Shroud Debate at Duke - Dr. Mark Goodacre & Fr. Andrew Dalton, LC

00:00 - Intro
00:41 - Welcome from Dr Peter Casarella
00:55 - Opening prayer by Fr. Juan José Hernandez, LC
01:55 - Introducing the panelists
04:10 - Relevance of the question
08:59 - The Case for the Shroud - Fr. Andrew Dalton, LC
28:19 - The Case against the Shroud - Dr. Mark Goodacre
36:52 - Response to Dr. Goodacre regarding “othonia” (linen cloths)
41:46 - Question about how sudarium bloodstain relates to the Shroud
46:42 - Weighing Plausibility against Implausibility - Robert Orlando
48:00 - Why not retest another part of the Shroud?
50:10 - Is carbon testing the most effective way to date the Shroud?
50:57 - Was there ever any attestation of the forgery claims in Bishop D’Arcy’s letter?
52:58 - The Hungarian Pray Codex helps date the Shroud
55:31 - Was there a standard, authoritative, long-standing collective view about the Shroud?
56:54 - The pilgrim’s medallion of Lirey
58:00 - The sample taken from the top-left corner of the Shroud
56:54 - Sue Benford’s theory of French invisible weave
1:02:33 - Would a first-century dating of the Shroud end the argument?
1:06:07 - Any response to Fr Dalton’s explanation of “othonia” (linen cloths) in John 20?
1:07:53 - Where to go from here? Final remarks?
1:13:19 - Fr. Andrew’s post-debate thoughts

[@joemarino5141]

Great debate! Fr. Andrew was marvelously thorough despite a lack of time. Find the video on KZbin when he was a guest on "Pints with Aquinas," which went for 3 hours. Dr. Goodacre didn't raise any objection that hasn't been addressed in great detail by various Shroud researchers.

[@joemarino5141]

No weak points from Fr. Andrew that I could hear.

[@rosiegirl2485]

Fr. Andreea was amazing on Pints with Aquinas! I have no doubt!

[@loriyoung9747]

I have watched that episode MANY times. Love it

[@suzanneputz]

Brilliant Father Andrew! Prof. Goodacre comes across as not having done his homework! Can we have more, please??? I enjoy your lectures immensely!

[@marcelmorejon9023]

This wasn’t a debate, this was why you shouldn’t argue with Father Andrew about the Shroud…

[@rozlin2504]

Fr Andrew- I enjoy all your commentary and presented evidence by non-believers to underscore truth that this is a miracle from Jesus. So little time in this debate but you were concise in a lengthy topic. Well Done.

[@davidfleb]

Amazing testimony, thank you Fr for your great work and God bless you. Is there any book you would recommend that would cover all the material you mentioned?

[@chrisdensel1226]

Great debate and having listened to many of your videos, I was able to anticipate how you were going to counter. You’ve taught me well! I would only add that during the conversation about the forgery confession, I think you could have again brought down the hammer by emphasizing how we can’t even replicate it now. I also think we could explore why a person would WANT to take credit for something as amazing as the shroud, albeit taking credit falsely (ego, reputation, adulation etc) to explain why this letter exists at all.

[@simonorton]

You're given a photograph of a cake ... You're not told what's in the cake or how to make the cake ... You're asked to replicate the cake. You can't replicate the cake.

[@kenkessner9594]

Great discussion. I find your assertions compelling.

[@anniethompson1041]

Even in modern English the word "linen" can be used in both the singular and the plural. I wonder if it is the same in ancient Greek. Thank you, Father for your excellent scholarship. You've enlightened me and moved me away from my earlier scepticism about the authenticity of the shroud.

[@madra000]

The default should be indecision until science can show the steps minimum for even revealing the subject in question.

[@wipo3654]

NO SHROUD mentioned in the gospels! I started to think about the Shroud of Turin some weeks ago because quite a lot of KZbin channels claim that it is 100 % sure the burial cloth of Jesus. So I did what Paul said: 1Thess 5,21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, I searched for all the relevant "burial" verses in the gospels and I did some basic Greek word studies on BibleHub (free bible study webpage - select Interlinear): Mk 15,46 And Joseph bought linen cloth [SINDONA, singular] and taking him down, wrapped [ENEILESEN] him in the linen cloth [SINDONI, singular] and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Joh 19,39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight [about 32 kg]. Joh 19,40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound [EDESAN] it in linen cloths [OTHONIOIS, plural] with [META] the spices [AROMATON; about 32 kg], as is the burial custom of the Jews. Mk 16,1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices [AROMATA] so that they might go to anoint [ALEIPSOSIN] Jesus. (1) SINDON > "a linen cloth" or "linen cloth"? I quickly recognised that some Bible translations of SINDON are adding the indefinite article "a" although there is no one in the original Greek texts. Is it mandatory to add "a" and is it also mandatory to understand "the" plus noun singular always as one piece only? If SINDON must be understood as one large piece linen only (like the Shroud) - where the bandages (OTHONION) and the head cloth (SOUDARION) came from? Why the gospel of John does not mention SINDON? Answer: In the context SINDON must be translated/understood as a general material description "linen cloth" and it means all the needed burial cloth (bandages and head cloth). Joseph for sure knew what was needed according to the burial custom of (rich) Jews at that time. And John didn't mention SINDON in his gospel because he also didn't mention the purchase of Joseph. (2) SPICES > stains/particles Nicodemus organised a 32 kg sticky mixture of myrrh and aloes. Together with Joseph they wrapped/bound the body in linen (OTHONION) WITH the spices. They completed this work according to the burial custom of Jews at that time. STURP (Shroud Of Turin Research Program) used many analytical methods and finally it was even emphasised that not any trace of spices/oils were detected!? But there must be at least non degradable stains/particles of spices (like for blood)!? And if in the meantime a failure of STURP was revealed - how the adding of spices worked with something like the Shroud of Turin? Answer: OTHONION means bandages and the spices were put between the bandages when the body (except the head) was wrapped/bound by Joseph and Nicodemus. This was done promptly after taking Jesus from the cross. (3) SOUDARION Shroud If the complete body of Jesus was already wrapped/bound by Joseph and Nicodemus in something like the Shroud - why there was a need to add a head cloth (SOUDARION)? Also Lazarus wore a head cloth when coming out the tomb himself (Joh 11,44). Despite the burial cloth Lazarus was able to stand up and to go!? Answer: The SOUDARION was added also promply and it remained there until the resurrection. (4) WOMEN > anointing Jesus was transported to the nearby rock-tomb and was laid in there. Some of the women observed this and nothing else was done in the tomb. After Sabbath the women came with the intention to anoint Jesus. How this worked if the body was completely wrapped/bound in linen with the spices? To get access at least to his head they would have had to remove/destroy the wrapping and uncovering a naked man underneath!? Answer: The women came after Sabbath with the intention to anoint Jesus' head (hair/face). This was an act of honour that could have been done easily by removing the head cloth (SOUDARION). But it would have been almost impossible and illogic with something like the Shroud of Turin. So there is no need to trust a still doubtful and controversial relic like the Shroud of Turin to be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus: Joh 20,29 Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’

