Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize! ruclips.net/channel/UCIjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOwjoin Also if you like what I do and wish to support my work to help me make sure that I can continue to tell it how it is please consider checking out my patreon! Unboxings are Patreon exclusives! www.patreon.com/themetatron The video interview I'm using to build up a discussion ruclips.net/video/Yxc179-HIJ0/видео.html
I understand you were convinced of Jesus through an experience. Please understand that many might not have had such grace. Having an artifact that indicates that Christ is risen indeed would be a big deal to them. Resurrection is a key part of our faith (the word of God around 1 Cor 15:17 comes to mind). What exactly did you get so worked up about at the beginning? "Idolatry"? My separated brother, perhaps you fail to differentiate between adoration (which we nowadays call worship) which is due to God alone, and veneration. The real burial cloth of Christ would not only be touching to me, it would be awe-inspiring, knowing it's a relic of Christ. Even more so if it was Turin Shroud, with its image, it might make me want to worship the God-Man depicted on this icon - the one Who died to save me, and to heal me by the wounds displayed depicted before my eyes.
but... even if it was the cloth of christ... was it christ? as a rationalist i don't believe in the fantasy books of the ancient times as receptacles of 'truth'. they are just what they are: historical artefacts of the stories and beliefs of that time. and help us understand how religion was used by every nation to understand the world. ie. jesus, if he did exist, like likely just a community leader, speaking out against greed and corruption. he was crucified, and the rest is the myths we humans like to make up, especially back in the past, when supernaturalism was at its height.
It is said that before every defeat against the Romans, Hannibal stood at the vanguard of his army and taunted the Romans by breaking spaghetti. This so enraged the Romans that they lost their cool, logical approach to battle, to their detriment. 🤣
@@kevinmorriceShe's right, the spaghetti get soft very fast so you dont have to break them to fit them in the pot, it does on its own with a little push
At the end, as a Catholic, a fragment of the Eucharist is infinitely more valuable to me than the shroud, but it is fascinating. It seems to be the gift that keeps on giving in terms of research.
@@billgates3699yeah I guess just ignore Jesus literally saying it “I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate manna in the desert, and they died. This is the bread which descends from heaven, so that if anyone will eat from it, he may not die. I am the living bread, who descended from heaven. If anyone eats from this bread, he shall live in eternity. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." Therefore, the Jews debated among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" And so, Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so also whoever eats me, the same shall live because of me.” John 6:48-58 CPDV
The shroud does not show the image of Jmmanuel (Jesus Christ), but that of a merchant from Turin/Italy, called Caesar Canova. The shroud was made by the brother of the deceased, Luciano Canova, an alchemist. The process took place on 7 June 1324 and lasted until 10 June (4 days). During this, the procedure was not such that the shroud was placed on the deceased and the latter was rubbed with chemicals, as is often claimed, but it was a very early form of photography, whereby the corpse was placed vertically in front of a large glass lens, through which the image was then projected for four days through an effect of sunlight onto a large fabric surface soaked in chemicals in a dark room, after which the shroud was then treated with silver nitrate and the image became in that way visible and retained.
@@PASHKULI How do you know or rather assume? Carbon dating is not that precise. How would you know the exact dates? Was it documented? To me it sounds like this new evidence doesn't sound very scientific. More like an experiment purely designed to support an hypothesis.
as an atheist or agnostic whatever if the shroud of turin was proven to be real with undeniable proof i think that would change my faith having a 2000 year old cloth with the face of dead jesus on it somehow, would be insane if that was proven 100% real
My wife breaks the pasta in half. My daughter and I cry out in anguish. It can be heard across the Atlantic in Italia. I apologize to the entire country for my wife's barbarism.
@@Maximus_Butthurticus I'm not Italian, but being from New York originally I have a lot of Italian Relatives so I was raised right when it comes to cooking, and I cry a little bit on the inside when I see it happen.
I expect my socks have a lot of broken fibres, but that doesn't mean they're old. The Shroud was kept in Turkey for centuries and regularly taken out of its box to be displayed, so that might have lead to more broken fibres than you'd find on a cloth from Masada that had been left in a jar for 1900 years.
@@amandag5072 I absolutely abhor, detest, hate, loathe censorship, i am becoming so sick and tired this increasing reality. I left a reply and yet again it was nuked. Let me try again: 👍👍
As a fellow Catholic, I feel the same. The shroud is such an amazing artefact whether relating to Jesus or not. I would be equally amazed to find out it was produced by artificial means as the extent of the forgery would be so incredibly sophisticated and well thought out.
Not that we've devoted as much effort as we could, but if it's a forgery we haven't figured out how, yet... which is sobering enough in itself considering the power of science to nail down other things.
Worth considering that for hundreds and hundreds of years there was a thriving market in manufacturing faked holy relics, I've lost count of how many slivers from "the one true cross" I've seen, many of which are still being venerated up to this day. To a lot of believers it doesn't really matter whether or not those relics are "authentic".
@@peterc4082You're honestly criticizing a guy for having a BA, even though you admit you have no idea what degree(s) he has, when your comment makes it seem like you haven't graduated high school? And anyway this mysterious Fr having a doctorate in physics doesn't automatically make him a relevant expert.
The most incredible thing about the shroud is the negative image showing the face; it wasn't discovered until 1898, many hundreds of years after even the alleged date of forgery. It's hard to see how forgers could have created such an image, so much more lifelike than the iconic artwork of the time, in a way that would not even be apparent for centuries.
I agree with you. I also believe it is at least old enough. I personally believe it to be real. After looking at all the facts. But like he said the shroud isn’t going to change how I feel about Jesus.
That leads to more questions if it is a forgery, because that begs the question of not only how someone made it, but how would they know to make it like that?
The image on the shroud and the carbon dating testing error convinced me long ago before I became a Catholic that it indeed is the holy image of our Lord Jesus Christ. No forger, regardless of how smart they are would create an image forgery that only technology centuries later could possibly reveal. Even if it was a shroud from a crucified man 2000 years ago, it would never have left an image like what we see on the shroud. It is truly miraculous.
However... it appears to have been placed over a realistic natural-size wood carving, of about one inch deep, not in a fully 3d body that would have produced a much different impression. But you can try a little experiment yourself! Cover yourself in dirt, blood, etc, lie down, have someone wrap you tightly in the same way cadavers were wrapped in a shroud, with a clean lenght of cloth that must absorb the liquids thoroughly, and once dry, have the cloth peeled off of you, and carefully examine the stains. The cloth will look nothing like the shroud in question. Have fun!
@@metatronytAncient Egypt and the Bible debunked this video. He’s a bonafide Egyptologist, has degrees (yes multiple) in biblical languages, etc., and has a high regard for your work, btw 😊
@@metatronyt a cloth is a cloth, a cup a cup and the nails merely nails. they are fascinating objects to consider but, in the end they are just objects Jesus had contact with and not objects of divinity or importance.
The fact there are no other shrouds that have been found like it, even fake does make the shroud most interesting. Especially when scientists are unable to explain with any certainty how it was made even if it is a forgery.
@@Mulletforhire Not exactly. We at least had a general idea of how Roman concrete was made. Same with other things like Greek fire and Damascus steel. And because we had a general idea, we didn't invest too much in figuring them out.
Spaetzle (Spätzle) is from Swabia, a region once called Agri Decumates and occupied by the Romans. The Chinese dynastie made Noodle-Soup and the Arabs also made some sort of noodles. My thesis is that Rome picked up the Noodle-Making along the way, from other cultures. So i think the German-Swabian Spaetzle may have been inspired by the Pasta from abroad.
@@germaniatv1870 Cuisines evolve. Things like cocoa, chili peppers, and corn all came from the Americas and didn't reach the rest of the world until ~500 years ago. But that's irrelevant to how the cuisines of various cultures all over the world developed since then. Most people today would think chili peppers are a staple of Thai and Indian dishes -- and that is correct, but not until relatively recently in their cultural history. And in Taiwan, varieties of the sweetsop are so popular that many locals would be surprised to know it never grew there until quite recently. That of course doesn't take anything away from its meaning to the current culture.
In 1978, my physics instructor was one of the key players on STURP, John Jackson. He gave us a pretty good lecture on his return from Italy including his own slide show. The 3 key findings that stuck with me are the 3D information in the image, the presence of blood, and the absence of paint or any other substance to make the image. As Capt Jackson would say to us, if it isn't the burial cloth of Christ then we have a much bigger mystery.
You should look intk that claim of blood. There are two sets of ideas on this. One of the was from the guy they hired to do the tests. He was hired because he was the primary expert on the subject. He said he found no blood but he did find glue, of the same type used in paints in the Renaissance, along with pigments. Of course, Sturp said there was blood and rejected his findings. I wonder why...
Leonardo Da Vinci, his face photographed onto the cloth. The cloth itself is far older than the image DaVinci added onto it. Not a miracle, just very early technology. Created in the basement level of the Vatican for Pope Leo the 10th.
I can make a picture with a piece of charcoal. Or a piece of ochre. Or lead. Or several other organic or mineral pigments that are not paint and leave a residue that technically is 100% natural, easily found in environment.
@@harolddoe6453 HOW the image is made is a mystery all its own. Why Metatron is so upset when people believe it is the burial Shroud of Christ and venerate it as such is a mystery to me as well. Some Christians have venerated all kinds of things in every age. Why be offended by this?
Agnostic here. No "dog in this fight" but if genuine, the most amazing aspect of the shroud would be that we have a photograph of Jesus. Pretty cool, no?
jesus didnt even look like that. agnostics are fence sitters and cowards. you are ready to jump fences whenever there is a slight evidence (there was never an evidence for religion to be true)
21:30 Another major factor he didn't mention about the C14 testing, was that the scientists didn't get to choose the location of the sample. They originally wanted a few different locations and we denied, then they wanted a few samples from the same local region of the cloth and were denied again. The authorities didn't want any more material loss, or potential future material loss, from the regions suggested because they were worried about the damage it would do to the cloth with time.
Right? It's such a dishonest argument that "the scientists chose bad samples". It was the church who limited the number and size of the samples and made sure they didn't cut anywhere near the important parts. I mean, it's relatable from their pov but still, it's dirty to make it a point to lay this at the feet of the labs.
@@mnk9073 Well it actually goes even deeper. So they do talk a little about this a little later in the video, but it's at that point that Breault's personal politics and beliefs come out. This video makes him seem like he's quasi-neutral on the topic or that he's all about the reliability of the data...and that's a lie. Anyone who follows him knows that he believes the Shroud is real, and he's strongly feels there's an effort to deny it's real in the scientific community. He makes it pretty clear that he interprets the released data as' proof' the accepted data is wrong, they knew it was wrong, and they intentionally left out data in order to drive a narrative. He is free to believe that, but that's not what the majority of the scientific community says or thinks about that released information. I mean think about it...if that actually did or does what he says it does...then how do you think both the scientific and religious world would react? This would not have been some minor thing that got ignored or swept under the rug. There would be demands to rescind the data, the papers, the articles, the awards....everything that has been done in the name of the work done by them. There's nothing more science, or scientists, loves to do than to prove another wrong and eat them alive in the process......and that hasn't happened nor has anyone even suggested it. Why? Cause the released information doesn't indicate what he said it does, that's only a minority's interpretation. What happened is the missing part only affirmed the known issues that were already known about and reported on. Nothing was refuted, altered, updated, proven/disproven, or even suggested. Now in fairness, I do agree with him that we need more samples and research, but that's not up to us at this moment.
Didn't they later discover that the samples taken were from the edges, an area that was repaired/added onto the damaged cloth in the middle ages? I think this is mentioned in a book by Barrie Schwortz.
@@sebastianf3861 Not later, the repairs were well known beforehand. The church has pretty complete records of everything that happened to the shroud after the 14th century. Also, given how all samples were cleaned under a microscope where the original Herringbone-like weave is clearly visible and easily distinquished from the medieval weave pattern it's an error that could not have happened. The scientists even remarked on this given that the control samples they were given were in a different weave pattern so everyone instantly knew which the real samples were.
@@sebastianf3861 Hello there, yes..the sample came from the outer edges. And the original scientists were unhappy about this also for all of the reasons that everyone is talking about. They knew the single sample was not the best option, but it was their only option for a sample. Now in this video he says they (the scientists) ruined the sample by taking one sample, and dividing it into three (as if that was the wrong thing to do). What he didn't say, and this is kind of a big deal here, is that not only was it the right thing to do, but it was the required thing to do. That's what science does even today when we have only a single sample. They divide it in order for multiple testing to be done to it. Yes, it's not ideal, but it gives a level of agreeability to what the single sample is indicating. So it's not honest, or fair, for these two to say that was bad science or the wrong thing to do. It was actually what was required of them to do at the time. Also, when they were originally given permission to take samples, they were given permission before the details of where and what size were really decided. Then the authorities decided, and denied, the samples they wanted to take. So so they tried again and that request was denied also. The authorities/church basically said if you are going to have any samples, then they must be a small sample taken from the outer regions. And after they agreed to that, that's when they were told what region they could take it from. They didn't decide anything. They were allowed to, and did.
I'm sceptical of the shroud myself and I haven't watched the whole video yet but I already left a like just because of your honest disclaimer at the start about your own potential biases. I have a lot of respect for such honesty. It's the first time I actually believe that a youtuber really just wants to learn more about a topic and share it even if it doesn't align with their personal beliefs
I trust his analysis more than anyone on the internet. We all have biases but M. Does everything he can to refer to ancient sources followed by reasonably triangulated conclusions and his knowledge of languages is truly astounding.
Agreed, we all have things going on in our head and can appreciate someone stating up front what their biases are. It really sets the tone and allows the viewer to understand. That he’s critical of the way people present their evidence, and doesn’t state their conflicts up front, is a good thing from my perspective. Will any of this make me religious, no but it’s a very interesting piece of history and learning new things is always interesting.
I agree, it would be an amazing testament to God's power to preserve holy things, and I would it to be real in that sense. But I try not to go searching for signs, so if it is fake, it makes no difference to me because that doesn't effect the validity of the truth of Jesus. 😊 God bless
I am an art Conservator and a researcher in cultural heritage field. I can confirm what Metatron suspected, that the analysis of the cellulose depolimerization degree is too linked to the aging condition for being relatable when speaking about dating an object. It is in fact not generally used this way, but only for assessing the conservation state of the object. It is a cumulative damage that cannot be repaired once happened (despite some promising new techniques) but the parameter can be influenced. Both negatively, for example by temperature and humidity fluctuations (fire is very damaging), light and chemical exposition. Both positively, and this is what we try to do with preventive conservation.
@martin22336 I was just commenting the "Meinem/Meine" being a German word when the catalyst was an Italian man getting triggered over the breaking of spaghetti. It would stand to reason your manifesto would be "Mio Spaghetti" for sake of context and continuity. I got the joke you were trying to make, I was just ruining it. Although the last time the Germans and Italians were allied, there did end up being a war. So, maybe your joke still hits, albeit with a stretch.
