I-it was a hoax. R-right?

>AYOO BOHEMIANS WUZ BLACK N'SHIEET MEDIEVAL EUROPE WAS MULTICULTURAL MANY TRADERS ARRIVED FROM FOREING LOCATIONS PEOPLE MOVE YOU RACIST
>it is entirely impossible that Jesus wasn't ethnically local

I don't even think Jesus was black/white or whatever but this kind of contradictory thinking seems to be extremely common among the 'progressives'

How does the image seen in the shroud in any way imply Christ was not a local of Galilee?

both of those are from the 4th century though

It's fake.

Carbon-dating tests from three independent labs showed it to be of Medieval origin. The thing itself only entered the historical record in the 13th century, and the Bishop who wrote of it declared it a hoax made by a local alchemist/artisan.

To believe it is real is to be ignorant of history and miss the fact that there was a veritable relic-producing industry during the Medieval period, and that the south of France and Constantinople were relic-producing "factories", catering to a very lucrative need for these.

Nah, we just know that they were already venerated in Jerusalem in the 4th century. Which puts them almost contemporary to the Crucifixion.

Because if it is true the Romans crucified someone then Hell is real and I have been looking at dirty anime on the Internet.

>The thing itself only entered the historical record in the 13th century, and the Bishop who wrote of it declared it a hoax made by a local alchemist/artisan.
And yet no record of the hoax maker exists along with modern studies showing details you couldn't get with tech of the time.

Seriously if you could make it with ancient tech, do it. Prove it was possible.

Wasn't it determined that the proportions are completely off for this to be an actual person, and that this is most likely just artwork?

Not him but I remember hearing that it couldve been done with a camera obscura, which existed back then
Correct me if Im incorrect. Personally, I am of the group which believes in the authenticity of the shroud but the Camera Obscura argument seems pretty solid.

Then why hasn't anyone tried reproducing it?

Someone has.

Luigi Gharlascetti made a replica using pigments and technology available from back then.

>History board
>Hoaxes are deemed a serious topic of conversation and most posters thinks they are real
This board was a mistake, we need a separate board for humanities and religion.

>Luigi Gharlascetti
>Google turns up nothing
Literally who?

Look up 'Luigi Garlaschelli', you fucking idiot.

We already have /x/ for religion.

Nah. The only thing that might be real is the Holy Lance and even that is contested.

The Bible says he was a jew, though.

Who cares about an image on a cloth when you get to eat an actual cracker-sized piece of his literal body every Sunday?

Sorry, typo'd the sphagetti man's name.

Reminds me of the pyramids or the Stonehenge alien argument. Why do people naturally assume that people in the past were mentally challenged, uncreative, unskilled idiots ?

To accept the shroud is to doubt the unerring word of the bible.
John the beloved disciple states in John 20:1 - 20:7 that the shroud is not one piece.

Of course since I don't actually believe that it doesn't matter to me but someone supporting the shroud might approach that kind of attitude toward the bible so I can still use the argument I guess.

With those its disbelief in scope. With this its "even Luigi's 'perfect recreation' has significant discrepancies with the genuine article."

It could've been a hoax, if it wasn't for shit that the hoaxer wouldn't have caught or even considered that we only notice nowadays with modern tech

There is more evidence of it being real than a hoax. No one know how the image got on to it and lab testing has been done on it many times with different results each time. Some say India and some say something else. Apparently it was damaged in a fire and a piece was used to fix it which is where people get the medieval time frame. There is some mystery and miracle behind it and we will never know. I guess it's just one of those leap of Faith's you must take

The point is that Luigi was able to make a replica at all. That it isn't a 1:1 replica means virtually nothing. A method was found and the method was successful.

It kinda does actually. It doesn't account for things only present in the Shroud ergo you'd need to make a copy with ancient tech that accounts for those qualities.

Not only that but John 20:25-27 says the marks were in Jesus' hands rather than his wrists.

Still I guess to some people a relic is more important than the Gospels.

centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/

To be fair, the wrists may have been considered to be part of the hands back then instead of calling it the forearm.

Honestly even if something weird and inexplicable happened in Galilee two-thousand years ago it doesn't mean 'the Bible is certainly and completely the infallible word of the one true God'.

I'm always interested in being fair and trying to be as objective and factual as possible.

Is there any evidence that wrists / hands / forearm were all one word in Koine Greek?

I will admit I am no expert on the subject of translation from Koine Greek but merely introducing "might" or "may" and sort of insinuating that is the same thing as "probable" without something to back you up isn't very good reasoning.