[@FuddlyDud]

@@madra000 Why can’t the default be the most plausible explanation given the evidence? :)

[@gainsofglory6414]

Great conversation. I do think its much easier to forge a letter or force a letter that just says it was painted, especially considering we know it isn't painted, than it would be to forge the shroud in all its detail. If they truly knew the guy that did it, they would have found out how, and not used terms that we have identified as impossible. And if anyone took that letter seriously, we would have significant detail of people responding to it and writing about how the shroud was thought to be false.

[@valerieprice1745]

God bless you, Father Andrew

[@keepingitcatholic]

I could listen to you talk on the Shroud for hours! I really loved Dr. Goodacre's kind disposition, but I'm not sure I would label this a "debate." His points seemed mostly anecdotal, "I don't think the hands look right," and the one story from the artist and the Bishop seemed anti-climatic with a lack of any actual evidence that the artist created the Shroud. If we didn't know the artist of the Mona Lisa, we would certainly have artists trying to claim it was their work. It's an easy way to try to gain fame- "all press is good press" as they say. Similarly, there are a surplus of reasons John may not go into great detail on the Shroud. One of which being that, all things considered, it's actually not the important part of the story. Personally, if I was writing about the resurrection of someone I knew, I don't think I would go into great detail about the surrounding area. Especially if my audience was already familiar with the burial shroud.

[@davethebrahman9870]

There is no evidence that the Shroud is authentic. There is no evidence that a disciple of Jesus wrote the book of John. The purpose of the Shroud forgery was financial gain, not fame, and the forger could well have ended up being burnt to a crisp for blasphemy had he boasted of his achievement.

[@MarleneOaks]

I saw a History Channel program on the shroud. One of the things they said was that first century pollen was found on the shroud. They also put the data together a d made a 3D model of what he looked like. It was as quite convincing.

[@KingJehovah]

Good debate! Dr. Goodacre's objections are the same objections that have been raised previously by others and refuted by others. Nonetheless, repeating such can be helpful for people watching or listening who may not be aware of the prior objections and refutations thereof.

[@richbozzi3148]

Good show

[@helenaziegler6005]

Hi father Dalton, an atheist who is very interested in the Shroud here. I would like to see more of these debates on the subject; however, my personal opinion is that we need to do more direct tests and samplings today on the Shroud. We need to validate the STURP data and findings with modern instruments and go deeper in the analysis of blood, pollens and soil traces. And a lot more, not to mention a new 14C test on samples that are really representative of the cloth. It is so disappointing that the Pope does not allow new researches. Until that day, I will leave open any conclusion on what the Shroud really is. Hi from Italy!

[@fre7717]

checkout Lila Rose interviewing fr. Spitzer - a few days ago. it seems to suggest additional tests were done and some information on why c14 might not be appropriate. also more details on pollen analysis breakdown

[@exotericeric]

Thank you Fr!! Unfortunately this didn't feel like a debate at all. There was little engagement with your empirical evidence. I'd love for you to debate some of the more pronounced skeptics in the future. Again... thank you for your important research! God bless!

[@NancySwass-jv4kp]

The natural effect of a supernatural event. Thats good.

[@PraeytoGod]

Luckily, I just accidentally came across this video of Fr. Andrew Dalton and was so pleased to see him face to face with Prof. Mark Goodacre. If there are any weak points in this polite discussion, the only one I can come up with is: the perspective of human judgment. Because I see the Shroud as Authentic, I tend to see the Stories of the Shroud (Canonical and Non-Canonical early Scripture) as sub-Authentic. I would NEVER call the Shroud the «Fifth Gospel». I would refer to it as «Pre-Gospel,» or for our present perspective: «The Word Made Flesh». Thank You Fr. Andrew.

[@annettecloutier2094]

Digital-Flesh, beyond the 3-D Perspective. 😉

[@TM-hl9me]

The volume in the video is low so that I cannot hear easily. I wonder if anyone else has a similar issue.

[@carmeister_]

I don’t know if Fr. Andrew Salton will ever see this comment but I’d like him to know that I think he’s really freaking cool! Haha really. God bless!

