The Shroud of Turin is REAL! w/ Fr. Andrew Dalton LC

[@jessedutch3086]

Protestant Shroud believer here 💪. Amazing and fascinating artifact.

[@captainfordo1]

Me too!

[@richarddunn9286]

The shroud is one of the most fascinating relics. If it's a hoax, it's still the greatest hoax of all time. If it's real, then it goes without saying how BIG of a deal that is.

[@grouchosfoil7509]

It is a hoax. A Vatican bishop sent to investigate it when it was first reported in the 1300's sent back a letter to the pope calling it a 'clever forgery' and saying that the artist had confessed. There's a fellow right now that gets the same look and effect using a 'dye pouch' and an oven. There is no record of any shroud in the Bible ( it consistently says linens, plural) and certainly if Peter and company would have had such a powerful proof of the resurrection they would have kept it and used it to silence critics. Yet it shows up 1300 years later? No way. It's a fake.

[@beverlyhurd8556]

@@grouchosfoil7509 There is an image of a man on the Holy Shroud. That man has been horribly beaten, savagely scourged, capped with a crown of thorns, and then crucified until dead. There is _no_ pigment, no carrier, no brush strokes, no clumping of material between the fibers or threads, no cracking due to centuries of folding or rolling the Shroud, and no stiffening of the cloth. This means that the image could not be due to paint, dye, or stain. · There is no capillarity (soaking up of a liquid) of the discoloration in the fibers or threads, so the image could not be due to application of a liquid such as an acid or a chemical in a liquid state. · The image is not luminescent under ultra-violet light. This means that the image could not be due to a scorch from contact of a hot object with the cloth. · The image is only visible in front lighting. It is not visible in back lighting. From this, the STURP team concluded that the image does not result from any substance placed on the cloth, which means that the image could not be a rubbing, a dusting, or a print. And _only_ the original cloth will give a 3-D image when run through a VP8 Image analyzer. So now the question is, how in the _world_ can you think that man created it??

[@les2997]

It extremally highly unlikely that the Shroud is a medieval hoax because medieval artists didn't have the technology to impart the image on linen fibers. With the exception of the Shroud, there is not a single medieval work of art that we don't know how it was created. Medieval art techniques are very well understood.

[@richarddunn9286]

@@les2997 Actually, the shroud was re-created. A 2010 research paper, "Life-size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image" by Dr. Luigi Garlaschelli, summarized previous research findings and tested the theories put forth by skeptics. Using medieval technology, they were able to create a replica of the shroud with all its supposedly miraculous qualities.

[@les2997]

They used the bas relief technique, which doesn’t provide enough detail and creates damage to the surrounding area.

[@johnh.3207]

Exorcist and expert on relics Fr. Carlos Martins recounted a incident where he received a two inch long thread reputedly taken from the Shroud of Turin. He was at the time dealing with a possession by a very powerful demon, and so he brought the thread to the session and placed it on the possessed person without saying what it was. When that happened, the demon possessing the person assumed the exact posture of Christ as depicted by the shroud. The demon then began to whimper as the proximity to the sacred relic was in effect tortuous for him. Martins says that he always believed that the Shroud of Turin was genuine, but now he is absolutely convinced.

[@KingAdjust]

Where is the proof of this?

[@applin121]

The Turin Shroud is exactly what it purports to be. I have believed this for years, before I was even a Catholic.

[@RickW-HGWT]

@@tomato-ir9xs so how and who made it ?, how do you explain the negative images that were only discovered using early photography ?.

[@jenna2431]

It purports to be a fake. It's those who benefit from it that purport otherwise.

[@johnnilan7788]

The church through Augustin believe that after the birth of Jesus, Mary remained a virgin and had no children. That is completely contrary to the testimony of scripture. Sorry you became a catholic. Mother church will not save you as Augustine taught.