This is a bit off topic, but I think it's not a good thing in this modern age that you have to do a disclaimer whenever you react to someone's channel. If one cannot handle a criticism of any sort, or an honest disagreement of their position, maybe they should not present their ideas out there for the public. I admire your work Metatron and hope you keep up the good work.
I think it’s for the most part so people don’t start wars in their comment section, also there’s a lot of senseless hostility nowadays, it doesn’t hurt to declare ‘this isn’t a personal attack’ as absurd as it is that we even got to this point..
I think Metatron's point here was that he was not necessarily endorsing the other content on that channel. There is a tendency when you address a video in a channel for people to interpret your statements on that one video as being a judgement on the whole channel or that creator. So by featuring one video from that creator, it might seem like you endorse or condemn everything else. The disclaimer was that at time of recording he had not watched any other videos on that channel and had chosen the video because it was an interview with a scholar he was familiar with.
The *second* I heard about the "new news" was the second I started looking for you to put out a video addressing it. I trust your opinion and I'm glad you made this.
As a Christian who has permanent knee damage from the constant sit, kneel, stand, kneel, sit, stand from growing up in a Roman Catholic family.. lol. I know this much about the Shroud and what it means to me. Humans should always have something that gives them hope and purpose to live their lives in a positive and uplifting way. If that means taking the Shroud as a "symbol" of hope, then I accept that. Remember, it is better to live your life loving and caring while looking forward to life after death in the Kingdom of Heaven than being nasty and angry at everyone and everything. Because if the day comes and there is no Heaven or Hell, at least I lived my life the best that I could and loved others.
What are you trying to say? That people can't study this cloth to determine how it was made? It is truly remarkable indeed and all evidence points to it being from the first century as other dating tests show that and the C14 testing was not representative. Nobody is forcing you to believe this image is really Jesus Christ. Don't worry.
As an atheist, I really respect that. There's others in this comment section spreading hatred and vitriol towards those they disagree with about the shroud, whereas at the end of the day, I believe your mindset is a much healthier and rightful one. Bravo, sir
No idea about dwarves, but there does exist a Cloth of Tuchin (aka "Tuchin Cloth") which is believed to preserve evidence of Jesus' final movements while on this earthly plane. It was found among the famed Dead Sea Rolls which were left in a stall by the Assenes along with graffiti suggesting that His final words were actually: "It is *not* finished! (Until the 'paper-work' is done...)"
As a Christian, my faith is not dependent on the Shroud of Turin being authentic or not but I have the tendency to believe it is authentic. As for 1978 what fascinates me is that Barry Schwartz was part of that team, a Jew who became convinced it is authentic despite the carbon dating information. Barry Schwartz has a web site with the information he has garnered. So far no one has satisfactorily described how this shroud was imprinted. I find that fascinating.
I love your Chanel !❤ I was raised a Roman Catholic so I am familiar with relics or all kinds.I have since converted to Methodist. I found the shroud to be an excellent source of study on Roman crucifixion, what my Savior went through.Needless to say it was DEEPLY disturbing and gave me a deeper respect for his suffering for me . Thank you for sharing!❤
When you really do a deep dive into the science already done with the Shroud, it's fascinating! I'm convinced it's 1st century from the environs of Jerusalem. But there were hundreds if not thousands of people crucified under Roman occupation, so for now we have no way to "prove" it's the Shroud of Yeshua bar Yosef. At the very least it's a grand puzzle for humanity. More please, Metatron!
But most of these masses of crucified people were not buried in Shrouds but then did not decompose in the Shroud, which was in turn preserved by people. Most of those crucified were not crowned with thorns.
But how many of them left a completely unexplained phenomena behind? I mean, yes, lots of people were crucified. But only one ever (evidently) credible person claiming supernatural abilities was. Let me put it this way. If it wasn't Jesus...WHO WAS IT?!
The man is crowned with thorns and pierced at the side. Moreover he literally looks like Jesus. Let's stop this fake neutral mentality it's embarrassing.
It wasn't too long ago that I watched a documentary on this, and one of the bigger skeptics changed his position because it was confirmed under a microscope that the weave in the sample location had been repaired. The sample location is the main sticking point. Whatever you believe, it's clearly very old and needs preservation. Based on what he said, I'm betting the best sample would probably be near the middle, and then you damage the artifact. So, at worst it's a guess. At best, it's a stark reminder of what the Lord went through. The blood type was an interesting note; if you go look up most common Jewish blood type (of the period), that is a matching piece of information. 19:04
@@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 For "making" you mean... impastare, MAKING the pasta, right? No, because, if that's not it, what's the point of putting oil in the boiling water you cook pasta with? I am Italian myself and this is the first time I hear of it.
Apologies if this has been mentioned, but I wanted to share a book rec with my fellow Noble Ones. The book is called The Relic Master, by Christopher Buckley. It's about a Swiss mercenary vet-turned-relic hunter that forges a duplicate Shroud with his buddy Albrecht Durer (a fictionalized version of the famous painter) and shenanigans ensue. It's a light and fun story and has lots of history and interesting twists. Just figured I'd give my 2 cents
Thank you for the upload Brother! "Thou shall not judge!" to paraphrase Deuteronomy 1:17: "Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of anyone, for judgment belongs to God." This verse underscores the idea that while humans may judge, ultimate judgment and justice belong to God. Also: "Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1). This principle emphasizes empathy and understanding over condemnation. It’s a powerful reminder to look beyond the surface and seek deeper understanding in others. So in understanding another consider this Brother: more irrefutable evidence that a cloth still in existence today that covered My Lord Jesus Christ of Nazereth may sway the atheist to believe that he exists & then go on to develop faith & a personal relationship with Christ! Peace be upon you that read this! In Jesus Christ name! Amen! Peace & Love!
Ive always thought the shroud was neat. Like, if its a fake thats a hell of a fake and I'm super curious how they made it. If its real, i am even more curious as to how it occured.
I feel that the evidence points more toward it being real than it being fake. It probably can't be proven 100% but I think it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
@@theblackspark2644 I certainly believe it's from the correct time period at a minimum. There's just no reason for a medieval forger to go to those lengths when people of the time would have no real way to check
@@hawkticus_history_corner The shroud as an historical artifact is unprecedented. There really is no other thing like it. The image on the Shroud should not exist, and with this new data, I am at a loss if it really is from the mid 1st century. The image on the Shroud should not be there. I'm an atheist and I want to just brush it off as a forgery, but really I cannot make sense of it. The whole thing scares me and I wish it didn't exist.
I’m an Atheist, and I still find the Shroud monumentally impressive! Regardless of age, we still don’t know how the image was captured on it! Christians & Atheists get so caught up in trying to prove or disprove it as a religious artifact, the brilliance of it gets overlooked! It was made at a time when NO ONE would know for at least hundreds of years the amount of detail that would be discovered through negative photography. I pose, that even with all of our technology now, no one could reproduce a forgery of it that is comparable & that alone should be reason for it to be admired.
The thing that makes it seem like it's the burial cloth of Jesus is the nature of the image. It's properties are unique. How would anyone, even from 100 years ago let alone further back, make an image oxidating the outer atomic layers of a cloth giving 3 dimensional topographic data? It's these features which make it seem like a snapshot of the resurrection.
Considering: 1) No one knows how the image was made on the Shroud - it wasn't painted on, and it is only on the very tendrils of the threads, it isn't on the threads themselves, which is impossible for a human being to do, and 2) the image is in negative, centuries before anyone knew what a negative was, and it contains information to make a 3 dimensional image - I believe the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of Christ. I believe the image was formed when God resurrected him. Whatever Holy Energy God used to bring Christ back to life left an imprint on the Shroud of Jesus' image. It is the only thing that makes sense to me. Also bear in mind that the bloodstains on the Shroud match up so exactly with the Sudarium of Oviedo that the FBI using modern forensic techniques would say that they had both been wrapped around the same person. The Sudarium of Oviedo has been carbon-dated to the first century AD.
funny enough, the scientific community have actually agreed that Xray scattering examination is extremely inaccurate as a means to identify the age of something considering the fibers as he said will develop these breaks based on how much it was handled during its lifetime and was never utilized to identify the age of cloths and textiles. the Xray scattering is used to determine how often something was used not its age. a better determination of age is cloth weaving styles cloth is woven differently depending on the era it was woven in. for example the thread size as well as the dyes used in the thread which would narrow down the location of where it was made then identify the type of dye which would identify when it was made
The shroud has been hit with every type of aging metric and material analysis that exists. The xray stuff is just the latest round. If you want details on the fiber analysis similar to what you mentioned, spectrometry or any material analysis you can think off you can look up Fr. Dalton. He presents all the science the shroud has been through over the decades.
Great and unbiased review of the latest research on the Shroud. Although I know that belief is a matter of faith in what is unseen, sometimes it helps ones faith to experience something that may support that faith, even if just a little.
20:47 - Drives me nuts that all of these "experts" hardly ever mention the fact that the sample was taken from a portion of the shroud that had a new strip of material seamlessly weaved onto the outside edge. It doesn't even have the same weave pattern as the original part of the cloth. It apparently is material used to repair it during the middle ages, hence the result from that C-14 dating.
Natural fibers do not look at all like spaghetti under the microscope. They are drastically uneven, jagged, coarse, scaly, depending on the type. I seriously have to wonder if that guy has ever even SEEN natural fibers, under a microscope.
@@peanutbutterdijonnaise So the cotton cloth was magically turned into polyester? Doesn't seem likely. Besides, he said that "fibers" look like something they do not. He didn't claim there was magical conversion to extruded nylon.
@@peanutbutterdijonnaisenot sure if you are using sarcasm or not. In any event, some folks tend to rush towards the supernatural if they don’t understand the science.
I can’t remember where I learned but my understanding was that it was an early image. The time around 100bce. A room size dark room with a small hole for light to shine on the fabric. Then put whatever you want to image on the outside of the room.
Correct. The fabric is treated with an egg tempera and the camera obscura focuses an image (reflected off sunlight) that burns onto the cloth. When the tempera is washed off it leaves a scorched negative image on the cloth.
@@martinharris5017 The Camera Obscura wasn't known to or used by Europeans until 13th century (and even at that point, it was pretty obscure...[hehe]). Both the vanillin content (lack of same, see Raymond Roger peer reviewed paper in the Chemistry Journal Thermochimica Acta 2005) and the X ray scattering indicate far older age than 13th century. You'll have to do better. Also, that method does not produce as regularly fine/microscopic discoloration as found on the shroud. It looks ok from a macroscopic perspective. The only ones that produce an accurate image from both macroscopic and microscopic perspectives, are high intensity EM radiations like vacuum ultraviolet photons (from lasers), electrons from a corona discharge, etc. The flax linen fibers of the shroud are discolored only on a thousandths of scale of the diameter of the fibers (which are already fairly small and fine sized).
I question the wear method of dating. Wouldn't the main cause of wear in any piece of cloth be handling. A bed sheet would be washed frequently and be rumpled during use. Certainly more than a shroud used once and moved occasionally. This shroud is known to have been handled for display hundreds of times. Too many unknowns.
The wound in the side and the crown of thorns wouldnt have been regular features of other 1st century burial shrouds, methinks. Though I'm no antiquities expert.
Actually no, it's not common apparently. Remember the usual way of killing was to break the legs and that would cause asphyxiation as the legs would be used to push up to allow for chest expansion and inhalation. But guess what, we don't have other images! Only this one.
@@peterc4082 Breaking the legs was a method to speed up the asphyxation process (as also stated in the gospels) if necessary - so it was not the usual way - but crucifixion lead to death by asphyxation in any case.
@@str.77 The guy above suggest that puncturing the lung to cause a hemopneumothorax was the usual way of killing. I responded that it apparently wasn't. Breaking the legs was the usual way to make sure the person on the cross was really dead.
@@str.77 Do you see images form on cloths nowadays? Human bodies don't leave begind images on cloths. Otherwise we'd have hospitals full of such images. Don't overthink this.
I am impressed with your analysis of the report. Your information is very valid and clearly backed by good information. I appreciate the work you have done here.
Thank you for another great video! It's incredibly refreshing to see someone be upfront about their biases, and also make an honest effort to lessen their impact. I also love that the tailored ads on your web search appear to be for role playing board games and fantasy maps. I would expect nothing less from you. It's very on-brand. I do have to address one pet peeve of mine. Admittedly, it's INCREDIBLY pedantic, but I'm a pedant. I can't help it. "Fish gotta swim. Birds gotta fly." Anyway, at one point in the video, you say "over-exaggerated." That's kind of like saying that a meal is "over-burnt." It can be over-cooked, or burnt, but it can't be over-burnt.
When I found out last year, from a documentary, that it wasn't paint, I sobbed... It meant that it was, **at least**, a real man who had suffered similarly to Jesus. And when you find out how Jesus suffered, it can make you cry uncontrollably without tears!
Firstly, I respect everyones opinion, and im not trying to convince anyone of my own opinion on the Shroud. But, to me, the fact that the only way the image on the shroud could've only been produced is by a sudden burst of extreme bright light leaving behind a perfect photo negative of the person who buried, is proof that it was Jesus. Not only proof that it was Jesus, but proves his divinity, as well.
@@Jafar545what human being do you know that can generate essentially a nuclear blast from their own dead body? The New Testament says that the guardians of the tomb were blinded by a bright light. The atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima left permanent images of people on the pavement of the city too.
@@bdjoliat This got to be some advanced level shitposting... A nuclear blast would have vaporized the entire tomb, the "bright light" in the NT. is very clearly associated with a descending angel, and the "permanent images" in Hiroshima are quite different from whatever is on the shroud...
Me too! And it also fascinates me how it brings out the brain-dead morons that will want to call the Shroud a fake. With all we know about it today! Mind boggling it is.
Hey! I am a Physicist and I have worked with WAXS a fair bit! I do not agree with the description of technique provided by the "Shroud expert" in this video, but with that said I have read the publication and the results deserve to be taken seriously. If you want to we can exchange some word on the matter! I agree the method is less definitive than carbon dating; the breakdown of cellulose measured in this study is affected by humidity and temperature in a way a carbon dating is not. That is not to say the technique isn't very precise - it just isn't primarily used for dating, but rather crystallography and determining spacing on a molecular level. For instance the helical nature of DNA was determined using it. The technique itself is not particularly novel; just its application in this case. To give another example I have used it to measure the distance between smectite layers at a precision level corresponding to a single water molecule. However the degree of aging would have the shroud be basically constantly wet in the middle of the Sahara for it to be only 700 years old and the fires it has been exposed to seem not to be a sufficient explanation as they tried to induce additional aging on another linen sample this way (the reason it doesn't age it is a fire makes for a low humidity environment). Its degree of cellulose breakdown seems very consistent with it being kept in Greece and Anatolia for the better part of 1200 years and in France/Italy for 700 years. Edit: Silver can act as a catalyst of many chemical reactions and might be another thing that needs to be controlled for. 2nd Edit: It's definitely aliens!
