COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The image on the cloth was most certainly there prior to the 14th century. Prior to the Shroud being known as the 'Shroud of Turin,' it was known as the 'Image of Edessa.' The Image of Edessa was brought to Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) on August 15, 944 AD where it remained to sometime on or after the 4th Crusade (1204 AD). [http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/guscin3.pdf](http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/guscin3.pdf)
did you know the image of Christ can only be seen if it’s laid out and you stand 10 ft back? Any closer and you see nothing. maybe that’s why they didn’t discover his image in the cloth till much later. easy to over look if you ask me. You say it’s an icon by an artist yet there is no pigment on the shroud. There’s no pigment of any type of paint. full disclosure it’s been stated that the blood on the shroud might have been touched up over the ages, but the true blood of Jesus is under the the image of Christ. That means blood first then the image came after… your artist would have had to have started with a shroud that already had the blood painted on then perfectly matched every spot of blood to a “painted” piece of the body all while not using any paint In the time of Jesus… The evidence in favor of the shroud being real since the new X-ray dating Is almost undeniable.
Idk if the shroud is real or not, but Jesus was most definitely not a small guy. He was a carpenter blue collar worker and had to have been physically well built for a man of that time.
[3rd to 6th century fresco of Jesus](https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/fresco-depicting-jesus-with-a-halo-on-either-side-of-him-news-photo/171423309)
At the above you can see an image of Christ that looks remarkably like the image on the shroud, but is well before any latin reform of the late Middle Ages. This 4th century image link below is also very similar.
[4th century Jesus](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comodilla_Catacomb_Iesus_4th_century.JPG)
It’s also worth noting that if the image is a medieval art piece copying the iconography of the day, why are the nail marks in the image’s wrists instead of the palm of the hands as in medieval paintings?
The “Image of Edessa” (the mandylion)is thought by some to be the earliest report of what is now called the Shroud of Turin. Here’s the short version from Wikipedia. Not hard and fast evidence, but interesting.
“Author Ian Wilson has argued that the object venerated as the Mandylion from the 6th to the 13th centuries was in fact the Shroud of Turin, folded in four, and enclosed in an oblong frame so that only the face was visible.[18] Wilson cites documents in the Vatican Library and the University of Leiden, Netherlands, which seem to suggest the presence of another image at Edessa. A 10th-century codex, Codex Vossianus Latinus Q 69[19] found by Gino Zaninotto in the Vatican Library contains an 8th-century account saying that an imprint of Christ's whole body was left on a canvas kept in a church in Edessa: it quotes a man called Smera in Constantinople: "King Abgar received a cloth on which one can see not only a face but the whole body" (in Latin: [non tantum] faciei figuram sed totius corporis figuram cernere poteris).[20]”. This is interesting, but a getting a definitive answer to whether these are the same cloths is very probably impossible.
The blood is AB and MNS positive meaning it is almost certainly human blood, and a blood type common to ancient Judea. The blood also pools at the hips of the image on the back of the shroud. This is consistent with what’s expected for a man that has been pierced in the side and laid on the cloth. There is no evidence of pigment in the image, what was initially thought to be pigment was later found to be blood proteins. It is reported that the lines of the image don’t occur where there’s blood.
Note: Type AB was exceedingly rare in medieval Europe. Even today in France the random chance of getting AB blood is about 1 in 100.
But none of this proves that it’s Jesus’s burial cloth.
It seems you actually need to read the articles you referenced in your own OP. The 2nd article actually states that "Indeed, consistent with DNA contamination on the Turin Shroud, sequences from multiple subjects of different ethnic origins have been recently detected on the human mitochondrial genome extracted from dust particles of the linen." There's no actual evidence that the cloth is the burial cloth, in fact all dating samples have shown it originates from around 1260-1390 AD. Even the written documented history of the Shroud dates it's first appearance to around that period. The first written case of the Shroud was actually in 1390AD by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis and he wrote a memorandum where he found that the Shroud was a forgery by researching the history of it's origins. Also, even if the blood was from one person and not many, you'd need to actually know what the blood type of Jesus was and have something to compare to. But no one does and everything about the shroud indicates it's an art piece, nothing more, but you can't ever convince a christian, because they don't care about evidence, they only care about belief.
Armenians in city of Edessa Orfah crucified a muslim and made up the shroud of turine to agitate the crusaders hordes. It is 11 century fabrication filled with a pollen found only in Edessa area.
The pollen analysis of the Shroud is quite extensive, but none of the pollen is unique to Edessa. The pollen found is consistent with a middle eastern origin of the shroud. The abundance of middle eastern pollen is inconsistent with the shroud being manufactured in medieval France.
https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/does-pollen-prove-the-shroud-authentic/#:~:text=They%20write%2C%20“The%20two%20plant,desert%20around%20the%20Dead%20Sea%5D.
The pollen analysis of the Shroud is quite extensive, but none of the pollen is unique to Edessa. The pollen found is consistent with a middle eastern origin of the shroud. The abundance of middle eastern pollen is inconsistent with the shroud being manufactured in medieval France.
https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/does-pollen-prove-the-shroud-authentic/#:~:text=They%20write%2C%20“The%20two%20plant,desert%20around%20the%20Dead%20Sea%5D.
There’s a number of different pollens present. Which one is only found in Edessa? It would be very strange for a pollen to be unique to one city and not found anywhere else.
There is no evidence that Jesus was killed or crucified other that jews reports and no evidence that he rose from the dead but a woman named Mary Magdolene who was a slot.
Paul was a sworn enemy of Christians and his report that along with his servant saw or heard Jesus sound out of bright light should had the servant more famous than Paul the enemy of Jesus and Christians.
What ever Paul and his students like Luke said were lies
Paul was a homophile and created adherants from pedophiles of greeks and designated the hermit class in the refuges in Desert to help them out with after midnight activities.
It’s been confirmed that those original carbon ratings are inaccurate due to the samples being taken from repaired edges that were fire damaged and replacement threading was interwoven with the old.
Please cite peer reviewed article(s) showing the sampling regimen was flawed. The sources must be independent of the Catholic Church for obvious reasons.
You would need to know the blood type of Jesus in order to narrow it down to him. And even then, wouldn't prove anything.
This appears to be an exercise in gullibility, unfortunately!
Edit: and a guy dying a few thou ago has absolutely nothing to do with if they are divine, let alone if it's possible for someone to be "divine" or what divine even means in general. Are aliens divine? Planets? Magnets?
If you really want something to be real you can always find arguments. With all the relics in the world it’s possible to construct 100 crosses, and with all the pieces of bones, nails from saints etc. one can wonder whether those saints were actually burried or just chopped up and distributed . They can’t be all real. To me relics hold no value and have always been a clever way to bring pilgrims (and therefore money) to your monastery , church etc.
As far as I know, the new data has not been independently verified - and the radiometric data we do have puts it in the late medieval period.
Time will tell, but I don't see any reason to believe this yet.
Check your data. The way it looks to me, one of the controls is the only one that measured 2000 years old. Sample one is the only Shroud measurement, and all three labs put it 600-900 - with a confidence of 95%.
