Shroud Of Turin

>>2704638
Comfirmed decades ago as a fake reliquy

>>2704638
Jesus did not have long hair sooooooo....

>>2704642
The carbon dating? Wasn't a suggestion brought forward that the piece they analyzed was mixed in with a reconstructed part?

Real.

>>2704648
How do we know that?

>>2704708
Long hair Jesus doesn't show up until 3-4 century AD

>>2704638
Confirmed fake already.

>>2704649
>>2704738
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10631973/Turin-Shroud-may-date-from-time-of-Jesus.html

The carbon dating was suspect, yes. Not proven.

>>2704649
The counter argument to the carbon dating claims that the medieval folk had "invisible weaving" techniques.

Even modern invisible weaving can be identified under a microscope.


>>2704638
There was a clergyman at the time whom was fervently against the shroud and said he found the artist behind it.

If he didn't believe it, why should you?

>>2704755
>The counter argument to the carbon dating claims that the medieval folk had "invisible weaving" techniques.
That not it. It's that an Earth quake messed it up. See >>2704749

Retards, it's true its technology is beyond a is let alone medieval fucking retards Who couldn't even read.

It was Made by aliens, Jesus might very well have been an alien himself

>>2704761
How the fuck would and earthquake mess things up?

>>2704769
>to smart to read the link

File: aa2a4e78d49e572466194097383c709c658204f852b4312e511422e649b210fd.png (4MB, 1292x8757px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1292x8757px

>>2704638

>>2704784
Christian Science summed up in 1 pic:

Spout random science bullshit to make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Use very few, Christian based sources. ALWAYS remember to assume that if can't be explained, it means you're right

>>2704805
>Spout random science bullshit to make it seem like you know what you're talking about.
Isn't this atheism 101?

>>2704817
Also assume the person calling you out is an atheist

1. How do you explain the Bishop and Pipe of the time dismissing it as a fake?

2. The way the shroud is weaved coincides with the weaving methods of the Middle Ages, not of the first century.

3. John's gospel contradicts the shroud by saying Jesus was buried with a head cloth. Either John is wrong or the shroud is a hoax

4. In 2010 1 of the original shroud investigators was interviewed saying there was no way in Hell they took a combined part. AKA, dates aren't off

>carbon dated to right around the time it first appeared in history, more than a thousand years after its supposed origin
>lol probably just a coincidence

>>2704638
Jesus didn't exist, anon.

>>2704784
Wtf I'm Christian now

>>2704638

I think it's Voynich Manuscript tier shitcrafting.

>>2704784
Honestly, even if the shroud is a fake, there is something unique about it
That much cannot be denied.

>>2704805
Where is the random bullshit in it?

>>2704828
>it first appeared in history,
Don't forget how the first historical mention of it is in a letter by a bishop who says that it's a fake and he talked to the person who faked it.