So how was it made, TS?

Oldbear83 said:

---

So how was it made, TS?

---

aliens

We already know they made perfectly slick and right angle square corners in granite in acient Egypt and Turkey

Oldbear83 said:

---

So how was it made, TS?

---

Watch the video.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So how was it made, TS?

---

Watch the video.

---

No one has been able to recreate the Shroud.

You still have the burden for your claim.

Science, after all.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So how was it made, TS?

---

Watch the video.

---

No one has been able to recreate the Shroud.

You still have the burden for your claim.

Science, after all.

---

Uh, I think you need to watch the video before you say that.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So how was it made, TS?

---

Watch the video.

---

No one has been able to recreate the Shroud.

You still have the burden for your claim.

Science, after all.

---

Uh, I think you need to watch the video before you say that.

---

Take your own advice.

That video is just a couple guys who dismiss the Shroud, but could not reproduce it.

Your opinion is not proof, boyo. It's not even real Science.

It's always interesting how people choose to deal with arguments against their own position that they can't argue against. The common method is to attack the person's character and motives rather than the merit of his argument. Apparently, that's what's going on here.

Two here are preaching about wanting to learn and grow, and not be adversarial - when they are two of the most adversarial "brick walls" towards actually learning and growing. I've given an argument against the authenticity of the Shroud, but the only responses from them so far was to resort to their usual defense mechanims. Can anyone else give a more meaningful response to my objections?

This thread is to discuss theory and evidence.

It is not a place to go after people.

Oldbear83 said:

---

This thread is to discuss theory and evidence.

It is not a place to go after people.

---

Oh, like the way you did. Okay.

And if it's to discuss theory and evidence, why aren't you doing so with what I presented?

Realitybites said:

---

With regards to these two artifacts, I go back to the description of John's Gospel of that first Pascha morning.

3 Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. 4 So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. 5 And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the [a]handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed.

1. Two disciples ran to the tomb.
2. The other disciple got there first, looked in from the outside, but didn't go in. This allowed him to verify the fact that the stone had been rolled away, the tomb did not contain a body, and the gravecloth (probably the shroud) laying there. Probably couldn't make out what was on it from outside. But the full image on the shroud isn't 100% clear unless viewed as a photographic negative.
3. Peter gets there, goes in, and sees the gravecloth and the facecloth not lying with the gravecloth but folded and neatly set aside. He verifies the images, particularly the one on the facecloth that is 100% clear.
4. The other disciple then goes in, sees both, and believe

---

You: " 3. Peter gets there, goes in, and sees the gravecloth and the facecloth not lying with the gravecloth but folded and neatly set aside. He verifies the images, particularly the one on the facecloth that is 100% clear."

WHERE are you getting that? Think maybe you're reading quite a bit into it?

This is a pure demonstration how people will read, see, and believe what they want to see, read, and believe.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This thread is to discuss theory and evidence.

It is not a place to go after people.

---

Oh, like the way you did. Okay.

And if it's to discuss theory and evidence, why aren't you doing so with what I presented?

---

When you present evidence, I will be happy to discuss it. So far all you have done here is present your opinion and attack other opinions.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This thread is to discuss theory and evidence.

It is not a place to go after people.

---

Oh, like the way you did. Okay.

And if it's to discuss theory and evidence, why aren't you doing so with what I presented?

---

When you present evidence, I will be happy to discuss it. So far all you have done here is present your opinion and attack other opinions.

---

How have I not presented evidence, and where did I attack other opinions?

Not expecting an actual response from you, just more avoidance, detraction, and personal attacks when called out.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This thread is to discuss theory and evidence.

It is not a place to go after people.

---

Oh, like the way you did. Okay.

And if it's to discuss theory and evidence, why aren't you doing so with what I presented?

---

When you present evidence, I will be happy to discuss it. So far all you have done here is present your opinion and attack other opinions.

---

How have I not presented evidence, and where did I attack other opinions?

Not expecting an actual response from you, just more avoidance, detraction, and personal attacks when called out.

---

An ad hominem from BTD.

That's what he does.

That's why I just leave him be when I can.

People, please learn what concepts mean before you try and argue them. Such as terms like "ad hominem". This person above has been repeatedly shown that he has it wrong, and he simply doesn't bother to correct himself. So much for wanting to "learn and grow". We now know that is pure BS.

