• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does the Shroud of Turin Show Expected Elongation of the Head in 2D?"

Myriad said:
Theologically, Jesus's blood type must obviously have been O Negative, in keeping with being the Universal Donor.

AB is exactly wrong. Maybe the Turin artifact is the Beast's burial shroud instead.
Click to expand...
Not if AB stands for Ascended Brother.

QED.
 
zooterkin said:
I'm still confused as to why the blood type is significant in any way, since the shroud is not even from the same millennium as Christ.

Is @bobdroege7 claiming that the carbon dating is completely wrong?
Click to expand...
I believe he came right out and said that, relying on the x-ray dating. Which, um, relied on the shroud having been climate and humidity controlled for 13 centuries to date it to first century Jerusalem to make that bad boy work out. So, you know...
 
Mojo said:
I think he's claiming that the (alleged) bloodstains were added at different times by different forgers, who couldn't have known what blood type the bloodstains added by the other forgers were.

I seem to recall from the other threads about the shroud that it hasn't been established that there are actually any bloodstains on it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. A minor detail but one that has some importance....
Where is Horace Rumpole when he's needed?
 
C'mon folks, @bobdroege7's argument is simple and elegant.

The shroud is genuine, which proves that Christianity isn't, because the image was produced by a living body (by ways), not a dead one (because flappy hands), meaning Jesus wasn't Christ, therefore the shroud is genuine.

in short, magic cloth is magic, which proves atheism not Christianity. Evidence, schmevidence.

Is logic, no?
 
arthwollipot said:
Are we seriously seeing the claim that Jesus had type AB blood, therefore the shroud is genuine?
Click to expand...
Yes. It's utter nonsense of course, and a fringe argument even among shroudies.
Amusingly, the insistence that the blood must be AB is down to a facile misunderstanding that, loosely summarised, Jesus died for everyone therefore his blood must be the Universal Donor, therefore AB.
Now as anyone with a basic knowledge of first aid knows, O- is the universal donor group. So, when appraised of this basic error, the shroudies changed this to Jesus being the Universal Recipient.....

It's bollocks of course.

There has never been definitive, or even mildly supportive, evidence of any blood on the cloth, let alone evidence that it's human or of a particular type.
But, hey, when you desperately need to believe you embrace any supportive lie.


So @bobdroege7 will you be posting evidence of your prior claims?
1. Evidence of blood on the cloth.
2. Evidence of statistical errors in the radiocarbon dating.
3. Evidence of contamination on the samples used for the radiocarbon dating.
4. Evidence of the sampled area being part of a patch.
5. Evidence of fraud on the part of Anastasio Ballestrero.
6. Evidence of limestone from Jerusalem.
7. Evidence of a connection between the shroud and the Pray Codex.
 
But if O stands for omnipotent, and Jesus was O negative, does that make Jesus the Anti Christ?
 
catsmate said:
Yes. It's utter nonsense of course, and a fringe argument even among shroudies.
Amusingly, the insistence that the blood must be AB is down to a facile misunderstanding that, loosely summarised, Jesus died for everyone therefore his blood must be the Universal Donor, therefore AB.
Now as anyone with a basic knowledge of first aid knows, O- is the universal donor group. So, when appraised of this basic error, the shroudies changed this to Jesus being the Universal Recipient.....

It's bollocks of course.

There has never been definitive, or even mildly supportive, evidence of any blood on the cloth, let alone evidence that it's human or of a particular type.
But, hey, when you desperately need to believe you embrace any supportive lie.


So @bobdroege7 will you be posting evidence of your prior claims?
1. Evidence of blood on the cloth.
2. Evidence of statistical errors in the radiocarbon dating.
3. Evidence of contamination on the samples used for the radiocarbon dating.
4. Evidence of the sampled area being part of a patch.
5. Evidence of fraud on the part of Anastasio Ballestrero.
6. Evidence of limestone from Jerusalem.
7. Evidence of a connection between the shroud and the Pray Codex.
Click to expand...

www.academia.edu

Blood on the Shroud of Turin: An Immunological Review

The Shroud of Turin is an approximately 14 feet by 3.5 feet linen cloth that bears the image of a man that has been beaten, scourged, and crucified. Here, the scientific evidence for the presence of human blood on the Shroud is evaluated, with
www.academia.edu


table 2, and the samples were far from random.

There were sampling errors, not statistical errors, which resulted in the failed chi^2 test. The test indicates that the sample were not homogenous, therefore not representative of the true age of the relic.
 
bobdroege7 said:

www.academia.edu

Blood on the Shroud of Turin: An Immunological Review

The Shroud of Turin is an approximately 14 feet by 3.5 feet linen cloth that bears the image of a man that has been beaten, scourged, and crucified. Here, the scientific evidence for the presence of human blood on the Shroud is evaluated, with
www.academia.edu


table 2, and the samples were far from random.

There were sampling errors, not statistical errors, which resulted in the failed chi^2 test. The test indicates that the sample were not homogenous, therefore not representative of the true age of the relic.
Click to expand...
Garbage pseudo-science.
Would you do some decent research of your own and not just post whatever debunked nonsense comes up in a Google search?
Even recent pseudo-science would be better.
 
Last edited:
bobdroege7 said:

www.academia.edu

Blood on the Shroud of Turin: An Immunological Review

The Shroud of Turin is an approximately 14 feet by 3.5 feet linen cloth that bears the image of a man that has been beaten, scourged, and crucified. Here, the scientific evidence for the presence of human blood on the Shroud is evaluated, with
www.academia.edu


table 2, and the samples were far from random.

There were sampling errors, not statistical errors, which resulted in the failed chi^2 test. The test indicates that the sample were not homogenous, therefore not representative of the true age of the relic.
Click to expand...
Huh. Thanks for the radiocarbon dating summary. While it may have been posted earlier, I missed it. {ETA: the second, smaller link}

The shroud radiocarbon dating was done blind, with three other samples of fabrics of known ages. All four were tested blind of origin. The three controls came up around their known ages, and the shroud in it's medeival age. That's a very convincing method.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom