Info From Catholic Church On Shroud of Turin

Originally posted by menace71
I thing it is believed the image is a perfect negative if I remember correctly. When viewed as a negative it makes a positive image this was one of the unique things about the image and doubt any artist could of created the image. I believe it is thought to be intense radiation like an atomic flash
Manny

Actually the most reasonable explanation is that it was made during the middle ages via photography.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually the most reasonable explanation is that it was made during the middle ages via photography.

Photography. In the middle ages.

Oh yeah, now that's 'reasonable'.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Photography. In the middle ages.

Oh yeah, now that's 'reasonable'.

Yes it is reasonable. And I have references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Medieval_photography

Do you have references to the contrary?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes it is reasonable. And I have references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Medieval_photography

Do you have references to the contrary?

The photograph of the Shroud is the only known two dimensional image on Planet Earth that displays the amazing three dimensional property when viewed with the VP8 Image Analyzer.

Since the VP8 Image Analysing Computer technology was not invented until 1976, it seems inconceivable that Leonardo da Vinci, or any other mediaeval artist, would be technically able to create such an image using a technology that would not be discovered for a further 4 centuries! Where would he start? Why would he even want to?

Even with the technology available today a duplicate of the Shroud of Turin can not be produced that exhibits all the properties of the Shroud.

http://www.freechristianteaching.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=158#axzz2NoaxSyGF

I suppose the Mediaeval artist went arount collecting flower samples and pollen from plants that only grow is the Dead Sea area of Israel to make his fake more realistic.

http://shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Article-PollenEvidence.html

Then who was able to fake the Sudarium of Oviedo to have the blood stains that line up with those on the Shroud of Turin long before that artist made the Shroud of Turin? You got to be kidding or plain stupid.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Just to step beyond your "tsk, tsk"-ing for one moment and see it from his side, that's all.

RJHinds has claimed several times in the forum that the Turin shroud is proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and then fails to address the challenges these ridiculous statements bring. He dumps a plethora of unsubstantiated YouTube videos into this forum demanding that people watch them and subsequently rants abuse at people who disagree with him. The man is (apparently) a demonstrable chess cheat, an definite forum troll and probably a 'fake' Christian who is here to bring discredit to the Gospel.

If you choose to have empathy with his blithering enthusiasms because you share his "excitement" over an old rag that is your business, but please don't waste your time appealing to my 'empathy' in this matter.

Edit. PS I take your point about being interested in it from a historical viewpoint as along as it doesn't become the standard of truth as Hinds presents it.

Originally posted by divegeester
RJHinds has claimed several times in the forum that the Turin shroud is proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and then fails to address the challenges these ridiculous statements bring. He dumps a plethora of unsubstantiated YouTube videos into this forum demanding that people watch them and subsequently rants abuse at people who disagree with him. ical viewpoint as along as it doesn't become the standard of truth as Hinds presents it.

All you have to do to shut me up is help the scientists figure out how the Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo were produced as fake relics of the Crucifixion of Christ. I am sure they would be anxious to broadcast this information to the world.

Originally posted by RJHinds
All you have to do to shut me up is help the scientists figure out how the Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo were produced as fake relics of the Crucifixion of Christ. I am sure they would be anxious to broadcast this information to the world.

As it is unlikely that I would cross the road to piss on your head if your hair was on fire, it is probably unlikely that I would bother conducting in depth research to show you what I already know to be a falsity.

Originally posted by divegeester
As it is unlikely that I would cross the road to piss on your head if your hair was on fire, it is probably unlikely that I would bother conducting in depth research to show you what I already know to be a falsity.

I am glad to hear that you do not want to piss on my head. However, you are wrong about the Shroud of Turin being known to be a falsity. All the evidence, so far, points to it being the true burial shroud of Jesus. We don't even have one piece of evidence that indicates otherwise. 😏

Originally posted by divegeester
RJHinds has claimed several times in the forum that the Turin shroud is proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and then fails to address the challenges these ridiculous statements bring. He dumps a plethora of unsubstantiated YouTube videos into this forum demanding that people watch them and subsequently rants abuse at people who disagree with him. ...[text shortened]... ical viewpoint as along as it doesn't become the standard of truth as Hinds presents it.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Fair enough.

You think it is fair that he disagrees with me on the Shroud of Turin because he considers me a chess cheat, forum troll, and fake Christian?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You think it is fair that he disagrees with me on the Shroud of Turin because he considers me a chess cheat, forum troll, and fake Christian?

Yes. He is thus unlikely to believe anything you say. On any subject.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes. He is thus unlikely to believe anything you say. On any subject.

So you believe it is fair to disagree with whatever anyone says that you have a poor opinion of. That sounds about what I would expect from a liberal Democrat. You believe it would be fair not to agree with anything Rush Limbaugh says because he is a conservative Republican radio comentator and you have a poor opinion of conservative Republicans.