The Face of God: Shroud of Turin and Orthodoxy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 окт 2024
- Dr. Altomare is a subdeacon of St. Gregory Palamas Orthodox Church (OCA), Glen Gardner, NJ and lectured on the forensic science behind the Shroud of Turin and its relation to the Holy Mandylion. Educated in zoology and as a medical doctore (Genoa, ITaly), his interest in the Holy Shroud was sparked by a visit to Turin in the 1970’s when a rare public exposition had taken place. He has since that time participated in several international scientific congresses on the study of sindonology (Study of the Shroud) and has lectured extensively on the topic.
The Shroud of Turin is a gift from Almighty God to provide verifiable SCIENTIFIC evidence for the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. God has bestowed this gift to the Church in an age of rampant secularism and skepticism.
moron, this could not be evidence for the resurrection even if it were real. considering it originates from the era of the templars who were big dealers or religious relics, it is certainly not real.
Jesus died in France, with his grandchildren crying salty tears by his side. His death was faked and he bugged off to make ready for Mary Magdelene to show up later.
Jesus died in France after his seemingly dead body was taken off the cross. He was miles away from Israel on Easter Sunday.
@@grownjohnboy
That’s a lie from the pits of Hell
@@JP-sd7di Oh? How about his not dying on the cross and his bones were found in Jerusalem How does your Constantine Christianity digest that?
Output Volume is much too low. Please increase the volume feed. ❤🎉
My right ear enjoyed this
I own museum quality reproductions of the Lance of Longinus, nails, crown of thorns, Roman flagrums, and actual set of tefillin, a full size copy of both the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium. All items are stored in a silver case. I cannot handle any of them without weeping......
You are so blessed.
@@marietta1335 WE are so blessed.
"...and then it wasn't spoken about for the next 500 years." (1:11:29) I wish that we would choose our words more carefully. It is possible (even likely) that it may HAVE been spoken about (albeit not widely so), but we simply don't have access to that evidence. To state conclusively that the Shroud wasn't spoken about, supports the scoffers claim that it therefore was non-existent.
"Scoffers"? Christians like you are pathetic, encouraging your fellow Christians to be economical with the truth just to suit your grubby moral requirements, genuine Christians don't need the shroud to buttress their faith. Who cares if the evidence-based history of the shroud is none existent before 1389? It's not gonna bother my faith in Jesus. The Romans crucified thousands upon thousands of people, from Jerusalem to the UK & there's evidence (nail left in the heel bone) that crucifixion was a regular form of punishment & execution. I see no reason why faking the shroud of a crucifixion in France couldn't be done. Everyone is entitled to an honest opinion & mine is that the first documented proof of the shroud is the Bishop of Troyes writing to the Pope in 1389. He wrote that his predecessor had located the forger of the shroud & the forger confessed that he'd made the shroud. And the results of the Carbon Dating 1260-1390 AD fit perfectly with the date of the Bishops letter 1389 AD.
And so after that vision if the triangular piece of liquid crystal looking cloth, at around 1:00 perpendicular to the spot where it appeared, a month more or less, on a ten feet high Adobe wall, the image began to appear, first the face then the wholeness of the face followed. Then the lines of the shoulders took shape, it developed into an arm , two arms and hands exactly like the image of the Shroud of Turin. Then the lines and shape of the hips until the thighs and the legs and feet appeared completing the the image of the imprints if the Shroud. I walked towards it, telling my mother to look as well at the apparition. She signed with her hands that I should keep quiet. As I said to my mother with great amazement and realization that is Jesus Christ . . . The man of the Shroud.
Finally the Orthodox are talking about the Shroud, which was stolen from Constantinople by the Crusaders and claimed thereafter by the Catholic Church.
The Holy Shroud or Mandylion was not claimed by the Catholic church is was owned for centuries by the Savoy family, the last king of Italy, who bequested it to the Pope upon his death. It has been in Turin since the XVI C per request of the Savoy family and it can not be moved to any other place. Currently, the Vatican is the custodian of the Shroud.
What is the opinion of the Orthodox Church on the Shroud of Turin?
Fat Chance😂
they are full of ego and hatred . i don't think they will accept anything as authentic even if christ jesus himself appeared before them and told them it is true...
