Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in AD 62"

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

---

There are a lot of reasons why that 62 AD is not very likely, and at very best the floor for a date - that book actually argues for late 60s. The consensus of most scholars is that Luke copied parts of Mark which would require Luke and then Acts to be written at best in the 70s or later.

---

You're entitled to your opinion. I just posted a source that suggests your opinion is not established, just your opinion.

---

My post is from consensus scholarship, while yours is a minority outlier.

---

No, you posted from a source you like, as did I.

---

You know as well as I do that the consenus among scholars is that John at best was very late first century and most probably second century. Even the book you quote acknowledges that.

---

What I KNOW, is that you refuse to consider any evidence that doesn't fit your assumption.

Not scientific at all, that.

---

I'll consider any objective evidence when you produce some.

---

Or you could just pay attention to more than your assumptions.

---

Actually, that's what I've been hoping you would learn to do over the years on this board. Try focusing on the evidence of reality.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in AD 62"

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

---

There are a lot of reasons why that 62 AD is not very likely, and at very best the floor for a date - that book actually argues for late 60s. The consensus of most scholars is that Luke copied parts of Mark which would require Luke and then Acts to be written at best in the 70s or later.

---

You're entitled to your opinion. I just posted a source that suggests your opinion is not established, just your opinion.

---

My post is from consensus scholarship, while yours is a minority outlier.

---

No, you posted from a source you like, as did I.

---

You know as well as I do that the consenus among scholars is that John at best was very late first century and most probably second century. Even the book you quote acknowledges that.

---

What I KNOW, is that you refuse to consider any evidence that doesn't fit your assumption.

Not scientific at all, that.

---

I'll consider any objective evidence when you produce some.

---

Or you could just pay attention to more than your assumptions.

---

Actually, that's what I've been hoping you would learn to do over the years on this board. Try focusing on the evidence of reality.

---

Already did. You should try it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in AD 62"

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

---

There are a lot of reasons why that 62 AD is not very likely, and at very best the floor for a date - that book actually argues for late 60s. The consensus of most scholars is that Luke copied parts of Mark which would require Luke and then Acts to be written at best in the 70s or later.

---

You're entitled to your opinion. I just posted a source that suggests your opinion is not established, just your opinion.

---

My post is from consensus scholarship, while yours is a minority outlier.

---

No, you posted from a source you like, as did I.

---

You know as well as I do that the consenus among scholars is that John at best was very late first century and most probably second century. Even the book you quote acknowledges that.

---

What I KNOW, is that you refuse to consider any evidence that doesn't fit your assumption.

Not scientific at all, that.

---

I'll consider any objective evidence when you produce some.

---

Or you could just pay attention to more than your assumptions.

---

Actually, that's what I've been hoping you would learn to do over the years on this board. Try focusing on the evidence of reality.

---

Already did. You should try it.

---

You have a problem discerning objectivity and reality. That's our disconnect.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Acts could have been written would be within a few years of the last recorded event in Acts, which takes place probably in AD 62"

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

---

There are a lot of reasons why that 62 AD is not very likely, and at very best the floor for a date - that book actually argues for late 60s. The consensus of most scholars is that Luke copied parts of Mark which would require Luke and then Acts to be written at best in the 70s or later.

---

You're entitled to your opinion. I just posted a source that suggests your opinion is not established, just your opinion.

---

My post is from consensus scholarship, while yours is a minority outlier.

---

No, you posted from a source you like, as did I.

---

You know as well as I do that the consenus among scholars is that John at best was very late first century and most probably second century. Even the book you quote acknowledges that.

---

What I KNOW, is that you refuse to consider any evidence that doesn't fit your assumption.

Not scientific at all, that.

---

I'll consider any objective evidence when you produce some.

---

Or you could just pay attention to more than your assumptions.

---

Actually, that's what I've been hoping you would learn to do over the years on this board. Try focusing on the evidence of reality.

---

Already did. You should try it.

---

You have a problem discerning objectivity and reality. That's our disconnect.

---

Vice verse, as well you know.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Did you notice that everything I said there is true, and that you really can't deny it?

I wouldn't say this is a "red herring" at all, I'd say it's pretty much the whole story. The real scales are on YOUR eyes, and it's plainly obvious. The "topic at hand" has already been addressed, and you fail to comprehend it precisely because of the enormity of these scales.

