_"The blood on the shroud is AB negative."_ The study asserting there were serum lines around the blood stains of the shroud was retracted. It is stamped at the title line in large, bold, red, capitalized text, "RETRACTED" with the explanation provided by the editorial board that is was due to bad science. Further, that study even acknowledged forgery was involved in the artifact. Title: Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud Authors: Elvio Carlino, Liberato De Caro, Cinzia Giannini, Giulio Fanti Published: June 30, 2017
@@EvilXtianityYou are referring just to this artefact. There are many artefacts that claim to have the blood of Christ on them. The tunic of Argenteuil. The Sudarium of Oviedo. Both were tested and had a blood type of AB. Just the red blood cell type is extremely rare making up only 3% of the worlds population today.
The issue with this video is that there is a lot left out, what's included makes it seem like highly likely. DNA sequences of pollen that are native to the region at the time, but it also contained DNA from pollen native only to eastern parts of China - its also not mentioned that the type of weave that was used in the linin doesn't correspond with what would typically be used in shrouds of that time - of which we have compared to know shrouds of possible high ranking figures from Jerusalem which we can accurately carbon date back to around 2000 years ago, instead the weave pattern is more conducive of that of medieval Europe. on top of that the "red stains" do not implicate blood, otherwise a better human DNA sample may have been possible as we would find concentrations of it in those areas which weren't found; rather pigments that use iron oxide are the most likely cause. this has been studied many many times, and yet you only seem to present information that indicates it being the actual shroud, and leave out anything that discounts or disproves it.
The problem with this shroud is the image itself which conveniently looks like the Byzantine depiction with long beard and long hair. During the time when Christianity was still not the official religion of the Roman empire, (and a few hundred years closer to Jesus time of death) the underground church depicted Jesus as a man with short wavy hair and short beard. The Roman guards also had trouble telling Jesus apart from the other disciples so Judas had to kiss him to point it out. Jews didn't wear their hair long unless they took a Nazirite vow and Jesus certainly didn't because he drank wine which is also forbidden if you took that vow. He only got this glamorized long hair, long beard image during the Byzantine era so he would look more like a wise teacher and stand out among his disciples on the paintings.
That’s an interesting point, it does look Byzantine, but the Byzantine are just later Romans. I have heard that the hairstyle shown in the shroud, the long hair and beard, was the style especially in Judea in the 1st century. It’s not possible he could have had long hair?
Sir your assumption abut how first century Jews wore their hair is not correctl Short hair was the style of the Romans and other pagans. jews followed the Law of Moses and one of those laws was Leviticus 19:27. Prior to the sixth century jesus was usually protrayed with short hair. In the sixth century the Image of Edessa was retrieved from its sanctuary in the West Gate where it had been secreted for 500 years. Everyone recognized the image on that cloth as being that of Jesus, and that is when the understanding of what Jesus looked like changed into the depiction that we recognize today as Jesus. the Byzantine depiction of Jesus was based on the Image of Edessa which was the Shroud folded up so that only its facial image was seen.
you're absolutely right, just the region and time there was nobody looking like that. I'm not saying the man never existed or anything but just people didn't look like that at the time
Jesus’s wasn’t even a real person. I don’t understand how people can just believe in this 😂 how many people do you think were killed in gods name just like this. If god was real we would have seen some evidence by now. Great video btw I have no hate to you.
You're kidding right? Just in case you're not.... To save yourself from future embarrassment... Jesus was a very real person. Whether He was God's son is a question of the heart, but that aside, He was real. There are MANY historical records noting His life. There is no one on earth debating whether He lived or not, there is too much evidence proving He did, people only debate His divinity. I mean, even Judaism, Islam, various religions talk about Jesus in their scriptures - He was that widely known even in His own time. Google bro - don't speak unless you actually know what you are saying. No hate, just a fellow human who cares and wants to help.
It has been dated to the 13th century multiple times. The type of fabric it is made of didn't even exist 2000 years ago. Where exactly did you get your information?
@@Jeantygotrobbed Says who? Where do you know this from? On the very detailed pictures available online you can't see any repairs, it is one large piece of fabric.
Yeah as @jeantygotrobbed said it was repaired at different points throughout its history which is why originally it was dated to the 13th century. The more recent tests confirmed it was from roughly 2000 years ago. They can clearly see that by comparing the degradation of fibres to other samples of cloth from other periods.
