The Virgin Mary may have looked something like this

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TMC said:
But it is a pretty big stretch to say all the evidence is on one side. These kind of extreme (and false) statements
Click to expand...
Again, it is not a stretch. All the evidence points to authenticity, while the carbon14 dating on the Shroud has been shown to be very unreliable. One has to go with the overwhelming evidence, not unreliable data.
 
Gab123 said:
All the evidence
Click to expand...
With all due respect, you keep saying “all the evidence”. If “all the evidence” was on the side of authenticity, then why is there still a debate in the first place?
 
Last edited:
You are using “all the evidence” and “overwhelming evidence” as if they mean the same thing. I don’t think either is true here, but even you seem to acknowledge its not “all” the evidence.
 
Salibi said:
If “all the evidence” was on the side of authenticity, then why is there still a debate in the first place?
Click to expand...
For the same reason why all the evidence in the world will convince an atheist that God exists, being that it is impossible to convince someone who does not want to believe, despite all the evidence. It’s a psychological rejection, not a logical one…
 
Don’t call me a liar, and don’t try to imply I am atheist. And you are entirely incorrect about the quality of evidence touted.
 
I’m not calling anyone a liar, I’m saying the evidence is there. The fact that someone doesn’t want to believe the evidence is a different issue. Much like people who don’t accept the logical evidence for God’s existence, they simply repeat that they don’t believe the evidence. That’s really where the argument is when it comes to te Shroud. Evidence is there, but people are free to reject it…
 
The good news is that God left us an image of His Son Jesus Christ, as a testament to the suffering He endured for the salvation of souls. Salvation was not cheap, it cost Our Lord His life. Thus the Shroud of Turin is a testament of how his entire body was scourged and tortured. Scientists determined that the blood on the Shroud was from a man who had suffered intensely.
 
From the picture and some paintings that have been shown here, I am now used to the eyebrows, and think that they accentuate the eyes very well.

I think it is a matter of me seeing too many women plucking their eyebrows out and then having to pencil them in!
 
Were talking about what people looked like, and the shroud is a picture of what Jesus looked like after the passion.
 
Here is a picture of what Jesus looked like after the passion and an artist representation based on the Shroud Of Turin(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
This has nothing to do with atheism or the existence of God.

It seems to me that you’re projecting; the psychological rejection is quite obviously from your side alone, given your dogged insistence that “all the evidence” is one your side despite the clear fallacy of such a statement, and now shifting the goalposts to God and atheism.

For the record, I have no opinion on the Shroud.

Kindly learn how to debate without moving the goalposts. I’m afraid I’m going to have to mute now, as I don’t see a point, or any spiritual or intellectual benefit, in going back and forth with you.

Good day.
 
Last edited:
I think most people are not familiar with the facts about the Shroud of Turin, or for that matter, even heard about the Shroud. The image in the shroud is a testament of the sufferings of Jesus. Obviously those who do not believe in God or the supernatural are going to dismiss it.
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
Genghis Khan is supposed to have had reddish hair. From this, we can reasonably conclude that red hair was almost certainly highly unusual for a Mongol.
Click to expand...
Off topic, but possibly of interest, it is reasonably well known that the Huns probably originated in Central Asia from among Turkic tribes. But it was one of the features of the time that such armies “changed” as they went. By the time Attila’s army reached western Europe, it was probably mostly composed of Slavic and Germanic people. Adventurers and freebooters were recruited along the way and people from more distant places often packed up and went home when they recovered enough booty.

There is some suggestion that the same was true of the “Mongols”; that by the time they reached the Middle East their army was mostly Turkic rather than of Mongolian origin.

Finally, it has always struck me as unfortunate that Arabs blame westerners for the destruction of the Arab Caliphate. The true villains were Turks and to a lesser degree, Mongols.
 
This thread is about what Mary looked like, which naturally will bring up the question about what Jesus looked like. The whole of Christian civilization’s imagery about Jesus with a beard and long hair is based on the Shroud of Turin. As for the evidence for the shroud dating back to the 1st century, all the evidence points to it, except the carbon14 dating Done in 1988 which has since been shown to be unreliable due to contamination of the edge that was tested. So it’s safe to say that the shroud, which still boggles 21st century scientist as to how it was made, will automatically be dismissed by those who do not believe in the supernatural. But as reason has proven, the supernatural is real.
 
The contamination hypothesis has been scientifically refuted
[Gove, H. E. (1990). “Dating the Turin Shroud: An Assessment”. Radiocarbon . 32 (1): 87–92. doi:10.1017/S0033822200039990.
Click to expand...
Likewise, all other theories and hypotheses that have been put forward questioning the 1988 radiocarbon dating have also been scientifically refuted.
R. A. Freer-Waters, A. J. T. Jull, “Investigating a Dated piece of the Shroud of Turin”, Radiocarbon 52, 2010, pp. 1521–1527.

The Shroud, by Ian Wilson; Random House, 2010, pp. 130–131

Professor Christopher Ramsey, Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Oxford University, March 2008, at ORAU - Shroud of Turin

Radiocarbon Dating, Second Edition: An Archaeological Perspective, By R.E. Taylor, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Routledge 2016; pp. 167–168
Click to expand...
The fact is is that the scientific community does not accept the authenticity of the shroud. It has been shown to be from the middle ages, and recent studies have confirmed a margin of error of only around 80 years of the original dating in 1988.
 
Last edited:
That’s just blatantly false. The stereotypical image of Jesus found in the Christian world does not come from the Shroud of Turin. The earliest known depictions of Jesus we have from Christian art come from the 3rd century and Jesus appears very differently from how he is typically portrayed now. This video does a good job at explaining how Jesus got his modern look.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top