Shroud of Turin Exposed

[kenites]

---

Please give realiable source to your claim.

So, why do you believe that it is a fake? I need answers from you, not from a website.

I suggest you back-read first since my answers might already been posted.
You might check this video too:
YouTube - The newest findings on the Holy Shroud

When I said "I believe" it doesn't mean I will not change my position when a strong evidence for it is presented. IMHO For now the evidence against it outweighs the evidence for it.

Bisan pa siguro ma prove nato nga it was indeed a 2000yr old linen and that was really a dead body wrapped on that linen but can we really be certain that it was the body of Jesus?

Anyways pls check this link..I think he has the answer to your video
shroud of Turin - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

[redhorse1L]

Just look at the video, and stop arguing. Its obvious you didnt watch the video i posted.
Ive looked at your link, and its clearly bias.

And computer 3D generated images are by no means a proof that the stain in the shroud is human. they simple generated a 3D model of the stain to repackage something fake. and you actually believe its real.

if you only watch the video, you will see that COTTON was added to the lower right side of the pure LINEN shroud. It was clearly repaired by someone to cover up the fake shroud.
watch the video again.

Yes I've watched the video and it is also clearly bias.
The title itself "Leonardo - The man behind the Shroud" suggests that Leonardo might be behind it.

I thought you said that Da Vinci Theory is insane?

The Da Vinci theory is just insane. Believe on the people that actually did forensic gathering of evidence. Just watch the video.

Please give me your stand.
I'm sure you believe on 1998 Carbon dating result and that the image is medieval.
So, aside from the insane Da Vinci theory, how could have the image came to be?

[Bangkilan]

Just look at the videos and judge for yourself. To avoid senseless arguments, i request for all users if you wanna comment, please use videos or links as your arguments, and dont preach here.

Part 1
YouTube - Shroud of Turin Exposed 1/6

Part 2
YouTube - Shroud of Turin Exposed 2/6

Part 3
YouTube - Shroud of Turin Exposed 3/6

Part 4
YouTube - Shroud of Turin Exposed 4/6

Part 5
YouTube - Shroud of Turin Exposed 5/6

Part 6
YouTube - Shroud of Turin Exposed 6/6


More related videos
YouTube - Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 test proves false

Nothing but a bit of a trollish video...

[redhorse1L]

When I said "I believe" it doesn't mean I will not change my position when a strong evidence for it is presented. IMHO For now the evidence against it outweighs the evidence for it.

Bisan pa siguro ma prove nato nga it was indeed a 2000yr old linen and that was really a dead body wrapped on that linen but can we really be certain that it was the body of Jesus?

Anyways pls check this link..I think he has the answer to your video
shroud of Turin - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

I'll comment your answers per line.

1. What evidence against it outweighs evidence for it? I suggest you give clear proofs.
2. That is why it is still called as "Shroud of Turin" not "Shroud of Jesus" since it is not yet conclusive.
3. Please don't give me skeptic's dictionary as it is not a reliable source. I need your own perception on the issue.

[orcgod]

Yes I've watched the video and it is also clearly bias.
The title itself "Leonardo - The man behind the Shroud" suggests that Leonardo might be behind it.

I thought you said that Da Vinci Theory is insane?



Please give me your stand.
I'm sure you believe on 1998 Carbon dating result and that the image is medieval.
So, aside from the insane Da Vinci theory, how could have the image came to be?

yeah, i dont believe in the Da Vinci theory, did i say I believe? its just, the video I posted included a the theory of Da Vinci.

Again, look at the LOGIC, just because i posted a video with the Da Vinci theory included, doesnt mean I believe in the Da VInci theory.

I clearly show my disbelief about it, by posting it here. Again, did you watch the last video?

YouTube - Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 test proves false

Bias? the scientists were biased? they were making conclusions based on evidence. Scientists never pick sides, whatever the outcome of the experiment, that will be the conclusion.
Kamo maoy bias.

[orcgod]

Nothing but a bit of a trollish video...

nice adjective. what makes it trollish?

[redhorse1L]

yeah, i dont believe in the Da Vinci theory, did i say I believe? its just, the video I posted included a the theory of Da Vinci.

