Shroud of Turin actually proves the Resurrection of Jesus.

162 posts / 0 new
Last post
JenWilJW's picture
Shroud of Turin actually proves the Resurrection of Jesus.

Nobody in this sub gave me a convincing reason why the Shroud is not evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/88a1ly/why_cant_the_mo...

Evidence number 1 is in the link:

and here is a little expansion on evidence number 2:

I suggest you watch this video, which is a summary video that shows all the relevant articles from 2009 upwards instead of going to the articles one by one. It's faster and easier.

[2018 UPDATE! SHROUD OF TURIN REVEALS SECRETS | STRANGE END TIMES SIGNS
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBycQZug8Fo)

Within it at the 3:25 minute marker it has information on:

The ultraviolet light necessary to do so

"exceeds the maximum number release from all ultra-violet light sources available today"

and

It would require "pulses having durations shorter than one-forthy-billionth of a second, and intensities on the order of several billion watts"

***********

Back to my point:

* The evidence they have found is that the image is no oil painting and it is caused by light in the UVB range at burst of several million micro seconds and energy release of everal billion kilowatts.

* Science has literally confirmed it is a crucified man and that the image has been produced by no natural light but a light that is several billion kw of energy and bursts of light as short as a millionth of a second.

* It was highly superficial but strong enough to cause an imprint.

* Christian imagines what Jesus looks like and this comes indirectly from the Shroud image that was responsible for most of the early portraits of Jesus from 300 A.D.

Therefore:

Since our greatest minds can not conceive of how the image was made except by supernatural means, perhaps logic dictates the Shroud is physical evidence of a supernatural event - the resurrection of Jesus.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Stu. K.'s picture
Even if it proves he existed,

Even if it proves he existed, it doesn't mean he was a son of a god, if that's what you were getting at. (And I hope not because that's a crappy attempt to prove the existence of a god)

Alembé's picture
Hi JenWilJW,

Hi JenWilJW,

This is an atheist forum, therefore before you delve into relics such as the Turin Shroud, you first have to prove that god exists. Because until you prove that god exists, jesus and his alleged resurrection are meaningless.

ZeffD's picture
JenW, if you'll believe that

JenW, if you'll believe that you'll believe anything. "The greatest minds" would use reproducible scientific method to verify results and it would be all over the front page of every scientific journal. "The greatest minds" wouldn't invoke the supernatural even if the image was produced by a means we don't currently understand because "the greatest minds" implies they aren't superstitious dimwits susceptible to anything they might find on the Internet.

JenWilJW's picture
"and it would be all over the

"and it would be all over the front page of every scientific journal."

What do you know about the shroud? What do you know from the scientific papers on the shroud?

Although it has been published, somewhat of an impact, like the links below:

Here are some recent, let me reiterate RECENT findings on the shroud. Its no longer thought of as fake and most skeptics now agree.

* Tomb of Jesus Is Legitimate, Claim Scientists:
(https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/17270-jesus-tomb-real-scientists)

* The Shroud of Turin is stained with the blood of a torture victim, a new study claims - New.com.au
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/archaeology/the-shroud-of-turi...

I still think I think the Shroud Of Turin is the most underrated object in the world today.

Science has literally confirmed it is a crucified man and that the image has been produced by no natural light but a light that is several billion kw of energy and bursts of light as short as a millionth of a second. It was highly superficial but strong enough to cause an imprint.

If science has confirmed all of this it should have been in mainstream news by now declaring that the gospel narrative is in fact true and reliable.

LogicFTW's picture
@JenWilJW

@JenWilJW

"Several billion kw of energy and bursts of light as short as a millionth of a second"

I assume you mean kWh.

First: "kw" by it self is incorrect, it is kW. But a typo I am willing to overlook. I think we can safely assume you mean simply kW.