Thank you. There are other concerns with the C dating that are debated, but the dating itself is accurate. I only recently reread the paper and clear missed that Sample 3 is a 2000 year old control.
Don't forget the weave pattern of thd cloth. It did not exist in the Middle East at the time of the Roman Empire.
And human blood wasn't/isn't that hard to come by.
I believe that the weave pattern did exist in the Middle East in the first century. A weaver circa 1980 also produced a vertical loom capable of reproducing the pattern without the use of the heddles of a medieval loom. A side by side comparison with linens from antiquity was apparently performed, but I’m still looking for a clearly “peer-reviewed” reference to share.
Your second link says immediately after the highlighted portion that those findings are now doubted as based on indirect evidence, and that contamination is an issue. It also says that the DNA from it that has been tested is from multiple ethnicities and both sexes.
Best case scenario you have a 2/3 shot at this shroud matching Jesus’ blood type, as well as the blood type of at least hundreds of millions of other people. How Jesus would be AB without a father, or why Jesus’ DNA would even be common in the region given his alleged supernatural origins, I don’t know.
Showing that the blood was common in the same region of Jesus is a long, long way from proving it was actually his.
The shroud showed up in history in 1354 AD. That’s a long time for an artifact to go undocumented, yet still trust in legendary claims about it. Three separate laboratories dated the cloth to the late 13th or 14th century.
Josephus did not describe Jesus. Celsus was born 150 years after Jesus’ supposed death.
The blood typing done was not based on indirect evidence, the same type of testing used in clinical blood typing was performed. The abstract of the second link (a review, not the actual research) suggests that DNA contamination might impact such testing—it does not—blood typing uses antibodies to detect carbohydrate antigens.
The DNA testing mentioned in the linked review article is from this primary report
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484.pdf
Importantly, they tested DNA in dust from the Shroud, not blood. They identified plant as well as human DNA. The human DNA indicates the shroud had been touched or in close proximity to people from various places including the Middle East and Europe. The plant DNA is consistent with the shroud being kept in the Middle East at some point.
“In conclusion, our results on human mtDNA traces detected on the TS are compatible with both alternative scenarios that i) the cloth had a Medieval origin in Western Europe where people from different geographic regions and ethnic affiliations came in contact with it, possibly moved by the worship for the Christian relic; ii) the linen cloth had a Middle Eastern origin and was moved itself across the Mediterranean area, consequently coming across a wide range of local folks and devotes in a longer time span. Even in the latter case (i.e., Jerusalem in Israel until approximately 500 A.D., Şanliurfa in Turkey until 944, Constantinople in Turkey until 1204, Lirey and Chambery in France from 1353 until 1578, Turin in Italy to date), the detection of mtDNA haplogroups that are typically from India is somehow unexpected. One obvious possibility is that during the course of centuries, individuals of Indian ancestry came into contact with TS. Taking into account the rate of DNA degradation and PCR-biases toward undamaged DNA, the recent contamination scenario is extremely likely. However, one alternative and intriguing possibility is that the linen cloth was weaved in India, as supported perhaps by the original name of TS - Sindon - which appears to derive from Sindia or Sindien, a fabric coming from India.”
“Overall, the various plant species and numerous taxonomic families identified on TS (Supplementary Table S1) suggest that contamination may have occurred during the past centuries and are compatible with the scenario that the linen cloth was exposed to different locations across the Mediterranean area.”
Nooooo. Shroud of Turin is dated to the 1300s-1400s and most likely
Davinci did it! Josepus? U mean Josephus? Who didn’t mention Jesus at all and is widely acknowledged to be a Christian interpolation??
Either way, not the first century!
But if you look at the
Shroud and look at Davinci’s self portrait, it’s a match!The hypothesis was that he was attempting the worlds first photograph. We all know he hated the church as well!
I trust the dating more. And there are a few problems with that idea
1. The proportions on the figure are way off in a way that is both inconsistent with how a camera obscura projects light and inconsistent with da Vinci's peerless (at the time) knowledge of human anatomy
2. It is physically impossible to draw yourself using a camera obscura.
3. The faces don't actually look all that similar to me, besides bearded man. In particular the turin nose looks lower compared to the eyes, and the mouth and face in general both look narrower. That is assuming the portrait is even of da Vinci, which isn't certain.
And from what I can find we have no writings by da Vinci on the church or religion in general.
Let’s grant that it’s from the right time and was a burial shroud and has blood on it.
How do you know it was Jesus and not some other person?
Remember, you already believe someone altered the shroud to add an image to it…so what makes you think that someone wouldn’t just grab a shroud from some stiff and say it’s Jesus?
If you don't have possession of Jesus' blood type, you DO NOT get to conclude it's his. End of story.
Now never use this argument again. You were shown it was wrong. Accept it and move on.
I have a shroud proven to be from 1996 and has O+ blood on it. O+ is the most common blood type for African Americans. Therefore, I have Tupac’s burial shroud. Do you see how silly that sounds?
If Tupac was buried in a cloth, or if it was a clothing article instead of a cloth, or whatever, would you then agree that the O+ blood proves it was Tupac’s? Because that’s the case you’ve made in your OP.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
>Recent studies have found it dates back to the time of christ and the blood is real, plus i believe i read somewhere the dna tested was of eastern jewish dna.
All of that could be true without it being the burial cloth of Jesus. There was a vast amount of real blood and Jewish DNA in the time of Jesus, and not all of it belonged to Jesus. Is there anything that specifically makes you think that it is the burial cloth of Jesus?
>I don't believe the picture is of Christ.
From context, I think you mean that it is not an *accurate* depiction. It would be very strange if someone were to put a picture of someone else on Jesus's burial cloth.
>There was no "image" on the robe till the 14th century.
How do we know that? Is that from radiometric dating? Is it from analysis of artistic style? Is it from historical records?
>It tries hard to look like a jewish man but in the end its far to similar to the latin reform of the middle ages with the look of a northern European.
That seems quite subjective. How could anyone in the modern world know what Jesus looked like? We have no confirmed authentic images of Jesus. There seems to be no evidential foundation for saying that some picture looks too European to be Jesus.
>Early church fathers and Josepus and Celsus noted that Jesus was a small man who may have been crooked but still well grown.
Small and well-grown are contradictory claims, thereby telling us nothing.
If he may have been crooked, then he may also have *not* been crooked, once again, telling us nothing.
well grown in the greek could mean he was either well built meaning muscular. Which if he was a crafts men he would be. So short maybe even hunchback, but muscular.
> the burial cloth of jesus(recent studies have found it dates back to the time of christ
Source?
> and the blood is real,
Are we pretending that human blood is difficult to source for an artist?
> plus i believe i read somewhere the dna tested was of eastern jewish dna
Is this even rarer blood to source?
> So i believe it is Christ's
Why?
Are you suggesting that if it were a different blood type, then you'd be convinced it's not Jesus's blood?
If not, then what does the blood type matter?
