Talk:Shroud of Turin

I think it's worth mentioning that the blood type is AB and from a male - The Shroud of Turin - Evidence of authenticity. Sunda62 09:43, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

I agree. Please improve this and other entries as you think best.--Andy Schlafly 11:51, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

The blood type was never identifies as AB, because there was no blood. Even if the antigens registered as AB, it's because they were using a method designed to determine blood type, and no matter what you put in with the antibodies,

it will show up as a certain blood type. I find it funny that when analysis works for you guys, you stand behind it. But when multiple tests determine the age of the Earth to be 4.6 billion years old or transitional species with DNA data, you say "the tests were flawed." Muhamad (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2015 (EST)

Did you ever consider that you're not in a position to know? VargasMilan (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2015 (EST)

Shroud of Turin

I know you conservative don't like Internet censorship. Neither do I. Instead of being hypocrites and censoring out other people's arguments, you could read mine, and leave it here, so other people may make up their own minds. Also, you may criticize my statements and debate them with well-founded evidence.

So, basically the Bible itself describes Jesus's burial garments as being completely different from the shroud presented: "Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself…" (John 20:1:6, KJV)

Also, Jewish burial customs didn't work this way. The type of woven cloth that was used in the shroud was not in use at the time of Jesus' life. It is also worth noting, the "bloodstains" observed on the cloth were determined by analysts to be a "combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint." Also, the "bloodstains" were still red. Blood turns brownish or blackish with age.

It should also be noted that the appearance of Jesus as it shows in the shroud doesn't add up. If Jesus was a Jewish man who lived in the Levant approximately 2,000 years ago, he would not have been this white "Aryan" you depict him to be. He would have been a relatively short Middle Easterner with curly-ish hair and dark skin. As a matter of fact, Josephus described Jesus as a short man (the measurements used at the time would equal 4'6" by today's means of measurements. The reasoning behind this is because people in that part of the world at the time were generally shorter. There's no debate about this.) who was balding, chubby, and with a unibrow. Depictions of him as a white man with a beard and long flowing hair typically come from European depictions based on the pre-Christian views of what a deity would have looked like. Pre-Christian European gods such as Thor, Odin, Zeus, Jupiter, Ares, Mars, Frey, Perun, and so on, featured long hair, beards (sometimes) and were physically fit and muscular. It's clear that these traditions didn't end with the Christianization of Europe and other places. They made Jesus appear in a way they would see as godly. Jesus didn't really look that way, he looked like any other Middle Easterner.

The consensus here is that what is called the Shroud of Turin is the work of a Gothic artist from the Middle Ages. At least that's what most scientists think it is. But the vast majority, Christians included, are sure it is not directly related to the historical person that was Jesus.

As far as atheist and agnostic scientists converting to Christianity over the foundations of the shroud, so what? Had I presented them the same argument, they would have been likely to have a better understanding of what was going on. Also, if they were scientific analysts with certification to study such an artifact, they would have seen right away that there is no blood, no bodily tissue, and no historical reference that could confirm this to be an actual person. You're all freaking out over a piece of really bad art that was done by someone you don't know in a time period that makes Christianity look really bad.

I'll be awaiting your response. Muhamad (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2015 (EST)

Why do you think Conservapedia would seek a Muslim intermediary between themselves and atheists holding demonstratively corrupt standards? VargasMilan (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2015 (EST)

"Muhamad" may be a pseudonym but I'll respond to your arguments anyway. First, the Bible tends to confirm rather than deny that a large shroud was used for Jesus's burial. Second, the blood is real on the Shroud. Third, assertions that the real Jesus was only 4'6" tall are silly, if not absurd. Jesus was the Son of God and speculation about his height and facial hair are not helpful. Finally, reference to what someone thinks is a "consensus" and "majority" is not scientific. The consensus among atheistic scientists is that man-made climate change is a crisis. That consensus does not render something to be a scientific truth.

The Shroud is a photographic negative, before photography was invented. The most plausible explanation is that the Shroud captures an image of the flash of light which necessarily accompanied the Resurrection.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2015 (EST)