Does anyone on /x/ actually believe the Shroud of Turin is fake?

If the shroud was draped over a head, the image would be distorted.

It simply looks like a "photo" was superimposed on some fabric.

It was carbon dated back to the medieval period, back when everyone and their mothers were trying to pawn off crap to the church as legitimate artifacts.

It's fake.

File: file.png (430KB, 600x448px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 600x448px

>>17111869
Makes me think of the episode of Sunny where they make money off people because their water-damaged wall looks like Mary.

Why would Jesus do something silly like that, anyway? If he wanted to send a message, he'd do something more concrete.

>>17111881
>If the shroud was draped over a head, the image would be distorted.
It was draped over Jesus's entire body, not just the face. Just making this statement proves that you haven't done any research.

>It simply looks like a "photo" was superimposed on some fabric
Because photographs totally existed back then, right?

We know the shroud wasn't painted, because there are no brush strokes. If it's a forgery, then it would have to be forged using advanced printing techniques that didn't exist back then.

>>17111897
>It was carbon dated back to the medieval period
Carbon dating isn't always reliable.

And if it IS a forgery, how do you explain the fact that there are imprints of Jesus's whip scars, inflicted by a Roman flagrum (circa 1st century AD, of course), which are only visible in the ultraviolet spectrum? The forger would need to understand that there's such a thing as invisible light, and that certain chemicals are only visible under this light, and have anticipated that someday these chemicals WOULD be visible under special equipment hundreds of years later. Common sense should tell you that's completely impossible.

>>17111912
>Why would Jesus do something silly like that, anyway?
...

Uh, the Shroud of Turin is a burial shroud. You do realize this, right? Jesus didn't "do" anything. The crucifixion and subsequent burial is something that was done TO him.

I vaguely recall watching a documentary or something about the shroud...and they claimed that the piece that was cut out to carbon date was actually later found out to be a piece from an attempted restoration at the edge of the cloth. The church won't let anyone take any more samples though from, say, the middle.

>>17112051
So they found a towel they wrapped Jesus's face in when they killed him? How about his body? That'd seem more like hard evidence.

>>17111869
>fake
Only le fedora tipping atheists would really try and make a case against it. That said, I think it's real and no one can prove otherwise afaik

File: Jerk-intentional-spill-slip.gif (2MB, 400x286px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x286px

Someone is actually defending the shroud of turin in 2015.

Something seems......oh wait, I'm on /x/. Makes sense.

>>17111869
I saw in a Documentary 3 people replicated the shroud near perfectly, one used a very very early form of flash photography against a white linen shroud.

Besides forensic specialists found the blood on it to be female and dating to the 1300's...

the likely scenario is, it was made to be pawned off to a church back when church's were paying top dollar for any kind of artifact that legitimized their faith.

>>17112057
>How about his body?
You don't really know much about Christianity, do you?

There's no body because his whole being ascended into Heaven. If we could find Jesus's actual body, that would disprove Christianity, not prove it.

>>17112083
Why would his body ascend into heaven? That's stupid, I thought the point was that souls go to heaven? What would he even use a body for there? Plus, everyone said Jesus looked like he was in another body after they killed him. Where's the first body they killed and threw into that cave?

>>17112095

The real story is that jesus was an alien and when he died the aliens used their gravity light beam to transport his body back to the space ship

>>17112056
the sample they dated was not from a restored portion... I know the documentary you're talking about... a philosopher was trying to use that as an excuse for why it was dated back to the medieval era, but the person who did the test as well as a Radiometric expert explained that, if it was restored portion it would have been dated when the restoration actually occured which was much later when the shroud had caught fire when the church it was housed in caught fire.

>>17112108
That'd be Jesus 2.0, though. What about the first body they killed? When Jesus resurrected, everyone said he had a new body.

>>17112116
Every think that... I dunno... the story was made up by a bunch of sand people?

>>17112126
Dude, don't be racist. It's the Jedi's fault the sandpeople are like that.

>>17112126
Bible thumpers don't question those types of things. If they do, they go to hell. Christianity does not allow for free thought.

>>17111897
This is simply false.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html
It even has mention of this on the Wikipedia page.

>>17112160
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html

But they used Radiometric dating which is more accurate than carbon dating alone.

>>17112057
Hello? This is Jesus we're talking about here, the Messiah of the Christians. He, reportedly, famously rose from the dead 3 days after his crucifixion, and later went on to ascend in to Heaven and sit on the right hand of the Father.

>>17111881
this.

