Allen Parr is WRONG about the Shroud of Turin

Allen Parr (with Jeremiah Johnston) put out his top 5 SHOCKING REASONS why the Shroud of Turin shows the face of Jesus and it was shockingly bad. Join me to hear how bad it is. We'll cover the image formation, radiocarbon/C14 dating, pollen, Hungarian Pray Codex, and more.
Interact with us:
Twitter: / pressx_todoubt
Facebook: / reason2doubt
Podcast: reason2doubt.podbean.com
See our other Shroud of Turin content: • Shroud of Turin
Original video: • SHOCKING Evidence That...
Papers cited:
Casabianca, T., et al. “RADIOCARBON DATING OF THE TURIN SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE FROM RAW DATA.” Archaeometry, 2019, doi: 10.1111/arcm.12467.
Dal Bo, Federico. “JESUS’ TRIAL IN THE LATIN TALMUD Tractate Sanhedrin and its Translation in the Extractiones de Talmud.” University of Heidelberg, 2019, ISSN 0393-6805.
Damon, P.E., et al. “Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin.” Nature, vol. 337, 1989.
Lazzaro, Paolo Di, et al. “Statistical and Proactive Analysis of an Inter- Laboratory Comparison: The Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin.” Entropy, vol. 22, 2020, doi:10.3390/e22090926.
Meachem, William, et al. “The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology.” Current Anthropology, vol. 24, no. 3, 1983, www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm.
Riani, Marco, et al. “Regression analysis with partially labelled regressors: carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin.” Stat Comput, vol. 23, 2013, pp. 551-561, DOI 10.1007/s11222-012-9329-5.
Walsh, Bryan, and Larry Schwalbe. “An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, vol. 29, 2020, doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019....
Timestamps
0:00 - Intro
0:45 - Primer on the Shroud
2:11 - Reason #5: Most studied artifact
4:30 - Weapons Specialists
6:40 - Lots of research
10:50 - Reason #4: Image formation
16:20 - Reason #3: Radiocarbon dating
18:40 - How radiocarbon dating works
21:05 - Peer reviewed journals on C14 dating
27:20 - Invisible reweave hypothesis
29:30 - Reason #2: 3d Image
33:00 - Reason #1: Kitchen sink
36:00 - 1a: Floral
36:45 - 1b: Numismatic
37:30 - 1c: Textile/Fabric
38:35 - 1d: Hematological
39:30 - Now for something completely different
44:40 - Misc. Points
49:40 - Hungarian Pray Codex
50:30 - Outro
#shroudofturin #history #atheism #christianity

[@kidslovesatan34]

That the Catholic church won't allow it to be carbon dated again is kinda a really big clue. An honest body would have it tested fully and publish the results. That they won't tells you all you need to know......

[@ReasontoDoubt]

There's not really much incentive for them to do it. They already don't acknowledge it as an authentic relic, and it brings in tons of tourist dollars. Why jeopardize that just to get an answer that will, at best, confirm what your customers already believe or at worst will undermine future business?

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@ReasontoDoubt If honesty and integrity were their paramount goals, the consideration would be different.

[@RealSeekers]

@@kidslovesatan34 Agreed.

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@davethebrahman9870 They have already subjected it to a test, so that argument doesn't really work. They didn't like the result & would prefer for it not to be conclusively ruled medieval seems like the most rational answer. IF they thought it was authentic, surely they'd be desperate to prove that. The One True Church, a proven miracle in their custody, a huge & unassailable artifact upon which they could crow & grow the church.

[@JBN1983]

​@@davethebrahman9870the original carbon dating was done on repaired pieces that do date back to medieval times. This has been proven. I know skeptics don't like to go too far beyond their made up minds, but do honest research.

[@DeanKruger]

If you say the word "shroud" three times while looking in a mirror, Otangelo will appear behind you.

[@kidslovesatan34]

Omfg, that's frightening.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Don't put that evil on me

[@joemarino5141]

@@ReasontoDoubt Would be nice to stick to the Shroud evidence instead of attacking advocates.

[@WayneRossi]

I found this fascinating comment from, of all places, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: "Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect." I don't think I've heard this particular claim outside of this quote. I'm curious if any other sources have said more about this, as it seems rather damning.

[@kidslovesatan34]

Yeah, it's a compelling point in addition to all the other circumstantial evidence that points directly away from it being authentic.

[@User_name-im5dh]

I trust Catholic sources. 😅

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@User_name-im5dh In this case, it is advancing a critical analysis and proper skepticism. Credit where it is due....

[@marietta1335]

Barrie Schwortz, STURP's official photographer, himself wondered how the bloodstains remained red (or brownish red, not black) after all these centuries. He said it was the one remaining doubt he had on the authenticity of the shroud. Then, out of the blue while he was conversing with blood expert Alan Adler on the phone, Adler mentioned in passing the presence of bilirubin found in the bloodstains on the shroud. Apparently, bilirubin is what kept the bloodstains red. It was then that Schwortz believed the authenticity of the shroud. The Catholic Church has no dogmatic stand on the shroud. Articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia are written by individual authors and unless they involve established teachings and doctrines, they are free to raise questions on scientific investigations of reported miracles, etc.

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

I hate these people who waffle on, meandering around the point and never seeming to reach it, who repeatedly tell us that we want to stay tuned, because they're going to say something amazing, so we don't want to miss it, and keep telling us what they are going to tell us without actually telling us, so keep watching because we don't want to miss it... I've usually clicked off by then. So thanks for editing! {:o:O:}

[@maninalift]

The anti-intellectual broscience of these two is the most upsetting part of this. "I don't want to geek out but c-14 dating is when you date something using c-14 dating" (don't worry, the problem is not that you geeked out) "There are, like, papers and stuff, trust me" "Wait wait, I'm gonna use a long word... verisimilitude" (that's every apologist's special long word, dingus)

[@ReasontoDoubt]

He understands how C14 dating works. He just doesn't want to confuse us with big words like "decay" and "atoms" and "counting"

[@bobbarron1920]

It is astounding that anyone would buy what Jeremiah and Allan are selling. They make used car salesmen look like people of integrity. You only need a modicum of critical thinking skill to see through their silliness.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Jeremiah definitely has "Used car salesmen who is also a youth pastor" vibes

[@HarryNicNicholas]

when it comes to the alan parrs of the apologist world i'm not sure who i hate more, the fire and brimstone apologist or the two faced reasoning apologist. 31:00 this is what we call "bump mapping" or "displacement mapping" in computer graphics, nothing special, converting colour info to height info. 44:50 how about that, one of the first commercial jobs i did as an animator was a fly around of the church of the holy sepulchre, i never got to go there but i believe the animation was on display in the church, back in the mid 80's 6:30 that reminds me, i was quoted as being "a designer from the bbc" when someone wanted me to work on a video of theirs, oddly though when i asked for money, a contract, a schedule and a storyboard i became "a nit-picking capitalist"

[@robertbissett]

