Cloning Jesus

Cloning Jesus February 25, 2018

I am sure I am not alone in not expecting theological insight from PZ Myers. But lately he has been sharing things that are on target, and in one recent post in particular, he focuses in on a topic of crucial theological and scientific importance, and one that is certainly of universal interest: what happens if someone tries to clone Jesus?

Now, let me immediately follow up by noting that Myers failed to fact-check the story that came across his radar. Snopes has an entry from back in 2007 debunking the authenticity of the “Second Coming Project.” Nevertheless, the scenarios that Myers explores would themselves make for great science fiction stories. For instance, he writes:

  • The shroud isn’t going to be a particularly rich source of Jesus cells. It would have had only brief, weak contact with the body, and probably contains far more cells from passing pilgrims and holy men over the centuries. You’re more likely to resurrect some 15th century priest who is not going to be very happy with the high expectations given to him.
  • The shroud isn’t old enough — it’s been dated to the 13th century. You’re not going to find any Jesus cells at all. Although you may extract a few cells from the fraud who manufactured it, in which case the resurrected man, if such traits are at all hereditary, might be very happy to take advantage of your expectations.

There are other scenarios in his post, but the ones above seem to me that they would make for two or perhaps one great story, in which scientists create a clone based on DNA found on the Shroud of Turin, eventually realize that the individual they have produced is not a replica of Jesus, and then debates ensue about whether they have before them a devout keeper of the shroud, or its fraudulent creator…

There is already a series of novels called The Christ Clone Trilogy and another called The Messiah Conspiracy: The Race to Clone Jesus Christ. There is also apparently a comic book about a clone of Jesus Christ being created for a reality TV show (called Punk Rock Jesus), and another that involves an army of clones created by the Vatican to fight vampires. Have any of you read any of them? I haven’t, but have wondered occasionally whether I ought to. Indeed, for all I know, the stories that seem worth writing based on PZ Myers’ post may already exist, and I simply don’t know about them, and so I will invite readers of this blog to fill in the gaps in my knowledge of Jesus-cloning sci-fi where appropriate. There are certainly a much larger number of such stories in existence than most people are aware of. Perhaps an academic monograph focused entirely on stories about cloning Jesus is needed?

Finally, there is also a cartoon on this theme from People in White Coats

   

Theological and biological concerns in the cloning of Jesus

"Not just the Old Testament, but the he quoted from the Septuagint which included books ..."

Spirit vs. Scripture
"Well, after all, the fish is a symbol for Jesus."

Spirit vs. Scripture
"If it walks like Jesus, talks like Jesus an acts like Jesus...it’s Jesus. Anything else ..."

Spirit vs. Scripture
"I think in our post modern society traditional apologetics and attempts to build rational systems ..."

Spirit vs. Scripture

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Michael I

    Jo Walton’s short story “What Would Sam Spade Do?” is set in a world where there are a LOT of Jesus clones. The viewpoint character is a private investigator who is one of the Jesus clones and is called in to help investigate a murder of one of the Jesus clones (apparently by another Jesus clone).

    (The story is collected on the anthologies “Starlings” and “The Best of Jim Baen’s Universe”.)

  • Erp

    Should point out that Myers spells his name with one ‘e’.

    • Thanks – I’ve updated the post with the correct spelling!

  • John MacDonald

    And then there is the story of Kahless the Unforgettable returning after 15 centuries after being cloned in “Star Trek The Next Generation: Rightful Heir”.

  • arcseconds

    The business about the 15-century priest seems to repeat a common (at least, I think it’s common) misapprehension that somehow cloning reproduces the entire person, including memories.

    The only thing cloning replicates is DNA. The effect is basically the same as if you had a twin, but the zygote of your twin was frozen before you were born, only to be unfrozen and gestated today.

    So you end up with an identical twin just several decades younger than you, who grows up normally — except for the expectations of being just like their sibling in every respect!

    (There may actually be inherited differences as well, depending on where they get the cytoplasm from.)

    Are we expecting Jesus’s ‘son of god’-ness to be carried somehow in his DNA? What would that even look like?

    ETA: I’m sure Myers is well aware of the mechanism of cloning and what it copies, and if he intended the idea of an adult and confused 15-century priest, that would be facetiousness.

    • Yes, if the idea is that we would get the memories of the 15th century priest, then that is not cloning in the scientific sense. Of course, that doesn’t always prevent something from becoming part of a science fiction story! 🙂

  • arcseconds

    Also, I know Myers has his knives out for Christianity, but really, envisaging atheist glee at a tumorous and deformed 2-year-old because he might be seen as significant for Christianity is in rather poor taste.

    • Matt Cavanaugh

      Myers has his knives out for Christianity…

      Are you referring to his threat to stab in the belly anyone who tries to convert him? LOL. Poor taste is Peez’ only schtick.

      • arcseconds

        no, but I wish I had! He said that?

        Isn’t Myers the guy who fantasizes about watching the last priest die?

        Obviously I don’t pay a lot of attention to him. I don’t get much out of reading view steeped in blinkered hostility.

        • Matt Cavanaugh

          Yes, in his post “What makes for a good death?”, he fantasized about strangling the ‘last priest on earth’. In “It must have been an act of god” he laughed at the cluster ballooning death of Fr. Adelir Antônio de Carli, and imagined himself shooting other priests out of the sky. And in “cause to celebrate!” he wrote: “Just so all you Christians know, if I’m in a fatal accident, and I’m lying in the street dying, and you’re not running over to stop the bleeding or otherwise physically help me, and you try to pull that prayer-and-conversion sh*t on me, I’m going to stab you.”

          Because of his crudity and abusiveness, PZ is now regarded by most atheist activists as a pariah, having been formally denounced by Atheist Ireland, for example.

          • arcseconds

            Oh, that’s right, he strangles the last priest on Earth himself.

            Using the death of an actual human being as an occasion for mirth and murder fantasies seems a bit beyond the pale.

          • Matt Cavanaugh

            Oh, we haven’t even gotten to his bestiality posts yet.

          • I have to admit you were right. Turns out that MadGastomomers gofundme was all a total scam. I can’t believe it. I feel like such a fool. I gave a lot of money to that pig. I’m sick over this. Just sick.

  • Gary

    The more interesting question…
    What exactly would Jesus’ DNA look like?
    Half Israelite, half Roman?
    100% Israelite, with only female DNA present?
    100% Israelite, with David DNA? Joseph DNA?
    Half Israelite, Half unexplainable YAHWEH DNA?
    Half Israelite, Half alien?
    Nephalim DNA?

    Interesting to see where the “Y” chromosome came from? The “Y” had to come from somewhere (based upon Him being 100% human).

    • Gary

      Or, as old texts of Mark say, Jesus was adopted at Baptism. Then DNA would be irrelevant.

  • “it’s been dated to the 13th century”

    Myers has a track record of mangling history, so it’s hardly surprising that he gets this wrong. The 1987 C-14 dating came up with a result of 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD. So that means it’s most likely to be dated to the fourteenth century, not the thirteenth. And given it suddenly appears in France around 1354 and the local bishop investigated it then and found the guy who faked it, added to the fact that the weave of the linen is one common in the fourteenth century and the image conforms to fourteenth century iconography, it’s pretty clear it dates to the fourteenth century.

