As a Traditional Roman Catholic, and student of the Shroud, it amazes me how many errors you are able to enunciate in a commentary less than a quarter of an hour in length. CONGRATULATIONS! Bill Crofut
Time will tell be it a true relic or fake. At least people from all faiths or those with none are being exposed to this artifact n could be genuine. Or even if not a beautiful icon and depiction of what one suffers under crucifixion. Many will seek n question. . The research not over. The Lord I think wills it should be present in this age. True there was and maybe now corruption n profiteering,n fake relics in catholic church,but one shld be open to possibility of perhaps this artifact the real thing. If it is ultimately proven fake at least it a moving testament n icon. No one can duplicate this work however. I think it cool the shroud is around n disputed either way in this very stressful n crazy age we live in
@@danhallett4952 Mr. Delperdange seems to be simply repeating errors from other sources without having done any honest research of his own. He needs prayers just as much as each of the rest of us.
Thank you Brother Bill for posting on this. I went to The Museum of the Bible in DC a couple years ago and was sickened to see that the had a special shroud exhibit. But I shouldnt be surprised when this same organization venerates Eugene Nida.
I don't care one way or the other if that shroud is real or not. If it is known to be real, people will worship it and that would be wrong. But I'm not sure about the long hair comment, because Nazarites didn't cut their hair at all, and it was long. Shoulder length hair may not have been considered long at all. We call it long, but it is relative to our own culture since there is no definition in the Biblical text.
Thank you Brother Bill! It is so helpful to actually go through the Bible verses to show the truth on this subject. I appreciate your teaching. Blessings to you
Here are some counter points to ponder. You make a few pre-suppositions which aren't necessarily true. You use the example of the ark of the covenant and the Israelites where they used the ark like it was a lucky charm and didn't give the due honor, praise and credit to God. However, this was an icon that was used in their worship. IMO this isn't a good comparison. The fact that the Israelites were looking to an icon or "relic" rather than God for support only shows that it was their actions that was wrong, not the fact of the existence of that "icon" So to say that the shroud isn't real, simply because we shouldn't revere or worship it is not valid and poor reasoning. Also, yes, we should always put God's word as our authority, however, does that mean we should ignore or discount all archeological findings that support and affirm God's word? Of course not! It's confirmation of our faith, not the basis for it. You say the man in the image has his beard fully intact, but when I look at it, it appears that part of the beard is missing on the image's right hand side. And you ignore all the other things they have identified in the image that does fit the descriptions in the Bible. i.e. The marks on the head from the crown of thorns, the wound in the side from the spear, the severe wounds from the flogging, etc. Regarding the long hair, even though the Bible doesn't say Jesus had taken a Nazarite vow isn't proof that he didn't. After all, Jesus did come to do God's will, albeit in a very profound way. Also, your arbitrary view of it being "long hair" in those days could be very wrong. It could be that it was the average hair length for men, while women had hair down to their waist. You don't know. After all, it wouldn't be like they would be going to the barber every other week. I don't know about the bruised and battered face of Jesus because I'm not a medical expert, but maybe after three days in the tomb and all the blood and fluids drain to the lowest parts of the body, his face may have looked closer to his normal shape. When you consider the shroud being a single piece of cloth and not a bunch of strips used to wrap the body, you need to consider the circumstances in which he was taken down from the cross and hastily wrapped to get him into the tomb before sundown. To take the time to tear the cloth into strips and painstakingly wrap the body in only a very short time would have been impossible. Hence, that is why the women came to the tomb knowing that the body wasn't properly prepared by Joseph of Arimathea. They wanted to properly wrap the body with the spices. LOL! And then you say that they shouldn't have made the computer generated image of the person on the shroud, stating the command to not make any image of anything on earth to worship. Yes, to create an image with the express purpose to worship it is wrong! Is that what is happening here? I agree that the RC use of images in their worship is wrong, That is their downfall. This video on the shroud IMO is very short sighted and not very well thought out. BTW, I'm not dogmatic for or against the shroud being genuine or not. I just know the evidence is pretty compelling. And for the reasons stated above, you might rethink your stand, or at least not reject it totally.
Oh, thank you! I also commented on the length of the hair. I completely agree with you on every remark. And I want to add that when covered in blood any face could become inrecognisable.
Yet not enough proof to refute the shroud. Btw, can you explain then how the shroud could have been made up? It is the Catholic Church who collected the Gospels we have today and kept it through the centuries safe and sound (from a non-Catholic, a Protestant) and we all must be thankful to her for that.
