Has anyone ever seriously tried to debunk Joe Nickell and his arguments that the shroud is a forgery? He claimed that the NatGeo article on it wasn't honest.
csicop.org
Aside from the shroud, he has claimed to debunk hundreds of other paranormal/cryptic occurrences, including miracles that are accepted in by the church and even the ones that are recorded in the bible. What's your opinion on this guy, and is it necessary to disprove skeptics like him or are such attempts pointless?
If you ever listen to the """"""skeptic""""""s' opinion on the shroud, you'll always hear the debunked claim that it was manufactured during the medieval time, despite the clarification of the data afterwords by scientists.
And those dentialists who know about this, will always try to rationalize their presupposition that the person on the shroud wasn't Jesus. Like some random jew, or any other speculation, but true Christianity is off limits.
This is why I don't trust secularists, they pretend to be neutral, while promote anything that isn't orthodox.
There is too much evidence in favor of the shroud to dismiss it easily. Too many factors make the idea that it was a European forgery unlikely. The fact that it shows the correct type of injuries for a crucified person at a time when people mistakenly thought the nails went through the hands and not the wrists. The fact it shows flowers that grow around Jerusalem. The fact that it's a negative image that has information that you can only discern with modern imaging technology.
If it is a forgery then it is the most meticulous, detailed forgery ever made and the person who created it is probably one of the most skillful artists in human history.
Just a reminder,
Regardless whether or not the shroud is authentic or not, please do not place your whole faith on relics; your faith should not rise or fall on these things.
It's all a forgery bro. Jesus gave drugs to people to make them think he was making miracles, then after his death his disciples proclaimed His word because they liked to be beaten, poor, stoned beheaded or crucified etc and it was only a coincidence that their writings don't contradict each other. And in fact every miracle that happened after them is the result of the atheist devil trying to fool you so you won't believe that God doesn't exist.
of course its a forgery
if it was real it would oppose ressurection
and btw have you ever seen that the face of a dead person gets transfered to the shroud in any other cases?
See
If it's a forgery, it would have had to have been made by a time traveler. I wouldn't be surprised if that becomes the secularist party line someday, if the evidence for the shroud becomes widely known.
it's true, literally cannot be reproduced, only fedoras think otherwise
mandylion
A quick Wikipedia search says the carbon dating is from the Middle Ages. According to this paper: Meacham, William: «The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology», Current Anthropology, Volume 24, No 3, June 1983.
Wouldn't this debunk the whole thing? Does anyone know more about this?
read
Every shroud skeptic needs to watch this video
Not even rabid atheists who try to actually debunk the shroud use those datings nowadays, which are known to be taken from a fragment of the shroud with different properties
The shroud is authentic. There probably isn't another object that was analyzed by so many inter-disciplinary areas. I recommend the reading of Dr. Zugibe's book: the crucifixion of Jesus, a forensic inquiry.
Anyone who uses the carbon dating to disprove it is acting in bad faith.
I'm a Christian and I don't think the shroud is authentic (yes I have watched the documentary on it).
Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, on the Shroud, in 1389:
"The case, Holy Father, stands like this. Some time since, in this diocese of Troyes, the Dean of a certain collegiate church, namely, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, on which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and on which the whole likeness of the Savior had remained impressed together in this way with the wounds which He bore. This story was circulated not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. Because many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Savior's likeness imprinted on it like this, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, namely, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."
I actually had someone (a devout Catholic) ask me how I could be Christian without accepting the shroud. I wish I was joking.
lots of things were left out of the gospels, but has been a longstanding part of tradition. jesus falling down three times, veronica wiping the face of our Lord etc. this is a totally weak argument. to this day no one can replicate the shroud, have you seen the 3d sort of image that it actually produces?
most people have said it's not formed by paint but by light. there are scans and loads of photos of the shroud. if someone could make a duplicate of it today they'd finish it off once and for all. have you seen the so called 'duplicate' they produced? it looks totally trash.
and just because you're a christian doesn't mean anything. how many christians believe in gay marriage.
