Baldseagull
Well-known member
It is because you are infuriating. It isn't strange.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people
- Thread starter Mustafa II
- Start date
pastafarian
Well-known member
Why wont God or Jesus heal amputees and make their limbs grow back?
You praying for @Psychobilly freakout has no effect on @Psychobilly freakout
All it is is virtue signalling for you.
smillie's garden
Am I evil?
- Aug 11, 2003
- 2,742
Alright, I'll get my coat - and bowl gong - and head on down to The Other Stuff.
You are deliberately trying to offend Psychobilly. Not very Christian of you.
I'm sorry if I've offended him. Sorry, Psychobilly.
You're back.
Did you google Peter Schumacher Shroud of Turin?
What did you find out about him?
Nope. I've just got up and I'm more interested in the developments in Russia at the moment.
Enough evidence has been given to you that the Shroud is a fake. It's been carbon dated, and even the Catholic Church don't believe it was used for Jesus. Reading about someone you've cherry picked is not going to change that.
The only evidence you have that it is fake is a piece of cloth that was repaired by Poor Clare Nuns in 1534.
The Catholic Church are sitting on the fence.
I give you evidence, and you refuse to look at it.
Google Peter Schumacher Turin Shroud and tell me what you learn about him.
No. The group that was charged by the Church with dating it concluded that it was not a repaired piece, and that it would have been impossible to have repaired it by invisibly weaving new bits of cotton into it. Also, if the Church, who own it, thought the wrong piece had been dated, then they'd date another bit.
No, the Catholic Church do not believe it was used for Jesus. That's quite a hole in your argument.
No, you gave the evidence you wanted to a few days ago, and I looked at loads. You don't like the conclusion of the report, so you now want us to consider a the opinion of another religious person, who is obviously biased. The report has shown that the Shroud is fake. I haven't got time to keep reading about more Christians who support your view.
NO they didn't. Firstly, it wasn't a "group" that dated the sample, and the institutions that did the dating were not given any remit whatsoever to consider whether or not the patch they were testing was a repaired piece or not. They were each just sent a sample to test and that is what they did.
But there is cotton in that part of the Shroud, and there isn't in any other part of the Shroud.
Plus it fluoresces and no other part of the Shroud does.
It's not as simple as that because the Catholic Church is very conservative about letting people come and cut bits out of the cloth. The STURP in 1978 was an unprecedented event. The team were given just five days to have access to the Shroud, the first and only time such a thing has ever happened. The STURP team analyzed the shroud around the clock at the royal palace adjoining Turin Cathedral, some scientists sleeping while others worked. It was a one-off event.
The Catholic Church are non-committal. Currently, the Catholic Church neither endorses nor rejects the authenticity of the shroud as a relic of Jesus.
He's religious now, but he wasn't when he first looked at it.
In 1981, in its final report, STURP wrote:
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.
So in other words, not fake. It is the image of a real crucified man.
If you accept both the conclusion of the STURP final report and the result of the radiocarbon dating test, you would have to conclude that the forger must have actually crucified someone to produce the forgery.
@Triggaaar Hello
In 1981, in its final report, STURP wrote:
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.
So in other words, not fake. It is the image of a real crucified man.
Insel affe
HellBilly
Your talking to yourself.@Triggaaar Hello
In 1981, in its final report, STURP wrote:
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.
So in other words, not fake. It is the image of a real crucified man.
just like when you prey to your god, no one’s listening….
It's a fake because it's pretending to be from the body of Jesus, as opposed to someone else who died.
Sorry, I've let you down.
Not just someone who died, but someone who was crucified.
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist..
Did you think it was the product of an artist? According to the scientists it is not. It has a crown of thorns, a spear wound in his side and no broken bones. Jesus is the only person in history known to have been crucified with those specific wounds. You asked for evidence and I am providing you with scientific evidence.
Edit: How do you know it wasn't Jesus?
Baldseagull
Well-known member
I love your leaps of false logic. If a medical examiner has an actual body in front of them with wounds, they can say that the wounds are consistent with this or that, but not that they must have been caused by this or that, there is a difference.
It seems fake to me just by looking at it.@Triggaaar Hello
In 1981, in its final report, STURP wrote:
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.
So in other words, not fake. It is the image of a real crucified man.
If Jesus, or anyone, was wrapped in the cloth to form the image, why does the image appear as it would in a photo when the shroud is laid flat? It should be distorted by being formed on a 3d human shape, when laid flat in 2d. Why is his hair not pressed close to the head if it was a wrapping?
Why is it a single sheet folded over at the head when tradition at the time was to wrap in pieces, and leave the head with a completely separate wrapping, as has been found on a corpse from 1st century Jerusalem, and as described by "John" as being as is the custom?
Why is there supposed blood stains when the Gospels describe his body being washed and oiled, and was the practice as far as we know at the time?