  • Matt M

    You all understand that ALL of the most recent evidence supports the Shroud of Turin being the burial cloth of Christ, right (as an inference to the best explanation)?
    All of the comments here seem to be completely ignorant of ALL of the most recent evidence, and the FACT that the Carbon dating done in the 1980s is faulty (cotton was found in the dated samples), there is no cotton in the rest of the shroud. The sample was taken from a damaged corner, because the Church was obsessed with not damaging it, but this corner was repaired centuries ago.
    Those who make these arguments are utterly oblivious to the work done in the past 20 years.
    If all of the most recent evidence is correct, along with the textual support, then the only rational explanation is that this is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. I have studied this matter for the past month, and this is a fact.

    • Utter nonsense. The sample was not taken from any “corner” and it was carefully selected by a team that included a leading textiles expert and they made sure there was no sign of any repair on the edge from which the samples were cut. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who headed up the restoration of the Shroud in 2002 scorns the claims that that samples were from a repaired area, noting that any such “invisible repair”, however skilled, is only “invisible” from one side and would have been immediately noticed when the sample was taken. Any tiny cotton fragments would do nothing to skew the results anyway. And all the evidence clearly indicates it’s a medieval fake.

      • Matt M

        LoL, you have no idea what you’re talking about. It is a FACT that the carbon dating was taken from a damaged corner of the shroud. Seriously, did you read what I just wrote?? I have been studying this subject for a MONTH. Then you roll out arguments that were used 20 – 30 years ago?
        Ray Rogers, an atheist member of the Shroud Research Team (he wanted to debunk it) and chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory (you know that place the developed the nuclear bomb), and who vehemently opposed those who doubted the Carbon results, finally capitulated that it is a fact that the results were taken from a flawed repaired sample.
        You’re merely repeating atheist or skeptic websites that are just desperately clinging to a bunch of old material that is one to three decades out of date.
        I doubt I’ll sit here and debate you about this, I don’t have the time, but who knows if I’ll feel like it or not. The evidence for the shroud is so great, my arguments would avalanche you.
        The carbon dating was a blank, it was flawed. It means nothing. Everyone who follows this knows that. THERE WAS COTTON WOVEN INTO THAT CORNER.

        Just a few citations pertaining to the Carbon Dating, and I could go on and on and on.
        “Chemistry Today” Vol 26, Num 4, Jul/Aug 2008 “Shroud of Turin Carbon Dating Biggest Radiocarbon Mistake Ever.”

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm?
        “The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal.”

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/
        “New scientific tests on the Shroud of Turin, which went on display Saturday in a special TV appearance introduced by the Pope, dates the cloth to ancient times, challenging earlier experiments dating it only to the Middle Ages.”
        “The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.”

        https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud.html
        “Raymond Rogers is a retired physical chemist and former leader of the explosives research and development group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. He proposes that the samples used to date the shroud in 1988 were flawed and the experiment should be repeated.”
        “In 1988 the Vatican allowed postage stamp-size pieces to be snipped from one corner of the shroud and distributed to three laboratories.”
        “Using chemical and microscopic analysis, Rogers revealed that a madder dye and mordant and gum mixture had been wiped onto yarn used on that particular corner of the shroud—indicating that the cloth had been repaired.”

        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html
        “New evidence suggests the Turin Shroud could have been the cloth in which Jesus was buried, as experiments that concluded it was a medieval fake were flawed. “

      • Matt M

        *Crickets* I’m hearing chirps. Not much to say? It’s the weekend now, so if you want to debate me on this, I’ll feed you so many scientific citations that an inference to the best explanation is that the Shroud of Turin is Christ’s burial cloth, that it’ll make your head spin.

        Atheists are so lame. There is so much evidence that God exists, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and that Christianity is true, debating them is nothing more than the easiest exercise that anyone with half a brain could perform. How do I know that you’re an atheist? Because you started your comment with “Utter nonsense”, but have no idea what you’re talking about. This is SO Dawkins-esque it is laughable. Atheists make such authoritative statements of knowledge, but have no idea what they are even saying, you can easily spot them.

        Also, I forgot to mention, you actually appeal to Mechthild Flury-Lemberg in 2002?. Same lame appeal to old evidence. I JUST watched a documentary on the BBC after that 2002 date (after so much more evidence has been uncovered), with her explaining why The Shroud MUST be older than the faulty carbon date. She explains that there is a painting of the Shroud in a Codex from the 11 hundreds. This painting includes the burn marks in the exact same location that occurs in the actual shroud. It IS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE that the carbon date is correct. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpaZcVagTFk Go to 21:00

        • *Crickets* I’m hearing chirps. Not much to say?

          Hilarious. No, I was just away for the weekend and doing things rather more pleasant than responding to someone who thinks he is some kind of expert because he has researched it for a whole “MONTH”. Especially when their idea of “research” seems to consist of watching crackpot documentaries and reading some silly news report about the latest desperate attempts by the Shroudies to rescue their fake artefact from reality. No, the samples were not taken from any “corner” – they were cut, for obvious reasons, away from any edge or corner but near the bottom left corner of the fabric. And I’ve been studying the desperate attempts of Shroudies to deal with the fact this thing has been proven a fake for 30 years, so there is nothing in the silly crap you posted that I haven’t seen 100 times before. The tiny wisps of cotton fabric detected on a couple of the samples simply could not skew the dating in the way your crappy sources claim. And the “invisible mending” plow is simply nonsense for the reasons I explained – the mend would have been immediately noticeable to those taking the samples. There is NO sign if any such mending on the fabric according to the textile experts who were involved in the 2002 restoration. So your favoured attempt at explaining away the C-14 findings simply fails.

          As have all the other various attempts by Shroudies that have come and gone over the last 30 years. They have tried carbon contamination (fail), bioplastic coatings (fail) and even computer hackers changing the three C-14 lab results (seriously). They will try anything, because they are loons.

          Meanwhile the C-14 results fit perfectly with the iconographic evidence, the documentary evidence , the textile evidence and the microscopy evidence that all indicate clearly that the thing is a fourteenth century fake. It even has the out-of-proportion facial and cranial dimensions that we see in late medieval art but do NOT see on actual human heads. So unless your Jesus was a microcephalic mutant, this things is a fake. You need to learn how to research things better.

          • Matt M

            Prediction: You will provide 0 citations (to anything other than atheist websites, or “skeptic” websites) to refute the citations I’m about to give. There will be no citations to more recent scientific journals, there will be no citations to mainstream (even anti-religious) media sources that will refute any of this.
            In your last post, you provided 0 scientific citations to support a damn word you just said. You’re reusing 30 year old arguments that have been contradicted by more recent findings. Those on your side just sound desperate at this point.
            I’m giving you citations from media sources AND scientific peer reviewed journals. Either give me exact scientific refutations for what I’m about to provide, or just quit making yourself look desperate.

            Tell me this, if the Shroud what you’re saying is true, and the date of the Shroud is somewhere in the mid 14th century, then what is a painting of it doing in a codex-book from the 11 hundreds? The painting even contains the burn marks in the exact same location.
            THIS IS FROM THE SAME LADY who was the textile expert, and you cited to me that was your only “proof” that the carbon dating must be correct.