[@dominickgarcia1401]

This isn’t a debate it’s more of a lesson

[@dominickgarcia1401]

@@pdworld3421 Your referring to the sudarium the face cloth that was used to cover Jesus face. I believe it was traditional Jewish practice to cover the face of the dead for modesty reasons ( John 20: 6-7 ) but the sudarium didn’t remain on his head the whole time only while the body was being transferred to his tomb once there, the wrap was removed then His body was wrapped in the shroud. I hope this answers your question

[@TonyKeeh]

Excellent job, Father. In my mind, you clearly won the debate. My only critiques would be that you should have gone after him a little harder on the John stuff, and perhaps made your answer more clear. It was a bit hard for me to grasp as layman.

[@adrianwhyatt1425]

I would like to see a vote before and after each debate.

[@laurakenny4597]

Hard to hear the audio --- very muted

[@richbozzi3148]

Beginning 5 points of Shroud says it all.. 3D, surface penetration, anatomy,ect..says it all

[@nedh.8792]

This was an excellent and respectful discussion. This debate prompted me to review the critiques offered by other prominent Shroud skeptics (e.g., Andrea Nicolotti, McCrone, etc), and to my knowledge none of them have addressed the matter of the three-dimensional information encoded within the Shroud's image (i.e., the body-cloth distance). Are you aware of any claim that a human artist could have created an image consistent with that of the Shroud (i.e., a negative image that is just two micro-fibrils deep) that also embeds three-dimensional perspective about the person being rendered? If not, isn't this the strongest rebuttal to the skeptics and one of the most powerful pieces of evidence in favor of the Shroud's authenticity?

[@JasonNeff01]

Three questions after watching (and some of my own background work) : 1) how would you respond to his comment about the nails through the wrist not being a "slam dunk" piece of evidence in favor of authenticity because Jesus could have been tied with rope at the wrists and then nailed through the hands (which wouldn't have required the body to be supported by the nail holes), 2) why do some maintain the billiruben explanation of the blood coloring is false (Mark Antonacci) and insist it must be radiation that is responsible for the coloring, and 3) why do some authenticity advocates believe that the "re-weave" hyptothesis is false and therefore some other explanation (like radiation or carbon monoxide) is responsible for the C-14 dating result (Antonacci and apparently John Jackson)?

[@tbot47]

Please Those Two Priests: debate with Matt Dillahunty. I truly think you two could provide answers to his disbelief arguments regarding the resurrection of Christ and his general disbelief in God. I Just watched him on Pints w/Aquintis debating Trent Horn. Please record a conversation with him. Thank you. You both are amazing.

[@pamchandler1321]

The Bishop's letter claiming an artist confessed to "painting" it is a moot point: the shroud image is not made with paint, chemicals or dyes. The yellowing of the very thin fibers that form the image is on the surface of the thread and disappears when weaved under, so no fluids were used or capillary action would have soaked the entire thread. Image had to be formed by some form of radiation or heat. The medieval "artist" or forger would need access to equipment not yet invented (like VUV lasers) and have forensic knowledge not discovered until centuries later (damage to the nerve in the wrist causing the thumb to retract, bilirubin in the blood suggesting trauma/torture, blood and water issuing from the torso wound). These facts combined with the photographic and 3-dimensional characteristics is enough to put the forgery claim to rest. And there is a lot more that supports the argument for an authentic Shroud.

[@Vidmr2407]

Very good. Seems like too many things line up for it to not be 1st century. Have you (Fr Andrew) conferred with Fr Spitzer?

[@francis5425]

And that saith the Lord the Script is written I am teaching you to associate misery with the ego and joy with the spirit jai guru deva om

[@Totustuus822]

There’s an amazing shroud exhibit at St. Brendan the Navigator Catholic Church near me. I would love to get the Post-Graduate Certificate in Shroud Studies as an addition to their ministry. I do need to know if the class schedule listed requires us to join online strictly at the class times listed or if I could possibly watch the lecture after I finish with work? I sent a message to the contact listed, but only am getting the brochure in response. Any information would be helpful. God bless and thanks for your work in educating us! This is so fascinating and brought Christ’s passion alive for me in a new way.

[@tonyfauci9963]

Wish I could hear it

[@christinemcdonald9112]

Fr Dalton covered clearly a vast amount of info in a very short time. His 3 hr conversation with Matt Fradd on Pints with Aquinas covered the subject in far more detail and showed the depth and breadth of Fr D's knowledge and passion for the Shroud of Turin. Towards the end of this recording Fr D referred to Dr Goodacre postulating that John had known about Luke's gospel and used that as a basis for his account. I may be missing something here but John was one of the first eye witnesses at the empty tomb ie he had first hand personal experience of what was found there. Luke, by his own statement at the start of his gospel based his writings on what had been written and spoken of by others. He was not one of the twelve. He apparently hadn't even met Jesus. Everything he knew about Jesus, including His death, burial and resurrection he had gleaned from the testimonies of others. Granted he was an early convert to the Way, a faithful companion of Paul, a diligent scholar and painstaking historian. Why then would John, the eyewitness, have any reason to base his account of what happened on that resurrection morning on the second or third hand account by Luke, regardless of how faithful he had recorded what he had been told?

[@solarguru8118]

Fr. Dalton, can you comment on the Bishop Forgery Letter or link to a site that details the pros and cons of that letter. Thanks, and God bless!

[@marcelmorejon9023]

That was discussed on one of the “Shroud Wars” videos I saw recently…It’s host, Dale did a lot of research on it and found that the Bishop was corrupt and was trying to take the Shroud for money. Many letters showing the Bishop calling the Shroud a fake, yet driving the pope nuts trying to obtain it, for example. Very interesting history.

[@JasonNeff01]

Also - regarding the differences between the Shroud of Turin and the other that was found which Dr. Goodacre mentioned...to clarify...in what *ways* are the two different? Do we have a picture of the other one? Is it a difference of material, weave, or completely different size/shape? The *nature* of the differences seems important in addressing whether it is meaningful that they are different and why that might be the case...