But I really don't want this thread to devolve into yet another juvenile tet-a-tete from OldBear. He obviously doesn't want to acknowledge my argument because he can't. I'm trying to do what they wanted, and discuss the Shroud, so I'm asking if anyone else would like to engage what I presented in my comments above. I'm not saying there isn't an answer, or that I'm necessarily correct, I just want to know how those of you who believe in the Shroud would answer it. The floor is open.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I personally have not heard of the Lady of the Guadalupe before, so I won't comment but I'll check it out.

Regarding the shroud, I think it's most likely a forgery for a multitude of reasons, but it is interesting how we still don't really understand how it was created (if it was indeed a forgery).

---

I will be sharing much here in this thread for consideration. I ask everyone to Keep An open mind and I will try to make a fact based and reasoned defense for their authenticity

---

It would also appreciate a scriptural defense of your positions. Thanks.

---

Some have already been provided here.

Oldbear83 said:

---

This thread is to discuss theory and evidence.

It is not a place to go after people.

---

Agreed. These two Artifacts have brought literally millions to the faith. Praise God

TexasScientist said:

---

---

As is well known amongst scholars, the Shroud is the most studied object in human history.

Please link to reproduction of the shroud to demonstrate your correctness.

Then do the same for Our Lady. Would love to see them. I'll even accept one. Certainly the atheists would love to disprove the divinity of these objects right?

For reference, the Church considers it a confirmed relic, not conformed to be from 1st Century or Medieval. Relic means confirmed to be from a Saint or of Jesus from ancient times.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I personally have not heard of the Lady of the Guadalupe before, so I won't comment but I'll check it out.

Regarding the shroud, I think it's most likely a forgery for a multitude of reasons, but it is interesting how we still don't really understand how it was created (if it was indeed a forgery).

---

I will be sharing much here in this thread for consideration. I ask everyone to Keep An open mind and I will try to make a fact based and reasoned defense for their authenticity

---

It would also appreciate a scriptural defense of your positions. Thanks.

---

Some have already been provided here.

---

To which post are you referring?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This thread is to discuss theory and evidence.

It is not a place to go after people.

---

Agreed. These two Artifacts have brought literally millions to the faith. Praise God

---

That's a pretty bold claim. Do you have evidence of that number?

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This thread is to discuss theory and evidence.

It is not a place to go after people.

---

Agreed. These two Artifacts have brought literally millions to the faith. Praise God

---

That's a pretty bold claim. Do you have evidence of that number?

---

Are you asking about the Tilma? (Lady of Guadeloupe)

If so, Missionaries had little luck converting souls, then there was a massive influx of conversions after apparitions had occurred. Estimates of 6-9 million

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This thread is to discuss theory and evidence.

It is not a place to go after people.

---

Agreed. These two Artifacts have brought literally millions to the faith. Praise God

---

That's a pretty bold claim. Do you have evidence of that number?

---

Are you asking about the Tilma? (Lady of Guadeloupe)

If so, Missionaries had little luck converting souls, then there was a massive influx of conversions after apparitions had occurred. Estimates of 6-9 million

---

My understanding is she allegedly appeared to one person as an apparition, and then supposedly appeared on this guy's cloak. It's the cloak that allegedly led to 6-9 million converts?

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This thread is to discuss theory and evidence.

It is not a place to go after people.

---

Agreed. These two Artifacts have brought literally millions to the faith. Praise God

---

That's a pretty bold claim. Do you have evidence of that number?

---

Are you asking about the Tilma? (Lady of Guadeloupe)

If so, Missionaries had little luck converting souls, then there was a massive influx of conversions after apparitions had occurred. Estimates of 6-9 million

---

My understanding is she allegedly appeared to one person as an apparition, and then supposedly appeared on this guy's cloak. It's the cloak that allegedly led to 6-9 million converts?

---

Pretty much. After the image appeared, the missionaries reported thousands of conversions a day, totaling millions over the next decade. They only had a few thousand conversions in total the decade before the apparition.

But remember, these were indigenous people, the image on the tilma was very symbolic to them. People can debate the validity of the cloth but I think it's fair to say that the people were extremely moved by the cloth itself thus led to their mass conversion to Christianity.