The Orthodox Church absolutely believes in the truth of the shroud (without ego and hatred, as someone here said)
We believe it’s authentic
The Orthodox Church had the Shroud originally, along with the facecloth, and revered and displayed them periodically for a thousand years, until the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, when these and many other relics were stolen by the Catholic Crusaders.
Many of the slides are not shown.. are they on another site?
There are other websites.
1 is I think, shroud.com
Even RUclips has a lot of videos from other sources including from those that have actually worked on the Shroud. One person who did work on it and gives a great presentation is the photographer Barry, I don't remember the last name. But he keeps you interested and he uses humor a lot so it's not so dry and boring.
In other words go to Barrie Schwarz, the guy that should have been giving the lecture. If the intro is this boring then I'll not watch the rest . Is this the intro or the body.
Ur report is very informative but it would’ve been so much better if we can see what ur showing instead of you talking. Thank you
God and krist Jesus what you gave to your people and me we don't know even ALLMIGHTY GOD SOBAI KOW KI DISE HALLELUJAH
Christ
No sound.
The last guy I tried to listen to was a pathologist and a medical examiner and he couldn’t speak it was like he was terrified and his throat was closing off, now I click on this guy and he doesn’t have his microphone positioned so anybody can hear him. Please. Get some men who know how to give talks properly. I really want to hear this but I can’t hear him. At least the real speaker knows enough to grab the mic and adjust it a little but still not good enough.
The lecture is okay, but a large section of it should have been devoted to the problems relating to the C-14 dating. That's the biggest issue for Shroud skeptics and ought to be extensively discussed in any Shroud lecture, pro or con.
They won't retest it so we won't know. If it came out to be too new then it would be very difficult to accept.
@@LaurenavanThey did several other types of tests that have a broader range than carbon dating. The overall range was from 1000 B.C. to about 700 A.D.
@@Laurenavan Jim Bertrand's presentation is excellent. For an answer to the dating go directly to the 15:30 mark ruclips.net/video/zjCPZzJe4jI/видео.html
Why radio carbon dating was false👇
The 1988 Carbon-14 tests done at Oxford,
Zurich and Arizona Labs used pieces of a sample cut from a corner.
1. A Jan 20, 2005 paper in the professional journal ThermoChimica Acta by Dr. Ray Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and lead chemist with the original science team STURP (the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project involving 33 scientists, 26 of them directly examining the Shroud for five days), has shown conclusively that the sample cut from The Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from an area of the cloth that was re-woven during the middle ages. Here are some excerpts:
"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."
"As part of the Shroud of Turin research project (STURP), They took 32 adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud and associated textiles in 1978." "It enabled direct chemical testing on recovered linen fibers and particulates".
"If the shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1390 AD, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in 1260 AD would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978... The Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test [i.e. tested positive] for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."
"The fire of 1532 could not have greatly affected the vanillin content of lignin in all parts of the shroud equally. The thermal conductivity of linen is very low... therefore, the unscorched parts of the folded cloth could not have become very hot." "The cloth's center would not have heated at all in the time available. The rapid change in color from black to white at the margins of the scorches illustrates this fact." "Different amounts of vanillin would have been lost in different areas. No samples from any location on the shroud gave the vanillin test [i.e. tested positive]." "The lignin on shroud samples and on samples from the Dead Sea scrolls does not give the test [i.e. tests negative]."
"Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test [i.e. test negative], the cloth must be quite old." "A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years."
"A gum/dye/mordant [(for affixing dye)] coating is easy to observe on... radiocarbon [sample] yarns. No other part of the shroud shows such a coating." "The radiocarbon sample had been dyed. Dyeing was probably done intentionally on pristine replacement material to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth." "The dye found on the radiocarbon sample was not used in Europe before about 1291 AD and was not common until more than 100 years later." "Specifically, the color and distribution of the coating implies that repairs were made at an unknown time with foreign linen dyed to match the older original material." "The consequence of this conclusion is that the radiocarbon sample was not representative of the original cloth."
"The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud."
"A significant amount of charred cellulose was removed during a restoration of the shroud in 2002." "A new radiocarbon analysis should be done on the charred material retained from the 2002 restoration."
Bibliography
Raymond N. Rogers. 20 January 2005. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin. Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Issue 1-2, Pages 189-194.
2. The Fire-Model Tests of Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov in 1994 and Drs. John Jackson and Propp in 1998, which replicated the famous Fire of 1532, demonstrated that the fire added carbon isotopes to the linen.