[@davethebrahman9870]

I wonder, how do you explain that the range of dates in the carbon dating matches the period when the Shroud emerges and was pronounced a forgery? Do you think this is coincidence?

[@killiancullen6430]

@@davethebrahman9870 look at the pints with Aquinas video on the shroud of Turin, they address those issues

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@killiancullen6430 Actually I don’t think they do. Can you replicate the argument you find convincing?

[@killiancullen6430]

@@davethebrahman9870 I was stating that they explain this objection in the video, I’ve not watched it for a bit, but seems as though you’ve commented several times on the video I thought you’d be interested to be educated on the subject.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@killiancullen6430 I’m afraid it is you who is uneducated on the topic, as you seem to be getting most of your information from KZbin videos.

[@adrianwhyatt1425]

Sound is very low volume.

[@fre7717]

that is why I don't like formal debate- have informal conversation. the formal debate- folks can ignore or deflect questions.

[@edh.9584]

Great topic, but can't hear it!

[@user-yj6bs9tm1n]

It amazes me that someone would give the sworn confession of an unknown person that he painted the Shroud more weight than the report of many scientists that there is no paint or brush strokes of any kind. Lord, help His unbelief ❤!

[@sugansugan56]

❤ I enjoy all your talks - I believe the shroud is Jesus - we love him because he loved us

[@pimagema2620]

Who would be the forger who created the Shroud? What technique would he have used? What would have been his interest in creating this forgery?

[@ObjectiveEthics]

Why do 31 different churches claim to have the foreskin of Jesus? Why were the gospels and other books of the Bible forged numerous times by numerous people? Why did the Catholics change the dogmas of Christianity so many times between the 2nd and 6th century? Why are there so many denominations of Christianity each with a different interpretation of the religion? Answers to your questions: 1). Someone who wanted to provide evidence that supports a belief that doesn't actually have any imperical evidence to otherwise support the belief. Just as it has happened hundreds of time thruought history. This is not a rare phenomenon. 2). By putting a burial shroud on a random dead guy and later attributing that shroud to a specific non-related dead guy. 3). To manipulate the willfully ignorant into supporting a politically motivated religion.

[@myoneblackfriend3151]

If Fr. is the abbreviation for father, what is the abbreviation for friar?

[@mikelewis9444]

Usually Br. or Mr.

[@anncrompton9689]

Sort out the volume. It varies greatly according to source

[@edh.9584]

The sound is not great!

[@ebmmbe2149]

I literally cant hear anything

[@hoyavp2236]

Fr. Andrew whooped that dude’s butt lol. Praise Jesus!

[@gerdacoetzee]

I thought about the fact that the “place where Jesus lay” was mentioned in two gospels, I think it was in Matthew where the angel told them to look at the place where he lay. I dont think it would be said if there was nothing to look at, it makes more sense to me if the shroud with Jesus’ image was lying there, stretched out as it might have been before Jesuss glorified body passed straight through it. Then it would make much more sense for the emphasis on the place where Jesus laid.

[@deledition6335]

Father Andrew is superb, your opponent is weak in his argument, and does not show any supporting evidence , whereas Fr Andrew show actual facts and research. The shroud is real, I don’t think they will ever be able to find out how this was done, it is beyond our understanding. To believe in God is to believe in the impossible, and to God the impossible is ordinary.

[@NancySwass-jv4kp]

Geez! Do I have to draw you a picture? (to us). THIS IS GOD, DRAWING US A PICTURE. ITS BEAUTIFUL.

[@MarleneOaks]

Also the program showed a painting of Nuns holding the shroud centuries before the medieval date given in 1988.

[@Greyz174]

Just amrchair thoughts from the layest of men, but if John was reading Luke theres no guarantee that he would see the term for singular shroud, consciously register that, and then be fine with interchanging that with plural linens. He could just be generally aware that Luke talks about Jesus being wrapped up and then in his own telling of the story have Jesus wrapped in multiple cloths. I could be uninformed but I dont think literary dependence means that youd expect the author to consciously register and consciously account for every detail in his source.

[@mikenapster5903]

I think in mentioning the number of cloths in the tomb, it wasn't that important at the time of writing, the focus was the Resurrection of Jesus, therefore not expounded upon in the Gospels....

[@ninoadp100]

Hello Father Andrew, I have a dream/encounter I would like to share with you if you are interested. Do you have an email I can send it through? Thank you, Anthony

[@paulustarsus]

THE SHROUD OF TURIN Who fears to believe in The Shroud of Turin? Where all our answers lie within, Is it a fear that we owe too much? To our Heavenly King, to whom we clutch, The wounds are there, for all to see, The puncture marks, from crown to feet, The serene face amongst a world of sin, All laid out on The Shroud of Turin. Who fears to profess The Shroud of Turin? The sacred cloth of herringbone spin, Where Jerusalem's pollen is scattered within, And where the Passion has drawn its own depiction. Many Kings and Queens, have gazed upon, The Royal Blood, of The Living Eon, An acute awareness as their hearts did swell, They wisely knew to guard it well. Yet the flames, the smoke, the water stains, The molten silver's burning veins, Other adverse forces deep disdain, And still the Holy scene remains. A masterpiece that's drawn with Blood, Blind scientists have never understood, These consistencies of which The Gospels told, Are not for heathens ears to behold, They test with all of (s)atan's ways, And test again to their own dismay. Speak proudly about The Shroud of Turin, And never fear the mocking crowd, For they hate all things, before they begin, And their fields are dull and badly ploughed, It is the path of the pessimist, A road that leads to the great abyss, Where hope and love is abandoned in, The inescapable fiery pit. We Christians stand our ground and say, On any other given day, Even circumstantial evidence the courts allow, But not yet with the case of The Holy Shroud. With gratitude, Lord Yeshua, We thank you for this Royal Gift, To gaze upon your Holy Form, To acknowledge that we believers fit, Into your Realm high above, Into your Heart, The King of Love, Into your Spirit, The Great I AM, Into the World of the Spotless Lamb. (Culligan 180824)✝️

[@pimagema2620]

The Shroud is the Gospel written by Jesus Himself. Jesus shows us His love for all people through His Passion and Resurrection. The language of this Gospel according to Jesus is universal, it is for all men, because it is the language of the image.