How is it less precise than carbon dating? Especially in this instance. The cloth has been explosed to air for minimal hundreds of years, which means the system is as open as it could possibly get when trying to test for radiocarbon ratios. Especially given how easily nitrogen will seep out of a material when exposed to atmospheric conditions, especially one like flax. Which would 100% give a deflated age. There's also the fact that the WAXS had a control to be tested against. We have flax fibers we know came from 1st century Judea, and the flax from the shroud matched them bout perfectly as anything could when both are compared under WAXS. There was no such control measures to be had when testing radiocarbon ratios. It doesn't make sense to say radiocarbon measurements are more precise, as there are far more variables that are prone to fluctuating in radiocarbon ratios, than there are in WAXS as far fewer things can influence the breakdown of cellulose as opposed to influencing radiocarbon/nitrogen ratios.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Precision is the measure of how concentrated the results from measurements are and accuracy how well they correspond to/center in on the reality they are trying to measure over repeated measurements. With humidity and temperature to account for in WAXS age measurement the lack of precision is not introduced by the WAXS itself to anywhere near the same extent as the model for cellulose breakdown accompanying it; 1 degree of temperature or 5% humidity changes the results enough that to my understanding this will be less precise than the measurement of the ratio of C-14 to C-12, even if said measurement should turn out to be less accurate in this case. However while I know WAXS fairly well, but I will by no means claim to be an expert on radiocarbon dating so I will not arrogantly claim that there cannot be factors I am unaware of that can significantly skew its accuracy. It is not entirely clear to me why loss of Nitrogen would be such a factor as AMS measures the ratio of C-14 to C-12. Labs that do radiocarbon dating can include a measurement of Carbon/Nitrogen ratios, but C-12 and Nitrogen are not taken to be the same when measuring the ratio of C-14. C-12 and C-14 however would be lost at nearly identical ratios, though I will say that I can imagine later carbon sources especially soot with a higher ratio of C-14 than the linen itself skewing the results. If we allow ourselves to play with supernatural explanations then maybe radiation altering the C-14/C-12 ratio could be interesting to model.
@@holandreas you are right about the C14/ntorigen thing I think. I had automatically went to the fact that the vast majority of radiometric dating methods require measuring the ratio of parent/daughter elements, but it seems that radiocarbon dating is an acception to that. Never the less I would still submit that radiocarbon dating is not as accurate. Especially not at these relatively low timescales. Trying to get an accurate measurement of just down to the thousand year mark for a method that regularly comes with the margin of error of at least a couple of hundred of years in the best of cases is just by the nature of the beast never going to be super accurate in that situation. Not to mention there are still a great many problems with samples that are open systems in radiocarbon dating. Any measure of exposure to radioactivity can produce more C14 in the sample. Water will also be able to introduce it, or take it away in reasonably jight amounts. And ofcourse there's the elephant in the room about the shroud having some repairs done to certian areas, and being in a couple of fires. As far as the WAXS method I think I would like to hear more in detail about why you think this individual instance would be less reliable than radiocarbon dating. Because yes the variables of tempurature, and humidity can make estimates vary, but the reason I found this instance of it so compelling is because we had a real world externally verified control sample to compare against. And that eliminates the vast amount of variability of those factors.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 I appreciate the honesty you brought to this and it is worth dwelling a bit on some of the points brought up! I think I would like to read up more on how significant such sources of error may be in radiocarbondating before I make any too stubborn claims here. It is however definitely true that if the sample used in C-14 dating was to be from a site that has been repaired that would make it say very little about the true age of the shroud. It is also true that a sufficient exposure to radiation would skew this measurement. To my understanding the environmental conditions it takes to significantly shift the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in a sample are rather extreme and more reasonable to assume the absence of than factors that could accelerate the breakdown of cellulose, but it could be that I underestimate how much a linen like this can exchange carbon with its surroundings in a manner that alters its C-14/C-12 ratio (loss of carbon will likely not, gain of carbon will in sufficient amounts). I will look into that! If it is shown with certainty that the area actually was just a repair then the old radiocarbon dating can be disregarded and then I would be more confident that the WAXS measurements paired with models of cellulose breakdown have the right age. The WAXS measurement itself is likely a very good measure of the degree of cellulose breakdown in the shroud. In this regard the method is likely both very precise and accurate. However in the translation of this to an age the result of the method loses precision to the strong dependence on temperature and humidity. To phrase it a bit differently: this tells us very precisely (and accurately) to what extent the shroud's cellulose has broken down, but less precisely how that has happened. To my understanding the conditions that massively skew a radiocarbondating tend to be more extreme, as mentioned. Still it is notable that it corresponds very well with it being stored in Mediterranean temperature and humidity conditions for 2000 years and also, as you bring up, that its results match that of another linen from that time well. However while that definitely is an addition that significantly strengthens the publication it doesn't mean that the cellulose breakdown in the two linens came about the same way. You could also conduct a radiocarbon dating of the other linen and have a similar control sample for that. I didn't mean to say radiocarbondating is so superior that it shouldn't make us ask some questions that the measurements seemingly disagree as much as they do. However we must consider that it might be that something has rapidly increased its degree of observed aging too, not just what might have skewed a radiocarbon dating and then see what results we get trying to differentiate between the two. As it stands the newer of the two measurements is not as established of a method (that is to say WAXS as a step in measuring age rather than just WAXS itself which is very established) as the other and based of something that is very dependent on its environmental conditions and I feel I would need to see more evidence for one over the other before I would disregard a measurement completely. In the study they bake a linen and see how this impacts measured cellulose breakdown and this seems to make practically no difference. I would like for this to be taken further, though: does silver catalyse the breakdown of cellulose in a linen? Does a wet linen experience a rapidly accelerated breakdown if heated? On the other hand I would also like to see a proper confirmation that the C-14 sample actually was from the site of a repair, a test for isotypes that would collaborate a significant radiation exposure, or perhaps a demonstration that soot and oil really can skew the results as much as claimed. I will also say that because the conclusion that this truly might be the authentic burial cloth of Christ is extraordinary it demands that we show caution. We also shouldn't discard the possibility and if a newer radiocarbon dating of a different part of the shroud was to show an older age or especially if say, that the shroud is found to display very clear signs of significant radiation exposure... well that will be found to have sigificance for many people reaching far beyond accurately dating a linen.
I tried, really tried to resist watching this video. But I couldn’t! I just value Metatron’s analysis too much to resist it. His willingness to admit his own bias is just the beginning of his commitment to finding the truth. Well done, as always!
22:10 he's bang on. It's VERY strong he's talking about the c14 ratios being higher cos of living people's sweat that litterally adds to the c14 content.
I am very interested in the Shroud of Turin and I particularly like your more secular outlook. But for the record, I think it is the burial cloth Christ.
For the record, all of us with at least average intelligence that have spent even as little as an hour on studying the Shroud of Tuin know that is the burial cloth of our Lord Jesus. 👍
I love how he went from being enthusiastic about the mention of pasta to cringing in sheer Italian horror when he revealed what he was going to do with it.
I watch you from time to time. I am not an uber Metatron fan or anything, you just cover stuff from time to time that I find interesting. And during that I didn’t even realise you were religious. So obviously you do have religious bias, but you do a good job keeping it in check because I have never picked up on it. So good job.
I see no issues speaking of demons. If we're applying our reason to determine that Jesus is Real, and that logic turns one to believe that Jesus is Who He Claims to be, then that same reason must include Satan. If Jesus rose from the grave then Satan is a thing that exists. Beyond our perception of course but demons are nonetheless as real as television signals. Can't see it, but they're still there.
*Happy Metatron noises at the mention of pasta.* Dude: "...Fibers break..." Metatron: "Don't do it." Dude: "So, anyways... I break bundles of spaghetti." *Metatron goes offscreen to either ask God to assemble the powers or punches a hole in his wall as he insults the dude's entire lineage.*
For me, despite being a believing Catholic, the coincidence of the carbon dating age and the first historical records of the shroud is just too big to ignore. The first records are in the 1300s, the carbon dating age was late 1200s to 1300s. And that is known to be a time when pilgrimage was becoming a big thing, and many "relics" were created or were "found" to take advantage of it. Every abbey etc wanted something to attract pilgrims. I'm a little bit sceptical of the x-ray technique, it hasn't faced the rigorous tests that carbon dating has. Most of the inherent errors in carbon dating have been identified and corrected for. Carbon dating is unlikely to be far wrong in my opinion, although a sample from the centre of the cloth would be needed to settle it beyond doubt.
My skeptical ear caught something else in the comparative analysis using the x-ray scanning. They used carbon dating of samples to establish a trend line in an effort to debunk a carbon dated sample. Either carbon dating works or it doesn't.
Carbon dating is still a valid argument for forgery, although it needs to be clarified that obtaining a sample was not handled properly and at a very least it should be repeated with new samples. As for the first records of the shroud dated to 1200s there is a simple explanation. If the shroud is genuine then it is very possibly the shroud of Constantinopole that dissapeared in the sack of the city in 1204 by crusaders. A lot of crusaders were french knights and one of them could have stolen the shroud and brought it back to France. That is why there are no records of shroud in Europe prior 13th century.
Yeah, but the argument against the carbon dating isn't of carbon dating itself, it's the accusation that their sample was contaiminated. That all they proved is that it went through a fire and needed to be repaired.
My biggest problem with the Shroud always was the excellent condition the fabric is in. I'd expect any fabric that old to at least have spots that had disintegrated. Since it was "rediscovered", it's been kept very carefully. But before it appeared in the 14th century, where was it?
This is fair. But it also makes sense to me that all the previous owners/caretakers would have also taken great care with it, considering what they believed it to be
That's is where you science and the divine align perfectly, ever heard of the incorruptibles. Also have you ever heard of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano? Ever heard of the Cloth that bears the image of our Lady of Guadalupe! These are examples where science/biology gets suspended.
There’s a record from the 4th Crusade that it was taken from Constantinople, “Among these there was a church called St. Mary of the Blachernae, where the Shroud was kept in which Our Lord was wrapped. Every Friday it was elevated all straight, so that it was possible to easily see the image of Our Lord.” Unfortunately, documents from Constantinople would not have survived past its fall in the 15th century.
I do not think people worship the shroud, venerate yes, worship no. And I agree if one believes it would change their life dramatically. And finally - sometimes over-analysing stuff sucks the very life out of things. There are many ways to "know".
>>>>>>>> I'm not just the Ganja Kitty, I'm a medicinal plant biologist and ecologist, among other things >>> MY own cursory yet still fairly extensive study of the shroud and evidence for it leaves one thinking, if this wasn't some sort of supernatural event, then WHAT actually made it, because nothing makes sense. Everything else points to the fact it is 2000 years old, and not only that, but from the month Jesus would have been killed. SO if it is a forgery, its a 2000 year old forgery, that has never ever been replicated ever in terms of how such an image was made on a burial cloth.
Fact with me is, haven't seen a good explanation on how did they produce the negative imagine on the shroud and back in the period of time they said it was faked? Along with the fact the shroud was repaired after a fire and that was the piece that was sewed on that they carbon dated on purpose to create a false date on the rest of the shroud.
@@mnk9073 Huh? Not only does that fail to answer the question, it also does not match the atheistic argument suggesting the Shroud is an 11th century product, with 14th century paints. For all the scientific scrambling to explain away a truly fascinating artifact, there’s some truly poor excuses out there that utterly fail in matching the historic record.
@@TheRestedOne It literally does if one could be bothered to do the reading themselves. But let me break it down for you: You have a dark room with a tiny hole in one wall through which sunlight projects the image of whatever is facing that wall outside, just flipped, through the wonderful "magic" of optics. Aristotle already wrote about it in the 4th century BC. Now silver nitrate stains saltwater soaked cloth a reddish brown when exposed to, you guessed it, sunlight. Meaning if you hang a saltwater soaked and silver nitrated coated piece of cloth on the wall in your dark room, let the little hole and sunlight do it's thing you get a upside down negative image of what was on the other side of the wall stained onto your cloth piece. It's basically a room sized Pinhole camera that can produce exactly the image as on the shroud. Whether or not some overzealous or entrepreneuring spirit added human blood to it later is a question we'll never know...
Having taken a lot of interest in the Shroud over the years it seems it is generally accepted now that the area of the shroud that was carbon dated was not reoresentative. The sample came from a part that us known to have been repaired in the medievil period and had new threads woven in on the damaged part. Even the most skeptical scientist involved eventually wrote a letter admitting the dating could have been flawed. Apart from this no one can explain how the image was made...so there's your other challenge, prove how it was made! No one can !
You mean aside from the several people who have shown ways it could have been done? Look, we have documentation from a few years after it first showed up where Catholic officials not only declared it fake, they named where it was faked and indicated the artist had admitted to faking it. The fact this is still being argued 700 years later is silly.
@@keith6706 how did they think it was made then? Every theory I have heard of has been debunked. The only final proof would be for someone to reproduce it, no one has.
I agree that the fires are a strong element of possible C-14 contamination in comparison with the handling of the shroud. Nevertheless, I also think that the exposure to candle fumes during centuries is also a strong possible contamination source.
Jesus’ dead body was wrapped, not in one piece of linen, but in multiple strips of cloth according to the Bible. His head was wrapped in a separate cloth. After Jesus was resurrected, one of his apostles came to the empty tomb and “saw the linen cloths lying there.” The Bible adds: “The cloth that had been on his head was not lying with the other cloth bands but was rolled up in a place by itself.”-John 20:6, 7. The shroud is a single cloth measuring 442 by 113 centimeters (14 ft 6 in. by 3 ft 8 in.) plus an 8-centimeter (3 in.) strip sewed lengthwise. The shroud contains markings presumed to be bloodstains from an unwashed corpse. The Bible says: When Jesus died, his disciples prepared his body “according to the burial custom of the Jews.” (John 19:39-42) This custom included washing the corpse and applying oils and spices to it before burial. (Matthew 26:12; Acts 9:37) Therefore, Jesus’ disciples would have washed his body before wrapping it in cloths. So you can't believe that the Bible is authentic and that the The Shroud of Turin is authentic at the same time.
If there was blood on the body it would be dried blood. I wonder how that would affect the transfer on to the cloth. A second point. Why does the cloth only have information from the front of the body. Even if the cloth was not as close to the body at the sides, I'd expect a gradual fading of the image. As example, the legs. They end abruptly as seen from above instead of completely capturing the sides or fading out. I don't believe that John's account is factual but it should reflect burial practices. It's hard for me to believe that they got Jesus' body from the authorities, which i doubt they did in the first place, and didn't wash the blood off.
The argument about the sample is an bad faith argument. They were only allowed to take sample from where they were told by the holders of the shroud. I'm sure they wanted to take more and take them from other locations but couldn't.
They were allowed to take samples from other areas of the shroud but decided, for reasons we can only speculate about, not to include them for analysis. Barrie Schwortz mentioned this several times in his videos.
@@timelord5920 I have no idea who Barrie Schwortz is and haven't watched his videos. As you said "reasons we can only speculate about" I can assume until I'm done researching that they were told not to take more or not to take them from other places. Honestly I could even understand that as you wouldn't want to inadvertantly damage the item.
