20 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is that damning note from the 1400's saying he saw the red 'blood' added to the image. This was from an eye witness. There was zero chance that could have been blood, especially from a body a thousand years in the past and it turned brown over time but it was, by an eye witness, red colored at the time. That and the fact the 'blood' doesn't even penetrate the cloth but only went halfway through because of a treatment given to the cloth to be able to paint on it. So that treatment stopped the so-called blood from fully penetrating the cloth.
Live interview Barrie M. Schwortz of Shroud.com. regarding the Shroud of Turin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSQHnE1WW00
Of course, you are so fully brainwashed by now that no amount of evidence would ever convince you of the fact it is a fraud pure and simple. It was only called a holy relic by that idiot pope, John 6, and then downplayed after that. It was never a relic.
Originally posted by sonhouseThat objection has already been answered and dismissed. You wouldn't know that because you are too biased to objectively consider ALL the evidence. The guy that says it is a fake on that video is biased against it being real from the beginning and is wrong on many points because he is ignorant of ALL of the evidence. 😏
There is that damning note from the 1400's saying he saw the red 'blood' added to the image. This was from an eye witness. There was zero chance that could have been blood, especially from a body a thousand years in the past and it turned brown over time but it was, by an eye witness, red colored at the time. That and the fact the 'blood' doesn't even penet ...[text shortened]... d a holy relic by that idiot pope, John 6, and then downplayed after that. It was never a relic.
20 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat about that verse in John that says there was an extra cloth over JC's head? It would have covered any image by the shroud. In the 1300's there was no second cloth like that. Who do you believe? Scripture or the fake from the 1300's?
That objection has already been answered and dismissed. You wouldn't know that because you are too biased to objectively consider ALL the evidence. The guy that says it is a fake on that video is biased against it being real from the beginning and is wrong on many points because he is ignorant of ALL of the evidence. 😏
John 20:7
as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou apparently did not look at the videos. That objection has already been answered by one that is a Jew and knows the burial customs and was the photographer for the scientifc research team that examined the shroud. They should have been the ones to select the area for the carbon dating instead of allowing someone that didn't know beans about the cloth.
What about that verse in John that says there was an extra cloth over JC's head? It would have covered any image by the shroud. In the 1300's there was no second cloth like that. Who do you believe? Scripture or the fake from the 1300's?
John 20:7
as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.
20 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYou didn't answer the question about John, your own scriptures says there were TWO cloths, one over JC's head. So no imprint on the main cloth would have been possible. FAKE.
You apparently did not look at the videos. That objection has already been answered by one that is a Jew and knows the burial customs and was the photographer for the scientifc research team that examined the shroud. They should have been the ones to select the area for the carbon dating instead of allowing someone that didn't know beans about the cloth.
O yes, it's a FAKE.
Oh, did I say it was a FAKE?
Yep, It's a FAKE
They even said so in 1390 or so, SEVERAL times. And bright red pigment where the so-called blood is, that was an eye witness jack.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe scientist determined there was no paint pigments on the main body of the shroud, so that guy in 1390 was making things up.
You didn't answer the question about John, your own scriptures says there were TWO cloths, one over JC's head. So no imprint on the main cloth would have been possible. FAKE.
O yes, it's a FAKE.
Oh, did I say it was a FAKE?
Yep, It's a FAKE
They even said so in 1390 or so, SEVERAL times. And bright red pigment where the so-called blood is, that was an eye witness jack.
The question was answered about the two cloths. They said the face cloth would have been used to cover the face until Jesus was carried to the tomb. Then the face cloth would be removed before Jesus was wrapped in the burial cloth. That is why John idicated the face cloth or napkin was off by itself, because it was not over the face at the time of the resurrection when the light formed the image on the burial cloth (Shroud). That was Jewish custom.
If you had watched and listened to the videos I posted, you would not seem so stupid and ignorant like that other guy in that video that made those ridiculous claims.
20 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you figure the guy in the 12th century was lying. Ok. He witnessed it as bright red. Do you think he was just making stuff up?
The scientist determined there was no paint pigments on the main body of the shroud, so that guy in 1390 was making things up.
The question was answered about the two cloths. They said the face cloth would have been used to cover the face until Jesus was carried to the tomb. Then the face cloth would be removed before Jesus was wrapped in the burial cl ...[text shortened]... seem so stupid and ignorant like that other guy in that video that made those ridiculous claims.
Remember, there was ZERO about the shroud till the 12th century and it was told it was a representation, not the real thing right from the git go.
You are gullible. More than gullible, you will never believe anything else no matter WHAT is revealed.
Originally posted by sonhouseIs the blood on the Shroud real?
So you figure the guy in the 12th century was lying. Ok. He witnessed it as bright red. Do you think he was just making stuff up?
Remember, there was ZERO about the shroud till the 12th century and it was told it was a representation, not the real thing right from the git go.
You are gullible. More than gullible, you will never believe anything else no matter WHAT is revealed.
Despite claims by Joe Nickell, a paranormal investigator for the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, that no blood has been found (a bold, unsubstantiated assertion sometimes repeated in the press), blood has been found. The claim is often accompanied by the erroneous statement that all old blood turns black.
All of the material cited below and their publishing journals are peer reviewed scientific journals.
It is human blood:
•Alan Adler, an expert on porphyrins, the types of colored compounds seen in blood, chlorophyll, and many other natural products concluded that the blood is real. In collaboration with John Heller, the conclusions that the blood is real was published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Applied Optics (also 1980). The heme was converted into its parent porphyrin, and this was confirmed with spectral analysis.
•Baima Bollone also found both the heme porphyrin ring of blood and the globulin in flakes of blood from Shroud samples, independently confirming the work of Adler.
•X-ray-fluorescence spectra showed excess iron in blood areas, as expected for blood.
•Qualitative microchemical tests for proteins were positive in blood areas but not in any other parts of the Shroud.
Various chemical tests by E. J. Jumper, A. D. Adler, J. P. Jackson, S. F. Pellicori, J. H. Heller, and J. R. Druzik are documented in a peer-reviewed scientific paper "A comprehensive examination of the various stains and images on the Shroud of Turin," ACS Advances in Chemistry, Archaeological Chemistry (1984)
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Science/Blood/
Regarding the "suspiciously still-red" red blood, Dr. Adler says that this is what would actually happen to a man who had undergone torture and crucifixion (the actual scientific explanation is complicated and unnecessary here) (cited in Ian Wilson, The Blood and the Shroud, New York: Free Press, 1998, pg. 89). Italian scientists have also asserted that the Shroud contains human blood. The claim that the blood is red ocher and vermilion tempera paint has not been "conclusively proved," and is, in fact, contested by numerous scientists and researchers.
http://shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Article-DebateRagesOn.html
The blood on the Shoud has been identified as type AB blood, the same as the blood on the Sudarium of Oviedo.