Again, look at the LOGIC, just because i posted a video with the Da Vinci theory included, doesnt mean I believe in the Da VInci theory.

I clearly show my disbelief about it, by posting it here. Again, did you watch the last video?

YouTube - Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 test proves false

Bias? the scientists were biased? they were making conclusions based on evidence. Scientists never pick sides, whatever the outcome of the experiment, that will be the conclusion.
Kamo maoy bias.

I think we're going in circles here.
Have you read by previous posts?

I know that the 1988 Carbon Dating Results claims the Shroud is Medieval.
That's why my previous posts says

Originally Posted by devilsburger
"We are practically sure that it is the image left by a human corpse, not a painting or an image obtained in some other human way," he said.
Carbon dating in 1988 claimed the image of the man could not be that of Jesus because the shroud was medieval. But many have rejected that result and want further scientific tests to be carried out.


Nice.. that's why we are still exchanging ideas here, since its not yet conclusive.

Skeptics says that its a hoax since Carbon dating says so.

Believer says that the image made is indeed left by a human corpse, with blood stains, and pollens that are found only in Jerusalem, Carbon dating results might be incorrect.


Let's wait for further development..

[orcgod]

I think we're going in circles here.
Have you read by previous posts?

I know that the 1988 Carbon Dating Results claims the Shroud is Medieval.
That's why my previous posts says

you accused me of believing the Da Vinci Theory, when I clearly stated that I dont.

yes, ive been reading your previous post.

[kenites]

quote=redhorse1L;7563177]I'll comment your answers per line.

1. What evidence against it outweighs evidence for it? I suggest you give clear proofs.
2. That is why it is still called as "Shroud of Turin" not "Shroud of Jesus" since it is not yet conclusive.
3. Please don't give me skeptic's dictionary as it is not a reliable source. I need your own perception on the issue.[/quote]


So unsa man ang evidence against it? I suggest that you check the video posted by orcgod..naa daghan didto.
Evidence for it? Nasayop ang carbon dating coz ngadto sila nakakuha sa patch cloth and naa pollen grains and images nga nakita sa cloth that can only be found in Dead Sea region of Israel. I think these evidence doesn’t prove anything, like what I’ve said in my previous post.
Or basin naa pa, please hatagi daw ko ko link kay like what I’ve said I can always change my position if a convincing evidence will be presented.
And naa lang ko gusto i-clarify,,basin gapataka ra ko argue dire J
When we say it's authentic doesn't we mean nga this is the real cloth that was used to wrap the body of Jesus? Or it just means nga this is just a cloth wrapped on uncertain dead body?

So unsa man diay ang reliable source? ang imo video link nga gi post?

[redhorse1L]

So unsa man ang evidence against it? I suggest that you check the video posted by orcgod..naa daghan didto.
Evidence for it? Nasayop ang carbon dating coz ngadto sila nakakuha sa patch cloth and naa pollen grains and images nga nakita sa cloth that can only be found in Dead Sea region of Israel. I think these evidence doesn’t prove anything, like what I’ve said in my previous post.
Or basin naa pa, please hatagi daw ko ko link kay like what I’ve said I can always change my position if a convincing evidence will be presented.
And naa lang ko gusto i-clarify,,basin gapataka ra ko argue dire J
When we say it's authentic doesn't we mean nga this is the real cloth that was used to wrap the body of Jesus? Or it just means nga this is just a cloth wrapped on uncertain dead body?

So unsa man diay ang reliable source? ang imo video link nga gi post?

Again, don't just point your finger on video's from YouTube.
Based from the videos, I need your statement on which you stand.

If you neglect the Carbon Dating result, then we are on the same track.

Or it just means nga this is just a cloth wrapped on uncertain dead body?
Possible, but the crucified criminals will just be thrown in the pit by Roman executioners, they were not given a rightful burial.
The account of Jesus' death said that when Jesus' body was put down, Joseph of Arimathea(a respectful person) requested that he will bring the body and put it on a rightful burial.

The Vatican have not yet given conclusion on this.
But if it is proven that it is an imprint of a dead man's blood from 1st century, then we are already close to reality.
Still a long way to go.. But I'm hoping that it is indeed Jesus' burial cloth.