[@theminutemen1275]

The British Museum received $2 million pounds to keep the numbers from all 3 labs. They were so 95% confident in the results, they only released the numbers 30 years later, after losing a FOIA request appeal

[@dotdashdotdash]

T(he donor was anonymous. But I would argue that the donor was Jewish, and very rich. Jewish because they have a vested interest in disproving that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. My guess it was either Jacob Rothschild or George Soros)

[@diegofuentes6783]

The name of the actress who plays Satan in The Passion Of The Christ is Rosalinda Celentano

[@zionlion4445]

💘Thank you so much Matt! Absolutely loved this interview!!! 💘The knowledge we learned about The Shroud of Turin was amazing! 💘I'm so glad I'm praying for you and your wonderful family!🙏🙏🙏

[@noniusreccaredus]

Peer-reviewed paper from 2022 published on MDPI journal "Heritage" by Liberato de Caro on new X-Ray datation technique based on Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) concludes that the Shroud of Turin is from 1st century A.D. Article can be downloaded from MDPI website.

[@josephlangdon4308]

That scientist in Arizona before he passed said a new cutting wouldn't be needed on a pristine part of Shroud...said a piece of the burned part would suffice for new carbon dating...

[@steves8474]

I think it was Divine Intervention that a repaired piece from the Shroud was destroyed instead of a section of the true holy relic. Even if it was dated to the 1st century during that test, I don't think it would have changed the minds of the nonbelievers, and its not needed for people with true faith.

[@danapb]

Exactly! Well said

[@zorrobatman1]

Yes, but I think is important for those people who are "in the middle", who have not enough faith, like the Apostle Thomas who needed to touch

[@joekey8464]

Some people ask for evidence for God, but they cannot handle the truth, when they are given the facts, they continue to ignore, deny and wish it out.

[@stephenandersen4625]

Well, as a regular schmuck in the pew, my understanding is that we don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of dueling technical experts and that the Shroud is “useful” but not necessary (like a whole lot of relics and apparitions) for enhancing faith.

[@Autobotmatt428]

You should post a link to the article

[@christopherflux6254]

I’m a Protestant and knew very little about the shroud until I saw your show. I didn’t know how big the claim was about it or the evidence for it. Now I convinced that God ‘photographed’ Jesus at the moment of His resurrection.

[@josephology3290]

As the images of the Shroud, Manopello, and Veronica's Veil, which were not made by hands (acheiropoieta), are very similar but not exactly the same, do you think it might be possible that one of the three might be of St. Joseph? Thanks for a great show! #Josephology

[@strezko]

i just love how they never post the links

[@awdat]

*Acts 19:11* _God did extraordinary miracles through the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and the diseases and evil spirits left them._ *Mark 5:27* _When the woman heard about Jesus, she came up through the crowd behind Him and touched His cloak. For she kept saying, “If only I touch His garments, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped, and she sensed in her body that she was healed of her affliction._ *Mark 6:55* _And wherever He went-villages and towns and countrysides-they laid the sick in the marketplaces and begged Him just to let them touch the fringe of His cloak. And all who touched Him were healed._

[@luispedroza3043]

This makes a great plot for a movie on the Shroud!

[@carolinpurayidom4570]

I saw Jesus face dying on the cross once and the facial features and structure look like the shroud of Turins.

[@ebobing]

Testify ! The Lord has Risen.

[@rollbruv]

Who gave these guys the funding/grant?

[@johnnilan7788]

John 20:6 debunks the shroud of Turin: " And so Simon Peter also *came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he *saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself." So the face of the person in the cloth would not have appeared if covering Jesus.

[@beverlyhurd8556]

Wrong. The facecloth of Jesus was not on him when he was resurrected. Everyone that has studied the Shroud and Bible knows this. Today the facecloth of Jesus is in Spain where it is known as the Sudarium of Oviedo. There you go! Feel a bit smarter now? I hope so.

[@johnnilan7788]

@@beverlyhurd8556 Beverly you are such s sour puss in your responses. That is just nonsense. Did you read about the face cloth on Lazarus? Why would the women have placed the face cloth apart from covering Jesus. The fact that it was observed separately was further confirmation of the resurrection. You do not even believe the testimony of your first pope. Your pride and Augustinian glasses blind you. Your logic is childish. It would never stand in the courtroom. You try to be so intelligent but the result is foolishness.