Why would an imprint of a three dimentional human leave a mark resembling a two dimentional human? Smear yourself in paint, then make an imprint on a sheet and see for yourself if the imprint looks like you.

>Carbon-dating tests from three independent labs showed it to be of Medieval origin.

Carbon dating tests of a sliver of the corner that was repaired after a fire partially damaged it in 1532.

The test is useless, and the people who conducted it likely knew it.

Besides that, carbon dating tests themselves have a ridiculous margin of error.

All religious relics are hoaxes created by the wealthy during the medieval ages.

That said, holy fuck is it fun to track them and act like they do hold power.

babby level sources, but if you guys want to peer into more of the BS en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Relics_associated_with_Jesus

>Carbon dating tests of a sliver of the corner that was repaired after a fire partially damaged it in 1532.

That's been debunked.

>Besides that, carbon dating tests themselves have a ridiculous margin of error.

kek

I'm waiting for that one guy who vehemently defends the authenticity of the shroud to show up.

sure kid

How's summer vacation treating you?

not satisfied with your first "burn," samefag?

Excited for 9th grade?

>Repeats widely held academic consensus
>accused of being underage.

>Besides that, carbon dating tests themselves have a ridiculous margin of error.

Go ask on Veeky Forums, you fucking mong.

The 1980s carbon-dating tests were accurate: your cum-rag is a Medieval forgery, and even the Vatican knows this, hence why they always stop short of calling it authentic.

Others have replicated the Turian Shroud using methods known to Medieval alchemists; the Shroud itself shows signs of having been made with assistance of a bas-relief, and the proportions are anatomically incorrect and frankly inhuman.

I didn't know they had wifi at summer camp.

What are you even trying to do?

...

But the Bible which is, mind you, the only existing source of Jesus's life draws a genealogy between him and the big guys of old Israel. Plus he allegedly studied the Torah pretty well, so he was probably most likely not someone else

Which of the two mutually exclusive genealogies that both refer link him to those big guys through Joseph are you refering to?

As you said, both link him. So why is the plausibility of an Aramaic speaker who could read in Hebrew not being from the Jewish lands in the Levant something we should seriously doubt?

Not that poster, but if you nail someone's hands (palms) and not their wrists you run the risk of the body tearing off and falling during the crucifixion, as the palms structurally cannot support much weight in that position. A hand-nail would only work if the arms are additionally tied to the horizontal beam by rope or chain, the Romans or medieval anatomists would know as much.

Pierced then bound?

>tippers btfo

>the lance of longitude
finally

>Carbon dating proves middle ages creation
>Christos claim they dated a repair
>but they wont let it be dated again
Yeah, it's not Jesus, obviously, but it's still very weird.

It's possible, but there's no evidence to support the claim. You may as well say Jesus had pink skin and blue hair - sure it's POSSIBLE but why would you think that without evidence suggesting it?

How would a medieval hoaxer accurately know 0 AD-era Roman crucifixion techniques? (ankles and wrist, not hands and front of feet like all the artwork of that time period depicts)

How the fuck was an image burnt onto the cloth like that?

It's either real or it's an ancient hoax instead of a medieval one. It's stupid to outright dismiss it in any case.

> can't prove how it was hoaxed
> "It's a hoax! A-and a fake!"

lol every time

Its been carbon dated to the middle ages

Controversial and there has been more than one dating.

Also
> it was dated to some rocks that we KNOW were born in the middle-ages!!!

The very thing its made out of is an organic material and thus datable, even with the inaccuracies it;s not 1000 years inaccurate. You can also just tell by looking at it. 2000 year old fabrics simply don't survive anywhere other than deserts or very very dry places

Yes, and there have been multiple, conflicting carbon datings.

So you still cannot prove it's a hoax. The argument is still "It's just gotta be fake!"

No, all carbon datings say medieval period, non say christ period. It's conclusive.

If its medieval it's a hoax because christ died long before

I think there have only been two.

It can't be medieval, the wounds are not consistent with those of medieval depictions of Roman crucifixion. A hoaxer wouldn't know this nor would they potentially discredit themselves in their own time period by portraying the crucifixion differently than the Bible and contemporary artwork.

It could still be a hoax from a time period close enough to Jesus's life that people would still know this shit, but there's no way in hell that it's medieval.

Carbon dating > your ideas about medieval crucifixion knowledge

I haven't looked for myself, but is it clear that the wounds are actually in the wrists/ankles and not in the feet/hands?