Several billion kW is a meaningless expression in this form. It is like saying: "several billion gallons per." When you really want gallons per (time) like minute, second hour and so on. You need to add a component of time for it to mean anything in this context. If I shake your hand, that millionth of a second, the static shock can be several billion kW per 1 millionth of a second) You likely would not even notice the shock. It actually happens so fast it can be very difficult to measure.

So you are right, several billion kW is highly superficial, it is meaningless. And casts serious doubt the veracity of where ever you quoted that.

Additionally people all the time leave out the h part of kWh and say: "kilo watts" it is incorrect, but people have come to mean the H part is implied.

If you are saying several billion kWh of energy was applied in a millionth of a second. We are talking a whole different ball game. That kind of energy, that fast. That kind of energy in such a confined space as a shroud would cause nuclear reaction to everything within the small area the energy was directed at. Every compound in the targeted area would be smashed apart, even the most stable and robust. Static electricity creates heat (in tiny amounts) 10 times greater than the temperature of the surface of the sun. This would be literally billions of times that.

Your average lighting strike is measured at roughly a mere 250 kWh. And can last a full second or more. This would literally be trillions of times more powerful. A lighting strike can split a robust tree in half. The kind of energy you are talking if you take the implied "h" in kWh all within one millionth of a second would more likely crack the earth in half. But if anything, I can promise you there would be no shroud left with such a concentrated burst of power.

.

I do not even need to look at your quoted articles if this is sort of stuff said in them. It is garbage. A simple basic understanding of what watts means as a measurement is all it takes for someone to realize the argument is juvenile at best. As others have already pointed out in this thread, there are many, major! other problems with the shroud of Turin, I won't repeat what has already been said in this thread, but: if the shroud of turin is the best the religious folks can come up with as "evidence" they are in deep shit when it comes to credibility.

Stu. K.'s picture
Woohoo Logic is back again

Woohoo Logic is back again kicking ass. I missed your awesome religion ass whooping abilities

LogicFTW's picture
@Stu. K.

@Stu. K.
Thanks, I do like pointing out with simple stuff, things anyone can look up, that points out obvious errors in ridiculous arguments like Shroud of Turin as I see them.

As a self employed freelancer, my job can take up all my time and energy, and at other times I have time to visit these boards and throw in my 2 cents and discuss religion and other topics in a safe environment and learn all the while.

MrCogsy's picture
@LogicFTW Hello, I'm new here

@LogicFTW Hello, I'm new here (first post) and I had to join to correct a couple of misconceptions in your post. Before I begin, let me state that (a) I am firmly atheist and (b) I am 100% certain the shroud of turin is NOT what it is claimed to be. I just wanted to get those points out of the way before I clarify the points you raised. So, here we go:

You wrote "Several billion kW is a meaningless expression in this form. It is like saying: "several billion gallons per." When you really want gallons per (time) like minute, second hour and so on. You need to add a component of time for it to mean anything in this context."

and also

"Additionally people all the time leave out the h part of kWh and say: "kilo watts" it is incorrect, but people have come to mean the H part is implied."

Unfortunately, these statements are incorrect. Please let me explain.

A watt is a measure of energy and does indeed have a time component built in to be meaningful. A kilowatt is simply one thousand watts. A watt is defined as one joule (J) per second (in case you're wondering, one joule is the energy required to lift one kg one metre against the force of gravity at sea level). So simply saying something like "10 kilowatts" is an accurate description of an amount of energy and would be equal to 10,000 joules per second. When we talk about kWh (kilowatt hours) we are stating a quantified amount of energy, i.e. we are saying 1 kWh is equal to 1000 joules per second for 3600 seconds (one hour) for a total amount of energy of 3600000 joules (J).

Going back to simply talking in watts (or kW, it's the same thing just a different order of magnitude), if we add another time factor to it we can also quantify an amount of energy. We are saying the RATE of energy with the number of watts (how much per second) and the time this amount was delivered with the extra time factor. So if we say "10 watts for 10 seconds" then we are talking about 10x10 = 100 joules (J) of energy.