            The last post I provided actual scientific citations, and you provided nothing:

            The BBC article I cited cites the journal Thermochimica Acta.
            “Chemistry Today” Vol 26, Num 4, Jul/Aug 2008 “Shroud of Turin Carbon Dating Biggest Radiocarbon Mistake Ever.”

            Here representation of some of the most important recent findings and data (there are many more):
            1) The image on the shroud was caused by some form of energy.
            “Energy would have been required for the functioning of the discoloration mechanism that to alter the covalent bonds of the carbon atoms in the cellulose molecules that caused the discoloration.” (1a)
            “Di Lazzaro and his colleagues at Italy”s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) conducted five years of experiments, using state-of-the-art excimer lasers to train short bursts of ultraviolet light on raw linen, in an effort to simulate the image”s coloration” (1b)
            Citations:
            1a (academic): http://www.academia.edu/28946606/Role_of_Radiation_in_Image_Formation_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin
            1b (popular): https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150417-shroud-turin-relics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science/
            2) The possibility that the image was painted has been ruled out. The image is uniformly 1-2 threads deep throughout the entire image. Any paint or dye should bleed further into the cloth.
            While previous scientific research had indicated that it was at least possible that there were base paint-like components in the image that could have been used, this has been ruled out with the development of microscopic imaging. There are no brush strokes and the image is exactly uniform in depth throughout the entire image.
            The famous counter argument was Dr. Walter McCrone’s analysis in 1979 http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/v/64/The-Shroud-of-Turin Asserting that iron oxide, hematite, mercuric sulphide was present in the cloth and must have been used as paint.
            It is important to note that the shroud was venerated and painted copies were made, so the shroud was certainly exposed to paint at the microscopic level, having been in front of painters as they painted it.
            There is 0 evidence that the burnt image itself contains paint or pigmentation. If the image is a fake, the forger was able to prevent the paint from going more than 2 threads deep and there are no brush strokes. See image citation below.
            Dr McCrones claim was that the blood was not authentic, but was painted over the image. DNA has been found in the blood. (2d)
            The most glaring statement from done by Dr Raymond Rogers at Los Alamos National Laboratory “This helped confirm the fact that the image was not painted.” (2c)
            Citations:
            2a)(book) Antonacci, M., 2000, “Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence,” M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.73
            2b) Small sample of image fibers.
            https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-abTXSktObRw/VvHbNAgco1I/AAAAAAAAFKc/UN6OYX5AVEQrb-17Ewgtl-rsqUnm0cKWQ/s1600/ImageRightEyeAreaLavoie2000p58Cropped.jpg
            2c) (Scientific) https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers4.pdf Raymond N. Rogers University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM, USA
            2d) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484 “Uncovering Sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud”
            3) The shroud was Carbon Dated to be from the middle ages by independent labs. It has since been proven that a bad sample was taken. The Church demanded that the sample be taken from a damaged far corner. It has since been shown that this corner had been repaired in the past. Cotton existed in the samples that were taken, but there is no cotton in the rest of the shroud, showing that repair work had been done to the edges during the middle ages.
            The shroud has since been dated to the time of Christ. This includes spectroscopic dating.
            “The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.”(3a)
            Even Dr Ray Rogers, one of the leading Shroud Research Team and was an initial vocal skeptic, admitted the Carbon Dating result was useless.
            Citations :
            3a) (Popular)https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/
            3b) (Popular) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
            3c) (scientific) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311809159_Mechanical_Characterization_of_Linen_Fibers_The_Turin_Shroud_Dating
            3d) (scientific) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284132559_Ageing_of_flax_textiles_Fingerprints_in_micro-Raman_spectra_of_single_fibres
            3e) (scientific) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287294012_Mechanical_ond_opto-chemical_dating_of_the_Turin_Shroud
            3f) (scientific)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276400494_Optical_features_of_flax_fibers_coming_from_the_Turin_Shroud
            4) Coins on the eyes of the individual (this was a common practice at the time) can be dated to be in circulation by Pilate.
            Citations:
            4a) http://people.duke.edu/~adw2/shroud/jewish-coins.html
            4b) http://www.numismalink.com/fontanille4.html
            6) There is human blood on the shroud, which refutes one of the most reliable science to dismiss the shroud Dr. Walter McCrone’s assertion that it was merely painted. Not only is no paint found on the image, but now we know that the blood is blood.
            Citations :
            6a) (Scientific) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484 “Uncovering Sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud”
            7) There is bilirubin in the blood on the shroud. Bilirubin is responsible for the coloring seen in bruises. If the shroud is a hoax, it means a man was beaten severely.
            To create a hoax, the individual tortured somebody to get their blood. They anticipated that we would know how to extract it in the future and prove that it was from a beaten individual.
            “Prof. Pierluigi Baima Bollone has shown that the stains on the Shroud of Turin are human blood group AB. From a biochemical viewpoint…not only haemoglobin but also other specific compounds of blood and, among other things, the presence of bilirubin in significant quantities.” (7a)
            citations:
            7a) (medical) http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p04.pdf Dr. Carlo Goldoni Doctor of Medicine, Clinical Pathologist
            8) The person on the shroud has a damaged nose and a facial bones are badly damaged, and eyes were swollen shut. Evidence of a severe beating. (The bible states that Jesus was struck as well as scourged)
            Citations:
            8a) (medical) https://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) “An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud” Robert Bucklin, M.D., J.D.
            9) There are pollen fossils on the shroud from plants that occur in Israel, not just from Europe. I guess the forger anticipated this as well.
            “An analysis of pollen grains and plant images places the origin of the “Shroud of Turin,” thought by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem before the 8th Century.” (9a)
            Citations:
            9a)(Scientific) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990803073154.htm XVI International Botanical Congress
            9b)(Scientific) https://www.shroud.com/danin2.htm (STRUP) Dr. Avinoam Danin, Professor of Botany, Department of Evolution, Systematics, and Ecology The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

            Conclusion: In addition to all of the scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin and all biblical and textual evidence. It is most rational to believe that Christ rose from the dead.
            Conclusion2: You have no idea what you are talking about and will desperately believe whatever you want to.

          • Matt M

            Please tell me you didn’t just submit an entire ranting that I just got in my email where you actually did what I predicted and responded citing absolutely 0 citations?You then went on to say that it’s just “Christians” who are doing all the research, and other people have “better things to do. LOL, you just can’t make this stuff up with atheists. You are “special” lot of people. I told you, there’s atheist, Jews, Christians and agnostics who do this research. What a lame argument.
            I see that your comment isn’t listed here though, just in my email, so perhaps you had the good sense to delete it and try again…
            And sure, if you want to focus on the Hungarian Pray Codex, we can argue about that. And then I’ll prove you wrong about every single thing you just stated.
            The date of the Hungarian Pray Codex is 11 hundreds, there is NOBODY who doubts this, just as there is NOBODY who does not now admit the Carbon Dating was flawed (except delusional atheists who lie and deny evidence even if you smear it in their face). The difference between me and other Fundamentalist Christians, is I’m willing to get in the mud, or go to the mat. Those on your side are so easy to literally prove wrong.
            Go find the date of the Hungarian Pray Codex, and YOU tell me what you think it is, but give me citations other than your own useless opinions.
            Tell me, what is the date of the Pray Codex?