@ That's just no true. Look at the pictures with backlight. You cant just magically fuse fabrics without it being noticable, especially after hundreds of years. It is very clearly one single piece. What is your source for these "repairs"
Nobody knows, there is a theory it was the result of a flash of light, almost like photography or a really bright flash of light but nobody knows how that’s possible
2,000 years ago the racial demographic was a little different from today in that region, hence blonde Roman emperors etc. It’s possible Jesus had more white features than a middle easterner would have today after the effects of migration and Muslim expansion. The world didn’t always look like central London of 2025.
@Chroniclesofconan His genealogy is listed in Scripture. Doesn't mention any inner marriage with Europeans. Thanks to European painters, Jesus along with the entire patriarchy and peoples of the Bible have been falsely depicted as white. Today's Jews are only white because they spent 2000 years in Europe. If a non native breeds with the natives of the residing country in just 3 generations the features will almost be non existent let alone 2000 years later.
His genealogy is listed in Scripture. Doesn't mention any inner marriage with Europeans. Thanks to European painters, Jesus along with the entire patriarchy and peoples of the Bible have been falsely depicted as white. Today's Jews are only white because they spent 2000 years in Europe. If a non native breeds with the natives of the residing country in just 3 generations the features will almost be non existent let alone 2000 years later.@@HowardLovecraft1936
starting with a modern weaving pattern, analysis of the fabrics contents etc. that all don't match up at all. Only to come to the depiction, which is also clearly not accurate with what someone in Jesus time might have looked like.
It's amazing how the religious silence those who speak the truth like the current democratic party, I know my thumbs down won't mean crap to you but I won't be endorsing you either.
_"Is This the REAL Face of Jesus?"_ The anatomical proportions of the figure depicted on the Shroud do not match those of an actual human, but do conform to the proportions of the Gothic art of the Fourteenth Century. On a typical human the head from the top of the eyebrows to the top of the skull forms around 40% of the head. But on the Shroud the head from the eyebrows up forms only 25% of the head. This shortening of the upper part of the head is a typical anatomical mistake made by first-time life artists. Further, the head is 5% too large for the body.
This is an inverse image..Tones of things about the shroud show it's a real person under there. Including the blood. Also if you go through how they mapped the face you see that it matches perfectly when the face is put on a human face.
@@siyabongakhumalo4492 Wiki (includes 164 references): "In 1988, radiocarbon dating by three different laboratories established that the shroud's linen material was produced between the years 1260 and 1390. Defenders of the authenticity of the shroud have questioned those results, usually on the basis that the samples tested might have been contaminated or taken from a repair to the original fabric. Such fringe theories have been refuted by carbon-dating experts and others based on evidence from the shroud itself, including the medieval repair theory, the bio-contamination theories, and the carbon monoxide theory."
@@siyabongakhumalo4492 In 1390, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII (Avignon Obedience) stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist admitted he created it. He wrote that the cloth had been "artificially painted in an ingenious way" and that "it was also proved by the artist who had painted it that it was made by human work, not miraculously produced". Clement VII consequently issued four papal bulls, with which he allowed the exposition, but ordered to "say aloud, to put an end to all fraud, that the aforementioned representation is not the true Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but a painting made to represent or imitate the Shroud."
@@siyabongakhumalo4492 Microchemist McCrone analyzed the shroud and found traces of chemicals that were used in "two common artist's pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder" (McCrone 1998). He makes his complete case that the shroud is a medieval painting in Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (March 1999). For his work, McCrone was awarded the American Chemical Society's Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000.
@@siyabongakhumalo4492 The Shroud's weave is a three hop (3-over-1) herringbone twill which wasn’t used prior to the Middle Ages. No examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the purported time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave. In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized-and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus-multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face.
@@HistoryLeaks I think what he means is that if you put a piece of cloth over a face, the marks on the cloth should be stretched out. The face is seen way too clearly. Also the depicted man doesn't look like a person from the Middle East, rather like an European. Jesus of Nazareth, whether you believe in him or not, was from the Middle East though. Staying with the head, the proportions of the head look off. Like, the eyes of a typical human being are roughly in the middle between the top of the head and the chin. There are abnormalities like microcephalism of course, which result in a smaller brain and mental handicaps which, according to the Bible, Jesus did not have. Still the eyes and eyebrows look like they're way too high, too close to the top of the head. This could be what "no human looks like that" is meant to say. And since I'm here responding, let me point out a massive mistake you made when referring to blood. You said that there is a substance found on the Shroud called bilirubin, which you claim "only appears in blood after severe trauma". This is completely false. Bilirubin is found in blood, that's true, but it's always found in blood, not just after trauma. Every single day the body produces about 300 mg of this substance due to breakdown of red blood cells. So you might be right about actual blood being found on the Shroud. But this single fact doesn't mean that the blood is 2000 years old, nor that it's blood from a human, nor that it's blood from Jesus. Please note that I'm not trying to destroy your beliefs. If you want to think that the Shroud shows Jesus of Nazareth, you are free to do so. Just don't depict false facts as proof that you're right.