---

The topic at hand is ONLY to say that the Satan was responsible for this apparition. I refuted that claim with the following:

Quote:

---

The entire region was filled with pagans practicing human sacrifice and they converted to Christianity - 9-10 million in ten years alone.

That doesn't sound like something the devil would do. The healings have led thousands to have faith in the one triune God. That's not something that Satan would do.

---

You didn't respond to the fact that Satan did NOT cause this because of the fruit that it bore.

I could equally claim that Satan has caused you to harden your heart against the Mother of God as demonstrated in your posts.

You have no logical answer.

---

They were NOT converted to Christianity. They were converted into a Marian cult.

This is the whole problem. You don't know what Christianity really is. To you, Christianity deeply involves mariolatry, because that's what you've been led to believe your entire life. It's your identity. You've been brainwashed into it. And because you aren't regenerated by the Holy Spirit, you completely lack the discernment to know what it is you're actually doing and saying (bowing and praying to Mary and crediting her for your salvation) and how clear and obvious it is that it isn't from God, it's from the Devil.

Therefore, when people are converted into the same belief system you are in, i.e. Roman Catholicism, naturally you think they've converted into Christianity. But they've been converted, rather, into a counterfeit Christianity. One that does just enough to look like actual Christianity, even mimicking the vocabulary and using the same texts, but which twists and distorts it just enough to render it into a fatal error. It tricks people into thinking they are a Christian, but the truth is they've been lied to, and have been led away from true Christianity. And this is EXACTLY the modus operandi of Satan. He takes the truth, and twists and distorts it, and takes people down with him. THIS is the fruit that is born of Satan.

It's sooo bad, that you actually believe it's "Satanic" to be "hardened" against "the Mother of God", a completely unbiblical title, a title that arose from the Christian compromise with Roman paganism. There is NO "Mother of God". God NEVER told us that. That came from the whims of fallible man. Jesus never even called Mary his "mother" in Scripture. Yet, somehow your "church" turned Mary into nothing short of a goddess, who is co-equal in attributes to that of Jesus Christ. And you made this belief about her a requirement, or you go to Hell. If you can not recognize this as surely NOT being from God, then you are nothing but a complete fool.

For the love of God, man, HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THE PROBLEM HERE:

*******************************************************
"Most Holy Virgin Immaculate, my Mother Mary,
to you who are the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the universe, the advocate,
the hope, and the refuge of sinners,

I venerate you, great Queen, and I thank you for the many graces
you have bestowed upon me even unto this day;
in particular for having delivered me from the hell
which I have so often deserved by my sins....

... I promise to serve you willingly for ever...

... I place in you all my hopes for salvation."
******************************************************

To the Roman Catholics reading this who can't see the problem there, or think it's actually justifiable in some way, shape, or form: simply stated, you do not belong to God, you are of the Devil. I'm not addressing you. However, to the Roman Catholics who really are true believers and do belong to God, and who know this is wrong: I plead with you to open your eyes, stop all this, repent, and get out. "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues" - God

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have done research. It was thousands of missionaries, not Mary.

---

Are you denying the apparition and the fruits that it bore?

Ask yourself WHY the missionaries were successful, when the 20 years before that, Christianity barely moved the needle.

The symbols and imagery on the Tilma spoke to the people and softened their hearts.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have done research. It was thousands of missionaries, not Mary.

---

Are you denying the apparition and the fruits that it bore?

Ask yourself WHY the missionaries were successful, when the 20 years before that, Christianity barely moved the needle.

The symbols and imagery on the Tilma spoke to the people and softened their hearts.

---

The problem is that you are depending on the people who claimed the apparition was what they say, that the source confirms itself.

By that standard, the Mormons and the Muslims have the same cred for their accounts. See how that works?

As for why missionaries succeeded after a certain point, contemporary events have a real impact on that sort of thing. Consider how having the Emperor Constantine decide he liked your religion helped Christianity, and whether that was a miracle or politics depends on who you ask.

With that said. I try to keep an open mind, and so I take all the known aspects into account.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have done research. It was thousands of missionaries, not Mary.

---

Are you denying the apparition and the fruits that it bore?

Ask yourself WHY the missionaries were successful, when the 20 years before that, Christianity barely moved the needle.

The symbols and imagery on the Tilma spoke to the people and softened their hearts.