The burden of proof is not on me to explain how it could have been made but on the Catholics who claim it to be real. The fact that I don't know how it was formed does not in itself prove anything. In fact, I have never been given the opportunity to observe it in enough detail to make a judgment on that. Only a handful of carefully selected individuals and scientists have been given that privilege. Somehow I doubt you were among them. The Catholic church has long been obsessed with relics of dubious sources. There are enough shards of the true cross they have produced through the centuries to build a bridge. With their record, even if it were not for the scriptural evidence against the shroud, I would still be highly skeptical. The same chapel that houses the shroud claims to have the bones of John the Baptist. I am not sure how many other churches also claim to have those same bones, but I do know that at least four churches claim to have his head. Unless he was a hydra, I don't think he had four heads. Catholic relics are by their very nature questionable. As for the Catholics giving us the Bible at the Council of Nicaea, that is more Catholic propaganda. The canon of Scripture was fixed in the time of the Apostles. 2 Peter 3:16 calls various writings of Paul Scripture. “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” Not all of Paul's writings were recognized by him or others as Scripture. In 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul refers to an earlier letter to the church in Corinth that was not Scripture. “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:” Just because it was written by Paul did not make it Scripture, not was it considered as such at the time. Paul also refers to a letter he wrote to the Laodiceans in Colossians 4:16 that is not part of the canon. The idea that the church was operating without a formalized New Testament for 300 years in nonsense and not supported by the Scriptures themselves. The canon was settled by God at the time of writing. 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” To believe otherwise makes man the authority in determining what is God's Word. I am a former Catholic myself and there is nothing in that church or in their history that anyone must be thankful for. Her hands are dripping with the blood of the saints she martyred for nearly 2,000 years since the time of Constantine and the Edict of Milan in 313AD. The Council of Nicaea (325AD) did not settle the canon because there are earlier Bibles that were already in use. The Italic Bible dates back to no later that 157AD. Nicaea was the early Catholic endorsement of the Alexandrian text (of Origen and others) over the Syrian text that from Antioch that later became known as the Byzantine text or the Textus Receptus. It is also interesting to note regarding the canon, the Catholic church added the apocrypha to it in the 1500s at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The Protestants (Baptists are not Protestants regardless of what the Protestants may claim) reject this, but accept the Nicaea explanation of the canon. This is because Protestant history is Catholic until October 31, 1517. They have to accept that council as well as the teachings of Augustine and others, because they believe the Catholics once believed the true Gospel, but from the beginning this was not so! Constantine was the founder of what later gradually became what we know as the Roman Catholic church, but their practices and many of their beliefs were pagan from the beginning. Constantine had all his legions "baptized" by marching them through lakes and rivers and declaring them to be Christians as a result. Those who separated from the false teachings of Constantine and his official state church were persecuted unto death. They were called Donatists and denounced as heretics by Augustine and Constantine. There is evidence that the Waldenses were also in existence at that time. They also were brutally persecuted by Rome. No, true Bible believers owe nothing to the history of the Catholic false religion. Her hands drip with our blood.
@@BrotherBill Observe it? What qualifications, not to mention authority do you have to proclaim it fake? You believe it to be fake but can't prove anything. This is protestantism through and through, it's about introducing doubt. That's why protestantism was the first major step to the faithless world we live in. Protestantism is the work of the Devil. Luther and the other degenerates emerged in the era of Faith and destroyed Christian Europe precisely through these sneaky tactics of introducing just a little doubt, bit by bit we have reached where we are today where men don't know if they're men and women don't know if they're women.
@@BrotherBill So you can not explain how the image formed on a piece of linen dating back 2000 years of the time of Christ Jesus crucifixion yet you take the position that it is a fake. All the latest science has come to the agreement that the shroud has been dated to be around the time of Christ Jesus crucifixion and that today's technology can not create an image like this on non-photographic material. You do not make any sense at all. In all due respect I find your video pointless.
@@BrotherBill I don't understand why some Christians hate the Shroud? Why don't you want it to be true? I myself would be very happy to know it is 100 % authentic. I know it is, but not 100% yet. But I can refute your arguments, because they are too lame and weak. You touch Isaiah 50:6 and say the image on the shroud does not match this verse. How could you see the hair on the face plucked if it is not even a picture but a negative? The shroud shows a beaten face, a swollen eye and a broken nose, a face with streaks of blood and you say it does not reflect Isaiah 53. The word "marred" in Isaiah does not mean He was transformed, but was in a very bad appearance. The man in the shroud does not have long hair. When the Israelite said 'long hair' they meant real long hair as worn by women (down the belt or so). You spoke about the linen they wrapped Jesus. I checked my Bible and in all three Gospels it says Joseph of Arimathea brought a piece of linen. It says "cloths" only in John's Gospel and it obviously means linen cloth and straps for fixing the body. The same plural word is used when apostles and the women saw the inside of the empty tomb. They possibly saw the linen and the straps. You say AI produced Roman Catholic vision of Christ. The images of Jesus in many icons are very alike not because they were created by Catholic bishops (Orthodoxs also have the same images), but because they reflect one and the same person. We should not make images, I agree, but the image on the shroud was not made by humans, but by God Himself. So He is authorised to create anything He likes. And still this image is not an image of false gods that was prohibited, but a holy image of God for us to be fully convinced of His resurrection (for those who doubt).