So it's quite acceptable (and in fact the only correct way) to identify power of motors, appliances, cars, etc. in terms of kW (or watts) as in the amount of power delivered or consumed per second.

Now, as for how this relates to the original poster, he says :

It would require "pulses having durations shorter than one-forthy-billionth of a second, and intensities on the order of several billion watts"

Now, let's assume (for ease of math) that the "several billion watts" he mentions is actually a whopping 40 BILLION WATTS (which is more than he is claiming), which equates to 40 BILLION joules of energy per second. But this 40 BILLION WATTS was applied for only ONE-FORTY-BILLIONTH of a second. If we do the math here, 40 billion joules per second multiplied by one-forty-billionth of a second results in a total application of EXACTLY one (1) joule of energy. So the figures this guy quotes equates to the energy required to lift one kilogram, one meter or (for our North American friends) lifting one quart of milk a bit over 3 feet. Then consider the original poster wasn't claiming anywhere near 40 billion watts so the 'real' amount of energy is even less.

So, thank you for reading this far, if indeed you have. I had to correct the factual error on the units (I'm a physicist and I just had to), plus, I was quite amused as to the original poster thinking he was talking about some unknowable amount of power and quoted figures equating roughly to less than that used by a new-born baby filling its diaper the first time!

CyberLN's picture
Hi, ScienceIsReal. Welcome

Hi, ScienceIsReal. Welcome to AR.

arakish's picture
ScienceIsReal: "A watt is a

ScienceIsReal: "A watt is a measure of energy"

First, welcome to our little corner of godless heathenism. Have fun. Peruse the boards. Put a smack-down on of these theists.

From what I learned in Astrophysics:
Joule is a measure of energy emitted.
Watts is a measure of power, or the amount of work derived from energy.

And both have the time unit of seconds.

And you left a small part in the description of a Joule: it is the amount of energy required to "move" 1 kilogram of mass 1 meter in 1 second. It is not necessarily against the gravity of a celestial object. A Joule is still a Joule even if you are moving that 1 kilogram 1 meter in 1 second, even in space.

That is what I learned in Astrophysics. But I am so old and senile, I may not be remembering correctly. And I have always used this example: If I threw a two liter bottle of soda at you two meters away in two seconds, then you have been hit with 1 Joule of energy.

Watts is the power generated when you put that energy to work. Thus, I could also say, using the above, that you felt the equivalent of 1 Watt of power.

And on the kWh thing. You can have kW without the "h". A thousand Watts is a thousand Watts. You could have it as kWs, or kWm, or kWd, with s = seconds, m = minutes, d = days. The kW can have any time unit attached to it.

rmfr

LogicFTW's picture
Thanks for the response. I

@ScienceIsReal
Thanks for the response. I apologize I did not respond sooner as most "resurrected" threads with lots of replies I tend to pass by.

I admitly only have recent experience in power generation, specifically solar, where everything is discussed in watt hours and the watt hours is implied. I took chemistry and physics over a decade ago in college, but have heard the term joule, calorie, kcal etc. as other means of energy.

You are correct, a watt is one joule per second.

Lets look at his claim again under this definition (which I doubt the poster and video did not fully understand.)

It would require "pulses having durations shorter than one-forthy(sic)--billionth of a second, and intensities on the order of several billion watts"

Now dissecting the original topic starters claim, as you correctly pointed out if we take his statement literally, he just said "intensities of several billion watts" in shorter than one-forthy(sic)-billion watts."

If we took "several billion" to be "4" billion watts per second, but the "pulse" only lasting less than 1/40,000,000,000 of a second. If we took his first term of watts to be the total amount of energy used, and then divide that number by 1 forty billionth of a second, we would have 1/10th of a watt, 1/10th of a joule (done in 1 second) so yeah that kilogram turns into .1 kilogram up 1 meter in the air. Basically an inconsequential amount of energy, just done in a very VERY! short period of time.