[@johnnilan7788]

@@beverlyhurd8556 What is really preposterous is that the blood stained Sudarium of Oviedo was said to be the face cloth on Jesus' face. If so then you have argued against the shroud being valid because there is an image of a face on it which would not have been on the shroud if your Sudarium of Oviedo is true. You cannot have it both ways! Can't you see that? Also, there is no scientific evidence found for burial spices on the shroud even though pollen was found.

[@beverlyhurd8556]

@@johnnilan7788 Um, if you knew _anything_ at all about the Sudarium then you would know that there are at *least* 180 points of congruency with it and the Shroud of Turin. It is *impossible* for them not to have at one time been on the same body. Only someone _exceedingly_ ignorant would call it preposterous. Can't you see that? No? Why am I not surprised? 🤦‍♂

[@johnnilan7788]

@@beverlyhurd8556 well excellent. You are convinced in your mind. Worship it and be condemned. It is your eternal salvation at risk.

[@jerrymcgrane5690]

I'm sorry, but this clip did not really deliver on what the title said it would. It discusses why the 1988 test was flawed that's it. Never touched on the other evidence.

[@thimygonzalez8838]

Ave Maria 🙏🏻💙📿

[@moesypittounikos]

Is he saying the carbon dating is fake science or is he saying the edge of the shroud was snipped off in the middle ages and replaces or re-weaved with middle aged material?

[@jonwolff8222]

@@luke2346luke The latest evidence has come to the opposite conclusion. The evidence that the shroud is from the first century is now overwhelming.

[@Lone-Lee]

I might seem rude but I'd really recommend you to re-watch this clip because nowhere in this clip or in the full length video did he say anything even remotely similar to _"carbon dating is fake science"._ Infact, he actually considers carbon dating to be the gold standard test. Edit: Here's his own words on carbon dating: _“There's no doubt that when you're talking about ... linen, which is an organic material, the gold standard is carbon dating ...”_ It's at the 32:47 mark in the original video.

[@Lone-Lee]

The edge was used to hold the shroud and was therefore subject to wear and tear for centuries. Moreover, it was burnt once during 1200s or 1300s, in a fire, and was repaired using an invisible weaving technique, glossed over with some organic polish so that it won't appear white and stand out from the rest of the cloth. This is why this corner of the shroud looks green in the UV flourescence mapping while the rest looks red-orange-yellow. Those "experts" who carbon dated the shroud ought to know about this.

[@mariomene2051]

It's clear what he's saying : all evidence proves the edge the samples for the carbon dating were taken from were contaminated with material that was incorporated much later. It contains materials (cotton and resins) that are not present anywhere else on the Shroud. The sample actually came apart under scrutiny by a STURP member, and he published those findings. As was explained, it is a mixture of original Shroud and the later incorporated cotton, and the further away from the original Shroud material one gets, the more of the cotton, the later the carbon dating, and the closer to the Shroud one gets, the less of the cotton, the earlier the carbon dating.

[@jonwolff8222]

@@tomato-ir9xs Barrie Swartz, who is Jewish, has detailed extensive evidence regarding the Shroud. Metatron also has a video about it. Both have come to the same conclusion, that it's from the 1st century. Regarding Fatima, you strike me as one of those elitists who imagine themselves smarter than the 70,000 people who were there. That would include scoffers who came to jeer but ended up believers

[@edwardbell9795]

What happened to the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head (Jn 20:7)? Surely, the image of Our Lord’s face would have been imprinted on the face cloth rather than the shroud covering his body.

[@beverlyhurd8556]

It's in Spain where it has been for the last 1400 years. It is known as the Sudarium of Oviedo.

[@UnremarkableMarx]

Would Aloe and Myrrh be detectable on this relic? Was the shroud a greater cloth, which beneath there still being a cloth for Jesus' head, as was accounted for in the gospels and in 1st century Jewish burials? If it's a forgery I am not disturbed by that. Jesus suffered the most terrible death, that's what the shroud should remind us. He did this to atone for all of us. Thank you Jesus, I'm sorry, thank you for everything. Amen

[@Silverfoxxee]

It is. Jew's don't collect relics. They don't collect unclean objects or keep them in their homes. Forget the paid for studies. Learn about the purity laws.