The face cloth is referring to the sudarium of Oviedo. It still exists, is covered with the same blood type as the shroud ( AB ), is made of the same linen as the shroud, and has documented provenance back to at lest the 600s AD. The two cloths have also not been in the same place in documented history. What do you say about that?
@@onlyme972 The corpse was not washed. There was no time to prepare the body for burial due to the sun going down. This is Jewish Law. The reason the women returned on Sunday was to finish washing and anointing the body. This is all laid out in the New Testament.
Well done, Brother Bill. They also like to make our Lord Jesus Christ look like a handsome model when Scripture plainly says in Isaiah 53:2 that he was not very handsome that people should desire him.
For a bit of a chuckle, look up the list of relics held in the Cathedral of Worms, Germany :D Here's a few highlights: Five particles of the milk of the Virgin Mary. Four pieces of the hair of Mary. Six pieces of the grave of Mary. Four pieces of the city where the Lord Jesus was born. One piece of the diaper in which he was wrapped. One piece of the cradle. Two pieces of the hay. One piece of the burning bush which Moses saw. Bones from holy places which on account of faded writing can no longer be read and identified. All in all: five thousand and five pieces. An indulgence of one hundred days for each piece!
That's weird because that almost sounds like a list of Items that a witch would gather in order to cast a spell. In witchcraft, they would have weird list like this and this seems like the same thing. TC
@@2besavedcom-7 I agree I wish they could see past their indoctrination. I was reading in Jeremiah that God was mad because they were worshiping an Idol they called the Mother of Heaven if that doesn't sound like the Catholic church and Mary then I don't know what does. TC
@@muppetonmeds - Interesting. I've never seen a translation that renders מלכת השׁמים as "mother of heaven." Most translations use "queen of heaven," but yes, it's also interesting that they were offering "cakes" to this deity, which we see every year with the "hot crossed buns."
so the dating of the shroud was the very first use of the test, and it is hailed as valid for it gave the date they want? don't they know any science at all??? the test itself must be tested before any claim as to reliability can be made. i did not know that the test itself was merely speculative powered by wishful thinking. thanks for this info
The question worth asking here is why would someone want to debunk the Shroud to this extent? You continue to say people worship it, this is less than honest by the way. In any case, all you prove is that protestantism is the first step in rationalisation and ultimately faithlessness.
That shroud is 100% fake! I was talking with another preacher Bro. Roy on YT yesterday about this and he showed how unscriptural it is and it's *very* unscriptural!
1. The forger first painted the bloodstains before he painted the image. 2. The forger integrated forensic qualities to his image that would only be known 20th century science. 3. The forger duplicated blood flow patterns in perfect forensic agreement to blood flow from the wrists at 65° from vertical to suggest the exact crucifixion position of the arms. 4. The forger "painted" the blood flows with genuine group AB blood that he had "spiked" with excessive amounts of bilirubin since the forger knew that severe concussive scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice. 5. The forger "plotted" the scourge marks on the body of the "man in the shroud" to be consistent under forensic examination with two scourgers of varying height. 6. The forger also duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders to suggest to 20th century forensic examiners that the "man in the shroud" had carried a heavy weight following the scourging. 7. The forger, against all convention of medieval artistry, painted the body he was "hoaxing" as Jesus of Nazareth, nude to conform to genuine Roman crucifixions. 8. The forger, as the forensic genius he was, illustrated the nails of crucifixion accurately through the wrists rather than the hands as in all other conventional medieval representations. He also took into account that the thumbs of a crucified victim would rotate inward as a result of median nerve damage as the nails passed through the spaces of Destot. 9. The forger was clever enough to "salt" the linen with the pollens of plants indigenous only to the environs of Jerusalem in anticipation of 20th century palynological analysis. 10. The forger was an artist who surpassed the talents of all known artists to the present day, being able to "paint" an anatomically and photographically perfect human image in a photographic negative manner, centuries before photography, and be able to do so without being able to check his work, close up, as he progressed. 11. The forger was able to paint this image with some unknown medium using an unknown technique, 30-40 feet away in order to discern the shadowy image as he continued. 12. The forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited pony-tail, sidelocks and a beard style consistent with a Jewish male of the 1st century. 13. The forger thought of such minute details as incorporating dirt from the bare feet of the "man in the shroud" consistent with the calcium carbonate soil of the environs of Jerusalem. 14. This forger was such an expert in 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensic pathology and anatomy, botany, photography and 3-D computer analysis that he has foiled all the efforts of modern science. His unknown and historically unduplicated artistic technique surpasses all great historical artists, making the pale efforts of DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael and Botticelli appear as infantile scribblings. If the Shroud of Turin is a forgery of the 14th century, as the radiocarbonists claim, and not a genuine artifact of the 1st century, all of these qualities of the purported medieval "forger" must be accepted. If the Shroud was "forged" it would have to have been painted. It is an irrefutable fact that there is NO paint or pigment on the Shroud of Turin leaving the only explanation of the technique of the forger to have used "photography" to manufacture the relic in the THIRTEENTH CENTURY!! Some authors have gone so far as to suggest exactly that. This is patently absurd! We can add to this list, that the forger must have known how to fake torture forensics, since the recent discovery of creatinine and ferritin, nanoparticles are indicative of torture.
