Is the Shroud of Turin Real?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 16 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 16 тис.

  • @metatronyt
    @metatronyt  Рік тому +675

    Hey Noble ones! Thank you so much for checking out this video! If you wish to support my work here is a link to my Spring shop for the Christmas Special limited edition t-shirts!
    tinyurl.com/5n6ffu3r
    tinyurl.com/3rjfhx55
    And a Link to the Collaboration with Shad from Shadiversity channel t shirts
    tinyurl.com/yc2puhah
    And/Or Support my work on Patreon!
    www.patreon.com/themetatron
    Thanks!

    • @fatihahenouze2036
      @fatihahenouze2036 Рік тому +6

      Can you do a video about roman legion switching line during battle?

    • @wes4736
      @wes4736 Рік тому +8

      I really enjoyed the video! Ihave a question about the carbon dating. You mentioned the even coating of Iron Oxide being a possible byproduct of dry copies being put up against the fabric, do you think that the multitude of these copies could have been enough to potentially push that radio carbon clock forward?

    • @ezrafaulk3076
      @ezrafaulk3076 Рік тому

      In *my* opinion, your last point on there being absolutely *no* mention of an image in the gospels is *proof* that the shroud of Turin is a forgery, simply on the basis that an image would *definitely* have been noteworthy enough to warrant a mention in them.
      Also, while it's not surprising that Constantinople was a Christian city at the time, since it was literally *founded* by the first Christian emperor of Rome, Constantine "the great", it's also pretty interesting to know that *other* Christians sieged and plundered it during the Crusades. Sure it was forbidden to attack Christian settlements, but not only were Christian countries always fighting each other over any petty difference in beliefs, but the Crusaders were brainwashed into believing their sins would be absolved if they went on Crusade, and so felt morally *righteous* while committing some of the *worst atrocities* imaginable.
      Finally, it's interesting you pointed some contradictions in the bible out, because Celsus wrote a thesis on the logical fallacies of Christianity and a lot of its truly *evil* practices dating all the way back to 117 or 177 AD (can't remember which of those dates it was for sure), back around the time Christianity was just starting out, that makes it clear that Christianity has literally *always* been the way it is today, and lends a new perspective on why the Romans were so *hellbent* on stamping Christianity out when they didn't have a problem with other religions; until the Christians managed to slip one of their *own* onto the throne of emperor and *force* the entire empire to convert, murdering the ones that *refused* to that is (oh, and fun fact, it wasn't until *after* its conversion to Christianity that the Roman empire fell for *good* ). The channel "Voices of the Past" did a video summarizing some of the most important points in his thesis, and a video narrating a Japanese emissary members writings on America, in the New York section of which he points out how strange a lot of writings in the Bible are, and how *easy* Christian arguments are to defeat; I think it'd be interesting if you did a video on those at some point.

    • @Berkana
      @Berkana Рік тому +14

      @Metatron, at about 30:25, you mention that Athanasius said that Christians fled to Antioch ahead of the siege of Jerusalem. There is another event that happened in 69AD known as the Flight to Pella. In the year 68, Nero died, and immediately, there was a crisis of imperial succession in Rome. Vespasian was recalled to Rome to deal with the crisis, and the siege of Jerusalem was put on hold. Year 69 became the year of four emperors, as each successor was assassinated by the next. By the time everything settled down in late 69, Vespasian himself had become emperor.
      Christians in Jerusalem saw that it was surrounded by armies, and they remembered from Jesus' teaching (recorded in Luke 21) "“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written." So they evacuated Jerusalem and fled to the other side of the Jordan. Pella was apparently their prime destination, but Antioch is also in that general direction, though further away. Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis both cite this tradition. Athanasius may be recording additional information that Eusebius and Ephiphanius missed.
      After all the Christians had evacuated Jerusalem and Judea, the siege of Jerusalem resumed in ernest in 70AD under the leadership of Titus. In heeding Jesus' warning, they were spared the horrifying destruction of Jerusalem and the slaughter of its people.

    • @LilithLonelyHeart
      @LilithLonelyHeart Рік тому +5

      That reminds me of one old documentary on the shroud, not sure if it was NatGeo or Discover, but I know there were several interesting points in this documentary that I was expecting to maybe see here unless you found out they got debunked during your research
      1#: relating to the carbon dating controversy, in recording the procedure there was a half-hour gap, more than enough to do pretty much whatever with the samples they got, not just swap them for something else, and I must agree this is something that should have to happen in a serious scientific project, and shouldn't;t happen if we're ever to try and repeat it tho supposedly right now we would need to get samples for the burn marks as some recent conservation works using a carbon-based preservation compound that would falsify the results, and that only burn marks would be a reliable source
      2#: I don't remember the name of the researcher but he was part of this documentary he supposedly found traces of possible repair works done on the shroud, a patch of linen that was not only woven differently from the rest but also dyed when there was no dye on the rest, and supposedly he found it really close to the patch that was used as the sample for the carbon dating, theorizing that this sample could be a medieval repair work, and reason for the result, he also theorized it could be possible due to linen weaving techniques of the past still being relatively well known and commonly used in middle ages
      3#: another theory from dis documentary is that in the Gospels there was mention of Jesus' body being covered in red myrrh before it was wrapped in a shroud, which was odd for the burial procedure but was also considered a hit that Jesus wasn't dead, and people burying him were aware of it so they covered him in substance that was regarded as a medicine, and it gets heated up by Jesus feverish caused the chemical reaction responsible for the image
      Honestly, it was years ago when I watched this documentary, and not sure if it can be found somewhere out there in the wilderness of the internet but if it is still out there maybe a follow-up video would be a good idea
      And personally, I think that regardless of which way the debate settles down on, be it on it being fake or authentic, the implications of both are truly fascinating things to consider, also it's current status is honestly quite hypocritical, it's revered for possibly ties to Jesus himself but at the same time church don't want people to confirm it definitely because then it would deliver a lot of evidence that the Resurrection of Jesus wasn't really a restriction at all undermining one of the core foundations of Christianity... but at the same time I feel like if we're in this just for this miracle and not for Jesu' teachings, it would prove how weak of faith a lot of people are

  • @Kevan808
    @Kevan808 Рік тому +1669

    This was the best documentary on the shroud I've seen. No off-the-wall theories, unbiased display of the facts and great historical facts I wasn't aware of. Excellent work sir!

    • @elperronimo
      @elperronimo Рік тому +43

      We've come a long way from the history channel

    • @Mark-nh2hs
      @Mark-nh2hs Рік тому +38

      No Ancient Aliens either 🤣🤣🤣

    • @kiiik8801
      @kiiik8801 Рік тому +22

      strongly recomend videos of Barry Schwartz - oficial photographer of Shroud Team of the 70-ies.

    • @beorbeorian150
      @beorbeorian150 Рік тому

      - [ ] I am ashamed that the current leadership of the Church does not make it clear the shroud is a fake. They hide behind the obscurity of terms like “icon”
      * The shroud is also contrary to the description in the Gospel. Look it up.
      “Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself.”
      * We have no reliable documentation of the Shroud of Turin’s existence until the fourteenth century.
      * The forger who made the Shroud of Turin confessed and the earliest definitive mention of the shroud in any historical source is a record of his confession.
      * The Shroud of Turin doesn’t match the kinds of funerary wrappings used in Judaea in the time of Jesus or the description of Jesus’s own funerary wrappings given in the Gospel of John.
      * The linen of the Shroud of Turin has been securely dated using radiocarbon dating to between c. 1260 and c. 1390 AD-well over a millennium after Jesus’s death.
      * The figure on the Shroud of Turin does not have anatomically correct proportions and much more closely resembles figures in fourteenth-century Gothic art than a real human being.
      * The bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are not consistent with how blood actually flows naturally and they instead appear to have been painted on.
      * The fabric of the Shroud of Turin is made with a kind of weave that is known to have been commonly used during the Late Middle Ages, but does not seem to have been used for burial shrouds in Judaea in the first century AD.

    • @julietfischer5056
      @julietfischer5056 Рік тому +7

      @@Mark-nh2hs- Alien Jesus.

  • @AnselmsAlwaysAccurate
    @AnselmsAlwaysAccurate Рік тому +209

    Just sat down and watched this with my mom. Thank you 'tron, your work is loved!

    • @metatronyt
      @metatronyt  Рік тому +76

      Thank you very much and say hello to your mum from me

  • @Wovonoloverofgod
    @Wovonoloverofgod Рік тому +427

    Before watching this video I was more sceptical of the Shroud of Turin, however listening to the facts of the case especially the possible historical route of the shroud from Jerusalem to Constantinople, France and on to Turin, the type of linen and the evidence that no natural explanations can be found for how the image is on the cloth have made me reconsider.
    Thank you for your time and effort which went into making this thorough and unbiased video.

    • @metatronyt
      @metatronyt  Рік тому +69

      My pleasure and thank you for watching

    • @JoutenShin
      @JoutenShin Рік тому +31

      The Shroud is easily reproducible, in all its properties, with the frottage technique (medieval technology of course). It was reproduced for the first time in 2009 by Luigi Garlaschelli, a chemist at the University of Pavia:
      L. Garlaschelli. Life-Size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image. J. Imaging Sci. and Technol., 54 (4) 2010, in press
      This reproduction replicates all its properties, 100%, including the bas-relief detected with 3D information, exactly like the Turin Shroud. As you can verify, there is no mystery. Please reply to the peer reviewed scientific publication only with other peer reviewed scientific publications. I'm not interested in personal opinions. I consider any comment not supported by scientific documentation as a confirmation of the scientific documentation that I have indicated.

    • @NunoFilipe-yx4lx
      @NunoFilipe-yx4lx Рік тому +70

      @@JoutenShin This does not explain the chemical reaction. The visual representation of the body is visible because it was imprinted with said chemical reaction. The blood is real, the water is real, making the assumption of it being frottage easly refutable.

    • @JoutenShin
      @JoutenShin Рік тому +8

      @@NunoFilipe-yx4lx The representation was obtained in the experiments via frottage which generates the chemical reaction.

    • @user-raging_Prophet
      @user-raging_Prophet Рік тому +7

      ​@@francescoghizzo Yes, thank you! It was multiple times debunked. It's absolutely interesting, but a fake.

  • @felldoh9271
    @felldoh9271 Рік тому +82

    Metatron you rock man and thank you for sacrificing sponsor money for our better enjoyment (you did not have to do that and it did not go unnoticed!).

    • @metatronyt
      @metatronyt  Рік тому +14

      Thanks I appreciate you kind words

  • @Ravensonng
    @Ravensonng Рік тому +533

    I have never seen a more comprehensive and unbiased documentary on the shroud than this one. Thank you so much for making it available to us.

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому +21

      I don't know for his others videos (maybe he's usually really accurate) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.

    • @Dougy359
      @Dougy359 Рік тому +46

      @@revedargent3467as a professional chemist and published author I saw no issues with his chemistry.
      Peer reviewed is not the end all be all. A lot of peer reviewed material is wrong and there’s a ton of internal politicking involved in publications (aka few people are willing to rock the boat in research and actual published material is sometimes presented in a way to not offend a big wig scientist)

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому +6

      @@Dougy359 "his chemistry" ? I don't understand. What are you talking about ?

    • @BK-hq7tn
      @BK-hq7tn Рік тому +32

      @@revedargent3467 “He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer- reviewed papers.” Conclusion not a fact. You have fully taken from skeptics magazine, non peer reviewed papers. And I will support this conclusion by addressing your claims.
      You support your conclusion by stating,
      “there is a huge lack of science in his sources.”
      And “most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies”
      Okay let’s see how you supported these two claims.
      You said “No blood attested” and “Pigments found on plenty places of the shroud”
      But the science says you’re wrong.
      “No evidence was found in the body image of any added substances that could have contributed to the yellow coloring of the fibers that form the image . The blood images on the cloth are mode of blood.”
      (1984 A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin. ACS Advances in Chemistry No. 205 Archaeological Chemistry Ill. Peer reviewed)
      You say “anatomically wrong body” assuming you meant “anatomically not a human body”
      First of all. The video never addresses the anatomy so non secretor to your claim that the video goes against science. But you’re wrong anyway.
      “According to our analysis, the image was created when the body was lying in the supine position, on a hard surface, where the contact between the body and the cloth was controlled by gravity” Archaeometry Volume 60, Issue 6 p. 1377-1390 The Evidence of Crucifixion on the Shroud of Turin Through the Anatomical Traits of the Lower Limbs and Feet. Peer Reviewed
      Continued…

    • @BK-hq7tn
      @BK-hq7tn Рік тому

      @@revedargent3467 “3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body”
      Bas relief is a conclusion not a fact. Science doesn’t make conclusions like that. I already proved that the anatomy fits with a “body lying in supine position”.
      "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking,
      “Blood” is not in quotes proved with peer reviewed science that it “test(ed) positive for hemoglobin and serum al-bumin”. But you’re claim that they “are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking,” the form of the blood is a fact, your conclusion that it is “impossible” when proven by anatomy to placed on a body is unscientific conclusion supported by no peer reviewed analysis.
      “a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time”
      This was addressed in the video. It’s almost as if you aren’t having a good faith conversation of the actual topic and you are just copying a bunch of things off skeptics magazines website.
      “a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times,”
      Again what does any of this have to do with the video? You’re supposed to be supporting the claim that the video violates science.
      “the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few”
      Again this is exactly what the video said. Your supposed to be proving the video wrong and not scientific.
      “anachronic weaving”
      No science
      “wrong pollens and dust”
      No science.
      All of your claims were basically pulled from articles like the “Fake Turin Shroud Deceives National Geographic Author” published by Skeptical Inquirer not a peer reviewed journal.
      And you follow the sources to their baseless nonscientific claims, they are all books published by Prometheus Books a secular humanist publication that publishes (shocker) non peer reviewed books.