Add to this the carbon dating, the weave pattern being unlike any other from the time and region, it having no provenance before the 1300's, and being declared a fake soon after by a Bishop that says he spoke to the forger, the probability that it is not what you claim it to be is pretty high.
No doubt you will find some person on you tube or a website that says, it is the right kind of weave, a similar article is described in earlier times, they carbon dated a repair patch, Bishops lie (but not Gospel writers), etc. Please don't bother with that, but, if you have an explanation as to why the image is not distorted in 2d, or his hair is not flat to his head, I would be interested to hear it.
There was an investigation into the age of the Shroud. The conclusion was that it's from several centuries after Jesus's time. That's all I think. I hadn't concluded how it was made, simply that it was not the Shroud of Jesus.
I don't know whether it's been proven to be from a crucified person or not, I don't care, because it's not from Jesus.
Many thousands of people have been crucified. We've also been told in the past that Jesus had his legs broken, but now you're claiming he didn't. It's all nonsense.You're supposedly providing evidence that the Shroud was used for a crucified human. That's not evidence it had anything to do with Jesus.
Because it dates from several hundred years after the time of Jesus.
It's not my false logic. It's what the STURP said in its in its final report:
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin.
I see, you've looked at it, and in your opinion it looks fake.
On the other hand we've got a whole team of scientists with all their equipment and expertise who conclude that it is genuine.
It appears the image was not caused by contact with the body but might have been caused by collimated radiation.
There was a separate head-cloth described by John, and we have the Sudarium of Oviedo.
There are 120 points of coincidence in the blood stains between the Shroud and the Sudarium. Usually 40 points of coincidence are enough for a positive ID with facial recognition software. This strongly implies that the Sudarium and the Shroud were used on the same individual, and the Sudarium has a known history dating back to the seventh century, meaning that the Shroud must also be at least that old.
It matches the weave used on a cloth from the site of the Jewish revolt at Masada
The STURP team made it clear that it was not created by an artist.
The Bishop neglects to name the forger, and also incorrectly says that the forger told how the image was painted, but it was not painted. There is no paint or dye in the image. It is formed by oxidation and dehydration of the cellulose in only the very top layer of the fibres of the cloth.
I'm looking for a picture that explains it. If I find it I'll post it.
How did the Turin Shroud get its image?
Some say it's Jesus Christ's burial wrapping, others say it's a medieval fake. Either way, how does the Turin Shroud come to bear a man's image?
www.bbc.co.uk
The age of the shroud has been tested several times in different ways.
Other methods date it to the time of Jesus.
Only the 1988 test gives a different result.
New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ
Pope Francis introduced a special TV appearance of the burial cloth whose origin is disputed.
eu.usatoday.com
New technology suggests Shroud of Turin is 2,000 years old
A new analysis of the Shroud of Turin challenges the 1988 radiocarbon dating that placed it in the medieval era.
aleteia.org
It matches the description of Jesus based on the rather unique wounds described in the gospels
No, that's the whole point. He didn't have his legs broken. The soldier saw that he was already dead, and shoved a spear in his side instead.
The other two being crucified with him had their legs broken, but Jesus didn't.
You're putting all your faith in the discredited 1988 test. Those who worked on the STURP doubt the validity of the test you trust in.
It looks like Jesus, with the crown of thorns and the spear in his side, and no broken bones.
If it is as old as all the tests other than the discredited 1988 test show it to be, why would it have been kept for so long if it wasn't Jesus (and as I said, it looks like it depicts Jesus specifically).
Baldseagull
Well-known member
It is your false logic, clearly the image is of a crucified man, the question is how it came to be there. That STURP make the same leaps you do makes me think they may have had a bias.
I will take issue with the wording of the statement that it is "not the product of an artist", they may be able say that it is not the product of applied pigment, but unless they know how the image did come to be there, they cannot say it was not an artist.
No they don't, some conclude they don't know, and others say it is fake. Its a sin to lie. Show me than the scientist that concludes it is genuine.
I see, so some form of magic is the answer again.
Seen that said, by partisans like yourself, not seen that shown anywhere, can you show me the points of coincidence.
I believe that you are bearing false witness, show me a factual basis for that.
You have claimed previously that it is the most studied ancient artifact, and it may be, but it's only these STURP findings that you seem to quote, not any others.
Brilliant, just all the shit I knew you would say, cos if you have posted it a dozen or more times already, and I asked you not to bother with.
Your 3d imager magic, the only other image I can find produced by it is of a chessboard, obviously a flat object with no depth change between the squares, and it produced a 3d image with raised and lowered squares. Must be a miracle that the chessboard maker encoded 3d information into his creation. I have also seen it claimed that other attempts to create a 3d image using it with other photos of faces produced less sharp and more distorted images, but strangely no examples of that shown anywhere.