@@jamesfahey5686 We don't care how it was produced. If it doesn't line up, throw it away. What's the point of keeping it. How doeas it help any catholic or atheist. An atheist can only become a catholic looking at this stupid cloth.
An approximately 14' x 3.5' piece of linen dating 2000 years ago with clearly an image of a man with blood stains from a brutal death would convince me that this is a burial cloth. The Sudarium head cloth and strips to tie it all together. "Linen cloths". Use some common sense, would you wrap a body in thin strips or a whole body covering not to mention handling a body with over 3 hundred bleeding wounds. Then explain the over one hundred wounds on just the head alone. I don't know about you but I don't think there was anyone else crucified with a crown of thorns. Your video is nothing but errors.
The antichrists dont must be forced to believe and be saved. Everyone must to chose faith with freedom. It is good that Shroud is not 100% demonstrated, so the antichrists can not believe it and not be saved. Eachone must go to his place. Christians to Heaven, antichristians to hell.
@@BrotherBill Of course not. The shorud is a proof but without shroud christianity would be christianity anyway. The apostles did not preached with the shroud on their hands (except in some case as the king of Odessa, converted thanks to the shroud). The shroud is a proof for christians of what christian already knew. and it is better that is not 100% demonstrated, so each one can chose believe it or not, can chose to believe the truth or to belive the lie, with freedom. If the truth were 100% demonstrated the evil people would be forced to believe the truth, and forced to be saved, and that is not good. When the truth is not demonstrated people can have faith in what people like, faith the truth or in the lie, showing what loves.
Could be the real thing. Could be thr real thing. Interesting in this turbulent n confusing age we live in this icon or image shld even exists. The Lord wills it should as it will cause people to look n see n attract attention to Jesus n what he went through for us. Many may start reading bibles more after viewing this image. True there was a biblical ban in images but in the proper content realize some few hundred years ago there was no printing press. What communicated the word of God especially to illiterate was the heritage of the catholic church despite the corruption,fake relucs,profiteering, as church is full of human people who were good n bad,n .any churchmen were politicians n control freaks. However thinking about it the catholic church has a great heritage if keeping the gospels and great architecture t,n music n visual art only to communicate the Lord's gospel to unfettered men n women the peasants or etc. No printing press. If someone kisses a statue of jesus for example wouldn't you kiss your mom,or a beloved ones picture? Catholics do not worship statues. They r representatives of loved ones who pray for us n of Jesus the king of kings. So the prohibition against images shld be taken in its proper context like the times n era and type of people or tribes the prohibition given to and how today it is used in communication n back when books were rare. The images can symbolize Christ's love like his heart on alot of statues. We need tangible reminders as human beings and in pur media of today we r inundated with such garbage thrown at us
Again true we should center on the Word of God but not everyone is so literate n reads well. A beautiful image or painting like of hesus healing the sick n hugging children by the peaceful sea of Galilee hangingin in a home or a chapel n referenced n looked at is so consoling n communicates what written or spoken words cannot. in his ❤
As a Traditional Roman Catholic, and student of the Shroud, it amazes me how many errors you are able to enunciate in a commentary less than a quarter of an hour in length. CONGRATULATIONS! Bill Crofut
Errors, the guy made straw men no one said and then answered his fake errors. This was just astoundingly stupid.
Time will tell be it a true relic or fake. At least people from all faiths or those with none are being exposed to this artifact n could be genuine. Or even if not a beautiful icon and depiction of what one suffers under crucifixion. Many will seek n question. . The research not over. The Lord I think wills it should be present in this age. True there was and maybe now corruption n profiteering,n fake relics in catholic church,but one shld be open to possibility of perhaps this artifact the real thing. If it is ultimately proven fake at least it a moving testament n icon. No one can duplicate this work however. I think it cool the shroud is around n disputed either way in this very stressful n crazy age we live in
@@danhallett4952 Mr. Delperdange seems to be simply repeating errors from other sources without having done any honest research of his own. He needs prayers just as much as each of the rest of us.
Go and read the Bible, brainwashed catholics are deceived by Rome.
Thank you Brother Bill for posting on this. I went to The Museum of the Bible in DC a couple years ago and was sickened to see that the had a special shroud exhibit. But I shouldnt be surprised when this same organization venerates Eugene Nida.
But we can't even DUPLICATE the thing! The image can barely be seen on it... the image we know is from a negative!