Seriously, use common sense. Some people just want to believe so hard that they are blinded by logic and cling to whatever hoax they come across as "undeniable truth."

>>17112164
I wasn't aware that they used radiometric dating as well as radiocarbon, where can I read about that? Source?

>>17112197
It was in a documentary a few years back, the guy who did the 1988 sample talked about it

>>17112204
Which documentary specifically? There are tons here from this year, 2 years ago, 3 years ago.

It's just kind of funny how the face on the shroud looks almost exactly like the images of Jesus created by Byzantine painters who never actually knew what the man looked like, isn't it? Must have just been a really good guess on their part.

>>17111869
>carbon dated to 1100 AD

In 1100 AD the Shroud was damaged by a fire, so a bunch of nuns repaired it as they could. Carbon dating was made on a small part of the shroud without damaging the image. Of course they took the repair.

Gnostic Christian > Christian

>>17112221
>It's just kind of funny how the face on the shroud looks almost exactly like the images of Jesus created by Byzantine painters who never actually knew what the man looked like,

Those painters knew what Jesus looked like because they were using the shroud as a reference. Man you people are thick.

File: 1290125735540.jpg (44KB, 640x481px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x481px

>>17112463

>they were using the shroud as a reference

>>17112076
>I saw in a Documentary 3 people replicated the shroud near perfectly
How perfect is "near perfect"?

Were they able to replicate such minute details as the flagrum scars on Jesus's torso? Some of which are only visible under ultraviolet analysis (which medieval artists didn't even know about)? Or how about the fact that there are traces of pollen from a flower that only grows in Israel?

Also what techniques did these people use to reproduce the shroud? Were they techniques that would have been possible in the century the alleged forgery occurred?

There's holes in your story. Are you aware that cotton wasn't even grown commercially in Europe back then?

>>17112476
If the shroud existed in the first century AD (i.e., it isn't a forgery), then painters would have been able to use the shroud as a reference. Use your head.

Your argument hinges on the fact that Byzantine painters couldn't have known what Jesus looked like, which doesn't even make any logical sense.

File: Yoda figure from Smithfield Decretals and Yoda from Star Wars.jpg (206KB, 1600x1054px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1600x1054px

>>17112133
>He doesnt know

>>17112051
>There would be brushstrokes
>From painting on linen
Philistine detected

File: im3gs.jpg (295KB, 569x1280px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 569x1280px

>>17112513

>if the shroud existed in the first century AD

Given the current state of affairs in the Isreali state (and assuming the relation of the state to the affairs of the prophets), I wonder if you would consider the possibility, even if remote, of buttholez?

>>17112463
>>17112513
Whether or not it existed in the first century AD doesn't matter, the shroud wasn't actually ostensibly "discovered" until the 14th century, long after literally every single well-known Byzantine depiction of Christ was created, you fucking idiot.

>>17112059
>Only le fedora tipping atheists would really try and make a case against it.
Bishops in the Church have been disputing its authenticity since the 1390s.

>>17111869
>artists
K.

>>17112732
Well if you think the image on the shroud was created by hand, wouldn't it make sense to get the opinion of someone whose job is making images by hand?

I swear /x/ is like the special ed board of 4chan sometimes. You people just don't THINK.

>>17111881
>>17112189

>scientists, historicians, people of all religions have studied every inch of it for thousands of years and can't prove its fake
>"hurr it looks kind of fake so I think it's fake lol"

>>17111869
Fake as in it does not exist and is actually a massive hoax saying that this object is a physical object that can be touched when in fact it is not a teal object at all?

Or fake as in iy is not really the burial shroud of jesus?

Because a photocraphic technique was discovered back in the laye 90's early 2000's which sgows how over the course of a bright sunny and hot afternoon. An objecys likeness could be captured on specially treated cloth with several mirrors bounving light at the object while having a large lense over the cloth. It was an early experimental attempt at photography. Well, thats what those wacky scientists were saying anyway.

>>17112903
I don't think anyone in the world doubts that the shroud actually physically exists, you dingus.

>>17112558
>the shroud wasn't actually ostensibly "discovered" until the 14th century
No, that was when the Catholic Church officially acknowledged its existence.

Of course people knew about the shroud before then. I mean, it was originally "discovered" (to use your own words) in a church. A Christian church. This means that it was already in the possession of a group of people, who knew what it was and understood its significance.

Literally shaking my head at how dense you people are sometimes.