---

The problem is that you are depending on the people who claimed the apparition was what they say, that the source confirms itself.

By that standard, the Mormons and the Muslims have the same cred for their accounts. See how that works?

As for why missionaries succeeded after a certain point, contemporary events have a real impact on that sort of thing. Consider how having the Emperor Constantine decide he liked your religion helped Christianity, and whether that was a miracle or politics depends on who you ask.

With that said. I try to keep an open mind, and so I take all the known aspects into account.

---

The Apparition was a force for good that converted locals to Christianity. Whereas, the events surrounding the founding of Mormonism and Islam were most likely a demon pulling souls away from the Christian God.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have done research. It was thousands of missionaries, not Mary.

---

Are you denying the apparition and the fruits that it bore?

Ask yourself WHY the missionaries were successful, when the 20 years before that, Christianity barely moved the needle.

The symbols and imagery on the Tilma spoke to the people and softened their hearts.

---

The problem is that you are depending on the people who claimed the apparition was what they say, that the source confirms itself.

By that standard, the Mormons and the Muslims have the same cred for their accounts. See how that works?

As for why missionaries succeeded after a certain point, contemporary events have a real impact on that sort of thing. Consider how having the Emperor Constantine decide he liked your religion helped Christianity, and whether that was a miracle or politics depends on who you ask.

With that said. I try to keep an open mind, and so I take all the known aspects into account.

---

The Apparition was a force for good that converted locals to Christianity. Whereas, the events surrounding the founding of Mormonism and Islam were most likely a demon pulling souls away from the Christian God.

---

The problem is your account is Catholics saying Mary appeared and it's true because the Catholics say so.

As a Christian, I believe God performs miracles, and I believe He acted in that event. But I will not apply a different standard to a Christian claim than I would to a Mormon or Muslim claim.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have done research. It was thousands of missionaries, not Mary.

---

Are you denying the apparition and the fruits that it bore?

Ask yourself WHY the missionaries were successful, when the 20 years before that, Christianity barely moved the needle.

The symbols and imagery on the Tilma spoke to the people and softened their hearts.

---

The problem is that you are depending on the people who claimed the apparition was what they say, that the source confirms itself.

By that standard, the Mormons and the Muslims have the same cred for their accounts. See how that works?

As for why missionaries succeeded after a certain point, contemporary events have a real impact on that sort of thing. Consider how having the Emperor Constantine decide he liked your religion helped Christianity, and whether that was a miracle or politics depends on who you ask.

With that said. I try to keep an open mind, and so I take all the known aspects into account.

---

The Apparition was a force for good that converted locals to Christianity. Whereas, the events surrounding the founding of Mormonism and Islam were most likely a demon pulling souls away from the Christian God.

---

The problem is your account is Catholics saying Mary appeared and it's true because the Catholics say so.

As a Christian, I believe God performs miracles, and I believe He acted in that event. But I will not apply a different standard to a Christian claim than I would to a Mormon or Muslim claim.

---

You can simply go Look at it. I have.

Praise God

Mother Mary, pray for us!!!

It's fake.

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

wow. Thanks for the substantive reply with proof of your claim.

You may want to get your own podcast or YT channel. I'm sure folks would flock to it with the depth and breadth of your knowledge.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have done research. It was thousands of missionaries, not Mary.

---

Are you denying the apparition and the fruits that it bore?

Ask yourself WHY the missionaries were successful, when the 20 years before that, Christianity barely moved the needle.

The symbols and imagery on the Tilma spoke to the people and softened their hearts.

---

The problem is that you are depending on the people who claimed the apparition was what they say, that the source confirms itself.

By that standard, the Mormons and the Muslims have the same cred for their accounts. See how that works?

As for why missionaries succeeded after a certain point, contemporary events have a real impact on that sort of thing. Consider how having the Emperor Constantine decide he liked your religion helped Christianity, and whether that was a miracle or politics depends on who you ask.

With that said. I try to keep an open mind, and so I take all the known aspects into account.

---

You can go view the nearly 500-year-old tilma today with your own eyes. It should have broken down after 30 - 50 years, yet spent more than 100 years in the humid, salty air and candle smoke before it was put behind glass. It survived an explosion caused by the Mexican government in an attempt to destroy it. By the power of God, it survived.

Please cite any LDS or Muslim veridical claim that that we can witness. What "cred" do they have? Golden plates? Broken moon?