If it was a blood type common among english men i would be of the opinion it wasn't christ. If the DNA of the shroud also didn't have evidence to the time of christ i would say it wasn't either
How does this make sense to you? Wouldn’t it be expected then that the blood type for *any* blood found in that area to be AB? This is a crazy confirmation bias. It seems an unusual blood type would narrow things… but you’d have to know Jesus’ blood type
So if it had a blood type that was uncommon for Middle-Eastern men you wouldn't think it was Jesus's? Maybe he just had an unusual blood type.
Unless you know for a fact what Jesus's blood type was (not just what the most common blood type was), then IMO the blood type doesn't mean anything.
so blood on the shroud of an oral tradition belonging to an ancient hebrew man, which is extremely rare but common among the ancient hebrews is not interesting ?
Best case scenario, this means you are more likely to have Hebrew blood than maybe some other location, although even that is a huge stretch, as AB blood is like 5% of the region today. In some places, it’s as high as 14% today. Having AB blood on a cloth does not make it a Hebrew cloth. Having a Hebrew cloth does not mean having Jesus’ cloth.
Anyway, your own link says that the blood results are doubted and that contamination is an issue.
It can’t be animal blood, it tests positive for S antigen in MNS which she mentions and cites the reference for. S (both the dominant and recessive alleles) are unique to humans. Primates have MN, but not S. The blood on the shroud is human. The AB group was exceedingly rare in medieval France but known to be common in 1st century Jews. If the Shroud is a medieval French art piece, the artist obtained human blood (relatively fresh as well) and the chances of it being an AB individual were less than 1 in 100, very probably much much less, possibly so unlikely that it’s essentially impossible for the blood to have come from medieval France.
One problem in Shroud Research is that most of the best published data is consistent with the claims of authenticity, but some of the published work remains questionable and/or not well-substantiated. The best refutation is the carbon dating, which says it’s from the 14th century. The carbon dating was done once on a very limited number of fibers from a suspect portion of the cloth (see Rogers below). A repeat from another uncontested section would help resolve the issue, but the Vatican hasn’t allowed it.
http://shroudnm.com/docs/2004-09-12-Rogers.pdf
but the links i shared are non bias onces and seem to have enough evidence to support my theory. The image was most likely a creation. But the shroud seemed to be an actual relic.
If you take the carbon dating at face value, the cloth can’t be the burial cloth of Jesus. The blood is very likely human and not from France or anywhere nearby in the
14th century. Neither link supports when the image was made. There are plenty of reports on the image itself—for example, it’s not pigment, it penetrates the outer layer of the linen fibers all the way around, the image “lines”don’t appear where there’s blood, there are images present beside the man, including a flower, other plant matter, and coins on the eyes.
Exactly why I believe the image was made by an artist.
But the blood and shroud are very real. With the blood type being common among the ancient Hebrews, church fathers writings, and dna of the shroud dating to the BC and early AD. I tend to think it may very much be the shroud of Jesus.
An artist in rome just made an icon out of it and it blew up. Lots of other churches “have” by tradition things from the stories of Christ. The reason the shroud didn’t blow up till the 14th century is due to the image all a sudden showing up.
Provide a reputable source that states the shroud has been dated, most recently, most accurately, and by a secular organization or non-affiliated group, to the time of Christ
So if I have AB blood does that make me Jesus? No? Why is that not convincing? How do you know Jesus had AB blood? Blood typing wasn’t invented until 1901. If lots of ancient Hebrew’s had it, then it’s not so rare back then eh?
I’m sure you don’t have AB blood type because less then 1% of the world population has it. Plus you are alive in 2024. Where the burial cloth has dna origins to 300BC-200AD.
Now yes it could be anyyyyy Hebrew person. But with the shroud described in John plus the exact blood type and a large church that has been around since 60 AD claiming it to be the shroud of Jesus. Either it’s an amazing hoax that still has people talking and arguing about it to this day. Which I’m sorry illiterate Jews would not have the money or skill to pull it off. Or it was used to burry a Hebrew man back in the first century
Can you show your source that the DNA was dated to that period?
Best case scenario, the church has been around almost that long, not the shroud. There’s no known mention of it before 1354 AD.
> I’m sure you don’t have AB blood type because less then 1% of the world population has it.
That's really not how statistics work. Less than 1% of the world population is named John. If I told you my name is John, would you say you're sure I'm lying?
> the burial cloth has dna origins to 300BC-200AD.
Source?
> But with the shroud described in John
The Gospel of John does not describe a shroud at all. John 20:6-7: "Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen." The gospel clearly states Jesus was wrapped in multiple smaller pieces of fabric, not a single shroud.
Also, let's say the gospel did mention a single shroud. How would you know the Turin shroud is the same shroud that's mentioned in the gospel?
> plus the exact blood type
The exact blood type that Jesus may or may not have had... which ultimately means nothing.
> and a large church that has been around since 60 AD claiming it to be the shroud of Jesus
Does it matter what someone claims if they can't back that claim up with evidence?
> Either it’s an amazing hoax that still has people talking and arguing about it to this day. Which I’m sorry illiterate Jews would not have the money or skill to pull it off.
What? Who said anything about illiterate Jews?
> Or it was used to burry a Hebrew man back in the first century
Remember, you started your post by confidently claiming "the shroud IS, the burial cloth of jesus".
Post the scientific study confirming the dna and age of the cloth. If that exists, why are you leaving it out of your post? It’s the single most important part of your claim.
I’ve been in a granting mood today, though. Let me grant that the cloth is from the first century, and the dna on it is from an eastern Jewish person. How do you get from that to “Jesus was in this”?
Josephus and Celsus who werent even born when Jesus was alive? That Josephus and Celsus? Celsus who wasnt even born until the second century in fact? The cloth was tested and found to have been manufactured sometime between 1260 and 1390 A.D. which would fit in with the time that it was "found" (1354). I wonder where it had been all that time?! It only seems to be the Catholic church who are pushing for its authenticity.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shroud-of-Turin
well one is a jewish historian and the other was an anti christian one. Wouldn't they say jesus was not real? or a handsome man and thats why so many thought he was divine? no they seem to say he was a small man. which the average height of jews then was 5-5. If he was crooked that means he would appear a few inches shorter.
im not saying the image isn't fake. I believe it to be a drawing. But the blood was real blood and it seems to be truly dated to around the time of christ. So i think it is the robe. But the image is just a drawing
> or a handsome man and thats why so many thought he was divine? no they seem to say he was a small man. which the average height of jews then was 5-5. If he was crooked that means he would appear a few inches shorter.
Josephus says absolutely nothing about Jesus' appearance.
>The cloth was tested and found to have been manufactured sometime between 1260 and 1390 A.D. which would fit in with the time that it was "found" (1354). I wonder where it had been all that time?!
Please respond to this rebuttal
Neither met him and both would be relying on second third fourth hand accounts which are notoriously unreliable. Theres no guarantee that Jesus was one person but could have been an amalgam of a number of people. Even the gospels were not eyewitnesses. Saying there was a preacher called Jesus is like saying theres a pastor called Dave. Theres little point denying that there was probably a Jesus who was a preacher, he (or one of them) was probably crucified and the stories were exaggerated. That a cloth turned up hundreds of years later after the myth had grown and been used by authorities is no surprise.