[@FAITHandLOGIC]

In 1389 the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis, denounced the shroud as a forgery. The story goes that the bishop claimed an artist had confessed to its forgery so the bishop wrote to Pope Clement VII to denounce it. The pope’s response was to declare the shroud a man-made religious icon rather than a relic and permitted the church in Lirey to continue to display it. It is not proof of Jesus despite how much you want to believe it.

[@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. There currently is a $1,000,000 reward out there for anyone that can prove that the image on there was manmade. Why don't you go claim it if you think that you know more than everyone else on the planet does? The Shroud of Turin is the _real deal._ Today, only someone incredibly stupid and/or ignorant will call it a fake.

[@mikewilliams235]

Something that old, with that much exposure over the years can't really be carbon tested because there is so much contamination.

[@Jingleschmiede]

Oh, the catholic church doesn't have enough to pay for independent research. Maybe that should make a kickstarter.

[@shaunigothictv1003]

So basically the image captured on the shroud is actually YAHWEH in the flesh - in the form of his son who is also known as Jesus Christ. Well, I AM NOT A FOLLOWER OF YAHWEH. But Catholic Church makes NO such claims about the shroud of Turin. Its always kept on display as a focal point for the wider world and also as a noted religious artififact in the west. This is the official Catholic position on the shroud of Turin.

[@angelbarker3548]

It's worth more to disprove than prove unfortunately my whole heart believes it is real faith is real here xx

[@grouchosfoil7509]

The Bible says it is not real. The eyewitnesses at the time ( the people that were actually there and recorded the event), say that there were 2 cloths, not one, and that the one for the head was separate. First century Jews did not use a "wrap around cloth", but multiple cloths. ( John 20:6) A clever forgery. " For we walking by faith, not by sight" 2 Corinthians 2 5:7. True Christians don't need icons, or relics, or so-called holy objects to have faith.

[@beverlyhurd8556]

Those of us that both know the Bible as well as the Shroud know that the face cloth of Jesus is in Spain where it has been for over 1200 years. It is known as the Sudarium of Oviedo. Anybody in this day and age that refers to the Shroud of Turin as being nothing more than a "clever forgery" is more than incredibly ignorant.

[@grouchosfoil7509]

@@beverlyhurd8556 Well, apparently you don't know the Bible as well as you think, as you seem to take issue with the eyewitnesses that wrote the accounts. Let's see, a little math here .. 1200 years ago means that 800 years had passed since the resurrection. It would seem that the Apostles and all the other first Christians hid these absolute proofs of Christ's resurrection for a very, very, very long time. A strange thing to do when they were being so viciously persecuted for believing and preaching it. "Hey, here's the proof! " would seem to be a far more logical course of action. Not to mention their COMPLETE SILENCE on it. Then suddenly, in the late 1300's, it turns up. A Catholic bishop is sent by the Pope to investigate and he determines that it is indeed a "clever forgery" ( was he ignorant too? ), a fraud of a local artist. He says plainly that he investigated the matter thoroughly and diligently and that the artist had even confessed. He also states that the church involved had acted out of "avarice and gain" in endorsing it. (BTW, there is an artist that has a video showing how he can create the same effect, using dye pouches and an oven.) As for a piece of cloth with bloodstains on it dated back to 700 years AFTER Christ as some proof of the authenticity of either, is well, quite a stretch. One fake thing proves another fake? The real proof that neither is what they are claimed to be is the Bible itself. Nowhere does God approve of the veneration of objects, icons, holy relics and such. He disposed of the body of Moses to prevent just such a thing from happening. Not to be overlooked either is that there is a very public resurrection recorded for us. 2 actually. The widow's son and Lazarus. Both were entombed/wrapped in the same manner that Jesus would have been and NEITHER of them glowed or burned an imprint into their wrappings. Same with Jairus' daughter. Did she burn an image into her bed cloths when Jesus raised her? No. Why would Jesus' been any different? Believe it if you will. But true Christians do not require objects to have faith. The Bible is the only authority that counts.