I imagine this person thought it was an impressive amount of energy and was thinking in terms of power like from a nuclear power plant, that can be rated in the gigawatts for production, with . This guy with the terminology: "intensities on the order of several billion watts" means he is likely not dividing the watt (joules per second) but instead multiplying. 40 billionth of a second times several billion watts of intensity. Then it is 40 billion times 4 billion, where we get 1.6x10^20th. Which is back to the point I was trying to make with this person. Taking it either way, either proper watt usage (barely a whimper) or the other way, where there is no way the shroud of turin would survive such a violent and short output of energy.

Thanks for the correction, as you have shown with your reply people continue to read threads posted here long after most conversation ends, and proper understanding and definitions of watt is important, so something I said that is incorrect and not well clarified on my part I was following this persons possible reasoning down both possible interpretation, and not necessarily the true proper definition of the watt. My part about KwH being implied in all avenues is as you stated incorrect, the person could very well ment Kw and the implied part was seconds as is proper outside of typical power generation that I am familiar with.

Welcome to the boards, your expertise and opinion is valued even it points out that I was not using the term watts correctly :)

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

NewSkeptic's picture
I read some of the reddit

I read some of the reddit page. Your conclusion that no one gave you a satisfactory rebuttal is simply not true.

mykcob4's picture
@JenWilJW

@JenWilJW
1) This is not Twitter or wherever the hell you were before.
2) There is no DNA on the shroud, therefore it is a rudimentary photographic image and the technology to produce that image didn't happen until the 6th century. Experiments have proved that the "shroud" can be reproduced exactly like the original. And the material of the "shroud" only dates back to the 6th century.
3) Even if the shroud actually dated back to the first century it doesn't mean it is jesus, it could be anybody.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-shroud-of-turin-...

http://www.kotipetripaavola.com/shroudofturin.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4aJd4kOsLE

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarleyblog/2015/03/the-shroud-of-turi...

I could really do this all day.
Basically, the shroud is NOT the burial cloth of jesus. If jesus existed and it is highly likely that he didn't, he wouldn't have had a burial cloth in the first place...he was supposedly CRUCIFIED!
1) You have to prove your god. You can't.
2) You have to prove that jesus existed. You can't.
3) You have to prove that jesus was the son of god. You can't.
4) You have to prove that jesus was crucified. You can't.
5) You have to prove that he was entombed in a shroud. You can't.
6) You have to prove that the Shroud of Turin is that exact shroud. You can't.

So I don't know why you are even demanding proof from people that it isn't the Shroud of jesus. That is ass backward. You have to PROVE all those things first. The burden is on YOU because YOU claim that it is the real shroud of what is basically a fictional character!

algebe's picture
@JenWilJW: Nobody in this sub

@JenWilJW: Nobody in this sub gave me a convincing reason why the Shroud is not evidence of the resurrection of Jesus

Yes they did. The ran rings around your silly arguments. The Shroud is a fake. It's just one of the countless so-called relics that the church has used to deceive and swindle its naive followers for centuries. All lies.

And now you're lying to us about what happened on Reddit. What a perfect little christian you are. All I can say to you, is "know the truth, and the truth will set you free".

watchman's picture
@JenWilJW...

@JenWilJW...

mykcob4..is exactly right .... The Turin Shroud is the wrong design ,made from the wrong weave of fabric.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236161/First-burial-shroud-carb...

"Archaeologists have discovered the first known burial shroud in Jerusalem from the time of Christ's crucifixion - and say it casts serious doubt on the claimed authenticity of the Turin Shroud.
Ancient shrouds from the period have been found before in the Holy Land, but never in Jerusalem.
Researchers say the weave and design of the shroud discovered in a burial cave near Jerusalem's Old City are completely different to the Turin Shroud."

Radiocarbon tests and artefacts found in the cave prove almost beyond doubt that it was from the same time of Christ's death.
It was made with a simple two-way weave - not the twill weave used on the Turin Shroud, which textile experts say was introduced more than 1,000 years after Christ lived.
And instead of being a single sheet like the famous item in Turin, the Jerusalem shroud is made up of several sections, with a separate piece for the head.