[@johnrestucci8269]

to bad the sound is terrible , they are speaking to far from the mike

[@NancySwass-jv4kp]

But, we DO KNOW WHAT IT IS.

[@richbozzi3148]

Bottom line, nobody could duplicate the the characteristics of the Shroud.., unless u had energy beyond our imagination, the resurrected body of Jesus supplied all that energy through His Father

[@ambbarofficial]

I was expecting more from the other guy

[@davethebrahman9870]

What did you expect? He’s a NT scholar. He didn’t address most of the evidence against Shroud authenticity because they aren’t in his field. The priest’s willingness to make a huge number of claims concerning which he has no evidence or expertise is not a virtue.

[@marcelmorejon9023]

@@davethebrahman9870 Father Dalton literally showed facts that backed up his claims lol He’d a gone on for hours with slides, pics, vids etc had he more time…Did you watch the video??

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@marcelmorejon9023 Of course. I’ve also read in detail into the various arguments pro and con. There is no reasonable doubt that the Shroud is a forgery.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@marcelmorejon9023 And the Shroudie didn’t give facts, he simply repeated common errors.

[@marcelmorejon9023]

@@davethebrahman9870 If your going to deny proven facts, well then you can say anything…. Jewish photography expert tells you it’s not a photograph with facts as to why and guys like you say, that’s not true…Ok Forensic experts tell you that’s human blood on the Shroud and list facts as to why and you can say, well that’s not true… But where’s your evidence or facts? Bottom line, show me it’s duplicate… Skeptics say it’s a fake yet can’t duplicate it to save their lives….

[@Danusha_Goska]

Good presentation but you should have hired a sound engineer.

[@logioso]

That image on the picture on the codex with the herring bone pattern does not represent the shroud but the lid of the tomb, there is not image printed on it, the shroud is shown like coiled up in the same picture. the Sudarium of Oviedo has benn tested for age as well and the result is 7th century, so does not coincide either with the time of Jesus nor with dating of the shroud.

[@beverlyhurd8556]

What a load of crap. Someone sure has been pulling your chain! It's sad that you fell for it too.

[@dirkryan5962]

ancient writings between Jesus and King Abgar of Edessa add another layer of plausibility to the authenticity of the Shroud itself: Eusebius quotes in full two letters, one from Abgar to Jesus (in which he asks Jesus to come and heal his ailments) and the second Jesus’ reply, which explained: _I must first complete here all for which I was sent_ and then _be taken up to him who sent me,_ but afterward _I will send to you one of my disciples to heal your suffering, and give life to you and those with you._ furthermore, a Vatican Library codex (number 5696, folio 35; twelfth century) says: _If indeed you desire to look bodily upon my face, I send you a cloth on which know that the image not only of my face, but of my whole body has been divinely transformed._

[@johnyannelli2480]

I think Dr. Goodpasteur was frankly OVERMATCHED!

[@marywolff4231]

Ah, the good doctor seems like a dear soul and true gentleman, but I suspect even he wasn’t convinced by his points. Father Andrew, it was a joy to listen to solid science from you. I was somewhat embarrassed for Dr G as he seemed hard pressed to make even one good point vs you trying to rein in all the information you have. A part of me even wondered if he was simply pretending to be a sceptic …

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

AUDIO WAS BAD

[@johnmichaelson9173]

Isn't the Bishop of Troyes 1389 letter containing the Confession the first definitive mention of the shroud? And with that being in the timeframe of the Carbon Dating says it all. It's a medieval fake.

[@steveb8963]

Why did bishop Pierre d'Arcis declare that the shroud was fake and that he knew the artist?

[@beverlyhurd8556]

Those of us with even a tiny bit of intelligence know that the bishop's letter to the Pope was after a local artist, in a feeble attempt to make a name for himself, told him that it was he that painted the cloth. The bishop, being the gullible old fool that he was, took him at his word. Of course, they did not have the testing back then they do now, or they quickly would have discovered that there is not so much as a drop of paint, or any other manmade material on the image on the Shroud. The fact is that there are no pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. There are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

[@Mark-yb1sp]

Horrible audio. You can’t enjoy something you can’t hear.

[@mikelewis9444]

really surprised at how weak Goodacre's arguments are. He's had a few decades to think about this subject.

[@willard73]

Goodacre dispelling the wishful thinking here

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

Some sects of Christianity do not like the Catholic Church. One of them has developed its own ideas about what Jesus looked like, and that cult is the Jehovah's Witnesses which publishes several tracts that attack the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. 1. The JWs say that scripture indicates that Jesus' dead body was not wrapped in a shroud. But the Gospels mention a shroud in several places. 2. The JWs try to tell us that Jesus' dead body was not washed, but no such verse exists in the Gospels. 3. The JWs say that the miraculous images of Jesus on the Shroud would have been mentioned in the Gospels, but they ignore the fact that any proof of Jesus' resurrection would have been seized by the Jewish authorities. It is for very good reason that the Gospel writers did not mention the Shroud. 4. The JWs accuse other Christians of worshipping the Shroud. But no Christian Church has a replica of the Shroud in its worship hall. 5. The JWs cite the commandment that prohibits men from making idols. But they ignore the fact that the images on the Shroud are the miraculous work of YHVH. 6. The JWs refer to the Shroud's radiocarbon data, ignoring the fact that the Shroud has been proven to be ancient by several other methods and that an alternative hypothesis exists which better explains the Shroud's radiocarbon data. 7. The real reason that the JW cult does not like the Shroud is that the images on the Shroud contradict the spurious JW idea of what Jesus looked like. A certain cut-and-paste poster on Shroud threads is repeating the standard JW anti-Shroud propaganda. No one should take him seriously.