File: fedora divine comedy.jpg (70KB, 800x382px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x382px

>>17112903
>Because a photocraphic technique was discovered back in the laye 90's early 2000's which sgows how over the course of a bright sunny and hot afternoon. An objecys likeness could be captured on specially treated cloth

Okay, well, considering the technique was discovered in the last couple decades doesn't really help your case too much. Unless you have evidence that this technique was known to Christians circa 1100 AD.

Also, specially treated? Like, treated how? Treated with chemicals? Would these chemicals have been available to people living in the middle ages? Can traces of this chemical be found in the Shroud of Turin?

No. Your explanation doesn't hold water.

>>17111869
Cool how his rotting corpse knew to shade his nose while it was imprinting on this cloth.

>>17112051
Why are the whip "scars" only viewable in ultraviolet?
I guess my question is-what is the substance being made visible by the ultraviolet lighting? is it remnants of blood? That's what it would seem to be.

>>17112051
FYI, blood isn't what shows up under ultraviolet, semen is. Your god was a bukakke loving faggot

>According to microchemist Dr. Walter McCrone,

The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.*

The carbon dating was done by 3 independent sources who all reached the same conclusion. I would like to see a citation of something "proving" that these tests were flawed in some way.

>>17114815
>McCrone analyzed the shroud and found traces of chemicals that were used in "two common artist's pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder" (McCrone 1998). He makes his complete case that the shroud is a medieval painting in Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (March 1999). For his work, McCrone was awarded the American Chemical Society's Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000.

>The shroud, however, has many defenders who believe they have demonstrated that the cloth is not a forgery, dates from the time of Jesus, is of miraculous origin, etc. It is claimed that there is type AB blood on the shroud. Skeptics deny it. Blood has not been identified on the shroud directly, but it has been identified on sticky tape that was used to lift fibrils from the shroud. Dried, aged blood is black. The stains on the shroud are red. Forensic tests on the red stuff have identified it as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint. Other tests by Adler and Heller have identified it as blood.* If it is blood, it could be the blood of some 14th century person. It could be the blood of someone wrapped in the shroud, or the blood of the creator of the shroud, or of anyone who has ever handled the shroud, or of anyone who handled the sticky tape. But even if there were blood on the shroud, that would have no bearing on the age of the shroud or on its authenticity.

File: christlaugh.jpg (214KB, 726x1038px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 726x1038px

>>17114705
>what is the substance being made visible by the ultraviolet lighting?
Blood plasma, most likely.

>>17114751
Get your mind out of the gutter you silly atheist.

>>17114883
>silly atheist
not even atheist. Keep sucking your war god's dick, monofag.

>>17114883
Blood plasma does not show up in UV light.
SOURCE: http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/alternatelightsources-print.html

Also, as some anon said before, if it is a transfer from a body, then there wouldn't be shading. It would be a consistent layer of transfer as the cloth would absorb the oils and blood from the body.

Not saying god is dead or even trying to make you question your religion, anon, but maybe instead of justifying your beliefs with some crusty cloth, you should show some actual faith and believe something without needing proof.

Just saying; you're a bad fucking christian if you need proof and get all ass-pained when you're wrong.

>>17114679
Well, i do agree its a fake. Its not his real shroud. That would have deteriorated a long time ago.
What i should have said is that the technique was Re-discovered.
And i think the chems used were probably citrus based.

>>17114664
>Have a shroud that shows the image of Jesus
>Keep it hidden for centuries
>Not even one painter mentions having seen it and used it as a reference
Seems legit.

>>17111869
I thought jesus was beaten so bad he was unreconizable upon crucifixion.

>>17111869
Carbon dating on this thing turned out that it was made much later than when Jesus Christ walked the earth.

>>17115093
I remember that happening as well

>>17112505
The thing none of the replication attempts can do is to generate the same Topographical imagery created when scanned with that technology that has rendered the right hand image in the OP.

that image is created with information contained in the shroud which is not present in any of the replications .. therefore none of those actually reproduce the shroud at all...

>>17115117
the testing was done of a patch that was added in the middle ages...not on the original material..

>>17111869
I remember watching some documentary once, think it was in school, but they said the image was "scarred" into the fabric by use of light.
Also, I highly doubt that fabric works in such a way that it can retain a likeness of someone who was only under it for, what, 3 days?

Seriously though. What if the shroud is 100% legit but low key just the shroud of some murderer the Romans fucked up...

What if it's actually a real burial shroud, but not the real Jesus?

i.e., the Church created the shroud of Turin by picking some random nobody, beating the shit out of him and then making it look like he had been flogged, crucified, etc., and then put the cloth over his body?

