Shroud of Turin
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
"How did that image get there?"
"Well we analyzed it and found it was likely painted on."
"I DON'T BELIEVE YOU".
It's been analyzed multiple times in multiple ways and everybody comes to the same conclusion, that it likely was created sometime in the 14th century, which coincidentally is right when it was "found". The Church itself declared it a forgery at the time.
There's only two "legitimate ways" for that image to get on there, if we rule out forgery:
1) Putrefaction from decay/skin oils soaked into the shroud.
2) Some divine something somehow someway burned the image in.
Except Jesus was only dead for three days. Even in Judea three days the body isn't going to "leak" that much and even if it did, the backside of the shroud would be very nasty. This also doesn't account for the hair being perfectly 'framed' to the face. His hair would've been laying back pooled around the back of the head.
Essentially the "the shroud is real" crowd has to rely solely on divinity, which means by definition there's no evidence for that either, nor could they provide such evidence by virtue of it simply being a divine impression.
And I'm gonna point out that the odds of a 2,000 year old piece of linen surviving intact like that is astronomically low. Functionally *nothing* linen of the Romans that survived. Almost none of their armor did, nor the Legio standards, or anything of that sort, and much of that would've been far newer than the Shroud of Turin, since Imperial citizens were still around hundreds of years after that point.
Christians barely existed for a span of 250 years after the Crucifixion. They almost certainly were not carefully keeping relics in museum-like preservation... much less hidden away like that for 1,300 years in total secrecy.
... nor can you Biblically claim that the shroud was found in the undisturbed tomb since a key part of the resurrection story is obviously that the Romans went into the tomb when they found it open, which lends even further credence to the idea that anything left in that tomb would've been removed. This wasn't King Tut's hidden burial chamber.
Last but not least, if the meme is claiming 'proof of divinity', the shroud at best simply proves He was dead.
This was later deboonked when they re-tested a different part of the image and found it was dated much older. Its likely what happened is that the shroud itself is genuine, but someone during the middle ages tried to a restoration of it. The media is run by jews and were more than happy to spread the initial findings about part of it being from the 14th century, but completely memory holed the results of the new tests because the last thing they want is a resurgence in Catholicism.
The photo negative is used because it stands out more. The real article is reddish smudges on linen. The negative is popular because it has higher contrast. It's not anything special beyond that.
The shroud first appeared in the 1300s so clearly there is an image on it visible without needing a photo negative.
Are you under the impression the visage on it was only discovered recently via photography?