Great job. I’ve seen some highly detailed slide presentations on RUclips by different groups- even agnostic types. The data is mindblowing. Especially the data that shows the image is three dimensional.
Love your videos man, i was in a dark spiritual place and something told me to go back to your channel and watch your videos. I did and they snapped me out of my funk. Keep doing what u do. Gob bless brother.
Thank you very much I’ve been a firm believer since my coming into the church many years ago. My deceased brother-in-law, who was a fall. On the way Catholic. I was given one of his books, the blood and the shroud by Ian Wilson. A great book. But I thank you, my friend, for always bringing out exemplary programs in defence of the faith. And yes, there’s sceptics out there but maybe one day they will see that they’re wrong. I know I made a comment on the program about the shroud must be in at least a year ago and boy did I get castigated. But that didn’t stop my faith. I’m gonna believe it as much as I’ve always believed it. Love your programs brother and God bless to you and your family.
No can do anymore, shutterstock is no longer on powerdirector. I looked into buying some of the songs I used over and over at shutterstocks website. $400 a song. I don't like them that much. I stock is $60 a year for the soundstrip catalog
Maybe it would be if someone, perhaps that is greater needed of a miracle to touch and be healed. Of course, it would need to be investigated to make sure it’s legit. Just like miracles of the saints.
I think the shroud is likely to be real, and personally, I basically believe it is real, but why is there a lack of records about the shroud and its journey from Christ's tomb in 33 AD to northern France in 1354?
There are hints here and there about an icon prior to the year 1203, one which was brought in Constantinople and kept there for hundreds of years, but no evidence that it pretended to represent the whole body of Jesus Christ instead of the face. The Jews considered any object that had been in contact with a dead body as impure, so why would one disciple grab the real shroud and preserve it, especially if they had the real Jesus with them for 40 days after? The biggest problem is the absence of historical records between 1203 and 1354, at a time where any supposed relic was an enormous source of pride and profit. My prefered hypothesis is that a cupid artist used a a low relief, some chemical and a shroud to imprint a bluered image that he sold to the widow of Geoffroy de Charny. He may have used some sketches that were circulating du to the recollections of the crusaders who participated to the sack of Constantinople in 1203. People at that time were not idiots; a painted image showing clearly the features would have been identified immediately as a fraud from man's hands.
@@lereseauamitie6349 The records of the Image of Edessa are well known, and it was always described, not as an icon, but as an image of Jesus "not made by hand." That linen cloth was in Edessa from the first century until the year 944 AD when it was expropriated to Constantinople. John 20:8-9 relates how John encounted something amazing in Jesus' tomb, something that caused him to see and believe. John refused to tell us what it was that so impressed him, and that is an important clue. Why didn't John describe this amazing sight? It could only have been the miraculous image of Jesus' face on the Shroud, and John did not want to inform the authorities of its existence. If the Shroud had a image of Jesus, then it would certainly be no mystery as to why it was saved. See: "THE SHROUD OF JESUS And the Sign John Ingeniously Concealed," Lavoie, 2023. The Shroud's wereabouts after it was stolen from Constantinople in 1204 AD are not so mysterious. The 4th Crusade owed money to the Venetians. The Knights Templar had wealth and an obsession with relics. Eventually, it became known throughout Europe that the Templars were using the image of a mysterious head in their ceremonies. See: "THE TEMPLARS AND THE SHROUD OF CHRIST," Frale, 2012. The Templars were forcibly disbanded by the King of France on Oct. 13th, 1307. Geoffroi de Charny was born in about 1306, so the real mystery is how ownership of the Shroud was transfered to him by the Templars. Your "cupid artist" hypothesis was falsified in 1978 when the Shroud's images were examined with 8000 pounds of equipment. Here is a picture of that stuff on a truck in Turin. See minute 41. ruclips.net/video/-w-J5RqKSII/видео.html Then look up "A Summary of STURP's Conclusions"
For the good of the order - a correction needs to be made. It was stated "The Shroud goes on public display every 5-10 years." Not accurate. It was displayed in 1931/1933/1978/1998/2000/2010/2015. That's 7 times since 1900 or 125 years.
"In 1988 a sample was taken." Nope. In 1988, MULTIPLE samples were taken and analyzed by two separate laboratories. Both laboratories concluded with 95% confidence that the material dated to 1260-1390 AD.