Too bad that you're getting into Christian apologetics. I've enjoyed your videos but history is much more enjoyable than wistful fantasies about the supernatural.
@mainemountainman3743 I hear you, but it is linked to history, I’m not trying to show a wishful fantasy I was just trying to explain some of the findings which raise questions.
I have look at many videos for years concerning the shroud of Turin.
We can pray and ask the Lord to validate the information concerning this.
Interesting video. The blood on the shroud is AB. It is the rarest blood type, making up only 3% of the world’s population.
Now that makes it even more intriguing, that’s crazy 🤯
Mas é uma foto de um europeu
_"The blood on the shroud is AB negative."_
The study asserting there were serum lines around the blood stains of the shroud was retracted.
It is stamped at the title line in large, bold, red, capitalized text, "RETRACTED" with the explanation provided by the editorial board that is was due to bad science.
Further, that study even acknowledged forgery was involved in the artifact.
Title: Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud
Authors: Elvio Carlino, Liberato De Caro, Cinzia Giannini, Giulio Fanti
Published: June 30, 2017
@@EvilXtianityYou are referring just to this artefact. There are many artefacts that claim to have the blood of Christ on them. The tunic of Argenteuil. The Sudarium of Oviedo. Both were tested and had a blood type of AB. Just the red blood cell type is extremely rare making up only 3% of the worlds population today.
@@TheHiddenNarratives
_"Both were tested and had a blood type of AB."_
Source?
Thank you for diving into this topic! I have watched a few outdated documentaries on it so it is great that you have made some that are up to date.
@@kaiser-of-history thanks for the feedback my friend, I’m glad you enjoyed it 🫡❤️💯
The weirdest thing is now we can’t reproduce it today.
The issue with this video is that there is a lot left out, what's included makes it seem like highly likely. DNA sequences of pollen that are native to the region at the time, but it also contained DNA from pollen native only to eastern parts of China - its also not mentioned that the type of weave that was used in the linin doesn't correspond with what would typically be used in shrouds of that time - of which we have compared to know shrouds of possible high ranking figures from Jerusalem which we can accurately carbon date back to around 2000 years ago, instead the weave pattern is more conducive of that of medieval Europe.
on top of that the "red stains" do not implicate blood, otherwise a better human DNA sample may have been possible as we would find concentrations of it in those areas which weren't found; rather pigments that use iron oxide are the most likely cause.
this has been studied many many times, and yet you only seem to present information that indicates it being the actual shroud, and leave out anything that discounts or disproves it.
Thank you again for an excellent video. Cheers, Mel from outback Queensland Australia 😊
Thanks for watching Mel, and thank you for the support all the way from Aus! I hope you have a great weekend🙏🫡😊
@HistoryLeaks bless you and your family 😊
Lord Jesus do not have LONG HAIR! That Shroud is a genuine FAKE!!!
The problem with this shroud is the image itself which conveniently looks like the Byzantine depiction with long beard and long hair. During the time when Christianity was still not the official religion of the Roman empire, (and a few hundred years closer to Jesus time of death) the underground church depicted Jesus as a man with short wavy hair and short beard. The Roman guards also had trouble telling Jesus apart from the other disciples so Judas had to kiss him to point it out. Jews didn't wear their hair long unless they took a Nazirite vow and Jesus certainly didn't because he drank wine which is also forbidden if you took that vow. He only got this glamorized long hair, long beard image during the Byzantine era so he would look more like a wise teacher and stand out among his disciples on the paintings.
That’s an interesting point, it does look Byzantine, but the Byzantine are just later Romans. I have heard that the hairstyle shown in the shroud, the long hair and beard, was the style especially in Judea in the 1st century. It’s not possible he could have had long hair?
Sir your assumption abut how first century Jews wore their hair is not correctl Short hair was the style of the Romans and other pagans. jews followed the Law of Moses and one of those laws was Leviticus 19:27.
Prior to the sixth century jesus was usually protrayed with short hair. In the sixth century the Image of Edessa was retrieved from its sanctuary in the West Gate where it had been secreted for 500 years. Everyone recognized the image on that cloth as being that of Jesus, and that is when the understanding of what Jesus looked like changed into the depiction that we recognize today as Jesus.
the Byzantine depiction of Jesus was based on the Image of Edessa which was the Shroud folded up so that only its facial image was seen.