Dmitri Kouznetsov, Andrey Ivanov, Pavel Veletsky. 5 January 1996. Effects of fires and biofractionation of carbon isotopes on results of radiocarbon dating of old textiles: the Shroud of Turin. Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 109-121. doi:10.1006/jasc.1996.0009
Jackson, John P. and Propp, Keith. 1997. On the evidence that the radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was significantly affected by the 1532 fire. Actes du III Symposium Scientifique International du CIELT, Nice, France.
carbon dating was correct. the problem was, that it was taken from a portion that was actually from a part that was repaired. the herringbone stitches did not match with the rest of the cloth.
If proof was black and white we wouldn’t need faith and that’s contrary to Christ’s message.
Have faith, don’t demand evidence. Good reminder on the Sunday of Thomas
Evidence is in the written Gospels is it not?
VOLUME IS TERRIBLE
My fight ear enjoyed this
I have never been able to understand the notion of scapegoating at work here. That someone be required to undergo such a horrific death to satisfy a step or series of steps within a matrix of redemption installed at the beginning of time defies simple justice. That someone should lay down their life for another is NOT the issue. What is the theological logic behind such a mechanism?
It’s not about justice it’s about mercy and love
@@DysmasTheGoodThief I wonder if Solomon would have drawn such a distinction.
This video might help you understand: ruclips.net/video/I4q_yB5jyk4/видео.html
If you watch that video and still have more questions, feel free to ask.
If God came to earth wouldn’t we (and He I might add) want him to go through the worst of the worst so that he can empathize with humans who are suffering?
@@jlouis4407 Many thanks for your suggestion. The problem there is with the notion of God needing to learn something. The concept of a perfect God does not admit of the idea of an ignorant God. If He is perfect, why would he require an education in suffering? If he is not perfect, he is not the Christian God. Personal ly no, I would not want anyone to undergo such torture. If this were the Middle Ages, I believe your feet would be warming up quite nicely about now.
barry is not a devout Jew. According to him, he left the faith when he was 13.
He returned to the Jewish faith as a result of his experience with the Shroud. Barrie has been honest about that.
Scripted if you ask me.the Simpsons can predict the future too.scripted.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker How does the shroud influence someone to be a jew?
@@ReapingTheHarvest Very interesting story. He was a non-praciticing Jew going into the project, now he practices his faith. Look up his story on RUclips TedX talk.
Jesus is coming to South America
For all the examination of the Shroud which has been done, it seems that hardly anyone looks to what the Bible has to say about the Jewish burial practice of the First Century: wrappings (plural) and not just a single piece of cloth. See John 11:44 and 20:6, 7 as well as Luke 24:41.
There is actually another separate piece of cloth that is purported to be the cloth that was around His head - not totally positive, but I think it’s in Spain. Not sure if there has been testing on it.
@@debranihan8906 Look at an Orthodox icon of the Raising of Lazarus: he comes out of the tomb wrapped in strips of cloth, not one big piece like the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud simply does not conform to the burial practices in the time of Christ.
The following video offers new information on the shroud based on recent applications of current technology. It approaches the shroud strictly from a technological perspective and makes no claims as to the identity of the image. ruclips.net/video/xAVZp9tW5FU/видео.html
@Shaun Daugherty @Shaun Daugherty Evangelium of John is written in simple Greek. Thus describing both resurrections he might have used word Othoniae , but he meant Sindone. In 1st century, noone was burried in strips of linen. The wrappings might had been used to hold still head and jaw, arms and legs. That's why he might have used plural.
None too complimentary about Barrie Schwartz. Barrie is more knowledgeable about the shroud and far more well known than this man.
So the Hebrew desert god Yahweh is a bearded man?