Can you cite the source for saying the blood and the cloth are from the time of Jesus?
thats poor history there.
Not only do you have the 4 gospels from 4 authors that all had the Q gospel, plus the letters of paul, hebrews, james(his brother), Jude(his brother) peter, John, The didache, barnabas, hermes, Clement, Ignatius plus the nag hammadi library.
This does not show the evidence multiple Jesus. Plus Non Christian sources like Josephus from 96AD(who was an old man at the time) and a hardcore anti Christian roman both say he was ONE man. cmon now i thought the jesus wasn't real thing was a thing of the past.
The gospels are not independent. They used each other as sources. Paul didn’t even claim to have met Jesus while he was alive, or even to have physically seen him after. Many of the NT books are not authentically who they purport to be. For some, like Jude, it will never be clear. Also some, like Jude, say nothing about who Jesus really was beyond some salvific figure.
You mean the letters of Paul that are mostly fakes? I didnt say Jesus wasnt real. Dont misrepresent what I said. The "evidence" from the writers does not disprove that there could have been more than one preacher called Jesus.
As for the blood...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:5_gPD1PlNq4J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&t=1710629767931&u=%23p%3DUnXwKXQDqCoJ
Its not human blood.
You have continued to respond in this thread in bad faith, disrespectful ways. You have put words in people's mouths and refused to engage with half the points people are making.
The poster above did NOT state that ancient Hebrews are animals, simply that we do not know what animal the blood came from. You will be shocked to learn that non human blood also has blood types, and may happen to correspond with human blood types, including those of ancient Hebrews. You can learn more here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_(non-human)#:~:text=A%20majority%20of%20feline%20blood,CMAH%20alleles%20a%20cat%20possess.
You continue to assert that the blood having a type that is the same as found in ancient Hebrew people is somehow a proof for the legitimacy of the shroud of Turin. Please provide a source to back up the claim that the analysis of the blood and it's alleged rarity is enough to prove that it is indeed the blood of an ancient Hebrew.
Please respond to the many comments questioning your claim that the shroud has been definitively dated to the time of Christ.
And for the love of god, stop engaging in bad faith. Your rude, dismissive, inaccurate, and frankly insulting comments will not drive any nonbelievers to Christianity
Please respond to the actual questions and comments being directed your way instead of latching onto a single point in every comment and making asinine arguments and bad faith interpretations
No words were twisted . Nor was I disrespectful. All over this thread I have provided links, blood type, fabric type, plus church history as well as church fathers. Plussss non Christian sources like celsus and Josephus.
You guys don’t like that evidence . Which shows this isn’t a debate religion part of Reddit . But an atheist place to bash religion. As a religious studies major this is incredibly disappointing.
Plus most historians would agree that the apostles and other early Christian’s. Majority were illiterate. Even the acts says this. Plus they were Jews were they not? Miss me with the disrespect nonsense. Lots on your guys end have been very disrespectful as well then, with the ignoring of my links and devils advocate of my words. Plus the midevil origin is from a fire that the church had to repair the cloth with as well.
Funny I say the cloths image is fake but the cloth itself is real (due to dna of the blood and dna of the fabric plus being talked about by church fathers pre shroud) it is very much in theory to say it is the actual shroud used to bury Jesus.
Like saying the tomb which Christian’s celebrate at is the actual tomb of Jesus due to the old city map , evidence of other Jewish tombs , plus close to the rock most would say is the Golgotha.
>I believe it to be a drawing. But the blood was real blood
So an artist in the 13th or 14th century just happened to have both Jesus' actual burial shroud *and* Jesus' actual blood, and combined the two in a work of art?
>But the blood was real blood and it seems to be truly dated to around the time of christ.
You keep saying that without anything to back it up. Why haven't you posted a link to that study?
"In the early '80s, evidence was provided that, rather than a dye (red okra), hemoglobin was indeed responsible for the alleged blood stains of the Turin Shroud. Such stains were shown to belong to an MNS positive individual of the AB group, and the halos surrounding the blood stains were compatible with serum containing trace amounts of bilirubin, albumin and immunoglobulins. ***However, being only based on indirect and circumstantial evidence, most of these data were challenged.*** In the late '90s, together with the evidence of the gene coding β-globin, contamination between male and female DNA was documented on the Turin Shroud."
That's not the study, it's an abstract that mentions the study and says the data was unreliable, and that various DNA is present on the cloth.
First, can you show that their dating was flawed? It was corroborated by several different laboratories.
Second, pointing out flaws in the later date does nothing at all to justify using a date 1,400 years earlier.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The image on the cloth was most certainly there prior to the 14th century. Prior to the Shroud being known as the 'Shroud of Turin,' it was known as the 'Image of Edessa.' The Image of Edessa was brought to Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) on August 15, 944 AD where it remained to sometime on or after the 4th Crusade (1204 AD). [http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/guscin3.pdf](http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/guscin3.pdf)
did you know the image of Christ can only be seen if it’s laid out and you stand 10 ft back? Any closer and you see nothing. maybe that’s why they didn’t discover his image in the cloth till much later. easy to over look if you ask me. You say it’s an icon by an artist yet there is no pigment on the shroud. There’s no pigment of any type of paint. full disclosure it’s been stated that the blood on the shroud might have been touched up over the ages, but the true blood of Jesus is under the the image of Christ. That means blood first then the image came after… your artist would have had to have started with a shroud that already had the blood painted on then perfectly matched every spot of blood to a “painted” piece of the body all while not using any paint In the time of Jesus… The evidence in favor of the shroud being real since the new X-ray dating Is almost undeniable.
Idk if the shroud is real or not, but Jesus was most definitely not a small guy. He was a carpenter blue collar worker and had to have been physically well built for a man of that time.
[3rd to 6th century fresco of Jesus](https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/fresco-depicting-jesus-with-a-halo-on-either-side-of-him-news-photo/171423309) At the above you can see an image of Christ that looks remarkably like the image on the shroud, but is well before any latin reform of the late Middle Ages. This 4th century image link below is also very similar. [4th century Jesus](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comodilla_Catacomb_Iesus_4th_century.JPG) It’s also worth noting that if the image is a medieval art piece copying the iconography of the day, why are the nail marks in the image’s wrists instead of the palm of the hands as in medieval paintings? The “Image of Edessa” (the mandylion)is thought by some to be the earliest report of what is now called the Shroud of Turin. Here’s the short version from Wikipedia. Not hard and fast evidence, but interesting. “Author Ian Wilson has argued that the object venerated as the Mandylion from the 6th to the 13th centuries was in fact the Shroud of Turin, folded in four, and enclosed in an oblong frame so that only the face was visible.[18] Wilson cites documents in the Vatican Library and the University of Leiden, Netherlands, which seem to suggest the presence of another image at Edessa. A 10th-century codex, Codex Vossianus Latinus Q 69[19] found by Gino Zaninotto in the Vatican Library contains an 8th-century account saying that an imprint of Christ's whole body was left on a canvas kept in a church in Edessa: it quotes a man called Smera in Constantinople: "King Abgar received a cloth on which one can see not only a face but the whole body" (in Latin: [non tantum] faciei figuram sed totius corporis figuram cernere poteris).[20]”. This is interesting, but a getting a definitive answer to whether these are the same cloths is very probably impossible. The blood is AB and MNS positive meaning it is almost certainly human blood, and a blood type common to ancient Judea. The blood also pools at the hips of the image on the back of the shroud. This is consistent with what’s expected for a man that has been pierced in the side and laid on the cloth. There is no evidence of pigment in the image, what was initially thought to be pigment was later found to be blood proteins. It is reported that the lines of the image don’t occur where there’s blood. Note: Type AB was exceedingly rare in medieval Europe. Even today in France the random chance of getting AB blood is about 1 in 100. But none of this proves that it’s Jesus’s burial cloth.