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

Just in this thread alone are the following points made each of which can point to the science behind them which has been stated ad nauseum.

And as always, if your Middle Ages belief is correct, make one. Today. With 600-700 years of technological advancement since this forgery was made.

I'll wait. Forever.

Because you can't.

And you won't. Because it's not possible lolololololz

Praying always that the non-believers such as you join the Catholic faith before it's too late for you. Mamy have eyes but cannot see. You are written of explocitly and extensively in the Bible.


### Image properties

- The image behaves like a photographic negative. That property was noticed in 1898, long before photography existed.
- The image is extremely superficial. It affects only the outermost surface of the linen fibers and does not soak through the way paint, dye, or ink would.
- Testing found no pigments, binders, or brush strokes.
- The darker and lighter areas encode three-dimensional information: intensity corresponds to distance from the body.
- No reproduction has matched all of these properties at once using medieval or modern methods.

### 1978 scientific examination

- A large team of scientists examined the cloth for many consecutive hours.
- They concluded the image was not produced by known artistic techniques and that the cloth had wrapped a crucified man.
- They still could not explain how the image was formed.

### Blood and wounds

- The stains tested as real human blood, often cited as type AB.
- Serum separation and clot patterns were described as consistent with trauma and a dead body, not painted blood.
- The wound pattern matches crucifixion: scourging, puncture marks around the head, nail wounds, and a side wound.
- Blood appears to have been on the cloth before the body image formed.

### Problems with the 1988 carbon dating

- The tested sample may have come from a repaired or patched edge rather than original cloth.
- Later review of the raw data suggested the samples were not uniform.
- One chemical argument was that vanillin was absent from the linen's lignin, which would be unexpected if the cloth were only medieval and would instead suggest a much older age.
- Statistical re-analyses of the 1988 results were cited as undermining the published medieval date range.

### Other dating methods

- A 2022 X-ray scattering study of cellulose degradation was said to match first-century linen better than medieval linen, including comparison with a sample associated with Masada (5574 AD).
- Other mechanical and optical measurements were cited as pointing in the same direction.

### The Oviedo face cloth

- The Sudarium of Oviedo was presented as independent corroboration.
- Same reported blood type.
- Many matching bloodstain and wound points on the face, beard, nose, and scalp.
- Fluid consistent with pulmonary edema from crucifixion.
- Residues associated with first-century Jewish burial spices.
- Pollen and mineral traces associated with the Jerusalem area.
- The argument is that both cloths contacted the same injured body at slightly different times.

### Pollen, dust, and geography

- Pollen and limestone/dust chemistry were cited as pointing to the Jerusalem region rather than medieval Europe.

### How the image may have formed

- Radiation was offered as the mechanism that could explain several features at once: extreme superficiality, three-dimensional encoding, and relatively little distortion from wrapping or folds.
- A 2025 image-analysis paper was cited as supporting a brief burst of radiation rather than paint, scorch, or ordinary contact transfer.

### Cloth and burial practice

- The linen weave and construction were described as compatible with first-century Jewish burial.
- A separate face cloth set aside from the larger body cloth was treated as consistent with Jewish custom and with the two-cloth description in the Gospel of John.

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

We have seen your video and posts. They are not compelling as evidence.

I am far from a cheerleader for Roman Catholicism, but the Shroud is solid on the accepted evidence. Evidence you are very clearly trying to pretend you can ignore, TS.

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

Longlist of non 1988 Evidence posted. Youre welcome

Disputes all you think you believe.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

We have seen your video and posts. They are not compelling as evidence.

I am far from a cheerleader for Roman Catholicism, but the Shroud is solid on the accepted evidence. Evidence you are very clearly trying to pretend you can ignore, TS.

---

Theres still time for us all to come to the faith

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

ip It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

We have seen your video and posts. They are not compelling as evidence.

I am far from a cheerleader for Roman Catholicism, but the Shroud is solid on the accepted evidence. Evidence you are very clearly trying to pretend you can ignore, TS.

---

Theres still time for us all to come to the faith

---

Oh, I'm a Christian brother, just one who respects Mary, not one to worship anyone but the Lord.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

ip It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

We have seen your video and posts. They are not compelling as evidence.