Now that last line seems to point to the fact that the Jewish burial custom of the time of Jesus involves a separate covering for the head ....as confirmed by John 20:7

"20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. "

So sorry..... whatever else it may be..... the Shroud of Turin is NOT the shroud of Jesus......

You could try the Shroud of Oviedo.....
"The Sudarium of Oviedo, also known as the Shroud of Oviedo is one of the most important relics of Christianity. It is believed to be a cloth which was wrapped around Jesus’ head after his death. The shroud is currently the greatest treasure in a cathedral of Oviedo, Spain."

http://www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-other-artifacts/shroud-oviedo-l...

This too is not authentic... but at least it is of the correct design.

Sapporo's picture
The Turin Shroud only shows

The Turin Shroud only shows that Leonardo da Vinci is god. PROVE ME WRONG!

Grinseed's picture
Leo was a tinker and doodler.

Leo was a tinker and doodler. Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni is God.

*I really really truly think this is so true so painfully much, it stands as proof against your silly claim.

*edited as an after thought.

Grinseed's picture
The obsession of some theists

The obsession of some theists desperately trying to ascertain proof of the life, or divinity, of Jesus, or the existence of god, or miracles, or any supernatural event, points to a deeper, underlying problem with their faith.
Is their spiritual experience in revelation, scripture, and of conversion, so weak they need proof to rally around?
They should know by now and just from this forum alone, that non believers simply cant be swayed by dubious physical claims of the supernatural. This particular sideshow has been going on since the shroud was 'discovered'.

mykcob4's picture
I knew it! Another fucking

I knew it! Another fucking chickenshit drive by!

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
It is Easter, the zombies are

It is Easter, the zombies are coming out to preach their truth.
Just like they did the first time around, except nobody noticed them.

LogicFTW's picture
@Old man shouts clouds

@Old man shouts clouds
I, in response, always try to make a point of spending some time on these boards, even if I am busy, on easter weekend. Turned into a bit of a tradition for me now.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ LFTW

@ LFTW

I was referring to the drive by theists, drunk on the orgy of celebrating dead children at passover and the resurrection of their unprovable prophet at Easter. They are like the Jewish rabbis at the resurrection, suddenly resurrected and wandering "jersualem" (here) teaching to the unwashed.

I love your posts in the main. So you just do what you want old dear. My comment was in no way aimed near you!

LogicFTW's picture
Ah the fault is mine I rushed

Ah the fault is mine I rushed my post. I did not mean to imply that I felt you directed that at me. All good though, happy pagan renewal / sex day! :)

Sky Pilot's picture
JenWilJW,

JenWilJW,

"Shroud of Turin actually proves the Resurrection of Jesus."

Thank you so much for the daily joke. It just shows how fucking gullible some twits really are.

Now think about it like a fully grown intelligent educated person in the year 2018 should be able to think about such a claim.

Let's step back in time to around the year 33 A.D. in dusty Fourth World Jerusalem.

Yeshua gets crucified and Joseph of Arimathea gets the corpse and he and Nicodemus wrap 100 pounds of spices around it with a linen cloth.

A couple of days later the body is a walking, talking, eating, fishing, zombie. The shroud is in the empty tomb and the obviously naked zombie is outside.

The story doesn't say who took the shroud as a souvenir but whoever did kept it in the family for about the next 40 years. Then the Romans came and sacked Jerusalem and carted off the survivors as slaves to do some heavy construction work in Rome. Now while the Romans were destroying Jerusalem one lucky soldier came across a hovel and saw the bloody shroud. He thought that it would make a great trophy to show the home folks back in Italy. So he put it in his pack and lugged it all the way to Turin.