  • @OneRedKraken
    @OneRedKraken Рік тому +458

    18 minutes in and I think Metatron has touched on more material than an hour long documentary I saw on the shroud on either the Discovery or History channel. And I havent finished the video yet, but I am sure he wont loop back on previous things he said and endless hammer away at assinine points. YTers of this quality blow modern day tv production out of the water in terms of the depth they delve into subjects.

    • @jerrytang3146
      @jerrytang3146 Рік тому +3

      Why do you even want to learn about Jesus from channels that are associated with atheists? As a Christian, you should be guided in your research and examination about your religion/faith by your own church so you have a better perspective.

    • @vecturhoff7502
      @vecturhoff7502 Рік тому +30

      @@jerrytang3146 You need to both, its good to learn with non biased people

    • @luisoncpp
      @luisoncpp Рік тому +27

      ​@@vecturhoff7502 I agree that we need to learn from multiple sources, but I wouldn't call atheism as "non biased". Specially History Channel.

    • @ChadKakashi
      @ChadKakashi Рік тому +17

      @@jerrytang3146 I don’t want to insult your intelligence but have you heard of this thing called “confirmation bias”?

    • @ChadKakashi
      @ChadKakashi Рік тому +16

      @@luisoncpp your ideological enemy could give you insight though. And an atheist will never jump to conclusions because of his faith, since he lacks faith.
      They might jump to conclusions because they wanna discredit the subject, though I don’t think Metatron would ever do that.

  • @ericheckenkamp6091
    @ericheckenkamp6091 Рік тому +1167

    As a Christian I am always skeptical of holy artifacts, and I found this was very interesting.

    • @TehFlush
      @TehFlush Рік тому +66

      You should look up our lady of Guadalupe apparition as well. I'm very skeptical, but the shroud and that one are artificts I genuinely believe are real

    • @Nimai_Aquino
      @Nimai_Aquino Рік тому +70

      Our Lady of Fatima is an undeniable apparition too. Attested by tens of thousands, making into papers and stuff. There are people alive still, that were there that day.

    • @j.b.kingsbury7221
      @j.b.kingsbury7221 Рік тому +13

      ​@Nimai An undeniable psyop

    • @josh4478
      @josh4478 Рік тому +27

      @@j.b.kingsbury7221 how is it a psyop

    • @ashzole
      @ashzole Рік тому +6

      oh really but you are not skeptical of THE HOLY BIBLE? It’s right in your face, the words that make up the title of your holy book.

  • @boone674
    @boone674 3 місяці тому +226

    There are new major findings on the shroud. You should do an update video

    • @VicSellsPeace
      @VicSellsPeace 3 місяці тому +37

      They’re from 2022. Not new, technically. Weird how it wasn’t reported

    • @ohmanilovemylife
      @ohmanilovemylife 3 місяці тому

      Are the news studies serious and credible? There's so much bias in a lot of the shroud's research I see out there.
      Also, I know that Wikipedia isn't meant to be the most credible source of information on earth, but since these new discoveries got recently disclosed, they haven't updated the wiki entry of the shroud to even mention the new research. In the "discussion" page for that article, some wikipedia editors with authority there are calling the new discoveries unreliable and overall just biased, so i'm really confused as to whether we should take the new findings into account or not.

    • @cybersquaregaming
      @cybersquaregaming 3 місяці тому +2

      @@VicSellsPeace huh, strange.

    • @brittybee6615
      @brittybee6615 3 місяці тому +11

      Why is it just all over news now? Im confused about what happened between 2022 and a week ago.

    • @Deebus
      @Deebus 3 місяці тому +17

      @@brittybee6615it’s typically risky to blast new studies over the internet. It’s typically smart to give it a few years for scrutiny and review to make sure there’s nothing glaringly weird or incorrect in the methods or the findings before really blasting it over the news

  • @Daaab89
    @Daaab89 Рік тому +118

    There should be a "quality content" button on UA-cam.
    Great video, I'm not religious, but fairly interested in such topics, and it was a real pleasure to watch the whole video.

    • @Babsza
      @Babsza Рік тому +1

      Same here ! I've watched loads of his videos and he is certainly multi talented ❤️ 👌

    • @friskeysunset
      @friskeysunset Рік тому

      Agree. There really should be a ranking along those lines to compete with the simple-minded "popularity" measure (which only records the attention of the simple-minded, but I'm just sayin').

  • @victormanteca7395
    @victormanteca7395 Рік тому +197

    Since the "Sudario of Oviedo" is mentioned, it's interesting to note that there are blood stains on that cloth, and those stains seem to match those that are in the face region of the figure in the Shroud of Turin, which makes even more likely that it was the matching "face cloth" mentioned by sources.

    • @JeanSmith-sz4uu
      @JeanSmith-sz4uu 21 день тому

      ⚡️⚡️⚡️That’s totally inaccurate! Camera Obscura has been around since 400 BC. Historian Nicholas Allan has reproduced a 3D image on a cloth similar to the image on the shroud of Turin. A medieval high IQ anatomist and artist such as Da Vinci who used to love play joke on people, who also loved optics and enjoyed creating images of all sort, would not have been stupid to use a new cloth from his own era, but a cloth made from centuries earlier and from Palestine region in order to make the so called shroud look totally authentic.
      Also consider the authorities on the shroud of Turin. One of the so-called scientists that have worked on the shroud of Turin is Ian Wilson. But, Mr. Wilson’s authority and expertise on the Shroud as well as his other works such as the Flood Story of the book of Genesis, and even Nostradamus have been shown to be very questionable and have received very poor ratings and reviews by critics who have been experts in the relevant historical and scientific backgrounds. Mr. Ian Wilson himself has been said to have graduated in “modern history” from Magdalen College which is nominally the Church of England. This does not make him any expert or any academically qualified authority to have an unbiased opinion that would carry any weight in the fields of ancient history, archaeological history, and relevant sciences. And even if he did, most of, if not, all of what he has claimed would be rejected by both the broad and the specific unbiased scientific communities around the world.
      Historian Charles Freeman has heavily criticized Ian Wilson's writings on the subject of the Shroud of Turin. He has stated this about Mr. Ian Wilson:
      “He is not taken seriously by any respected historian... Wilson has failed to provide any significant evidence from this mass of material to back his narrative. It seems to fail at every point. He provides no evidence that the Shroud existed in Jerusalem, no evidence that a burial shroud arrived in Edessa."
      (Source: Freeman, Charles. (2012). "The Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey"Archived 9 September 2012 at the Wayback Machine. Free Inquiry.)
      I have found many of the documents on the shroud to be inconsistent and contradictory in quite few places. Too many to bring up here and talk about them.
      Another scientist working on the should has been Mark Guscin who again is not a valid source. The reason is self-evident--Mr. Guacin has obtained a degree in Bachelor of Arts and one in Master of Philosophy--both of which are irrelevant to the required specialized fields dealing with history, science, and archeology-- and not to mention the New Testament scholarship. Reading his article similar to the one by Mr. Ian Wilson is filled with contradictions, suppositions, assumptions as well as elements that would forcefully distort the sacred texts of the Bible which are the ultimate authority in ascertaining and differentiating between the facts and the manmade assumptions, wishes, and desirously-derived contents added to the sacred texts.
      Another authority that many reference on the subject of the shroud of Turin is a man who calls himself an “Australian evangelical Christian in my 70s”. Howbeit, I read his statements carefully to see what his claims are. He is correct in saying that Greek translation of the word othonia meaning linen wrappings or cloths is in plural, however, he erroneously and under his own assumptions claims that the main big shroud was taken by Jesus which which is an empty assertion and not biblical at all! It amazes me how far man is willing to distort the word of God just to try to prove his own imaginary ideas! In any case, he is free to express his opinions, but he is not any authoritative source whatsoever especially in the light of genuine scholarship.
      Let’s go now to another source who is referenced a lot, namely the forensic scientist, Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, M.D., Ph.D., Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology, Columbia University, College of Physicians & Surgeons.
      I have absolutely no reason to doubt Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe educational background as a forensic scientist or any part of his academic accomplishments. Out of all the main sources which people reference as being authoritative, Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe would be legit in his own field. We need to be cautious even here because we are all human and can still make mistakes. For example, Albert Einstein was wrong about some key scientific discoveries such as believing in a static universe even though his own formula had shown that the universe is not static but expanding. His inner conviction (bias) about a static universe had gotten the best of him:
      When first developing his theory of general relativity, Albert Einstein initially believed the universe was static and added a term to his equations called the "cosmological constant" to force this idea, even though his theory of general relativity mathematically implied an expanding universe, which he later accepted after observations confirmed it was expanding; he considered adding this constant his "biggest blunder”.
      (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.html)
      Apparently, Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe also had his own blunder. In science, merely one person’s assertions without the consensus of the main body of the scientific institutions is not sufficient to be counted as true or factual even if the person is as prestigious in the academic fields as Albert Einstein.
      Moreover, Dr. Andrea Nicolotti , a Professor of the History of Christianity and of the Church in the Università degli Studi di Torino says this about the shroud and general medical examiners and forensic pathologists:
      “As for the alleged “medical and anatomical convincingness” of the anthropomorphic imprint and wounds on the Shroud, several non-sindonologist forensic pathologists have declared it impossible to conduct a physical examination of a body that is not present, based only on a monochromatic image generated not by natural contact but by a process akin to an orthogonal projection on a flat surface2 (as I explain in my book, pp. 282-87). Moreover, those seeking to conduct such an examination have produced a series of statements that are mutually contradictory and thus negate each other.”
      Same Christian historian states the following about the shroud:
      “… as early as 1978 the FBI was asked to comment on the cause of death of the man whose image appears on the Shroud; they refused to do so, because-as director Clarence M. Kelley replied-examining photographs of the cloth would have been “not productive.” Robert Wilcox, Shroud (London, 1978), 135-36. In 1980, the same request was made of the famous New York-based pathologist Michael M. Baden; he concluded that “the Shroud probably never contained a corpse, and that-even if it did-a qualified pathologist could not read the kind of conclusions being held out as ‘expert medical opinion’ on what it purportedly shows. . . . If I had to go into a court room, I could not say there was rigor, whether the man was alive or dead, or that this picture was a true reflection of injuries on the body. I do know dead bodies: human beings don’t produce this kind of pattern”: Reginald W. Rhein, “The Shroud of Turin: Medical Examiners Disagree,” Medical World News 21, no. 26 (1980), 40-50.”
      There is a ton more evidence that if we go through them one by one, they would all dissolves the whole notion of the Shroud of Turin. But let these few sources suffice for now.
      None of these discussions would be necessary if one were to take a simple look at the Bible and have that as the sole authority in which it explains itself clearly. Nothing can explain the Bible better than the Bible itself. It should be used to weigh in the opinions and statements of historians and the scientists and not the other way around. That being said, none of the sources people claim as scientists, working on the shroud, with the exception of Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe would even come close to being qualified to speak authoritatively on the shroud of Turin. And in the final analysis even Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, as a strong and a very devout Catholic states things that no other forensic pathologists would deem as honest science. It happens so often that a good scientist makes the most unscientific assertions! Even Caiaphas who was the high priest in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus's ministry was supposed to be extremely knowledgeable in the Old Testament and the law and yet, his highest so called knowledge of the law was not sufficient to help him see the truth and he had rejected the Lord.
      Based on the Bible and based on the sincere investigation of the sciences, it is absolutely clear that the shroud cannot possibly be the genuine artifact!

  • @the_major
    @the_major Рік тому +297

    Catholic here who has always been very interested in the shroud, you did an excellent job with this. Very well done!

    • @tarhunta2111
      @tarhunta2111 Рік тому

      Why do you Catholics do that? Announce to the World that you are Catholics.Is this the same Catholic Church that buggers little kids? And your proud of that?

    • @the_major
      @the_major Рік тому +35

      @@tarhunta2111 hey man, just thought it'd be nice to compliment the man on a job well done on a subject that Catholics take seriously. No need to get nasty.

    • @Non-dual-mind1
      @Non-dual-mind1 Рік тому +20

      @@the_major That's just how some non-believers communicate. If they were believers, they'd have a different tongue.

    • @c.h.7580
      @c.h.7580 Рік тому

      I suggest you leave the catholic church and become non denominational. The bible says Christ is the only mediator between the Father and men, not priests. Mary is not to be prayed to, only Christ. And not allowing priests to pursue marriage is just plain wrong. Not to mention obvious things like the satan telescope that the vatacin uses. I could go on and on. You are in a false end times church

    • @Hscaper
      @Hscaper Рік тому +6

      @@Non-dual-mind1you’d be surprised how some believers communicate if you think it’s just non ;)

  • @johnlynch-kv8mz
    @johnlynch-kv8mz Рік тому +198

    35:37 they were supposed to take five different sample from different areas. They took one thread , and cut it five times, and they knew what they were doing. Thanks for keeping it real.

    • @robbieg.3462
      @robbieg.3462 Рік тому +62

      Yea, also important to mention that it took them 20 YEARS to release the results from the carbon dating tests. They did not want to prove it genuine.

    • @johnlynch-kv8mz
      @johnlynch-kv8mz 11 місяців тому +19

      @@robbieg.3462 i heard as our technology progresses new mysteries questions needing answers arise from the shroud. At first I thought it was a selfie from his corpse, as a kind of a joke. Then I find out that it’s actually a video (of sorts, a still one.) and that the light which seared the image came both from within and without the body . Some place so incredibly distant although these rays describe a sphere different geometric measurements are needed because the lines appear parallel. Brother, let me tell you. Some days I get really frightened…then I laugh, after crying. I am so happy so happy ! He’s coming back!!!