I attended a Catholic grade school, and was always wildly intrigued and interested in the Shroud of Turin. I checked out that one book about it, dozens of times just to look at the pictures. The stigmata wounds are perfectly placed. I am an agnostic, yet the infinite number of mysteries Christianity/Catholicism offers, is to compelling to ignore. Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Medjugorje visions were favorites of mine growing up. I was able to see one of the statues of Mary that wept blood. The latter of the visions, was especially interesting, as the children would fall into a trance while praying, and became impervious to outside stimuli(prick them with a needle/no reaction). And then you had the SECRETS that the Pope was supposed to reveal to the world, Mary’s final secret at the end of the millennium. It was deemed to “dangerous” by the papacy. EXORCISMS………YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST CREATE A SERIES!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s an incredible topic to research, and tend to think your scholarship would be top notch, as long as you relinquish ALL of your religious beliefs, biases, tenets, ideologies, etc. Your views would be astronomical as well. And we a are coming up on 🎃……….
Coming up with a new method of dating fabrics and applying to the shroud is absurd. Any dating technique must be tested over and over and correlated with other trusted dating methods, including historical dates.
Are you aware of the Sudarium of Oviedo? It was the cloth put on Jesus while he was on the cross when he passed away. And then was taken off before the Shroud of Turin was placed. How do we know that Jesus touched this cloth. there's about 120 blood points that match up with the Shroud. And the blood type on both cloths are AB positive.
Exactly! It was wrapped around his head after he died but was still on the cross and after he was brought into the Tomb it was removed and set aside. Jewish law stated that anything with the blood of the deceased on it has to be buried with the body so that is why it was found along with the Shroud after he was resurrected.
Pure Sindonology fantasy. Not one verse supports what you and beverlyhurd8556 are claiming. There are more details in a video presentation/description and comments clicking icon W to the left-top of this comment.
@@beverlyhurd8556 also they couldn't wash the body since the next day was the Sabbath, so they where rushed. Which, makes sense of why there is blood on the turin.
@@jeffreyerwin3665 That boy Wipeo loves to make a fool of himself more than anyone on this planet! No matter how many times we prove him wrong he comes back again and again to look worse and worse! No doubt that he is just ate up with self-hatred. Sounds like a major case of it too!
My big question is how anyone could prove that the Shroud had anything to do with Jesus of Nazareth, even if it is a completely authentic 1st century Judean burial shroud
Well, a proponent of the validity of the shroud being the burial cloth of Jesus would say that the marks on the cloth matched the wounds consistent with crucifixion and with a wound to the side which was described in the gospels. Even if that is true it still could be a shroud from another random 1st century person who was crucified and poked in the side with a spear. The Romans crucified a lot of people in the 1st century.
Except that the image on it is a perfect photo negative and not made via pigment or bodily fluid. The best we can figure is that it was barely singed into the fabric -- and by barely, I mean micro millimeters. The closest we've come to making similar markings is pointing a fairly gentle laser at fabric for several hours. That would seem to point to there being some very strange stuff happening to make it. Whoever the guy on it is, it's not just some random Joe.
@@JP2GiannaT So to be more blunt about it, the markings could be from a type of radiation that emanated from the body of Jesus during the process of his resurrection, correct? Anything’s possible but I don’t think we’ll ever know.
Many don't realize that there is another piece of garmet that ties in with the shroud, the headpiece - the blood splatter matches exactly to the shroud. This would be the piece of cloth that they use to cover the victim's face during the transportation to the tomb and not the full burial cloth that would later be used to wrap the body of the deceased as per tradition. As for the shroud - I agree with everyone that it being real isn't important to Christians hwoever it *IS* important because it is our first physical proof of a supernatural event that cannot be explained which many aethists and skeptics have a hard time believing in the because of the supernatural element of it. So having something that not only is supernatural but ties itself to not just the Bible itself but Jesus himself is extremely important despite how some wish to brush away it's importance.
🙄 It isn’t proof of anything but artistry. A shroud wrapped around a body would cause the image to be distorted. You zealots really can’t think realistically.
@@bdawg-qj9bq Isn't it rather you who dogmatically rejects any piece of evidence. The shroud is there and it is not a painting nor is any other way of producing it known. And yes, of course the image is distorted. The man you see on the Shroud (whoever he is) would have looked a bit differently if he was standing before us.
@@moonrisestudiosco It can't. We can't replicate the shroud even with modern technology, and the image was created by a bright light. There is no explanation except the resurrection.
I am not an expert in Carbon Dating but I do have degrees in Physics and Chemical Engineering. I believe the shroud itself, not just the sample, was contaminated by more recent carbon particles, mostly during the fire. Hence the half-life of the C14 isotopes of the homogenized sample that was tested does not reflect the age of the cloth. This was the first thing I thought when I read about the C14 evaluation. I don't know if individual carbon atoms can be evaluated, but a study of several atoms and a statistical analysis of the results would be the only way to have a trustworthy C14 analysis.
There are videos here debunking that. The amount of new carbon from the fire compared to the first century carbon should have been around 80% of the total against 20% of the original in order for the C14 dating to give the 1300's results. And that's after cleaning the cloth (because the didn't just cut the sample and put it in the machine, you know...). The shroud would have looked black.
If the Shroud is real, I predict that any and all scientific analysis will be inconclusive. In sacred scripture, and traditional theology in general, faith is considered a virtue. God has expressed his appreciation of faith, and encouraged it in the Bible. He offers us signs of his existence and work, but he doesn't force us to believe in them. As such, considering God as a free agent with free will, I predict he would typically decline to cooperate with scientific studies; that is, he wouldn't interfere with the experiments, or wouldn't cooperate with them the way, say, a pound of sodium would - because sodium has physical properties that just automatically happen. God, meanwhile, has the ability to say, "nah, I'm sitting this out," and then he does nothing. So, if God values faith - that is, the ability to believe without evidence - then he would not deny his creations the chance to have faith. So, for this reason, if the Shroud was fake, we would have definitive evidence of that; but if it were real, and God values faith, then he wouldn't interfere with our ability to have faith by giving us concrete, visible evidence of his existence. So the Shroud would inevitably defy scientific study, rendering all examination inconclusive; thus the mystery remains intact, and the doorway to faith remains open. Of course, that's only a theory; God has a habit of defying expectations.
Faith isn’t about believing without evidence. Faith is about placing your trust in the evidence. Faith simply means trust, and either you believe the evidence and place your trust in God or you don’t and place your trust in other things.
@@jarlwilliam9932 A fair point; complete trust was the definition I found when I looked it up. Nothing to do with evidence, though. That said, I have heard it defined both ways.
@@jarlwilliam9932 I agree with this. God has given us evidence throughout all of recorded scripture. The only time faith, in the sense of believing without evidence, has been required were after evidence had been given at a previous point in time ex: God led the people out of Egypt, He showcased His power and sovereign control of nature and how He would use that power to the benefit of Israel, His bride. Then when the people came to the promised land He asked them to trust that He would continue to do this and work in their favor as they waged war to have control of the land. The pattern was given previous evidence -> trust in what has been revealed. That's just the one off the top of my head, but Jesus would be another example, He performed great things and was glad when people put their faith in that. He performed the miracles so that we (fleshy, physical beings) would have something to trust in as He said (paraphrasing) "If you believe not in Me, at least believe in the works I have shown you"
My biggest problem always boiled down to the lie of free will. God gives you free will, but then expects blind faith. So if you attempt to use free will and expect some kind of logical proof, you're damned. But he's all loving. All powerful. He gave you free will and the ability to use reason and logic, but expects you to have "faith" and just believe. And he expects your worship. Why give free will if for no other reason than to play a twisted kind of mind f*ck game on your creation? And the whole thing about holy relics goes against faith. If you have faith, why do you need a piece of cloth to prove something to you?
I usually agree with you, however, I believe the Shroud is what it is purported to be, an image of Jesus's Resurrection. Not because what I hope for but because of the scientific evidence. If in fact it does capture the moment of Jesus's resurrection then it would be a way to share the Christian faith to a generation who seem to focus on a visual understanding of the subject being discussed. As a Protestant Christian I worship Jesus and not anything that could become a physical item as idol to worship. So I do think it is relevant if it is considered to a very high degree to be the burial Shroud of Jesus. Faith is the bedrock for Christianity. With much Respect.
Exactly. Christians don't worship idols & statues, nor do we call pastors Holy Father & Mary the "Mother of God ". At least we didn't as Lutherans. That's a Vatican thing.
"I believe the Shroud is what it is purported to be, an image of Jesus's Resurrection. Not because what I hope for but because of the scientific evidence." the resurrection of the g0d (or of g0d junior) is a magical claim. A deity did it in the st0ry, and our species has never seen any deity, let alone a magically active one. Worse: we still do not know, and the g0d fans still cannot or would not describe, what the g0d even is. scientific evidence in 2024 COULD lead us to a very identified dude executed by the Romans. And it does not. Beyond that, scientific evidence is not even possible in this topic. No g0d defined, no testable claim about magic, so yes: You believe this exactly because the stuff you hope for. of course, if the shroud is older than previously thought, then it is older. Just an example where science could lead us: If we one day find an execution log about a yeshua, and IF we (with crazy-precise methods) date the shroud to the exact day of that execution, we will know that the shroud was made on that very day. One of the many things made on that day. Even if this high precision archeology happens, a few billions unindoctrinated humans still won't have any clue what to think of when a fan of a deity mentions a deity.
I saw a video yesterday of a guy trimming his spaghetti with a pair of scissors at the restaurant while he visited Italy. Everyone in the background was horrified. Then he put the ice cubes in his glass of wine and a waiter promptly confiscated his beverage while wagging his finger disapprovingly.
I don’t think doing a carbon dating would be any better. My concern is did the fire that burnt the Shroud, did that contaminant the fabric, they smoke would have permeated through into the fabric 24:25 thank you
Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize!
ruclips.net/channel/UCIjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOwjoin
Also if you like what I do and wish to support my work to help me make sure that I can continue to tell it how it is please consider checking out my patreon! Unboxings are Patreon exclusives!
www.patreon.com/themetatron
The video interview I'm using to build up a discussion
ruclips.net/video/Yxc179-HIJ0/видео.html
if you fold fibers on money it will get older lol
I understand you were convinced of Jesus through an experience. Please understand that many might not have had such grace. Having an artifact that indicates that Christ is risen indeed would be a big deal to them. Resurrection is a key part of our faith (the word of God around 1 Cor 15:17 comes to mind).
What exactly did you get so worked up about at the beginning? "Idolatry"? My separated brother, perhaps you fail to differentiate between adoration (which we nowadays call worship) which is due to God alone, and veneration. The real burial cloth of Christ would not only be touching to me, it would be awe-inspiring, knowing it's a relic of Christ. Even more so if it was Turin Shroud, with its image, it might make me want to worship the God-Man depicted on this icon - the one Who died to save me, and to heal me by the wounds displayed depicted before my eyes.
I think it was the cheap, bad pasta, Metatron, don't worry... 🤣❤
but... even if it was the cloth of christ... was it christ? as a rationalist i don't believe in the fantasy books of the ancient times as receptacles of 'truth'. they are just what they are: historical artefacts of the stories and beliefs of that time. and help us understand how religion was used by every nation to understand the world. ie. jesus, if he did exist, like likely just a community leader, speaking out against greed and corruption. he was crucified, and the rest is the myths we humans like to make up, especially back in the past, when supernaturalism was at its height.
While you’re on the subject, have you seen the Rebecca Watson video on the shroud?
Thats actually why the Punic Wars were happening, Carthage was breaking Spaghetti
Hannibal Breaka!
It is said that before every defeat against the Romans, Hannibal stood at the vanguard of his army and taunted the Romans by breaking spaghetti. This so enraged the Romans that they lost their cool, logical approach to battle, to their detriment. 🤣
They actually executed Jesus because they caught him breaking spaghetti as well
@@user-pj3ic6qw2p what are you talking about LoL
@@user-pj3ic6qw2p what are you even talking about LoL
I love that universally Italians have a kryptonite of breaking spaghetti needles 😂😂
We break them sometimes (someone does someone doesn't), but in the middle eventually. Doing that on top is ruining them 😂
my italian godmother used to tell me "snapping spaghetti is like trying to fornicate with a blender, its doable but only an idiot would try it"
Spaghetto means noodle
@@kevinmorriceShe's right, the spaghetti get soft very fast so you dont have to break them to fit them in the pot, it does on its own with a little push
@@Andrea-di2ew Pusgetty means noodle and noodles.
At the end, as a Catholic, a fragment of the Eucharist is infinitely more valuable to me than the shroud, but it is fascinating. It seems to be the gift that keeps on giving in terms of research.
Eucharist=semen, drug-induced sexual junk plagues the Bible, gross
Amen!
“Do this in my memory”
“you mean you’re the bread”
“…what?”
It’s like a Leslie Nielsen joke, I swear.
@@billgates3699 "This IS MY BODY"
Stupid protestant
@@billgates3699yeah I guess just ignore Jesus literally saying it
“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate manna in the desert, and they died. This is the bread which descends from heaven, so that if anyone will eat from it, he may not die. I am the living bread, who descended from heaven. If anyone eats from this bread, he shall live in eternity. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." Therefore, the Jews debated among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" And so, Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so also whoever eats me, the same shall live because of me.”
John 6:48-58 CPDV
Its legitimacy doesn’t make or break my faith but I do find it fascinating.
The shroud does not show the image of Jmmanuel (Jesus Christ), but that of a merchant from Turin/Italy, called Caesar Canova.
The shroud was made by the brother of the deceased, Luciano Canova, an alchemist.
The process took place on 7 June 1324 and lasted until 10 June (4 days).
During this, the procedure was not such that the shroud was placed on the deceased and the latter was rubbed with chemicals, as is often claimed, but it was a very early form of photography, whereby the corpse was placed vertically in front of a large glass lens, through which the image was then projected for four days through an effect of sunlight onto a large fabric surface soaked in chemicals in a dark room, after which the shroud was then treated with silver nitrate and the image became in that way visible and retained.
@@PASHKULI That's really interesting. I haven't heard about this very early form of photography before.
@@PASHKULI Some stretching there!!!! dr joye pugh youre welcome
@@PASHKULI How do you know or rather assume? Carbon dating is not that precise. How would you know the exact dates? Was it documented?
To me it sounds like this new evidence doesn't sound very scientific. More like an experiment purely designed to support an hypothesis.
as an atheist or agnostic whatever if the shroud of turin was proven to be real with undeniable proof i think that would change my faith having a 2000 year old cloth with the face of dead jesus on it somehow, would be insane if that was proven 100% real
Researcher: < breaks spaghetti noodles>
Metaron: "DEATH TO THE HERETIC!"
My wife breaks the pasta in half. My daughter and I cry out in anguish. It can be heard across the Atlantic in Italia. I apologize to the entire country for my wife's barbarism.
"I DIDN'T WANT TO UNLEASH MY LEGIONS..."
@@Maximus_Butthurticus I'm not Italian, but being from New York originally I have a lot of Italian Relatives so I was raised right when it comes to cooking, and I cry a little bit on the inside when I see it happen.
Halo 2 Grunts: “HERETIC! HERETIC! HERETIC!”
Metaron? Is that like the Ron of all Rons?