Another interesting story regarding the Tilma:

In 1921, a Mexican communist hid a stick of dynamite into flowers and placed them at the altar where the Tilma was located. The explosion destroyed the basilica, shattered windows, and bent a thick 50-pound bronze crucifix in half. The Tilma and its glass case were completely unharmed

Check it out:

https://www.churchpop.com/the-miracle-of-the-bent-cross-how-our-lady-of-guadalupes-tilma-survived-an-explosion-in-mexicos-basilica/#:~:text=Mexican%20President%20Plutarco%20Elas%20Calles,people%20need%20so%20much%20today."

FLBear5630 said:

---

For reference, the Church considers it a confirmed relic, not conformed to be from 1st Century or Medieval. Relic means confirmed to be from a Saint or of Jesus from ancient times.

---

Thats my general understanding

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This thread is to discuss theory and evidence.

It is not a place to go after people.

---

Agreed. These two Artifacts have brought literally millions to the faith. Praise God

---

That's a pretty bold claim. Do you have evidence of that number?

---

Are you asking about the Tilma? (Lady of Guadeloupe)

If so, Missionaries had little luck converting souls, then there was a massive influx of conversions after apparitions had occurred. Estimates of 6-9 million

---

Yes. The thread title.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This thread is to discuss theory and evidence.

It is not a place to go after people.

---

Agreed. These two Artifacts have brought literally millions to the faith. Praise God

---

That's a pretty bold claim. Do you have evidence of that number?

---

Are you asking about the Tilma? (Lady of Guadeloupe)

If so, Missionaries had little luck converting souls, then there was a massive influx of conversions after apparitions had occurred. Estimates of 6-9 million

---

My understanding is she allegedly appeared to one person as an apparition, and then supposedly appeared on this guy's cloak. It's the cloak that allegedly led to 6-9 million converts?

---

Pretty much. After the image appeared, the missionaries reported thousands of conversions a day, totaling millions over the next decade. They only had a few thousand conversions in total the decade before the apparition.

But remember, these were indigenous people, the image on the tilma was very symbolic to them. People can debate the validity of the cloth but I think it's fair to say that the people were extremely moved by the cloth itself thus led to their mass conversion to Christianity.

---

Catholicism to be clear.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Another interesting story regarding the Tilma:

In 1921, a Mexican communist hid a stick of dynamite into flowers and placed them at the altar where the Tilma was located. The explosion destroyed the basilica, shattered windows, and bent a thick 50-pound bronze crucifix in half. The Tilma and its glass case were completely unharmed

Check it out:

https://www.churchpop.com/the-miracle-of-the-bent-cross-how-our-lady-of-guadalupes-tilma-survived-an-explosion-in-mexicos-basilica/#:~:text=Mexican%20President%20Plutarco%20Elas%20Calles,people%20need%20so%20much%20today."

---

Yes God has protected it for as long as Protestan Christianity has existed interestingly enough.

BearWithMe said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I personally have not heard of the Lady of the Guadalupe before, so I won't comment but I'll check it out.

Regarding the shroud, I think it's most likely a forgery for a multitude of reasons, but it is interesting how we still don't really understand how it was created (if it was indeed a forgery).

---

I will be sharing much here in this thread for consideration. I ask everyone to Keep An open mind and I will try to make a fact based and reasoned defense for their authenticity

---

Thank you for the reply! I'll lay out the main few reasons I think it's a forgery, so feel free to provide a rebuttal or additional evidence you'd like to discuss.

1. Radiocarbon Dating

• Three, independent labs established that the shroud dates to the Middle Ages, approximately around 1300 AD.
• They used blind samples and all converged on the same date range

2. Historical Record

• The first recorded trace of the Shroud is in France around 1300 AD (which, coincidentally, nearly exactly matches the radiocarbon dating)
• The first two records of the Shroud are from bishops claiming it is a forgery deceived for financial gain. The people closest in time to its appearance, and have the most to gain for it being real, claimed it to be fake.

3. The Construction of the Shroud

• Beyond just the carbon dating, the fabric itself is constructed very similar to other 13th century textiles.
• A burial cloth from Judea, 1300 years prior, would reflect an entirely different textile technology

---

As a great summary of rebuttal to all this is the video I posted.