    • @SublimeSynth
      @SublimeSynth 11 місяців тому +16

      conspiracy theories and religious people go together like peanutbutter and jelly

    • @brah9249
      @brah9249 10 місяців тому +59

      @@SublimeSynth but i thought you guys liked science and facts? so when science contradicts you it's a conspiracy theory?

    • @SublimeSynth
      @SublimeSynth 10 місяців тому

      @@brah9249 they did science, the cloth was successfully carbon dated. this revealed that the shroud - like much of religion - is fake. there is zero evidence the scientists conspired in any way to commit fraud or skew the test, hence making such accusations as valid as claims that the initial moon landing was faked.
      it would be just as likely that the curators understood casting doubt on one sample is much easier than five, so they only allowed one to be taken. the difference between us: i would never present this conjecture as fact because i understand what kind of evidence is required to claim something is factual.

  • @galaxywolf969
    @galaxywolf969 Рік тому +306

    As a student of history, I have an MA in American history, and a Christian, I have tried to look at the Shroud in both aspects. You have done a fantastic job summing up all the history and scientific analysis without imposing your own opinion. Masterly done, which is what I have come to expect from this channel. The fact that you are not over a million subscribers is a crime.

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому +15

      unfortunately, he didn't use scientific sources to this video, only sindonologist's work. That's why there are so many errors and he's basically mostly repeating their speech.

    • @duketinntinn8498
      @duketinntinn8498 Рік тому +10

      I'm not a Christian I'm a Believer in Jesus. Sounds crazy BUT when most people say they believe in Jesus they mean they believe in Christianity which is a system of worship. As flawed as 🧬 evolution. Christianity believes in keeping the old covenant and the New covenant at the same time. That would in fact make them judaizers like those in Jerusalem whose leader was James who tried to put pressure on Peter to separate the Jewish Believers from the Christian Believers in Jesus. Acts-21.
      Overall Christianity does not teach Grace by faith. If the blood of Christ cleanses us from all unrighteousness then why do we need a laundry list of dos & don'ts with threat of punishment? If someone keeping the law of Moses stops them from stealing my car I should be happy but I don't need such a law. I'm not building a golden calf to worship.
      And I don't have a desire to taking something from someone that isn't mine and I don't have a desire to kill people. As scripture states in the books of Timothy the law is NOT for the righteous. Also that is why a non-religious person had more faith then all of Israel. Truth and religion are like oil and water. very little doubt in my mind that the shroud is authentic even though I don't need physical evidence . You got to wonder why the word bible isn't in the Bible. The prophets and apostles talk to the scriptures could be trusted they never said they would be one book. I love the creation scientists and we can learn a lot from them but proving evolution wrong is never going to prove the Bible is the word of God. Both systems are narrow-minded and promote group thinking. I've never lost a debate against a Christian because they are listening to men not reading scripture guided by God's spirit that Jesus left us to lead us into all truth.
      Blessings. And you can reach a lot more intelligent people with the truth than blind Faith religious dogma. Blessings

    • @Kenruli
      @Kenruli Рік тому +5

      @@duketinntinn8498 this is true for me, im christian (Evangelic Lutheran) but I want know the truth in all and having a common sense 😅
      I hardly believe in any superinnatural.
      So yeah I believe that Jesus has been a real person and that Shroud might be where He was wrapped into.

    • @duketinntinn8498
      @duketinntinn8498 Рік тому +1

      @@Kenruli I'm of Norwegian heritage and a distant relative to Eliot Ness.
      Like Elliot I can't be bought. I had a radio program teaching the organic and holistic truth about the New Testament. With my knowledge I could have a very lucrative ministry if I compromised the truth, but I won't. The truth about the scriptures is you can have eternal life. That's the uncompromising message. Jesus is certainly not a stalker. With all the terrible things that this world did to him he still was willing to forgive people because they truly did not understand what they were doing. They were misled by the leaders of their day just like people are misled today. I thank God everyday I WAS NOT raised in a Christian home. I didn't have all those falsehoods put in my head at an early age. in fact my father taught me to be objective. I debated a man that knew the New Testament by heart and had a higher IQ than Einstein. After I showed him how wrong he was he asked me to join his church. He taught like many people that Jesus came as a Jewish Messiah. I pointed out when Jesus started his commission John stated "behold the Lamb who takes away the sins of the World". Day One! He came to disciple the people that already knew God and we're under the Old Covenant. They in turn were to take the message to the whole world, and did After his death by crucifixion. Jesus said I have sheep you know nothing about. Jesus was in no way saying that if you do works to help others from a loving ❤️ it was nothing. He was saying doing it for brownie points will get you nowhere. God knows your heart. The Good Samaritan is an excellent example. In closing my friend, Jesus is not a Stalker.💥❤️👏

    • @jchinckley
      @jchinckley Рік тому +3

      *Masterfully (is the word you were looking for). 🤔 (hmm, I think I'd better check myself...)
      Well now... because of you I've learned a new word I didn't know existed before. I am well acquainted with "masterful," but I'd never heard of the seeming synonym "masterly."
      Thank you.

  • @haroldgodwinson5043
    @haroldgodwinson5043 Рік тому +168

    I'd just like to say how much I appreciate the work you have put into this. I understand how much time it would have taken to conduct all the research here, collate it, and then present it in an edited video.

    • @haroldgodwinson5043
      @haroldgodwinson5043 Рік тому +8

      @TOFEK GAMER I didn't lose Hastings, it is still where I left it...

    • @charlesyoung7436
      @charlesyoung7436 Рік тому +1

      I also appreciate the depth of knowledge shown, and the way this video was presented. Be it real or fake, The Shroud of Turin has one thing going for it. It looks to be the oldest photograph on earth, being created (at least) some 600 years before Nicephore Niepce's first photograph in 1825. Ironically, it was of Pope Pius VI, and utilized a fixing substance called "Bitumen of Judea." This was done without a camera, and it has become lost. His earliest surviving photograph of a view from his studio window used a camera, and came a year or two later.

    • @IamGrimalkin
      @IamGrimalkin Рік тому

      @@charlesyoung7436
      Well if it's fake, it would depend on how it's faked.
      It might have been a hand-created photorealistic drawing rather than something photographic in style.

    • @barbeeska
      @barbeeska 3 місяці тому

      ​@@IamGrimalkin no pigments and contains coded information that can enable 3D models to be simulated

  • @WhatIsYourMalfunction
    @WhatIsYourMalfunction Рік тому +323

    I've been fascinated by the shroud since I was a boy in the 70's, and have waffled in my opinions of it over the years, but I found this a good and honest summary. I can't add much, but I will tell you I was a young nurse in 1995 given the task of cleaning and prepping a man's body. He had died in the ICU and it was to be prepped for the morgue. They had (I assume still have) kits for this. In the kit was a plastic shroud and three plastic strips for tying the feet, wrists and jaw (to keep it closed) prior to wrapping in the shroud. Then a sheet went over that and it was wheeled to the morgue. So there could be both strips of cloth as well as a shroud involved in the burial of this man in antiquity. I'm sure it was not a new procedure as it was functional and simple.

    • @beorbeorian150
      @beorbeorian150 Рік тому

      - [ ] I am ashamed that the current leadership of the Church does not make it clear the shroud is a fake. They hide behind the obscurity of terms like “icon”
      * The shroud is also contrary to the description in the Gospel. Look it up.
      “Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself.”
      * We have no reliable documentation of the Shroud of Turin’s existence until the fourteenth century.
      * The forger who made the Shroud of Turin confessed and the earliest definitive mention of the shroud in any historical source is a record of his confession.
      * The Shroud of Turin doesn’t match the kinds of funerary wrappings used in Judaea in the time of Jesus or the description of Jesus’s own funerary wrappings given in the Gospel of John.
      * The linen of the Shroud of Turin has been securely dated using radiocarbon dating to between c. 1260 and c. 1390 AD-well over a millennium after Jesus’s death.
      * The figure on the Shroud of Turin does not have anatomically correct proportions and much more closely resembles figures in fourteenth-century Gothic art than a real human being.
      * The bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are not consistent with how blood actually flows naturally and they instead appear to have been painted on.
      * The fabric of the Shroud of Turin is made with a kind of weave that is known to have been commonly used during the Late Middle Ages, but does not seem to have been used for burial shrouds in Judaea in the first century AD.

    • @andrewmoubray8893
      @andrewmoubray8893 Рік тому

      Sounds like an older method with some newer materials.
      Today, the body is shoved into a giant, well made plastic bag.
      From there the undertakers drain the blood and replace it with formaldehyde. Then a pretty box and some makeup and they are ready for the funeral.
      It's obvious the body is empty when someone dies. I have no particular emotion about it then.
      The emotions of the family affect me, but the deceased is simply no longer present.
      I'm sure the people who saw Jesus die knew this too.
      Talking to Him later must have been quite emotional.

    • @gloriamontgomery6900
      @gloriamontgomery6900 Рік тому +5

      Apparently, in Jesus’s time the wrapping would consist of narrow, bandage wrapped strips of cloth rather than one big piece

    • @paavobergmann4920
      @paavobergmann4920 Рік тому +28

      @@gloriamontgomery6900 Source? because I read different accounts. And I also worked in a hospital, and yes, what ShinyPartsUp describes is exactly what we did with deceased patients. For aesthetic as well as practical reasons. You don´t want the family to visit a body with open eyes and gaping mouth, and you don´t want an arm of the body slip off and hang from the side of the shelf in the fridge, and then stiffen. believe me, that is a mightily unpleasant sutiation to get this body out of the fridge again without completely maiming it. Sorry for being so graphic, but yes, three strips of cloth and a bedsheet solve all of your issues.

    • @phillipstroll7385
      @phillipstroll7385 Рік тому +10

      @@gloriamontgomery6900 I too would like to know where you got that information, because studying classic writings is my favorite pass time. So much so I have full access to the Vatican archives. I have yet to discover anywhere, whether in ancient Latin, ancient Greek, ancient Hebrew, sanskrit, Aramaic or cuneiform anywhere where it states they are wrapped in narrow bandages rather than a full sheet and tied at the wrists, head and feet. We still wrap bodies this way today until the mortician glues and sews the eyes and mouth shut.

  • @артемР-и1о
    @артемР-и1о 3 місяці тому +181

    There is now evidence that the Shround may indeed be 2,000 years old.

    • @Steph-sk3xb
      @Steph-sk3xb 3 місяці тому

      I want it to be true but there are no sources to say it existed before the 14th century. Harsh skeptics will say someone could have made a forgery on a piece of linen from that era and it would be a more plausible explanation for why it might date to 2000 years ago. sources that site it from closer to 1AD would go a long way to proving its authenticity more than any scientific test could.

    • @CheerfulFerryBoat-ug8gr
      @CheerfulFerryBoat-ug8gr 3 місяці тому +13

      YES!!!!

    • @adrianawalisch5562
      @adrianawalisch5562 3 місяці тому +1

      😌😍

    • @viktordoe1636
      @viktordoe1636 3 місяці тому +6

      The "new" evidence is a study from 2022

    • @CheerfulFerryBoat-ug8gr
      @CheerfulFerryBoat-ug8gr 3 місяці тому +7

      @@viktordoe1636 That's okay! That's merely yesterday! Still "new!"

  • @HarryFlashmanVC
    @HarryFlashmanVC Рік тому +629

    The one impression I am left with from the analysis is that the way that Jesus was put to death was unspeakably horrific, painful and humiliating. Even if this isn't 'the'shroud, its a representation of a crucified man and reproduces rhe horrific events of that horrendous death.

    • @bobbycecere1037
      @bobbycecere1037 Рік тому +80

      ​@Judith Mirville
      Correct. It was literally a commerce.
      However where do you get your Physical description of the Nazarene?
      I've read the bible multiple times & I do not recall him ever being described physically.

    • @DanSutherland
      @DanSutherland Рік тому +82

      @MrMirville It's pretty unlikely Jesus would be frail, He traveled long distanced and worked with carpenters and fishermen. He was stated to be unremarkable in general appearance. He would have blended in amongst the disciples. The average height would have been around 5' 5". The image on the shroud is said to be of a man ranging from 5' 7" to 6' 2". On the low end 5' 7" would be very reasonable, the high end of 6' 2" would indeed be likely someone else. Also donkeys can quite easily be ridden it's not hard to find photos. Also Romans may have bred much larger donkeys and mules at the time as they've discovered donkeys bred at the Roman villa in Boinville-en-Woëvre measured 155cm around 200AD.
      I don't think it's that easy to dismiss this one. There's definitely some doubt with the height, dating, and number of artificial relics. But there's also a lot of mysterious things about how the image was made at all and the extreme attention to detail. I think there's not enough evidence either way to make a definitive conclusion.

    • @euler4273
      @euler4273 Рік тому +12

      Not necessarily. If it is a forgery, then those injuries could have been done after the death of someone that the forger decided looked the part. The injuries were applied to match the description in the bible. It is curious how well it matches. Almost too well.

    • @unknown_feature
      @unknown_feature Рік тому +16

      Whoever was wrapped into this cloth died a terrible death.