1. TOP OF HEAD MISSING - Some say the body was laid on the cloth and the cloth then folded over the top of the body and nothing more. Others say the practice at the time was to go further tucking the upper portion of the cloth under the sides of the body, pulling the lower portion up all around and wrapping it all with strips of cloth. Body position is thought to be laying flat on the back or on the stomach or on the back with knees bent and the head leaning forward. For all these variations images can be found. The cloth covered the front and back of the body including the head, front, back and top. But we see no image of the top of the head, only a blank area with a water stain. 2. CRANIUM TOO SMALL - The homo sapiens skull has well known proportions. With a line drawn through the eyes dividing the face in half, the distance from the chin to the center of the eyes is the same as the distance from the center of the eyes to the top of the head. In a CAD program the imported image of the shroud can be set to the actual dimensions, 14' 3" long. Then the face can be measured. We find that the distance from the eye to the top of head is an inch less than to the chin. 3. FACE TOO NARROW - Also in the CAD program we find that the face is about 5 1/4" wide. The average width of a male head is 6-7 inches. 4. SHROUD RECREATED - The often repeated claim that no one has ever been able to explain how the image on the shroud was created, even with modern scientific advanced technology. Therefore, since the image defies all rational explanation it must be miraculous. But, in fact, the shroud has been recreated very convincingly by Luigi Garlaschelli using low tech methods available in the middle ages . Published in J. Imaging Sci. and Technol., 54 (4) 2010. 5. 3D EFFECT - The claim is made that the image on the shroud contains three dimensional topographic quality. A VP8 Image Analyzer was able to convert the two dimensional image to a three dimensional image which is said to be highly unusual and that no other photo does this. This is often regarded as part of the imagined miracle. Using Sketchup Pro with the Bitmap to Mesh extension, giving both the shroud and the recreated images the same treatment, both converted to 3D images successfully.

[@dco1487]

if the shroud was replicated to the exact match you would have heard about it

[@dancinswords]

I have to assume there was something wrong with Luigi Garlaschelli's recreation, based purely on the fact that I haven't heard anyone on either side mention it at all. Both sides have agreed on a lack of any such recreations

[@robertbissett]

Spoken like a true believer. Go look at the images and you'll see. It's easy as pie to do.@@dancinswords

[@matswessling6600]

@@dancinswordsno, you dont have to assume that at all.

[@matswessling6600]

@@dco1487and you just did.

[@goldenalt3166]

Do they not count the great pyramid as a ancient artifact? It has undergone way more study then the shroud ever could.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I wish I had thought of that 😄

[@richardhunter132]

according to Hugh Farey, if you use JSTOR to search for papers in academic journals, it returns 2700 for the Turin shroud. by comparison it returns 4000 for the Great Pyramid; 5100 for the Colosseum; 11100 for Stonehenge; 17200 for the Dead Sea Scrolls; and - rather unfortunately in my opinion - 29000 for the Titanic. clearly, by this metric, it is not the most studied artefact in human history

[@ReasontoDoubt]

29,000 for the Titanic? That is very surprising...I wonder if that's picking up items that use the word "titanic" or reference it as a turn of phrase rather than studying it. Either way, the thing is I'm not even sure quantity of papers is the right approach. The amount of work that goes into each paper is not identical. I don't know how we'd even attempt to assess this. If he said instead that the Shroud has been studied extensively, that would be a much more defensible statement (but not as rhetorically useful)

[@richardhunter132]

@@ReasontoDoubt could be. I understood it as representing the degree of ghoulishiness displayed by people regarding the Titanic. enough apparently that they're willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get into a death trap of a submarine to visit it

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@richardhunter132 Those were billionaires, not real people. Who knows what their motivations are

[@hughfarey3734]

Update! You can search JSTOR in different ways. Enter "Dead Sea Scrolls" in quotation marks, and you get 17,284 hits. They are divided into various categories, and the category 'Journals' lists 12942 Journal Articles. If we total what we get for "Turin Shroud" (343 altogether), "Shroud of Turin" (1523 altogether), "Holy Shroud" (842 altogether), we get 1203 Journal Articles - that's fewer than one tenth of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jordan is perfectly correct that "quantity of articles" is not necessarily a measure of the "most-studiedness" of something, but surely it's an indication. If not by "peer reviewed journals" (and don't authenticists just love "peer review"!) by what bizarre reasoning is it thought that the Shroud is "the most studied" of anything? Mona Lisa: 5391 Journal Articles, Michelangelo Pieta: 3300, Colosseum: 3843, Book of Kells: 2118, frankly, it's hard to find anything that has been studied less!

[@InquisitiveBible]

Overall, good video. I've enjoyed your Shroud of Turin series a lot. I'm quite astonished at how fanatical the Shroud apologists are, considering how low the stakes are. They're easily up there with young-earth creationists in the lengths they will go to defend bad science and mislead their followers. It's a minor nitpick, but since you've described how C14 dating works in a few videos now, I'd like to clarify that humans don't accumulate carbon-14 from breathing. As animals, we take in oxygen from the atmosphere, not carbon dioxide. However, plants absorb CO₂, and then we consume plants as well as meat from herbivores that consume plants.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Thanks for the correction, I'll speak more carefully about the CO2 cycle in the future. Wouldn't want to confuse anybody!

[@christophernodvik1057]

Way to go! I am a Christian but false argument does nothing to help God in my opinion. Lies should not be tolerated by Christians ! Shame on us that apologetics has a bad name!

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

*_"false argument does nothing to help God in my opinion "_* What need does god have of help? {:o:O:} _(Edited for tyops)_

[@RealSeekers]

I would have to say shame on you and you should repent for falesly impugning us as telling "lies", this is libelous lying on your part- God will not tolerate these unfair and untrue words from you on Judgement Day. I don't have nearly enough in this post to judge your knowledge of the Shroud, but I bet it pales in comparison to the experts like me who have studied the Shroud in depth from both sides. Please, open your mind to truth and don't just assume the Shroud is a fake without any warrant on your part.

[@JerryPenna]

To me if Christians have a relic that is from Jesus they need more to prove it. Still doesn't prove to be supernatural even if from Jesus. Odd there is zero chain of custody for 1200 years then the carbon dating ties to the date of discovery.

[@jaclo3112]

@RealSeekers so you're saying the Shroud of Turin is real and the bible is wrong? Because both can't be right. If the Shroud is real, then the bible wrongly described the buried shroud of jesus to be "strips of cloth" with a separate piece.of cloth for the head. But the Shroud is one piece of cloth. Makes you wonder what other parts of the bible must also be wrong.