IMO it would be easier to forge a whole entire Jesus than to forge his shroud.

The proportions of the body on the shroud aren't correct.

So, if it is Jesus, he had an abnormal anatomy.

File: B^U.jpg (7KB, 186x213px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 186x213px

>>17111869
>declared it to be impossible to forge
see this is the shit

this is the shit that makes you sound dumb

>>17111869
>several prominent doctors, artists, and forensic specialists have analyzed the shroud and declared it to be impossible to forge
[citation needed]

File: 1319181377725s.jpg (6KB, 252x196px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 252x196px

>>17112051
>We know the shroud wasn't painted, because there are no brush strokes. If it's a forgery, then it would have to be forged using advanced printing techniques that didn't exist back then

what if...

now bare with me here

they just draped a shroud over a guy who kinda looked like Jesus

>>17112239
Do you just make this shit up to suit your argument?

The fire damage occurred in the 1500s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin

It's fake. There isn't even real blood on the thing, it's red ochre and vermilion. And I say this as a Catholic.

File: face.jpg (24KB, 701x349px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 701x349px

>>17116304
p.s.

As another anon mentioned, if it were an imprint of someone's real face it would be stretched out. Ever look at the texture files for a video game? This is what Jesus's face should look like.

>its old
>has a beard
>must be jesus

Kek. Fucking IMBECILES.

>>17115586
the shroud is old but carbon dating proves its not old enough. carbon dating shows it to be as old as the first known instance in history of its mention.

note the bible is not a historical document

the "blood" is old paint both chemically and microscopic analysis pretty much proved that

>>17116317
Even it was 100000 years fucking old how the fuck can ANYONE say its Jesus? Its just dumb. I'm gonna go and look for some fossilised turd and say its jesus' turd and you will believe me, right?

>>17112051
>how do you explain the fact that there are imprints of Jesus's whip scars, inflicted by a Roman flagrum (circa 1st century AD, of course), which are only visible in the ultraviolet spectrum?
why would whip scars only show up under UV light? what chemical from Jesus' scars is supposed to be reacting here? were they full of semen?

Are you open to the possibility the lines that show up under UV light aren't actually whip scars?

>>17116326
>Are you open to the possibility the lines that show up under UV light aren't actually whip scars?
Yes, but they're exactly the size and shape of the metal barb at the end of a Roman flagrum. Just sayin'.

>what chemical from Jesus' scars is supposed to be reacting here?
Blood plasma.

Besides this and the spear, what other Jesus related relics are there?

>>17116332
>exactly
It's words like this that make people not want to listen to you. No it does not "exactly" match up, and be wary any source that is this capricious with its use of language.

>Blood plasma
How can you do all this research, and not know that blood plasma doesn't react to UV light?

>>17114664
There's no fucking records of anyone ever mentioning that the thing even existed until the tail end of the 1300s your retarded ass really expects anyone to believe that the shroud was well-known and easily accessible enough for every renowned painter in Byzantium to have directly used the fucking thing as a reference? That makes zero goddamn sense, you dense fuck.

>>17116472
>the shroud couldn't have existed prior to the 12th century, because it looks exactly like all those medieval paintings.
>the shroud couldn't have inspired the paintings, because it didn't exist prior to the 12th century.

circular logic :b

>>17116509
>the shroud couldn't have existed prior to the 12th century, because it looks exactly like all those medieval paintings.
Who the fuck is saying that?

records of the shroud date back to the 1300s

the image is very similar to the one popularized by Byzantine era paintings, which date back centuries earlier

Does it make more sense to claim that the shroud is based on the paintings, or that the paintings are based on the shroud?

>>17116472
This is obviously a false relic, just like many false relics, created when the church was in need of patronage. Anybody that knows anything of history knows what a big business relics were, what they brought to not only the churches but the entire towns that housed these churches.

Even a gamer that has seen a 3D texture map knows the shroud of Turin is a fake, because a 3d image laid out flat isn't recognizable like the face on the shroud is.

tl/dr: it is a fake relic, that's why no 3d, no prior records of the relic boom in middle-ages, and why it failed a carbon analysis

File: dm.jpg (26KB, 268x393px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 268x393px

I believe this is the person on the shroud.
Pic related

>>17116541
cloth draped over something is not the same as a model hugging texture

>>17116562
the image would still be distorted, just not to the same degree

and the idea that blood and body oils would imprint the cloth with artful shading seems very silly to me