The face is not three-dimensional but on the contrary rather two-dimensional. A three-dimensional face does not have the same proportions as a photo as is the case for that of the shroud which, once its 3D shape has been reconstructed by computer, gives the shape more of a bas-relief than of a body. , and again, even a bas-relief seems like a lot. The 3D shape is obtained by computer only with the addition of a program which accentuates the proportions so as to have a correct 3D body, which constitutes a fraud. We find a 3D body because we implemented a program to have a 3D body. A body printed on a sheet renders an image which lengthens away from the center and which breaks up with the folds of the fabric or implements the extension of its surface because of the curve it takes. The hair must mark in a much more blurred and light way, even stick to the skull since it is the blood which must mark. Moreover, the sheet must be excessively stretched (what would be the reason?) so as not to end up in places with hollows also represented but only full ones. For that, the mark is in this sense too delimited. Where have the sides gone? Why would the followers of Jesus have stretched the sheet like this above and below (what supports the body in this diagram?) so as to mark only the solids and not the sides? it doesn't make any sense. Oh and then he wouldn't miss a game by chance? No, because given the small distance between the back of the head and the front of the head, it seems quite incredible that the top of the skull did not print the fabric and therefore not connect the two.
The sample for carbon dating was carried out by three sindonologists (it is therefore difficult to say that they would have failed on purpose) including experts in ancient textiles (if they are not able to recognize a piece of sewn fabric and much more recent then there is a big problem) on a rectangular piece taken from the bottom left of the ventral image. The sample was then sent to three prestigious independent laboratories whose results are consistent with each other and with the appearance of the shroud in history.
The fires of 1532 added scorch and water marks (to extinguish the fire) to this one but carbon 14 is not the only dating we have and the fact that it dates the shroud at a date different from what the believers say (the shroud was woven with flax harvested between 1260 and 1390) is not synonymous with an error of the former but just a belief of the latter. The ad hoc hypothesis of contamination by a fungus which would have falsified the dating is contradicted by the calculations made by Henri Brock which shows that the fungus should then have contributed twice as much carbon as the laundry currently contains if the fire dated only from 1800 and more than 5 times for 1500. The ad hoc hypothesis of proton bombardment is itself a mystery so great that it absolutely does not allow Ockham's razor to pass and contradicts d completely the laws of physics.
There is an excellent scientific article which presents the carbon dating of 1988, the extreme precautions and guarantees that have been taken so as not to make any mistakes (great media pressure) as well as the immediate and unsurprising desire of believers to pass this dating for bad because it does not validate their beliefs. It also presents the subsequent unsuccessful attempts to contradict this dating by ad hoc hypotheses and by other datings, but whose methodological biases were too great to draw anything from them. The opinion also of Christopher Ramsey (director of the AMS laboratory in Oxford at the time of writing and specialist in radiocarbon dating) is reported there, who accepts the idea of a new dating with other techniques (tested these and not created for the shroud) in the hope that it will allow believers to no longer wallow in the denial of scientific results which in the long term will make it possible to clean up the scientific debate. The article in question dates from December 23, 2013, was written by Richard CORFIELD and is entitled "Chemistry in the face of belief". However, it is more easily found by searching for "The enduring controversy of the Turin Shroud".
Quote from Christopher Ramsey in 2008 : "I'm always willing to consider any serious suggestions of why the dating might not be correct and to do further tests to investigate such suggestions. In this sens, i keep an open mind - as I would about any scientific investigation. However, my strong intuition, based on my experience in this field, is that the new hypothesis will not challenge the accuracy of the original radiocarbon dating exercise."
In 1973, an analysis of the pollens and the dust of the linen concluded to a passage of this one in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. Problem: the study lacks considerable precision, other pollens which should have been there (if that was the case) are not, as well as the calcyte deposited on the pollens during the fire of 1532 and the images of the criminologist Max Fry strangely do not report the traces of the fire (a good classic fraud in sight) which is explained by the admission of this one according to which he had taken reference images and not the real pictures of shroud pollens. For Marzia Boi in 2010: her work is neither in agreement with previous pollen surveys and their expectations, nor in agreement with the study by Gianni Barcaccia who speaks to us squarely of pollen coming from East Africa until to China, the two willingly forgetting that the Shroud was not always kept well protected but was even exposed to the public (the degradation of the pollen is therefore quite different from the ideal state they imagine) on different occasions during which an audience of believers from all over the world could come to see him.
And then it is not really possible to determine with precision and safety the geographical origin of a pollen. A palynologist will tell you that we can (at best) determine the biological family to which he belongs and then see in which places in the world this family has been found over the ages, but there again it remains excessively unreliable and imprecise.