[@beverlyhurd8556]

@@grouchosfoil7509 Well, it does seem that I was right about your ignorance about the Shroud. Everyone that has both studied the Shroud and has a lick of intelligence knows that for over 1000 years the Shroud was carefully hidden away and carefully guarded by scores of people that risked their very lives doing so. What are the names of this Bishop and this mysterious artist that created the Shroud? Oh? You do not know? I did not think so. How did he create it with no paint or ink or dyes? Oh? You do not know? I did not think so. How did he know to put all of the blood stains on the Shroud and _then_ the image? Oh? You do not know? I did not think so. Who was this clown that told you the hilarious lie that the blood on the Shroud was dated to 700 years after the death of Jesus? How did they date it? Oh? You do not know? I did not think so. And who says that anyone is suppose to worship the Shroud? I do not. I only worship the man that it once contained. Who or what idol do you worship? It was *proven* by many dozens of doctors, scientists, archeologists, and other highly trained researchers and tens of thousands of hours of examination that the Shroud most definitely wrapped the body of a severely beaten, scourged and crucified man that was wearing a crown or cap of thorns when he died. Are you really and truly dumb enough to believe that this was someone other than Jesus Christ? Are you??

[@rackreman]

@@beverlyhurd8556hey man I get your point, but that’s not the most “Christian” was of approaching someone… you’ll never convince anyone of anything in that tone.

[@beverlyhurd8556]

@@rackreman I am doing nothing more than telling it like it is. Too bad if someone does not care for my 'tone'.

[@jefferymackie2781]

It is flat. When you try to disprove it is when you see that it is.

[@DoctorDewgong]

why do boats disappear beyond the horizon

[@jefferymackie2781]

It’s a matter of perspective. The human eye can only see so far.

[@DoctorDewgong]

@@jefferymackie2781 interesting. Because I can use my eyes to see stars that are thousands of light-years away

[@debrahollingsworth5534]

Ecce Homo

[@littlerichardthetruekingof1028]

Im agnostic on the authencity and my faith rests not on a piece of cloth.

[@masterchief8179]

But you are missing the point: if that “piece of cloth” is most probably authentic, and if science can’t possibly explain how on Earth the shroud has this or that characteristics considering the mark of carbon and other data, then it’s sufficient to tear down the propelled certainties of the atheist worldview over Christian fundamental truths - which THEY, not us, call lies. Much alike, people of faith are not dependent on miracles to believe, but surely many unbelieving, through God’s will, came to the faith through them. God bless!

[@calebadcock363]

Ours doesn’t either. The shroud could be a total fake and Christianity would still be true.

[@zorrobatman1]

I totally understand and agree with you. But don't you ever consider the real importance that this can be for those people who are agnostic?

[@joekey8464]

Whatever it is, no one doubts that the negative image predates the invention of photography in the 1820s.

[@jonwolff8222]

Watch Metatron's Is the Shroud of Turin Real? He comes from a completely rational, scientific position.

[@newjerseylion4804]

I'm hesitant given the carbon dating

[@beverlyhurd8556]

But the carbon dating was proven wrong almost *20 years ago* when Dr. Ray Rogers, a scientist at Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories in New Mexico, *proved* that the carbon testing was done in error as the sample taken was from non-original part of the Shroud. The Shroud of Turin is 2000 years old.

[@jacobemmary3239]

Blessed be God, shouldn’t we have faith like children?

[@savedbygrace8337]

If you can’t trust a catholic priest then I tell you who can you trust ! P.s. don’t believe all those lies about catholic priests.