    • @DrDipwad
      @DrDipwad Рік тому +53

      @Judith Mirville: Re: "on a donkey kid": Oops. I'm afraid that's a misunderstanding of the text. (Y'gotta know your Judaica!)
      The text says, "on a donkey, on the colt of a donkey." This is a typical Hebraic doubling, a form of parallelism found throughout writings in Hebrew or Aramaic, and especially throughout the Jewish Bible/Christian Old Testament. When a point is to be made, it is said in two ways, one after the other, the second restating the first, with an extra stress or emphasis given in the restatement. The extra emphasis in the second statement can take various forms: (a.) if a number is included in the first phrase, it is _increased_ by one, in the second phrase; (b.) if the intent is to _shock,_ then the first phrasing will be smooth and even-toned whereas the second phrasing will use rougher, gnarlier language; and, (c.) if the intent is to provoke contemplation or recollection, a more elaborate, specific, detailed, or poetical phrasing is used in the second statement.
      As an example of (a.) we could give the various doublings in Proverbs 30. One is: "Three things are never satisfied; four never say 'Enough': Death, the barren womb, the earth ever thirsting for water, and the fire which never says 'Enough'." Another says, "Three things walk proudly; four are stately in their stride: the lion, which is mightiest among beasts and does not turn back before any; the strutting cock, the he-goat, and a king striding before his people." You get the idea. In each case the first phrase could've been stated only once if we were saying something in modern English. (E.g., "four things are always asking for more" or "four things walk proudly.") But in Hebrew, they give us the parallel doubling, with a numerical increase, for emphasis and to invite contemplation.
      An example of (b.) is shown in John 6, when Jesus says that to have life in them, people must "eat [His] flesh." Initially Jesus uses the generic term for "eat," but when it is restated, it is doubled down with the term _trṓgō,_ which has a more visceral meaning, "to chew, gnaw, masticate, grind with the teeth." It's as if Jesus is saying, "You want to live? You need to eat My flesh...no, _really,_ you have to seriously chow down and chew." (Weird, but, again, this form is used to _shock_ people, so....)
      And the line you're citing from Matthew 21 (I think?) is important because it's Matthew _quoting_ from Zechariah 9: He is _citing_ an earlier text from a Hebrew prophetic book. Zechariah 9:9 says: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! / Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! / Lo, your king comes to you; / triumphant and victorious is he, / humble and riding on an ass, / on a colt, the foal of an ass."
      Does "foal of an ass" mean a donkey that isn't full grown? No, because this is just an example of (c.), the Hebraic doubling where a more "poetical" phrasing is used in the second statement.
      In Hebrew writing, a poetical way of stating "such-and-such is an X" is to say "such-and-such is a _son of_ an X." If you want to say something is an oak tree, you call it, "an oak, a sapling of an oak tree." If you want to say the animal over there is a _dog,_ you say, "a dog, a whelp of a dog." If you want to call someone human, you call him a "son of Adam" or "son of a man" ...unless the person is female, in which case you'd say "a woman, a daughter of Eve."
      If you're familiar with this Hebraic style trope, it's clear that calling an animal "a donkey, on the colt of a donkey" isn't meant to imply that the animal isn't fully grown. _All_ donkeys are descendants of donkeys. The text is just emphasizing that _it's a donkey,_ and the only other data we can derive is that the author thought the point _worthy of emphasis._
      In Zechariah, of course, the point is worthy of emphasis because Zechariah is looking forward to a time when Jerusalem will be entered not by a conqueror on a war stallion, but by her own Davidic monarch, riding humbly and non-aggressively on a donkey, indicating that the city is at peace. This is being emphasized as a message of hope to the city in the post-exilic period where the land was occupied by a foreign power, no Davidic heir had sufficient power to claim the thrown, and the whole area was often in danger of invasion.
      In Matthew, the point is to refer back to Zechariah's words as prophetic foreshadowing of Jesus' arrival as "Son of David" (and thus, theoretically, the king). It makes sense Matthew would want to emphasize _that_ point, and would reflexively use the same Hebraic doublings; but we needn't assign him that as a _motive._ If he wanted to cite Zechariah _at all,_ the doubling was already there _in the original._
      So in the end, there's no reason to suggest that Jesus was unusually small-of-frame from this passage. It's saying that Jesus "rode a donkey _the way a king of Judah would_ in times of peace."
      Hope that helps!

  • @evilmandrake
    @evilmandrake Рік тому +250

    This was great. I've never really looked into the shroud, so I wasn't aware of all the details put into it, real or fake. Truly amazing.

    • @semperfi-1918
      @semperfi-1918 Рік тому +24

      I agree. Tho one thing i understand is that when i checked the carbon dating... they have had issues in the past with it. One example is mamoth testing had 2 completely different dates by 10k years on the front and the rear half of the same mammoth. So im not exactly fond of carbon dating.

    • @Benjamin1986980
      @Benjamin1986980 Рік тому +6

      @@semperfi-1918 It's incredibly useful, but just like DNA, photographs, or anything else, it only shows what what ask it. This being, when did this thing that you are testing die? The question of what you are testing is another matter entirely, and then how to interpret it.

    • @gordonlawrence1448
      @gordonlawrence1448 Рік тому +6

      @@semperfi-1918 There was also a snail that showed to be 3500 years old but was still alive. Turns out it was living in a cave with little air circulation etc.

    • @ABaumstumpf
      @ABaumstumpf Рік тому +7

      @@gordonlawrence1448 "There was also a snail that showed to be 3500 years old but was still alive."
      Yeah, when you misuse technology for something that it is explicitly not suitable for then you get bad results - who'd have known.

    • @tedarcher9120
      @tedarcher9120 Рік тому +3

      It is neither, it is a painting

  • @MeglynLad
    @MeglynLad Рік тому +83

    I'm very taken with your work. Your channel is phenomenal. It's so much better than watching a documentary on any of the given subjects, because it is packed full of useful and interesting information without filler. I also enjoy the humor you sprinkle throughout. Do you have help on research and production? Keep it up! I hope you make millions.

  • @jamesmcv
    @jamesmcv Рік тому +32

    I've read and seen a number of explanations about the shroud over the years. This is, by a large margin, is the most in depth I've seen. Most documentaries or articles seem to stop at "it's a medieval forgery", this one didn't. Just excellent work and research.

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому +3

      I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
      Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.

    • @beverlyhurd8556
      @beverlyhurd8556 Рік тому

      @@revedargent3467 If you are morbidly stupid enough to believe the Shroud is a fake, then you must explain how whoever fabricated it must have:
      1. Known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century.
      2. Be proficient enough in over 100 scientific disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery.
      3. Possessed the medical knowledge of a modern expert surgeon.
      4. Utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since.
      5. Be able to foresee and approximate principles of photographic negativity that would not be discovered for centuries.
      6. Imported a piece of old cloth of Middle Eastern manufacture.
      7. Used a coloring agent which would be unaffected by intense heat.
      8. Be able to incorporate in his work details (that have only recently been discovered), that the human eye cannot see and that are visible only with the most advanced computer-scanning devices.
      9. Be able to reproduce flawlessly, on a nearly flat linen surface, in a single color, undistorted 3-D characteristics of a human body in a 'negative format' on the tops of the threads, while conversely showing the 'blood' as positive and soaking all the way through.
      10. Get somewhere the blood of a tortured man and apply it before creating the image.
      11. Get limestone from Jerusalem, and pollen particles from the middle east, in special from plants with thorns, that flourish only between March and April.

    • @jonathandavid3480
      @jonathandavid3480 Рік тому +5

      @@revedargent3467 do you mind linking to peer review papers for each of your claims so I can do further research. Some of your claims seem novel to me.

    • @bluckobluc8755
      @bluckobluc8755 Рік тому +10

      ​@@revedargent3467You are the most chronicaly online atheist I have seen yet

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому

      @@jonathandavid3480 sources and detailled explanations :
      The main argument against authenticity and that could be enough on its own: the dimensions are not correct. The VP-8 only found 3D info of a bas-relief (about 3cm deep) and not of a whole body. It is a second operation, made from these results, which recreated a body with a program to add the correct dimensions of a body. We find a 3D body because we implemented a program to have a 3D body. This second operation can be considered artistic at best, fraud at worst. A body printed on a sheet renders an image which lengthens as it moves away from the center and which breaks up with the folds of the fabric or simply the extension of its surface because of the curve it takes. The hair must mark in a more blurred and light way, even stick to the skull since it is the blood which must mark. The sheet must be excessively stretched so as not to end up in places with hollows also represented but only the full ones. For that, the mark is in this sense too delimited. Where have the sides gone? Why would Jesus' followers have stretched the sheet above and below (what supports the body in this diagram?) so as to mark only the solids and not the sides? it doesn't make any sense. Ah and then given the small distance between the back and the front of the head, it seems impossible that the top of the skull did not print the fabric and therefore not connect the two. There is a difference of almost 7 cm between the frontal image and the dorsal image. The arms are too long (just enough to hide the genitals) as are the fingers. The forehead is too small. The body is surprisingly very large for the time of Jesus but much less when compared to the figure of the medieval knight.
      Even assuming that the body is bent (the use of rigor mortis here is more of a magic solution that comes to counter attacks on proportions with bogus assumptions) it does not explain all the proportions more than 'unusual (like fingers). Especially since the folded body does not change the fact that we have the choice between a tempera technique on bas-relief on one side (which explains the dimensions and makes it possible to have a task with similar characteristics such as the showed the various experiments made) and a body in suspension which is printed thanks to a magic ray on a sheet itself in suspension. And then the shot of the bent body also increases the problem of the front/back junction of the skull because a bent body requires an even longer sheet and changes the deformation of the image even more.
      The sample for carbon dating was carried out by three sindonologists (hard to say that they would have failed on purpose) including experts in ancient textiles (if they are not able to recognize a more recent piece of stitched fabric from almost a millennium and a half so there is a big problem) on a rectangular piece taken from the bottom left of the ventral image and specifically far from any damaged or stitched part (it can be seen with the naked eye). The sample was then sent to three prestigious independent laboratories recognized for their excellence in this method and whose results are consistent with each other (the shroud was woven with flax harvested between 1260 and 1390) and with the appearance of the shroud in the story.
      The fires of 1532 added scorch and water marks (to put out the fire) to this one but that's not enough to discredit the carbon dating. The ad hoc hypothesis of contamination by a fungus which would have distorted the dating is contradicted by the calculations made by Henri Brock which shows that the fungus should have brought twice as much carbon as the laundry currently contains. His calculations also show that the fire should have contributed twice as much carbon as the laundry contains if the fire only dated back to 1800 and more than 5 times for 1500. It should not be forgotten either that any dating carbon is preceded by a cleaning phase to remove the carbon pollution. The ad hoc hypothesis of proton bombardment is itself such a mystery that it absolutely cannot pass Ockham's razor and totally contradicts the laws of physics.
      There is an excellent scientific article which presents the carbon dating of 1988, the extreme precautions and guarantees that have been taken so as not to make any mistakes (great media pressure) as well as the immediate and unsurprising desire of believers to pass this dating for bad because it does not validate their beliefs. It also presents the subsequent unsuccessful attempts to contradict this dating by ad hoc hypotheses and by other datings, but whose methodological biases were too great to draw anything from them, until recently and far from completly refuting this dating. The opinion also of Christopher Ramsey (director of the AMS laboratory in Oxford at the time of writing the article and a specialist in carbon dating) is reported there, who accepts the idea of a new dating with other techniques (tested these and not created for the shroud) in the hope that it will allow believers to no longer take pleasure in the denial of scientific results which in the long term will make it possible to clean up the scientific debate. The article in question dates from December 23, 2013, was written by Richard CORFIELD and is entitled "Chemistry in the face of belief". However, it is more easily found by searching for "The enduring controversy of the Turin Shroud".
      Quote from Christopher Ramsey in 2008: "I'm always willing to consider any serious suggestions of why the dating might not be correct and to do further tests to investigate such suggestions. In this sense, i keep an open mind - as I would about any scientific investigation. However, my strong intuition, based on my experience in this field, is that the new hypothesis will not challenge the accuracy of the original radiocarbon dating exercise." This position is shared by all specialists in radio-carbon dating. Jacques Evin, for example, gives a very similar opinion. In 2019, T. Casabianca (accustomed to publications on the Turin's shroud) published a study in the journal Archaeometry, which showed a lack of homogeneity in the raw carbon dating data, without proving an ancient origin. Indeed, Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry show in 2020 in their article "An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin" that only a few decades of difference are necessary to reach the 95% reliability announced in 1988.
      In 2005, Raymond Roger, member of STURP, published a study (R.N.Rogers, “Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin.”, Thermochimica Acta, 425 (2005), p. 189-194.) which claimed to show that the dating of 1988 is false because made on patched parts. It is based on the vanillin level of the fibers taken, on a Wiesner test and claims both to demonstrate the invalidity of the 1988 dating but also to date the shroud itself to an age between 1300 and 3000 years. Many problems with this study: We have no guarantee where the sample comes from or its storage conditions. This one was given to him by Luigi Gonella who claims to hold it from the 1988 levy but no proof is provided, only his word. Nothing says that it is not a fabric from a totally different origin. The heat from the Shroud's fire was more than enough to vaporize the Vanillin from the surface of the Shroud in seconds and even much less. Rogers' dating method is unique, unprecedented and therefore not at all well-established, unlike that of 1988, which leads to suspicion. The values of the Wiesner test were taken in a perfectly arbitrary way. The analysis is made on a surface sample only (by adhesive) and without taking into account surface phenomena. It misses the margins of error of various numerical values, sources and references while various errors suggest that Rogers probably did not pass the peer review or that he found a way to cheat with it.
      In 1973, an analysis of the pollens and the dust of the linen concluded to a passage of this one in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. Problem: the study lacks considerable precision, other pollens which should have been there (if this was the case) are not, as well as the calcyte deposited on the pollens during the fire of 1532 and the images of criminologist Max Fry strangely do not show traces of the fire (a good classic fraud in sight) which is explained by the admission of this one according to which he had taken reference images and not the real ones images of the shroud pollens. For Marzia Boi in 2010: her work is neither in agreement with previous pollen surveys and their expectations, nor in agreement with the study by Gianni Barcaccia who speaks to us squarely of pollen coming from East Africa until to China, the two willingly forgetting that the Shroud was not always kept well protected but was even exposed to the public (the degradation of the pollen is therefore quite different from the ideal state they imagine) on different occasions during which an audience of believers from all over the world could come to see him.
      It is not really possible to determine with precision and certainty the geographical origin of a pollen. A palynologist will tell you that we can (at best) determine the biological family to which he belongs and then see in which places in the world this family has been found over the ages, but there again it remains excessively unreliable and imprecise.