[@RealSeekers]

@@jaclo3112 No I'm saying both the Bible and the Shroud are real and you are simply misunderstanding the Bible. I've dealt with this objection 100 X on my show and every scholar and person with a PhD agrees that this interpretation you give is wrong about the strips of cloth. The Shroud fits perfectly with first century practices. Even the ulitmiate Shroud skeptic Hugh Farey kind of balks at anyone thinking that the Bible disproves the Shroud and he literally takes advantage of every opportunity he can to discredit the Shroud that he can, but he knows better than to make this discredited claim you are here. Strips were used to tie the cloth and body and there was the Sudarium of Oviedo used as the head cloth- nothing in the Bible disproves the Shroud- just trust me, I've answered this question a million times now-- again not blaming you for that as this is new for you, so not venting my frustrations at you for not knowing just saying, when are christians going to stop using this outdated claim- it doesn't work to discredit tthe Shroud. Maybe watch a BBc documentary with Rageh Omar on the Shroud from 2010- John Jackson has a portion of the video where he demonstrates how the body was wrapped with "strips". P.S. One of those strips is on the Shroud itself as has been scientifically proven not to be one peice as you say, there is a strip along the side that has been ripped off and sewn back in. See it with your own eyes in that same 2010 BBc documentary.

[@maninalift]

The "professor friend of ours" story is supposed to be impressive. Like "this even persuades professors, it must be good". They are kinda vague however and i know that they would only leave out the details if doing so made the story seem better. My guess is that this is a professor of god stuff and the Turin shroud bit is part of his "testimony" from well before he became a professor.

[@quinn0517]

Did Jeremiah learn this while he was studying *in* Oxford? 😂

[@kidslovesatan34]

They just want to believe, they don't care about the facts. Faith is the most dishonest position one can hold because it is assumed without reason or evidence.

[@Tentandoamar]

Eu defendo o sud@rio e, cito os melhores contra autenticidade do sud@rio que existem, para os desinformados. Nem todas os que acreditam na autenticidade são desonestos. Embora eu não seja cristão.

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@Tentandoamar You're right, it's fake.

[@Tentandoamar]

​@@kidslovesatan34 Boa noite.

[@RealSeekers]

Especially those who deny having faith in anything altogether- the most dishonest position for sure :P Faith is an evidence-based trust in the Bible and not what you describe.

[@kidslovesatan34]

​@@RealSeekersFaith: belief in something without proof is the religious definition. I don't have faith of that sort of any kind. My positions are based on evidence and reason. Believing things without good evidence is irrational. I strive to believe in true things and reject things that are not evidently true.

[@Nocturnalux]

It's a small thing but the way he keeps saying "Tur-in" is driving me insane.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I thought that was weird too but the it actually sounded a bit closer to the way Italians were pronouncing it on KZbin, so who knows 🤷‍♂️ Maybe Luca can help us out!

[@sergehychko3659]

"I don't use 'all' lightly, as a historian". We have a saying but I'll abbreviate it to "bish, please!".

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I actually looked into his publishing history. He seems to have written a fair amount as a theologian, but I couldn't find any publications in history

I wonder how much waste heat would be released by this "six gigawatt" light. I'm not a physicist, but I immediately wonder if that would leave an impression on the shroud or if it might perhaps be more likely to instantly sear it to ashes and maybe blow out the door of the tomb.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

It really depends on what he means by "6 gigawatt light". Assuming the production of the light was magically efficient and generated no heat of its own, then the heat would come from the photons interacting with the matter, like how microwaves heat up food for example. If they are a low number of high energy gamma rays then it's possible there would be very little heat as the gamma rays would barely interact with the Shroud at all. Of course, these photons have to interact *somewhat* in order to produce an image at all...but then you need to finely tune your photons so they produce only the desired effect without too much heat left over. But hey, through God all things are possible right?

[@joemarino5141]

If the Shroud were miraculous, Christians would argue that God could obviously control the impact of the light.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@joemarino5141 Sure, which is fair enough. God could do anything he wanted, including monkeying with light or just manifesting the image directly. At that point though any explanation becomes as good as any other. It would be impossible to say what happened because any flaw or contradicting evidence can be waved away by appealing to a miracle

[@joemarino5141]

@@ReasontoDoubt Granted. I think that the solid body of evidence that advocates believe point to authenticity form the basis for believing a couple of real possibilities: the Shroud images could have been formed by an as-yet-known natural means OR if not that, it's a miracle of some kind (and the longer that we go not being able to prove it's a forgery or done by natural means, the stronger the case becomes to deem it a miracle).

[@ReasontoDoubt]

"As-yet-unknown natural means" or supernatural are definitely the only two possibilities!

[@michaeljames4509]

My favorite part was when he mispronounced sepulchre.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I did notice that, though as I am sure I butcher plenty of names I try not to come down on pronunciation too much...unless it's someone saying nukular

[@JesusLopez-un6mw]

I didn’t notice it when I watched Allen Parr’s original video but I noticed it too on this one. Maybe he mispronounced sepulchre (or sepulcher, in Spanish we use sepulcro with comes from Latin sepulcrum). I found online in some of the best dictionaries that you can use sepulcher (American pronunciation) or sepulchre (British pronunciation, closer to Spanish so maybe why I like the British better). I don’t one if he used the American form which I’m not use to but try to find the place where he said and gave up. Still he could’ve been right if he used the American form.

[@dr.snipes9410]

God bless you. Thank you for your respectfulness

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

*_"Ooo-OOOH! Weapons scientists and rocket guys!"_* That's the level of critical analytical skills these guys have. {:o:O:}

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Right? Like, don't get me wrong, rocket science is REALLY hard but it doesn't make you qualified to do anything else but rocket science

[@RealSeekers]

This is a weakness in Jordan's critique as these scientists were qualifed to do the tests and make the conclusions that they did with the Shroud- STURP was about image formation and so this was a qualified team for the Operational test plan that they had else they wouldn't have been accepted to do the studies and their work wouldn't have been published in peer-review afterward. Sure there were other experts they didn't bring along that would have been helpful for sure- everyone admits that much, but their lack didn't especially hinder them from doing what they did via the experiments or the conclusions they drew from their studies. STRUP didn' care about the historicy of the Shroud at all, that wasn't their focus of study, rather they wanted to ascertain how the images were made.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@RealSeekers To be clear, I'm not saying that the STURP scientists were unqualified for doing what they did. My critique is that saying they are "rocket scientists" or "weapons specialists" does not indicate competence in an unrelated field. It's clearly just an attempt to impress the audience with how smart they were.

[@RealSeekers]

@@ReasontoDoubt Sure, I do think a simple appeal to authority is fallacious there, so I do take your point on this, but happy that you also take my point as well that they were the appropriate people for STURP :)

[@Lazarus365]

We know that. But that was not the reason for telling you that there were rocket scientists for the sake of rockets. What he is trying to put across is that these tests were not carried out by some laymen but people trained and developed to look into a matter as scientifically as possible.

[@xelazip]

Guess what? Read the Gospel of John. We see from Lazarus’ resurrection and the account of Jesus’ empty tomb that Jewish burial custom of the day included face covering. How would the image get on the shroud but not on the face covering?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

They would say that the face covering was the Sudarium of Oviedo, which was removed from the face in the burial chamber

[@ReasontoDoubt]

They definitely claim that the blood stains match up. I don't see it at a glance, but there's allegedly sophisticated mapping to line them up. I haven't looked into it yet (it's on the list of things to do)

[@hwwbroward8322]

Thanks for pointing out that some discussions about the Shroud are way below adequate... But, it's sort of a roundabout way to dilute the actual facts... even though you've in the past done somewhat of a thorough presentation.. now you're pointing out all the hearsay.. inquiring minds will look into the actual facts one by one.. and will do their own deductive reasoning.... without preconceived biases..