Tradition can err, and no it hasn't been a long-standing part of tradition because it wasn't mentioned before Pierre d'Arcis (who I quoted).
How can you compare doubting a relic to dispensing with historical and scriptural Christian teachings?
If your argument is "it is false because the imprint isnt mentioned in the gospels", as said by someone qho believed it was "cunningly painted" , dont expect anyone to take you seriously
If you think I spoke about this because I cared about "being taken seriously", you're under the wrong impression. If I wanted people to agree with me I would spout the same nonsense you're spouting. And if you actually read the quote, you would know the reason d'Arcis thought it was cunningly painted was because the painter confessed.
The thing every single modern analysis agrees upon about it is that it's absolutely not paint.
I could confess to killing Lincoln if you want but what do you know, people can lie in confessions.
The Turin shroud isn't painted though. d'Acis is clearly talking about some other work.
are you some bappie sola scriptura idiot? or are you a real christian who knows what they're talking about. hurr durr not mentioned in bible didnt happen. are you kidding me?
oh guess what, the gospel according to st. john said all the things that the lord did the world couldnt fit everything he did. so guess what the bible says he did many things not mentioned.
seriously get an education friend.
typical, typical prot
But they also claim that something like that would be impossible to create without an incredibly bright light. So it can't have been a random criminal, if it's not a forgery it has to be created during a "paranormal" (I hate the word but whatever) event.
"Supernatural" is a better term.
That's the one, thank you
No need to be so uncharitable towards someone because they disagree with you. No, I'm not a Protestant (and so not a Baptist), I'm an apostolic Christian. I am not arguing for sola scriptura, I just find it doubtful that such a shroud would exist and not be mentioned until the 14th century.
your original argument was that it wasn't mentioned in the bible, now you've moved goalposts saying it wasn't mentioned until the 14th century. when speaking of tradition you said it was unreliable. you're just moving goalposts again and again and again.
No it wasn't, I didn't make an argument initially, I just quoted a Catholic bishop.
Late tradition (like the shroud) is absolutely unreliable.
Listen, there's 2 big things in the Shrouds favor.
1. It is not reproducible.
If it is faked, it should be reproducible.
2. It is legit dated to when it is claimed to be dated.
Which is 2nd Century.
If we cannot reproduce the Shroud nor can we prove that it was created later than claimed, then it can be believed.
again moving goalposts, i spoke about veronica wiping the face of Jesus
it is, red ochre
no it wasnt, carbon dates it to middle ages around when the vatican got it
ok, then show me where someone has reproduced it and disproved it once and for all
read pic
Your babytalk makes me want to slap a bitch, namely you.
the veracity of the shroud should be nobody's deciding factor in faith, acceptance and belief in God
I dont think you understand. We know it isnt painted. There are no pigments, nos any directional paint. So you can see where your (and his) willful thinking led you
It's just hypocritical and contradictory enough and lacking in self awareness that I could definitely see the lying press try to push that angle.
Wasn't the image in the shroud only able to be seen with modern technology?
Casual Christians do that a lot. Actually, all types of casuals do that. Grab onto anything that helps or confirms their point of view and defend it rabidly, ridding themselves of common sense and critical thinking. God does not command us to believe blindly, he asks us to search for the Truth.
I know this is an old thread, but it didn't make sense to start another one just to discuss the same topic.
The "invisible repair" claim had been debunked, and to date there has never been any evidence with confirmed samples from the shroud itself that it is any older than medieval, but the process by which it was made is still unexplainable.
I saw the lignen bit, so it poses the question: Which dating method is wrong? So far there has not been a single hypothesis that explains the carbon dating age being so far off that holds up to investigation.
But we can evidently have a lot of great science fun studying it.
Even in death, God has a sense goodly purpose.
I honestly don't think about it. The authenticity of the shroud is not important to my faith.
Has he ever taken a crack at the tulpa image of Our Lady of Guadalupe? I'd be interested in what he has to say about that.