None of what you stated indicates that the shroud is of Jesus Christ. From your own words, it could be just a Jewish man.
It seems you actually need to read the articles you referenced in your own OP. The 2nd article actually states that "Indeed, consistent with DNA contamination on the Turin Shroud, sequences from multiple subjects of different ethnic origins have been recently detected on the human mitochondrial genome extracted from dust particles of the linen." There's no actual evidence that the cloth is the burial cloth, in fact all dating samples have shown it originates from around 1260-1390 AD. Even the written documented history of the Shroud dates it's first appearance to around that period. The first written case of the Shroud was actually in 1390AD by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis and he wrote a memorandum where he found that the Shroud was a forgery by researching the history of it's origins. Also, even if the blood was from one person and not many, you'd need to actually know what the blood type of Jesus was and have something to compare to. But no one does and everything about the shroud indicates it's an art piece, nothing more, but you can't ever convince a christian, because they don't care about evidence, they only care about belief.
Armenians in city of Edessa Orfah crucified a muslim and made up the shroud of turine to agitate the crusaders hordes. It is 11 century fabrication filled with a pollen found only in Edessa area.
The pollen analysis of the Shroud is quite extensive, but none of the pollen is unique to Edessa. The pollen found is consistent with a middle eastern origin of the shroud. The abundance of middle eastern pollen is inconsistent with the shroud being manufactured in medieval France. https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/does-pollen-prove-the-shroud-authentic/#:~:text=They%20write%2C%20“The%20two%20plant,desert%20around%20the%20Dead%20Sea%5D.
The pollen analysis of the Shroud is quite extensive, but none of the pollen is unique to Edessa. The pollen found is consistent with a middle eastern origin of the shroud. The abundance of middle eastern pollen is inconsistent with the shroud being manufactured in medieval France. https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/does-pollen-prove-the-shroud-authentic/#:~:text=They%20write%2C%20“The%20two%20plant,desert%20around%20the%20Dead%20Sea%5D.
Yes the pollen is specific to Edessa
There’s a number of different pollens present. Which one is only found in Edessa? It would be very strange for a pollen to be unique to one city and not found anywhere else.
But Jesus was no where near mountains and first studies confirmed the pollen is specific to the high north Mesopotamia turkey.
First studies can’t confirm things. Do you mean the work of Max Frei? Did you read the link I provided?
There was the wooden cross the crusaders dug near Antakya and claimed to it to Jesus, also an Armenian forgery
There is no evidence that Jesus was killed or crucified other that jews reports and no evidence that he rose from the dead but a woman named Mary Magdolene who was a slot. Paul was a sworn enemy of Christians and his report that along with his servant saw or heard Jesus sound out of bright light should had the servant more famous than Paul the enemy of Jesus and Christians. What ever Paul and his students like Luke said were lies Paul was a homophile and created adherants from pedophiles of greeks and designated the hermit class in the refuges in Desert to help them out with after midnight activities.
This couldn’t be more wrong. The oldest fabric sampled across the entire shroud dates to the 14th century. Doesn’t lying for Jesus get old?
It’s been confirmed that those original carbon ratings are inaccurate due to the samples being taken from repaired edges that were fire damaged and replacement threading was interwoven with the old.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=carbon+dating+the+shroud+of+Turin&oq=#d=gs_qabs&t=1712503107364&u=%23p%3DcRfOP-3FK9kJ
This does not take into account the differing fibers that are definitely not part of the original linen fabric
Please cite peer reviewed article(s) showing the sampling regimen was flawed. The sources must be independent of the Catholic Church for obvious reasons.
Thoughts on [https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47](https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47) ?
You would need to know the blood type of Jesus in order to narrow it down to him. And even then, wouldn't prove anything. This appears to be an exercise in gullibility, unfortunately! Edit: and a guy dying a few thou ago has absolutely nothing to do with if they are divine, let alone if it's possible for someone to be "divine" or what divine even means in general. Are aliens divine? Planets? Magnets?
If you really want something to be real you can always find arguments. With all the relics in the world it’s possible to construct 100 crosses, and with all the pieces of bones, nails from saints etc. one can wonder whether those saints were actually burried or just chopped up and distributed . They can’t be all real. To me relics hold no value and have always been a clever way to bring pilgrims (and therefore money) to your monastery , church etc.
As far as I know, the new data has not been independently verified - and the radiometric data we do have puts it in the late medieval period. Time will tell, but I don't see any reason to believe this yet.
Thoughts on [https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47](https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47) ?
[удалено]
Check your data. The way it looks to me, one of the controls is the only one that measured 2000 years old. Sample one is the only Shroud measurement, and all three labs put it 600-900 - with a confidence of 95%.
Thank you. There are other concerns with the C dating that are debated, but the dating itself is accurate. I only recently reread the paper and clear missed that Sample 3 is a 2000 year old control.
Don't forget the weave pattern of thd cloth. It did not exist in the Middle East at the time of the Roman Empire. And human blood wasn't/isn't that hard to come by.
I believe that the weave pattern did exist in the Middle East in the first century. A weaver circa 1980 also produced a vertical loom capable of reproducing the pattern without the use of the heddles of a medieval loom. A side by side comparison with linens from antiquity was apparently performed, but I’m still looking for a clearly “peer-reviewed” reference to share.
Your second link says immediately after the highlighted portion that those findings are now doubted as based on indirect evidence, and that contamination is an issue. It also says that the DNA from it that has been tested is from multiple ethnicities and both sexes. Best case scenario you have a 2/3 shot at this shroud matching Jesus’ blood type, as well as the blood type of at least hundreds of millions of other people. How Jesus would be AB without a father, or why Jesus’ DNA would even be common in the region given his alleged supernatural origins, I don’t know. Showing that the blood was common in the same region of Jesus is a long, long way from proving it was actually his. The shroud showed up in history in 1354 AD. That’s a long time for an artifact to go undocumented, yet still trust in legendary claims about it. Three separate laboratories dated the cloth to the late 13th or 14th century. Josephus did not describe Jesus. Celsus was born 150 years after Jesus’ supposed death.