  • @yentasnivla
    @yentasnivla Рік тому +673

    as an aside, it is a shame that Metatron still has only 660K subs, how can we get this to 1M. I feel like he deserves the 1M. I really hope he passes 2M before 2023 finishes. Godspeed.

    • @bluwng
      @bluwng Рік тому +22

      Only? I wish him success but 600+K isn’t chop liver.

    • @Xaiff
      @Xaiff Рік тому +19

      Yeah, for all the quality contents Metatron had pumped all these years, 600k feels somewhat unsatisfactory for me as a viewer. The contents really qualify for millions of subscribers.
      Wish more people would get hooked in 😁

    • @manubishe
      @manubishe Рік тому +2

      You feel shame for the 600k subs Rafael has on his channel?
      Is everything alright?

    • @romainburgy908
      @romainburgy908 Рік тому +5

      Let's get it to 666k (number of the beast by Iron Maiden plays in the background)

    • @lokenontherange
      @lokenontherange Рік тому +5

      @@Xaiff Metatron is great but he's not the most approachable guy on youtube what with his Dracula appearance and very cringeworthy approach to many things.

  • @skrounst
    @skrounst Рік тому +291

    I'm only 17 minutes in and I just want to pause early to say thank you. As a person that regularly goes down random study binges of topics that interest me, I have a good idea of the amount of time it had to have taken to find all this intricate minutia. I appreciate you!

    • @skrounst
      @skrounst Рік тому +5

      After finishing the video, while it would be pretty cool if it was real, odds are not good. I had seen a couple documentaries about the shroud previously, but they didn't go over half the stuff you did. It was cool hearing you try and follow a timeline of the shroud, and seeing it was theoretically possible for the shorud to end up where it did. However, it's pretty unlikely that all the stars aligned in such a way that The Shroud of Turin, was Jesus' death shroud. I'd say 94% it's a medieval forgery, 5% it's the shroud of another crucified man from Roman Empire period, 1% it's the real deal.

    • @beverlyhurd8556
      @beverlyhurd8556 Рік тому

      @@skrounst Sounds to me like you need to do a _lot_ more Shroud studying! The odds are _much_ better for it to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth than for it to be a fake. There is an image of a man on the Holy Shroud. That man has been horribly beaten, savagely scourged, capped with a crown of thorns, and then crucified until dead. There is _no_ pigment, no carrier, no brush strokes, no clumping of material between the fibers or threads, no cracking due to centuries of folding or rolling the Shroud, and no stiffening of the cloth. This means that the image could not be due to paint, dye, or stain. · There is no capillarity (soaking up of a liquid) of the discoloration in the fibers or threads, so the image could not be due to application of a liquid such as an acid or a chemical in a liquid state. · The image is not luminescent under ultra-violet light. This means that the image could not be due to a scorch from contact of a hot object with the cloth. · The image is only visible in front lighting. It is not visible in back lighting. From this, the STURP team concluded that the image does not result from any substance placed on the cloth, which means that the image could not be a rubbing, a dusting, or a print. And _only_ the original cloth will give a 3-D image when run through a VP8 Image analyzer.
      So now the question is, how in the _world_ can you think that it's a fake?

    • @blaze1148
      @blaze1148 Рік тому +9

      @@skrounst I would say from all the points bought up by this video I would conclude:
      Real: 90%
      Forgery: 9%
      Another man: 1%
      Just think of the effort and technology needed to create a forgery that leaves an imprint only on the top two layers of the should...we are talking microns here....forgeries in those times would of been crude and simple consisting mainly of dyes and paints.
      The exactly death of Jesus was written in detail and it matches extremely closely with what we see in the Shroud....again a forgery of this level of sophistication would be extremely difficult in the 14 Century.

    • @ivanj.conway9919
      @ivanj.conway9919 Рік тому +10

      @@skrounst : ''5% it's the shroud of another crucified man from Roman Empire period" Yes but with all the EXACT, same, wounds as the biblical account gives?! What would be the odds of that?!

    • @SpiralEyeZombie
      @SpiralEyeZombie Рік тому +8

      If it is the burial shroud of Christ, then there is no reason for the stars to align.

  • @dizmo6841
    @dizmo6841 Рік тому +49

    GREAT work! I could write an essay praising your studious and effective effort here, but instead I just subscribed. This is the type and format that students can return to many times when studying and researching this artifact. Thank you.

  • @Animalfarm4481
    @Animalfarm4481 10 місяців тому +18

    A few more interesting things about the dating of the shroud.
    1.Cotton fibers were found in the carbon dated corner of the shroud by at least 8 different researchers, Not as a surface contaminant, but woven into the threads, and this cotton wasn't found in the rest of the otherwise linen shroud. multiple lines of evidence show that the samples came from a repaired corner: King Umberto II of Italy, whose family used to own the shroud, says that in 1694 they repaired the shroud's heavily frayed and missing edges.
    2.The carbon-14 dated corner is thinner and has lighter weft (vertical) threads than the rest of the shroud.
    3.Research Ray Rogers found vanillin (from the breakdown of lignin) in the carbon-14 dated corner of the Shroud, the medieval backing cloth added to the shroud, and other medieval linens, but not in the rest of the shroud, the dead sea scrolls, or other ancient linens.
    4. In photographs, three modern textile repair experts have claimed to see differences of the linen between the bottom left corner and the adjacent cloth

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 9 місяців тому +4

      I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
      Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of the historian Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.

    • @douglaidlaw740
      @douglaidlaw740 5 місяців тому

      So, what you are saying is, that the substance they dated wasn't part of the shroud itself, but part of the repair, making the test of no value. I am not a Catholic, but the shroud is a puzzle just by being there. What Jesus was wrapped in was most likely a standard burial cloth. Videos claim that the Jewish authorities persecuted Jesus BECAUSE he was the Messiah, the Christ. To assess their actions properly, we must put ourselves in their shoes. They were a very insubordinate occupied country, causing trouble with the Romans. Jesus was seen as a threat to their religious and political stability. Jesus was tried in about A.D. 30. 40 years later, in A.D. 70, Titus invaded, and their fears became reality. The Romans saw the invasion as so significant that they erected the Arch of Titus to commemorate it.

    • @douglaidlaw740
      @douglaidlaw740 5 місяців тому

      When a speaker dresses up as the medieval idea of Jesus, he is not to be trusted!

    • @CryptoWarframe
      @CryptoWarframe 3 місяці тому

      ​@@revedargent3467You are really invested in the shroud to be fake, aren't you?
      Look, if it's a fake, I really don't care. What I care about, tho, it's the bronze face of those who are SO SURE about the fakeness of it that they sound silly every time they open their mouth, just like they did with the last researches.
      For them, P2P reviews, counter analysis...all useless, basically, their whole answer was: "Carbon-14, baby, plus the scientific publisher of your research is property of a well known right winged, conservative-oriented holding, so...nah!".
      Very scientific, what an exquisite Galilean approach!

    • @captainobvious2435
      @captainobvious2435 2 місяці тому

      On the anachronic weaving, he said it was 1st century but other publishings say there's no proof of that but rather it fits the textile machines of medieval times.

  • @johnbutler4631
    @johnbutler4631 Рік тому +272

    This is utterly fascinating. I didn't really know about the shroud research or that there were so many fascinating facts to know. I'm a Protestant Christian, so I don't have quite the same perspective as a secularist or a Catholic.
    It's clear that you've done a great deal of research, and your presentation is meticulous, clear, and balanced, as far as I can tell. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the sobriety and rigor of your approach to the subject. You had my attention from start to finish.

    • @metatronyt
      @metatronyt  Рік тому +42

      Thank you, I appreciate your words

    • @Baraodojaguary
      @Baraodojaguary Рік тому +3

      @@metatronyt thank you i love your channel, may God bless you Rafaello and keep strong in your christian faith and are you catholic protestant or orthodox i respect all of them but i m Catholic

    • @watchwomanofthedragon8376
      @watchwomanofthedragon8376 Рік тому +7

      I’m born again. Jesus is my savior for me and anyone that will believe. . Thankyou Jesus for going thru this to bring you’re flock home. We know your voice❤️⚔️

    • @GavTatu
      @GavTatu Рік тому +3

      @@watchwomanofthedragon8376 haha... guess it takes all sorts eh !

    • @brittoncain5090
      @brittoncain5090 Рік тому +7

      @@Baraodojaguary I hope you can come back home to the Church!

  • @adamprochazka9542
    @adamprochazka9542 Рік тому +91

    I usually don't comment and seldom give likes to videos, but you sir have done a tremendous job. Thank you!

  • @Lazdinger
    @Lazdinger Рік тому +154

    Dude, this was amazing. Perhaps this is a bit off-topic but I really appreciate the respect you have for the ancients; it's contagious. They weren't all simple "camel herders"; sometimes, even worthy of admiration and study - by all of us - for their ingenuity. Heck, even the "camel herders" had their qualities.

    • @Dorfapoligetik
      @Dorfapoligetik Рік тому +1

      ua-cam.com/video/KvghlgftwnE/v-deo.html
      From 26:44 minute

    • @Lazdinger
      @Lazdinger Рік тому +1

      @@Dorfapoligetik Now _that_ is interesting. Thank you, my friend.

    • @ChadKakashi
      @ChadKakashi Рік тому +5

      Humans are always worthy of study and praise, no matter the era.

    • @Competitive_Antagonist
      @Competitive_Antagonist Рік тому +7

      Many of us today would likely totally fail at attempting to heard camels. We might consider them a low skilled worker, but as soon as a pandemic hits, they become a key worker.

    • @ChadKakashi
      @ChadKakashi Рік тому +1

      I just noticed Zhdun on your profile picture. Lol. I love Zhdun.

  • @westonwells4357
    @westonwells4357 Рік тому +2

    One of the best videos you have ever made I really enjoy when you go in to great detail and i could easily whatch a few hours on this subject.

  • @Bildad1976
    @Bildad1976 Рік тому +138

    Wow, was I wrong! I fully expected another one-sided commentary, but I was truly pleasantly surprised!
    This has been one of the most objective & unbiased presentations on... well, ANY controversial topic I've come across on the internet!
    You are to be commended (awarded even!) for such a mature, courageous attempt at a fair & balanced proffering, likely knowing that you would be pilloried and maybe even lose a few subscribers! Well, please accept my new subscription as a vote on the positive side!

    • @keithdean9149
      @keithdean9149 Рік тому +5

      I have to give the Metatron credit. He tries to present controversial topics with, as he puts it, "Academic Honesty." Even though, sometimes you can tell he wants one side to be correct, he doesn't hold back on showing all the evidence he can. Check out his video on "The Exodus," if you get the chance.

    • @Bildad1976
      @Bildad1976 Рік тому +5

      @@keithdean9149 I can't find Metatron's video on the Exodus. Do you have a link?

    • @savedbygrace8337
      @savedbygrace8337 Рік тому +2

      Sponsored by the Catholic Church.

    • @danielbroome5690
      @danielbroome5690 Рік тому

      @@Bildad1976 Lol the exodus 100000% did not happen. I'll save you the time. There is not a single shred of evidence. The people who recorded the story into the bible even knew how ridiculous it was to have a group of millions of jews leaving Egypt which is why they wrote in Moses executing 1/3 of them for worshipping a cow, and then they proceed to whittle down the numbers throughout judges to explain why there wasn't millions of jews in Jerusalem when the book was written.
      Where we DO find thousands of pieces of evidence for Jewish habitation is in Canaan because they have common ancestry with them. We also find their polytheist Gods there including proto-depictions of YHWH and his wife Asherah.
      That all said, I expect that you didnt even get through the comment and if you did, no amount of evidence would convince you that one of the most hilariously wrong stories in the bible isn't real. Your conspiratorial prejudice against this video going into it is my evidence that this is how you'll react.....That plus the persecution complex.

    • @js0988
      @js0988 Рік тому

      Facts are one sided, belief is not! And the fact is and always has been that the shroud of Turin is FAKE! No other sides need to be taken!

  • @NtvClone
    @NtvClone Рік тому +6

    Thank you very much. I really appreciate your hard work.

  • @frostpuma304
    @frostpuma304 Рік тому +22

    The scholarship on the video is as thorough as I can see. Thank you. And Happy New Year!

    • @metatronyt
      @metatronyt  Рік тому +1

      Thanks and happy new year to you!

  • @DanielRyanScott
    @DanielRyanScott 3 місяці тому +14

    Came here after about hearing of the newest study that did a much better job dating the materials by using a better method, multiple samples, and a cross examination with known materials from both medieval and antiquity time periods. Newest estimate is 50-70 AD.

    • @ImranBhatti-h1i
      @ImranBhatti-h1i 3 місяці тому +1

      Me too 😊

    • @wipo3654
      @wipo3654 3 місяці тому +3

      Who did it?
      Where it was done?
      When it was done?
      Where to find the officially recognised scientific test report?

    • @johncarroll772
      @johncarroll772 3 місяці тому +2

      The new evidence is not conclusive

    • @kcbarbo78
      @kcbarbo78 12 днів тому

      This is overstating the strength of the new results, but regardless it would not be determinative even if that date range were verified. Any good forger knows you make a better forgery using ancient material. Many a forgery started its life as a legitimate ancient artifact - an ancient scrap of papyrus, an ancient ossuary, an ancient potsherd - and then the forger paints, carves, etches or writes a forged, modern inscription or image on that ancient object. This was done most notoriously with the “James Ossuary” and the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.” The Shroud is definitely a sophisticated forgery for sure. One can’t help but be impressed by the ingenuity of whoever created it.