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I personally have not heard of the Lady of the Guadalupe before, so I won't comment but I'll check it out.

Regarding the shroud, I think it's most likely a forgery for a multitude of reasons, but it is interesting how we still don't really understand how it was created (if it was indeed a forgery).

---

I will be sharing much here in this thread for consideration. I ask everyone to Keep An open mind and I will try to make a fact based and reasoned defense for their authenticity

---

Thank you for the reply! I'll lay out the main few reasons I think it's a forgery, so feel free to provide a rebuttal or additional evidence you'd like to discuss.

1. Radiocarbon Dating

• Three, independent labs established that the shroud dates to the Middle Ages, approximately around 1300 AD.
• They used blind samples and all converged on the same date range

2. Historical Record

• The first recorded trace of the Shroud is in France around 1300 AD (which, coincidentally, nearly exactly matches the radiocarbon dating)
• The first two records of the Shroud are from bishops claiming it is a forgery deceived for financial gain. The people closest in time to its appearance, and have the most to gain for it being real, claimed it to be fake.

3. The Construction of the Shroud

• Beyond just the carbon dating, the fabric itself is constructed very similar to other 13th century textiles.
• A burial cloth from Judea, 1300 years prior, would reflect an entirely different textile technology

---

As a great summary of rebuttal to all this is the video I posted.

---

I'm going to be honest, I'm not going to watch an entire video lol.

Can you give the tl;dr?

BearWithMe said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I personally have not heard of the Lady of the Guadalupe before, so I won't comment but I'll check it out.

Regarding the shroud, I think it's most likely a forgery for a multitude of reasons, but it is interesting how we still don't really understand how it was created (if it was indeed a forgery).

---

I will be sharing much here in this thread for consideration. I ask everyone to Keep An open mind and I will try to make a fact based and reasoned defense for their authenticity

---

Thank you for the reply! I'll lay out the main few reasons I think it's a forgery, so feel free to provide a rebuttal or additional evidence you'd like to discuss.

1. Radiocarbon Dating

• Three, independent labs established that the shroud dates to the Middle Ages, approximately around 1300 AD.
• They used blind samples and all converged on the same date range

2. Historical Record

• The first recorded trace of the Shroud is in France around 1300 AD (which, coincidentally, nearly exactly matches the radiocarbon dating)
• The first two records of the Shroud are from bishops claiming it is a forgery deceived for financial gain. The people closest in time to its appearance, and have the most to gain for it being real, claimed it to be fake.

3. The Construction of the Shroud

• Beyond just the carbon dating, the fabric itself is constructed very similar to other 13th century textiles.
• A burial cloth from Judea, 1300 years prior, would reflect an entirely different textile technology

---

As a great summary of rebuttal to all this is the video I posted.

---

I'm going to be honest, I'm not going to watch an entire video lol.

Can you give the tlr?

---

Sure. You could also just use AI. It disputes every one of your points with science and context etc.

I still challenge the Scientist guy or gal to identify a single reproduction of the most studied object in history but nobody has ever done it, so theres that.

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I personally have not heard of the Lady of the Guadalupe before, so I won't comment but I'll check it out.

Regarding the shroud, I think it's most likely a forgery for a multitude of reasons, but it is interesting how we still don't really understand how it was created (if it was indeed a forgery).

---

I will be sharing much here in this thread for consideration. I ask everyone to Keep An open mind and I will try to make a fact based and reasoned defense for their authenticity

---

Thank you for the reply! I'll lay out the main few reasons I think it's a forgery, so feel free to provide a rebuttal or additional evidence you'd like to discuss.

1. Radiocarbon Dating

• Three, independent labs established that the shroud dates to the Middle Ages, approximately around 1300 AD.
• They used blind samples and all converged on the same date range

2. Historical Record

• The first recorded trace of the Shroud is in France around 1300 AD (which, coincidentally, nearly exactly matches the radiocarbon dating)
• The first two records of the Shroud are from bishops claiming it is a forgery deceived for financial gain. The people closest in time to its appearance, and have the most to gain for it being real, claimed it to be fake.