[@wipo3654]

NO SHROUD mentioned in the gospels! Read and trust the Bible. I started to think about the Shroud of Turin some weeks ago because quite a lot of KZbin channels claim that it is 100 % sure the burial cloth of Jesus. So I did what Paul said: 1Thess 5,21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, I searched for all the relevant "burial" verses in the gospels and I did some basic Greek word studies on BibleHub (free bible study webpage - select Interlinear): Mk 15,46 And Joseph bought linen cloth [SINDONA, singular] and taking him down, wrapped [ENEILESEN] him in the linen cloth [SINDONI, singular] and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Joh 19,39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight [about 32 kg]. Joh 19,40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound [EDESAN] it in linen cloths [OTHONIOIS, plural] with [META] the spices [AROMATON; about 32 kg], as is the burial custom of the Jews. Mk 16,1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices [AROMATA] so that they might go to anoint [ALEIPSOSIN] Jesus. (1) SINDON > "a linen cloth" or "linen cloth"? I quickly recognised that some Bible translations of SINDON are adding the indefinite article "a" although there is no one in the original Greek texts. Is it mandatory to add "a" and is it also mandatory to understand "the" plus noun singular always as one piece only? If SINDON must be understood as one large piece linen only (like the Shroud) - where the bandages (OTHONION) and the head cloth (SOUDARION) came from? Why the gospel of John does not mention SINDON? Answer: In the context SINDON must be translated/understood as a general material description "linen cloth" and it means all the needed burial cloth (bandages and head cloth). Joseph for sure knew what was needed according to the burial custom of (rich) Jews at that time. And John didn't mention SINDON in his gospel because he also didn't mention the purchase of Joseph. (2) SPICES > stains/particles Nicodemus organised a 32 kg sticky mixture of myrrh and aloes. Together with Joseph they wrapped/bound the body in linen (OTHONION) WITH the spices. They completed this work according to the burial custom of Jews at that time. STURP (Shroud Of Turin Research Program) used many analytical methods and finally it was even emphasised that not any trace of spices/oils were detected!? But there must be at least non degradable stains/particles of spices (like for blood)!? And if in the meantime a failure of STURP was revealed - how the adding of spices worked with something like the Shroud of Turin? Answer: OTHONION means bandages and the spices were put between the bandages when the body - EXCEPT THE HEAD - was wrapped/bound by Joseph and Nicodemus. This was done promptly after taking Jesus from the cross. (3) SOUDARION Shroud If the complete body of Jesus was already wrapped/bound by Joseph and Nicodemus in something like the Shroud - why there was a need to add a head cloth (SOUDARION)? Also Lazarus wore a head cloth when coming out the tomb himself (Joh 11,44). And despite the burial cloth Lazarus was able to stand up and to go! Answer: The SOUDARION was added also promply to cover the head and it remained there until the resurrection. (4) WOMEN > anointing Jesus was transported to the nearby rock-tomb and was laid in there. Some of the women observed this and nothing else was done in the tomb. After Sabbath the women came with the intention to anoint Jesus. How this worked if the body was completely wrapped/bound in something like the Shroud with the spices? To get access at least to his head they would have had to remove/destroy the wrapping and uncovering a naked man underneath!? Answer: The women came after Sabbath with the intention to anoint Jesus' head (hair/face). This was an act of honour that could have been done easily by removing/readding the head cloth (SOUDARION). But it would have been impossible and illogic with something like the Shroud of Turin. So there is no need to trust a still doubtful and controversial relic like the Shroud of Turin to be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus: Joh 20,29 Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’ There is a high risk to open the heart for the spirit of idoltry. The consequences you can read e.g. in almost all the commentaries of beverlyhurd8556 on different Shroud related channels where she agressively interfere herself and insults with invectives everybody who is not of her opinion. She knows the Shroud but she doesn't know Jesus and what he said: Mt 5,22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, “Raca,” is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, “You fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell. But there is hope also for her: 1Joh 1,9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purif us from all unrighteousness. Gal 5,22+23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

[@wipo3654]

According to the gospels' context ... Joseph of Arimathea bought all the needed linen cloth (SINDON). That means bandages (OTHONION) and the head cloth (SOUDARION). Nicodemus organised about 32 kg spices. That means a sticky mixture of myrrh and aloes. Jesus was taken from the cross and maybe he was also washed. Then the body, except the head, was promply wrapped/bound with (META) the spices between the bandages (OTHONION) according to the burial custom of Jews at that time. The head was covered with the head cloth (SOUDARION). Finally Jesus was carried to the nearby rock-tomb and was laid in there. The rock-tomb was closed with a stone and sealed. After Sabbath the women intended to anoint Jesus' head removing and readding the head cloth (SOUDARION) but ... 1 Corinthians 15 (NKJB) 1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, and in which you stand firm. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephasa and then to the Twelve. 6After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth.

[@pimagema2620]

The Resurrection of Christ is the foundation of Christian faith. But it is also proof of Satan’s defeat. Satan, Prince of Lies, is the only one who has any interest in making the Shroud look like a fake.

[@valerieprice1745]

The reason for the letter claiming an artist is because the Shroud was stolen in the Fourth Crusader sack of Constantinople, and anyone found to be in possession of any stolen holy relics from the pillaging was to be hamged. By claiming the Shroud was a forgery, the Pope could disclaim knowledge of its whereabouts to the Orthodox Church, and he wouldn't have to return it. The Orthodox Church wanted it back. It's for this reason the Roman church will NEVER acknowledge the Shroud as the Shroud of Christ, because the Shroud of Christ was STOLEN from the Orthodox Church.

