WTF is this?

livescience.com/63093-shroud-of-turin-is-fake-bloodstains.html

Attached: 1531175823497.jpg (605x808, 90.49K)

Attached: Capture.PNG (639x256, 50.48K)

That's the journalist.
This dead eyed fellow's one of the researchers.

Attached: devilman.png (670x312, 135.07K)

Whether the shroud is real or not is of no consequence to the faith.

Not that it's not important, but that isn't an argument against the piece itself, since it appeals to the work of forensic scientists.

Why couldn't the body have been moved multiple times, smearing the blood in multiple ways? I'm not saying this is a knock-down objection, I'm legitimately asking. The actual paper he's referencing is behind a paywall.

Attached: turin.png (1292x8757, 3.91M)

Faggot looks like a satanist

*citation needed

And yes, the body manhandled off the cross, moved a considerable distance, and came back to life days later. I don't know how many old crime scenes they're comparing that last part to.

...

t. fedoralord

A giant nothingburger
Quite literally the shittiest experiment ever. Any goober with an ounce of common sense can tell you that bleeding from a spear wound and having fake blood dribbled on your chest is going to produce very different stain patterns. Not only this but Christ's Body could have been wrapped in the shroud while being transported to his grave, so if the corpse was turned over a few times in transit it would allow the blood to flow in different ways.

Shhhh!
We're not allowed to question the secular (godless) narrative.

Master of Arts is merely the degree title. The question is: mastering the art of what? Science Journalism?

This, and the obsession and worship with the shroud lends me, plus demonic lies or demonic trickery aside, Jesus wasn't wrapped in a single shroud but strips or groupings of linens.

Pretty sure you're supposed to worship Christ, not a piece of old fabric.

You think?

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 104.3K)

We're not worshipping the shroud, we're simply claiming that it is the shroud that covered Jesus when he was taken down from the cross and put in his tomb. These "scientists" didn't even do a very good test and left out a lot of variables that could have easily been there.

Come on, user, you're better than this

Attached: did-you-need-something-else.jpg (1600x900, 165.92K)

What an idiotic comment, we all know that. Quit trying to act more righteous than everybody else.

It helps with those who need a little more convincing of Christ's existence. Faith alone is great, but not everybody is won by that unfortunately. We're lucky we even have the shroud.

Its also nice to know what Christ looked like, he truly looks like a king. The lion king lol

The way you retards dismiss a great relic as demonic lies is perverse

matthew 27:59
john 20:7
First there were indeed multiple peices of "linen clothes" which were "wrapped together" unlike how the shroud was found. Second there is no water blood as spoken of in john 19:34 on the cloth, only red blood. Third the place they found it isn't the biblical jerusalem but rather (((modern day babylon))) because of jeremiah 27:51/hebrews 9:4, revelation 18:23, and revelation 17:18.

What is the argument against the claim that Jesus's face should be distorted if the shroud was actually placed against his face?

Because the linen cloths Jesus was wrapped in aren't one peice like the shroud is. So His head wouldn't have been in the top of the one peice, but rather in another peice which is conviently missing from the explanation the scientists give as to why it might be the same cloth Jesus was wrapped in.

Given the properties of the shroud it is more likely that your interpretation of a couple verses the authors did not give much importance to is wrong. There is just no way the shroud is fake considering its properties, but it is very frequent that people overanalyze verses.

Such as being found in (((babylon))) and not having the water AND blood that Jesus came by on it, but only the blood? I am taking the Bible literally and accounting for all it's truth in my interpretation. The linen clothes were seperate peices unlike the shroud.

Couldn't they just stick a ziplock bag or something full of synthetic blood inside the mannequin and then puncture it with a real spear? Pressing a sponge against its side is a terrible simulation of a spear wound.

>the place they found it isn't the biblical jerusalem but rather (((modern day babylon)))
You do know the Shroud is in Turin and not Rome right?

Attached: Shrek 1.png (1600x900, 2.09M)

I am taking the Bible literally, which includes the literal fact that any mention of shrouds etc is not detailed and has no importance.

The shroud fits perfectly every wound and thing Christ went through, and has a picture that hasn't been reproduced to this day. The idea that it is false is wildly absurd. You can check more detailed here

There is a reason why there are still many studies abotu the shroud: because your little verses are not anything conclusive, you just want to see something in them that isn't there, so that you can rule out the shroud as true. Sadly for you, there is no way anyone with half a brain will just swallow your excuses.

This isn't solid science. I'm not heavily invested into the shroud but this is a quite bad refutation.

This sounds like something my friends and I would do in my backyard when we were teenagers.