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Given that the presentation has hundreds of thousands of views, I don't think it's 'diluting facts' to address it

[@hwwbroward8322]

@@ReasontoDoubt hundreds of thousands of views to which? Reference was to your presentation yesterday which I'm sure it's not substantiated by number of views..

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@hwwbroward8322 The Allen Parr video to which I am responding has 303k views as of today. Even if it doesn't represent the finest iteration of pro-Shroud argumentation, the popularity makes it worth addressing

[@hwwbroward8322]

@@ReasontoDoubt yes, and the understanding is the conclusion is they did a bad presentation on the shroud. Imo.

[@mosesjurassic3686]

Jordan's presentation was spot-on and surprisingly polite. Thank you for that. I've been an agnostic (not an atheist, I don't know anything about the gods) for literally my whole life, but I wish the shroud would not be fake. Life would be more colorful, I guess. But superior arguments should always win, no matter what we would like to be true.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I'd also prefer if the Shroud were actually Jesus' burial cloth. That would be neat! Alas, I don't think it is.

[@jacquelineuthoff4247]

I also think it would be freaking cool if it was real...❤

[@jenna2431]

The bible even mentions a face covering in addition to the burial cloth. How do they explain that?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I believe they point to the Sudarium of Oviedo as the alleged face cloth. Of course that's been radiocarbon dated to the 8th century, so...

[@joemarino5141]

Isn't it possible that if the Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo are both authentic, that they might have gotten separated in the course of almost 2,000 years?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@joemarino5141 Sure, but I'm not sure how they would have gotten displaced by centuries from each other short of time travel or Bob's magically sorted neutrons

[@joemarino5141]

@@ReasontoDoubt I don't know what's so odd about the Shroud being taken by one group and eventually ending up in Italy and the Sudarium being taken by another group and ending up in Spain. I don't know why you have to invoke time travel or neutrons.

[@Tentandoamar]

​@@ReasontoDoubt O teste por carbono 14 de nada vale, já que existia inúmeros fanáticos que podem ter contaminado o sud@rio de oviedo.

[@JesusLopez-un6mw]

I watched the original Allen Parr’s video completely and found it to be bollocks. Very unconvincing from my point of view, meaning the Christian (Protestant) biblical interpretation. I’m glad I found this video which in a very clear, concise and informative way appeals to science, art, history and common sense. Is good to have more than one single point of view when it comes to challenging topics. I wrote, I think, in Allen’s video about two different comments about how the Shroud of Turin contradicts the biblical narrative which I confirmed while reading the comments. Many people expressed being in awe, getting closer to God or have their faith strengthened by the video. I found that disturbing. Real Christian faith doesn’t need scientific, religious or any kind of proof because it ceased to be faith as soon as you introduced physical evidence. Here’s the biblical proof: Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. As you can see, even biblically speaking their rant doesn’t hold water. Is clear that faith is a hope based on what we cannot see. In the Christian faith the one we can’t is Jesus Christ who is our hope. It also shows me the degree of biblical ignorance which is not excused especially if you have a Bible KZbin channel. So as Jordan made an analysis of Allen Parr and Jeremiah’s videos debunking their reasoning in the same way I made and analysis debunking their theological or lack of theological application. I guess I should make a video on that. Thanks Jordan for a well thought out and researched video.

[@henrimourant9855]

In fairness to the Shroud I think, even though it is medieval, it might not have been created with the intention to deceive but as just religious art at a monastery in France or something. But later it got bought by some people who then presented it as the original burial shroud of Jesus.

[@calebcrawford2520]

It’s actually not medieval. Have you researched the evidence for yourself?

[@henrimourant9855]

@@calebcrawford2520 Yes I have. I am 99.999% sure it is medieval

[@calebcrawford2520]

@@henrimourant9855 well actually, you would be wrong, the carbon dating was taken from a piece of cloth that was woven in with the original cloth because of the fire. The carbon dating of the medieval age isn’t reliable and extremely faulty, so it isn’t medieval.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@calebcrawford2520 You're in luck, because we'll be releasing episodes on the carbon dating itself very soon which debunk this view!

[@calebcrawford2520]

@@ReasontoDoubt well actually, that view is very accurate, plus you would be disagreeing with the people who actually study this artifact and say it can’t be replicated. The carbon dating release was also super shady. They didn’t immediately release it. I’m not sure why the evidence can be so strong, yet people go against it.

[@PrincessMadeira]

This video is fabulous, I'm also trying to articulate something and having a really hard time. I'm a deeply religious person (not a Christian, but I am a pastor of my Satanic church) and what Allen Parr and his ilk are doing feels really sacrilegious. The intellectual dishonesty and need for things to be concrete, and "real" in the sense my toaster is real, or in a forensic sense feels like an intense betrayal of the things in religion that are actually valuable, and what religion can offer. They live in this profoundly desacralized world. I guess to me, someone who has a deep Christian faith shouldn't need the shroud to be proof of Jesus's resurrection because if it is a product of human ingenuity that should *also* feel like proof of the beauty and sacredness of the world, and the wonder of the human soul. There should be no need for intellectual dishonesty, or interpreting the data to "prove" a particular interpretation of the bible or whatever to be accurate. There should be a love for the community they exist within, a delight in the form of ritual and a respect for truth whatever it is, because what *is* does not indicate what *should be*. I'm a Satanist and the disingenuous, dishonest, click-bait you-tube propheteering seems like a greater blasphemy towards everything the Christians in my life value than all the hosts I ritually desecrate.

[@PrincessMadeira]

Also my brother went to Episcopal seminary at Columbia, and for him Jesus's absence from the historical record in many ways is sort of part of the point of Christianity. He's like "Christianity is about this incomprehensible, unknowable god, who is only accessible through the hole left in the world by this executed first-century criminal whose body we are told vanished." and like that God being accessible essentially only through sacrificial love for one's fellow human beings is sort of his whole deal (it's not my theology, but I think it's an intelligent one that serves him well)

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@PrincessMadeira While that sort of mystical interpretation isn't for me personally, I can see the appeal and I respect it. It's honest and earnest, and I can't ask more than that. If it works for him, I think that's awesome.