>>17116509
I'm not saying the shroud couldn't have existed prior to the 14th (not the 12th) century because it looks like the paintings, you incredible retard. I'm saying it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that it didn't exist before the 14th century because there's literally no records at all, anywhere, of it existing prior to that. And sure, although unlikely, it could have potentially existed before its existence was acknowledged in literally ANY written record, despite there being an enormous number of records of literally every other minute, insignificant thing happening in the Church at the time, but assuming that's true, tell me, in that scenario does it make literally any fucking sense at all that a vast number of monastic painters scattered widely throughout the Byzantine empire would have known about its existence and would have had free, direct access to the fucking thing to use as a reference for centuries? And yet not one person in those hundreds of years ever once mentioned it in any correspondence or written record? Not one single person, for hundreds of years, when so many renowned painters had direct access to the shroud? Does that really make any sense to you?

Like >>17116528 said, when we have neither the vaguest indication that the shroud existed nor an even slightly logical hypothetical scenario where it could have been known to exist by anyone but the MOST secluded, secretive circle of people at the time, does it make more sense that Byzantine painters used the shroud as a reference or that the shroud was made to look like the image of Jesus popularized by the Byzantines?

>>17112856
>scientists, historicians, people of all religions have studied every inch of it for thousands of years and can't prove its fake
>Except for all the ones who proved it's fake

>>17116574
Exactly.

What is really silly, though, are Christians that try to use these damn things not only to bolster their own supposed 'faith' but also to try and convince others that theirs is 'the real one true' thing.

Pathetic. Spirituality of any kind, and faith-based beliefs specifically, don't require physical proof. If you require physical proof, then you don't have faith, and you don't need Jesus' underwear to be a believer.

Man-up, Christians. None of this tomfoolery is needed, either for you or for others.

>>17112239
>in 1100 AD
>no record of the Shroud before 14th century

Try again, son.

>>17116562
>nit-picking so as to not see the point

>>17112525
>When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not, hmm.

>>17112839
>You people just don't THINK.
says the guy who thinks the Shroud of Turin is real.

>>17114705
Blood doesn't show up in ultraviolet unless it's treated with a certain chemical which I believe is way too hazardous to let anywhere near the goddamn Shroud of Turin.

>>17111869
Probably bullshit. What indications do we have that the body of Jesus would stain a cloth that way? None.

File: even_possible_aliens.gif (2MB, 480x271px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x271px

>>17116275

>>17112111
the shroud caught fire in 1300 the same time the carbon dating said it was made

>>17112558
the shroud actually dates back much further. there is writings of it being displayed on a pillar at the gates to some middle eastern city in the 2nd century

>>17111869
I totally believe the shroud of Turin is actually a cloth that was draped over a dead guy who had been tortured to death.

What evidence is there at all to indicate that said dead guy was Jesus? A rough time period (possibly as late as the medieval period) and a vague description matching paintings considerably later on? Wounds that are the same as basically every criminal executed at that time?

Sure it is not a forgery of a death shroud.
But it could easily be a forgery of Christ's death shroud.

>>17112051
I should point out that if an organisation as powerful as the catholic church wanted to forge this, they would not have to know about what technology could pick up in the future, they could just do everything they thought was done to jesus to some homeless guy who looked like jesus, and wrap him up in it. For authenticity. It is what I would do.

>>17116801
do you just repeat this shit without ever checking sources? Don't do that.

the fire damage occurred in the 1500s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin

the carbon dating put it back in the late 1300's at the latest, 1200's at the earliest

https://books.google.ca/books?id=SRt9DuMlHyoC&lpg=PT240&ots=OF4CyHP0Pi&dq=Cardinal%20Ballestrero%20press%20release&pg=PT240#v=onepage&q=Cardinal%20Ballestrero%20press%20release&f=false

>>17116808
how do you know it's the same shroud?

that's sounds like a hasty conclusion

>>17112108
I'd actually believe this

>>17112095
You're right. In the bible many people did not recognize him after his death. Although it could be an exaggeration of those events in which you're like "omg it can't be him, he dead." But how can you walk for miles with two of your disciples and not notice them? I found it hard to believe during a bible study I went to and so the pastor mentioned that they didn't think it was Jesus because Jesus had died and that would be defying natural laws.

>>17115599
If so, then the 'patch' is completely seamless and indistinguishable from the rest of the shroud.

>>17116325
You say that as a joke, but they totally would even.

>>17116612
>1100AD
[citation needed]

>>17116355
There's the James Ossuary, a stone box full of bones dating to the 1st century AD with an inscription reading 'James son of Joseph brother of Jesus'.

