A Recent Pathological Analysis of the Shroud of Turin
- Thread starter VladtheDestroyer
- Start date
RSR did a video about it recently:
Saint John W the Great gave the best rebuttal to the shroud, in the first place one should look. Scripture.
5 And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself.
I do not think this excludes the possibility. But it sure looks bad.
5 And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself.
I do not think this excludes the possibility. But it sure looks bad.
Idolater
Popetard
Selling relics is against the Church's law.
Did you listen? He said he has doubt for that reason. It is not a logical position. Regardless of accuracy.
Idolater
Popetard
I have no idea if particles of the true cross exist. I don't have any proof they do not either.
VladtheDestroyer
Member
It seems to me that the best way to wrap a body in linen in a proper fashion, with 2 pieces of linen would involve at least some overlap between the body piece and the head piece. So its not hard for me to imagine that they would cover the entire body, included the head, with one piece and then put a second piece covering only the head. This, I think, would help the covering keep a certain form.
It kind of bothers me that I can't really say for sure what I think this is.
Of course they don't. Nor did they when Helena said she found it. The Romans would have re-used things. At Golgotha you can see a spot where signs probably were fastened to the rock. The Lord Jesus Christ was not the first to be crucified and carry a sign describing his crime. There is archaeology that can be checked. But some things, not so much. I know there is at least one nail from a crucifixion that is ancient. Without opening a new tab, I think it has a piece of human bone attached.
It could be the shroud. I don't accept the explanation on Real Science Radio, as they didn't have the technology to make the shadow with glass painting in the first century. I say that because the dating method showing the first century is more reliable than testing a repaired section.
This thread just came across my X feed:
|
|
Seeing the smaller branches in the background, I would think they used the smaller to actually weave a crown. And being green would make it much easier. The artwork always shown is very dry wood.
13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son.
Nearly every detail is foreshadowing.
13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son.
Nearly every detail is foreshadowing.
Fair.
But I was more pointing out the details of the Shroud of Turin, which was mentioned in the Tucker clip.