I don't care one way or the other if that shroud is real or not. If it is known to be real, people will worship it and that would be wrong. But I'm not sure about the long hair comment, because Nazarites didn't cut their hair at all, and it was long. Shoulder length hair may not have been considered long at all. We call it long, but it is relative to our own culture since there is no definition in the Biblical text.
Also if he left his body here people would worship that. We are to worship him in spirit, not OF flesh or a cloth. TC
@@muppetonmeds He could not leave His body here, because He resurrected in His body.
Thank you Brother Bill! It is so helpful to actually go through the Bible verses to show the truth on this subject. I appreciate your teaching. Blessings to you
Here are some counter points to ponder.
You make a few pre-suppositions which aren't necessarily true.
You use the example of the ark of the covenant and the Israelites where they used the ark like it was a lucky charm and didn't give the
due honor, praise and credit to God.
However, this was an icon that was used in their worship.
IMO this isn't a good comparison.
The fact that the Israelites were looking to an icon or "relic" rather than God for support only shows that it was their actions
that was wrong, not the fact of the existence of that "icon"
So to say that the shroud isn't real, simply because we shouldn't revere or worship it is not valid and poor reasoning.
Also, yes, we should always put God's word as our authority, however, does that mean we should ignore or discount all archeological
findings that support and affirm God's word?
Of course not! It's confirmation of our faith, not the basis for it.
You say the man in the image has his beard fully intact, but when I look at it, it appears that part of the beard is missing on the image's
right hand side.
And you ignore all the other things they have identified in the image that does fit the descriptions in the Bible.
i.e. The marks on the head from the crown of thorns, the wound in the side from the spear, the severe wounds from the flogging, etc.
Regarding the long hair, even though the Bible doesn't say Jesus had taken a Nazarite vow isn't proof that he didn't.
After all, Jesus did come to do God's will, albeit in a very profound way.
Also, your arbitrary view of it being "long hair" in those days could be very wrong.
It could be that it was the average hair length for men, while women had hair down to their waist. You don't know.
After all, it wouldn't be like they would be going to the barber every other week.
I don't know about the bruised and battered face of Jesus because I'm not a medical expert, but maybe after three days in the tomb
and all the blood and fluids drain to the lowest parts of the body, his face may have looked closer to his normal shape.
When you consider the shroud being a single piece of cloth and not a bunch of strips used to wrap the body, you need to consider the circumstances
in which he was taken down from the cross and hastily wrapped to get him into the tomb before sundown.
To take the time to tear the cloth into strips and painstakingly wrap the body in only a very short time would have been impossible.
Hence, that is why the women came to the tomb knowing that the body wasn't properly prepared by Joseph of Arimathea.
They wanted to properly wrap the body with the spices.
LOL! And then you say that they shouldn't have made the computer generated image of the person on the shroud, stating the command to not
make any image of anything on earth to worship.
Yes, to create an image with the express purpose to worship it is wrong!
Is that what is happening here?
I agree that the RC use of images in their worship is wrong, That is their downfall.
This video on the shroud IMO is very short sighted and not very well thought out.
BTW, I'm not dogmatic for or against the shroud being genuine or not. I just know the evidence is pretty compelling.
And for the reasons stated above, you might rethink your stand, or at least not reject it totally.
Oh, thank you! I also commented on the length of the hair. I completely agree with you on every remark. And I want to add that when covered in blood any face could become inrecognisable.
@@narminagasimova1952 Yes, that is a good point too. That is his blood covered face and body.
The YT'er is just a doubting Thomas.
When did the shroud first appear? 1300 AD something? Where was it for all those years?
Yet not enough proof to refute the shroud. Btw, can you explain then how the shroud could have been made up?
It is the Catholic Church who collected the Gospels we have today and kept it through the centuries safe and sound (from a non-Catholic, a Protestant) and we all must be thankful to her for that.
The burden of proof is not on me to explain how it could have been made but on the Catholics who claim it to be real. The fact that I don't know how it was formed does not in itself prove anything. In fact, I have never been given the opportunity to observe it in enough detail to make a judgment on that. Only a handful of carefully selected individuals and scientists have been given that privilege. Somehow I doubt you were among them. The Catholic church has long been obsessed with relics of dubious sources. There are enough shards of the true cross they have produced through the centuries to build a bridge. With their record, even if it were not for the scriptural evidence against the shroud, I would still be highly skeptical. The same chapel that houses the shroud claims to have the bones of John the Baptist. I am not sure how many other churches also claim to have those same bones, but I do know that at least four churches claim to have his head. Unless he was a hydra, I don't think he had four heads. Catholic relics are by their very nature questionable.
