If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Shroud of Turin may not be a hoax after all. I'm not saying it's Jesus, but it's Jesus   (foxnews.com) divider line 433
    More: Interesting, Shroud of Turin, carbon datings  
•       •       •

14921 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



433 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-29 07:54:11 AM  
jesus or republican jesus??
 
2013-03-29 08:05:35 AM  
The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?
 
2013-03-29 08:18:55 AM  
Jesus was an alien.
 
2013-03-29 08:22:19 AM  

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.


Possibly, I mean we've shown just in the last 8 years that humans tend to lack any public empathy and compassion, so maybe he was alien to this world

...or maybe Americans are just aliens to this world

/study it out
 
2013-03-29 08:32:29 AM  
How fortunate that Fox can get the Shroud of Turin in the news, just in time for Easter!
 
2013-03-29 08:44:53 AM  
It could be jesus, but the question is, who and or what was Jesus
 
2013-03-29 08:45:38 AM  
Must have been a study last month proving it was fake. This back and forth has been going on for decades now.
 
2013-03-29 08:45:44 AM  
ansnuclearcafe.org
 
2013-03-29 08:47:16 AM  
Yeah, and this might be true too.  But I doubt it.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-29 08:47:22 AM  
Two words missing there were "peer" and "reviewed".


/Padova is awesome
 
2013-03-29 08:48:38 AM  
Or someone that lived around that time.  Who knows.
 
2013-03-29 08:48:55 AM  
Fanti told the paper he rejects the conclusion of carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that bolstered the theory the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century in a medieval forgery.

Wanting to believe doesn't make it true.
 
2013-03-29 08:49:05 AM  

Hack Patooey:


That's a lot of balogna.

/the shroud of Turin is bullshiat
 
2013-03-29 08:49:40 AM  
It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.
 
2013-03-29 08:50:14 AM  

Close2TheEdge: Yeah, and this might be true too.  But I doubt it.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 409x384]


And in the third state he rode again
He absconded into safe haven and is seated at the right hand of Bat Father
 
2013-03-29 08:50:53 AM  
Jesus H. Christ?
 
2013-03-29 08:51:10 AM  
Those results, Fanti said, were "false" because of laboratory contamination, the Telegraph reported.

Sounds legit.
 
2013-03-29 08:51:29 AM  
FTA: The research linking the shroud to between 280 B.C. and A.D. 220


So they've narrowed it down to a 500-year period? That's some fine detective work there, Lou.
 
2013-03-29 08:52:11 AM  
i think they're just trying to get it to a point where pointing out their fantasy can be labeled 'The War on Shrouds'.
 
2013-03-29 08:52:35 AM  
I'm pretty sure the shroud exists.
 
2013-03-29 08:52:55 AM  
A made-up story about a hoax artifact, posted by a major news site on a religious holiday? Why, that can in no way be a ratings grab!
 
rpm
2013-03-29 08:52:57 AM  

Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.


Possibly not painted.
 
2013-03-29 08:53:02 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: jesus or republican jesus??


Democrat Jesus.  He was a Jew...
 
2013-03-29 08:53:19 AM  
Even if they could date it to that time period, there's no way they can ever identify who left the "image" on the cloth. It's all a waste of time.

They didn't believe the carbon dating, but I bet they will believe this in a hurry.
 
2013-03-29 08:53:31 AM  

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.


I think he was Spanish, Mexico wasn't even a country at that time.
 
2013-03-29 08:54:01 AM  

PsyLord: Or someone that lived around that time.  Who knows.


This. Even if it does date back to Jesus's time, that doesn't mean it was Jesus's burial shroud...it could've been someone's table cloth.
 
2013-03-29 08:54:14 AM  

Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.


This. The geometry of the face alone makes it a fake. I don't know why people are still arguing for authenticity.
 
2013-03-29 08:55:30 AM  

ChrisDe: FTA: The research linking the shroud to between 280 B.C. and A.D. 220


So they've narrowed it down to a 500-year period? That's some fine detective work there, Lou.


Didn't he die the year before 1 A.D.? So if it's real it would be from that year, no?
 
2013-03-29 08:55:44 AM  

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.


That was a shiatty shiatty movie and Mr Scott should be ashamed of himself for it
 
2013-03-29 08:56:39 AM  
The most remarkable thing would be that they had a few yards of cloth woven with an 11th century technique that far in advance.

Seriously, the type of loom required to produce this linen fabric didn't exist until much later. You don't need to go any further. The only reason to try to prove it's older is cognitive dissonance.
 
2013-03-29 08:57:34 AM  

Point02GPA: PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.

I think he was Spanish, Mexico wasn't even a country at that time.


No, he was out picking onions.

dollarsandsense.org
 
2013-03-29 08:57:37 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: jesus or republican jesus??


www.blogos.org
Why, it's History Channel's Pantene Pro-V Jesus, my child.
 
2013-03-29 08:58:55 AM  
"Fanti, a Catholic,"

Nice to know that the scientist is impartial.
 
2013-03-29 09:00:16 AM  

Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.


Oh yeah.  Well the Son of God defies all the laws of physics.  So there, ye who is destined for Hell.
 