The existence of the trace of the coins inside the eyes has never been demonstrated. It is put forward by several sindonologists (those who have never had the shroud under their eyes and who only base themselves on the photos) but refuted by other sindonologists and by several scientists who do not see these "pieces" when they observe the eyes (they speak rather of a pareidolia for those who believe they see them as well as on certain modifications that the photos may have received) and are based on the impossibility (or excessively low possibility) for a linen with such a seam to print signs that are so small on a piece that is too small. Covering the eyes with coins is not a Jewish custom.
In 1978, researchers (the STURP) brought to light porphyrin, albumin and bilirubin on the tissue (which we find in the blood) and therefore they concluded (this is where we sees the moment when religious researchers stop acting like scientists in favor of their belief) that it is blood but no analysis carried out to prove that the molecules come from blood. Problem: these molecules are also present in the pigments used in painting and in particular red ferrous ochre, the composition of which was found in fragments taken from different places in the shroud. We also find cinnabar and these two pigments are very present in the Middle Ages. The yellow tint to the body is due to a bone glue soak that has yellowed over time. In 2017, Giulio Fanti found creatinine and ferrihydrite on the shroud and therefore concluded that blood was present. Same problem as previous studies! For creatinine and ferrihydrite: ferrihydrite is also present in certain pigments and creatinine can easily be explained by the presence of another component also present on the shroud: collagen, which is an essential element of glue. 'bones and that we will find in certain techniques such as tempera painting, which makes it possible to obtain results similar to the study. In other words, there too it is not sufficient to certify that it is blood. Especially since the study is far from reliable. The evidence presented by the authors does not in any way support their conclusion ("the man enveloped in the ST suffered a strong polytrauma"), which is based instead on the simple overinterpretation of data from a sample whose history is unknown and a chain of dubious hypotheses not even making it possible to validate with certainty the presence of these molecules. In 1973, a medical institute analyzed fragments from the "blood stains" of laundry and aimed to detect the presence of blood. UV tests are negative, as are benzidin and microspectrophotometry.
In 2005, geneticist Gérard Lucotte claimed to have found DNA from a man of Middle Eastern origin and blood type AB. Problems: his work is not published in a scientific journal but in a Christian publishing house and is therefore not subject to any peer review. Moreover, the sample used is of unknown origin (we don't know how he got it) and therefore not reliable. We can also add that Lucotte works alone, has no scientific recognition and that even the other works of his career are often more than controversial, completely biased or without peer review, which does not even allow us to qualify him as a person. qualified for this exercise.
But hey, the author could have painted with blood to make his work more authentic (you have to see the number of students nowadays who each year decide to paint with their blood believing themselves to be original and are also disappointed when they see that the blood does not remain red but becomes brown) so in any case it would not mean much to find some on the linen.
The various data collected, which not only refute the hypothesis of a bi-millennium origin and also conclude that it originated in the Middle Ages, are also perfectly consistent with each other and with the fact that the period in question is synonymous in Europe with an immense traffic in relics and fakes.
The negative technique is nothing new in the Middle Ages, its first uses are visible from the beginning of parietal art in the Upper Paleolithic, in the Aurignacian.
The Shroud is perfectly reproducible and moreover has several replicas, for example at the cathedral of Chambéry or that made by Paul-Henry Blanrue and that of Henry Brock, even if the latter mainly aims to demonstrate the feasibility of obtain such a work by the technique of tempera painting and with a bas-relief. Henri Broch's experience is moreover not unique and several other people have successfully carried out similar experiments by obtaining stains with the same characteristics (even the weak penetration of the fabric is reproduced) apart from the shape well -sure, rather due to the shape of the bas-relief used. The non-existence of replicas, if this were the case, would mean nothing in any case: many works of art have no replicas and some techniques leave enough room for contingency for the result obtained is not predictable and therefore difficult or even impossible to repeat exactly the same.
The work of Doctor Pierre Barbet (location of nails, anatomical details, traces of passion, etc.) was refuted in a 1995 article by Frederick T. Zugibe which shows that Barbet's thesis is based on anatomical errors but also that the result would not conform to the Shroud of Turin. He also points out that the various stigmata saints all received their stigmata in the palms and not in the wrists. Several texts and representations (from the Middle Ages or older) describe the tortures that Christ is supposed to have received. You just need to know how to read, to get help or to come across the right illustrations.