As for the Catholics giving us the Bible at the Council of Nicaea, that is more Catholic propaganda. The canon of Scripture was fixed in the time of the Apostles. 2 Peter 3:16 calls various writings of Paul Scripture. “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” Not all of Paul's writings were recognized by him or others as Scripture. In 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul refers to an earlier letter to the church in Corinth that was not Scripture. “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:” Just because it was written by Paul did not make it Scripture, not was it considered as such at the time. Paul also refers to a letter he wrote to the Laodiceans in Colossians 4:16 that is not part of the canon. The idea that the church was operating without a formalized New Testament for 300 years in nonsense and not supported by the Scriptures themselves. The canon was settled by God at the time of writing. 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” To believe otherwise makes man the authority in determining what is God's Word. I am a former Catholic myself and there is nothing in that church or in their history that anyone must be thankful for. Her hands are dripping with the blood of the saints she martyred for nearly 2,000 years since the time of Constantine and the Edict of Milan in 313AD. The Council of Nicaea (325AD) did not settle the canon because there are earlier Bibles that were already in use. The Italic Bible dates back to no later that 157AD. Nicaea was the early Catholic endorsement of the Alexandrian text (of Origen and others) over the Syrian text that from Antioch that later became known as the Byzantine text or the Textus Receptus.
It is also interesting to note regarding the canon, the Catholic church added the apocrypha to it in the 1500s at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The Protestants (Baptists are not Protestants regardless of what the Protestants may claim) reject this, but accept the Nicaea explanation of the canon. This is because Protestant history is Catholic until October 31, 1517. They have to accept that council as well as the teachings of Augustine and others, because they believe the Catholics once believed the true Gospel, but from the beginning this was not so! Constantine was the founder of what later gradually became what we know as the Roman Catholic church, but their practices and many of their beliefs were pagan from the beginning. Constantine had all his legions "baptized" by marching them through lakes and rivers and declaring them to be Christians as a result. Those who separated from the false teachings of Constantine and his official state church were persecuted unto death. They were called Donatists and denounced as heretics by Augustine and Constantine. There is evidence that the Waldenses were also in existence at that time. They also were brutally persecuted by Rome. No, true Bible believers owe nothing to the history of the Catholic false religion. Her hands drip with our blood.
@@BrotherBill Observe it? What qualifications, not to mention authority do you have to proclaim it fake? You believe it to be fake but can't prove anything. This is protestantism through and through, it's about introducing doubt. That's why protestantism was the first major step to the faithless world we live in. Protestantism is the work of the Devil. Luther and the other degenerates emerged in the era of Faith and destroyed Christian Europe precisely through these sneaky tactics of introducing just a little doubt, bit by bit we have reached where we are today where men don't know if they're men and women don't know if they're women.
@@BrotherBill So you can not explain how the image formed on a piece of linen dating back 2000 years of the time of Christ Jesus crucifixion yet you take the position that it is a fake. All the latest science has come to the agreement that the shroud has been dated to be around the time of Christ Jesus crucifixion and that today's technology can not create an image like this on non-photographic material. You do not make any sense at all. In all due respect I find your video pointless.
@@BrotherBill I don't understand why some Christians hate the Shroud? Why don't you want it to be true? I myself would be very happy to know it is 100 % authentic. I know it is, but not 100% yet. But I can refute your arguments, because they are too lame and weak. You touch Isaiah 50:6 and say the image on the shroud does not match this verse. How could you see the hair on the face plucked if it is not even a picture but a negative? The shroud shows a beaten face, a swollen eye and a broken nose, a face with streaks of blood and you say it does not reflect Isaiah 53. The word "marred" in Isaiah does not mean He was transformed, but was in a very bad appearance.
The man in the shroud does not have long hair. When the Israelite said 'long hair' they meant real long hair as worn by women (down the belt or so).
You spoke about the linen they wrapped Jesus. I checked my Bible and in all three Gospels it says Joseph of Arimathea brought a piece of linen. It says "cloths" only in John's Gospel and it obviously means linen cloth and straps for fixing the body. The same plural word is used when apostles and the women saw the inside of the empty tomb. They possibly saw the linen and the straps.
You say AI produced Roman Catholic vision of Christ. The images of Jesus in many icons are very alike not because they were created by Catholic bishops (Orthodoxs also have the same images), but because they reflect one and the same person.
We should not make images, I agree, but the image on the shroud was not made by humans, but by God Himself. So He is authorised to create anything He likes. And still this image is not an image of false gods that was prohibited, but a holy image of God for us to be fully convinced of His resurrection (for those who doubt).
All of those objections have been answered
Great post. Yes! Thank you so much
Thank you for posting information on this topic. I'll believe in God's Word not man's.
Thanks!
Thanks Brother Jarvis!
@@BrotherBill you're welcome my precious brother in Christ! Ephesians 6:10
The face cloth is referring to the sudarium of Oviedo. It still exists, is covered with the same blood type as the shroud ( AB ), is made of the same linen as the shroud, and has documented provenance back to at lest the 600s AD. The two cloths have also not been in the same place in documented history. What do you say about that?