Here's a thought for all you believers.

If this truly was the burial shroud, and miraculously had the picture of jesus transferred onto it, how come there are no mentions of such a relic existing in the bible?

You would think something as amazing as that would have made it in right?

>>17116472
>There's no fucking records of anyone ever mentioning that the thing even existed until the tail end of the 1300s
To be fair, surviving records from the medieval middle east are approximately equivalent to having one monk's diary from the entirety of the British empire.

Source: Just finished a Medieval Middle Eastern History course.

>>17116947
>citation needed
>>17112239
There you go.

>>17116983
Well I am convinced!

>>17114838
This anon gets it.
The shroud is the most amazing painting ever produced. Some tin foilers even like to argue Leonardo could have painted it.
They even made a show for pbs about McCrone's work illustrating that the current science shows the shroud to be a painting. All other "analysis" since has been basically bullshit.

>>17116355
The cross, allegedly. I forget where it is but there's a church built around it.

It's real, but it's paranormal properties are long gone by now.

>>17111869
several prominent doctors, artists, and forensic specialists
Are catholic. No mystery. Just blind faith

>>17117122
I've heard some people speculate a camera obscura could have been used to create the image.

>>17112051
>Because photographs totally existed back then, right?

Images could be projected with a camera obscura back then. Light sensitive chemicals were known. A "photograph" is EXACTLY what it is.

http://www.picknettprince.com/books/turinshroud/turin.htm

>>17116252
>doubts that Jesus was actually 6' 10"

*tips fedora*

File: Jesus of Nazareth.jpg (7KB, 220x242px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 220x242px

Not trying to be WE WUZ GOD N SHIET, but the way I know the Shroud of Turin isn't genuine is because the figure depicted on it is of obvious Nordic European extraction, while Jesus was a Semitic Middle Easterner. What likely happened was sometime after the Christianization of Europe, someone inflicted the wounds reportedly inflicted on Jesus onto some European guy, and used a novel technique of photographic imprinting or projection to transfer the image onto the sheet. All the debate over carbon dating and the presence of pollen spores become moot when you realize the fact that Jesus didn't look like that, so it simply can't be Jesus.

>>17116325
>I'm gonna go and look for some fossilised turd and say its jesus' turd and you will believe me, right?

Don't give them any fucking ideas, Anon.

>>17116275
underrated post

People still believe this? Science has proven it false several times.

File: 1356818264553.jpg (47KB, 500x460px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x460px

>>17111869
Fake, created with a camera obscura.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura

Next!

File: 1450836732322.png (73KB, 1449x1218px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1449x1218px

>>17117609
hehe

/x/ in a nutshell

>>17116275

/thread

>its old
>must be jesus

where is the logic in this?

>>17111869
The one time they did analysis on it the conclusively proved that the dates didn't add up, and the church hid it away and forbid anymore research to be done on if. They know it's fake, or at least not contemporary with Jesus.

>>17118710
>not contemporary with Jesus.

that doesnt mean what you think it means, although, your statement is correct.

ITT: people argue fairy tales and take obvious bait.

It's not whether it's real or fake, its whether it actually belonged to jesus. The possibilty that one of his garments survived to this day is very low, compared to the possibility that a random garment from someone insignificant person survived is pretty high

>>17119441
lets not argue about who or what is pretty high right now

>>17119441
Yeah, this. Even if we could determine that it was a shroud used to bury someone in or around Israel around the time Jesus is supposed to exist, with all that, we still have no evidence to believe it actually belonged to Jesus.

If it wasn't fake you wouldn't be discussing it on /x/.

>>17117386
You're thinking of Calvary and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The cross isn't actually there, but it is the location where Jesus was supposedly crucified.

>>17117609
Did you not read the OP? Scientists have proven that it can't be faked many times. Get an education.

>>17119441
It's like I said here >>17116961
If it was real you would think that a mention of a miraculous burial shroud with the image of Jesus on it would get at least a few mentions in the bible or literally anywhere.

That would be a huge deal considering photography and shit wasn't around back then.
But nope, there isn't a single mention of it in the bible.

>>17112505
>Are you aware that cotton wasn't even grown commercially in Europe back then?
Are you aware that linen doesn't come from cotton?

Magic isn't real

>>17111869
Really, faggot?

>>17120089
Really. Because last I checked all the dating that's been done to it places its age at least a few centuries younger than jesus. Which is a huge margin for c14 dating.

Plus studies looking for proteins and other molecules released from a decaying body (or even just decaying body fluids) all showed up completely negative.