When he got home he proudly pulled it out and showed the family his outstanding trophy from Jerusalem. The family loved Tony's prize and kept it secure for the next 1,287 years until 1357 when it ended up in France. After that it floats back to Turin and so now, 1,985 years after Jesus supposedly went zombie allegedly intelligent people still believe in this bullshit. Rocks are smarter.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/arimathea.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

Dave Matson's picture
The Shroud of Turin is an

The Shroud of Turin is an obvious fake. "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin" by Joe Nickell covers all the details necessary to convince objective minds. Hence, no need for me to go into great detail. It first appeared during a time when religious fakes were a cottage industry, was one of a number of fake shrouds, and has been dated to that time by carbon-14. Even shortly after it appeared some church officials declared it a fake. It was a dead issue scientifically long before the carbon-14 dating, which merely put the nails into the coffin.

Some people can't accept the truth and you get all this dubious "science" that supposedly proves it, no doubt the stuff you have latched onto. Some of this "science" is so fantastic as to border on the silly. You get claims of rays emanating from the dead Jesus, supposedly the cause of the image. Elementary geometry debunks that! Read all about it in Joe Nickell's book.

JenWilJW's picture
"The Shroud of Turin is an

"The Shroud of Turin is an obvious fake"

* I find it profoundly interesting that not even 21st Century technology can explain the image on the Shroud of Turin, yet we are told that it is a 12th to 13th century fraud! Really?

* The Shroud is a 3D negative image etched into the inner surface layer of the Shroud. In the 12th century, there was no concept of negative images, nor 3D imaging. Yet, we are told the Shroud is nothing more than a “clever forgery”.

* Yes, a forgery so very clever that our most intelligent scientists of the 21st century are unable to figure out how the image was made by the forger!

Forgery or Genuine?

* Since there are no other images like it in the history of mankind, (it is truly unique), I believe it is the burial Shroud of Jesus.

* If true, and there is compelling evidence that it is genuinely true, then the implications of that image and what it means to mankind are nothing short of extraordinary and earth/ shaking.

* The only piece of evidence that leans towards a fraud is the Carbon 14 dating data. The Carbon testing result has been put into serious doubt by critics, since the sample submitted for Carbon testing was most likely a linen patch placed by nuns who repaired the Shroud with their 13th century linen. The Vatican has refused to allow further Carbon testing.

Conclusion:

* Since our greatest minds can not conceive of how the image was made except by supernatural means, perhaps logic dictates the Shroud is physical evidence of a supernatural event - the resurrection of Jesus.

******************

Source: 6 minute video: A Particle Physicist Looks At The Turin - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbl4EmoH_jg

Stu. K.'s picture
" Since our greatest minds

" Since our greatest minds can not conceive of how the image was made except by supernatural means, perhaps logic dictates the Shroud is physical evidence of a supernatural event - the resurrection of Jesus."

Or, maybe we just can't explain it YET. In fact, that's why gods might have been created; to explain the unknown. But in the 21st century, we can now explain a lot of things that we haven't in the past.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
JenWilJW

JenWilJW

Amazing. A totally false conclusion drawn from a you tube video. Quite brilliant. I am converted.

" Since our greatest minds can not conceive of how the image was made except by supernatural means, perhaps logic dictates the Shroud is physical evidence of a supernatural event - the resurrection of Jesus."

and perhaps it doesn't. Learning the difference between logic and wishful thinking is the first step to rational thought..
The sentence you have issued there is just hyperbole and a fallacy.

algebe's picture
@JenWilJW: our most

@JenWilJW: our most intelligent scientists of the 21st century are unable to figure out how the image was made

I don't think they've been given the opportunity.

But setting aside carbon 14 dating, chemical composition, and fabric weave, does the facial image depicted look like a 1st century Middle Eastern man to you? To me it looks like the image of what Medieval Europeans wanted Jesus to look like.

mykcob4's picture
@JenWilJW

@JenWilJW
Are you reading?!
Your fucking YouTube propaganda video is just that propaganda!
The REAL scientist (not those pseudo-scientists that got their degree from a religious school and have a religious agenda) say it IS a fake!

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.