A dead body doesn't bleed, if a corpse is washed there would not be blood stains.
@@onlyme972 The corpse was not washed. There was no time to prepare the body for burial due to the sun going down. This is Jewish Law. The reason the women returned on Sunday was to finish washing and anointing the body. This is all laid out in the New Testament.
Well done, Brother Bill. They also like to make our Lord Jesus Christ look like a handsome model when Scripture plainly says in Isaiah 53:2 that he was not very handsome that people should desire him.
Amen Brother Bill Delperdange hope this video helps many.
Some would say the beard looks like hairs were plucked out.
I dont ever thing people will worship it. I truly think it's real. can't be recreated only a true master can do this kind of thing
For a bit of a chuckle, look up the list of relics held in the Cathedral of Worms, Germany :D
Here's a few highlights:
Five particles of the milk of the Virgin Mary.
Four pieces of the hair of Mary.
Six pieces of the grave of Mary.
Four pieces of the city where the Lord Jesus was born.
One piece of the diaper in which he was wrapped.
One piece of the cradle.
Two pieces of the hay.
One piece of the burning bush which Moses saw.
Bones from holy places which on account of faded writing can no longer be read and identified.
All in all: five thousand and five pieces.
An indulgence of one hundred days for each piece!
It's almost as though Catholicism promotes superstitions.....
That's weird because that almost sounds like a list of Items that a witch would gather in order to cast a spell. In witchcraft, they would have weird list like this and this seems like the same thing. TC
@@muppetonmeds - It's my experience that Catholicism is closer to witchcraft than witchcraft itself!
@@2besavedcom-7 I agree I wish they could see past their indoctrination. I was reading in Jeremiah that God was mad because they were worshiping an Idol they called the Mother of Heaven if that doesn't sound like the Catholic church and Mary then I don't know what does. TC
@@muppetonmeds - Interesting. I've never seen a translation that renders מלכת השׁמים as "mother of heaven."
Most translations use "queen of heaven," but yes, it's also interesting that they were offering "cakes" to this deity, which we see every year with the "hot crossed buns."
The man in the shroud does not have long hair as Nasareens had. They had much longer hair.
But this image is the ressurecting image. Perhaps milliseconds before he did look worse?
Very excellent video. Thank you, Brother Bill!
I guess people do what they have to make themselves comfortable in their belief
so the dating of the shroud was the very first use of the test, and it is hailed as valid for it gave the date they want?
don't they know any science at all???
the test itself must be tested before any claim as to reliability can be made.
i did not know that the test itself was merely speculative powered by wishful thinking.
thanks for this info
Great video!
Absolutely right Brother Bill. I counted it out the first documentary i seen on it year's ago.
Anti Catholic bigotry ! What a “Christian “! You make yourself a Pope!
I fear this shroud is being used to turn people Catholic.
That would be great!
The shroud is very much the burial cloth of Christ and I'm staunchly anti-catholic.
@@DD-ld1xq ☝️🤓
The question worth asking here is why would someone want to debunk the Shroud to this extent? You continue to say people worship it, this is less than honest by the way. In any case, all you prove is that protestantism is the first step in rationalisation and ultimately faithlessness.
ALL RELIGIONS WOULD BE KNOCKED OUT OF THE WATER IF THIS THIRD SEDRET EVER LEAKED, BUH IT WONT THANK GOD!
That shroud is 100% fake! I was talking with another preacher Bro. Roy on YT yesterday about this and he showed how unscriptural it is and it's *very* unscriptural!
Protestant heretic.
If it’s “fake” how do you think the image was produced?
1. The forger first painted the bloodstains before he painted the image.
2. The forger integrated forensic qualities to his image that would only be known 20th century science.
3. The forger duplicated blood flow patterns in perfect forensic agreement to blood flow from the wrists at 65° from vertical to suggest the exact crucifixion position of the arms.
4. The forger "painted" the blood flows with genuine group AB blood that he had "spiked" with excessive amounts of bilirubin since the forger knew that severe concussive scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice.
5. The forger "plotted" the scourge marks on the body of the "man in the shroud" to be consistent under forensic examination with two scourgers of varying height.
6. The forger also duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders to suggest to 20th century forensic examiners that the "man in the shroud" had carried a heavy weight following the scourging.
7. The forger, against all convention of medieval artistry, painted the body he was "hoaxing" as Jesus of Nazareth, nude to conform to genuine Roman crucifixions.
8. The forger, as the forensic genius he was, illustrated the nails of crucifixion accurately through the wrists rather than the hands as in all other conventional medieval representations. He also took into account that the thumbs of a crucified victim would rotate inward as a result of median nerve damage as the nails passed through the spaces of Destot.
9. The forger was clever enough to "salt" the linen with the pollens of plants indigenous only to the environs of Jerusalem in anticipation of 20th century palynological analysis.