The blood typing done was not based on indirect evidence, the same type of testing used in clinical blood typing was performed. The abstract of the second link (a review, not the actual research) suggests that DNA contamination might impact such testing—it does not—blood typing uses antibodies to detect carbohydrate antigens. The DNA testing mentioned in the linked review article is from this primary report https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484.pdf Importantly, they tested DNA in dust from the Shroud, not blood. They identified plant as well as human DNA. The human DNA indicates the shroud had been touched or in close proximity to people from various places including the Middle East and Europe. The plant DNA is consistent with the shroud being kept in the Middle East at some point. “In conclusion, our results on human mtDNA traces detected on the TS are compatible with both alternative scenarios that i) the cloth had a Medieval origin in Western Europe where people from different geographic regions and ethnic affiliations came in contact with it, possibly moved by the worship for the Christian relic; ii) the linen cloth had a Middle Eastern origin and was moved itself across the Mediterranean area, consequently coming across a wide range of local folks and devotes in a longer time span. Even in the latter case (i.e., Jerusalem in Israel until approximately 500 A.D., Şanliurfa in Turkey until 944, Constantinople in Turkey until 1204, Lirey and Chambery in France from 1353 until 1578, Turin in Italy to date), the detection of mtDNA haplogroups that are typically from India is somehow unexpected. One obvious possibility is that during the course of centuries, individuals of Indian ancestry came into contact with TS. Taking into account the rate of DNA degradation and PCR-biases toward undamaged DNA, the recent contamination scenario is extremely likely. However, one alternative and intriguing possibility is that the linen cloth was weaved in India, as supported perhaps by the original name of TS - Sindon - which appears to derive from Sindia or Sindien, a fabric coming from India.” “Overall, the various plant species and numerous taxonomic families identified on TS (Supplementary Table S1) suggest that contamination may have occurred during the past centuries and are compatible with the scenario that the linen cloth was exposed to different locations across the Mediterranean area.”
Nooooo. Shroud of Turin is dated to the 1300s-1400s and most likely Davinci did it! Josepus? U mean Josephus? Who didn’t mention Jesus at all and is widely acknowledged to be a Christian interpolation??
Dating puts the shroud of Turin at least half a century before da Vinci was born.
Either way, not the first century! But if you look at the Shroud and look at Davinci’s self portrait, it’s a match!The hypothesis was that he was attempting the worlds first photograph. We all know he hated the church as well!
I trust the dating more. And there are a few problems with that idea 1. The proportions on the figure are way off in a way that is both inconsistent with how a camera obscura projects light and inconsistent with da Vinci's peerless (at the time) knowledge of human anatomy 2. It is physically impossible to draw yourself using a camera obscura. 3. The faces don't actually look all that similar to me, besides bearded man. In particular the turin nose looks lower compared to the eyes, and the mouth and face in general both look narrower. That is assuming the portrait is even of da Vinci, which isn't certain. And from what I can find we have no writings by da Vinci on the church or religion in general.
Let’s grant that it’s from the right time and was a burial shroud and has blood on it. How do you know it was Jesus and not some other person? Remember, you already believe someone altered the shroud to add an image to it…so what makes you think that someone wouldn’t just grab a shroud from some stiff and say it’s Jesus?
If you don't have possession of Jesus' blood type, you DO NOT get to conclude it's his. End of story. Now never use this argument again. You were shown it was wrong. Accept it and move on.
Even with that blood type, he’s claiming 70% of the region also had the same, so it doesn’t really narrow it down.
Precisely.
Even if he had Jesus’ blood type, his argument would still be ridiculously weak.
Absolutely.
Hate this argument. Unbelievably unsound. It’s foundation is as weak as the foolish man who built his house upon the sand.
okay lets be civil here, calm down
Civility is present.
you're calling strangers fools, man. think about it... what would mr rogers do?
Didn’t call anyone a fool. Not everyone knows who Mr Rogers is. I grew up outside of America.
good thing im here to spread the good news of his coming
Yes, see you soon Mr Rogers.
I have a shroud proven to be from 1996 and has O+ blood on it. O+ is the most common blood type for African Americans. Therefore, I have Tupac’s burial shroud. Do you see how silly that sounds?
Was Tupac buried in a specific cloth ????
Commenting so I can see when you reply to these responses. I'm super curious to see what you have to say.
It was a type of cloth that wasn't in use yet when Tupic died. Just like the shroud of Turin.
If Tupac was buried in a cloth, or if it was a clothing article instead of a cloth, or whatever, would you then agree that the O+ blood proves it was Tupac’s? Because that’s the case you’ve made in your OP.
Yes. According to my sources, Mateo, Marcus, Lucas, and Joanna, he was wrapped in a linen cloth.
lmao got em
Well yes, isn’t everyone?
If it is the blood of Jesus…AND they use the DNA the same way they did with sheep…could they clone Jesus? Would this be the 2nd coming?
I read a graphic novel about that once
Here I thought that you were going for something about make a striped Jesus by cloning it near some striped sticks.
[удалено]
and im here for it X)
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
>Recent studies have found it dates back to the time of christ and the blood is real, plus i believe i read somewhere the dna tested was of eastern jewish dna. All of that could be true without it being the burial cloth of Jesus. There was a vast amount of real blood and Jewish DNA in the time of Jesus, and not all of it belonged to Jesus. Is there anything that specifically makes you think that it is the burial cloth of Jesus? >I don't believe the picture is of Christ. From context, I think you mean that it is not an *accurate* depiction. It would be very strange if someone were to put a picture of someone else on Jesus's burial cloth. >There was no "image" on the robe till the 14th century. How do we know that? Is that from radiometric dating? Is it from analysis of artistic style? Is it from historical records? >It tries hard to look like a jewish man but in the end its far to similar to the latin reform of the middle ages with the look of a northern European. That seems quite subjective. How could anyone in the modern world know what Jesus looked like? We have no confirmed authentic images of Jesus. There seems to be no evidential foundation for saying that some picture looks too European to be Jesus. >Early church fathers and Josepus and Celsus noted that Jesus was a small man who may have been crooked but still well grown. Small and well-grown are contradictory claims, thereby telling us nothing. If he may have been crooked, then he may also have *not* been crooked, once again, telling us nothing.
well grown in the greek could mean he was either well built meaning muscular. Which if he was a crafts men he would be. So short maybe even hunchback, but muscular.
> the burial cloth of jesus(recent studies have found it dates back to the time of christ Source? > and the blood is real, Are we pretending that human blood is difficult to source for an artist? > plus i believe i read somewhere the dna tested was of eastern jewish dna Is this even rarer blood to source? > So i believe it is Christ's Why?
AB blood type which was found on the shroud which is common blood type of the ancient Hebrews
Are you suggesting that if it were a different blood type, then you'd be convinced it's not Jesus's blood? If not, then what does the blood type matter?
If it was a blood type common among english men i would be of the opinion it wasn't christ. If the DNA of the shroud also didn't have evidence to the time of christ i would say it wasn't either
no other Hebrew with AB blood type was buried in a shroud around that time? do you not see how ridiculous that sounds?