[@kevinsimpson5176]

I dont mean to be uncharitable but I thought your opponent was weak in his debating points. It is going to take more than that to convince me its a fake. Your weakness was in not jumping on the carbon dating put down. You needed to step up and talk about its definitive conclusions when used. You hear me Father ? Im crazy about you and will follow you anywhere cause i know you are heading home to Heaven. Love from Kevin.

[@davethebrahman9870]

So isn’t it the case that you are looking for something upon which to base your faith, rather than looking at the evidence dispassionately?

[@kevinsimpson5176]

@@davethebrahman9870 No Dave I cannot agree with your assessment of what I am doing. I am much more complex and multi layered than that.

[@edukaeshn]

​@@davethebrahman9870Evidence is the reason I have faith.

[@ValRoyD]

Honestly, Dr. Goodacre’s arguments were extremely weak. Most of them rested upon his own opinion with no data to back up those opinions.

[@jackforeman2742]

It may be that the shroud like the Bible are so incredibly misunderstood by so many unbelievers in that they are either the truth and evidence of Jesus being our Lord and savior, or they are the undeniable greatest and most influential hoaxes ever in the history of mankind. If not believing the one at least acknowledge the other.

[@davethebrahman9870]

Those are certainly not the only alternatives. The Shroud is a fake, but not the greatest fake; there are many that are more accurate. As for the Bible, it doesn’t have to be abhoax to contain many false propositions.

[@edukaeshn]

Hubris​@@davethebrahman9870

[@valerieprice1745]

I was crushingly disappointed with carbon dating. When they claimed the carbon testing gave a late date, I seriously figured the test was no good, just another scam they could use to add revenue to the testing industry. Testing is a huge industry, extremely lucrative, and mostly the R&D is funded by grants from taxpayers and corporations who use this "philanthropy" to reduce their tax burden, while building up extraordinarily profitable business. I am still more than dubious about carbon dating. The test is only as good as the testers' integrity. The fraudulent carbon dating of the Shroud caused me to feel the first suspicion I ever had about "scientific" and medical testing, and I certainly never trusted testing after that. I have since learned that a healthy skepticism of tests can sometimes be life saving.

[@unclematt3134]

Darwin contradicted himself about the human cell. No life in the observable universe because we are in a special recipe called the Goldy locks theroy.

[@edukaeshn]

Mark's arguments are ridiculous. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

[@wretch1]

The new Testament debunks the shroud. End of debate

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

The NT confirms the Shroud's authenticity. End of debate.

[@edukaeshn]

You are correct. These people claiming otherwise have obvious confirmation bias. They need the shroud to be fake for some reason...​@@jeffreyerwin3665

[@wipo3654]

NO SHROUD mentioned in the gospels! I started to think about the Shroud of Turin some weeks ago because quite a lot of KZbin channels claim that it is 100 % sure the burial cloth of Jesus. So I did what Paul said: 1Thess 5,21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, I searched for all the relevant "burial" verses in the gospels and I did some basic Greek word studies on BibleHub (free bible study webpage - select Interlinear): Mk 15,46 And Joseph bought linen cloth [SINDONA, singular] and taking him down, wrapped [ENEILESEN] him in the linen cloth [SINDONI, singular] and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Joh 19,39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight [about 32 kg]. Joh 19,40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound [EDESAN] it in linen cloths [OTHONIOIS, plural] with [META] the spices [AROMATON; about 32 kg], as is the burial custom of the Jews. Mk 16,1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices [AROMATA] so that they might go to anoint [ALEIPSOSIN] Jesus. (1) SINDON > "a linen cloth" or "linen cloth"? I quickly recognised that some Bible translations of SINDON are adding the indefinite article "a" although there is no one in the original Greek texts. Is it mandatory to add "a" and is it also mandatory to understand "the" plus noun singular always as one piece only? If SINDON must be understood as one large piece linen only (like the Shroud) - where the bandages (OTHONION) and the head cloth (SOUDARION) came from? Why the gospel of John does not mention SINDON? Answer: In the context SINDON must be translated/understood as a general material description "linen cloth" and it means all the needed burial cloth (bandages and head cloth). Joseph for sure knew what was needed according to the burial custom of (rich) Jews at that time. And John didn't mention SINDON in his gospel because he also didn't mention the purchase of Joseph. (2) SPICES > stains/particles Nicodemus organised a 32 kg sticky mixture of myrrh and aloes. Together with Joseph they wrapped/bound the body in linen (OTHONION) WITH the spices. They completed this work according to the burial custom of Jews at that time. STURP (Shroud Of Turin Research Program) used many analytical methods and finally it was even emphasised that not any trace of spices/oils were detected!? But there must be at least non degradable stains/particles of spices (like for blood)!? And if in the meantime a failure of STURP was revealed - how the adding of spices worked with something like the Shroud of Turin? Answer: OTHONION means bandages and the spices were put between the bandages when the body (except the head) was wrapped/bound by Joseph and Nicodemus. This was done promptly after taking Jesus from the cross. (3) SOUDARION Shroud If the complete body of Jesus was already wrapped/bound by Joseph and Nicodemus in something like the Shroud - why there was a need to add a head cloth (SOUDARION)? Also Lazarus wore a head cloth when coming out the tomb himself (Joh 11,44). Despite the burial cloth Lazarus was able to stand up and to go!? Answer: The SOUDARION was added also promply and it remained there until the resurrection. (4) WOMEN > anointing Jesus was transported to the nearby rock-tomb and was laid in there. Some of the women observed this and nothing else was done in the tomb. After Sabbath the women came with the intention to anoint Jesus. How this worked if the body was completely wrapped/bound in linen with the spices? To get access at least to his head they would have had to remove/destroy the wrapping and uncovering a naked man underneath!? Answer: The women came after Sabbath with the intention to anoint Jesus' head (hair/face). This was an act of honour that could have been done easily by removing the head cloth (SOUDARION). But it would have been almost impossible and illogic with something like the Shroud of Turin. So there is no need to trust a still doubtful and controversial relic like the Shroud of Turin to be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus: Joh 20,29 Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’ There is a high risk to open the heart for the spirit of idoltry. The consequences you can read e.g. in almost all the commentaries of beverlyhurd8556 on different Shroud related channels where she agressively interfere herself and insults with invectives everybody who is not of her opinion. She knows the Shroud but she doesn't know Jesus and what he said: Mt 5,22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, “Raca,” is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, “You fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell. But there is hope also for her: 1Joh 1,9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