Nope. It was *one* small sample, a little bit bigger than a postage stamp, that was taken. Then it was cut up and the smaller samples were sent off to be tested. It was almost 20 years ago that Dr. Raymond N. Rogers, a scientist at Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories in New Mexico proved that the carbon testing was done in error as the sample taken was from non-original part of the Shroud.
@@beverlyhurd8556 "it was cut up and the smaller samples were sent off to be tested" That's multiple samples. The swatch that was taken was selected by the keepers of the shroud. They could have allowed other swatches to be taken, but didn't. They could allow further testing to be done, but don't. "Dr. Raymond N. Rogers, a scientist at Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories in New Mexico proved that the carbon testing was done in error as the sample taken was from non-original part of the Shroud." LOL. Rogers proved no such thing. As wikipedia states: "Rogers claimed that the repair had gone undetected because it was expertly done; there was no record of it; none of the STURP team were textile experts; and the area had not previously been a major focus of any major Shroud researchers' attention, because it was outside the image area." Well gosh darn! Of all the bad luck for them to choose that tiny area of the shroud to test! LOL!
The bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitier, had not access to sophisticated methods to date the shroud before to ban its ostentation and denounce it as a fraud. But unlike XX century people, he had access to a key witness, the widow of Geoffroy de Charny. So, seeing that this ostentation was bringing lots of money, he was able to ask her many questions, like: -How could you explain that such an extraordinnary objects was not listed among the relics that your husband listed in his possesion a couple of years ago? -How did you obtain it? -How could your family keep such a secret over many generations without anyone betraying it? Any vague answer would invite more questions. The sucessor of the bishop (Pierre d'Arcis) even claimned that the widow had finally confessed and gave the name of the guy who made the fake relic.
Love this channel! For those interested there is a strong theory that the Shroud spent centuries in Turkey and was known then as the Mandylion or Image of Edessa. It was captured and brought to France during the crusades and over time ended up in Turin. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa
The nail might have been at the base of the hand between the triquetrum, the lunate and the ulna... according the the photographic evidence of the shroud. Isaiah said in reference to the Lord - "they have pierced my HANDS and my feet, they have numbered all my bones". Every stigmatist has had the wound in the hand, not in the wrist.
Written in the ancient Greek, there words for wrist and hand were the same. And as his image on the shroud proves, he was pierced through the wrist. The Romans knew what they were doing. Nailed though the wrist it is much more secure, and it also causes agonizing pain. And that's what they wanted.
@@beverlyhurd8556 Actually, I do know what you're talking about. You're talking about all the times dishonest creatards submitted samples for testing that were too old to contain testable amounts of carbon.
No, it's not Jesus' burial cloth. Why? Because it's a normal image of a person projected on a flat surface (like a photo or a painting), and not the distorted image of a person when flattened out from a 3D volume (cloth stained from covering a body) into a 2D surface.
The scientific investigation in 1978 determined that the images on the Shroud are not "stains" and are were not formed by contact with the corpse. Try again.
@johnskuse441 The image on the shroud of Turin looks nothing like as bad as Jesus would have looked, Jesus wasn't recognised as a man, whereas the image on the shroud of Turin looks like a man. The gospels and the Biblical Greek says Jesus was wrapped in strips of linen cloths and a separate head cover, NOT with a shroud.
Great job. I’ve seen some highly detailed slide presentations on RUclips by different groups- even agnostic types. The data is mindblowing. Especially the data that shows the image is three dimensional.
As thorough and informative as I expected, and then some. The more recent evidence aside, there were others I was never aware of. Outstanding job 🙏🏽
Thank you
Love your videos man, i was in a dark spiritual place and something told me to go back to your channel and watch your videos. I did and they snapped me out of my funk. Keep doing what u do. Gob bless brother.
Thanks for the video, Viva Christo Rei.
I've been patiently awaiting a new IMC video! 🙏🙏
Appreciate you Big Dog.
Thank you very much I’ve been a firm believer since my coming into the church many years ago. My deceased brother-in-law, who was a fall. On the way Catholic. I was given one of his books, the blood and the shroud by Ian Wilson. A great book. But I thank you, my friend, for always bringing out exemplary programs in defence of the faith. And yes, there’s sceptics out there but maybe one day they will see that they’re wrong. I know I made a comment on the program about the shroud must be in at least a year ago and boy did I get castigated. But that didn’t stop my faith. I’m gonna believe it as much as I’ve always believed it. Love your programs brother and God bless to you and your family.