I expect my socks have a lot of broken fibres, but that doesn't mean they're old. The Shroud was kept in Turkey for centuries and regularly taken out of its box to be displayed, so that might have lead to more broken fibres than you'd find on a cloth from Masada that had been left in a jar for 1900 years.
You can not make a shroud without breaking fibres.
I agree with metatron. My curiosity in shroud has always been from an interest in a cool piece of historical curiosity.
Exactly. Even if it is not genuinely Christ's shroud, it is still hundreds of years old and I'd be fascinated to find how it was created.
@@amandag5072 👍👍
Same, take out all the religious connotations and you have an interesting bit of a historical mystery (which I always love).
@@amandag5072 I absolutely abhor, detest, hate, loathe censorship, i am becoming so sick and tired this increasing reality. I left a reply and yet again it was nuked. Let me try again: 👍👍
@@amandag5072we already know how it was created lol we’ve known for decades, the guest on the show is just a clown who denies actual science.
As a fellow Catholic, I feel the same. The shroud is such an amazing artefact whether relating to Jesus or not. I would be equally amazed to find out it was produced by artificial means as the extent of the forgery would be so incredibly sophisticated and well thought out.
Not that we've devoted as much effort as we could, but if it's a forgery we haven't figured out how, yet... which is sobering enough in itself considering the power of science to nail down other things.
Worth considering that for hundreds and hundreds of years there was a thriving market in manufacturing faked holy relics, I've lost count of how many slivers from "the one true cross" I've seen, many of which are still being venerated up to this day. To a lot of believers it doesn't really matter whether or not those relics are "authentic".
Whit all the pice of the "true cross" you can built a fleet
Fr Spitzer who has a PhD in physics thinks the shroud is 99% genuine. Metatron is a bit of a weebo and has at best a BA.
@@peterc4082You're honestly criticizing a guy for having a BA, even though you admit you have no idea what degree(s) he has, when your comment makes it seem like you haven't graduated high school? And anyway this mysterious Fr having a doctorate in physics doesn't automatically make him a relevant expert.
Metatron is one of my favorite RUclipsrs!
The most incredible thing about the shroud is the negative image showing the face; it wasn't discovered until 1898, many hundreds of years after even the alleged date of forgery. It's hard to see how forgers could have created such an image, so much more lifelike than the iconic artwork of the time, in a way that would not even be apparent for centuries.
I agree with you. I also believe it is at least old enough. I personally believe it to be real. After looking at all the facts. But like he said the shroud isn’t going to change how I feel about Jesus.
That leads to more questions if it is a forgery, because that begs the question of not only how someone made it, but how would they know to make it like that?
Exactly. One would think that had photography been invented in the middle ages there would be a little more interest in the subject.
The image on the shroud and the carbon dating testing error convinced me long ago before I became a Catholic that it indeed is the holy image of our Lord Jesus Christ. No forger, regardless of how smart they are would create an image forgery that only technology centuries later could possibly reveal. Even if it was a shroud from a crucified man 2000 years ago, it would never have left an image like what we see on the shroud. It is truly miraculous.
However... it appears to have been placed over a realistic natural-size wood carving, of about one inch deep, not in a fully 3d body that would have produced a much different impression. But you can try a little experiment yourself! Cover yourself in dirt, blood, etc, lie down, have someone wrap you tightly in the same way cadavers were wrapped in a shroud, with a clean lenght of cloth that must absorb the liquids thoroughly, and once dry, have the cloth peeled off of you, and carefully examine the stains.
The cloth will look nothing like the shroud in question.
Have fun!
I believe it's real, but it's not my salvation. If it turns out fake, it isn't going to change my mind on who my savior is.
That’s the way brother
@@metatronytAncient Egypt and the Bible debunked this video. He’s a bonafide Egyptologist, has degrees (yes multiple) in biblical languages, etc., and has a high regard for your work, btw 😊
Live by the Shroud, Die by the Shroud.
@metatronyt sister.....but stoked you saw my comment ☺️
@@metatronyt a cloth is a cloth, a cup a cup and the nails merely nails. they are fascinating objects to consider but, in the end they are just objects Jesus had contact with and not objects of divinity or importance.
The fact there are no other shrouds that have been found like it, even fake does make the shroud most interesting. Especially when scientists are unable to explain with any certainty how it was made even if it is a forgery.
We couldn't figure out roman concrete, and there's tons of it....😅
@@Mulletforhire Not exactly. We at least had a general idea of how Roman concrete was made. Same with other things like Greek fire and Damascus steel. And because we had a general idea, we didn't invest too much in figuring them out.
@@Mulletforhireincorrect. Volcanic ash was paramount to their concrete.
I spit my water when you flinched at the broken noodles...hahahahaha
Noodles...
Linguine i think?
that's how Metatron's wars begin usually. broken pasta.
send out the legions
@@realMaverickBuckley ya it looked to broad to be spaghetti.
@@maryhildreth754 Americans often call pasta noodles
I am not even Italian and I wanted to march (well roll; i am paraplegic) with the Roman Legions when I saw him break the spaghetti. "Let us March!"
Spaetzle (Spätzle) is from Swabia, a region once called Agri Decumates and occupied by the Romans.
The Chinese dynastie made Noodle-Soup and the Arabs also made some sort of noodles.
My thesis is that Rome picked up the Noodle-Making along the way, from other cultures.
So i think the German-Swabian Spaetzle may have been inspired by the Pasta from abroad.
@@germaniatv1870 perhaps....
you can ride the catapult, if you want to of course.
@@germaniatv1870 Cuisines evolve. Things like cocoa, chili peppers, and corn all came from the Americas and didn't reach the rest of the world until ~500 years ago. But that's irrelevant to how the cuisines of various cultures all over the world developed since then.
Most people today would think chili peppers are a staple of Thai and Indian dishes -- and that is correct, but not until relatively recently in their cultural history. And in Taiwan, varieties of the sweetsop are so popular that many locals would be surprised to know it never grew there until quite recently. That of course doesn't take anything away from its meaning to the current culture.
I would rather be Polish.
In 1978, my physics instructor was one of the key players on STURP, John Jackson. He gave us a pretty good lecture on his return from Italy including his own slide show. The 3 key findings that stuck with me are the 3D information in the image, the presence of blood, and the absence of paint or any other substance to make the image. As Capt Jackson would say to us, if it isn't the burial cloth of Christ then we have a much bigger mystery.
You should look intk that claim of blood. There are two sets of ideas on this. One of the was from the guy they hired to do the tests. He was hired because he was the primary expert on the subject. He said he found no blood but he did find glue, of the same type used in paints in the Renaissance, along with pigments.
Of course, Sturp said there was blood and rejected his findings.
I wonder why...
Leonardo Da Vinci, his face photographed onto the cloth. The cloth itself is far older than the image DaVinci added onto it. Not a miracle, just very early technology. Created in the basement level of the Vatican for Pope Leo the 10th.
I can make a picture with a piece of charcoal. Or a piece of ochre. Or lead. Or several other organic or mineral pigments that are not paint and leave a residue that technically is 100% natural, easily found in environment.
@@FrikInCasualMode There is no material present other than the linen. And can you make a picture with 3D information encoded? Probably not.
@@harolddoe6453 HOW the image is made is a mystery all its own.
Why Metatron is so upset when people believe it is the burial Shroud of Christ and venerate it as such is a mystery to me as well.
Some Christians have venerated all kinds of things in every age.
Why be offended by this?
Agnostic here. No "dog in this fight" but if genuine, the most amazing aspect of the shroud would be that we have a photograph of Jesus. Pretty cool, no?
Just a question. Would you believe if it was real? Wouldn't it mean the Jesus rose from the dead? Thanks
If its real it provides significant evidence to the resurrection.
Thank you for sharing that you're an agnostic--- now I can go to bed knowing you have no bone in this 'fight'.
jesus didnt even look like that. agnostics are fence sitters and cowards. you are ready to jump fences whenever there is a slight evidence (there was never an evidence for religion to be true)
He didn't want His image to be recreated, would you like to know why?
21:30 Another major factor he didn't mention about the C14 testing, was that the scientists didn't get to choose the location of the sample. They originally wanted a few different locations and we denied, then they wanted a few samples from the same local region of the cloth and were denied again. The authorities didn't want any more material loss, or potential future material loss, from the regions suggested because they were worried about the damage it would do to the cloth with time.
Right? It's such a dishonest argument that "the scientists chose bad samples". It was the church who limited the number and size of the samples and made sure they didn't cut anywhere near the important parts. I mean, it's relatable from their pov but still, it's dirty to make it a point to lay this at the feet of the labs.
@@mnk9073 Well it actually goes even deeper. So they do talk a little about this a little later in the video, but it's at that point that Breault's personal politics and beliefs come out. This video makes him seem like he's quasi-neutral on the topic or that he's all about the reliability of the data...and that's a lie. Anyone who follows him knows that he believes the Shroud is real, and he's strongly feels there's an effort to deny it's real in the scientific community. He makes it pretty clear that he interprets the released data as' proof' the accepted data is wrong, they knew it was wrong, and they intentionally left out data in order to drive a narrative. He is free to believe that, but that's not what the majority of the scientific community says or thinks about that released information. I mean think about it...if that actually did or does what he says it does...then how do you think both the scientific and religious world would react? This would not have been some minor thing that got ignored or swept under the rug. There would be demands to rescind the data, the papers, the articles, the awards....everything that has been done in the name of the work done by them. There's nothing more science, or scientists, loves to do than to prove another wrong and eat them alive in the process......and that hasn't happened nor has anyone even suggested it. Why? Cause the released information doesn't indicate what he said it does, that's only a minority's interpretation. What happened is the missing part only affirmed the known issues that were already known about and reported on. Nothing was refuted, altered, updated, proven/disproven, or even suggested. Now in fairness, I do agree with him that we need more samples and research, but that's not up to us at this moment.
Didn't they later discover that the samples taken were from the edges, an area that was repaired/added onto the damaged cloth in the middle ages? I think this is mentioned in a book by Barrie Schwortz.
@@sebastianf3861 Not later, the repairs were well known beforehand. The church has pretty complete records of everything that happened to the shroud after the 14th century. Also, given how all samples were cleaned under a microscope where the original Herringbone-like weave is clearly visible and easily distinquished from the medieval weave pattern it's an error that could not have happened. The scientists even remarked on this given that the control samples they were given were in a different weave pattern so everyone instantly knew which the real samples were.
@@sebastianf3861 Hello there, yes..the sample came from the outer edges. And the original scientists were unhappy about this also for all of the reasons that everyone is talking about. They knew the single sample was not the best option, but it was their only option for a sample. Now in this video he says they (the scientists) ruined the sample by taking one sample, and dividing it into three (as if that was the wrong thing to do). What he didn't say, and this is kind of a big deal here, is that not only was it the right thing to do, but it was the required thing to do. That's what science does even today when we have only a single sample. They divide it in order for multiple testing to be done to it. Yes, it's not ideal, but it gives a level of agreeability to what the single sample is indicating. So it's not honest, or fair, for these two to say that was bad science or the wrong thing to do. It was actually what was required of them to do at the time. Also, when they were originally given permission to take samples, they were given permission before the details of where and what size were really decided. Then the authorities decided, and denied, the samples they wanted to take. So so they tried again and that request was denied also. The authorities/church basically said if you are going to have any samples, then they must be a small sample taken from the outer regions. And after they agreed to that, that's when they were told what region they could take it from. They didn't decide anything. They were allowed to, and did.
Love that you came back to this subject for an update!
I'm sceptical of the shroud myself and I haven't watched the whole video yet but I already left a like just because of your honest disclaimer at the start about your own potential biases. I have a lot of respect for such honesty. It's the first time I actually believe that a youtuber really just wants to learn more about a topic and share it even if it doesn't align with their personal beliefs
Are you skeptical because you are an atheist.
The guy makes good videos!
I trust his analysis more than anyone on the internet. We all have biases but M. Does everything he can to refer to ancient sources followed by reasonably triangulated conclusions and his knowledge of languages is truly astounding.
And you don't have any biases?
Agreed, we all have things going on in our head and can appreciate someone stating up front what their biases are. It really sets the tone and allows the viewer to understand. That he’s critical of the way people present their evidence, and doesn’t state their conflicts up front, is a good thing from my perspective. Will any of this make me religious, no but it’s a very interesting piece of history and learning new things is always interesting.
It doesn't affect my faith either way, but I'd like to think it was legit. That would just be cool.
I agree, it would be an amazing testament to God's power to preserve holy things, and I would it to be real in that sense.
But I try not to go searching for signs, so if it is fake, it makes no difference to me because that doesn't effect the validity of the truth of Jesus.
😊
God bless
Im in the same boat as you guys.
Same. Cloth fades, creases, and rots. Christ is forever.
@@wesleyfilms Yes
The cloth belongs to Christ, and we all know it😏
I am an art Conservator and a researcher in cultural heritage field. I can confirm what Metatron suspected, that the analysis of the cellulose depolimerization degree is too linked to the aging condition for being relatable when speaking about dating an object. It is in fact not generally used this way, but only for assessing the conservation state of the object. It is a cumulative damage that cannot be repaired once happened (despite some promising new techniques) but the parameter can be influenced. Both negatively, for example by temperature and humidity fluctuations (fire is very damaging), light and chemical exposition. Both positively, and this is what we try to do with preventive conservation.
Excellent comment. Thank you! Cheers
When the spirits of Metatron's Italian ancestors all rose in protest at the breaking of that spaghetti 🤣
Omg yessss!!! Your previous video on the shroud is my favorite one out of the dozens of videos I've watched on it!!!
0:10 0:12 am not even Itlian and I felt that. I will write a book and called meinem spaghetti and start WWIII.
German?
@@joshuaschrader1061 Meine Spaghetti* failed grammar in school.
@martin22336 I was just commenting the "Meinem/Meine" being a German word when the catalyst was an Italian man getting triggered over the breaking of spaghetti. It would stand to reason your manifesto would be "Mio Spaghetti" for sake of context and continuity. I got the joke you were trying to make, I was just ruining it. Although the last time the Germans and Italians were allied, there did end up being a war. So, maybe your joke still hits, albeit with a stretch.
@@joshuaschrader1061Mama Mia!
This is a bit off topic, but I think it's not a good thing in this modern age that you have to do a disclaimer whenever you react to someone's channel. If one cannot handle a criticism of any sort, or an honest disagreement of their position, maybe they should not present their ideas out there for the public. I admire your work Metatron and hope you keep up the good work.
I think it’s for the most part so people don’t start wars in their comment section, also there’s a lot of senseless hostility nowadays, it doesn’t hurt to declare ‘this isn’t a personal attack’ as absurd as it is that we even got to this point..
100% agree. Don't put anything on the internet that you don't want someone to comment on.
I think Metatron's point here was that he was not necessarily endorsing the other content on that channel. There is a tendency when you address a video in a channel for people to interpret your statements on that one video as being a judgement on the whole channel or that creator. So by featuring one video from that creator, it might seem like you endorse or condemn everything else. The disclaimer was that at time of recording he had not watched any other videos on that channel and had chosen the video because it was an interview with a scholar he was familiar with.