  • Matt M

    Actually I’m taking the compilation I just gave to Tim, and will challenge the entire world (or anyone who happens upon this article 🙂 ) I did all the work, so why not.

    My prediction is this: NOBODY can give any more recent scientific data to refute the following:

    The inference to the best explanation is that along with the textual evidence, and the physical evidence of the shroud of turin, and the historical evidence that witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus Christ died defending their beliefs, and the physical evidence of the Sudarium and the blood on The Sudarium that matches the rare blood type that is on The Shroud; Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and the Shroud of Turin is physical evidence.

    Just *some* of the evidence pertaining to the shroud”

    A representation of some of the most important recent findings and data:
    1) The image on the shroud was caused by some form of energy.
    “Energy would have been required for the functioning of the discoloration mechanism that to alter the covalent bonds of the carbon atoms in the cellulose molecules that caused the discoloration.” (1a)
    “Di Lazzaro and his colleagues at Italy”s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) conducted five years of experiments, using state-of-the-art excimer lasers to train short bursts of ultraviolet light on raw linen, in an effort to simulate the image”s coloration” (1b)
    Citations:
    1a (academic): http://www.academia.edu/28946606/Role_of_Radiation_in_Image_Formation_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin
    1b (popular): https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150417-shroud-turin-relics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science/
    2) The possibility that the image was painted has been ruled out. The image is uniformly 1-2 threads deep throughout the entire image. Any paint or dye should bleed further into the cloth.
    While previous scientific research had indicated that it was at least possible that there were base paint-like components in the image that could have been used, this has been ruled out with the development of microscopic imaging. There are no brush strokes and the image is exactly uniform in depth throughout the entire image.
    The famous counter argument was Dr. Walter McCrone’s analysis in 1979 http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/v/64/The-Shroud-of-Turin Asserting that iron oxide, hematite, mercuric sulphide was present in the cloth and must have been used as paint.
    It is important to note that the shroud was venerated and painted copies were made, so the shroud was certainly exposed to paint at the microscopic level, having been in front of painters as they painted it.
    There is 0 evidence that the burnt image itself contains paint or pigmentation. If the image is a fake, the forger was able to prevent the paint from going more than 2 threads deep and there are no brush strokes. See image citation below.
    Dr McCrones claim was that the blood was not authentic, but was painted over the image. DNA has been found in the blood. (2d)
    The most glaring statement from done by Dr Raymond Rogers at Los Alamos National Laboratory “This helped confirm the fact that the image was not painted.” (2c)
    Citations:
    2a)(book) Antonacci, M., 2000, “Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence,” M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.73
    2b) Small sample of image fibers.
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-abTXSktObRw/VvHbNAgco1I/AAAAAAAAFKc/UN6OYX5AVEQrb-17Ewgtl-rsqUnm0cKWQ/s1600/ImageRightEyeAreaLavoie2000p58Cropped.jpg
    2c) (Scientific) https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers4.pdf Raymond N. Rogers University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM, USA
    2d) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484 “Uncovering Sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud”
    3) The shroud was Carbon Dated to be from the middle ages by independent labs. It has since been proven that a bad sample was taken. The Church demanded that the sample be taken from a damaged far corner. It has since been shown that this corner had been repaired in the past. Cotton existed in the samples that were taken, but there is no cotton in the rest of the shroud, showing that repair work had been done to the edges during the middle ages.
    The shroud has since been dated to the time of Christ. This includes spectroscopic dating.
    “The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.”(3a)
    Even Dr Ray Rogers, one of the leading Shroud Research Team and was an initial vocal skeptic, admitted the Carbon Dating result was useless.
    Citations :
    3a) (Popular)https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/
    3b) (Popular) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
    3c) (scientific) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311809159_Mechanical_Characterization_of_Linen_Fibers_The_Turin_Shroud_Dating
    3d) (scientific) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284132559_Ageing_of_flax_textiles_Fingerprints_in_micro-Raman_spectra_of_single_fibres
    3e) (scientific) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287294012_Mechanical_ond_opto-chemical_dating_of_the_Turin_Shroud
    3f) (scientific)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276400494_Optical_features_of_flax_fibers_coming_from_the_Turin_Shroud
    4) Coins on the eyes of the individual (this was a common practice at the time) can be dated to be in circulation by Pilate.
    Citations:
    4a) http://people.duke.edu/~adw2/shroud/jewish-coins.html
    4b) http://www.numismalink.com/fontanille4.html
    6) There is human blood on the shroud, which refutes one of the most reliable science to dismiss the shroud Dr. Walter McCrone’s assertion that it was merely painted. Not only is no paint found on the image, but now we know that the blood is blood.
    Citations :
    6a) (Scientific) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484 “Uncovering Sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud”
    7) There is bilirubin in the blood on the shroud. Bilirubin is responsible for the coloring seen in bruises. If the shroud is a hoax, it means a man was beaten severely.
    To create a hoax, the individual tortured somebody to get their blood. They anticipated that we would know how to extract it in the future and prove that it was from a beaten individual.
    “Prof. Pierluigi Baima Bollone has shown that the stains on the Shroud of Turin are human blood group AB. From a biochemical viewpoint…not only haemoglobin but also other specific compounds of blood and, among other things, the presence of bilirubin in significant quantities.” (7a)
    citations:
    7a) (medical) http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p04.pdf Dr. Carlo Goldoni Doctor of Medicine, Clinical Pathologist
    8) The person on the shroud has a damaged nose and a facial bones are badly damaged, and eyes were swollen shut. Evidence of a severe beating. (The bible states that Jesus was struck as well as scourged)
    Citations:
    8a) (medical) https://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) “An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud” Robert Bucklin, M.D., J.D.
    9) There are pollen fossils on the shroud from plants that occur in Israel, not just from Europe. I guess the forger anticipated this as well.
    “An analysis of pollen grains and plant images places the origin of the “Shroud of Turin,” thought by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem before the 8th Century.” (9a)
    Citations:
    9a)(Scientific) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990803073154.htm XVI International Botanical Congress
    9b)(Scientific) https://www.shroud.com/danin2.htm (STRUP) Dr. Avinoam Danin, Professor of Botany, Department of Evolution, Systematics, and Ecology The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

    Conclusion: In addition to all of the scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin and all biblical and textual evidence. It is most rational to believe that Christ rose from the dead.

  • Matt M

    Once again, you just rambled, but didn’t provide ANYTHING as far as citations pertaining to this question. LOL, you guys are great. I could do this for a living if I could. You just gave a bunch of pictures from “other” art from the middle ages that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Pray Codex. Seriously?
    Focus like a laser and answer ONE question, when was the Pray Codex dated? Answer this one question and we can go from there and answer your other questions.
    Seriously? Why the hell was the image not on The Shroud in the Pray Codex??? LOL You actually ask that question? They’re effing laying his dead corpse in it. The image did not occur until the resurrection. Obviously they did not lay his corpse into a shroud that already bared his resurrected image.
    Focus like he proverbial laser and answer ONE EFFING QUESTION for once. What is the date of the Pray Codex? If you can answer this simple question, we’ll go from there.

    • “You just gave a bunch of pictures from “other” art from the middle ages that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Pray Codex.

