Talk:Shroud of Turin

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)
Did you ever consider maybe you're not in that position either? From a rational standpoint, it's far more likely to be a hoax or a creation of man than to be of some sort of divinity. You can't possibly know either. Muhamad (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2015 (EST)
And technically, anyone who is capable of research, observation, and common sense is in the position to know. We can't all just walk around like, "well, we can't possibly know, so why bother questioning it." As humans, it is our duty to strive for knowledge. Muhamad (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2015 (EST)
You know nothing of knowledge, reasoning, research, observation or common sense other than how you can twist them to serve your wicked, depraved and ignorant agenda. VargasMilan (talk) 06:20, 28 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.

Fine then. Allow me.

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)

Bible describes just two items, and two items only. You talk about the "linen clothes" as if they were pants, shirt, and maybe socks. How about the "linen clothes" as being a seamless, single piece of cloth (the Shroud), and the "napkin" as this object[1]?

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.

Jewish burial customs did work that way, whenever a dead person had to be buried quickly before the Sabbath took place. As far as your claims - and they are YOUR CLAIMS - pertaining to pigments being on the Shroud, that is still wishful thinking by atheists and the Jesus-hating crowd. There is not a single speck of artistic pigment anywhere on that object, and that fact has been proven time and time again. And the type of woven cloth that is the Shroud was weaved and sold during that time period in the Middle East.

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.

Middle-Easterners today are not the 4'6" type you portray they were in the past. What evidence did they use to get that height average? Five graves? Ten graves? A full dozen or two? And where did this "Aryan" garbage come from? I look at the Shroud now, and I don't see an "Aryan"; I see an individual whose face was beaten to an unrecognizable pulp, exactly as the Bible describes.

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.

The consensus can be whatever a large amount of people agree it should be, but that doesn't make it right. The "artist" thing never happened, and even using today's standards to try to get what an artists "could" have done back then resulted in gross distortions and failure. Try it yourself and see what results from your efforts.

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)