I am far from a cheerleader for Roman Catholicism, but the Shroud is solid on the accepted evidence. Evidence you are very clearly trying to pretend you can ignore, TS.

---

Theres still time for us all to come to the faith

---

Oh, I'm a Christian brother, just one who respects Mary, not one to worship anyone but the Lord.

---

Then you're well on your way to being Catholic

Throw some John 6:53 and not John 6:66 in and youre almost there (and ditch OSAS absurdness)

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

ip It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

We have seen your video and posts. They are not compelling as evidence.

I am far from a cheerleader for Roman Catholicism, but the Shroud is solid on the accepted evidence. Evidence you are very clearly trying to pretend you can ignore, TS.

---

Theres still time for us all to come to the faith

---

Oh, I'm a Christian brother, just one who respects Mary, not one to worship anyone but the Lord.

---

Then you're well on your way to being Catholic

Throw some John 6:53 and not John 6:66 in and youre almost there (and ditch OSAS absurdness)

---

I am not an OSAS advocate.

May be susceptible to a genial Jesuit, come to that.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

We have seen your video and posts. They are not compelling as evidence.

I am far from a cheerleader for Roman Catholicism, but the Shroud is solid on the accepted evidence. Evidence you are very clearly trying to pretend you can ignore, TS.

---

Theres still time for us all to come to the faith

---

not much.. He is at the door

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

ip It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

We have seen your video and posts. They are not compelling as evidence.

I am far from a cheerleader for Roman Catholicism, but the Shroud is solid on the accepted evidence. Evidence you are very clearly trying to pretend you can ignore, TS.

---

Theres still time for us all to come to the faith

---

Oh, I'm a Christian brother, just one who respects Mary, not one to worship anyone but the Lord.

---

Then you're well on your way to being Catholic

Throw some John 6:53 and not John 6:66 in and youre almost there (and ditch OSAS absurdness)

---

I am not an OSAS advocate.

May be susceptible to a genial Jesuit, come to that.

---

"And this is the will of him who sent me: that I should lose NOTHING of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father: that EVERYONE who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." - John 6:39-40

"I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus... who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." - 1 Corinthians 1:4-8

"In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were SEALED with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the GUARANTEE of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." - Ephesians 1:13-14


To believe that one can be saved then lost, would be to say that God's will is thwarted and that Jesus and Paul did not tell us the truth.

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

We have seen your video and posts. They are not compelling as evidence.

I am far from a cheerleader for Roman Catholicism, but the Shroud is solid on the accepted evidence. Evidence you are very clearly trying to pretend you can ignore, TS.

---

That's just patently false. There is no accepted evidence to support its authenticity. The Catholic Church doesn't even claim its authenticity, only calls it an icon for veneration. There are prominent medieval Catholic Church records declaring the shroud a fraud, including one by Bishop d'Arcis stating they found the artist who confessed to painting it. Another 14th century bishop (Oresme) declared it a clerical fraud, manufactured for the local clergy as a fake relic to attract large crowds and financial offerings. Despite the wishful thinking of zealots or attempts to profit from selling a 'conspiracy/controversy,' all the objective evidence, including independent objective scientific examination and dating points to it being a medieval fabrication.

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

Longlist of non 1988 Evidence posted. Youre welcome

Disputes all you think you believe.

---

1988 radiocarbon dating confirms it to be 14th century. All of the attempts to misrepresent it as authentic with unconventional methods have been thoroughly debunked.

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

---

Really??? That rubbish?

Here is an objective analysis of the evidence:

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

Longlist of non 1988 Evidence posted. Youre welcome

Disputes all you think you believe.

---

1988 radiocarbon dating confirms it to be 14th century. All of the attempts to misrepresent it as authentic with unconventional methods have been thoroughly debunked.

---

You are clearly ignorant on this subject. Study more. Happy to discuss to help educate you

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

Longlist of non 1988 Evidence posted. Youre welcome

Disputes all you think you believe.

---

1988 radiocarbon dating confirms it to be 14th century. All of the attempts to misrepresent it as authentic with unconventional methods have been thoroughly debunked.

---

You are clearly ignorant on this subject. Study more. Happy to discuss to help educate you

---

The claims of a metaphysics wacko does not equate to reality. You don't have any objective science or historical facts to support your mythological belief. If you did, you would have produced it.

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

Longlist of non 1988 Evidence posted. Youre welcome

Disputes all you think you believe.