      I just posted a large number of direct analogues to the illumination in question to show that what you and your fellow clueless Shroudies have misinterepted as a depiction of your “Shroud” is actually a tomb lid.

      Why the hell was the image not on The Shroud in the Pray Codex??? LOL You actually ask that question? They’re effing laying his dead corpse in it. The image did not occur until the resurrection.

      The illumination that supposedly depicts your “Shroud” is the bottom one, which depicts the women arriving at the tomb AFTER the resurrection. Have you actually read the gospels at all? Try Mark 16:1-8, Matt 28:1-10 and Luke 24:1-12. So why isn’t the image on the so-called “Shroud” in the illumination, since the whole point of the picture is the angel is showing the women the empty tomb and telling them Jesus has risen? Isn’t the idea that the image was magically impressed on the cloth at the (supposed) resurrection?

      “Obviously they did not lay his corpse into a shroud that already bared his resurrected image. “

      This is getting hilarious. See above.

      “Focus like he proverbial laser and answer ONE EFFING QUESTION for once. What is the date of the Pray Codex? If you can answer this simple question, we’ll go from there.”

      I’ve already referred to it as an eleventh century manuscript several times. Why are you asking me a question about something that is not in dispute? The date of the manuscript is not the issue. The fact that the object in question does not have an image of Jesus on it and is clearly the lid of the tomb as per the multiple analogues I gave you is the actual issue.

      “I could do this for a living if I could.”

      You would quickly starve, judging from your hilarious incompetence above.

      • Matt M

        I love how you gave the EASIEST refutation possible. Obviously there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that can explain why the painting in The Pray Codex has an “L” shape that looks exactly like the “L” shape on The Shroud, in the exact same location. It could be pure luck. The Pray Codex shows Jesus being laid on a Shroud, then something that YOU interpret as something else in the painting that follows.
        You have no idea what you are talking about.
        However, any rational person would see differently. You have demonstrated NOTHING to contradict this fact. Even the textile expert that you tried to cite to support your imbecilic position contradicts you. You then dismiss her, because it doesn’t support you lame and illogical viewpoint anymore. So here is another source.
        newgeology.us/presentation24.html
        “In the Budapest National Library is the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, or Pray Codex, the oldest surviving text of the Hungarian language. It was written between 1192 and 1195 AD (65 years before the earliest Carbon-14 date in the 1988 tests). One of its illustrations shows preparations for the burial of Christ. The picture includes a burial cloth with the same herringbone weave as the Shroud, plus 4 holes near one of the edges. The holes form an “L” shape. This odd pattern of holes is found on the Shroud of Turin. They are burn holes, perhaps from a hot poker or incense embers that predate the 1532 fire. There are four sets of the holes, showing how the Shroud must have been folded in four layers when the holes were made. The holes in the top layer are large, and they get progressively smaller in the next three.”
        And yes, I have read the Gospels several times, and you have no idea what you are talking about.
        You cite NOTHING, you just give your lame opinion about everything. Your only “citations” are a bunch of images that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject.
        I know that you chose this because it is the easiest point for you to argue. The other ones will not be so easy. I will cite scientific source after scientific source.
        If you think there is an “L” shape mark in The Pray Codex that matches the exact same “L” shape burn mark on The Shroud is not an inference to the best explanation that they are the same, then you are an imbecile. And truly, you are an imbecile.

        • “Obviously there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that can explain why the painting in The Pray Codex has an “L” shape that looks exactly like the “L” shape on The Shroud, in the exact same location. It could be pure luck. “

          Four rather vague marks on a pieve of decidely primitive and inexpertly executed art is your “evidence”? Seriously?

          “The Pray Codex shows Jesus being laid on a Shroud”

          Yes, in the upper picture. A shroud depicted with wavy edges used by the same artist in this and the other illuminations in the manuscript to indicate cloth. And a shroud that does not have the “herringbone” decoration of the object in the lower picture which you seem to think is your “Shroud”. And that object has straight edges, unlike the cloth shown in the upper picture.

          “then something that YOU interpret as something else in the painting that follows.”

          I gave you dozens of analogues that clearly show it IS “something else”. It;s the lid of the tomb. You can’t simply ignore all that evidence. It is not a shroud.

          And you’ve just skipped over the fact that your so-called “shroud” in the lower picture has no image of Jesus on it. And then there’s your hilarious blunder about which episode the lower image is depicting – it’s a scene AFTER the resurrection, when it should have an image on it. You have not explained why this illumination would supposedly show details like the (supposed) herringbone weave and the (alleged) burn marks but would somehow to neglect to show … the image of Jesus.

          “Even the textile expert that you tried to cite to support your imbecilic position contradicts you. “

          I’ll pay attention to a textile expert on textiles, thanks. See if you can find an expert on medieval iconography who wouldn’t look at that image and imediately say “That’s the tomb lid that is always shown on images of this topos”. Good luck.

          “So here is another source.”

          Translation: “Here is another lame, amateurish webpage by a Christian nobody and kooky Creationist who just repeats the same crap as me”.

          “You cite NOTHING, you just give your lame opinion about everything. “

          Yawn. Explain why (i) your supposed “shroud” in the Pray ilumination does not have an image of Jesus on it, (ii) why it is depicted differently to the actual shroud in the upper image and (iii) why every one of the dozens of images of this same topos clearly shows that the object in the lower image is actually the tomb lid.

          “And truly, you are an imbecile.”

          Someone is certainly coming out of this exchange looking pretty silly, but it ain’t me pal. You should give up now.

          • Matt M

            “And you’ve just skipped over the fact that your so-called “shroud” in the lower picture has no image of Jesus on it. And your blunder about how the lower image is depicting a scene AFTER the resurrection, when it should have an image on it.”
            Almost NOBODY can see the image one The Shroud. It is so faint that many people look at it and see nothing, or very little. Like pictures of Jesus on their toast. You expect a painting to represent the image of almost nothing? Until photographs were taken of it and revealed the opposite-negatives, until it was looked at under ultraviolet light, nobody thought much of it whatsoever except that it may be yet “another” possible Catholic Relic. Obviously the image does not appear on it, because most people could barely see it.
            Yet, once again, you provided 0 citations to contradict the citations that I gave you.
            You give 0 citations for any of your arguments. Your arguments amount to 0, because you give 0 citations to contradict them.
            You claim that the sources are “Christians”, but I give you citations from people who are ATHEISTS like Ray Rogers, who was a chemist from the Los Alamos Laboratory.
            I’M BEGGING YOU. Give me a damn citation for any fricken incoherent argument that you make.
            This will be the crux of our conversation. I gave you a citation http://newgeology.us/presentation24.html
            This is not a “Christian” citation. Give me any citation. ANYTHING, that contradicts this.
            You have given NOTHING for citations except for “other” random images that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Pray Codex.
            I’m literally begging you for these citations. I will address nothing, and will talk about nothing other than the citations you can provide.
            Start providing actual citations that contradict what I just gave you, or I will demand them again, and again, and again.

          • “Almost NOBODY can see the image one The Shroud. It is so faint that many people look at it and see nothing, or very little.”

            Garbage. It’s faint, but to pretend that “amost nobody can see it” is ludicrous, even for you.