2013-03-29 09:00:22 AM  
Isn't that blood on the forehead? Can we get some DNA and impregnate someone with a baby Jesus? We can actually play god.
 
2013-03-29 09:00:43 AM  

Bladel: How fortunate that Fox can get the Shroud of Turin in the news, just in time for Easter!


hmmmmmmmmmmm
 
2013-03-29 09:01:27 AM  

Mad_Radhu: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

This. The geometry of the face alone makes it a fake. I don't know why people are still arguing for authenticity.


But, but, the impression was made by his soul as it rose up to heaven, so there would be no distortion because his soul is perfect.

/Actually heard that from a christian once.
 
2013-03-29 09:01:28 AM  
Here's what's wrong with the Shroud:

1. The man is tall and thin, most men of the times had short stocky physiques;

2. His face is oval and elongate, most men of that place and time had round wide faces;

3. The nose is straight and long, most men of that place had short wide noses;

4. He has a high square forehead and a high hairline, most men of that place had a low hairline and rounded forehead;

5. He wears his hair shoulder length, most men of that place and time wore their hair about 1" long at most;

6. He wears a long beard, and most men of that place and time cropped their beards shorter than their hair, 1/2" on average;

7. Both the hair and the beard are straight, most men of that place and time had curly hair;

8. The forearms are abnormally long in proportion to the rest of the body, but the forelegs are normal in size, and it is nowhere written that Jesus suffered any such deformity;

9.  The reverse view of the body is 1/2" inch longer than the front view, and curvature of the cloth does not seem to account for this inconsistency.

Everyone who wrote about Jesus considered him important, and no one mentions anywhere that he looked any different from the common men of his place and time.  When the Romans came to take him, they had to ask who he was, which proves it even more conclusively.  Jesus did not look any different from the average man of his place and time, the facts do not support any other conclusion.
 
2013-03-29 09:01:43 AM  
I'd be hilarious if Pope Francis, being a Jesuit who seems open to reason, decreed it a fake and told everyone to get over it.
 
2013-03-29 09:02:04 AM  
I thought the shroud existed, forgery or not, till this morning.

Since the story is on Fox News, I expect that there never was any shroud at all.
-----

Carrying that thought to it's logical conclusion...

My savior was buried Naked !
..and I'm totally cool with that.
 
2013-03-29 09:02:19 AM  

captainstudd: Isn't that blood on the forehead? Can we get some DNA and impregnate someone with a baby Jesus? We can actually play god.


academic.depauw.edu

Life finds a way
 
2013-03-29 09:02:41 AM  
The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud, but a Vatican researcher in 2009 said that faint writing on the cloth proves it was used to wrap Jesus' body after his crucifixion.

More mighty fine detective work.
 
2013-03-29 09:02:53 AM  
The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud, but a Vatican researcher in 2009 said that faint writing on the cloth proves it was used to wrap Jesus' body after his crucifixion.

[Inigo_Montoya.jpg]

What did the writing say? For best results, wash in cold water and tumble dry to ensure resurrection?
 
2013-03-29 09:04:51 AM  
Oh Christ. I couln't believe no one was getting the reference, here I'm the one who completely farked up.

i218.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-29 09:05:14 AM  
As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.
 
2013-03-29 09:05:16 AM  
www.dreamstime.com

Happy Gouda Friday
 
2013-03-29 09:07:16 AM  

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.*


John 18:36:  Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."



*Yup


Like to hear a song about it? Here it go.

 
2013-03-29 09:08:37 AM  
so its the world's oldest tie dyed shirt.

/big deal
 
2013-03-29 09:08:53 AM  
It's not like they crucified thousands of other people, only jesus could have left that wound pattern... oh wait
 
2013-03-29 09:09:20 AM  

olddinosaur: Here's what's wrong with the Shroud:

1. The man is tall and thin, most men of the times had short stocky physiques;

2. His face is oval and elongate, most men of that place and time had round wide faces;

3. The nose is straight and long, most men of that place had short wide noses;

4. He has a high square forehead and a high hairline, most men of that place had a low hairline and rounded forehead;

5. He wears his hair shoulder length, most men of that place and time wore their hair about 1" long at most;

6. He wears a long beard, and most men of that place and time cropped their beards shorter than their hair, 1/2" on average;

7. Both the hair and the beard are straight, most men of that place and time had curly hair;

8. The forearms are abnormally long in proportion to the rest of the body, but the forelegs are normal in size, and it is nowhere written that Jesus suffered any such deformity;

9.  The reverse view of the body is 1/2" inch longer than the front view, and curvature of the cloth does not seem to account for this inconsistency.

Everyone who wrote about Jesus considered him important, and no one mentions anywhere that he looked any different from the common men of his place and time.  When the Romans came to take him, they had to ask who he was, which proves it even more conclusively.  Jesus did not look any different from the average man of his place and time, the facts do not support any other conclusion.


Another Fun Fact, until the shroud was "Discovered" in the 1300s Jesus was usually depicted as you described above, afterwards, the now traditional image of Jesus became the norm.

/Wait does that mean the artist of the shroud was the worlds first internet troll?
 
Displayed 50 of 433 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report