3. The Construction of the Shroud

• Beyond just the carbon dating, the fabric itself is constructed very similar to other 13th century textiles.
• A burial cloth from Judea, 1300 years prior, would reflect an entirely different textile technology

---

As a great summary of rebuttal to all this is the video I posted.

---

I'm going to be honest, I'm not going to watch an entire video lol.

Can you give the tlr?

---

Sure.

---

Okay, please provide the summary of the rebuttal then.

I'm not interested in what AI has to say on the topic. Depending on how you prompt it, it'll dismantle the Shroud or prove it's supernatural.

BearWithMe said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I personally have not heard of the Lady of the Guadalupe before, so I won't comment but I'll check it out.

Regarding the shroud, I think it's most likely a forgery for a multitude of reasons, but it is interesting how we still don't really understand how it was created (if it was indeed a forgery).

---

I will be sharing much here in this thread for consideration. I ask everyone to Keep An open mind and I will try to make a fact based and reasoned defense for their authenticity

---

Thank you for the reply! I'll lay out the main few reasons I think it's a forgery, so feel free to provide a rebuttal or additional evidence you'd like to discuss.

1. Radiocarbon Dating

• Three, independent labs established that the shroud dates to the Middle Ages, approximately around 1300 AD.
• They used blind samples and all converged on the same date range

2. Historical Record

• The first recorded trace of the Shroud is in France around 1300 AD (which, coincidentally, nearly exactly matches the radiocarbon dating)
• The first two records of the Shroud are from bishops claiming it is a forgery deceived for financial gain. The people closest in time to its appearance, and have the most to gain for it being real, claimed it to be fake.

3. The Construction of the Shroud

• Beyond just the carbon dating, the fabric itself is constructed very similar to other 13th century textiles.
• A burial cloth from Judea, 1300 years prior, would reflect an entirely different textile technology

---

As a great summary of rebuttal to all this is the video I posted.

---

I'm going to be honest, I'm not going to watch an entire video lol.

Can you give the tlr?

---

Sure.

---

Okay, please provide the summary of the rebuttal then.

I'm not interested in what AI has to say on the topic. Depending on how you prompt it, it'll dismantle the Shroud or prove it's supernatural.

---

Nah. ai can give the summary of the video but yes of course. Ince I have time. I think uou may be misunderstanding ai in this context but not sure youre experience with it.

In the meantime…

BearWithMe said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I personally have not heard of the Lady of the Guadalupe before, so I won't comment but I'll check it out.

Regarding the shroud, I think it's most likely a forgery for a multitude of reasons, but it is interesting how we still don't really understand how it was created (if it was indeed a forgery).

---

I will be sharing much here in this thread for consideration. I ask everyone to Keep An open mind and I will try to make a fact based and reasoned defense for their authenticity

---

Thank you for the reply! I'll lay out the main few reasons I think it's a forgery, so feel free to provide a rebuttal or additional evidence you'd like to discuss.

1. Radiocarbon Dating

• Three, independent labs established that the shroud dates to the Middle Ages, approximately around 1300 AD.
• They used blind samples and all converged on the same date range

2. Historical Record

• The first recorded trace of the Shroud is in France around 1300 AD (which, coincidentally, nearly exactly matches the radiocarbon dating)
• The first two records of the Shroud are from bishops claiming it is a forgery deceived for financial gain. The people closest in time to its appearance, and have the most to gain for it being real, claimed it to be fake.

3. The Construction of the Shroud

• Beyond just the carbon dating, the fabric itself is constructed very similar to other 13th century textiles.
• A burial cloth from Judea, 1300 years prior, would reflect an entirely different textile technology

---

As a great summary of rebuttal to all this is the video I posted.

---

I'm going to be honest, I'm not going to watch an entire video lol.

Can you give the tlr?

---

Sure.

---

Okay, please provide the summary of the rebuttal then.

I'm not interested in what AI has to say on the topic. Depending on how you prompt it, it'll dismantle the Shroud or prove it's supernatural.

---

Links

Summary (probably what you prefer)

https://aleteia.org/2024/08/24/new-study-suggests-shroud-of-turin-is-2000-years-old/

Study (probably too much detail for you based on your TLDR comment)

https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47

Not sure how to balance for you a summary versus tye details needed to umderstand but gave it a shot here


More to come of Course. AMA…