@@rifter0x0000I understand the reason why he does it, I just disagree with why he has to do it ..I'm not knocking him at all
Well said 👏
We are so spoiled with the daily uploads ♡ lo amo!
The *second* I heard about the "new news" was the second I started looking for you to put out a video addressing it.
I trust your opinion and I'm glad you made this.
As a Christian who has permanent knee damage from the constant sit, kneel, stand, kneel, sit, stand from growing up in a Roman Catholic family.. lol. I know this much about the Shroud and what it means to me. Humans should always have something that gives them hope and purpose to live their lives in a positive and uplifting way. If that means taking the Shroud as a "symbol" of hope, then I accept that. Remember, it is better to live your life loving and caring while looking forward to life after death in the Kingdom of Heaven than being nasty and angry at everyone and everything. Because if the day comes and there is no Heaven or Hell, at least I lived my life the best that I could and loved others.
What are you trying to say? That people can't study this cloth to determine how it was made? It is truly remarkable indeed and all evidence points to it being from the first century as other dating tests show that and the C14 testing was not representative. Nobody is forcing you to believe this image is really Jesus Christ. Don't worry.
As an atheist, I really respect that. There's others in this comment section spreading hatred and vitriol towards those they disagree with about the shroud, whereas at the end of the day, I believe your mindset is a much healthier and rightful one. Bravo, sir
Why do you need to believe in a piece of cloth to be a Christian? It's pointless, just stick to Jesus' teachings.
@@die1mayer I think the cloth is very remarkable and needs to be addressed for the purpose of academic certainty.
@@kowalskee360 Good that you said you're an atheist. That way we know you are better than those Christians.
Do the Dwarves have a Shroud of Durin? 🤔
It's in the museum, right next to the pile of deal elves.
It would be more believable 😂
If they do, it's made of beard hair.
@jamesmaybrick2001 The Soy is strong in you. I bet you were single mother raised.
No idea about dwarves, but there does exist a Cloth of Tuchin (aka "Tuchin Cloth") which is believed to preserve evidence of Jesus' final movements while on this earthly plane. It was found among the famed Dead Sea Rolls which were left in a stall by the Assenes along with graffiti suggesting that His final words were actually:
"It is *not* finished! (Until the 'paper-work' is done...)"
You’re a great and honest person. I love your content and how you present all relevant sides without taking a stance on one or another.
As a Christian, my faith is not dependent on the Shroud of Turin being authentic or not but I have the tendency to believe it is authentic. As for 1978 what fascinates me is that Barry Schwartz was part of that team, a Jew who became convinced it is authentic despite the carbon dating information. Barry Schwartz has a web site with the information he has garnered. So far no one has satisfactorily described how this shroud was imprinted. I find that fascinating.
As a Christian, have you read the Bible? I just found out it says Jesus was wrapped in narrow strips of cloth, not a sheet.
I love your Chanel !❤ I was raised a Roman Catholic so I am familiar with relics or all kinds.I have since converted to Methodist. I found the shroud to be an excellent source of study on Roman crucifixion, what my Savior went through.Needless to say it was DEEPLY disturbing and gave me a deeper respect for his suffering for me . Thank you for sharing!❤
When you really do a deep dive into the science already done with the Shroud, it's fascinating! I'm convinced it's 1st century from the environs of Jerusalem. But there were hundreds if not thousands of people crucified under Roman occupation, so for now we have no way to "prove" it's the Shroud of Yeshua bar Yosef. At the very least it's a grand puzzle for humanity. More please, Metatron!
But most of these masses of crucified people were not buried in Shrouds but then did not decompose in the Shroud, which was in turn preserved by people. Most of those crucified were not crowned with thorns.
But how many of them left a completely unexplained phenomena behind? I mean, yes, lots of people were crucified. But only one ever (evidently) credible person claiming supernatural abilities was.
Let me put it this way. If it wasn't Jesus...WHO WAS IT?!
The man is crowned with thorns and pierced at the side. Moreover he literally looks like Jesus. Let's stop this fake neutral mentality it's embarrassing.
I love the thought of the entirety of the Felix legion mobilizing against a single spaghetti breaking man.
Love this. Would love to see you discuss the face aspect of it in another video.
Hey there! Thanks for coming by! I probably will since this video is doing so well. Thanks for the suggestion.
stop promoting cigars man!
From what I understand, the 80s carbon dating study also took a sample from a section was repaired, and so it wasn't original.
It wasn't too long ago that I watched a documentary on this, and one of the bigger skeptics changed his position because it was confirmed under a microscope that the weave in the sample location had been repaired.
The sample location is the main sticking point. Whatever you believe, it's clearly very old and needs preservation. Based on what he said, I'm betting the best sample would probably be near the middle, and then you damage the artifact. So, at worst it's a guess. At best, it's a stark reminder of what the Lord went through.
The blood type was an interesting note; if you go look up most common Jewish blood type (of the period), that is a matching piece of information. 19:04
Italians and broken spaghetti go together like oil and water
Not all of us. I only raised an eyebrow... to Metatron's reaction.
and then there are people that put oil in their pasta water
@@notuxnobux Whatever for? Oil and water proverbially don't mix.
As an Italian, i agree.. but we do use olive oil with water when making pasta.
@@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 For "making" you mean... impastare, MAKING the pasta, right? No, because, if that's not it, what's the point of putting oil in the boiling water you cook pasta with? I am Italian myself and this is the first time I hear of it.
Apologies if this has been mentioned, but I wanted to share a book rec with my fellow Noble Ones. The book is called The Relic Master, by Christopher Buckley. It's about a Swiss mercenary vet-turned-relic hunter that forges a duplicate Shroud with his buddy Albrecht Durer (a fictionalized version of the famous painter) and shenanigans ensue. It's a light and fun story and has lots of history and interesting twists.
Just figured I'd give my 2 cents
Thanks!
Sounds like a fun premise. And Albrecht Dürer always rocks, no matter the context.
Thank you for the upload Brother! "Thou shall not judge!" to paraphrase Deuteronomy 1:17: "Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of anyone, for judgment belongs to God." This verse underscores the idea that while humans may judge, ultimate judgment and justice belong to God. Also: "Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1). This principle emphasizes empathy and understanding over condemnation. It’s a powerful reminder to look beyond the surface and seek deeper understanding in others.
So in understanding another consider this Brother: more irrefutable evidence that a cloth still in existence today that covered My Lord Jesus Christ of Nazereth may sway the atheist to believe that he exists & then go on to develop faith & a personal relationship with Christ!
Peace be upon you that read this! In Jesus Christ name! Amen!
Peace & Love!
Ive always thought the shroud was neat. Like, if its a fake thats a hell of a fake and I'm super curious how they made it.
If its real, i am even more curious as to how it occured.
Ive suapected it could be real ever since i was a kid.
Does it need to be real? No but it well could be
I feel that the evidence points more toward it being real than it being fake. It probably can't be proven 100% but I think it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
@@theblackspark2644 I certainly believe it's from the correct time period at a minimum. There's just no reason for a medieval forger to go to those lengths when people of the time would have no real way to check
@@hawkticus_history_corner there is a very long history of christians faking artifacts. like, a very long history.
@@hawkticus_history_corner The shroud as an historical artifact is unprecedented. There really is no other thing like it. The image on the Shroud should not exist, and with this new data, I am at a loss if it really is from the mid 1st century. The image on the Shroud should not be there. I'm an atheist and I want to just brush it off as a forgery, but really I cannot make sense of it. The whole thing scares me and I wish it didn't exist.
I’m an Atheist, and I still find the Shroud monumentally impressive!
Regardless of age, we still don’t know how the image was captured on it!
Christians & Atheists get so caught up in trying to prove or disprove it as a religious artifact, the brilliance of it gets overlooked!
It was made at a time when NO ONE would know for at least hundreds of years the amount of detail that would be discovered through negative photography.
I pose, that even with all of our technology now, no one could reproduce a forgery of it that is comparable & that alone should be reason for it to be admired.
Well, it's a bit of a miracle in that sense then, isn't it?
The thing that makes it seem like it's the burial cloth of Jesus is the nature of the image. It's properties are unique. How would anyone, even from 100 years ago let alone further back, make an image oxidating the outer atomic layers of a cloth giving 3 dimensional topographic data? It's these features which make it seem like a snapshot of the resurrection.
Considering:
1) No one knows how the image was made on the Shroud - it wasn't painted on, and it is only on the very tendrils of the threads, it isn't on the threads themselves, which is impossible for a human being to do, and
2) the image is in negative, centuries before anyone knew what a negative was, and it contains information to make a 3 dimensional image -
I believe the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of Christ. I believe the image was formed when God resurrected him. Whatever Holy Energy God used to bring Christ back to life left an imprint on the Shroud of Jesus' image. It is the only thing that makes sense to me.
Also bear in mind that the bloodstains on the Shroud match up so exactly with the Sudarium of Oviedo that the FBI using modern forensic techniques would say that they had both been wrapped around the same person. The Sudarium of Oviedo has been carbon-dated to the first century AD.
funny enough, the scientific community have actually agreed that Xray scattering examination is extremely inaccurate as a means to identify the age of something considering the fibers as he said will develop these breaks based on how much it was handled during its lifetime and was never utilized to identify the age of cloths and textiles. the Xray scattering is used to determine how often something was used not its age. a better determination of age is cloth weaving styles cloth is woven differently depending on the era it was woven in. for example the thread size as well as the dyes used in the thread which would narrow down the location of where it was made then identify the type of dye which would identify when it was made
The shroud has been hit with every type of aging metric and material analysis that exists. The xray stuff is just the latest round.
If you want details on the fiber analysis similar to what you mentioned, spectrometry or any material analysis you can think off you can look up Fr. Dalton. He presents all the science the shroud has been through over the decades.
Great and unbiased review of the latest research on the Shroud. Although I know that belief is a matter of faith in what is unseen, sometimes it helps ones faith to experience something that may support that faith, even if just a little.
If you look up "casus belli" in an italian dictionary, there will be a picture of two hands breaking spaghetti.
the fasces symbol from fascism is literally a bundle of spaghetti with an axe for self defense. Coincidence?
@@Christopher4700 I think not!
The tears of Italians add the perfect amount of salt to the water I use to boil my broken pasta.
Wow, how original..🤡
@@alessandrom7181Italians (I should say online Italians) do get cringey about about food.
Brutal
20:47 - Drives me nuts that all of these "experts" hardly ever mention the fact that the sample was taken from a portion of the shroud that had a new strip of material seamlessly weaved onto the outside edge. It doesn't even have the same weave pattern as the original part of the cloth.
It apparently is material used to repair it during the middle ages, hence the result from that C-14 dating.
0:15 I know how to break metatron and make him my puppet now! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :P
Italy: “Back off, he’s ours!”
Try it . We will deliver you and your family for the Metatron decimus MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
9:15?
@@Patrick_Bard no the intro wihich did happen later not sure that time.
Natural fibers do not look at all like spaghetti under the microscope.
They are drastically uneven, jagged, coarse, scaly, depending on the type.
I seriously have to wonder if that guy has ever even SEEN natural fibers, under a microscope.
Ever consider the supernatural? We are talking about the Son of Man here. ✝️
@@peanutbutterdijonnaise
The poster is correct, but what's that got to do with what spaghetti and natural fibres look like under a microscope?
@@peanutbutterdijonnaise So the cotton cloth was magically turned into polyester?
Doesn't seem likely.
Besides, he said that "fibers" look like something they do not. He didn't claim there was magical conversion to extruded nylon.
@KAZVorpal youre right, that peanutbutter guy is pretty stupid. But it's anyone aware of more tests being documented in the shroud?
@@peanutbutterdijonnaisenot sure if you are using sarcasm or not. In any event, some folks tend to rush towards the supernatural if they don’t understand the science.
That spaghetti breaking moment was comedy gold. Great video.
Yes, I heard of the repair theory. It was a while ago I heard of it but I think it happened.
I can’t remember where I learned but my understanding was that it was an early image. The time around 100bce. A room size dark room with a small hole for light to shine on the fabric. Then put whatever you want to image on the outside of the room.
Correct. The fabric is treated with an egg tempera and the camera obscura focuses an image (reflected off sunlight) that burns onto the cloth. When the tempera is washed off it leaves a scorched negative image on the cloth.
Nah it's blood fam
@@martinharris5017 The Camera Obscura wasn't known to or used by Europeans until 13th century (and even at that point, it was pretty obscure...[hehe]).
Both the vanillin content (lack of same, see Raymond Roger peer reviewed paper in the Chemistry Journal Thermochimica Acta 2005) and the X ray scattering indicate far older age than 13th century. You'll have to do better.
Also, that method does not produce as regularly fine/microscopic discoloration as found on the shroud. It looks ok from a macroscopic perspective. The only ones that produce an accurate image from both macroscopic and microscopic perspectives, are high intensity EM radiations like vacuum ultraviolet photons (from lasers), electrons from a corona discharge, etc. The flax linen fibers of the shroud are discolored only on a thousandths of scale of the diameter of the fibers (which are already fairly small and fine sized).
Absolutely love your channel I came for the shroud content and enjoying your critical thinking and approach .
I question the wear method of dating. Wouldn't the main cause of wear in any piece of cloth be handling. A bed sheet would be washed frequently and be rumpled during use. Certainly more than a shroud used once and moved occasionally. This shroud is known to have been handled for display hundreds of times.
Too many unknowns.
The wound in the side and the crown of thorns wouldnt have been regular features of other 1st century burial shrouds, methinks. Though I'm no antiquities expert.
Actually no, it's not common apparently. Remember the usual way of killing was to break the legs and that would cause asphyxiation as the legs would be used to push up to allow for chest expansion and inhalation. But guess what, we don't have other images! Only this one.
A shroud even surviving away from the buried body would also quite irregular.
@@peterc4082 Breaking the legs was a method to speed up the asphyxation process (as also stated in the gospels) if necessary - so it was not the usual way - but crucifixion lead to death by asphyxation in any case.
@@str.77 The guy above suggest that puncturing the lung to cause a hemopneumothorax was the usual way of killing. I responded that it apparently wasn't. Breaking the legs was the usual way to make sure the person on the cross was really dead.
@@str.77 Do you see images form on cloths nowadays? Human bodies don't leave begind images on cloths. Otherwise we'd have hospitals full of such images.
Don't overthink this.
I am impressed with your analysis of the report. Your information is very valid and clearly backed by good information. I appreciate the work you have done here.
I'm a Christian and really enjoy when Metatron talks about anything biblical related!
Ah yes. Finally he did it. He reacted to the spaghetti being broken. And he did the way I expected it.
Thank you for another great video! It's incredibly refreshing to see someone be upfront about their biases, and also make an honest effort to lessen their impact.
I also love that the tailored ads on your web search appear to be for role playing board games and fantasy maps. I would expect nothing less from you. It's very on-brand.
I do have to address one pet peeve of mine. Admittedly, it's INCREDIBLY pedantic, but I'm a pedant. I can't help it. "Fish gotta swim. Birds gotta fly." Anyway, at one point in the video, you say "over-exaggerated." That's kind of like saying that a meal is "over-burnt." It can be over-cooked, or burnt, but it can't be over-burnt.
