Shroud of Turin

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

4MB, 1292x8757px

>>2998561
Supplementary info.

>>2998561
Seems pretty likely that it is, but not 100% conclusive. As far as objects of Catholic veneration, it has way more credence than most.

It seems very likely actually.

It has a lot going for it

it's powerful evidence of something

>>2998566
>supplementary info
More like propaganda.

For example a paper by Ray Rogers is mentioned, but later papers and opinions of people who dated it are not.

>In December 2010 Professor Timothy Jull, a member of the original 1988 radiocarbon-dating team and editor of the peer-reviewed journal Radiocarbon, coauthored an article in that journal with Rachel A Freer-Waters. They examined a portion of the radiocarbon sample that was left over from the section used by the University of Arizona in 1988 for the carbon dating exercise, and were assisted by the director of the Gloria F Ross Center for Tapestry Studies. They viewed the fragment using a low magnification (~30×) stereomicroscope, as well as under high magnification (320×) viewed through both transmitted light and polarized light, and then with epifluorescence microscopy. They found "only low levels of contamination by a few cotton fibers" and no evidence that the samples actually used for measurements in the C14 dating processes were dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. They concluded that the radiocarbon dating had been performed on a sample of the original shroud material.[51]

Then it mentions tests performed by Giulio Fanti, but according to Wikipedia:

>In March 2013 Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua conducted a battery of experiments on various threads that he believes were cut from the shroud during the 1988 Carbon-14 dating, and concluded that they dated from 300 B.C. to 400 A.D., potentially placing the Shroud within the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth.[53][54][55][56][57][58][59] Because of the manner in which Fanti obtained the shroud fibers, many are dubious about his findings.

The intense 'radiation' that caused the body of Christ to be printed onto the shroud was an intense energy of him vanishing and thus the Resurrection.

It's real, God told me so.

>>2998561
It is almost certainly not, but reality is irrelevant to tradition anyway.

>The last supper was in a room built by crusaders
>Any of the roads on the modern via dolorosa existed in pre-Byzantine times
>Mary's tomb is in Ephesus AND Jerusalem
>David was buried outside his city
>Literally anything relating to the true cross

Even if it does date to the first century (it probably doesn't), there's no way of knowing it's a depiction of Jesus.
>butt u can't make a copy of da image wid mobern tek-know-lojy!
Yeah, and no one really cares. We can't build pyramids with lasers, either. Just because the shroud was created in a miraculous fashion (it wasn't) doesn't mean it's not the shroud of Mohammed or Simon bar Kokhba or any of the thousands of other religious figures.
>Butt its analtomically purrfect! Muh blood splatters!
Honestly, you find me one source that tells you it's anatomically accurate, I'll find you three that say otherwise. Who's right? Who has a vested interest? Who cares. Just stop. Either worship the piece of fabric, or don't. It doesn't matter either way to me, I'll be off practicing a religion not fixated on corpses.

It's an icon.

AN ICON.

>>2998710
This is all the evidence I need.

>>2998719
You are wrong.

WRONG.

>>2998717

what is your proof that allows you to say this turn does not depict the christ?

you have none

hack

>>2998777

Because it's the burial shroud of Bill the Bandit.

>>2998566
that's straight up propaganda

>>2998717
Got anything to back that?

>>2998881
Back what?

>the shroud image has long hair
What makes you think Jesus would have had long hair? Paul says, in Corinthians 11:14
>Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?
Jesus would most likely have short hair, as was the tradition in the area/time period.
The presence of long hair in the shroud makes sense if you were to consider that it was made by some medieval artist hoping to turn a quick buck by selling it to a church, and who believed Jesus actually looked like other medieval depictions of Him.

>>2998705
This is some comicbooks bullshit lol.

>Oh look, it is this thread again
The shroud shows up in the middle of the 14th century out of nowhere and 3 major universities have it independently carbon dated to the mid 14th century. Now thats the science and so even the catholic church herself says so.

OP you are a huge cathocuck faggot. stop making this fucking threads! that rag has been proven beyond doubt to be a medieval forgery like so many others

>>2998970
>Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?
It sounds more like Paul is saying
>Short hair Romans and Greeks are good, long hair Jews are bad
Paul the writer didn't know Jesus, nor what he looked like. Not saying that Jesus looked like a white dude, but in Judaism not cutting your hair is considered virtuous.

>>2998992
>in Judaism not cutting your hair is considered virtuous.
What are you talking about? Jews didn't have long hair. If you're talking about the peyot, that originated much later.
Ezekiel 44:20
>They shall not shave their heads or let their locks grow long; they shall surely trim the hair of their heads

>>2998561
I don't know. All I do know is that dude is way older than 33.

>>2998984
the nag hammadi library showed up out of nowhere in the 20the century. not even saying it's real just saying i fail to see how that disproves it.

>>2998566
>Unironically arguing your case on 4chan
>One shy of the devil

>>2999024
>If you're talking about the peyot, that originated much later.
Debatable, but I'm referring to nazirites.

File: shroud1.png (888KB, 920x694px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 920x694px

It's definitely not a medieval forgery. Sorry atheists.

1/4

File: shroud2.png (731KB, 836x682px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 836x682px

>>2999370

File: shroud3.png (1MB, 1068x684px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1068x684px

>>2999371

File: shroud4.png (794KB, 991x693px) Image search: [Google]

794KB, 991x693px

>>2999373
More info here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P93I7JQY2lQ

>>2998566
>posting screencaps as it was wikipedia

Fucking kek

It very well could be but it doesn't matter.
He was a dude with a moral philosophy, decide for yourself its value.
His death shroud won't bear any weight on your decision.

>>2998982
ding ding ding

>>2998561
>Is this burial cloth actually the shroud of the Christ Himself?

yeshua had an oily t-zone

File: 1491931789132.gif (3MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x281px

>>2999396
I just wish his cock was out.
You wouldn't hear a single word about that rag. Wouldn't survive any fires.
Then again - who would dare to create a relief with nude Christ?

ITT: 1859+ still a god's cuck

>>2998591
Fucking idiot

>>2999100
Not him, but there's no evidence that Jesus was a Nazirite, other than "Well, Nazarene/Nazareth sounds similar to Nazirite, right?", and the Gospels talk about how he drinks wine and occasionally handles corpses, so it certainly seems that he doesn't have an active Nazirite oath (you could swear a temporary one) around the time of his ministry.

>>2998982
I trust you. You remind me of Nathaniel in the Bible when Jesus says the Son of God will come from Bethlehem and Nathaniel straight up disses him unknowingly by saying kek what good comes out of Bethlehem. And Jesus says basically I like this guy he tells it like it is.

>>2998717
>muh anatomically correct
But isn't that a point against it? Jesus was draped in the cloth, but the image is perfect. Like the cloth was levitating over him, completely straight or something.
It should be distorted as fuck.

>>2998705
this reminds me of a silver age superman story

>>2999370
>>2999371
>>2999373
>>2999396

Only retards deny that Christ existed as a human being. Whether he had divine lineage is another issue, but the man almost certainly existed. Your argument is stupid.

>>2998970
Christ was blonde hair and blue eyed according to multiple secular sources.

>>3005404
Christ existed but he had wife and children and was a prophet of the gnosis, that's different from the canonic gospel Christ

>>3005404
>but the man almost certainly existed

>>3005404
>Christ existed

And how do you know this? The are no primary sources to support the historicity of Jesus. All we have is secondary sources telling about people who believe in Jesus and third hand accounts about his life.

I know most scholars accept Jesus as a historical figure. But I can never figure out why. Because the scholars also fail to produce any evidence.