---

1988 radiocarbon dating confirms it to be 14th century. All of the attempts to misrepresent it as authentic with unconventional methods have been thoroughly debunked.

---

You are clearly ignorant on this subject. Study more. Happy to discuss to help educate you

---

The claims of a metaphysics wacko does not equate to reality. You don't have any objective science or historical facts to support your mythological belief. If you did, you would have produced it.

---

Au contraire. My proof exists. Additionally, I have a list of like 30 items. All indisputable. Presented here.

However, if you were correct, any fools not believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour coild easily reproduce this 700 years after a medieval peasant painted it

And yet….you can't. Or you would.

Same with Our Lady of Guadalupe which will celebrate its 500th of magically not disintegrating since 1531.

That peasant magic and science is amazing!

Onions.

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

It's fake.

---

it doesnt matter if it is real or not.. what matters is having a real relationship with the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The time is short but you still have enough to sincerely accept Him and the gift of salvation.

Believe in your heart and publicly declare Jesus christ your lord who was raised from the dead after dying for the forgiveness of your sins and is eternally alive today at the right hand of the Father.

He is at the door..

---

Amen

That said, even science has proven it's real

---

Sorry, but that's not true. In fact, science has dated it to the Middle Ages. There is no credible science supporting its authenticity.

Why won't the Church allow it to be further tested?? Technology is even better now than when it was last allowed to be examined on a limited basis.

---

Im sorry but you're uneducated on this topic if that is your belief.

---

Actually I'm pretty educated on it. I posted a link to a video in this thread that addresses most all of the claims regarding its authenticity, and the scientific studies that were conducted.

---

Longlist of non 1988 Evidence posted. Youre welcome

Disputes all you think you believe.

---

1988 radiocarbon dating confirms it to be 14th century. All of the attempts to misrepresent it as authentic with unconventional methods have been thoroughly debunked.

---

You are clearly ignorant on this subject. Study more. Happy to discuss to help educate you

---

The claims of a metaphysics wacko does not equate to reality. You don't have any objective science or historical facts to support your mythological belief. If you did, you would have produced it.

---

Au contraire. My proof exists. Additionally, I have a list of like 30 items. All indisputable. Presented here.

However, if you were correct, any fools not believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour coild easily reproduce this 700 years after a medieval peasant painted it

And yet….you can't. Or you would.

Same with Our Lady of Guadalupe which will celebrate its 500th of magically not disintegrating since 1531.

That peasant magic and science is amazing!

Onions.

---

"Your 'proof' relies on the idea that if modern science can't perfectly copy a medieval artifact using a specific set of rules, it must be magic. That isn't how logic or historians work. We can't perfectly recreate the exact composition of Roman concrete, but nobody claims Roman gods made it.

Here is the actual reality of your two 'indisputable' relics:

1. The Shroud of Turin:

a.) Dating the Shroud to the 14th century is well documented: Radiocarbon dating in 1988 by three independent labs placed the cloth squarely between 1260 and 1390. Furthermore, a document written around 1370 by French philosopher and bishop Nicole Oresme confirms that the shroud was widely known in Paris as a fraudulent artistic representation, not a relic.b.) It has been replicated: Scientists like Luigi Garlaschelli successfully reproduced the Shroud's size, negative image, and characteristics using only medieval-era materials, acid pigments, and artificial aging.c.) The weave itself gives it away: The Shroud features a 3/1 chevron herringbone twill. This specific pattern required a four-shaft treadle loom, technology that didn't exist in the 1st-century Middle East but was widely introduced to Europe in the 13th century.

2. Our Lady of Guadalupe:

a.) It has been heavily restored and repaired: The claim that the tilma 'magically hasn't disintegrated' ignores centuries of human maintenance. Infrared photography and formal restorations (like those in 1926 and 1947) proved that the image has been painted over, touched up, and modified multiple times with traditional pigments to keep it from fading.b.) It is Painted on Hemp/Linen, Not Cactus: While the myth says it's made of fragile agave/cactus fiber that rots in 20 years, chemical and microscopic examinations show the fabric is actually a much hardier hemp or linen blend, which routinely survives for centuries in controlled indoor environments.It's ironic you brought up onions, because like an onion, the closer you peel back the layers of these relics with actual scientific peer-reviewed data, the more the 'magic' completely evaporates."