When I found out last year, from a documentary, that it wasn't paint, I sobbed...
It meant that it was, **at least**, a real man who had suffered similarly to Jesus.
And when you find out how Jesus suffered, it can make you cry uncontrollably without tears!
over the history humans inflicted unbelievable amounts of suffering on uncountable fellow Humans... its history and "we made it Horrible"
Firstly, I respect everyones opinion, and im not trying to convince anyone of my own opinion on the Shroud. But, to me, the fact that the only way the image on the shroud could've only been produced is by a sudden burst of extreme bright light leaving behind a perfect photo negative of the person who buried, is proof that it was Jesus. Not only proof that it was Jesus, but proves his divinity, as well.
How?
@@Jafar545what human being do you know that can generate essentially a nuclear blast from their own dead body? The New Testament says that the guardians of the tomb were blinded by a bright light. The atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima left permanent images of people on the pavement of the city too.
@@bdjoliat This got to be some advanced level shitposting...
A nuclear blast would have vaporized the entire tomb, the "bright light" in the NT. is very clearly associated with a descending angel, and the "permanent images" in Hiroshima are quite different from whatever is on the shroud...
I hope this becomes a yearly series. This fascinates me.
Me too! And it also fascinates me how it brings out the brain-dead morons that will want to call the Shroud a fake. With all we know about it today! Mind boggling it is.
Hey! I am a Physicist and I have worked with WAXS a fair bit! I do not agree with the description of technique provided by the "Shroud expert" in this video, but with that said I have read the publication and the results deserve to be taken seriously. If you want to we can exchange some word on the matter!
I agree the method is less definitive than carbon dating; the breakdown of cellulose measured in this study is affected by humidity and temperature in a way a carbon dating is not. That is not to say the technique isn't very precise - it just isn't primarily used for dating, but rather crystallography and determining spacing on a molecular level. For instance the helical nature of DNA was determined using it. The technique itself is not particularly novel; just its application in this case. To give another example I have used it to measure the distance between smectite layers at a precision level corresponding to a single water molecule.
However the degree of aging would have the shroud be basically constantly wet in the middle of the Sahara for it to be only 700 years old and the fires it has been exposed to seem not to be a sufficient explanation as they tried to induce additional aging on another linen sample this way (the reason it doesn't age it is a fire makes for a low humidity environment). Its degree of cellulose breakdown seems very consistent with it being kept in Greece and Anatolia for the better part of 1200 years and in France/Italy for 700 years.
Edit: Silver can act as a catalyst of many chemical reactions and might be another thing that needs to be controlled for.
2nd Edit: It's definitely aliens!
How is it less precise than carbon dating? Especially in this instance. The cloth has been explosed to air for minimal hundreds of years, which means the system is as open as it could possibly get when trying to test for radiocarbon ratios. Especially given how easily nitrogen will seep out of a material when exposed to atmospheric conditions, especially one like flax. Which would 100% give a deflated age.
There's also the fact that the WAXS had a control to be tested against. We have flax fibers we know came from 1st century Judea, and the flax from the shroud matched them bout perfectly as anything could when both are compared under WAXS. There was no such control measures to be had when testing radiocarbon ratios.
It doesn't make sense to say radiocarbon measurements are more precise, as there are far more variables that are prone to fluctuating in radiocarbon ratios, than there are in WAXS as far fewer things can influence the breakdown of cellulose as opposed to influencing radiocarbon/nitrogen ratios.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Precision is the measure of how concentrated the results from measurements are and accuracy how well they correspond to/center in on the reality they are trying to measure over repeated measurements.
With humidity and temperature to account for in WAXS age measurement the lack of precision is not introduced by the WAXS itself to anywhere near the same extent as the model for cellulose breakdown accompanying it; 1 degree of temperature or 5% humidity changes the results enough that to my understanding this will be less precise than the measurement of the ratio of C-14 to C-12, even if said measurement should turn out to be less accurate in this case.
However while I know WAXS fairly well, but I will by no means claim to be an expert on radiocarbon dating so I will not arrogantly claim that there cannot be factors I am unaware of that can significantly skew its accuracy.
It is not entirely clear to me why loss of Nitrogen would be such a factor as AMS measures the ratio of C-14 to C-12. Labs that do radiocarbon dating can include a measurement of Carbon/Nitrogen ratios, but C-12 and Nitrogen are not taken to be the same when measuring the ratio of C-14.
C-12 and C-14 however would be lost at nearly identical ratios, though I will say that I can imagine later carbon sources especially soot with a higher ratio of C-14 than the linen itself skewing the results. If we allow ourselves to play with supernatural explanations then maybe radiation altering the C-14/C-12 ratio could be interesting to model.
@@holandreas you are right about the C14/ntorigen thing I think.
I had automatically went to the fact that the vast majority of radiometric dating methods require measuring the ratio of parent/daughter elements, but it seems that radiocarbon dating is an acception to that.
Never the less I would still submit that radiocarbon dating is not as accurate. Especially not at these relatively low timescales. Trying to get an accurate measurement of just down to the thousand year mark for a method that regularly comes with the margin of error of at least a couple of hundred of years in the best of cases is just by the nature of the beast never going to be super accurate in that situation. Not to mention there are still a great many problems with samples that are open systems in radiocarbon dating. Any measure of exposure to radioactivity can produce more C14 in the sample. Water will also be able to introduce it, or take it away in reasonably jight amounts. And ofcourse there's the elephant in the room about the shroud having some repairs done to certian areas, and being in a couple of fires.
As far as the WAXS method I think I would like to hear more in detail about why you think this individual instance would be less reliable than radiocarbon dating. Because yes the variables of tempurature, and humidity can make estimates vary, but the reason I found this instance of it so compelling is because we had a real world externally verified control sample to compare against. And that eliminates the vast amount of variability of those factors.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 I appreciate the honesty you brought to this and it is worth dwelling a bit on some of the points brought up!
I think I would like to read up more on how significant such sources of error may be in radiocarbondating before I make any too stubborn claims here. It is however definitely true that if the sample used in C-14 dating was to be from a site that has been repaired that would make it say very little about the true age of the shroud. It is also true that a sufficient exposure to radiation would skew this measurement. To my understanding the environmental conditions it takes to significantly shift the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in a sample are rather extreme and more reasonable to assume the absence of than factors that could accelerate the breakdown of cellulose, but it could be that I underestimate how much a linen like this can exchange carbon with its surroundings in a manner that alters its C-14/C-12 ratio (loss of carbon will likely not, gain of carbon will in sufficient amounts). I will look into that!
If it is shown with certainty that the area actually was just a repair then the old radiocarbon dating can be disregarded and then I would be more confident that the WAXS measurements paired with models of cellulose breakdown have the right age.
The WAXS measurement itself is likely a very good measure of the degree of cellulose breakdown in the shroud. In this regard the method is likely both very precise and accurate. However in the translation of this to an age the result of the method loses precision to the strong dependence on temperature and humidity. To phrase it a bit differently: this tells us very precisely (and accurately) to what extent the shroud's cellulose has broken down, but less precisely how that has happened. To my understanding the conditions that massively skew a radiocarbondating tend to be more extreme, as mentioned.
Still it is notable that it corresponds very well with it being stored in Mediterranean temperature and humidity conditions for 2000 years and also, as you bring up, that its results match that of another linen from that time well. However while that definitely is an addition that significantly strengthens the publication it doesn't mean that the cellulose breakdown in the two linens came about the same way. You could also conduct a radiocarbon dating of the other linen and have a similar control sample for that.
I didn't mean to say radiocarbondating is so superior that it shouldn't make us ask some questions that the measurements seemingly disagree as much as they do. However we must consider that it might be that something has rapidly increased its degree of observed aging too, not just what might have skewed a radiocarbon dating and then see what results we get trying to differentiate between the two. As it stands the newer of the two measurements is not as established of a method (that is to say WAXS as a step in measuring age rather than just WAXS itself which is very established) as the other and based of something that is very dependent on its environmental conditions and I feel I would need to see more evidence for one over the other before I would disregard a measurement completely.
In the study they bake a linen and see how this impacts measured cellulose breakdown and this seems to make practically no difference. I would like for this to be taken further, though: does silver catalyse the breakdown of cellulose in a linen? Does a wet linen experience a rapidly accelerated breakdown if heated?
On the other hand I would also like to see a proper confirmation that the C-14 sample actually was from the site of a repair, a test for isotypes that would collaborate a significant radiation exposure, or perhaps a demonstration that soot and oil really can skew the results as much as claimed.
I will also say that because the conclusion that this truly might be the authentic burial cloth of Christ is extraordinary it demands that we show caution. We also shouldn't discard the possibility and if a newer radiocarbon dating of a different part of the shroud was to show an older age or especially if say, that the shroud is found to display very clear signs of significant radiation exposure... well that will be found to have sigificance for many people reaching far beyond accurately dating a linen.
I tried, really tried to resist watching this video. But I couldn’t! I just value Metatron’s analysis too much to resist it. His willingness to admit his own bias is just the beginning of his commitment to finding the truth. Well done, as always!
22:10 he's bang on. It's VERY strong he's talking about the c14 ratios being higher cos of living people's sweat that litterally adds to the c14 content.
I am very interested in the Shroud of Turin and I particularly like your more secular outlook. But for the record, I think it is the burial cloth Christ.
For the record, all of us with at least average intelligence that have spent even as little as an hour on studying the Shroud of Tuin know that is the burial cloth of our Lord Jesus. 👍
I love how he went from being enthusiastic about the mention of pasta to cringing in sheer Italian horror when he revealed what he was going to do with it.
I watch you from time to time. I am not an uber Metatron fan or anything, you just cover stuff from time to time that I find interesting.
And during that I didn’t even realise you were religious. So obviously you do have religious bias, but you do a good job keeping it in check because I have never picked up on it. So good job.
This whole "Okay, so what about demons?" really took me off-guard after the entire rather reasonable scientific discussion.
I see no issues speaking of demons. If we're applying our reason to determine that Jesus is Real, and that logic turns one to believe that Jesus is Who He Claims to be, then that same reason must include Satan.
If Jesus rose from the grave then Satan is a thing that exists. Beyond our perception of course but demons are nonetheless as real as television signals. Can't see it, but they're still there.
*Happy Metatron noises at the mention of pasta.*
Dude: "...Fibers break..."
Metatron: "Don't do it."
Dude: "So, anyways... I break bundles of spaghetti."
*Metatron goes offscreen to either ask God to assemble the powers or punches a hole in his wall as he insults the dude's entire lineage.*
Dear Raffaello,
I would like to commend you not only for your excellent videos but also for your exquisite command of the English language.
For me, despite being a believing Catholic, the coincidence of the carbon dating age and the first historical records of the shroud is just too big to ignore. The first records are in the 1300s, the carbon dating age was late 1200s to 1300s. And that is known to be a time when pilgrimage was becoming a big thing, and many "relics" were created or were "found" to take advantage of it. Every abbey etc wanted something to attract pilgrims. I'm a little bit sceptical of the x-ray technique, it hasn't faced the rigorous tests that carbon dating has. Most of the inherent errors in carbon dating have been identified and corrected for. Carbon dating is unlikely to be far wrong in my opinion, although a sample from the centre of the cloth would be needed to settle it beyond doubt.
Good observation.
My skeptical ear caught something else in the comparative analysis using the x-ray scanning. They used carbon dating of samples to establish a trend line in an effort to debunk a carbon dated sample.
Either carbon dating works or it doesn't.
How did they produce the photo negative results?
Carbon dating is still a valid argument for forgery, although it needs to be clarified that obtaining a sample was not handled properly and at a very least it should be repeated with new samples.
As for the first records of the shroud dated to 1200s there is a simple explanation. If the shroud is genuine then it is very possibly the shroud of Constantinopole that dissapeared in the sack of the city in 1204 by crusaders. A lot of crusaders were french knights and one of them could have stolen the shroud and brought it back to France. That is why there are no records of shroud in Europe prior 13th century.
Yeah, but the argument against the carbon dating isn't of carbon dating itself, it's the accusation that their sample was contaiminated. That all they proved is that it went through a fire and needed to be repaired.
My biggest problem with the Shroud always was the excellent condition the fabric is in. I'd expect any fabric that old to at least have spots that had disintegrated. Since it was "rediscovered", it's been kept very carefully. But before it appeared in the 14th century, where was it?
This is fair. But it also makes sense to me that all the previous owners/caretakers would have also taken great care with it, considering what they believed it to be
That's is where you science and the divine align perfectly, ever heard of the incorruptibles.
Also have you ever heard of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano?
Ever heard of the Cloth that bears the image of our Lady of Guadalupe!
These are examples where science/biology gets suspended.
The shroud is not in excellent condition tho
While I agree, do keep in mind that parts of the shroud were repaired with new materials, as was stated in the video, after the fire damage
There’s a record from the 4th Crusade that it was taken from Constantinople,
“Among these there was a church called St. Mary of the Blachernae, where the Shroud was kept in which Our Lord was wrapped. Every Friday it was elevated all straight, so that it was possible to easily see the image of Our Lord.”
Unfortunately, documents from Constantinople would not have survived past its fall in the 15th century.
I do not think people worship the shroud, venerate yes, worship no. And I agree if one believes it would change their life dramatically. And finally - sometimes over-analysing stuff sucks the very life out of things. There are many ways to "know".
>>>>>>>> I'm not just the Ganja Kitty, I'm a medicinal plant biologist and ecologist, among other things >>> MY own cursory yet still fairly extensive study of the shroud and evidence for it leaves one thinking, if this wasn't some sort of supernatural event, then WHAT actually made it, because nothing makes sense.
Everything else points to the fact it is 2000 years old, and not only that, but from the month Jesus would have been killed.
SO if it is a forgery, its a 2000 year old forgery, that has never ever been replicated ever in terms of how such an image was made on a burial cloth.
Fact with me is, haven't seen a good explanation on how did they produce the negative imagine on the shroud and back in the period of time they said it was faked? Along with the fact the shroud was repaired after a fire and that was the piece that was sewed on that they carbon dated on purpose to create a false date on the rest of the shroud.
Look up what a Camera Obscura is and then look at how early photography worked.
There was a team in several years ago used high energy laser/light pulses to make a similar discoloration. I think it was in Italy but not sure.
They didn’t choose where to take a sample. The church did…
@@mnk9073 Huh? Not only does that fail to answer the question, it also does not match the atheistic argument suggesting the Shroud is an 11th century product, with 14th century paints.
For all the scientific scrambling to explain away a truly fascinating artifact, there’s some truly poor excuses out there that utterly fail in matching the historic record.
@@TheRestedOne It literally does if one could be bothered to do the reading themselves. But let me break it down for you: You have a dark room with a tiny hole in one wall through which sunlight projects the image of whatever is facing that wall outside, just flipped, through the wonderful "magic" of optics. Aristotle already wrote about it in the 4th century BC. Now silver nitrate stains saltwater soaked cloth a reddish brown when exposed to, you guessed it, sunlight. Meaning if you hang a saltwater soaked and silver nitrated coated piece of cloth on the wall in your dark room, let the little hole and sunlight do it's thing you get a upside down negative image of what was on the other side of the wall stained onto your cloth piece. It's basically a room sized Pinhole camera that can produce exactly the image as on the shroud.