I don't think what you are saying matters
you're absolutely right, just the region and time there was nobody looking like that. I'm not saying the man never existed or anything but just people didn't look like that at the time
@@jeffreyerwin3665Ezekiel 44:20
~Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.
Fake news since 1260-1390 CE.
Jesus’s wasn’t even a real person. I don’t understand how people can just believe in this 😂 how many people do you think were killed in gods name just like this. If god was real we would have seen some evidence by now.
Great video btw I have no hate to you.
Cheers brother thanks for the comment, I respect your perspective, and ability to hear another point of view and come to your own conclusion 🙏💯🫡
You're kidding right? Just in case you're not.... To save yourself from future embarrassment... Jesus was a very real person. Whether He was God's son is a question of the heart, but that aside, He was real. There are MANY historical records noting His life. There is no one on earth debating whether He lived or not, there is too much evidence proving He did, people only debate His divinity. I mean, even Judaism, Islam, various religions talk about Jesus in their scriptures - He was that widely known even in His own time. Google bro - don't speak unless you actually know what you are saying. No hate, just a fellow human who cares and wants to help.
2:24 they look like modern people
It has been dated to the 13th century multiple times. The type of fabric it is made of didn't even exist 2000 years ago. Where exactly did you get your information?
Wrong the corners are because they got repaired it was actually around 2000 years old
@@Jeantygotrobbed Says who? Where do you know this from? On the very detailed pictures available online you can't see any repairs, it is one large piece of fabric.
Yeah as @jeantygotrobbed said it was repaired at different points throughout its history which is why originally it was dated to the 13th century. The more recent tests confirmed it was from roughly 2000 years ago. They can clearly see that by comparing the degradation of fibres to other samples of cloth from other periods.
@ That's just no true. Look at the pictures with backlight. You cant just magically fuse fabrics without it being noticable, especially after hundreds of years. It is very clearly one single piece.
What is your source for these "repairs"
@@DLT-po6to history leaks said it best
The Roman guards had a problem because it was dark.
Very good video for people who love history
Thank you ❤🎉
Thanks for watching! 🙏💯❤️🫡
Could you summarize the answer in this reply?
Do you mean all the points I covered?
@HistoryLeaks yes, a concluding summary in a few sentences. I do not have much time
@@gilanthegreylmao you in a big hurry? It’s not that long of a video wtf are you talking about
@@HistoryLeaksit’s a 10 min long video you’ve now been waiting 20 hours for a summary. Make this make sense 😂
@@azgrem Yes i am in a hurry. A summary would help me out a lot. Time is money
so why would the face remain imprinted on the cloth?
Nobody knows, there is a theory it was the result of a flash of light, almost like photography or a really bright flash of light but nobody knows how that’s possible
If Jesus was from the Middle East he probably looked like a Middle Eastern not a European. Thanks to the European Catholic Church
2,000 years ago the racial demographic was a little different from today in that region, hence blonde Roman emperors etc. It’s possible Jesus had more white features than a middle easterner would have today after the effects of migration and Muslim expansion. The world didn’t always look like central London of 2025.
@Chroniclesofconan His genealogy is listed in Scripture. Doesn't mention any inner marriage with Europeans. Thanks to European painters, Jesus along with the entire patriarchy and peoples of the Bible have been falsely depicted as white. Today's Jews are only white because they spent 2000 years in Europe. If a non native breeds with the natives of the residing country in just 3 generations the features will almost be non existent let alone 2000 years later.
Howard forget allat, how can you tell what race he looked like from a cloth. He probably did have a darker complexion, you cannot tell by this cloth.
His genealogy is listed in Scripture. Doesn't mention any inner marriage with Europeans. Thanks to European painters, Jesus along with the entire patriarchy and peoples of the Bible have been falsely depicted as white. Today's Jews are only white because they spent 2000 years in Europe. If a non native breeds with the natives of the residing country in just 3 generations the features will almost be non existent let alone 2000 years later.@@HowardLovecraft1936
Don’t be dumb. Don’t forget JESUS EXISTED IN THE HEAVENS before he came to earth.
Justification
Everlasting
Sanctification
Understanding
Savoir
We all acknowledge that, without any doubt, the shroud is scientifically proven to be a late fake, right!?
starting with a modern weaving pattern, analysis of the fabrics contents etc. that all don't match up at all. Only to come to the depiction, which is also clearly not accurate with what someone in Jesus time might have looked like.
th-cam.com/video/pOdnTPl5AeY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=M76_kvxbOVf6SlzJ
Even if it was the real shroud of Christ it deserves no admiration. It's just a piece of cloth. Worship God and God only.