The evidence here, Mr. "Muhamed" or whoever you are, is that you failed to do the required homework. You pompously believed your own bovine scatology in an effort to get us in this website to change our way of thinking. Since you quoted a passage from the New Testament to try to support what you implied, allow me to quote from the same book to describe you:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans, 1:22-32
Did you change the Word of God into a lie, Mr. "Muhamad", just to further your own ends? Karajou (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2015 (EST)
Karajou, you have far from exhausted the misinformation contained in this man's arguments. The next time a new user presents atheistic arguments on a talk page and then tries to defend it on the basis of a dislike of censorship of views, I will be inclined to erase it as irrelevant and make a link here to your arguments as a proof and example of atheistic presentation of misinformation under the cover of Conservapedia's generous willingness to preserve presentations of unpopular points of view. VargasMilan (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2015 (EST)
The problem with people like that is 1) they have the relevant, factual information on this subject that has been done by many scholars and investigators available to them, but they refuse to read it for themselves; and 2) they will instantly believe - also without fact-checking - the statements made by those who are against the veracity of this subject. The bottom line here is that the atheistic community will go all out in presenting Jesus as a mere myth, and they will fight tooth and nail against anything which proves otherwise. They have to push the Shroud as a 13th century painted forgery, period, despite documented and physical evidence to the contrary. Karajou (talk) 09:03, 29 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)
I'm not a Muslism. I took the name Muhamad because Muhammad, Mohammed, Mohammad, and Satan were taken.
Well, I posted a verse which explicitly denies that a single cloth was used to wrap Jesus' body. The shroud is a single cloth. Also, the weaving style is a Medieval European style of weaving. Many other garments, specifically underwear, were woven in this pattern/style in Europe at the time. The shroud only dates to the 12th century AD approximately. So that kind of supports the conclusion that the shroud is a hoax, or was intended to be a decoration.
There is no actual blood on the shroud. A chemist named Walter McCrone and his team determined that the "bloodstains" were actually red ochre and paint. You can read his data if you'd like, just Google "Walter McCrone Shroud of Turin".
Perhaps, "consensus" was a bad term to use. I meant conclusion. And what do you care of science anyway? You deny evolution and climate change on a daily basis. I hate to remind you of your past mistakes, but even when presented with data and evidence (Richard Lenski affair) you deny the facts presented before you. Anything that brings up your insecurity about death and not going to Heaven after the fact intimidates you. So, you will ignore the evidence, and forever live on in ignorance under the assumption that a Medieval piece of cloth has the face of a white man in it. Score one for the Christian Right.
As far as being a photographic negative, there were primitive photographic techniques that existed at the time. In the 11th century, a man named Ibn al-Haytham (oh no, scary Moozlim name!) invented the technique using silver sulphate in a dark room. Leonardo da Vinci used this technique, only he called it "camera obscura". He was commissioned to make a replacement of a shroud-like artifact that was used as a decoration in churches. He used this technique. The shroud was eventually bought by a noble family in Europe in the 15th century. The shroud you are adoring and glorifying might be the exact one created by da Vinci, which I find even more fascinating, because it's realistic, and an actual relic of a mastermind (probably). Muhamad (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2015 (EST)
Andy, what exactly is your argument that there was a "flash of light which necessarily accompanied the Resurrection"? Did you simply decide that that's how you envisioned it, so it "necessarily" happened that way? Or do you actually have some reason for thinking there *had* be such a flash? (I like to imagine Jesus having dreadlocks, because that would have looked really cool. Does that mean I can infer that Jesus necessarily had dreadlocks?) What's the reason that Jesus couldn't simply have stood up, without any massive flash of light? How on earth can you claim to know what rules "necessarily" apply to events that are, by definition, miraculous?? What makes such things (allegedly) miracles is that they don't follow the normal rules. 01:00, 28 December 2015 (EST)
"Do not give that which is holy to dogs". I agree with whomever oversighted and removed the records of your participation here. I'm not going to answer your foolish line of arguing any further. You aren't seeking the truth; you're only using the shroud as a pretext in seeking to damage the reputation of Christians as much as you possibly can (which isn't much) and then turn around and snigger. VargasMilan (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2015 (EST)

I was looking for a conservative alternative to Wikipedia, so I thought I would check out this website. As I was looking at the main page, I saw the article title "Shroud of Turin" and was curious what was said about it. Just wondering, was the article written by Catholics? In my reading of the article it seems a propaganda to promote yet another graven image (like the statues of Mary) is presented. I am a Bible-believing New Testament Christian who has been saved through faith alone in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ but the "shroud" is false idol worship! Stop putting your faith in a piece of cloth and put your faith in the Person of Jesus! The Bible (as Muhamed pointed out), talks about more than one piece of cloth; one wrapped around the body and one wrapped around the face. Also, please read the account of Lazarus in John 11, paying close attention to verse 44. Jesus was more than likely buried in the same manner as Lazarus. Jesus was also of Jewish descent, not of European, like the face depicts. Needless to say, this is not a good first impression of this website for a newbie like myself, especially since folks are responding in an angry manner when other viewpoints are expressed. Please remember the Second of the Ten Commandments. This is why the Bible is not specific as to what Jesus looks/ed like because it can lead to a violation of the Second commandment. Thank you for reading and may the Lord bless you as you seek the Truth! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maranatha (talk)

I agree with with you on this issue, and I am an evangelical Protestant who believes that the only way to salvation is by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. However, CP also has many Roman Catholics who edit, and they obviously also have strong views on this topics. Different articles on Christian-related topics thus have either a Catholic-leaning point of view, while other such articles have an evangelical Protestant point of view. The best option, considering we're united (on this site) around the fact that we're politically conservative, is to try to present both views fairly, which I encourage you to do if you have the time. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2018 (EDT)
The Catholic Church has never accepted the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, and resists extensive testing of it. Indeed, proof of the authenticity of the Shroud could weaken rather than strengthen the Church, which emphasizes sacraments for salvation. In my experience evangelicals are as accepting of the Shroud as Catholics are.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2018 (EDT)