All of the 'scientific' studies in favour of the shrouds authenticity rely the carbon dating being somehow inaccurate.

File: kjemp-for-norge.jpg (768KB, 2118x1000px) Image search: [Google]

768KB, 2118x1000px

>>17117505
>the shroud has Nordic traits

I don't think so. The nose really throws that off.

And not all sandpeople look like total subhumans, like your pic. There are plenty with "normal" looking skulls, more with than without actually.

I doubt Jesus looked like a caveman.

Also, that pic claims to me made based on jesus' DNA. How do they know it's jesus' DNA? How was it preserved all these years? Not saying Jesus was white, just saying people are overdoing the middle eastern thing.

>>17112057

What about Mary and Joseph's body? Or any of the Apostles?

>>17112051
That's impossible. His nose would hold up a tent around his face, it wouldn't be able to actually touch the face in that much detail.

>actually believing that the shroud of Turin is the real thing without any evidence that proves that it dates back to the correct period
You must be a real desperate cunt to harbour that level of wishfull thinking

>>17122841
This

>>17122841
And you must be the cynical prick who has to shit on everything because you are incapable of feeling even a moment of genuine happiness. Enjoy your life.

>>17122941
>believing the shroud of Turin is real constitutes personal happiness
Seems like you are the one struggling to find happiness even more than me tho

>>17111869
Considering that the modern way jesus is depicted isnt the way he actually looked suggests this is fake

File: 60c2dc07-7831-4e0e-a4fb-1b804f2a4cb9..jpg (55KB, 450x648px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 450x648px

>>17111869
ITT: No one that actually gets it.

I'm not saying that I believe this is the truth, but the explanation (albeit supernatural) is that Jesus' body transformed into pure Light. This event BURNED the image we see into the shroud. The skin closer to the fabric produced darker areas. This is why there is "shading" & the why image is a NEGATIVE. Hell, you can clearly see his illuminated Crown Chakra.

could have been draped over a guy that was painted who "looked" like jesus so the pigment on his body transferred seemingly in an unnatural way during the middle ages.

or a meticulous type of primitive airbrushing where pigment was put in the mouth then blown onto the cloth. some kind of tube could have also have been used.

if not pigment then it could be lightly charred.

all in an attempt for the church to gain or maintain it's power. though we don't really know because no one will let it be tested thoroughly, only the edges have been carbon dated as far as i know but i what i know was from years ago.

>>17122959
That's not how happiness works, you're just spewing words because you want to hate and argue
You're incapable of feeling happiness, thus you aren't seeking it at all

>>17111869
why doesnt jesus look middle eastern in the shroud? why does he look like the people who depicted him decades and centuries later instead of people from country of ancestry?

File: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1111111__1448982930_83.254.80.52.jpg (934KB, 600x9466px) Image search: [Google]

934KB, 600x9466px

>>17124135
Because it's not Jesus. You people do know demons can easily make "paintings" like this, right?

>>17124135
Cause everyone knows Jesus was a super aryan hippie with makeup.

>>17112135
Church doesn't give a shit about the shroud, they take it more as a curiosity, but according to them until is proved its real if you don't believe in it they don't care and you won't go to hell for it.

>>17122757
They found Peter and Paul's bodies if I recall correctly It's difficult to find everyone because they weren't famous people anyway. Finding Josephs tomb would be like finding your or mine tomb in 4015. Nobody really cared about him besides Christfags.

>>17124135
See >>17122744
Also by that time jews were already mixed with greek and roman people. As far as we know Jesus could be a roman guy's son.

>>17111869
I think of the map of our planet. We see it depicted flat, as it may look rendered from its supposed 3d reality. The shroud looks like a face, clear as day on a 2D plane. A lifting of an actually 3D structure like a face will not translate into a clear picture of a face such as it does with images of this shroud hocus.

>>17122941
>genuine happiness
So you turn to fantasy and hoaxes to feel "genuine" happiness?

>>17124011
ITT: No one that actually gets it

>Miraculous image of Jesus burned onto shroud
>No one thinks to mention this even once in the bible or in the years preceding his death

>>17124825
>evidence from 2011 scientific study
>DURR! HOW COME EVERBODY DIDNT KNOW 2000 YEARS AGO?!

File: vomiting candy corn.gif (2MB, 499x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 499x281px

>>17124213
>that pic

>>17124905
Evidence of what from a 2011 study?

>>17112133

ahahaha that's really funny because of the new Star Wars!

;^}

>>17112173
Aw man...