  • @7ennifer
    @7ennifer Рік тому +54

    This is the most informative, well researched and high quality documentary of the shroud I have ever seen. Excellent! Thank you so much. You are quite talented and I appreciate your efforts immensely.

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому +2

      I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
      Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe.

    • @beverlyhurd8556
      @beverlyhurd8556 Рік тому

      Do not pay any attention to anything the God denying lying atheist Rêve D'Argent says. It was *proven* by many dozens of doctors, scientists, archeologists, and other highly trained researchers and their _tens of thousands of hours_ of examination that the Shroud *most definitely* wrapped the body of a severely beaten, scourged and crucified man that was wearing a crown or cap of thorns before he died. *PROVEN.* Only an imbecile would be dumb enough to think that this was someone other than our Lord Jesus

    • @11aaf
      @11aaf Рік тому +6

      @@revedargent3467 Stop spamming the same lies.

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому +3

      @@11aaf sorry but it's not because it doesn't fit your beliefs that's a lie

    • @bluckobluc8755
      @bluckobluc8755 Рік тому

      ​@@revedargent3467If you have to spam it, it means you are in the wrooong :)
      You arw making the claim, you have thw burden of proof

  • @sergiocruzcruz6003
    @sergiocruzcruz6003 Рік тому +216

    As a catholic Christian, I gave some few times a lecture about it in a Parish near the place I used to live. Your video is excelent and is very useful for the studies of the Scriptures, the Church and the history in general. Thanks a lot!

    • @86Corvus
      @86Corvus Рік тому +4

      Confirms your insane bias?

    • @KBWrecker
      @KBWrecker Рік тому +22

      More like your immediate knee jerk reaction confirms your own “insane bias”

    • @sergiocruzcruz6003
      @sergiocruzcruz6003 Рік тому +29

      @@86Corvus I thougth free speech was an universal value. Say "You're wrong due to this and that", that is to share wisdom. Say "You're just a blind brainless individual" without knowing More than the name of somebody, its useful for knowing just one thing: the character of whom says that.

    • @SlothfulJim
      @SlothfulJim Рік тому

      Good for you, what did you lecture about, Haribo Tangtastic's

    • @pyropulseIXXI
      @pyropulseIXXI Рік тому +3

      Catholicism is a bunch of man made rules added to Christianity, which is what Jesus said the Pharisees and Sadducee did by adding things to the Law

  • @mbreher7458
    @mbreher7458 Рік тому +151

    Metatron never ceases to amaze me. Whether it's his extensive work and research that goes into each video, or his general humility as a human being. I tell everyone I know about this channel.

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому +3

      I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
      Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.

    • @beverlyhurd8556
      @beverlyhurd8556 Рік тому

      Do not pay any attention to anything the God denying lying atheist Rêve D'Argent says. It was *proven* by many dozens of doctors, scientists, archeologists, and other highly trained researchers and their tens of thousands of hours of examination that the Shroud most definitely wrapped the body of a severely beaten, scourged and crucified man that was wearing a crown or cap of thorns before he died. *PROVEN.* Only an imbecile, such as your typical atheist, would be dumb enough to think that this was someone other than our Lord Jesus.

    • @ryanramsey9621
      @ryanramsey9621 Рік тому +4

      He went to university and was a history major and was a history teacher before making videos.

    • @clbaird40
      @clbaird40 Рік тому +1

      Metatron is the highest angel, second only to God.

    • @darthbane2669
      @darthbane2669 11 місяців тому

      Think you are going a bit far dude.@@clbaird40

  • @bobfardy422
    @bobfardy422 Рік тому +5

    Just came across this video as my childhood interest in the Shroud and the Voynich Manuscript have been rekindled.
    I really enjoyed both the structure and delivery of this presentation. Balanced. Informative. Thorough.
    The details demonstrate your commitment to research and there were numerous nuggets of which I had no idea!
    Kudos.
    Subscribing as I am keenly interested in viewing more of your work.

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 11 місяців тому

      I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
      Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.

    • @beverlyhurd8556
      @beverlyhurd8556 11 місяців тому

      @@revedargent3467 If you really are an atheist stupid enough to believe the Shroud is a fake, then you must explain how whoever fabricated it must have:
      1. Known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century.
      2. Be proficient enough in over 100 scientific disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery.
      3. Possessed the medical knowledge of a modern expert surgeon.
      4. Utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since.
      5. Be able to foresee and approximate principles of photographic negativity that would not be discovered for centuries.
      6. Imported a piece of old cloth of Middle Eastern manufacture.
      7. Used a coloring agent which would be unaffected by intense heat.
      8. Be able to incorporate in his work details (that have only recently been discovered), that the human eye cannot see and that are visible only with the most advanced computer-scanning devices.
      9. Be able to reproduce flawlessly, on a nearly flat linen surface, in a single color, undistorted 3-D characteristics of a human body in a 'negative format' on the tops of the threads, while conversely showing the 'blood' as positive and soaking all the way through.
      10. Get somewhere the blood of a tortured man and apply it before creating the image.
      11. Get limestone from Jerusalem, and pollen particles from the middle east, in special from plants with thorns, that flourish only between March and April.

    • @dtp0119
      @dtp0119 3 місяці тому

      ​@@revedargent3467Do you have links to better information then?

  • @fiegenfiegen
    @fiegenfiegen Рік тому +31

    I have read many books about the shroud (and about the "sudario de Oviedo"), and this video is a very sensible summary of the whole lot. Thank you!

  • @hieronymus9
    @hieronymus9 Рік тому +25

    Note on wrist vs. palm: Most of the carpal bones are located under the base of the palm; the place where the wrist flexes is actually the joint between the carpal bones and the radius and ulna of the forearm. So a nail between the carpal bones, either where Barbet believed it to go (between the lunate, capitate, hamate, and triquetrum) or where Zugibe believed it to go (between the capitate, scaphoid, and trapezoid), would appear to go into the base of the palm next to the mound at the base of the thumb. Both positions can hold a body and are consistent with the blood on the Shroud.
    Where you're demonstrating the wound is between the radius and ulna, not through the carpus; there is at least one crucifixion victim who was nailed at that point.

  • @landsknecht8654
    @landsknecht8654 Рік тому +7

    Not going to lie this made me cry especially the ending part. Thanks for the video. God bless.

  • @lLadyAszneth
    @lLadyAszneth 11 місяців тому +17

    YES, I DID make it until the end because this topic has intrigued me all my life, though not "obsessively" or ravenously.
    Your breakdown definitely helped ME fill in gaps of what I have previously studied in the past because I had NO knowledge one, that the Savoy's gave away snippets of the cloth as gifts (EGADS!!!) or that it ended up in the hands of the French family after the seige in Constantinople. I mean, the siege part and what the French soldiers inventoried in their part of the loot. That was a huge gap in how I initially tried to track its progress from Jerusalem to Antioch. Where it went after leaving Antioch, I couldn't track with our poor pre-internet public/school library resources in the '70s and '80s, when I first began researching it.
    So, thank you, THANK YOU so very much Metatron. I want to elevate my support from just being a sub to a member because what you present in your content is - from what I can tell - completely without personal bias. I mean that would defeat the purpose. Some folks don't grasp that, but I do.
    So again, my many, many thanks for all your work and effort that I will soon help support!
    Also, I've been a lifelong student of the history of Egypt and The Ptolemy's and that whole Netflix CleopaDRA debacle just left me befuddled and I loved YOUR video response to all that BS!
    Love you much.
    Your Florida Fan,
    Lady Aszneth
    😀👍

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 9 місяців тому

      I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but unfortunately Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
      Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe.

    • @yeheheyee9998
      @yeheheyee9998 2 місяці тому

      @@revedargent3467why are you replying the same comment to every comment it’s weird how often are you coming back to this video just to post that same exact reply

  • @kananiwolf256
    @kananiwolf256 Рік тому +56

    I have watched a plethora of videos on the Shroud of Turin. Your analysis is magnificent; I didn’t want it to end! There’s an older black and white video of a lecture where the gentleman talks about two individuals flogging the man. Just as you mentioned. One taller than the other and possibly more aggressive with his attacks. I also hope that another round of scientific, objective and comprehensively inclusive testing takes place. This is a precious artifact. However, samples from various areas of the cloth are mandatory to achieve a higher degree of accuracy. I believe knowledgeable excisions are possible without disrespecting or denigrating the Shroud’s integrity. In my heart, I believe this is the burial cloth of Jesus. Though I am open to reviewing any reputable sources bringing new evidence to the forefront; whether it proves or disproves the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity. I hope you will keep us posted. Your objectivity is greatly appreciated. Thank you for keeping this video ad-free!❤

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому +4

      I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
      Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of the historian Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.

    • @retrocomputing
      @retrocomputing Рік тому +1

      @@revedargent3467why do write “blood” in the quotation marks? Are there any doubts that it is blood?

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому

      @@retrocomputing For blood: In 1973, a medical institute analyzed fragments from "blood stains" on laundry and had to detect the presence of blood. UV tests are negative, as are benzidin and microspectrophotometry. In 1978, the STURP researchers (Heller and Adler: accustomed to publications with abusive conclusions) brought to light porphyrin (which is found in hemoglobin), albumin and bilirubin on the tissue (which the we find in the blood) and therefore they conclude (because of their belief or their lack of expertise in this field) that it is blood but no analysis is carried out to prove that the molecules come from blood . Problem: these molecules are also present in the pigments used in painting and in particular red ferrous ochre, the composition of which was found in fragments taken from different places in the shroud. We also find cinnabar and these two pigments are very present in the Middle Ages. The yellow tint to the body is due to a bone glue soak that has yellowed over time. In 1981, Heller and Adler reiterated with an article that had the same flaws as the 1978 study, in addition to repeating a whole bunch of usual and unfounded stereotypes (on the negative, dimensions, etc.) on the shroud. In 2017, Giulio Fanti found creatinine and ferrihydrite on the shroud and therefore concluded that blood was present. Same problem as previous studies! For creatinine and ferrihydrite: ferrihydrite is also present in certain pigments and creatinine can easily be explained by the presence of another component on the shroud: collagen, which is an essential element of bone glue and found in certain techniques such as tempera painting, which achieves similar results to the study. In other words, there too it is not sufficient to certify that it is blood. Especially since the study is far from reliable. The evidence presented by the authors does not in any way support their conclusion ("the man enveloped in the ST suffered a strong polytrauma"), which is based instead on the simple overinterpretation of data from a sample whose history is unknown and a chain of dubious hypotheses not even making it possible to validate with certainty the presence of these molecules. This conclusion is contradicted by the publication of Kelly P Kearse in 2020, which also shows the presence of molecules present in the blood on the shroud. Problem: this study is based on several refuted works and avoids the analyzes conducted (such as UV tests, benzidin and microspectrophotometry) which contradict the presence of blood. This study also probably did not pass peer review because it was only published in 13 days, whereas it takes an average of 3 months for a serious study/review.
      In 2005, geneticist Gérard Lucotte claimed to have found DNA from a man of Middle Eastern origin and blood type AB. Problems: his work is not published in a scientific journal but in a Christian publishing house and is therefore not subject to any peer review. Moreover, the sample used is of unknown origin (we don't know how he got it) and therefore not reliable. We can also add that Lucotte works alone, has no scientific recognition and that even the other works of his career are often more than controversial, completely biased or without peer review, which does not even allow us to qualify him as a person. qualified for this exercise.

    • @shadowdrakon9913
      @shadowdrakon9913 9 місяців тому +1

      @@revedargent3467I literally just sat here for three hours checking all his sources and… they are all peer reviewed and the scienctific sources are all very thorough. It’s clear that YOU did not review his sources, so are you just trying to say there isn’t enough evidence for YOU to believe it or do you just want to argue about Christianity being a bad religion?