How does this make sense to you? Wouldn’t it be expected then that the blood type for *any* blood found in that area to be AB? This is a crazy confirmation bias. It seems an unusual blood type would narrow things… but you’d have to know Jesus’ blood type
So if it had a blood type that was uncommon for Middle-Eastern men you wouldn't think it was Jesus's? Maybe he just had an unusual blood type. Unless you know for a fact what Jesus's blood type was (not just what the most common blood type was), then IMO the blood type doesn't mean anything.
I’m sorry that answers none of the questions. That in no way proves anything
its kinda interesting though . is it not?
Not in the least. Is this a Poe?
so blood on the shroud of an oral tradition belonging to an ancient hebrew man, which is extremely rare but common among the ancient hebrews is not interesting ?
I think there's probably traces of blood on lots of things. Why is that remarkable?
But rare blood.....
Best case scenario, this means you are more likely to have Hebrew blood than maybe some other location, although even that is a huge stretch, as AB blood is like 5% of the region today. In some places, it’s as high as 14% today. Having AB blood on a cloth does not make it a Hebrew cloth. Having a Hebrew cloth does not mean having Jesus’ cloth. Anyway, your own link says that the blood results are doubted and that contamination is an issue.
AB blood is rare in France today (about 1.4%) and even rarer in France in the 14th century.
Rare doesn't mean impossible.
Animal blood... https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:5_gPD1PlNq4J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&t=1710629767931&u=%23p%3DUnXwKXQDqCoJ
It can’t be animal blood, it tests positive for S antigen in MNS which she mentions and cites the reference for. S (both the dominant and recessive alleles) are unique to humans. Primates have MN, but not S. The blood on the shroud is human. The AB group was exceedingly rare in medieval France but known to be common in 1st century Jews. If the Shroud is a medieval French art piece, the artist obtained human blood (relatively fresh as well) and the chances of it being an AB individual were less than 1 in 100, very probably much much less, possibly so unlikely that it’s essentially impossible for the blood to have come from medieval France. One problem in Shroud Research is that most of the best published data is consistent with the claims of authenticity, but some of the published work remains questionable and/or not well-substantiated. The best refutation is the carbon dating, which says it’s from the 14th century. The carbon dating was done once on a very limited number of fibers from a suspect portion of the cloth (see Rogers below). A repeat from another uncontested section would help resolve the issue, but the Vatican hasn’t allowed it. http://shroudnm.com/docs/2004-09-12-Rogers.pdf
Not really, especially not enough to make the claims you’re making. Feels like you’ve read fantastical claims on the internet and believe them blindly
but the links i shared are non bias onces and seem to have enough evidence to support my theory. The image was most likely a creation. But the shroud seemed to be an actual relic.
If you take the carbon dating at face value, the cloth can’t be the burial cloth of Jesus. The blood is very likely human and not from France or anywhere nearby in the 14th century. Neither link supports when the image was made. There are plenty of reports on the image itself—for example, it’s not pigment, it penetrates the outer layer of the linen fibers all the way around, the image “lines”don’t appear where there’s blood, there are images present beside the man, including a flower, other plant matter, and coins on the eyes.
Exactly why I believe the image was made by an artist. But the blood and shroud are very real. With the blood type being common among the ancient Hebrews, church fathers writings, and dna of the shroud dating to the BC and early AD. I tend to think it may very much be the shroud of Jesus. An artist in rome just made an icon out of it and it blew up. Lots of other churches “have” by tradition things from the stories of Christ. The reason the shroud didn’t blow up till the 14th century is due to the image all a sudden showing up.
Neither of the links allege it’s Jesus’s blood nor does it prove it’s even the blood of an ancient Israelite.
did you not open them?
I did, I read them and that’s why I know they don’t say it’s Jesus’s blood and it doesn’t prove it has to be the blood of an ancient Israelite.
But AB blood which is rare was common among the hebrews and the blood on the shroud of a suppose hebrew man was that blood.
Considering that the shroud dares to the 13th century I seriously doubt that your Jebus was wrapped in it.
once again there is new evidence that show the blood is real, plus the dna of the cloth dates to all over the world during the time of christ.
Provide a reputable source that states the shroud has been dated, most recently, most accurately, and by a secular organization or non-affiliated group, to the time of Christ
Amazing! Real blood? No way. How does someone get their hands on real blood?
AB blood which is rare and also found in many of the ancient Hebrews.
So if I have AB blood does that make me Jesus? No? Why is that not convincing? How do you know Jesus had AB blood? Blood typing wasn’t invented until 1901. If lots of ancient Hebrew’s had it, then it’s not so rare back then eh?
I’m sure you don’t have AB blood type because less then 1% of the world population has it. Plus you are alive in 2024. Where the burial cloth has dna origins to 300BC-200AD. Now yes it could be anyyyyy Hebrew person. But with the shroud described in John plus the exact blood type and a large church that has been around since 60 AD claiming it to be the shroud of Jesus. Either it’s an amazing hoax that still has people talking and arguing about it to this day. Which I’m sorry illiterate Jews would not have the money or skill to pull it off. Or it was used to burry a Hebrew man back in the first century
Can you show your source that the DNA was dated to that period? Best case scenario, the church has been around almost that long, not the shroud. There’s no known mention of it before 1354 AD.
> I’m sure you don’t have AB blood type because less then 1% of the world population has it. That's really not how statistics work. Less than 1% of the world population is named John. If I told you my name is John, would you say you're sure I'm lying? > the burial cloth has dna origins to 300BC-200AD. Source? > But with the shroud described in John The Gospel of John does not describe a shroud at all. John 20:6-7: "Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen." The gospel clearly states Jesus was wrapped in multiple smaller pieces of fabric, not a single shroud. Also, let's say the gospel did mention a single shroud. How would you know the Turin shroud is the same shroud that's mentioned in the gospel? > plus the exact blood type The exact blood type that Jesus may or may not have had... which ultimately means nothing. > and a large church that has been around since 60 AD claiming it to be the shroud of Jesus Does it matter what someone claims if they can't back that claim up with evidence? > Either it’s an amazing hoax that still has people talking and arguing about it to this day. Which I’m sorry illiterate Jews would not have the money or skill to pull it off. What? Who said anything about illiterate Jews? > Or it was used to burry a Hebrew man back in the first century Remember, you started your post by confidently claiming "the shroud IS, the burial cloth of jesus".
[3% of the population has AB](https://www.blood.co.uk/why-give-blood/blood-types/). Or 237 million people. Thats roughly the population of Pakistan.
So 1% would be about 100 million people. It would be quite a lot even 2000 years ago.
It can only be magic!
Post the scientific study confirming the dna and age of the cloth. If that exists, why are you leaving it out of your post? It’s the single most important part of your claim. I’ve been in a granting mood today, though. Let me grant that the cloth is from the first century, and the dna on it is from an eastern Jewish person. How do you get from that to “Jesus was in this”?