The weaving is completely anachronistic since instead of being in single stitch (mesh weave) like all the fabrics that have been found from this period, it is a crochet weaving in triple stitch, a type of weaving which requires a tool that did not yet exist at the time of Jesus.
Since magic ray is not possible (physics doesn't work that way) then the stain is due to blood. Why all this blood? The body should have been washed and then embalmed and the blood coagulated a long time ago. Especially since even with fresh blood, to succeed in doing such an imposing task, the body would have to be bathed in blood. It's not his injuries that will have been enough to do that. The brand should be much more united (less details) especially on the front. Blood flow from wounds should not be able to cover the body but to have large areas without blood.
Incidentally, the shroud is not recognized by the Church as a true shroud of Christ, only as an object of honor to Christ.
The STURP is an offshoot of a Catholic pro-shroud guild. The majority of those who attended were believers and some were even among the high places of the Catholic guild. There was a surprising lack of specialist in the relevant field in this team, for example no specialist in ancient fabrics or medieval art. The STURP also quickly got rid of Walter MacCorne, a doctor of organic chemistry and the one who was considered at the time the greatest expert in microscopy in the world because his results did not go at all in the direction of the authenticity. In short, the STURP was simply a good big scam that only served to give a "scientific" cachet to sindonologists.
In his Last Judgment of the Shroud of Turin, Chicago scientist Walter McCrone details 20 years of research on it. His conclusions are based on microscopic examination of 22 samples of fibers and particles taken from different places in the shroud. He concludes that the image was obtained from red ocher and a ferrous pigment. The Shroud artist painted in tempera the areas where the linen was supposed to come into contact with the supposed body so that a negative image resulted (more logical than if he had painted the hollows and therefore less identifiable as a fake). A vermilion tint based on mercury sulphide was then used to represent the bloodstains in the nailed places. Sindonologists speak well of posterior paint, added, or put forward some other ad hoc hypotheses but which do not come to undermine the credibility of the pigments discovered. Walter McCorne is also at the head of the McCorne laboratory specialized in the analysis of works of art and the discovery of forgeries, a laboratory which the partisans of authenticity hoped at the base that it supports their belief but who backtracked on seeing the results, as they already did for the 1988 carbon dating.
Especially since we would be able to prove that the shroud dates from the first century, not the identity of the person on it. There could very well have been a fraud at the time, passing this shroud off as that of Jesus. Finally, assuming that this part of his life (like so many others) is not just a myth. We finally have no contemporary trace of him, only historians and writers evoking the Judeo-Christians and several leaders of revolt (the reason why we speak of them in the texts). The very name of Jesus does not appear until much later. So the Judeo-Christians most likely had a leader, a guru who wanted to make a new religion for himself because Judaism did not suit him as it was, but was his name Jesus? Did he live as described in the Gospels? At least for the somewhat unrealistic part? We don't know and it's a matter of belief from there.
Finally, if really only the "sacred" texts count as is the case for some believers, the Gospel of Saint John speaks of strips and not of a 4m sheet.
The previous documents were not made with this Shroud in mind, but it was made based on them. This is the same principle as self-fulfilling prophecy.
For Pray's Codex and its famous image of the shroud: There is already the problem of the supposed signs that only the most convinced believers manage to see. In addition, the thumbs of Jesus (echoing the refuted work of Barbet) are not the only ones to have disappeared from the image. One can also find missing thumbs on other paintings of the same period without any connection with any medical reasons: as for the feet (not represented on the image, no more than on the shroud), the hands could sometimes be sloppy or hidden because of the difficulty of representing them with good proportions unlike the rest of the body. And it would be strange if the painter had taken this detail into account but not other much more visible ones such as the crossing of the hands (not represented, it is the wrists which cross) or even the uniqueness of the fabric because the shroud, on the image, is supposed to be the fabric in several pieces attached by strips and not the table below. And that is a typical example of overinterpretation of a document. We take a detail to make a whole story out of it, forgetting the most important elements of the image, the context, etc.
Incidentally, nudity is not in favor of authenticity contrary to what some authors suggest. The hands joined at the level of the sex (and the lengthening of the right arm by about ten centimeters) already make it possible to hide the nudity of Jesus, especially since Europe saw the development of macabre art in the 13th century, which comes with its share of nudity and corpses. It is also much more logical to represent the naked body because we do not bury dressed corpses, especially not among the Jews in the 1st century.