With your cherry picking facts to push your agenda
Its aFake
It's amazing how the religious silence those who speak the truth like the current democratic party, I know my thumbs down won't mean crap to you but I won't be endorsing you either.
The current democratic party is dog shit.
_"Is This the REAL Face of Jesus?"_
The anatomical proportions of the figure depicted on the Shroud do not match those of an actual human, but do conform to the proportions of the Gothic art of the Fourteenth Century. On a typical human the head from the top of the eyebrows to the top of the skull forms around 40% of the head. But on the Shroud the head from the eyebrows up forms only 25% of the head. This shortening of the upper part of the head is a typical anatomical mistake made by first-time life artists. Further, the head is 5% too large for the body.
This is an inverse image..Tones of things about the shroud show it's a real person under there. Including the blood. Also if you go through how they mapped the face you see that it matches perfectly when the face is put on a human face.
@@siyabongakhumalo4492
Wiki (includes 164 references): "In 1988, radiocarbon dating by three different laboratories established that the shroud's linen material was produced between the years 1260 and 1390. Defenders of the authenticity of the shroud have questioned those results, usually on the basis that the samples tested might have been contaminated or taken from a repair to the original fabric. Such fringe theories have been refuted by carbon-dating experts and others based on evidence from the shroud itself, including the medieval repair theory, the bio-contamination theories, and the carbon monoxide theory."
@@siyabongakhumalo4492
In 1390, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII (Avignon Obedience) stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist admitted he created it. He wrote that the cloth had been "artificially painted in an ingenious way" and that "it was also proved by the artist who had painted it that it was made by human work, not miraculously produced". Clement VII consequently issued four papal bulls, with which he allowed the exposition, but ordered to "say aloud, to put an end to all fraud, that the aforementioned representation is not the true Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but a painting made to represent or imitate the Shroud."
@@siyabongakhumalo4492
Microchemist McCrone analyzed the shroud and found traces of chemicals that were used in "two common artist's pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder" (McCrone 1998). He makes his complete case that the shroud is a medieval painting in Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (March 1999). For his work, McCrone was awarded the American Chemical Society's Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000.
@@siyabongakhumalo4492
The Shroud's weave is a three hop (3-over-1) herringbone twill which wasn’t used prior to the Middle Ages. No examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the purported time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave. In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized-and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus-multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face.
Is Jesus real 🤔
Ask Josefus
Nah thats Pouya
There never was a "real Jesus" to start with.
No human looks like that. It's like a bad drawing 😂😂
No human has two eyes, a nose, and a mouth?
@@HistoryLeaks I think what he means is that if you put a piece of cloth over a face, the marks on the cloth should be stretched out. The face is seen way too clearly.
Also the depicted man doesn't look like a person from the Middle East, rather like an European. Jesus of Nazareth, whether you believe in him or not, was from the Middle East though.
Staying with the head, the proportions of the head look off. Like, the eyes of a typical human being are roughly in the middle between the top of the head and the chin. There are abnormalities like microcephalism of course, which result in a smaller brain and mental handicaps which, according to the Bible, Jesus did not have. Still the eyes and eyebrows look like they're way too high, too close to the top of the head.
This could be what "no human looks like that" is meant to say.
And since I'm here responding, let me point out a massive mistake you made when referring to blood. You said that there is a substance found on the Shroud called bilirubin, which you claim "only appears in blood after severe trauma". This is completely false. Bilirubin is found in blood, that's true, but it's always found in blood, not just after trauma. Every single day the body produces about 300 mg of this substance due to breakdown of red blood cells.
So you might be right about actual blood being found on the Shroud. But this single fact doesn't mean that the blood is 2000 years old, nor that it's blood from a human, nor that it's blood from Jesus.
Please note that I'm not trying to destroy your beliefs. If you want to think that the Shroud shows Jesus of Nazareth, you are free to do so. Just don't depict false facts as proof that you're right.
No
Boo this man! BOOOOOOO!!!!!
Too bad that you're getting into Christian apologetics. I've enjoyed your videos but history is much more enjoyable than wistful fantasies about the supernatural.
So history should be restricted to? Not a validation or affirmation on this video, just curious..ask Barley
@mainemountainman3743 I hear you, but it is linked to history, I’m not trying to show a wishful fantasy I was just trying to explain some of the findings which raise questions.
it's not 2000 years old , not even close
except it is
@@luke247nope its not.. No where near it...
@ except it is
@@luke247 i can repeat the same shit as well..hahahaha
Post a link to the peer reviewed science.. If not, it isnt..
@@eurofitz2607 except it is
I'm confused because now it is said that Jesus is African. This image doesn't look African so what's the truth.
he aint