Does anything prove faith worthy of respect more than finding prophets & cherubim in the Yellow Pages of a phonebook?.
Blessed be God, forever 🙏 ♥️
Yes, it is
Got here before the angry atheists did
I miss the old music.
No can do anymore, shutterstock is no longer on powerdirector.
I looked into buying some of the songs I used over and over at shutterstocks website. $400 a song. I don't like them that much.
I stock is $60 a year for the soundstrip catalog
@imisschristendom5293 so if u pay 400.00 you can have the old music back?
Per song
@imisschristendom5293 so evrrytime you played that song? Or just that one song and then u wpukd be allowed?
From what I could tell I could buy the rights to use a song for $400. Or so I don't remember the exact amount. But it was in that ballpark
Wouldnt it be a 1st class relic as it contains the blood of Our Lord?
Maybe it would be if someone, perhaps that is greater needed of a miracle to touch and be healed.
Of course, it would need to be investigated to make sure it’s legit.
Just like miracles of the saints.
Didn't think of that.
I think the shroud is likely to be real, and personally, I basically believe it is real, but why is there a lack of records about the shroud and its journey from Christ's tomb in 33 AD to northern France in 1354?
There are hints here and there about an icon prior to the year 1203, one which was brought in Constantinople and kept there for hundreds of years, but no evidence that it pretended to represent the whole body of Jesus Christ instead of the face. The Jews considered any object that had been in contact with a dead body as impure, so why would one disciple grab the real shroud and preserve it, especially if they had the real Jesus with them for 40 days after?
The biggest problem is the absence of historical records between 1203 and 1354, at a time where any supposed relic was an enormous source of pride and profit. My prefered hypothesis is that a cupid artist used a a low relief, some chemical and a shroud to imprint a bluered image that he sold to the widow of Geoffroy de Charny. He may have used some sketches that were circulating du to the recollections of the crusaders who participated to the sack of Constantinople in 1203. People at that time were not idiots; a painted image showing clearly the features would have been identified immediately as a fraud from man's hands.
See: "THE SHROUD," Wilson, 2010. The records of a miraculous image of Jesus on a linen cloth go back to the first century.
@jeffreyerwin3665 I'll check it out, thanks.
@@lereseauamitie6349 The records of the Image of Edessa are well known, and it was always described, not as an icon, but as an image of Jesus "not made by hand." That linen cloth was in Edessa from the first century until the year 944 AD when it was expropriated to Constantinople.
John 20:8-9 relates how John encounted something amazing in Jesus' tomb, something that caused him to see and believe. John refused to tell us what it was that so impressed him, and that is an important clue. Why didn't John describe this amazing sight? It could only have been the miraculous image of Jesus' face on the Shroud, and John did not want to inform the authorities of its existence. If the Shroud had a image of Jesus, then it would certainly be no mystery as to why it was saved.
See: "THE SHROUD OF JESUS And the Sign John Ingeniously Concealed," Lavoie, 2023.
The Shroud's wereabouts after it was stolen from Constantinople in 1204 AD are not so mysterious. The 4th Crusade owed money to the Venetians. The Knights Templar had wealth and an obsession with relics. Eventually, it became known throughout Europe that the Templars were using the image of a mysterious head in their ceremonies.
See: "THE TEMPLARS AND THE SHROUD OF CHRIST," Frale, 2012.
The Templars were forcibly disbanded by the King of France on Oct. 13th, 1307. Geoffroi de Charny was born in about 1306, so the real mystery is how ownership of the Shroud was transfered to him by the Templars.
Your "cupid artist" hypothesis was falsified in 1978 when the Shroud's images were examined with 8000 pounds of equipment. Here is a picture of that stuff on a truck in Turin.
See minute 41. ruclips.net/video/-w-J5RqKSII/видео.html
Then look up "A Summary of STURP's Conclusions"
For those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who don't believe no proof is possible
Proof was possible for the disciple Thomas.
Padre Pio’s stigmata was in his hands. Why would that be different?
For the good of the order - a correction needs to be made. It was stated "The Shroud goes on public display every 5-10 years." Not accurate. It was displayed in 1931/1933/1978/1998/2000/2010/2015. That's 7 times since 1900 or 125 years.