For the Italian study published in April 2022:
Realized by a team having already made fruitless studies because too biased on the shroud. Liberato de Caro is a believer author of numerous studies on religion while Giulio Fanti is a fanatic constantly publishing biased studies without peer review (for example his study in 2015 to prove the presence of DNA and that of 2017 to prove the presence of blood) on the subject. It is published in a journal of poor quality and allows itself a lot of abusive statements on previous studies and particularly that of carbon 14. So little reminders:
3 analyzes by independent and prestigious labs on carbon 14 against a single analysis by WAXS by actors WITH undeclared conflict of interest and having already carried out various biased studies on the shroud.
The origin of the sample is no more given (precise location, size, sampling conditions, etc.) than that of the samples from previous studies carried out by the authors. This is a big problem because a sample whose origin is not clearly identified can hardly be accepted to validate a study since it could then come from a completely different place, why not from a (real) dating machine? of the time desired by the authors. We can only assume with a vague passage of the text that the sample comes from those taken in 1988 (no more sampling accepted by the papacy for a long time) while these nevertheless posed a problem for the study when it evoked carbon 14 .
Allows himself to discredit the study by carbon 14 without any defect having ever been proven in the study, only suspicions raised to the rank of arguments and proof by sindonologists. Makes some ad hoc assumptions to justify its existence.
Claims that what she is trying to measure could not give a medieval result because it would require high temperature and humidity (for which there is a lack of justification in the study) but suddenly forgets that the shroud has undergone the heat of the fire and the water that was used to extinguish it, a fire that was nevertheless used as an excuse just before to discredit carbon 14. Obvious contradiction. The study is also based on the assumption that the fabric would have been kept throughout its existence between 20°C and 22.5°C with a relative humidity of 55 to 75%, but the sheet was kept in churches for a long time ( whose temperature was much lower) and sometimes exposed or traveling, not to mention the heat of a fire and the water to put it out. We therefore already have no justification for the need for these figures but nothing either confirms and proves that the sheet would have remained at these temperatures in addition to not giving the exact source of the figures.
Published in a predatory journal with little respect for peer review. Published in a few weeks (less than a month) and based on a dating technique developed 3 years earlier by the same team in a publication published in 2 weeks (it generally takes an average of 3 months for a study to pass the review by peers in a serious journal) having strangely no echo in the scientific community, any more than this study for that matter.
There alone, it's already a very, very bad start and therefore makes it possible to refute most of the assertions of the study as well as to understand that we are very far from a serious study.
Get thee behind me s-tan......minion of ol' split foot hairy legs 😅😂😊
There's many scriptures that contradicts false teachings but just look at God's 2nd command: You shall not make you any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: 9 You shall not bow down yourself before them, nor serve them: for I the LORD your God am a jealous God.." After commanding man never to make any idol, graven image, likeness of anything to be prayed to, idolized, worshiped, bowed down to, he would never, ever contradict himself by making an image of himself. Why do u people believe man over the word of our Creator? Is God a liar? or is man? "In vain, they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of MEN" Mt 15:9
If it is GOD HIMSELF, who has done IT, where is the contradiction? Besides the primacy of LAW has been replaced with the everlasting covenant, that whoever believes in CHRIST shall be saved and receive eternal life. Who are you to question the ways of GOD?
should be given back to the orthodox church
Yes
it belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, ie, the true Church with the keys...sorry...
@@entertain402 stolen from the real Rome i.e., Constantinople by barbaric westerners. Enjoy your LGBT and gay priests in your "true" church.
christianity was banned in old rome. they were fed to the lions etc. did it stop people from being christian? no. it actually converted even more people even though they knew what fate awaited them
John 21 21
Starting on time……😂
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.[7]
It has been proven that the test for carbon dating was rigged to fail by the fact that the sample was taken from the repaired area of the shroud.
That is why the date matches the date of the fire and the repair.
There is far more facts that have absolutely proven that man did not have the ability or means to make the image.
The American team that spent 120 hours examining the shroud after spending 18 months preplanning what test and how they would perform those test concluded:
Every man on the team was highly respected in their fields.
A few were Jewish, others were atheist who joined the team as a chance to debunk the myth once and for all and prove it was man made.
To a man they all concluded there was no way it was man made. In fact they conclude the means to make the image today is still beyond mans ability.