I have a stupid question.
I read and did my best to understand it, but how do we know that the shroud wasn't simply 'moved?' Not like Jesus getting up and removing it like a blanket, but someone went into the tomb, grabbed the shroud, and walked out with it. The reason I ask is that although it is accurate, I find it unlikely that this shroud could last 2000 years without it being torn to shreds one way or another.
To be clear, I doubt it's a forgery, but I find that the only thing more surprising than faith is luck.
I thought the Romans didn't nail through the hands?
Uh oh, guys, we got a REAL skeptic here.
I think it's cool that the shroud shows a figure around 6'. I'm still taller than our Lord, but I'm glad he's not a manlet.
It's also remarkable that one of the most prominent defenders was a secular Jew who was on the original science team (Barry Schwortz).
The shroud cannot be from Jesus, because it's one large cloth covering head to toe
The Bible reports that there was a separate cloth over Jesus' head
There were two of these, as the scripture says. One is missing. The shroud could have covered the same area in another layer and touched more directly by wrapping the upper areas of the head.
The larger shroud need not to have touched directly to have been affected anyways. The main imprint is not "blood".. or any known kind of marking, for that matter. It's not a mark from Burial.. but a supernatural mark from Resurrection.
Sudarium of Oviedo
I never heard about this before.
That's amazing. I'd love to know the whole story and who put it there. It's also yet another strange thing to show up in a supposed medieval origin object (Aramaic writing, that is), and another proof of Middle East rather than European origin. Not to mention that the cloth itself has pollen/plant fibers that were only in the Middle East.
The dude is talking shit.
Btw could someone else get me the NatGeo article? Id like to hear a profession investigating showing the shroud is true.
Back to college faggot. Light is an electromagnetic oscillating field and it's intensity is mesuared in watts. It's the average of the Poynting vector.
And besides electricity burns. Put your hand on a socket and you'll see.
Same face, same blood type.
youtu.be
Shroud is real
i dont endorse this youtube channel
Share these with normies and """skeptics"""
I saw this months ago. Picrelated is the guy who pulled the claim out of wherever he did it.
It was a really lame and weak "analysis" that literally nobody cared to review that much.
Thank you brother this is what I was looking for.
Although I doubt normies will even care about this.
The normies in Jesus' times saw him raising Himself from the dead and even then didn't believe.
The carbon dating has never been disproven and the invisible repair theory was debunked. Also the Bible itself says his head had a separate cloth
read
it's amazing how much I have to refer the ignorant to this post, over and over again,
it's not a matter of picking and choosing "which experiment" you like, the claim is that the original cloth is unable to be dated in the medieval
see
You should quit ignoring posts that rip apart your claims, d56596
Doesn’t debunk the carbon dating
...
you are a disingenuous ignoramus
This is so awesome.
why is the second half just the first half backwards.
It doesn't confirm or deny anything.
probably to avoid copyright detection
I'm pretty sure nobody will care to answer since your statement is pure idiocy, but read through again.
Thanks.
At the end of the day, most people will always choose to believe whatever they want to believe. No evidence would ever be enough to convince them.
Good thing evidence is on our side for once.
When the image is incorrect (because the carbon dating has in fact never been debunked) don’t use it to dismiss the actual issue
The physics of radiocarbon dating of course isn't at stake here. What matters here is the piece of cloth that was analysed. And surprise everything else in the shroud points out that the dating method was shit.
And to assume it was a forgery takes even a greater leap of faith.
A dude in the 14th century who alone invented 23th century technology just to make fun of Christians deserves 10 nobel prizes.
In all honesty carbon dating tends to debunk itself most of the time.
Honestly the alleged Jesus on the fabric looks surprisingly similar to how Jesus is traditionally depicted, it doesn't look like the depiction by (((Israeli))) scientists that turned Jesus into a tigga.
Does what Jesus looked like matter to your faith?
Does missing the point matter to your argument?
Protip: It REALLY does
I recommend watching Father Spitzer's presentation on the shroud.