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 9 місяців тому

      @@shadowdrakon9913 For blood: In 1973, a medical institute analyzed fragments from “blood stains” on laundry and had to detect the presence of blood. UV tests are negative, as are benzidine and microspectrophotometry. In 1978, STURP researchers (Heller and Adler: accustomed to publications with abusive conclusions) highlighted porphyrin (which is found in hemoglobin), albumin and bilirubin on the tissue (which the found in the blood) and therefore they conclude (due to their belief or their lack of expertise in this area) that it is blood but no analysis is carried out to prove that the molecules do indeed come from blood . Problem: these molecules are also present in the pigments used in painting and in particular red iron ocher whose composition was found in fragments taken from different places of the shroud. We also find cinnabar and these two pigments are very present in the Middle Ages. The yellow tint of the body is due to a bone glue soak that has yellowed over time. In 1981, Heller and Adler reiterated with an article which has the same defects as the 1978 study in addition to repeating a whole bunch of usual and unfounded clichés (on the negative, dimensions, etc.) on the shroud. In 2017, Giulio Fanti found creatinine and ferrihydrite on the shroud and therefore concluded that blood was present. Same problem as previous studies! For creatinine and ferrihydrite: ferrihydrite is also present in certain pigments and creatinine can easily be explained by the presence of another component on the shroud: collagen, which is an essential element of bone glue and that we find in certain techniques such as tempera painting, which allows us to obtain results similar to the study. In other words, this too is not enough to certify that it is blood. Especially since the study is far from reliable. The evidence presented by the authors in no way supports their conclusion ("the man wrapped in the ST suffered high polytrauma"), which instead relies on the simple overinterpretation of data from a sample whose history is unknown and a chain of doubtful hypotheses not even allowing the presence of these molecules to be validated with certainty. This conclusion is contradicted by the publication of Kelly P Kearse in 2020, which also shows the presence of molecules present in the blood on the shroud. Problem: this study is based on several refuted works and avoids the analyzes carried out (such as UV tests, benzidine and microspectrophotometry) which refute the presence of blood. This study probably did not pass peer review because it was only published in 13 days, whereas it takes on average 3 months for a serious study/review.
      In 2005, geneticist Gérard Lucotte claimed to have found DNA from a man of Middle Eastern origin and blood type AB. Problems: his work is not published in a scientific journal but in a Christian publishing house and is therefore not subject to any peer review. In addition, the sample used is of unknown origin (we do not know how it was obtained) and therefore not reliable. We can also add that Lucotte works alone, has no scientific recognition and that even the other works of his career are often more than controversial, completely biased or without peer review, which does not even allow us to qualify him as a person. competent for this exercise.
      But hey, the author could have painted with blood (which remains strangely red) to make his work more authentic so it wouldn't mean much to find it on the linen.
      STURP is an offshoot of a pro-shroud Catholic guild. The majority (statistically too many for it not to have been a determining factor in the selection) of those who participated were believers and some were even high-ranking members of the Catholic guild. There was a surprising lack of specialists in the relevant field in this team: no specialists in ancient fabrics or medieval art. STURP also quickly got rid of Walter MacCorne, a doctor in organic chemistry and one who was considered at the time the greatest microscopy expert in the world because his results were not at all in the direction of the authenticity. In short, STURP was simply a big scam which only served to give a "scientific" stamp to sindonologists and from which we only keep work of no great scientific value, full of errors and statements without proof.
      In his Last Judgment of the Shroud of Turin, Chicago scientist Walter McCrone details 20 years of research on it. Its conclusions are based on the microscopic examination of 32 samples of fibers and particles taken from different locations on the shroud. He concluded that the image was not obtained from blood but from red ocher and an iron pigment. The artist of the Shroud painted in tempera the areas where the linen was supposed to come into contact with the supposed body so that a negative image resulted (more logical than if he had painted the hollows). A vermilion stain based on mercury sulfide was then used to represent the bloodstains at the nailed areas. He also explains how time, exposures and conservation conditions have caused the image to fade (penetration of the fabric). Sindonologists do speak of later, added painting, or have some other ad hoc hypotheses but which do not undermine the credibility of the pigments discovered. Walter McCorne is also the head of a laboratory specializing in the analysis of works of art and the discovery of forgeries (like himself in addition to being used to blood analyzes), a laboratory whose proponents of authenticity originally hoped that it would support their belief but who backed away when they saw the results, as they already did for the 1988 carbon dating.
      Contrary to what Sindonologists claim without proof, the Shroud is reproducible and also has several replicas, for example at the cathedral of Chambéry or the one made by Paul-Henry Blanrue, that of Luigi Garlaschelli, that of Jacques Di Costanzo, that of Randall R. Bresee and Emily A. Craig, that of Joe Nickell and that of Henri Brock, even if the latter two mainly aim to demonstrate the feasibility of obtaining such a task (negative, proportions and penetration of a few microns) using the tempera painting technique and with a bas-relief. Henri Broch's experience is not unique and several other people have successfully carried out similar experiments by obtaining tasks with the same characteristics apart from the shape of course, rather due to the shape of the bottom -relief used. The non-existence of replicas, if that were the case, would in any case mean nothing: many works of art do not have replicas and certain techniques also leave enough room for contingency so that the The result obtained is not predictable and therefore difficult or even impossible to do exactly the same again.
      The weaving is completely anachronistic since instead of being in simple stitch (mesh weave) like all the fabrics found from this period, it is a crochet weaving in triple stitch, a type of weaving which requires a tool which did not yet exist at the time of Jesus and which would only be invented centuries later in China: a loom with 4 pedal-operated heddle bars. Literature for the subject:
      Vial, Gabriel, 'Shrouded in Mystery', HALI (The International Magazine of Fine Carpets and Textiles), Issue 49, 1990. It shows that nothing like it (structure, material or composition) is known in Europe before the 16th century . He concludes that it has an ancient origin but only because he starts from the hypothesis that the 4-bar loom would have arrived much earlier in Palestine than in Europe due to its geographical location as a cultural and economic crossroads.
      Stoner, Joyce Hill, "Conservation of Easel Paintings", Routledge, 2012. On the 4-bar pedal-heddle loom.
      Øye, Ingvild, ‘When did weaving become a male profession?’, Danish Journal of Archaeology, Vol 5, 2016. For the appearance of this loom in Europe from the 13th century.

  • @ivorybow
    @ivorybow Рік тому +282

    This is the highest quality treatment of the Shroud I have ever seen. I look to you Metatron for clearly thought out explorations of history, and historical mysteries. I have not made up my mind, but in my heart, I want it to be an image of my Lord.

    • @GoodShepherdFilms3333
      @GoodShepherdFilms3333 Рік тому

      Do you remember the passage from scripture when the Pharisees said to Jesus "Teacher we need to
      see a sign from you".
      Jesus seemed agitated then said "This wicked generation asked for a sign but no sign will be given except the sign of Jonah.
      Three times it is mentioned in the gospel accounts.
      I'll get straight to the point. The Shroud of Turin is the sign of Jonah. But don't take my word for it. Read the passage out loud in prayer and ask the Lord Jesus yourself. I insist .
      That will get his attention. And you will get a response. You might see a law of physics broken before your eyes. But something's going to happen that's not normal. It will get your attention. Something having to do with the number 3. See the number 3 blood stain on the forehead of Jesus. That is.a ID mark
      Read the passage outloud in prayer and ask the Lord Jesus is the Shroud of Turin the sign of Jonah?
      Watch what happens. It could be quick or but might be slow. You will get a response. Of course ask with reverence and respect. Also with a sense of seriousness and urgency. That will get a response for sure.

    • @ROCKINSONN
      @ROCKINSONN Рік тому +5

      True ! This review was very thorough ! Maybe do updates as more info is found.

    • @Competitive_Antagonist
      @Competitive_Antagonist Рік тому +8

      It's great to see that a person of faith is willing to look honestly at this. While it's not central to Christian belief it shows great courage to look at evidence that may conflict with your world view.

    • @imapleb4956
      @imapleb4956 Рік тому +1

      Even if it’s the face of Jesus, it’s not the face of your lord. Sorry

    • @TrevoltIV
      @TrevoltIV Рік тому

      Even a scientist who is a Jew described the authenticity of the shroud as undeniable. And that's coming from someone whose religion rides on the fact that Jesus wasn't the messiah. If even he admits it's undeniably true, that's how you know he isn't lying, it's the real deal. The only skepticism really left is whether it was due to resurrection, or some other extremely, unfathomably lucky natural phenomenon. At this point it's so much more likely that Jesus was resurrected than it being explained some other way. I mean come on, how on earth would a 3D encoded image be imprinted on the shroud with methods we still can't even replicate, simply by chance? This is the biggest breakthrough in the history of man yet the media is almost radio silent, really shows you where the mainstream's agendas are.

  • @jivetalk1045
    @jivetalk1045 Рік тому +46

    Your research is meticulously collected and laid out in a reasonable and logical way. Great video, thank you for your hard work, it's greatly appreciated!

  • @chemomancer
    @chemomancer Рік тому +75

    Typically when it comes to radiocarbon dating another factor to consider is the time window in which the object was purported to have originated. That is not the case here, as carbon's window is 50,000 years - placing '2023 years ago' well within its effective window.
    It typically comes up with older things, such as fossils - which are many many millions of years old. People (frequently but not exclusively young earth creationists) have a tendency sometimes to claim that 'we don't *really* know how old they are because carbon dating isn't accurate for things that old'. While yes, carbon won't work for objects that old... there is an entire table of 118 elements each with their own radiological windows. Typically for really old things, we use radium. Not carbon. The general public doesn't know/care, though, and just calls it 'carbon dating' regardless of what element was actually used, causing the confusion.
    It makes me wonder - if we performed another radiological dating experiment with the shroud, would it be worth checking other elements with similar windows - not just carbon - in order to verify the accuracy of the original findings... like say... iron... or rather... the oxygen attached to the iron. We know that there are iron oxides in at least two parts of the shroud - a thin coating on the surface, and the stains near the wrists, side, and feet. We also know that the thin coating *did definitely* originate during the medieval period as they were replicating the image, whereas the other stains would have definitely originated from the time period in which the shroud originated. This would give us a control to ensure, beyond any doubt, whether the dating is indeed correct.

    • @PC_Simo
      @PC_Simo 11 місяців тому +4

      Also; the technique assumes we *_KNOW,_* how much C-14 was contained, in the object, at the time of its formation. We can make educated guesses: We know the material and its chemical composition (i.e. How much carbon it would have, when new), and we have an estimate of the portion of C-14 out of all the carbon, on Earth. We can, thus, multiply the portion of carbon, in the original material, with the portion of C-14 out of all the carbon, in nature; giving us a rough estimate, or a mathematical average. However; we don’t know, if the sample in question followed that average or not; since real life is always full of accidents, and the C-14 is probably not exactly evenly distributed in nature.

    • @LLolLmaNsjdhsush
      @LLolLmaNsjdhsush 10 місяців тому +3

      They used WAX (Wide angle X-ray) dating method and they rounded it to around 2000 years ago

    • @LincolnDWard
      @LincolnDWard 10 місяців тому +4

      C-14's half-life is 5730 years, which generally gives us a precision of within 100 years. You may be thinking of Uranium-Thorium dating, which has a half-life of 80,000 years?

    • @LLolLmaNsjdhsush
      @LLolLmaNsjdhsush 9 місяців тому

      @@LincolnDWard why does the WAX (Wide angle X ray) dating method dates it back 2000 years

    • @litpath3633
      @litpath3633 7 місяців тому +4

      i have to wonder though, this cloth being through medieval times going from damp medieval castle to damp medieval church, being raised up and displayed probably with incense and such and then the medieval fire and dousing with water to put it out. I wonder how much of that interaction could change the results, especially when there is just a single fiber as the sample. How much contamination would it take to drastically skew the resutls?

  • @brandontymkow1182
    @brandontymkow1182 Рік тому +21

    I've been following shroud research for a while now, I was little when the C14 was announced. I only "re discovered" it in the past ten or so years. That said, this was a really well done account of the shroud, I knew I could trust you with this Metatron!

  • @nonosays
    @nonosays Рік тому +15

    Metatron, this analysis was truly masterful!
    Almost all the analysis out there leaves out or distorts some component you explain here.
    Bravo!

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому +1

      I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
      Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.

  • @furtherdefinitions1
    @furtherdefinitions1 Рік тому +21

    This is why I subscribe to this channel. You know your history, because you thoroughly research your subjects and refuse to sanitize history where the facts are presented.

  • @davidabramyk2999
    @davidabramyk2999 3 місяці тому +7

    Looks like we’re gonna need an update with the new dating data for the shroud now!
    The last year or so has really brought me around on this one

  • @Sharsuils
    @Sharsuils Рік тому +21

    You do such an unbiased and objective analysis of this that I have no idea whether you're religious or not, and all the work you showed was very informative helpful. Mandatory watching for anyone interested in the Shroud.

  • @jamesw5713
    @jamesw5713 Рік тому +4

    Just discovered your channel the other day. I am usually an astronomy and science youtube viewer but your videos have given me a bigger appreciation and interest in ancient history. Thanks

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому

      I don't know for his others videos (maybe he's usually really accurate) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.

  • @Joykye
    @Joykye 8 місяців тому +2

    Fantastic video, I appreciate the balanced approach with no real motive or bias behind it. Just displaying accounts and evidence. Exactly how history should be taught.

  • @ruthrouse
    @ruthrouse Рік тому +50

    Thank you for such an interesting and well thought out analysis. As a Christian I am undecided on it's origins, but your historical discussion, including the level of detail that can be read in the image is fascinating.

    • @ask4me78
      @ask4me78 Рік тому +1

      As a Christian, you should read and believe your Bible for it states that there were two pieces of linen cloths and not one, John's gospel chapter 20 versus 5, 6, and 7.

    • @Samura1313
      @Samura1313 Рік тому +4

      @@ask4me78 Which would mean that one is missing

    • @brianp6859
      @brianp6859 Рік тому

      Also missed in metatron's video was a very recent study conducted in 2022 using X ray dating to date the shroud to being 2000 years old. To me that puts the nail in the coffin of the biggest objection to the shroud's validity.

  • @st0rmrider
    @st0rmrider Рік тому +18

    I just realized how good the quality of the audio is. Congrats and happy new year to you and Kenzie!

  • @stephenfields6236
    @stephenfields6236 Рік тому +19

    You did a very good job discussing this complicated subject. I am impressed.

  • @darthcannabis856
    @darthcannabis856 Рік тому +2

    Every video I have watched of yours in three days have blown my mind. I appreciate the awesome work you and your team do to provide this information. My mind is officially blown. 🤯

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому

      I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief instead of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
      Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.

    • @beverlyhurd8556
      @beverlyhurd8556 11 місяців тому

      @@revedargent3467 If you really are an atheist stupid enough to believe the Shroud is a fake, then you must explain how whoever fabricated it must have:
      1. Known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century.
      2. Be proficient enough in over 100 scientific disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery.
      3. Possessed the medical knowledge of a modern expert surgeon.
      4. Utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since.
      5. Be able to foresee and approximate principles of photographic negativity that would not be discovered for centuries.
      6. Imported a piece of old cloth of Middle Eastern manufacture.
      7. Used a coloring agent which would be unaffected by intense heat.
      8. Be able to incorporate in his work details (that have only recently been discovered), that the human eye cannot see and that are visible only with the most advanced computer-scanning devices.
      9. Be able to reproduce flawlessly, on a nearly flat linen surface, in a single color, undistorted 3-D characteristics of a human body in a 'negative format' on the tops of the threads, while conversely showing the 'blood' as positive and soaking all the way through.
      10. Get somewhere the blood of a tortured man and apply it before creating the image.
      11. Get limestone from Jerusalem, and pollen particles from the middle east, in special from plants with thorns, that flourish only between March and April.