Whether or not some overzealous or entrepreneuring spirit added human blood to it later is a question we'll never know...
Having taken a lot of interest in the Shroud over the years it seems it is generally accepted now that the area of the shroud that was carbon dated was not reoresentative. The sample came from a part that us known to have been repaired in the medievil period and had new threads woven in on the damaged part. Even the most skeptical scientist involved eventually wrote a letter admitting the dating could have been flawed. Apart from this no one can explain how the image was made...so there's your other challenge, prove how it was made! No one can !
You mean aside from the several people who have shown ways it could have been done?
Look, we have documentation from a few years after it first showed up where Catholic officials not only declared it fake, they named where it was faked and indicated the artist had admitted to faking it. The fact this is still being argued 700 years later is silly.
@@keith6706 how did they think it was made then? Every theory I have heard of has been debunked. The only final proof would be for someone to reproduce it, no one has.
For one, don't trust that Roman pagan Church, second wheres the proof of fakery.
There are no evidence of any repair. I don't know why are many people claiming so.
@@keith6706 don't trust the PAGAN Catholic Church, they are antiChrist.
I agree that the fires are a strong element of possible C-14 contamination in comparison with the handling of the shroud. Nevertheless, I also think that the exposure to candle fumes during centuries is also a strong possible contamination source.
Jesus’ dead body was wrapped, not in one piece of linen, but in multiple strips of cloth according to the Bible. His head was wrapped in a separate cloth. After Jesus was resurrected, one of his apostles came to the empty tomb and “saw the linen cloths lying there.” The Bible adds: “The cloth that had been on his head was not lying with the other cloth bands but was rolled up in a place by itself.”-John 20:6, 7. The shroud is a single cloth measuring 442 by 113 centimeters (14 ft 6 in. by 3 ft 8 in.) plus an 8-centimeter (3 in.) strip sewed lengthwise. The shroud contains markings presumed to be bloodstains from an unwashed corpse. The Bible says: When Jesus died, his disciples prepared his body “according to the burial custom of the Jews.” (John 19:39-42) This custom included washing the corpse and applying oils and spices to it before burial. (Matthew 26:12; Acts 9:37) Therefore, Jesus’ disciples would have washed his body before wrapping it in cloths. So you can't believe that the Bible is authentic and that the The Shroud of Turin is authentic at the same time.
Thanks for your input.
This is very informative and accurate
If there was blood on the body it would be dried blood. I wonder how that would affect the transfer on to the cloth.
A second point.
Why does the cloth only have information from the front of the body. Even if the cloth was not as close to the body at the sides, I'd expect a gradual fading of the image. As example, the legs. They end abruptly as seen from above instead of completely capturing the sides or fading out.
I don't believe that John's account is factual but it should reflect burial practices. It's hard for me to believe that they got Jesus' body from the authorities, which i doubt they did in the first place, and didn't wash the blood off.
That is very well said Christians cant have it both ways
sola scriptura
The argument about the sample is an bad faith argument. They were only allowed to take sample from where they were told by the holders of the shroud. I'm sure they wanted to take more and take them from other locations but couldn't.
They were allowed to take samples from other areas of the shroud but decided, for reasons we can only speculate about, not to include them for analysis. Barrie Schwortz mentioned this several times in his videos.
@@timelord5920 I have no idea who Barrie Schwortz is and haven't watched his videos. As you said "reasons we can only speculate about" I can assume until I'm done researching that they were told not to take more or not to take them from other places. Honestly I could even understand that as you wouldn't want to inadvertantly damage the item.
Heat exposure at moderate temperatures overtime has a lesser effect on degradation than high heat exposure over a much shorter duration of time!
I attended a Catholic grade school, and was always wildly intrigued and interested in the Shroud of Turin. I checked out that one book about it, dozens of times just to look at the pictures. The stigmata wounds are perfectly placed. I am an agnostic, yet the infinite number of mysteries Christianity/Catholicism offers, is to compelling to ignore.
Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Medjugorje visions were favorites of mine growing up. I was able to see one of the statues of Mary that wept blood. The latter of the visions, was especially interesting, as the children would fall into a trance while praying, and became impervious to outside stimuli(prick them with a needle/no reaction). And then you had the SECRETS that the Pope was supposed to reveal to the world, Mary’s final secret at the end of the millennium. It was deemed to “dangerous” by the papacy.
EXORCISMS………YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST CREATE A SERIES!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s an incredible topic to research, and tend to think your scholarship would be top notch, as long as you relinquish ALL of your religious beliefs, biases, tenets, ideologies, etc.
Your views would be astronomical as well. And we a are coming up on 🎃……….
Go to bed man, and don't post while drunk.
Coming up with a new method of dating fabrics and applying to the shroud is absurd. Any dating technique must be tested over and over and correlated with other trusted dating methods, including historical dates.
Yep. The only people who are taking the method seriously are Christians. C-14 is highly accurate.
I’m an atheist and I’m very interested in others opinions. I find your honesty and integrity wonderful 🤟🏼
Are you aware of the Sudarium of Oviedo? It was the cloth put on Jesus while he was on the cross when he passed away. And then was taken off before the Shroud of Turin was placed. How do we know that Jesus touched this cloth. there's about 120 blood points that match up with the Shroud. And the blood type on both cloths are AB positive.
Exactly! It was wrapped around his head after he died but was still on the cross and after he was brought into the Tomb it was removed and set aside. Jewish law stated that anything with the blood of the deceased on it has to be buried with the body so that is why it was found along with the Shroud after he was resurrected.
Pure Sindonology fantasy. Not one verse supports what you and beverlyhurd8556 are claiming.
There are more details in a video presentation/description and comments clicking icon W to the left-top of this comment.
@@wipo3654 LOL ! LOL ! ROFLMAO!
@@beverlyhurd8556 also they couldn't wash the body since the next day was the Sabbath, so they where rushed. Which, makes sense of why there is blood on the turin.
@@jeffreyerwin3665 That boy Wipeo loves to make a fool of himself more than anyone on this planet! No matter how many times we prove him wrong he comes back again and again to look worse and worse! No doubt that he is just ate up with self-hatred. Sounds like a major case of it too!
As a Christian, I always held the position that the Shroud was an absolute fake/forgery until I watched your previous video on it. Really great work!
For those with faith, no evidence is necessary.
For ardent skeptics, no evidence is sufficient.
My big question is how anyone could prove that the Shroud had anything to do with Jesus of Nazareth, even if it is a completely authentic 1st century Judean burial shroud
Well, a proponent of the validity of the shroud being the burial cloth of Jesus would say that the marks on the cloth matched the wounds consistent with crucifixion and with a wound to the side which was described in the gospels. Even if that is true it still could be a shroud from another random 1st century person who was crucified and poked in the side with a spear. The Romans crucified a lot of people in the 1st century.
Could be the guy nailed up next to him and nobody will ever know 😮
Except that the image on it is a perfect photo negative and not made via pigment or bodily fluid. The best we can figure is that it was barely singed into the fabric -- and by barely, I mean micro millimeters. The closest we've come to making similar markings is pointing a fairly gentle laser at fabric for several hours.
That would seem to point to there being some very strange stuff happening to make it. Whoever the guy on it is, it's not just some random Joe.
@@JP2GiannaT So to be more blunt about it, the markings could be from a type of radiation that emanated from the body of Jesus during the process of his resurrection, correct? Anything’s possible but I don’t think we’ll ever know.
@@catmonarchist8920The crown of thorns is pretty unique, though...
Many don't realize that there is another piece of garmet that ties in with the shroud, the headpiece - the blood splatter matches exactly to the shroud. This would be the piece of cloth that they use to cover the victim's face during the transportation to the tomb and not the full burial cloth that would later be used to wrap the body of the deceased as per tradition.
As for the shroud - I agree with everyone that it being real isn't important to Christians hwoever it *IS* important because it is our first physical proof of a supernatural event that cannot be explained which many aethists and skeptics have a hard time believing in the because of the supernatural element of it. So having something that not only is supernatural but ties itself to not just the Bible itself but Jesus himself is extremely important despite how some wish to brush away it's importance.
Can't it be all of the above without any of the supernatural pretext?
🙄 It isn’t proof of anything but artistry. A shroud wrapped around a body would cause the image to be distorted. You zealots really can’t think realistically.
@@bdawg-qj9bq Isn't it rather you who dogmatically rejects any piece of evidence. The shroud is there and it is not a painting nor is any other way of producing it known.
And yes, of course the image is distorted. The man you see on the Shroud (whoever he is) would have looked a bit differently if he was standing before us.
@@moonrisestudiosco What do you mean by pretext?
@@moonrisestudiosco It can't. We can't replicate the shroud even with modern technology, and the image was created by a bright light. There is no explanation except the resurrection.
I am not an expert in Carbon Dating but I do have degrees in Physics and Chemical Engineering. I believe the shroud itself, not just the sample, was contaminated by more recent carbon particles, mostly during the fire. Hence the half-life of the C14 isotopes of the homogenized sample that was tested does not reflect the age of the cloth. This was the first thing I thought when I read about the C14 evaluation. I don't know if individual carbon atoms can be evaluated, but a study of several atoms and a statistical analysis of the results would be the only way to have a trustworthy C14 analysis.
There are videos here debunking that.
The amount of new carbon from the fire compared to the first century carbon should have been around 80% of the total against 20% of the original in order for the C14 dating to give the 1300's results. And that's after cleaning the cloth (because the didn't just cut the sample and put it in the machine, you know...). The shroud would have looked black.
If the Shroud is real, I predict that any and all scientific analysis will be inconclusive.
In sacred scripture, and traditional theology in general, faith is considered a virtue. God has expressed his appreciation of faith, and encouraged it in the Bible. He offers us signs of his existence and work, but he doesn't force us to believe in them. As such, considering God as a free agent with free will, I predict he would typically decline to cooperate with scientific studies; that is, he wouldn't interfere with the experiments, or wouldn't cooperate with them the way, say, a pound of sodium would - because sodium has physical properties that just automatically happen. God, meanwhile, has the ability to say, "nah, I'm sitting this out," and then he does nothing.
So, if God values faith - that is, the ability to believe without evidence - then he would not deny his creations the chance to have faith. So, for this reason, if the Shroud was fake, we would have definitive evidence of that; but if it were real, and God values faith, then he wouldn't interfere with our ability to have faith by giving us concrete, visible evidence of his existence. So the Shroud would inevitably defy scientific study, rendering all examination inconclusive; thus the mystery remains intact, and the doorway to faith remains open.
Of course, that's only a theory; God has a habit of defying expectations.
Was gonna point this out as well. Well done.
Faith isn’t about believing without evidence. Faith is about placing your trust in the evidence.
Faith simply means trust, and either you believe the evidence and place your trust in God or you don’t and place your trust in other things.
@@jarlwilliam9932 A fair point; complete trust was the definition I found when I looked it up. Nothing to do with evidence, though.
That said, I have heard it defined both ways.
@@jarlwilliam9932 I agree with this. God has given us evidence throughout all of recorded scripture. The only time faith, in the sense of believing without evidence, has been required were after evidence had been given at a previous point in time ex:
God led the people out of Egypt, He showcased His power and sovereign control of nature and how He would use that power to the benefit of Israel, His bride. Then when the people came to the promised land He asked them to trust that He would continue to do this and work in their favor as they waged war to have control of the land. The pattern was given previous evidence -> trust in what has been revealed.
That's just the one off the top of my head, but Jesus would be another example, He performed great things and was glad when people put their faith in that. He performed the miracles so that we (fleshy, physical beings) would have something to trust in as He said (paraphrasing) "If you believe not in Me, at least believe in the works I have shown you"
My biggest problem always boiled down to the lie of free will. God gives you free will, but then expects blind faith. So if you attempt to use free will and expect some kind of logical proof, you're damned. But he's all loving. All powerful. He gave you free will and the ability to use reason and logic, but expects you to have "faith" and just believe. And he expects your worship. Why give free will if for no other reason than to play a twisted kind of mind f*ck game on your creation?
And the whole thing about holy relics goes against faith. If you have faith, why do you need a piece of cloth to prove something to you?
Spaghetti gets snapped.
Roll willpower if you have Italian on your character sheet.
It's not willpower it's constitution, it breaks your heart not you mind
Questo e vero!
@@tipemotions i still failed the roll-
Even the Greek in me got pissed, purely for their fellow Roman
This is my first time finding you and I'm only 7 minutes in and wow, how perfectly said.
I usually agree with you, however, I believe the Shroud is what it is purported to be, an image of Jesus's Resurrection. Not because what I hope for but because of the scientific evidence. If in fact it does capture the moment of Jesus's resurrection then it would be a way to share the Christian faith to a generation who seem to focus on a visual understanding of the subject being discussed. As a Protestant Christian I worship Jesus and not anything that could become a physical item as idol to worship. So I do think it is relevant if it is considered to a very high degree to be the burial Shroud of Jesus. Faith is the bedrock for Christianity. With much Respect.
Exactly. Christians don't worship idols & statues, nor do we call pastors Holy Father & Mary the "Mother of God ". At least we didn't as Lutherans. That's a Vatican thing.
"I believe the Shroud is what it is purported to be, an image of Jesus's Resurrection. Not because what I hope for but because of the scientific evidence."
the resurrection of the g0d (or of g0d junior) is a magical claim. A deity did it in the st0ry, and our species has never seen any deity, let alone a magically active one. Worse: we still do not know, and the g0d fans still cannot or would not describe, what the g0d even is.
scientific evidence in 2024 COULD lead us to a very identified dude executed by the Romans. And it does not. Beyond that, scientific evidence is not even possible in this topic. No g0d defined, no testable claim about magic, so yes: You believe this exactly because the stuff you hope for.
of course, if the shroud is older than previously thought, then it is older. Just an example where science could lead us: If we one day find an execution log about a yeshua, and IF we (with crazy-precise methods) date the shroud to the exact day of that execution, we will know that the shroud was made on that very day. One of the many things made on that day. Even if this high precision archeology happens, a few billions unindoctrinated humans still won't have any clue what to think of when a fan of a deity mentions a deity.
I saw a video yesterday of a guy trimming his spaghetti with a pair of scissors at the restaurant while he visited Italy. Everyone in the background was horrified. Then he put the ice cubes in his glass of wine and a waiter promptly confiscated his beverage while wagging his finger disapprovingly.
I saw a video of a dude slipping on ice for ages, just running in place slipping repeatedly upright, it was great.
That's... That's all I got.
I don’t think doing a carbon dating would be any better. My concern is did the fire that burnt the Shroud, did that contaminant the fabric, they smoke would have permeated through into the fabric 24:25 thank you
The Shroud of Turin is a real wrap star, but if Metatron could weigh in, he’d probably say it’s a bit of a “holy sheet” situation!
I slightly resent that I laughed at this...
hahahaha. That was wonderful :) thanks for that