[@WayneRossi]

The presentation was really terrible. What I don't understand is what methodology is used to determine whether the Shroud is authentic by most of its believers. It seems like the case is meant to be built up around a number of unexplained facts, from which they then leap to the idea that the Shroud was magically produced. But this doesn't strike me as a sound way to gather knowledge. Even if we agreed that some facts about the Shroud are unexplained, that doesn't mean that it was made by a miracle. I can't even think of a way that we'd be able to evaluate the claim that this particular cloth was subject to a miracle 2000 years ago instead of any other conceivable explanation. The reason I don't believe the Shroud is actually a picture of Jesus is the simplest one: the face on it looks like medieval pictures of Jesus. That's something I see brought up far too infrequently in these debates, and it seems to my mind the most important piece of information. The carbon dating also seems to validate this medieval age, and I don't understand why there is any discussion to be had after those two facts are taken into account.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I agree. The only explanation that isn't directly "I don't know, therefore magic" that I've heard is Bob Rucker's hypothesis, which is basically "We could tell if magic was involved in this way" which is better than nothing I guess lol

[@Tentandoamar]

​@@ReasontoDoubt Cara, não tem lógica nenhuma, alguém fazer todo esse trabalho, sendo que é simplesmente uma fotografia vista em negativo, se nem existia fotografia na época pq o falsificador iria usar essa característica? O que vocês acreditam sinceramente para mim, não tem lógica nenhuma, parece até que vocês estão forçando a barra.

[@joemarino5141]

An alternative explanation to it looking like medieval pictures is that the Shroud is authentic and that the prevalent representation of Jesus on medieval (and earlier paintings) is based on the Shroud. The 1988 C-14 dating has been contested on multiple grounds (I wrote an 800 page book on the problems). The single biggest problem is that only ONE sample was used, which means that there is no guarantee that the sample was representative of the whole cloth. On that ground, the results are invalidated.

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@joemarino5141 I believe the carbon dating testing was competently carried out and that their results are therefore valid. It needs to be highlighted that there was not one test but three, carried out at independent laboratories in the USA, England and Switzerland. The protocols used were agreed to in advance between the scientists and the Vatican and these protocols were followed. The scientists originally petitioned the Vatican to allow it to use 7 labs and more samples to increase the accuracy of the testing. The Vatican refused, allowing only three labs. Numerous people witnessed and videotaped the sampling of the shroud and the samples were packaged unobserved by the Archbishop of Turin and Dr Tite of the British Museum. The scientists from the carbon-dating laboratories were not involved. The labs used different cleaning procedures, control samples were used to test their calibration, some tests were performed blind, that is scientists didn't know if they were testing the shroud sample or a control sample and none of their results were compared until all three labs had completed testing. The results from the three independent laboratories were 'mutually compatible', i.e., they independently obtained similar dates. On those grounds, the results are validated and your argument a post-hoc rationalization.

[@Tentandoamar]

​@@kidslovesatan34Tem que provar que foi na parte original do sud@rio, e que não houve contaminação de nenhuma forma. Nada importa 99% de eficácia, em uma parte contaminada por alguma coisa da idade média.

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

Thanks for sharing the pain. I hope it helps! {:o:O:}

[@kidslovesatan34]

The conservatives Catholic encyclopaedia argues that it probably isn't authentic. I'm willing to take their word on that.

[@joemarino5141]

Over 30 Popes have spoken in support of the authenticity of the Shroud.

[@kidslovesatan34]

​@@joemarino5141As the church has never declared it authentic you're going to need to provide evidence to support your claims. Name, time, where etc. I'm very confident you can't.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

no one can replicate it today even with the best available technology how can you expect a medieval man to make it you do not even have logic and common sense

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN The irony of you accusing someone else of not having logic and sense. Particularly after spamming the same grammatically poor and semi literate comment.

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN It certainly has been recreated, falsifying your claim. You're going to have to come up with a better argument than that.

[@RealSeekers]

I think this was a pretty fair review though obviously it is hard to do a overview of all the topics related to the Shroud in 1 hour and to expect an in depth presentation- just being fair to Jeremiah who covered a lot of ground in a short time frame. That said, just a couple things to mention. 1) When he speaks of Numismatic evidence, I don't think he meant the Pontius Pilate coins but rather the statistical link of the Shroud Man to the 692 A.D. gold solidus coins that Giulio Fanti wrote his book on and was also confirmed by coin expert Justin Robinson who spoke of the link to another coin in a relevant peer-reviewed source (I linked to it on my Blog for free). But yeah, if you want links to the shows or Blogs, I'll try to post them here but KZbin may delete my post so if so I'll send them to your email instead and you post it for people. 2. On the Floral evidence, you only addressed Max Frei's work on the pollens without mentioning the more up to date work and also one thing you ought to know about is that there are also images of flowers that some argue are only from Jersualem on the Shroud as secondary images. I tend to be skeptical of these flower images myself, but I have to confess I have not looked into them at all nor done an in dpeth show on them with the experts. So Jeremiah may have these flower images that Alan Whanger talks about finding on the Shroud and not just the Pollen evidence. That's it for this one. Talk to you on the 28th for our miracles debate :)

[@kidslovesatan34]

And the one you think would be most common would be olive pollen. None detected.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Given the presentation to that point I was basically going with whatever the most obvious, common points raised were (which seems to be Frei's work and the Pilate coins). I'm not familiar with the images of flowers on the Shroud, that's a new one to me...but again I was forced to guess what Jeremiah meant since he never says! Maybe he'll do a follow up to clarify

[@kidslovesatan34]

'Coins dated to the early 1st century are seen over the eyes of the shroud image'. This claim was originally made by Father Francis Filas after examining a 1931 photograph, yet the coins can't be seen in better quality 1978 photos. We are expected to believe that poor quality photos showed not just coins, but enough detail to determine when they were minted. Another problem with the coins is explaining why they were placed on the eyes. There was no such Jewish custom in 1st century Palestine. The claim of some believers to see coins must be weighed against the claim of others to also see nails, a spear, a sponge on a reed, a crown of thorns, a hammer, scourges, tongs, dice, flowers etc on the shroud. Even most shroud researchers reject these claims as simply an example of an overactive imagination.

[@RealSeekers]

@@ReasontoDoubt Yeah that makes sense, I'm just guessing too but just they way he worded it, I think my guesses are more likely what he had in mind given the way he worded things with numismatix and floral vs. pilate xoins and pollen evidenxes- it sounds like he is using the papers or Pro-Shroud ways of talking about this stuff and so I'd go with those. But who knows in reality what was in his mind, he doesn't expand on his end as you mention. The floral images are interesting in that some think they are flower images enxoded in the same way as the body images (as some of the blood stains are too) and they were used at Jesus burial and got imprinted on the Shroud when Jesus rose in the same way the body images were. That's the xlaim at least, but I haven't looked into these in detail on my end really.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I'll have to check both of those out...the Shroud of Turin truly is the content gift that keeps on giving 😄

[@Pibblepunk]

Hey, I'm type AB+! Guess that makes me Jesus.

[@quinn0517]

I'm AB negative, am I also Jesus? I hope so bc that would make my life much more interesting. We could have a club!

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I'm B+, so I'm like half-Jesus

[@Still-Struggling]

You should’ve mentioned that AB blood is not even unique to humans. Felines for example have AB blood.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

That's true. I didn't mention it because tests have indicated the blood is probably primate blood, and the most prevalent primate in medieval Europe were humans. It's also like human blood is hard to come by 😂

[@AliceSusanHarding]

There is a documentary that shows the polllen found on the shroud is what would be expected for the location and so the type of stitching used is distinctive and what would be expected for the time and the place.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

We address the pollen (and I *think* the stitching? It's been a minute) in this episode with Hugh Farey. kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZSXZKKMep6naLc Basically, you can't easily determine specific species with pollen, so the pollen is consistent with originating basically anywhere in Europe or the Mediterranean.