            “Yet, once again, you provided 0 citations”

            Yawn. Still no response to the fact that I gave you dozens of analogues that show your manusctript depicts a tomb lid, not a “Shroud”.

            “I gave you a citation http://newgeology.us/presen
            This is not a “Christian” citation.”

            It is. Have a look at the rest of that page, including the kooky Creationist stuff. And you don’t seem to know what the word “citation” means. It isn’t posting a link to some clown’s crappy website.

            “”other” random images that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Pray Codex.”

            Er yup. I’ve wasted enough time on you. Go away.

          • Matt M

            Once again, ANYBODY, sees this but you. I demanded citations. You gave 0.
            You claim that is “Cooky” creationist stuff, and I would probably support EVERYTHING they have to say.
            Once again provide actual citations that contradict it, from any person at all, whatsoever, who has looked at it, or shut the hell up.

          • Matt M

            You gave NO citations to anything. Not to atheists, not to skeptics, not to scientists, not to textile experts, not to amateurs, not to random atheist websites. You gave nothing, except your own lame opinion. You lose.

          • Matt M

            Here’s your last fricking chance, you lying imbecile.
            I’ve been looking at the image VERY CLOSELY. IT DOES NOT HAVE STRAIGHT EDGES YOU EFFING LIAR.
            It literally has mildly wavy edges, I’m looking at a close up of it right now. The reason there is no “image”is because we are looking at the outside of it.
            You made me go look this shit up again because you are an absolute LIAR. I can’t even take your word for anything because you are a lying prick, just like every single atheist I have ever seen.
            Literally, go to this page at the Shroud of Turin Research Project (which includes atheists, agnostics, jews and christians, if you do not believe me I will show you articles submitted to this project from years passed, before all the new evidence came out, all they did is doubt the shroud).
            https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlmader2.pdf
            GO TO PAGE 3. They have an enlarged image. It literally arcs from the left hand corner of the painting, and curves, and has slightly waving edges. It is not even possible that this is a “tomb cover” as it makes an arc. It literally has an “L” shape in the exact same location as the shroud.
            You’re a stupid effing liar, that is why I hate atheists. All you do is make shit up and lie.
            Either start giving me actual citations for a word you say, or shut the hell up.
            GIVE ME A CITATION FOR A WORD YOU SAY. You cannot. It is not even possible. You’re a lying LOSER.
            GIVE ME A CITATION.
            GIVE ME A CITATION.
            GIVE ME A CITATION.
            GIVE ME A CITATION.

          • This is not your blog, and so it is entirely inappropriate to deliver ultimatums. You should also know that I discourage the use of profanity not least because it has a detrimental effect on the level of conversation. If you cannot engage in the kind of discussion of this matter that would be appropriate in an academic context, there are plenty of sites where no one moderates and vulgarity and shouting are the rule, and so you might prefer to take this up there. Given that Tim O’Neill is an atheist who has taken a stand against poorly-informed atheist claims related to the historicity of Jesus and other matters, your tone and your accusations are not merely inappropriate but unconscionable. Insisting that the overwhelming majority of scholars and historians, who consider the Shroud of Turin to most likely be a medieval fraud, must all be liars is similarly inappropriate. Make a case against the consensus of experts if you are so inclined, but shouting and insulting others will not enhance your credibility, and will more likely have the opposite effect.

          • Matt M

            It’s your blog, as you state, so I’ll respect your wishes. I won’t make another comment here.
            I think that looking at evidence and utterly lying is unconscionable. And no, I am not making a case against “the consensus of experts”. Can you cite a poll or research to support this statement? You cannot, because you just made it up. That is what I hate. All I cite are actual scientists involved in the actual research. That is ALL I cite.
            I don’t tolerate people staring at things and then lying about what they are seeing. I don’t tolerate people making up evidence. I don’t tolerate people lying.
            Tim could have either provide citations to support a single argument he made, which he couldn’t, so I was obligated to show it to him that he is lying in the face of evidence. He could have chosen not to talk to me if he wished.
            Like I said, I’ll say no more. If I see this kind of lame reasoning anywhere, I’ll stomp on its proverbial face.

          • Matt M

            And also, it doesn’t seem to bother you, that instead of providing citations of any sort, he just refers to me the whole time as a “Shroudie”. Ad-hominens, in his entire argument, no citations, denial of every bit of evidence. But, I’m the wrong one for “yelling” to demand any evidence whatsoever.
            Simply unbelievable.

          • I know that a lot of effort has been made to give the impression that there is a burgeoning academic research program related to the shroud and which supports its authenticity, and that there is some kind of conspiracy to cover this up. That is not my impression from speaking to historians and other academics with relevant expertise. Many of the supposedly academic websites and organizations, and many of the statements attributed to purported experts, turn out to be something other than what they appear under closer examination. Please consider as well that, in trying an artifact of doubtful authenticity to the question of Jesus’ resurrection, you are doing what young-earth creationists do when they tie belief in God to their antievolutionist agenda. When the supposed scientific claims are shown to be problematic, it is liable to cause those whose faith was tied to those claims to be shaken. That seems ill-advised.

          • John MacDonald

            I saw something up in the sky the other day that kinda looked like Jesus. It was the Cloud of Turin.

          • Matt M

            Since you wrote me back, I wanted to take the chance to apologize for my tone, and to apologize to Tim, if he reads it.
            Here I’m arguing about Jesus of all things. I apologize Tim.
            Obviously there are areas of my own that I can do much, much better as a Christian.
            I agree with you that the Shroud, as a piece of cloth, is not a very good basis for faith. I am merely arguing, that based on the most recent evidence, much of which I cited, it is an inference to the best explanation that it is Jesus’s burial cloth. Obviously, if they did ten Carbon datings in a row that matched the Spectroscopy tests that dated it to Christ, all of that could be thrown into doubt if they even did 1 more Carbon test that didn’t match up. In my opinion, Tim does not seem to care a bit about the most recent evidence. He attributes it to a Christian-conspiracy, even though I cited by name, an atheist chemist on the team from Los Alamos Lab, who was the entire reason the Carbon Date was thrown into doubt, and he still continues to claim “it’s all just a bunch of Christians” (therefore lying like I said). Then he literally claimed that the reason he could provide 0 citations is because “nobody cares”, despite the claims that it is probably the most studied artifact in the Western World. That was frustrating to me, but is still no excuse for my tone.
            Once again, I apologize.

          • “He attributes it to a Christian-conspiracy”

            I said nothing of the sort.

            “Then he literally claimed that the reason he could provide 0 citations is because “nobody cares”

            Also nonsense. I said there are no post-1988 scientific studies on whether the “Shroud” is authentic because that was settled, as far as everyone but a tiny handful of Shroud true believers is concerned, by the C-14 results. There has been, however, commentary on the tactics this tiny handful of Shroudies have been trying to use to avoid the fact that their favourite artefact has been shown to be a fake. You can dismiss that as just being “stuff from atheists and sceptics” if you like, but since no-one else is very interested I’m afraid that’s all you’re ever going to get.

            And no, I’m not interested in re-starting the debate with you. Your comments above show that your reading comprehensions skills are simply not up to it and it seems your biases mean that you can’t manage a reasonable exchange without screaming at people. For anyone else, if you want a reasonably detailed summary of why no-one with any background in the subject takes the claims of the Shroudies seriously, Bad Archeology has a good rundown on the whole issue, including the Shroudies’ rear-guard attempts at rescuing their fake from science – which can be read here. Enjoy.