[@charliecarrot]

It's wild to me that people care so much and defend it as being real! How can anyone even know if it's Jesus and not some random crucified person? Besides the fact that it looks nothing like a human, much less a 1st century Palestinian?

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

What is even more incredible is the ongoing skepticism in the face of mountains of scientific and historical evidence that the Shroud is authentic.

[@charliecarrot]

@@jeffreyerwin3665 We can't even historically verify that Jesus was buried - Roman crucifixion victims were often left on the cross, and if anything, their bodies would be thrown into a mass grave. We have no historical or "scientific" reason to think otherwise. The shroud has visual markings that line up with some claims in a story about Jesus's death and burial from the gospels, which were written a lifetime after Jesus died and are full of many fantastical claims. Trying to say there's mountains of scientific evidence when the Catholic Church doesn't even officially claim that the shroud is authentic is laughable. I stumbled upon this video because I respect the scholarship of Goodacre and was curious on what there is to argue about this shroud, which has been thoroughly debunked for decades. It's wild to me that people base their whole faith and identity on this obvious fabrication! At least it's clear to me that everyone in these comments is Catholic and thus has confirmation bias preventing them from even entertaining the idea that it might be a hoax - I've never heard someone who isn't Catholic even bring this thing up except as a mild curiosity.

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

​​@@charliecarrotwe know it is Jesus because of the fact that nobody other than Jesus in recorded history had been crucified with the crown of thorns We have archeological evidence of crucified victims that were buried(Yehohanan ben Hagkol) and we have reasonable evidence to believe that the Romans allowed the Jews to follow their customs and beliefs The gospels and the epistles of Paul can and are dated within the lifespan of the deciples.

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

sorry to inform you but you are the one with the confirmation bias preventing you from entertaining the idea the shroud might be true

[@edukaeshn]

Your pride will not let you acknowledge the mon7mental evidence demonstrating the authenticity of the Shroud. Stop letting others think for you.

[@rickelmonoggin]

the sound quality is not great, I'm sorry to say. Dr Goodacre raises the point that is most convincing to me: the figure on the shroud really doesn't look anything like a human being. it looks like a medieval representation - either a painting or some kind of imprint of a sculpture. it lacks the kind of subtle curves that you'd expect in an image that is directly derived from a real body

[@edukaeshn]

Your perspective and confirmation bias are failing you.

[@mr.perfect1er933]

Isn't GOD AMAZING! Walk with Jesus Christ Stay Dangerous

[@jackpatterson8389]

prayer: meh, meh, meh, meh, meh... pull your head up and magic is real. Please! people with a religious inclination, realize what an ignorant display of a "lucky dance" or a human sacrifice from antiquity your words actually are. Can we get to what the world ACTUALLY is?

[@jackpatterson8389]

Dr. Goodacre, you are amazing!

[@davethebrahman9870]

The reason arguments for the Shroud sound convincing is that they put forward an enormous amount of data that is apparently true, but falls apart on closer examination. It is impossible for anyone to be fully across biblical studies, pathology, biology, the history of textiles, the mediaeval church, mediaeval latin, radiometric dating methods, particle interactions, art history and methods of forgery. But if one has some expertise in one or two of these, and the facts presented are false or misleading, then that should be enough to reject the rest in respect of something so improbable as miracle, unless all the relevant experts are in agreement.

[@killiancullen6430]

Go on then show us the closer examination where it falls apart

[@justincole8039]

So scientists who actually worked on and examined the shroud are convinced of its authenticity, do you think STRP. The aruguments I’ve know to find convincing come from the very people who had hands on access, but ok Dave 😂😂

[@killiancullen6430]

@@justincole8039 no but Justin Dave has had secret access to the Shroud that we all do not know about and he had debunked every convincing argument

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@killiancullen6430 I’ll give you one case: the pathology. The STURP biologists claimed that the Shroud accurately showed the wounds created by the Roman ‘flagrum’. The problems are these: 1. The claim is in part an historical claim, so outside the expertise of pathologists; 2. The pathologists conducted no experiments and cited no observations to support their claim, and we have no archaeological evidence to support their claim. They had not apparently ever seen a victim of flogging, let alone a 1st century Roman flogging; 3. The ‘flagrum’ type whip is only ever seen in ancient art in the context of religious processions; 4. The word, and descriptions of the use of a ‘flagrum’ are not described until Isodore of Seville in the 7th century AD.; 5. Any mediaeval forger would have been able to observe wounds produced by ‘flagra’, as these types of whip were frequently used by mediaeval flagellants to whip themselves. All the other claims made by the STURP people fall apart on inspection in the same way. They were all Christian believers except for two, and their work is flawed.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@killiancullen6430 Maybe you should stop feeling so threatened and being such a smart-arse. I look forward to your refutation of the example I have given.

[@brianvincent4165]

TERRIBLE VOLUME.