- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Has the Shroud of Turin been proven authentic?
Posted on 12/20/15 at 9:02 am to Mo Jeaux
Posted on 12/20/15 at 9:02 am to Mo Jeaux
They have not been able to prove it or disprove it, which should raise an eyebrow because if it is a fake, the methods used have been able to stymie modern methods of detection.
Methods that the authors of such fakery couldn't possibly anticipate,
Methods that the authors of such fakery couldn't possibly anticipate,
0
Posted on 12/20/15 at 9:03 am to ChineseBandit58
I found The Jacques DeMolay hypothesis interesting but it's pretty much been discredited.
This post was edited on 12/20/15 at 9:04 am
Posted on 12/20/15 at 9:23 am to EyeTwentyNole
quote:
I'm confused, how is pollen evidence that a man rose from the dead and floated up to heaven?
It points to it having originated in Israel, not in medieval Europe.
Posted on 12/20/15 at 9:27 am to Rex
quote:
The Shroud dates from 1260 to 1390 AD. That's what SCIENCE still states. LINK
quote:
Rex
Provides link to a site decicated to making everything secular, thinks it's a credible unbiased scientific resource entity
Posted on 12/20/15 at 9:27 am to Rex
quote:
All attacks on the accuracy of the carbon dating have been discredited.
nobody questions the accuracy of carbon dating.
the question is whether or not the sample tested was representative of the entire cloth. It is known that repairs to the shroud were made in the middle ages. It is also known that it was this section from which the test sample was taken.
Has the latter statement been refuted? Are you saying that the sample tested did not have any medieval repairs done on it? That it was a pristine sample of the entire shroud??
Posted on 12/20/15 at 9:34 am to The First Cut
quote:
Rex
==============
Provides link to a site decicated to making everything secular, thinks it's a credible unbiased scientific resource entity
yeah - I read that also. Not a credible assertion made in the entire writeup. I think Rex is slipping. Normally his references are a little more solid than this. This was just biased reaction.
Posted on 12/20/15 at 10:39 am to ChineseBandit58
Again, how is that evidence of a man rising from the dead. Christianity preaches faith faith faith but Jesus left behind actual physical proof of his body magically zapping through his burial shroud and coming back to life? Sometimes I can't believe that the same people who snicker at something like the idea of life elsewhere in the universe will hit their knees at the site of a Dorito that appears to have a bearded dude on it
Posted on 12/20/15 at 11:01 am to EyeTwentyNole
Every subculture has it's share of people on the fringe. Do you really think that the Jesus on a Doritos chip crowd constitutes a majority of people with faith? Do you really think that because this fringe group exists it precludes faith?
The shroud isn't evidence that anyone rose from the dead, nor is it evidence that it didn't occur. What is your point?
The shroud isn't evidence that anyone rose from the dead, nor is it evidence that it didn't occur. What is your point?
Posted on 12/20/15 at 11:40 am to mpar98
Pretty much
Posted on 12/20/15 at 11:42 am to Rex
quote:
The Shroud dates from 1260 to 1390 AD. That's what SCIENCE still states
false
Posted on 12/20/15 at 11:52 am to Choctaw
Posted on 12/20/15 at 12:50 pm to Mo Jeaux
Posted on 12/20/15 at 2:45 pm to The First Cut
My point is that of all possibilities, that piece of cloth showing an image left by a man rising from the dead is the least likely and most ridiculous.
Posted on 12/20/15 at 2:58 pm to EyeTwentyNole
The science is far from conclusive.
For example, these researchers believe it dated from the first century AD, and that Jesus was dead by contemporary standards and comatose by modern standards:
LINK
I'm not endorsing or opposing any particular link, just further illustrating that the best qualified experts can't reach a consensus. No matter what it is, it's a mystery.
For example, these researchers believe it dated from the first century AD, and that Jesus was dead by contemporary standards and comatose by modern standards:
LINK
I'm not endorsing or opposing any particular link, just further illustrating that the best qualified experts can't reach a consensus. No matter what it is, it's a mystery.
Posted on 12/20/15 at 3:19 pm to blueboy
quote:
It's been proven to be a hoax.
That's what I thought at first too. But the funny thing is, it's true. The dark side. The jedi. It's real. All of it.
Posted on 12/20/15 at 3:37 pm to EyeTwentyNole
quote:
My point is that of all possibilities, that piece of cloth showing an image left by a man rising from the dead is the least likely and most ridiculous.
Would you care to proffer another possibility???
Should be easy for you, amirite?
Posted on 12/20/15 at 4:04 pm to ChineseBandit58
None of you have yet to explain why the image on the Shroud has a too-short torso, a too-big head, too-long arms and too-long legs. A man walking on the streets with those proportions would be gawked at as freakish.
Also, the face image lacks wraparound distortion, the rectangular shroud contradicts Jewish burial tradition of the time which used two separate cloths for the body and the head, the shroud contradicts the Biblical description of Jesus's burial cloth, the Shroud is composed of a fabric weave that didn't exist in Jesus's supposed time... and on and on and on.
Just looking at the damn thing shows it's obviously fake.
The "carbon copy test was made on a 14th century patch" excuse was soundly disproven by the scientists I linked.
There is absolutely zero rational reason to believe the Shroud is authentic.
Also, the face image lacks wraparound distortion, the rectangular shroud contradicts Jewish burial tradition of the time which used two separate cloths for the body and the head, the shroud contradicts the Biblical description of Jesus's burial cloth, the Shroud is composed of a fabric weave that didn't exist in Jesus's supposed time... and on and on and on.
Just looking at the damn thing shows it's obviously fake.
The "carbon copy test was made on a 14th century patch" excuse was soundly disproven by the scientists I linked.
There is absolutely zero rational reason to believe the Shroud is authentic.
Posted on 12/20/15 at 4:06 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Would you care to proffer another possibility???
I'll do better than that. I'll give you the REALITY. Somebody from 1260-1390 AD painted an image on cloth with red ochre and vermillion tempera. That's what the science tells us.
Posted on 12/20/15 at 4:15 pm to mpar98
Do your own research on the Shroud 2.0 APP.
Post your results here.
Thanks.
Post your results here.
Thanks.
Posted on 12/20/15 at 4:37 pm to Rex
quote:
Somebody from 1260-1390 AD painted an image on cloth with red ochre and vermillion tempera.
Totally absurd.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News