These men were from JPL Lab, Los Alamos National Lab, Sandia National Lab and other highly regarded backgrounds.
The shroud.com has many of the results of those test.
Those specialist didn't stop their investigation and now have over 35 years of studying the evidence they gathered along with test from earlier test.
They still maintain its is not possible to have been made by human means then or now.
The shroud is the most studied artifact in human history.
+@@richardc7721
"These men were from JPL Lab, Los Alamos National Lab, Sandia National Lab and other highly regarded backgrounds."
...and yet not one has submitted their "work" to a legit peer reviewed scientific journal. They know they can't back up their mouths.
Just because someone has a "highly regarded backgroud" does not make him/her right. All you've done is make an appeal to authority.
"They still maintain its is not possible to have been made by human means then or now."
....which is not proof of the supernatural. Dumbass....lol
Smith before you make yourself look like an idiot maybe you should go to their sites, see the test they did, see the results as well. There's much more that has been done than most people are aware of.
No other artifact has undergone the investigations, test and sear number of hours of study by so many different people from a varied background as has worked on the shroud issue
Look at their training, qualifications. They're not stupid.
Many do not or in some cases did not believe in the Supernatural and many of them are not claiming it was Jesus, only that it is of a man who was badly beaten, that the cloth is approximately 2000 years old.
They now have a better understanding of how it happened but maintain it's still not within modern technology to duplicate the process.
+@@richardc7721
*REAL* science adheres to the
*Scientific Method*
Four essential elements of the scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, or orderings of the following:
*Characterizations* (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
*Hypotheses* (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
*Predictions* (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
*Experiments* (tests of all of the above)
Each element of the scientific method is subject to *peer review* for possible mistakes.
They are claiming they've done scientific analysis including tests so why is it they *NEVER* follow the *scientific method* ?
......I'll bet it's because they know their claims won't hold up to expert scrutiny
"No other artifact has undergone the investigations, test and sear number
of hours of study by so many different people from a varied background
as has worked on the shroud issue "
So? .... What you are claiming is it's been studied a lot so it's real.
That's bullshit. lol
"....that the cloth is approximately 2000 years old."
And yet they don't provide the C14 testing data which has been confirmed by peer reviewed scientific journals that the shroud *IS* 2,000 years old.
"but maintain it's still not within modern technology to duplicate the process."
So? ....All that states is modern technology wasn't used.
It's on the bible thumping asshats to prove it's from the 1st century.....so why do they run from producing that proof?
When will they do real science?
@@richardc7721 Nobody has any evidence that is conclusive except to say it is not 200 years old. No middle eastern person looks like this 5'10" European. Pollen in the fibres is all wrong. the weave wqas not invented, shall I go on? It is the image of Jacques De Molay after he was tortured by Kink Phillippe the pencil neck. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_Molay
Otherwise it sounds interesting!
Anyone who knows the Bible, will know that the image on the shroud of Turin isn't Jesus.
The manner of the Jewish burial was,
Strips of linen cloths and a separate head cover.
See Jn 11: 44. Jn 19: 40.
Jn 20: 5--7.
Please note, there's no shroud.
Plus the image on that shroud is recognized as a man, whereas Jesus wasn't. He was so badly marred that the people around the cross were horrified at the sight.
Jesus was so badly whipped open that He could see and count His bones and intestines.
The image on the shroud of Turin looks nothing like Jesus would have looked.
Why don't you people read and believe the Bible ? .
You never know Jesus
cannot hear anything - thumbs down
It's a FAKE! This is NOT what Yeshua looked like! Read Isaiah. The Romans beat Him so badly that you couldn't determine what He looked like. The Romans beat Jesus so brutally that people were appalled to look at Him. His form did not look like that of a “son of man,” or human. A very literal translation reads, "Even as many were amazed at him-so marred were his features, beyond that of mortals his appearance, beyond that of human beings." Is 52:14
Nonsense! The image of Jesus' face on the Shroud shows blood every where, his nose dislocated, and a severe bruise on is cheek that shuts his eye.
No, no, no. I can't take any more of this nonsense, i.e. non-science. What keeps these charlatans in business? Not I. Goodbye, he tires me.
What is science?
@@andrefouche9682 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
@@smooches1368 Thanks.
He's talking from a forensic science, pathology and physics point of view. What kind of science are you thinking of?