[@gonzalocastillo749]

So how did the image get there?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I don't know

[@francisgruber3638]

It took a Freedom of Information Act and 17 years of requests for the three C14 labs to release their primary shroud data, something most labs do freely and at once. Turns out that the data they suppressed directly affected the 90 plus percent certainty they otherwise published in the original findings. It is human nature to cherry-pick the relevant facts that support our point of view, which we blindly do ourselves but mock others for doing as if it was both intentional and stupid or deceptive.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Fortunately, while we can't have 95% certainty as to the interval of the dating, we *can* be pretty sure it isn't first century which is not nothing!

[@francisgruber3638]

@@ReasontoDoubt which is where the C14 labs should have left it.

[@calibri1182]

@@francisgruber3638 You need a freedom of information act for 2 laboratories not in America, therefore not under US laws?

[@richardstanleyjr1455]

Jordan, I don't know if you recognized this or not, but it appears that every one of your art examples of Jesus being naked are scenes from his baptism. You didn't show a single medieval art example of Jesus being naked during or after his crucifixion. If you search far and wide enough, maybe you can find an example like that, but the examples you showed are not really on point.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

That was actually an intentional decision. The argument could be made by a determined Shroud supporter that any depiction of the crucifixion that had a naked Jesus is that way because it was copied from the Shroud. It would be harder to make the argument that depictions of a completely different scene would be copied from the Shroud. Since the point has to do with modesty, it doesn't seem like it should matter much in what context Jesus is naked. It's sufficient to show that artists not copying the Shroud still sometimes depicted Jesus naked.

[@Lazarus365]

Now that you have established that the shroud is a fake can you make a clear statement to that effect.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

The Shroud is not a first century cloth and thus cannot be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. In that sense, it's a fake. There you go! 😄

[@myoneblackfriend3151]

"I’m Allen Parr."

[@JBN1983]

None of these skeptics will have Barrie Schwortz on to debate. He is one of the original team members that studied the shroud in the 70s. He knows more than anyone, have him on. Otherwise, these skeptics are cherry picking who they want to "debunk."

[@ReasontoDoubt]

We're not opposed to having him on...but if I had a dime for every time someone told me that if I don't have X person on then obviously it's because we're afraid/lying/cherry picking/whatever, then I could probably pay for a family vacation!

[@hughfarey3734]

Coupl'a things... 1) The billions of watts stuff. This is based on Paolo di Lazzaro's work with lasers at ENEA, which is written up in an Applied Optics paper which a) is behind a paywall and b) few people have read and c) even fewer people have understood. The bottom line is that Wattage is not a measure of energy, it is a rate. A million Joules per second is the same a one joule in a millionth of a second. Di Lazzaro's tables are quite clear about how much energy he needed to scorch the Shroud, about half a Joule per square centimetre, or, for an image of about 20,000 square centimetres, about 10,000 Joules. That's much less than needed to boil a kettle. 2) Something to do with the Holy Seplecure (?) being old? A year or so ago the building around the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was extensively refurbished, basically to stop it falling down, as it's been held up for years by scaffolding which was itself in danger of collapse. Bits of it were stripped down to bedrock, revealing a burial shelf in the right sort of position, typical of burial shelves in first century rock cut tombs. This is all written up by Antonia Moropoulou, the lead scientist, et all. in 'OSL mortar dating to elucidate the construction history of the Tomb Chamber of the Holy Aedicule of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem' in the Journal of Archaeological Science. Has Allen Parr or Jeremiah Johnston read it? No, of course, not... 3) Kudos to Jeremiah Johnston for explaining that the VP-8 Image Analyzer was not used by NASA to make maps of the moon with. 4) There's a bit of discussion below about whether 'faith' is a valid position to hold on something, and kidslovesatan says "Faith is the most dishonest position one can hold because it is assumed without reason or evidence." I'm afraid I don't really agree. I have no problem at all with people who simply believe that the Shroud is real. It's the people who seem to be trying to bolster their faith with spurious evidence, and then attempt to convince the rest of us that we have have to have faith as well, who need correcting.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I should've known you'd just know the paper the wattage thing was based on, lol. Next time I'll just email you!

[@kidslovesatan34]

Hugh, guilty as charged. Mea culpa. On a side note, is there any evidence of first century Palestinian herringbone weave cloth at all?

[@hughfarey3734]

@@kidslovesatan34 Good question. The short answer is no. There are vanishingly few textiles from first century Palestine of any kind, let alone 3/1 herringbone. But that's not really a convincing rebuttal of the Shroud - maybe the cloth was made in Egypt, or Syria, or even India. But there aren't any good examples of herringbone weave from there either. In his book "Test the Shroud," which is a compendium of various authenticist claims, Mark Antonacci lists numerous examples of possible suspects, either from a later date, or in wool, or the wrong sort of herringbone, or, most especially, examples of a weave where each "shed " was set up individually. This is particularly true of damasks and diapers. I think it is now generally accepted that the Shroud was woven in a fairly simple way on a four-shaft loom, with every warp thread individually attached to one of four shafts, which were raised in sequence 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4, successively throughout the length of the bolt. This kind of thing became easy and common in the Middle Ages, and was used for two main purposes. One was to produce a cloth which was essentially linen - rough but strong - on one side, and cotton - soft but weaker - on the other. This was perfect for clothes and called fustian. The other was for painters' canvasses, as the reduced number of "over-and-unders" meant that the cloth was very smooth and a good surface to paint on. There are no examples of this kind of weave, or of a kind of loom which could be used to produce it, before about 1200AD.

[@hughfarey3734]

@Bub-ig4oc Frankly, the whole cubits things is massive red herring. The Shroud is certainly neither made nor cut to any cubit size known, and the idea that an Ancient Assyrian cubit - derived from some carvings now in the British museum - was "standard" in first century Palestine is ludicrous. I explore the whole thing in "Cubits And Ells" which you can find on my medievalshroud website.

[@hughfarey3734]

@Bub-ig4oc Fourth attempt. No, the cubit claim is nonsense.

[@robertjimenez5984]

It looks like theist are getting more and more dishonest to sustain their irrational belief.

[@kidslovesatan34]

Their contortionist efforts are impressive.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

no one can replicate it today even with the best available technology how can you expect a medieval man to make it you do not even have logic and common sense

[@robertjimenez5984]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN how do you know it can not be replicate today? Do we have it available in order to replicate it? It has no supernatural components. So it can be replicated with no effort. The fact that it’s not permitted for anyone to evaluate the cloth today is proof that it’s man made. This is common sense.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

HAS ANYONE DONE IT?? APRIL 20 2024 NONE

[@robertjimenez5984]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN how can they if they have no access to the fabric. The dating was done in 1988 when we had not even internet. Access to the internet was not until 1993. Since 1988 the fabric has been kept from anyone they wish to analyze it. So what you say about today technology not replicating the fabric is ridiculous since there is no access to it.

