Is it real or is it a forgery?
>>41275259Fake and gay pope cope.
>>41275278The Vatican doesn't like it too much I don't think. They certainly don't seem too proud of it. But I believe it is real, though it ultimately doesn't matter if it is or not.
Blood stains suggest it’s real but it’s debatable.
A 3D face does not product a 2D imagethe "blood" looks squiggled onlong hair was shameful to jews during that time period
CHRIST isKING
>>41275284I appreciate your candor. The big brains on Vatican hill know it is forged, but they will not speak the truth for political reasons. A microcosm of why the Magisterium is just another Sanhedrin.
ITS 100% REALCHRIST IS KING
God is good.He is the real LAWOnly HIS law matters.Not laws of men.
>>41275259Well, is it really from jesus? How do we know that the guy in the OP isn't just a random hobo who got confused as jesus over the years?
>>41275355... From an AI overview, reallyI am convincedIs what I would say if I was that retarded
>>41275392what's all the white stuff around the image of the man?>inb4 cum
>>41275259Bro who nut on JC?
>>41275355Ah yes the most trust worthy source.
>>41275259Definitely a forgery but how it was made has never been established. There are records back to the 1370-80s where scholars said it was obviously fake (Oresme states this in the Problemata).My guess is there is a medieval tomb effigy where this has been traced from which may still be out there somewhere.
>>41276121Hm that made me think. Do you think that the shroud being fake is proof that christianity is also fake? And if you are a christian, does it affect your faith?
>>41276178It makes no difference if it’s fake or not providing your faith is not invested in it being real.Plenty of relics have been faked. There are enough alleged pieces of the true cross to build many, many crosses.
>>41276121why do people act like this is some impossible thing?this is what my white underwear looks like if I sit on it long enoughjust put some kind of grease on a relief/statue then drape over the cloth
>>41276214Makes sense. May I ask what your beliefs are?
>>41276223I don’t believe in anything but I did a couple of years of medieval history in college so this stuff is interesting.
>>41276121What's your opinion on this?>There are a lot of weird anomalies with the Shroud that can’t easily be explained. The shroud cloth apparently has visited the Holy Land at least once thanks to there being ancient native plant pollens on the fabric, yet it has never been documented being there (depending on the sources you trust). There are claims of blood in the fabric, but it’s also been equally(?) challenged as red ochre paint. There are claims of a forger admitting to making it in the 1300s, yet there seem to be indirect references and images of the shroud from 50 to 75 years prior to the claim. For the actual human image there is no paint layer comprising it, and current techniques used to recreate the shroud image either don’t satisfy all its characteristics (like the famous photonegative effect) or require techniques unlikely to be known by any medieval artist.The image either supernatural in origin and bears witness to Jesus Christ in the exalted flesh, or an unknown Leonardo da Vinci-level polymath trolled the fuck out the Christian world so hard we still don’t know how he did it. It all depends on who you ask, where you get your data, and your initial biases that lean you toward which information to believe.There is an absolute fuck ton of research out there in all kinds of different fields. If you’re so inclined, there’s a lot to dig into.
It's clearly a painting of a person rather than an image of a real person. Do people really think Jesus looked like a Byzantine era tie-dye?
>>41276283All of those anomalies are debated so it does not require a polymath to create it. As you mentioned the plant pollens are debated, the blood is debated. The whole thing is debated.It’s still more likely to be a simple fake than not but until someone comes up with something far more definitive then it’s an open question.
>>41275690>>41276117Attacking the source instead directly addressing the information is a way of not responding. The moment you do that shit, you lose.
>>41276315sorry but when your source is a hallucination of a computer you have already lost the argument because you yourself couldn't provide any source and had to resort to artificial indian's dreams.but sure I'll entertain you>analysis showswhich analysis?>outermost fibersso it was painted on?