            PS Thanks for your intervention James. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not some unresaonable biased sceptic.

          • Matt M

            Once again, I apologize for yelling at you and name calling. It is not a Christian thing to do at all. You deserve my sincere apology, and I’m not just saying it because Dr McGrath scolded me. It was wrong.

            Here’s another challenge to you. I know for a fact that you realize you’ve lost this debate, you just can’t be that stupid (and I’m not calling you stupid, you are not). My prediction is you wont’ because you know that you’ll lose badly.
            I CHALLENGE YOU to go to Debate.org, where the debate will go through a voting process. We can even request that an expert be voter.
            I will ram scientific citation after scientific citation after scientific citation that is NEWER than 1988 that will support everything i say.
            They do not allow name calling, and they do not allow ad-hominen. It is timed, but we can set the time so you have like a few days for each round.
            If I scream at you, or swear at you, I lose points. I already had this debate there, with one of their top debaters, who is ranked in the ahead of 99.99% of the debaters three (or the top .001) there. He forfeited.

            The debate proposition will be: “The Shroud of Turin is Christ’s burial cloth and is more evidence that He rose from the dead” I will be the “Pro” and you will be the “Con”
            They aren’t going to fall for this hand-waving BS and just assertion that “every body accepts the 1988 dating, because.. I said so.” with almost 0 citations You will lose badly.
            Either way, my prediction is that you will be too afraid, because you aren’t a stupid person, and unless you’re delusional, you know how bad you’ve been beaten.
            Create a user there, give it the user name, and I’ll challenge you to the debate, you can look over the proposition, the rounds and the time, and accept it or request changes. Now that I know how your debating works (a bunch of hand waving and assertions with almost no citations), you will lose badly.
            Benefit for you too, you also know how I debate.
            I can’t wait to see your excuses for this one. My guess is, even after having discussed this for like 3 days you’ll claim it doesn’t interest you, or you dont’ have the time.

            Responding to your repeated arguments, yet again, that you cite nothing for.
            “Bad Archeology”?? Seriously, you consider that a citation? LOL You just can’t make this stuff up.

            You: “I said nothing of the sort.” (Pertaining to Christian conspiracies)
            Quote, you one day ago from You:
            “There are a few, who – surprise, suprise – always just happen to be Christians, who are fighting a rear-guard action against reality, with garbage arguments”

            Me: “Then he literally claimed that the reason he could provide 0 citations is because “nobody cares””
            You: “Also nonsense.”
            Quote you one day ago from You:
            “Most scientists don’t bother with stuff continuing to debunk the supposed “Shroud” because they accept the 1988 finding that it is a fake and have much better things to do ”

            You: ” I said there are no post-1988 scientific studies on whether the “Shroud” is authentic because that was settled, ” LOL, this is demonstrably false,
            as I keep citing,and you just ignore them.
            You provide 0 evidence to support this statement, no citations, nothing except to “Bad Archeology”.

            The ATHEIST chemist from Los Alamos Lab, one of the most prestiious in the world, absolutely doubts the dating (as does everybody)
            Published in Therma Acta http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF (Shroud of Turin Research Team)
            “In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin…The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.”
            THE RADIOCARBON DATE WAS THUS NOT VALID FOR DETERMINGING THE TRUE AGE OF THE SHROUD” (CAPPS MINE)
            Get it? It’s in doubt.

            The shroud date is proven to be false, you can provide NOTHING to refute this. I’m prediction that all you’re going to give yet again is more hand waving, but provide 0 citations, except perhaps another skeptic website (seriously did you just cite “Bad Acheology” from 2009)??
            Sory man, your arguments just can’t be taken seriously…. You claim everyone accepts the date, and almost nobody who has done further research thinks this.

            Other science journal and popular media citations pertaining to the date, and the corner being repaired. You will provide 0 legitimate refutations. Using minimal quations from articles to save space
            http://www.west.net/~shroud/pdfs/ssi43part1.pdf
            ” fibers from the radiocarbon sample were included in the microspectrophotometric-FTIR study cited above13 for comparison with other
            Shroud fiber types. The radiocarbon samples show a distinctly different spectrum and therefore it can be inferred that their composition is not typical of the rest of the cloth. ”
            ” the fact that the accuracy of the
            radiocarbon date can be questioned on the basis of direct experimental evidence.”
            (Scientific) “Chemistry Today” Vol 26, Num 4, Jul/Aug 2008 “Shroud of Turin Carbon Dating Biggest Radiocarbon Mistake Ever.”
            (Popular)https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/
            (Popular) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
            (scientific) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311809159_Mechanical_Characterization_of_Linen_Fibers_The_Turin_Shroud_Dating
            (scientific) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284132559_Ageing_of_flax_textiles_Fingerprints_in_micro-Raman_spectra_of_single_fibres
            (scientific) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287294012_Mechanical_ond_opto-chemical_dating_of_the_Turin_Shroud
            (scientific)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276400494_Optical_features_of_flax_fibers_coming_from_the_Turin_Shroud
            (scientific) http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers.pdf Dr Raymond Rogers PHD Los Alamos Lab
            (Scientific) http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-5.PDF Dr Raymond Rogers PHD PHD Los Alamos Lab
            (Textile) https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf Mechthild Flury-Lemberg
            ***NOTE, she supports your position, but she asserts that her position is not accepted by science.
            (Popular)https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud.html “Recent Findings Renew Authenticity Debate”
            “using chemical and microscopic analysis…indicating that the cloth had been repaired ”
            (Scientific) High Resolution Photo-Microscopy; Drs Elvio Carlino , Liberato De Caro, Cinzia Giannini, Giulio Fanti
            “A mechanical analysis coupled with opto-chemical measurements has recently dated the TS to 90 AD ±200 years ”
            (Science) http://campus.usal.es/~licesio/T_I_Farmacia/shroud.pdf
            “the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin”

          • “I know for a fact that you realize you’ve lost this debate”

            That is the funniest thing I have read all month. This time I really am wasting no more time on you. Goodbye.

          • Matt M

            Funny? Why not laugh yourself over to Debate.org and we can present our arguments and have it voted on by people who do nothing but debate?
            The reason you won’t is because you know for a fact you lost and will lose.
            Your only debate tactic is dismissive hand waving, assertion, and pretending you’re an authority. You claim there is no evidence that a date is in doubt, and then when given like a dozen citations that this is factually wrong, you just ignore them and dismiss them and pretend that you’re such an authority, you must still be right.
            These lame tactics just won’t work there. They may work for you to convince yourself that you’re right, but nobody else will buy it. You’d get laughed out.
            If you really think you’re right (which I simply cannot believe you do), then consider debating me there.
            If not, then I wish you the best.

          • Matt M

            Debate.org? Where there’s voting by people who have been involved in debate, study, or do it as regular hobby? How about it? Debate.org? Are you there?
            No more hand waving statements like “everyone accepts the Carbon Dating”… “because I said so” (as though you know one way or the other). Debate.org?
            Clearly all of your arguments were irrefutable, and I was wrong. Let’s go there and see what other people think, who actually care about debates.
            Prove me wrong to my face. Show me how wrong I was. I’m begging you. I want to be shown that all of this “Shroudie” stuff has no evidence because of the lame 1988 Carbon Dating argument.