Now i'll never get a stand.

that i drank some of granddaddy's beer

>>17124213
that picture is retarded, it's called a figure of speech you fucking moron

>not having a framed copy of Jesus's autograph

Can you even call yourself a Christian?

File: 67d13dac-769c-4f69-975b-b910f400294a..jpg (804KB, 1338x1794px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 1338x1794px

>>17125601
http://www.sci-news.com/physics/scientists-suggest-turin-shroud-authentic.html

>>17111869
It isn't fake. Also, Jesus had a 2d body, he was living in anime.

Check the bible. It's a fact.

>>17125755
Ok, so once again, why did no one think to mention this incredible miracle in the bible?

>Luke 24:12: 'Peter got up and ran to the tomb and stopping down and looking in, he saw the strips of linen cloths alone by themselves, and he went home, wondering about what had happened'
Hmm interesting that there is no mention there of an image on it. Also note they say 'Strips of linen cloth' not one long shroud.

>John 20:5 to 7: 'Stopping down, John saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not enter the tomb. Then peter came up after him and went into the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying therel but the burla cloth which had been around Jesus' head was not lying with the other linen cloths'
So not only were there multiple cloths, there was one that was specifically wrapped around his head. And yet somehow no one mentions the imprint, and somehow despite the special cloth around his head the Turin shroud shows one long cloth with his face imprinted on it, directly contradicting the bible.

Seems like a pretty big thing to forget to add, right?

>>17116808
>[citation needed]

>>17124116
>You don't believe this obvious hoax is the real deal, therefor you are unhappy
How do you mouth breathers even function with this lack of logical thought processes? Shouldn't you have drowned on your own drool by this point? I think THAT'S the real miracle here.

>>17124011
Wait I'm confused about your argument. People can't transfrom into light. Can you explain it better?

>>17125862
>People can't transfrom into light.
Unless you're Jebus, apparently.

>>17125828
This. I love how Turin shroud proponents just ignore this.

Since when are burial shrouds folded long ways over a body anyway? Aren't they typically wrapped around the person's body length-wise?

>>17124825
>No one thinks to mention this even once in the bible or in the years preceding his death
Dude nobody mentiones his resurrection on the bible either, that was added a ton of years later.

>>17127022
>Dude nobody mentiones his resurrection on the bible either
>Mark 16:5-0
>As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 6 "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here.
>When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene

>Luke 24:6-0
>He is not here; he has risen!

>Acts 4:33
>With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus

>1 Corinthians 15:3-0
> that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

The bible was actually written over a span of ~1500 years. And yet not one person thought to make any mention of a magical shroud that bears the image of Christ.
And remember, this was before photography or any processes like this. If they truly had found that then it would blow their minds and most definitely be something they talk/write about.

>>17112051
>It was draped over Jesus's entire body, not just the face. Just making this statement proves that you haven't done any research.
That doesn't follow. He's saying that if it were his Jesus' head - just part of the cloth - then that part where it touched the head would be distorted.

>>17116983
That's a pretty shitty citation

>>17128494
have you checked the more recent special editions? it may be in a footnote or something?

>>17112513
Circular reasoning.

>>17112051
>>17112239
These posters are cancerous shills. They are the spreaders of extremely cancerous disinfo and should be avoided at any cost.

>>17116131
Unlikely.
It seems to be medieval, despite the desperate speculation about a fire and repair.

>>17112051
>how do you explain the fact that there are imprints of Jesus's whip scars, inflicted by a Roman flagrum (circa 1st century AD, of course), which are only visible in the ultraviolet spectrum?
Did they have luminol back then too?

>>17129250

The only way we can prove it is if we resurrect him like in Jurassic Park and he comes back and does all dem gudgud miracles but hopefully not like a trex and evolves a penis so he can have sex with the other trex on the island and he breaks out and eats all da tourists lol

>>17112095
are you retarded?
it's common fucking sense he's not your usual spirit he's the fucking son of god, of course he would keep his original body.

>>17116311
>>17116304
you people are fucking thick
for that to happen there would have to be an extra cloth just for his face wrapped around tightly
do you have common sense?

>>17129756
>for that to happen there would have to be an extra cloth just for his face wrapped around tightly
Funny you should say that

>John 20:5 to 7: 'Stopping down, John saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not enter the tomb. Then peter came up after him and went into the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there but the burla cloth which had been around Jesus' head was not lying with the other linen cloths'
>cloth which had been around Jesus' head

>>17130025
Cause the bible is reliable work of non-fiction.