10. The forger was an artist who surpassed the talents of all known artists to the present day, being able to "paint" an anatomically and photographically perfect human image in a photographic negative manner, centuries before photography, and be able to do so without being able to check his work, close up, as he progressed.
11. The forger was able to paint this image with some unknown medium using an unknown technique, 30-40 feet away in order to discern the shadowy image as he continued.
12. The forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited pony-tail, sidelocks and a beard style consistent with a Jewish male of the 1st century.
13. The forger thought of such minute details as incorporating dirt from the bare feet of the "man in the shroud" consistent with the calcium carbonate soil of the environs of Jerusalem.
14. This forger was such an expert in 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensic pathology and anatomy, botany, photography and 3-D computer analysis that he has foiled all the efforts of modern science. His unknown and historically unduplicated artistic technique surpasses all great historical artists, making the pale efforts of DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael and Botticelli appear as infantile scribblings.
If the Shroud of Turin is a forgery of the 14th century, as the radiocarbonists claim, and not a genuine artifact of the 1st century, all of these qualities of the purported medieval "forger" must be accepted. If the Shroud was "forged" it would have to have been painted.
It is an irrefutable fact that there is NO paint or pigment on the Shroud of Turin leaving the only explanation of the technique of the forger to have used "photography" to manufacture the relic in the THIRTEENTH CENTURY!! Some authors have gone so far as to suggest exactly that. This is patently absurd!
We can add to this list, that the forger must have known how to fake torture forensics, since the recent discovery of creatinine and ferritin, nanoparticles are indicative of torture.
@Nick-wn1xw Yep, we both, using scripture, proved it to be fake.
@@jamesfahey5686 We don't care how it was produced. If it doesn't line up, throw it away. What's the point of keeping it. How doeas it help any catholic or atheist. An atheist can only become a catholic looking at this stupid cloth.
The Bible says they plucked out his beard? How does he still have one 1️⃣, what a fake
An approximately 14' x 3.5' piece of linen dating 2000 years ago with clearly an image of a man with blood stains from a brutal death would convince me that this is a burial cloth. The Sudarium head cloth and strips to tie it all together. "Linen cloths". Use some common sense, would you wrap a body in thin strips or a whole body covering not to mention handling a body with over 3 hundred bleeding wounds. Then explain the over one hundred wounds on just the head alone. I don't know about you but I don't think there was anyone else crucified with a crown of thorns. Your video is nothing but errors.
The antichrists dont must be forced to believe and be saved. Everyone must to chose faith with freedom. It is good that Shroud is not 100% demonstrated, so the antichrists can not believe it and not be saved. Eachone must go to his place. Christians to Heaven, antichristians to hell.
So you are saying that your salvation is dependent on believing in the shroud? That is not even close to biblical salvation.
@@BrotherBill Of course not. The shorud is a proof but without shroud christianity would be christianity anyway. The apostles did not preached with the shroud on their hands (except in some case as the king of Odessa, converted thanks to the shroud).
The shroud is a proof for christians of what christian already knew.
and it is better that is not 100% demonstrated, so each one can chose believe it or not, can chose to believe the truth or to belive the lie, with freedom. If the truth were 100% demonstrated the evil people would be forced to believe the truth, and forced to be saved, and that is not good.
When the truth is not demonstrated people can have faith in what people like, faith the truth or in the lie, showing what loves.
Excellent video Brother Bill!!! Thank you
Could be the real thing. Could be thr real thing. Interesting in this turbulent n confusing age we live in this icon or image shld even exists. The Lord wills it should as it will cause people to look n see n attract attention to Jesus n what he went through for us. Many may start reading bibles more after viewing this image. True there was a biblical ban in images but in the proper content realize some few hundred years ago there was no printing press. What communicated the word of God especially to illiterate was the heritage of the catholic church despite the corruption,fake relucs,profiteering, as church is full of human people who were good n bad,n .any churchmen were politicians n control freaks. However thinking about it the catholic church has a great heritage if keeping the gospels and great architecture t,n music n visual art only to communicate the Lord's gospel to unfettered men n women the peasants or etc. No printing press. If someone kisses a statue of jesus for example wouldn't you kiss your mom,or a beloved ones picture? Catholics do not worship statues. They r representatives of loved ones who pray for us n of Jesus the king of kings. So the prohibition against images shld be taken in its proper context like the times n era and type of people or tribes the prohibition given to and how today it is used in communication n back when books were rare. The images can symbolize Christ's love like his heart on alot of statues. We need tangible reminders as human beings and in pur media of today we r inundated with such garbage thrown at us
Again true we should center on the Word of God but not everyone is so literate n reads well. A beautiful image or painting like of hesus healing the sick n hugging children by the peaceful sea of Galilee hangingin in a home or a chapel n referenced n looked at is so consoling n communicates what written or spoken words cannot. in his ❤
There are good people n bad people some corrupt n some saintly in nature in any organization as one studies history 😅