[@jaumeclave6731]

As is known, many theologians do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus. According to them, it would be an inner experience. However, according to the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Saint Paul, the Resurrection of Jesus is the indispensable requirement to receive Baptism and be saved. These theologians do not have the faith that is necessary to be saved, they are in extreme danger of being damned. They have two solutions, both go through humility, which is the problem. Say to God: I want to believe in the resurrection of your Son Jesus, but I can't. Make me safe, as if I believed. The other is to turn to the Shroud and mentally see the miracle witnessed by John, Peter, Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene, and even Mary, Mother of Jesus. They were privileged, they believed in the resurrection of Jesus thanks to that visible miracle. The Holy sheet with the "photos" of Jesus and the head shroud suspended in the air. The other Christian faithful would believe because of the preaching and the action of the Holy Spirit, but all had to believe in the resurrection of Jesus as a "sine qua non" condition. Now in the 21st century, the miracle is offered to us again because the book picks up the pieces of the puzzle that Saint John left us and puts them in their place and thus the scene that they saw twenty centuries later appears drawn, since Saint John was not explicit for various reasons. His community knew how to read between the lines what he was explaining because they knew the story well enough. It is about the book SAINT JOHN THE EVANGELIST "SAW AND BELIEVED" AND WE TOO! On Amazon. VERY IMPORTANT!! Perhaps someone could make transmission of this text to Mel Gibson for his film about Resurrection. Por si alguien sabe cómo hacer llegar esta nueva escena a Mel Gibson para su futura película sobre la Resurrección.

[@robertdelgadocapetillo8684]

My dad's faith was killed when he saw on the dumbass History Channel, disproving the authenticity of the shroud of Turin. They said that the shroud was created years later after the crucifixion of Christ...and it also killed my faith too.

[@mjramirez6008]

''O ye of little faith...''

[@PC-vp2cg]

Dude, I hope that's a joke. This doesn't even make sense and there are a Million things wrong with depending on the authenticity of the shroud

[@robertdelgadocapetillo8684]

@@PC-vp2cg troll

[@jonwolff8222]

Watch Metatron's Is the Shroud of Turin Real? He comes from a completely rational, scientific position and in the end, the carbon dating doesn't mesh with all the other evidence. Most of the evidence is that it's from the 1st century and was created in a way that science still can't explain.

[@misha1d1]

Why? The shroud, real or not, is not Christ. Christ is who we have faith in, not a relic.

[@MrTakealookaround]

The earth is flat what are you on about ? Space does not exist.

[@jenna2431]

If you have to grasp a piece of cloth to "prove" your religion, you have bigger problems than skeptics.

[@samm8262]

But of course we don’t it’s just that you place too much on this, whether this is true or not will not disprove my belief in God, how about you? There so much sadness in you that you have to cast doubt on others even without proof.😢

[@ebobing]

Do more Radiocarbon dating if its true. If you thought it was true you would. If you didn't think it was you would avoid it.

[@beverlyhurd8556]

Do you really think that anyone these days could just go up to the Holy Shroud and pull out their scissors and start hacking away at it? Is that what you think that anyone could do? I hope that you're not that dumb.

[@ebobing]

​@@beverlyhurd8556 Thanks for a interesting reply. I would agree with you, it would be absurd to think any one off the street could just get access to the "holy" Shroud and hack away at it with scissors. that was not my claim. My claim was they (the owners) can re-test it, to prove the doubters that it was from the time of Jesus and reassure the people who do believe or are willing to believe once they see the results. P.s I could be that dumb.

[@ebobing]

@@beverlyhurd8556 I thought any person of the street could get access to it, im shocked if thats not the case.

[@ebobing]

I Ofc was referring to the owners of the shroud. Not any one that happens to walk by, or the cleaners.

[@beverlyhurd8556]

@@ebobing There are no 'owners' of the Shroud. Only an owner. That's the Pope and years ago he said that no more destructive testing would be allowed on it. And since carbon dating requires destroying what is being tested, even a very small sample, that takes care of that. And I assure you, the Pope knows that it's no fake. Just like all intelligent people do.

[@jrbizzl3]

Oh please, like the Catholic Church couldn't afford to have every millimeter of that shroud tested 100,000 times over. Any monetary excuse is just that, an excuse.