The moderators used to have an unspoken “no shroud discussions” rule. What changed your mind mods?
Reminds me of one of my uncles; Mediterranean/Levantine rather than a tigga…
Looks like an Arab Car Salesman.
Just more of the endless jewish slander against Christ.
Why wouldn't we be allowed to discuss the shroud?
Buts lets not even pretend that radiocarbon dating is at all accurate. It's been performed on things with known dates and resulted in WILDLY erroneous results.
I remember having to do a big take-down of that image for a secularist. I wish I still had that argument I typed up. If you look at the method they used to come up with that image of "Jesus," you'll see that its completely bunk and ridiculous. It'd be amazing if that that's what any ol' person from that time period and locale looked like, much less the specific person of Jesus.
The last part of the documentary is a winnie the pooh joke.
Somehow Jesus didn't die after being beaten for hours crucified, stabbed in the chest but had been transported to the tomb so Joseph could heal him lol.
What made me laugh was that the german who proposed that theory said that after two days a person is completely healthy because irl we see people who are badly hurt getting up in 2 days and having no pain and being able to go during a whole afternoon walking (the disciples of Emaus part). And everything that followed with miracles and stuff.
What made me even laugh more is that he says that Jesus was afraid of dying and ask the Father to take away his pain, and according to him the loving father did it lol. Jesus knew form the beggning he would ressusrect and did many miracles showing that He and the Father were one. An then he says it was the oils in Jesus body that made the imprint. I challenge him to tell me how a man can survive in a closed tomb with those toxic smells, with another dude inside healing him and then break a giant rock to get out while having his internal organs winnie the poohed up, unless he was superman (my bet on the next atheistic theory) and being able to elude the Roman soldiers. And if that was the case I dare him to made a replica, which he won't because he can't.
Tldr: the documentary has some good parts, but it's too short to cover all evidences and ends up with a far fetched conspiracy theory dating to 33AD to show its "possible" that the shorud is real but to be on the side of the atheists.
Nicely done short video summarizing the more recent discoveries about the Shroud.
Look at Nassim Taleb's article "No Jesus wasn't a nonwhite refugee" article. Straight from the eternal Levantine's mouth. He even uses a depiction of Lucian of Samosata (Syrian satirist who made fun of the early church) as evidence for the populations who lived in the eastern Mediterranean.
Would it matter if Jesus were an Arab? No. However, we can't go around calling him Maori just to make people feel better either. So why should we let people say that Christ was any other ethnic group, that he was not, for political reasons?
...
What's the problem with the article?
The thing that bothers me the most about the Shroud is how the picture is like a photograph, despite the Shroud supposedly having been placed over the body. Shouldn't the image be distorted, if it was truly generated by the body being in contact with the cloth?
the picture looks like a photograph because of 20th century technology, the actual outer part of the shroud was re-clothed, hinting that the shroud may have been large enough to envelop Christ with
Just looking at the first part of that image there are some serious issues - that vanillin test has never been used to successfully date any other ancient or medieval material likewise it seems to imply that despite the difficulty of the weave an unrecorded repair was made that was so expertly done as to render it invisible.
it's not being used to "successfully date", it's merely being used to disprove the notion that it is from the medieval era specifically; there should be some vanillin, rather than a complete absence
I say successfully date I mean in the sense of it being able to say "this fabric was from 33AD or from 1453AD" but simply demonstrate the kind of claims like "this is or is not a medieval fabric" or "this is an ancient fabric".
There does not seem to be any real track record of this method being able to determine the era of a fabric hence it doesnt really make sense to say that you can date something based on the levels. This is why it seems like a poor test/proof to use.
Because the entire point of the test in the first place is to disprove the very popular assertion that is it a medieval forgery. It's not attempting to prove it's from 33AD, it's attempting to disprove.
Sorry I misstyped I meant to say " *not* in the sense of it being able to say "this fabric was from 33AD or from 1453AD" which will make the other half of the sentence make sense