"In 1988 a sample was taken."
Nope. In 1988, MULTIPLE samples were taken and analyzed by two separate laboratories. Both laboratories concluded with 95% confidence that the material dated to 1260-1390 AD.
Nope. It was *one* small sample, a little bit bigger than a postage stamp, that was taken. Then it was cut up and the smaller samples were sent off to be tested. It was almost 20 years ago that Dr. Raymond N. Rogers, a scientist at Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories in New Mexico proved that the carbon testing was done in error as the sample taken was from non-original part of the Shroud.
If you'll look in the description you will see I have well sourced this video
@@beverlyhurd8556
"it was cut up and the smaller samples were sent off to be tested"
That's multiple samples.
The swatch that was taken was selected by the keepers of the shroud. They could have allowed other swatches to be taken, but didn't. They could allow further testing to be done, but don't.
"Dr. Raymond N. Rogers, a scientist at Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories in New Mexico proved that the carbon testing was done in error as the sample taken was from non-original part of the Shroud."
LOL. Rogers proved no such thing. As wikipedia states: "Rogers claimed that the repair had gone undetected because it was expertly done; there was no record of it; none of the STURP team were textile experts; and the area had not previously been a major focus of any major Shroud researchers' attention, because it was outside the image area."
Well gosh darn! Of all the bad luck for them to choose that tiny area of the shroud to test!
LOL!
The bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitier, had not access to sophisticated methods to date the shroud before to ban its ostentation and denounce it as a fraud. But unlike XX century people, he had access to a key witness, the widow of Geoffroy de Charny.
So, seeing that this ostentation was bringing lots of money, he was able to ask her many questions, like:
-How could you explain that such an extraordinnary objects was not listed among the relics that your husband listed in his possesion a couple of years ago?
-How did you obtain it?
-How could your family keep such a secret over many generations without anyone betraying it?
Any vague answer would invite more questions. The sucessor of the bishop (Pierre d'Arcis) even claimned that the widow had finally confessed and gave the name of the guy who made the fake relic.
Source?
And yet all this evidence from science says it's not a forgery
Love this channel! For those interested there is a strong theory that the Shroud spent centuries in Turkey and was known then as the Mandylion or Image of Edessa. It was captured and brought to France during the crusades and over time ended up in Turin.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa
The nail might have been at the base of the hand between the triquetrum, the lunate and the ulna... according the the photographic evidence of the shroud. Isaiah said in reference to the Lord - "they have pierced my HANDS and my feet, they have numbered all my bones". Every stigmatist has had the wound in the hand, not in the wrist.
Written in the ancient Greek, there words for wrist and hand were the same. And as his image on the shroud proves, he was pierced through the wrist. The Romans knew what they were doing. Nailed though the wrist it is much more secure, and it also causes agonizing pain. And that's what they wanted.
"Never mind the fact that carbon 14 dating has been shown on several occasion to be inaccurate."
OK.
Never mind the fact that you are a liar.
You don't know what you're talking about. Many times the testing has been off _thousands_ of years.
@@beverlyhurd8556
Actually, I do know what you're talking about. You're talking about all the times dishonest creatards submitted samples for testing that were too old to contain testable amounts of carbon.
What about Carbon 14 dating to the fricking future?
No, it's not Jesus' burial cloth. Why? Because it's a normal image of a person projected on a flat surface (like a photo or a painting), and not the distorted image of a person when flattened out from a 3D volume (cloth stained from covering a body) into a 2D surface.
The scientific investigation in 1978 determined that the images on the Shroud are not "stains" and are were not formed by contact with the corpse. Try again.
No, the image on the shroud of Turin isn't Jesus, as anyone who knows the Bible will know.
Care to explain?
@johnskuse441 The image on the shroud of Turin looks nothing like as bad as Jesus would have looked, Jesus wasn't recognised as a man, whereas the image on the shroud of Turin looks like a man.
The gospels and the Biblical Greek says Jesus was wrapped in strips of linen cloths and a separate head cover, NOT with a shroud.
Watch the video and provide us with your theory accounting for all the evidence then goofball
@anthonyterlizzi6576 read the Bible, believe and go by it, NOT by the video.
@@alanhales6369 What part of the Bible are you referring to?