[@spiffygonzales5899]

Gotta agree with this. The Catholic Church is one of the richest non government entities on earth. They could totally test it dozens of times over, hundreds, thousands.

[@zacharynelson5731]

@JR B the Catholic Church isn’t as liquid as you think it is.

[@spiffygonzales5899]

@@zacharynelson5731 Elaborate

[@oliver8160]

The catholic church is rich like how a museum is rich. It holds on to priceless artifacts yes but these artifacts cannot be sold as they are treated as museum pieces. Hence all the gold and riches that is visible cannot be used except for displays.

[@jonwolff8222]

Watch Metatron's Is the Shroud of Turin Real? He comes from a completely rational, scientific position.

[@frankm9529]

Hahajajaajajajjajajaajja. Ffs

[@DanielAthos]

Sorry, this is clickbait. To affirm that the shroud is real (in the sense that it belongs to the time period in which Jesus was alive) based on the unsoundness of past research that, supposedly, disproved its historical (and metaphysical) validity is not a good argument to be able to assert such a conclusion. I'm open to the idea of the shroud being real but I need scientific proof for it, even if agnostic/atheist academics made a lot of "mistakes". God bless!

[@johannesgh90]

They literally say in the beginning of the video that this is just the beginning; "before we get further". Watch the whole podcast if this piqued your interest. I haven't so I can't recommend it, but I did watch Metatron's new video on the subject, which is very well done and convinced me, even though he himself is agnostic on the issue. Also: What the H is "scientific proof"? I thought science only disproved things and all affirming results were essentially provisional. Isn't that the often trotted-out strength of science, that it is always in flux and ready to adapt to new data and new ideas? Is there anything science can prove such that it's no longer debatable?

[@jonwolff8222]

Watch Metatron's Is the Shroud of Turin Real? He comes from a completely rational, scientific position and in the end, the carbon dating doesn't mesh with all the other evidence. Most of the evidence is that it's from the 1st century and was created in a way that science still can't explain.

[@Derpleton14]

The shroud was probably made by ancient aliens

[@peppy619]

black people? xD

[@themonsterunderyourbed9408]

The shroud of Turin is more real than the Pope's Catholic faith.

[@nordicgardener]

The priest, impartial as he is, mentions lack of homogenity in the test results, but refrains from mentioning that the most recent analysis (2020) concluded that the stated date range needs to be adjusted by up to 88 years in order to properly meet the requirement of "95% confidence". So the shroud might be as early as 1170. By then even the vikings had been bamboozled into the christian faith. But don't worry we will not run out of gullable idiots. In a thousands years time the church of Harry Potter will have the Holy Invisibility Cloak on display as a relic, and as it is invisible it can regrettably not be scientifically disproven by non-believers.

[@bengoolie5197]

And the sad part is that the gullible idiots who were bamboozled all eventually evolved into Democruts.

[@johannesgh90]

He said the sample was from an "anomalous area"; a repair patch. So sure, the repair might be from the 12th century, and the priest "refrained from mentioning" your point there, because it is utterly irrelevant to have a more accurate estimate of the age of a thing, the age of which you don't care about. The patch is not the original cloth, it's different - that's the argument. The point where he mentions heterogeneity is about how they did their work, i.e. that they did not release, which they only did under compulsion, the data separately for each lab, but lumped it all together... Why would you do that unless you were trying to make it harder for people to check your work? which would be profoundly anti-scientific. It's evidence of bias, incompetence, fraud, or some such thing in the research. The huge amount of money they got also doesn't look good if you want to argue this as an unbiased, scientific result. Also: It's gullible, not "gullable". You may want to spell that word correctly if you're going to use it to call people idiots.

[@jonwolff8222]

Watch Metatron's Is the Shroud of Turin Real? He comes from a completely rational, scientific position and in the end, the carbon dating doesn't mesh with all the other evidence. Most of the evidence is that it's from the 1st century and was created in a way that science still can't explain.

[@Luke-qo3xr]

That's what I thought of religion when I was 10, Harry Potter analogy and everything. You're not very bright.