          • Matters of science and history are not settled by debates among online hobbyists. If they were, then the conclusion of mythicists that there was no historical Jesus would have to be considered validated.

          • Matt M

            I honestly disagree Dr. You need to understand that hobbyist and amateur debaters take it very seriously.
            Quality evidence (such as scientific and historical peer-reviewed journals, not the “Bad Archeology” website) is very important to them when scoring debates. Also the study of logic.
            I think I’d win an argument with a mythicist easily. I’d simply provide a troop of citations from every manner of PHDs in the subject area, in the thousands if need be. People from The Society of Biblical Literature, and universities all over the world. This would include orthodox Christian, liberal Christian, Jew, agnostic, atheist and everything in between.
            They have looked at the evidence carefully, and almost to a rate of 100%, agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I’d then compare this to maybe the 3 or 4 PHDs on the planet, who make some of the most bizarre arguments I’ve ever heard, about how Jesus probably didn’t exist. I’d even take their exact arguments and apply them to any other person in ancient history and show how absurd it is. Honestly I’d have to read up on the subject for a while, as I’m not very versed on it, but I think that debate would be easy. In my humble opinion.

          • Everyone not involved in academia, and/or who is not an academic who engages with fringe viewpoints on the internet, thinks they would win an argument easily. But take a look at the debate between Bart Ehrman vs. Robert Price, for instance, and try to understand how it can be that some people still think mythicism is preferable.

            It should be that, whether on the existence of Jesus or the authenticity of the shroud of Turin, you defer to the consensus of experts – as reflected in the agreement of academics around the world or reflected in stances of organizations like the Society of Biblical Literature (which rarely takes stances, as it happens, for better or worse). One can always find articles trying to make the case for something – whether the ahistoricity of Jesus or the authenticit of the shroud – but the onus is on those authors to persuade the academy as a whole or at least the vast majority. Until they do so, then if one embraces that minority or fringe view, one should at least do so in full humble acknowledgment that one is adopting a viewpoint that most experts consider unconvincing, if not indeed dubious.

          • Matt M

            Dr McGrath, I mostly agree with you. However, this might sound hard to believe, but people who care deeply about the subject of debate are not merely “people on the internet”. I do not think it is possible, that a person who believes in mythicism (If that is what Robert Price represents), could win a debate on the subject vs someone like Bart Ehrman. If as I understand correctly, he is a renowned expert on The Bible and The Gospels (not sure exactly what his specific area of expertise on the matter is). The only way he could lose, is if he is so bad at debate, that he wasn’t able to put his vast knowledge on the subject into a coherent, logical argument while on the stump. I have not studied the subject in any manner of detail, but it is obvious, IMMEDIATELY, that the evidence is overwhelming against Jesus Mythicism.
            The “consensus” of academics can be, and is, regularly wrong. The vast majority of scientists (at a rate near 100%) were wrong when they believed that the universe was static and eternal (including Einstein). The vast majority of scientists were wrong when they believed in The Steady State Universe in the 1960s (or 50s or whenever it was). A vast majority of scientists were wrong when they believed in The Eternal Osculating Universe, they were all wrong. Many, if not a consensus of historians were wrong in Europe when Jesus Mythicism actually was taken seriously in academia back sometime in the 1800s (not exactly sure when). They are wrong all the time.
            Either way, debaters are usually way better than most at picking out what are good arguments, and bad arguments, rather you believe it or not. It is a fact, that the current evidence for The Shroud of Turin being the shroud of Jesus Christ utterly outweighs the evidence to the contrary.
            You are far more educated than I, so I will not try to pretend like I’m an expert on much of anything. This is all just my opinion.

          • Unless you are suggesting that internet debates among non-physicists improved upon Albert Einstein’s work, then you are supporting my point rather than your own. When the consensus of experts has been wrong, it has been the scholarly enterprise that has changed that, precisely through ongoing research and rigorous academic debate.

          • Matt M

            I’m absolutely not suggesting that internet debates improved much upon anything, as the internet did not exist 🙂 (Just kidding). However, there were many, many people, from different fields, other than physics, that knew for a fact that Einstein was wrong. In logic, we know for a fact about the logical absurdity of actual infinities. An illustration would be a NASCAR driver who has driven an infinite number of laps around a circuit at 200 mph. Simultaneously, a little girl, rode her tricycle an infinite number or times around her “play race-track” at 2 mph the whole time, an infinite number of times. Who has gone further? They have both gone for infinity. That is why “infinity” is logically incoherent. Einstein was largely oblivious to the study of logic, that is why his beliefs about the universe have been utterly refuted in a very short amount of time.
            Any person, who was even mildly astute in various other fields, could have easily told him that his hypothesis (at least pertaining to the origin of the Cosmos), were all wrong.
            Actually, one did. Father Georges Lemaitre, who actually was very knowledgeable in more than one subject, tried to tell him. He was a priest, and a physicist. This expanded knowlege made him realize the utter absurdity of the consensus belief among physicists at the time. He developed the Big Bang Model. Look it up. He understood the absurdity of actual infinity, and knew for a fact, that the universe must have had a beginning. Actual infinities are logically incoherent. There are still atheistic cosmologists today, who are utterly oblivious to logic, and still try to cling on to the same arguments (IE Sean Carroll). But now, it’s an infinite number of “parallel universes” that got us here. This is all so logically incoherent, and once again, I can explain why in 10 mins, but he is clearly oblivious to this (though he is much smarter than me, but ignorant in many other areas, but his own expertise of physics).
            Either way, people who only study one area of Epistemology, are not qualified to make statements as to the best evidence, as it contrasts to other areas of epistemology. People who focus on exactly one area of expertise (these people are super-important) need only provide facts pertaining to what they uncovering in their area of expertise. Drawing broader conclusions is not their task. People who study broader areas, and are experts in logic, are better suited at drawing broader conclusions.

          • It seems to me quite rude to tell someone to “look it up” when it is something that they have blogged about and taught about for many years. 🙁

            Whether the idea that God and/or the universe could be infinite is incoherent is not really relevant to this, but the seeming absurdity of the track illustration is akin to other seeming absurdities in physics, whether the thought experiment about Schroedinger’s cat or the two-slit experiment. That something seems absurd, or absolutely proven, to a person who does not work in the field, or even to an individual or two who does, is not how the probability of a conclusion being correct or incorrect is best determined.

          • Matt M

            Ok… I didn’t mean to sound rude. I guess it doesn’t offend me too much when people tell me to look something up, even when it pertains to what I do for a living. Maybe they just didn’t know if I knew about that particular thing or not.
            Anyhow, i apologize for that. It wasn’t meant to be rude.
            Either way, I think Einstein should have been more willing to listen to someone who knew about broader subjects and that the universe must have a beginning. He was absolutely vehement on defending the consensus. He called Lemaitres cosmology “atrocious” When proven utterly wrong after Hubble’s discovery, he later referred to this as “The biggest mistake of my life”.
            I’m not saying you don’t already know all that, I’m just using it as an example pertaining to the fickleness of the consensus.