him lol

[Age]

You are both so very clueless as to the reason Y Christ did what he did.

Indeed arrogant morons that know nothing about it.

LOL And what did "christ" even, SUPPOSEDLY, do, EXACTLY?

Besides ALLOW "itself" to be TORTURED and TO SUFFER?

[attofishpi]

There's only shortcomings lol.

HELL_O owe...lol

Everything is just goofy and nonsense and it's full of just straight up falsehoods. "The anatomy is perfect" he says, while I'm looking at the longest fucking forearms and fingers in existence. He's a goofy boy, you're a goofy boy. Scientific analysis has this being a painting produced in the 1300s

Where's your evidence? There is no evidence of ANY substance upon the shroud image of a man that could be from some form of material being PAINTED on.

To the contrary, all scientific analysis of the image of the man is clear, it's not painted.

[Age]

You are both so very clueless as to the reason Y Christ did what he did.

Indeed arrogant morons that know nothing about it.

But you get what I'm saying though, right? Even if the shroud WAS really on Jesus head as he bled to death, that of course wouldn't be proof of divinity. Right?

The shroud is an example of what people tend to refer to as a 'miracle'..hence proof of divinity imo.

Are the pyramids, which is an example of what people tend to refer to as a 'miracle', also hence proof of divinity, in your opinion, to you, as well?

If no, then WHY NOT?

If you spent 48 mins of your time to watch its entirety you may understand Y I make such a claim.

AGAIN, the VERY and EXACT REASON WHY you make such THE claim that you are 'TRYING TO', here, is because of 'confirmation bias', resulting FROM your PRE-EXISTING BELIEF OF God, and PRE-EXISTING LOVE OF "christianity", which is OBVIOUSLY just your CHOSEN 'religion'. Which, AS ALWAYS, is due to your OWN 'past experiences'.

The shroud isn't just of Christ's head, its his entire body - the shroud is 14ft long.

So, 'this' some how gives more weight to your IDEA that God CREATED 'this shroud', HOW, EXACTLY?

The other video I posted is also fascinating, worthy of watch..

EVERY one WILL SAY that 'this video' is also fascinating, or worthy of a watch, IF 'the video' ALIGNS WITH their 'current' BELIEFS or PRESUMPTIONS, and/or they BELIEVE CONFIRMS their ALREADY EXISTING VIEWS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Acta Pilate (Letter of Pilate to Caesar about Jesus, His Crucifixion & Resurrection) - ARCHKO VOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQUJGce ... ex=30&t=0s

[attofishpi]

...

Do as everyone upon the forum insists U DO --- FUCK OFF (*imbecile)

[Age]

The shroud is an example of what people tend to refer to as a 'miracle'..

So why is your buddy still an atheist?

I don't think he is and I'm pretty certain I never made a statement that he remains atheist.

you VERY CLEARLY SAID, and WROTE, and thus MADE THE STATEMENT:

'Recently an atheist friend of mine told me ...'.

Which, literally, MEANS that 'that one' IS, or REMAINED, 'an atheist'.

Any rational atheist that investigates the shroud and even just watches the entire video should have little doubt as to the veracity of Christian claims.

LOL And, what are so-called "christian claims", EXACTLY, "attofishpi".

LOL FIRST you would have to DEFINE the word "christianity", in A WAY, in which EVERY one could AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT, AND THEN you would have to PRESENT A human being who is EXACTLY like 'that', then then ALLOW 'them' TO TELL the rest of us WHAT "christians" CLAIM, EXACTLY.

How about you provide a "rational" atheist explanation to the shroud & information embedded upon it, how it must have come into existence..without any 'divine hand'?

Are you, here, suggesting that NO human hand was involved in the making of 'that rag'?

Also, what even is a so-called 'divine hand', EXACTLY?

[Flannel Jesus]

There is no evidence of ANY substance upon the shroud image of a man that could be from some form of material being PAINTED on.

To the contrary, all scientific analysis of the image of the man is clear, it's not painted.

Really? No evidence of paint? All scientific analyses agree with that? So all I have to do is find one single analysis that disagrees with that and you're wrong.

The Wikipedia page lists many such analyses. Here's one. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ar00171a004

Here's another
https://mccroneinstitute.org/research/s ... t-mccrone/

In 1980, using electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction, McCrone found red ochre (iron oxide, hematite) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide); the electron microprobe analyzer found iron, mercury, and sulfur on a dozen of the blood-image area samples. The results fully confirmed Dr. McCrone’s results and further proved the image was painted twice — once with red ochre, followed by vermilion to enhance the blood-image areas.

Will this unbreak you, or break you more? Time will tell