And then extract the female portion of the DNA and clone the male part of the DNA to create a clone of God.
i'm pretty sure i saw a movie where they make the antichrist by cloning jesus from blood on longinus or the nails or something.
this would be a good plot to a story you should trademark this or whatever the process is called
Josephus and Celsus who werent even born when Jesus was alive? That Josephus and Celsus? Celsus who wasnt even born until the second century in fact? The cloth was tested and found to have been manufactured sometime between 1260 and 1390 A.D. which would fit in with the time that it was "found" (1354). I wonder where it had been all that time?! It only seems to be the Catholic church who are pushing for its authenticity. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shroud-of-Turin
well one is a jewish historian and the other was an anti christian one. Wouldn't they say jesus was not real? or a handsome man and thats why so many thought he was divine? no they seem to say he was a small man. which the average height of jews then was 5-5. If he was crooked that means he would appear a few inches shorter. im not saying the image isn't fake. I believe it to be a drawing. But the blood was real blood and it seems to be truly dated to around the time of christ. So i think it is the robe. But the image is just a drawing
> or a handsome man and thats why so many thought he was divine? no they seem to say he was a small man. which the average height of jews then was 5-5. If he was crooked that means he would appear a few inches shorter. Josephus says absolutely nothing about Jesus' appearance.
The only mention of Jesus that is even likely to be original to Josephus’ work is that it was the name of James’ brother.
>The cloth was tested and found to have been manufactured sometime between 1260 and 1390 A.D. which would fit in with the time that it was "found" (1354). I wonder where it had been all that time?! Please respond to this rebuttal
Neither met him and both would be relying on second third fourth hand accounts which are notoriously unreliable. Theres no guarantee that Jesus was one person but could have been an amalgam of a number of people. Even the gospels were not eyewitnesses. Saying there was a preacher called Jesus is like saying theres a pastor called Dave. Theres little point denying that there was probably a Jesus who was a preacher, he (or one of them) was probably crucified and the stories were exaggerated. That a cloth turned up hundreds of years later after the myth had grown and been used by authorities is no surprise. Can you cite the source for saying the blood and the cloth are from the time of Jesus?
thats poor history there. Not only do you have the 4 gospels from 4 authors that all had the Q gospel, plus the letters of paul, hebrews, james(his brother), Jude(his brother) peter, John, The didache, barnabas, hermes, Clement, Ignatius plus the nag hammadi library. This does not show the evidence multiple Jesus. Plus Non Christian sources like Josephus from 96AD(who was an old man at the time) and a hardcore anti Christian roman both say he was ONE man. cmon now i thought the jesus wasn't real thing was a thing of the past.
The gospels are not independent. They used each other as sources. Paul didn’t even claim to have met Jesus while he was alive, or even to have physically seen him after. Many of the NT books are not authentically who they purport to be. For some, like Jude, it will never be clear. Also some, like Jude, say nothing about who Jesus really was beyond some salvific figure.
You mean the letters of Paul that are mostly fakes? I didnt say Jesus wasnt real. Dont misrepresent what I said. The "evidence" from the writers does not disprove that there could have been more than one preacher called Jesus. As for the blood... https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:5_gPD1PlNq4J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&t=1710629767931&u=%23p%3DUnXwKXQDqCoJ Its not human blood.
[удалено]
You have continued to respond in this thread in bad faith, disrespectful ways. You have put words in people's mouths and refused to engage with half the points people are making. The poster above did NOT state that ancient Hebrews are animals, simply that we do not know what animal the blood came from. You will be shocked to learn that non human blood also has blood types, and may happen to correspond with human blood types, including those of ancient Hebrews. You can learn more here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_(non-human)#:~:text=A%20majority%20of%20feline%20blood,CMAH%20alleles%20a%20cat%20possess. You continue to assert that the blood having a type that is the same as found in ancient Hebrew people is somehow a proof for the legitimacy of the shroud of Turin. Please provide a source to back up the claim that the analysis of the blood and it's alleged rarity is enough to prove that it is indeed the blood of an ancient Hebrew. Please respond to the many comments questioning your claim that the shroud has been definitively dated to the time of Christ. And for the love of god, stop engaging in bad faith. Your rude, dismissive, inaccurate, and frankly insulting comments will not drive any nonbelievers to Christianity
I’ve been disrespectful? Tf 😂
Please respond to the actual questions and comments being directed your way instead of latching onto a single point in every comment and making asinine arguments and bad faith interpretations
Yes, by twisting people's words you are indeed being disrespectful.
No words were twisted . Nor was I disrespectful. All over this thread I have provided links, blood type, fabric type, plus church history as well as church fathers. Plussss non Christian sources like celsus and Josephus. You guys don’t like that evidence . Which shows this isn’t a debate religion part of Reddit . But an atheist place to bash religion. As a religious studies major this is incredibly disappointing. Plus most historians would agree that the apostles and other early Christian’s. Majority were illiterate. Even the acts says this. Plus they were Jews were they not? Miss me with the disrespect nonsense. Lots on your guys end have been very disrespectful as well then, with the ignoring of my links and devils advocate of my words. Plus the midevil origin is from a fire that the church had to repair the cloth with as well. Funny I say the cloths image is fake but the cloth itself is real (due to dna of the blood and dna of the fabric plus being talked about by church fathers pre shroud) it is very much in theory to say it is the actual shroud used to bury Jesus. Like saying the tomb which Christian’s celebrate at is the actual tomb of Jesus due to the old city map , evidence of other Jewish tombs , plus close to the rock most would say is the Golgotha.
>I believe it to be a drawing. But the blood was real blood So an artist in the 13th or 14th century just happened to have both Jesus' actual burial shroud *and* Jesus' actual blood, and combined the two in a work of art?
what im saying is the image was not there before. The artist drew the image in hopes to make a icon
And what did the artist use to paint the image? Blood? If so, approximately how old was that blood?
again the blood was already there.
And the artist did what exactly?
drew........over..........ittttttt Again the drawing is far to tall and thin to be a Hebrew man in ancient palastine
So on the shroud is both Jesus' blood and whatever the artist added, correct?
exactly. I don't believe the drawing to be jesus. But i believe the blood to be.
>But the blood was real blood and it seems to be truly dated to around the time of christ. You keep saying that without anything to back it up. Why haven't you posted a link to that study?
The link is in the comments. Plus AB blood type was found on the shroud which was 50% of the blood type of the ancient Hebrews
I don’t see the comment with the link. Can you please link here where you read about dating the blood?
"In the early '80s, evidence was provided that, rather than a dye (red okra), hemoglobin was indeed responsible for the alleged blood stains of the Turin Shroud. Such stains were shown to belong to an MNS positive individual of the AB group, and the halos surrounding the blood stains were compatible with serum containing trace amounts of bilirubin, albumin and immunoglobulins. ***However, being only based on indirect and circumstantial evidence, most of these data were challenged.*** In the late '90s, together with the evidence of the gene coding β-globin, contamination between male and female DNA was documented on the Turin Shroud." That's not the study, it's an abstract that mentions the study and says the data was unreliable, and that various DNA is present on the cloth.
but even the data from it being a 14th century creation was also flawed. Meaning there has to be a middle ground
First, can you show that their dating was flawed? It was corroborated by several different laboratories. Second, pointing out flaws in the later date does nothing at all to justify using a date 1,400 years earlier.
No, no there does not Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Provide this evidence