[@Tentandoamar]

Qual a importancia da imagem tridimensional e, de outra características que existe no pano sobrenatural, para o autor da idade media? Quais eram as utilidades? Se nem existia tecnologia para mostras ao publico. Isso torna o autor meio doido da cabeça, isso seria a única explicação plausível, quais são as probabilidades dele ter obtido as características do sud@rio por acidente?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

The "3d qualities" (or some other pattern of variation in coloring) would be necessary for the human eye to distinguish the pattern at all given the monochromatic nature of the image. If it were not that way, it would just be an outline

[@ebmmbe2149]

Lets not mention the sudarium

[@ReasontoDoubt]

This video wasn't about that so...yeah, let's not! 😄

[@onlyme972]

Only the desperately gulible believe its re.

[@kidslovesatan34]

The Bible gives clear details of Jesus' burial cloth - linen strips and a separate cloth for the head - that clearly conflicts with the shroud, which is one large rectangular piece. 'Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.' [Jn 19:40] 'So Peter... reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter... went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.' [Jn 20:3-7] 'Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves...' [Lk 24:12] Note also that Jesus was wrapped buried 'in accordance with Jewish burial customs'. Jesus was not the only person in the Bible to rise from the dead, so did Lazarus, and following Jewish burial customs he was also wrapped in strips of linen: 'The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, "Take off the grave clothes and let him go."' [Jn 11:44] For the SoT to be authentic the Bible account has to be wrong. Thay can't both be right, at BEST only one can be right. BUT, they _could_ both be wrong.

[@kidslovesatan34]

​@@beverlyhurd8556The Bible says he was, as I quoted. And if the Bible gives completely contradictory accounts, that demonstrates that it's not a reliable source and can't be used to validate any position, correct?

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@beverlyhurd8556 And....The Bible [John 19:40] indicates that Jesus' burial followed Jewish customs. Thus, Joseph of Arimethea would have washed the body. Since he had time to wrap in the spices, he would have had time to wash it. The body shown in the shroud was not washed.

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@beverlyhurd8556 Almost all translations say linen cloth and not shroud. Linen strips are in accordance with Jewish burial customs. Using the 'shroud' translation is cherry picking to fit your narrative while ignoring all the other translations that contradict it.

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@beverlyhurd8556 There is no mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in the New Testament or any early Christian writings. Surely, given the desire for miraculous proof of the divine nature of Jesus, such a relic would have rated a mention? The image on the cloth would presumably have been at its brightest and most obvious. *So why don't the gospels, who mentioned the linen used to wrap the body, bother to mention this miraculous image?* The most obvious answer is that you can't write about an image that isn't there.

[@joemarino5141]

This is another argument that has been used for eons. Even with linen strips (which could refer to what was used to tie the hands and feet) and a separate cloth, that doesn't preclude having a full shroud. Matthew, Mark and Luke all use the word "sindon," which means "shroud" and John uses the word "othonia," which a generic plural term for burial clothes. However, in a 2nd reference in Luke's gospel, he uses the "othonia" term. There is NO discrepancy between the Shroud of Turin being the actual burial cloth of Jesus and the gospel accounts.

[@jenna2431]

Oooohhh it's a crucified man. How many thousands of those were there in the Roman empire occupied lands???

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Many, many thousands...though if it *is* a forgery I think it's reasonable to suppose it's intended to be Jesus

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@ReasontoDoubt Of course, that's where the money is.

[@joemarino5141]

Certainly thousands of people were crucified, but we only have one burial shroud with a clear (and unexplained) image. If a corpse is wrapped in a shroud and fully decomposes, the shroud basically will decay with it. The intactness of the Shroud points to the fact that the body was separated from the Shroud before full decomposition ensues. Let's see, is there anything in the gospels that might correlate with that?

[@joemarino5141]

While there's no doubt that a public exhibition has a positive financial impact on Turin, there is never a charge for people to actually see the Shroud.

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@joemarino5141 Charging the credulous to see what is not evidently authentic might be too exploitative even for the church.

[@Tentandoamar]

Eu quase me esqueci, obrigado pelas informações compartilhadas, +1 inscrito.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Much appreciated!

[@Tentandoamar]

​@@ReasontoDoubt Gatão! 😘

[@kidslovesatan34]

It's as fake as a $3 note.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

no one can replicate it today even with the best available technology how can you expect a medieval man to make it you do not even have logic and common sense

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN PT Barnum would have loved you.

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN IT has been replicated and no it has not been dated to the first century. That one's a whopper, did you make it up yourself?

[@jennifergoulart7816]

So your opinion is your evidence? Hmmm ok

[@ReasontoDoubt]

My evidence is cited in the video description and throughout the video itself.

[@Tentandoamar]

Que importa teria colocar polem de Jerusalém no pano sobrenatural?

[@kidslovesatan34]

No one has studied the shroud more than the Catholic church and they refuse to declare it as authentic. Isn't that interesting?

[@joemarino5141]

The Catholic Church never makes pronouncements about the authenticity of any relic. They allow veneration of a relic as long as there is not definite proof that it is a forgery. The fact that it has allowed exhibitions after the C-14 dating shows they do NOT accept that the C-14 dating proved the Shroud of a forgery.

[@kidslovesatan34]

​​​@@joemarino5141They claim absolute truth about the nature of reality and morality, now and in the past. They've never been shy of making hyperbolic unsupported claims. That they don't in this case might be revealing.

[@joemarino5141]

@@kidslovesatan34 The Catholic Church pronounces about faith and morals, not claiming omniscience about the authenticity of objects connected with people, even Jesus. They've never done it and they're not going to start now, even with something like the Shroud.

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@joemarino5141 My personal favourite: HIS foreskin was preserved in at least six churches.

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@joemarino5141 There were countless crucifixion nails, crowns of thorns, and lances. And there were burial shrouds. There were between 26 and 40 'authentic' burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, fragments supposedly cut from the True Cross were available in almost every church in Europe. A church in St. Omer claimed to have bits of the True Cross, of the Lance that pierced Christ, of his Cradle, and the original stone tablets upon which the Ten Commandments had been traced by the very finger of God! Three churches in France each professed to have a complete corpse of Mary Magdalene.

[@ebmmbe2149]

Aaaand thats 43min of my life I will never get back! Thanks

[@ReasontoDoubt]

You're welcome!

[@AliceSusanHarding]

I thought everyone knew that the corner they took the swatches from had been repeatedly used and handled for other tests so it was contaminated.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I'm not sure what specific tests you're referring to, but the entire Shroud has been handled repeatedly over the centuries. This is not uncommon for historical artifacts being carbon dated which is why sample prep is important. We talk about that in this episode: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHeclKl5atNsq7s

[@giovanniromito8967]

thank god for the allmighty we humans Think we know everything do miracles exist ? Yes !🙈 i am a christian so i Have to Believe it so what other people thing i dont care its a question whether your religious or not just think the scientist who examined the shround in the 80s was jewist !