It's kind of a blurry picture and since the exact line between 'wrist' and 'palm' is a bit unclear on a faded image it might be subject to interpretation and/or personal bias.

>we know it was from the 13th century, so it couldn't have been Christ
>well we don't have a record from almost a thousand years ago about who secretly crafted it, and we're not sure how to craft it today.
checkmate

They should leave this board alone and make a separate theology and religion.

They're not "my ideas". The knowledge did not exist back then. It is a fact. Until the finding of bones with nails in them in Jerusalem dated to around Jesus's time recently this knowledge was lost. Find me one medieval depiction of the crucifixion with wounds consistent with the shroud.

It become more apparent with an exact replica shroud placed over a mannequin, but the consensus is 100% that it's wrists and ankles. It's a weird as fucking hell to create a hoax biblical artifact and not actually follow the Bible's account of what it would look like.

>The knowledge did not exist back then.
Yes the fantastical knowledge that the nails might have been through the wrists and not hands.
No, it's not a difficult concept and doesn't prove it authentic at all. You're grasping at straws.

You're still ignoring the carbon dating which physically proves its medieval.

Its not real...because human beings can't burn our images into cloth, because we are just human being. Jesus may have been a real dude, IDK, but if he was real, he was just a human being who talked some stuff about loving eachother, then the romans got pissed because jesus was anti slavery, so they killed his ass. Christianity is fucking stupid, as with most religion. (I say most, cause Scientology is totally dead on)

Like one dude already said, how could the imprint of a 3D human, leave a mark that resembles a 2D human? This is just zealot art.

Accept your mortality, accept the meaninglessness of life, and create your own purpose instead of listening to fairy tales.

Yes, I am ignoring dating that is obviously bunk because I have proof that it's bunk before my eyes. I did not even rule out it being a hoax, just an earlier than thought hoax.

>You're grasping at straws.
How the fuck am I doing that? It's a big fucking detail staring at you right in the face.

>Like one dude already said, how could the imprint of a 3D human, leave a mark that resembles a 2D human?
Because it doesn't? The image on the cloth is completely consistent with a 3D body. They have physically proven it by laying replicas on dummies.

You have no proof, the dating is correct.
It is a straw, it's such a weak argument.

>Oooh the nail marks are in the correct place, must be real

Someone could have done it with an actual corpse, maybe.

idk

>muh relics
who cares?

>not caring about relics
Thats such a red thing to say

Greentexting things doesn't make them wrong. The nail placement is not consistent with medieval knowledge of Roman crucifixion, and that is that. I have no idea what level of self-delusion you have to be on to think a "medieval hoax" displaying non-medieval European knowledge of 1000 year old Levantine execution procedures is a "weak argument" that it's not a medieval hoax.

If it is a hoax then it would have to have been done with a real corpse. The problem is that we have no fucking idea what they did WITH it. Nobody can explain what caused the discoloration in the fabric. It is astoundingly confusing why whatever technique was used to fake this can't be found anywhere else, as whoever came up with it would have basically invented photography several centuries early and then not done anything with the technology afterwards.

satanic hoax

What does it say in Greek or Aramaic? The English translation might not be right.

It would have to be the least ambitious hoaxer in history. It would be like if invented a time machine, used it to take a selfie with Napoleon to show my friends, and then left it in a closet somewhere in my house and never used it again.

It's carbon dated to the medieval era. This is all that matters.

No it isn't...

If there's a lot of evidence supporting one date and one piece of evidence supporting another it's probably fair to at least give that piece of evidence a once-over.

>No it isn't...
Yes. It is
Both dates are medieval. Deal with it.

>this method of scientific dating doesn't stand up to repeated trials and thus fails to meet standards of the scientific method but deal with it

He's a protestant shitposter that shows up any time this is discussed on here. Ignore him. This is literally one of the only religious topics where atheists are far more bearable than other Christians.

It does though, it's used all around the world and is very reliable, it uses atoms.

I'm attacking the application of the medium for testing, not the medium itself. This object has changed hands many times and has been subject to repairs and all kinds of fuckery. It's not just some artifact found in the ground untouched since its last use.

The carbon dating has been done numerous times with different results
One say india one says medieval times the shroud was damaged and fixed with another piece but all these things are meaningless when it come to the actual image on the shroud. The real question is is it really from Jesus? Or is it how the fuck did the artist create something like this.

Why would some repair a holy object with non-holy materials?

He's not one of ours. He's some biblicist radical anabaptist shitposter.

Probability. My suggestion is something which exists within reason, wheras yours is hyperbole.