[@plynam52]

I believe the shroud is likely authentic because no artist would include detail that cannot be seen with the naked eye like pollen and limestone.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

We address both those items in our interview with Hugh Farey

[@plynam52]

Yes I saw that and do value your efforts. I like to hear both sides. But HF only achieves a somewhat reasonable questioning on the correctness of the conclusions. Never the less the pollens and limestone are still there on both sides of the shroud and in particular higher concentrations of limestone on nose, knee and foot. This could not be by chance. No artist would bother (or arguably even think/know) to add such unseen detail in the right areas ergo in my opinion likely the shroud is the real deal. If full respect is given to statistical probability the positioning of the limestone concentrations is just about conclusive of authenticity. Re Pray codex(spelling??) why couldnt the 'bundle of cloth' you point out be the sudarium? I believe that it is a stalemate between pro and anti shroudies. It will interesting to see results of the C14 tests of the shroud pollen and other studies.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@plynam52 This may come as a shock to you, but you have pollen on you right now. No artist put it there. You *probably* have some dirt on you too. Again, not that surprising. *Could* that bundle of cloth be the Sudarium? Maybe, but then the image isn't the Shroud of Turin anyway so the whole point is moot.

[@plynam52]

Here is the thing that you ignore. Whether the pollen and limestone can be conclusively proven to be from Jerusalem or not it is the patterns which provide the astronomical probabilities of authenticity. Nose, knee, foot with concentrations of limestone and the geographical trail of the pollens leading to Europe. Can I suggest you interview a high calibre probability mathematician to discuss as an episode 4. It would be even better if you included the probability of an L shaped circle pattern appearing on the pray codex by chance or accident.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@plynam52 The geographical trail of pollens is nonsense. We talked about that with Hugh Farey. You seem to be suggesting that if the limestone is at higher concentrations at the nose, knee, and feet of the Shroud (which I do not know is true, but if it were) then that means it's authentic even if that limestone did not come from Jerusalem. How, exactly, do you think Jesus would have gotten French limestone on his feet? What's the probability on that? [To be clear, not saying the limestone is French; just pointing out that if it isn't from Jerusalem, it didn't come from Jesus no matter where it is on the cloth] Given that the pray codex guy was like a circle FANATIC, I'd say the probability is pretty good. Since my job is in Probabilistic Risk Assessment, I probably understand probability enough for these purposes without bothering a mathematician 😆

[@Tentandoamar]

Pq o falsificador não fez um outro pano? Como por exemplo, da virgem Maria e dos apóstolos? Dos santos ou dos papas? Alias, pq fazer em um negativo fotógrafo? Que utilidade as características do sud@rio teria para o falsificador? Sinceramente não vejo lógica.

[@Tentandoamar]

São tantas características científicas, que até o cara mais fanático do catolicismo, não iria se dar ao trabalho, que importa teria colocar característica de uma fotografia e um holograma? Ele fez por acidente? O holograma e a fotografia?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

"We only have one therefore it's a miracle" Not seeing how that follows

[@Tentandoamar]

​@@ReasontoDoubt Portanto é, possivelmente autêntico. Milagre também, afinal de contas, as marcas foram feitas por radiação, e não há lógica nenhuma a criação das características que estão no pano, não entendo pq vocês tentam forçar a barra. Eu não iria parar apenas em um trabalho dessa profundidade, iria fazer outros. E você não respondeu meus questionamentos, pfv responda.

[@Tentandoamar]

​@@ReasontoDoubt Seja com os personagens das cópias do novo testamento, ou simplesmente com santos ou papas posteriores. Além disso, o falsificador seria o próprio Deus? Com tamanha inteligência que até você está discutindo se é milagre ou não?

[@Nocturnalux]

@@Tentandoamar Meu, esquece isto. É falso.

[@estel4president]

EVERYONE is missing the most mysterious aspect of this shroud. I have watched every skeptical video and documentary out there. I would like to say my area of expertise is never interviewed and given time to explain the extra ordinary aspect that can't be explained. That is, if this is a hoax, then it better have been done in the 1850's on. With all my skills as a 40 year professional artist both commercially and in fine art, I could never paint this image, IN THE NEGATIVE. The only way this could ever be done, is to give me a negative and then I could copy what I see.. There is no way , absolutely no way, ANY artist could look at a model from life (or in this case, death) and transpose in their head how to reverse the rendering and paint it to produce a negative image.(and why would they when they don't know what that is) I need you all to understand this. It's not up for debate. I am one of handful of top artists in the world and I am telling all you non-artists, this is not on the table as a possibility. And since the carbon dating goes back to the 1200's this just isn't happening. Ever. And it shouldn't need to be said that since no one ever knew what a photographic negative would even look like this is the greatest magic painting to ever be created in the history of the world. So we are left with only one possible explanation I have ever seen that was plausible, magic bacteria. The tests presented on National Geographic attempted this explanation. But the reason it's magic bacteria is because , unlike the example in that documentary, the shroud has rendering of form. Again, as artist of realism, I would love you all to understand the subtle, beautiful rendering of form that has been described as 3D on the shroud . What that means is when you take the shroud and photograph it and print it in reverse , it's negative image, it reveals actual form going from light to dark , just as we realist artists understand how to do. Yet it's only visible if you see the negative of it. Unless bacteria is sent to 4 years of art college and it learns how light produces form, it's not going to ever produce what we in on this shroud. Bacteria does not grow and follow the laws of art So this is the unanswered problem that this very real piece of cloth is begging to be answered. If all you scientists who think that any human could ever create this shroud with the limitations of 1200AD technology you are deferring to myths. This is where this debate should direct itself.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Well, if estel4president claims to be the greatest artist of our age and says it's impossible, who am I to doubt it?

[@Vishanti]

K

[@estel4president]

@@ReasontoDoubt I am not the greatest artist who ever lived. But I am alive, I am a realists artist, and I am trying to tell you that you it's an impossible explanation but you don't understand it because you are ignorant about creating realistic art . The very thing so many scientists have no clue about. Please enlighten me on how my claims are false. Get me the best artist in world and have him claim he or she could produce this without the help of a negative to look it. I am waiting. Try it tonight.

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@estel4president 'The shroud contains a negative of the image, and medieval artisans knew nothing of photography'. The shroud image is NOT a true photographic negative but only an apparent one - a faux-photographic negative. The "positive" image shows a figure with white hair and beard, the opposite of what would be expected for a Palestinian Jew in his thirties. Medieval artisans need know nothing of photography since it's not photographic.

[@Tentandoamar]

​@@kidslovesatan34 Cadê os artigos científicos que provam sua alegação? Tem pelo menos 12? Ou é simplesmente um achismo? "Do que se esperava" quais artigos científicos colaboram com seus achismos? Outra coisa, pra que colocar sangue no sud@rio e criar uma imagem em alto relevo? Não force a barra.

[@maninalift]

Allen Parr is always awful

[@NRIH144]

Romans 10:9 = Eternal life+++