  • @certainly2509
    @certainly2509 Рік тому +8

    A beautiful, detailed and unbiased explanation of the shroud. It warrants more than one viewing. Thank you!

  • @thefriedrice4489
    @thefriedrice4489 Рік тому +24

    This is such a great video! Always enjoy your content metatron!

  • @jaggedskar3890
    @jaggedskar3890 Рік тому +31

    I had only planned on listening to this for a bit while working on another project. I soon found myself immersed in such a scholarly and well-crafted presentation. Well done, good sir!

  • @gulbudak6042
    @gulbudak6042 3 дні тому

    Hi there, greetings from Istanbul. I really enjoy your content and the due dilligence you put into your work. Its remarkable and your videos are captivating. Thank you for all your effords. You certainly bring joy into my daily life 💐

  • @friskeysunset
    @friskeysunset Рік тому +58

    I am in awe of The Metatron's erudition and depth of research on this. Your science kung fu is mighty, sir. One thing I come away with from this first-rate presentation is that what I think doesn't MATTER, I only look forward to the day that more samples can be taken and tested.

    • @godzilla12325
      @godzilla12325 Рік тому

      Yes his erudition and depth of research also impressed me. I will have to dis-agree with you on your science kung-fu comment tho. Its more science karate. Hope this helps 👍

  • @grawman67
    @grawman67 Рік тому +8

    Videos like this are examples of the quality I love from your content. Very clear, meticulous research presented in a very balanced way. Fantastic as always!

  • @gregk2369
    @gregk2369 Рік тому +45

    I remember watching a documentary in the 90s about this and had essentially written it off. Turns out there was a lot more to it than I ever expected. Thank you so much. The song at the end can't help but give me goosebumps too!

    • @markiv2942
      @markiv2942 Рік тому +8

      You can write it off. its a fake.

    • @gregk2369
      @gregk2369 Рік тому +13

      @@markiv2942 You can claim that $1 million dollar reward for showing how it was done then

    • @leftpastsaturn67
      @leftpastsaturn67 Рік тому +11

      @@gregk2369 Yeah, a reward nobody will 'win' because nobody is allowed to test it anymore.
      How convenient.

    • @stephjezo6470
      @stephjezo6470 Рік тому +3

      @@leftpastsaturn67 The big problem with testing now is that through restoration immediately after the big "study" of it, there is likely enough contamination that it is pointless now. But that fact is, awful, "convenient." I find it troubling, as well, with the first tests that they just "happened" to test a replaced part. Like they couldn't tell and no one bothered to tell them? 🤦

    • @gregk2369
      @gregk2369 Рік тому +13

      @@stephjezo6470 Also quite convenient they were supposed to test 7 different parts but stopped after the first one when they got an answer that held the established consensus belief together. Hmmm that's suspicious

  • @21willyx21
    @21willyx21 10 місяців тому +2

    This has been fascinating! Thank you for the work.

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 9 місяців тому +1

      I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but unfortunately Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
      Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.

  • @JustSayRance
    @JustSayRance Рік тому +35

    It has taken me a few years to become invested in your channel due to my previous immaturity, but now that I've reached this point in my life, your channel has been nothing but a gold mine to me.
    Keep up the amazing work!

  • @duncancampbell7389
    @duncancampbell7389 Рік тому +26

    Metatron, I have long been fascinated with the Shroud of Turin and the information on it is often extremely biased in one way or the other so it's hard to parse through. This is such an excellently researched and compiled swathe of the evidence. Thank you for always putting out such amazing, honest and diligently researched content!

  • @kimsunoobaragui
    @kimsunoobaragui Рік тому +16

    This is why I love your content, specially the one related to christianity, I'm a devout catholic and I apreciate your explanations so much. Thank you.

    • @landsknecht8654
      @landsknecht8654 Рік тому +8

      Deus Vult!
      and
      God bless!

    • @BearManNorth
      @BearManNorth Рік тому

      Religion: the total scourge on the human race.

    • @landsknecht8654
      @landsknecht8654 Рік тому +2

      @@BearManNorth not really, I mean it depends on the religion. Now according to the cyclopedia of War only 7% or could have been 8% all wars ever fought was caused by religion; about half of that is Islam an overwhelmingly amount of wars were caused by secular ideas.

    • @BearManNorth
      @BearManNorth Рік тому

      @@landsknecht8654 there is no HATE,
      Like religious LOVE.
      You just proved my point. Thank you.

    • @landsknecht8654
      @landsknecht8654 Рік тому

      @@BearManNorth my point was religion especially Christianity caused the least amount of wars lol. Actually there was less Wars in the Medieval Europe under Christendom than anywhere else in the world or anytime period. Funny how we had more Wars after the "enlightenment".

  • @brucejr.5833
    @brucejr.5833 2 місяці тому

    This is fascinating and there are a lot of points you are making that I was unaware of.
    I'm only halfway through and I had to comment before it's finished.
    Thank you metatron for all this work.

  • @minxythemerciless
    @minxythemerciless Рік тому +17

    My first thought was it was painted in acid - some diluted form of oil of vitriol. It would selectively dehydrate the surface layers of the linen producing a very slight charring or browning. Later in this piece, it mentions this theory was discarded due to (lack of) capillarity. However a topical application of a dehydrating acid doesn't rely on capillarity, just contact with the surface strands - which is what is seen.

    • @4Clubs
      @4Clubs Рік тому +16

      Surely the shroud would've been replicated by now if it was as simple as that. And even if that was a legitimate method by which medieval forgers would craft a fake relic, they would still need to craft it in such a way that they would anticipate all forensic developments such as blood and soil sampling, and would have to recreate an historically accurate depiction of a crucified man that was not consistent with their contemporary iconography.

    • @gbennett58
      @gbennett58 Рік тому +6

      Then why would the acid have only affected the most superficial layers of the cloth? Try applying acid to a cloth and notice how it penetrates beyond the superficial layers to affect the full thickness. It does not answer the question.

  • @sandraiventosch8555
    @sandraiventosch8555 Рік тому +10

    Such a wonderful presentation! By far the most concise and unbiased I gave seen on the subject. Personal opinion: the shroud cannot be dismissed as a product of the supernatural. But, in all fairness, neither can it be dismissed as a forgery, though it would be the only forgery of its kind I dare say. This would seem unlikely to me, given it's unbelievable success. I find it unlikely that a forgery artist demonstrating such talent, skill and unique methods of production would limit their work so much that just one piece survives or at least just one piece bearing historic mention survives.

  • @bradtempleton4759
    @bradtempleton4759 Рік тому +37

    Excellent detailed summary. I have followed this topic for years. Recent release of data on carbon dating performed on Shroud casts further doubt on medieval dating. Thank you Metatron.

    • @BobHooker
      @BobHooker Рік тому +1

      What? What are the chances that the carbon dating was BOTH wrong and yet placed it at the same time that the first reports of the shroud emerged? And the fact the face looks like a European painting of Jesus is also clear evidence. What is the chances that 1500 after his death people in France would be painting Jesus precisely as he really looked, and that carbon dating would precisely error to the date of the first reports. Its near impossible.

    • @sandykoch4188
      @sandykoch4188 Рік тому

      THE CARBON DATE WAS PROVEN WRONG THEREFORE you dont research you dont have all the facts

    • @les2997
      @les2997 Рік тому

      Google "The Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data"
      Here is the abstract:
      "In 1988, three laboratories performed a radiocarbon analysis of the Turin Shroud. The results, which were centralized by the British Museum and published in Nature in 1989, provided ‘conclusive evidence’ of the medieval origin of the artefact. However, the raw data were never released by the institutions. In 2017, in response to a legal request, all raw data kept by the British Museum were made accessible. A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered."
      The lack of homogeneity in the Turin Shroud radiocarbon dating data is a problem because it means that the results of the study cannot be trusted. If the data is not consistent, it means that there may be other factors at play that are affecting the results, such as contamination or human error. This makes it difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from the study.
      Additionally, the lack of transparency from the institutions involved in the study raises questions about the validity of the results. If the raw data was not released until 2017, it means that the study could not be independently verified for 28 years. This is a serious problem, as it means that the results of the study could have been manipulated without anyone's knowledge.

  • @thinker9115
    @thinker9115 3 дні тому +1

    Thank you. This is so well presented. It is, to my mind, a beautifully balanced approach to this subject.
    If we take away the 'when?' we are still left with the 'how?' I wonder if anyone can propose or suggest the technical ability it would take to make such an image and this created during the middle ages? After so much research the shroud remains itself shrouded in mystery.
    Another aspect that I think is worth mentioning is the fact that the photographic negative is actually the true representation of the appearance of the body within the shroud, as the cloth holds the mirror image, the negative photograph reverses the appearance back again.
    It interests me that although the initial idea was to photograph the shroud the negative stage of the photographic process can be appreciated as the actual photograph meant to be seen. The shroud needed time to elapse before this image was developed...

  • @marcello7781
    @marcello7781 Рік тому +19

    Wow! This was a very interesting and detailed documentary! Many thanks, Metatron, and happy new year!

  • @kuxlejal
    @kuxlejal Рік тому +30

    Wow! I appreciate your effort in order to create this video. I've been very interested on this subject and I enjoyed the scientific and unbiased analysis you made on the holy shroud. This documentary is well balanced and doesn't take for granted anything. Although I'm a Christian, I do believe that it's spiritually healthy to confront one's faith with objective scientific evidence. Good work. Greetings from Mexico. (I hope my English is clear enough for is not my mother tongue)

    • @anthonypuccetti8779
      @anthonypuccetti8779 Рік тому

      It is not spiritually healthy to to confront one's faith with objective scientific evidence. The natural sciences are naturalistic and reductionist, which is contrary to reason. They ignore knowledge of divine causality and metaphysics and sometimes disregard common observation and common sense. Scientists don't just go on empirical evidence or "look at the facts", they interpret evidence according to methodological naturalism and hypotheses and models, and they invent hypothetical natural causes. What is spiritually healthy is to believe in the entire deposit of faith of the Catholic Church, which is apostolic tradition, and to use reason the way that Saint Thomas Aquinas did to figure things out.

  • @gabzsy4924
    @gabzsy4924 Рік тому +13

    What an amazing work you've done Raffa, as always I'm always looking forward to your new videos because I know I'm in for a treat and 47 minutes of Metatron? That's just a New Years present for me.

  • @ScoopDogg
    @ScoopDogg 9 місяців тому

    Going through your back catalogue of videos. Respect your defence of history and dropping a big Thankyou and sending love and prayers for your mum

  • @kawadashogo8258
    @kawadashogo8258 Рік тому +106

    This was surprisingly fascinating. I'm not a very religious person, I tend toward agnosticism, but I found this more interesting than I thought I would. If the shroud is real, though, then even from an entirely secular point of view that makes it of enormous historical significance. Whether Jesus was divine or not, this could actually be a real image of the man. That would be astounding if true.

    • @druidriley3163
      @druidriley3163 Рік тому +1

      It's not though. Even the Vatican won't come out and admit it's real.

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому +11

      I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
      Oh it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe.

    • @bumponalog5001
      @bumponalog5001 Рік тому +15

      ​@@revedargent3467 Do you have links to these papers?

    • @renee1741
      @renee1741 Рік тому +14

      @@revedargent3467 Where are the other shrouds located, and what do they look like? I would like to see them

    • @Lakeslover1
      @Lakeslover1 Рік тому +15

      The shroud is encoded for 3D.
      There is nothing like it in the world.

  • @chrismaloney7562
    @chrismaloney7562 Рік тому +19

    I appreciate your Christian themed videos tremendously. Your approach is respectful and impartial. Modern Western culture has flavored the Christian world view as indefensible when that simply isn’t true.

  • @mintoo2cool
    @mintoo2cool Рік тому +15

    thanks for this video metatron! very well done! I personally was not aware of the fact that creation of the imprint in-of-itself is a huge mystery, nevermind the historicity of the shroud. Fascinating stuff!

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому +1

      I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
      Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.

    • @JoutenShin
      @JoutenShin Рік тому +1

      The Shroud is easily reproducible, in all its properties, with the frottage technique (medieval technology of course). It was reproduced for the first time in 2009 by Luigi Garlaschelli, a chemist at the University of Pavia:
      L. Garlaschelli. Life-Size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image. J. Imaging Sci. and Technol., 54 (4) 2010, in press
      This reproduction replicates all its properties, 100%, including the bas-relief detected with 3D information, exactly like the Turin Shroud. As you can verify, there is no mystery. Please reply to the peer reviewed scientific publication only with other peer reviewed scientific publications. I'm not interested in personal opinions. I consider any comment not supported by scientific documentation as a confirmation of the scientific documentation that I have indicated.

    • @RevDanTheMan
      @RevDanTheMan Рік тому +3

      ​@@JoutenShin you are misappropriating the study you cited! I think you need to read it again... 😅

    • @diligenceeke3023
      @diligenceeke3023 11 місяців тому

      ​@@JoutenShin So you couldn't only reproduce on 2009 what was done in medieval times? Shame on you modern scientists. Hahaha... my point is, your comment is a joke! Those medieval people are not that smart. Why would it take you so much study and sweat to reproduce in 2009 what was done about 2000 years ago?

  • @keithsmith9115
    @keithsmith9115 10 місяців тому +2

    Absolutely love all your vids, plz don't stop. Your unbiased and thoroughly researched topics are a true breath of fresh air from religion to history. Always a treat.

    • @ralphherring7383
      @ralphherring7383 10 місяців тому

      thank you

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 9 місяців тому

      I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
      Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe.

  • @lvx4408
    @lvx4408 Рік тому +6

    I would say Fr. Andrew Dalton's talk about the shrould on Pints with Aquinas is the best discussion I've heard about the shroud, but this was great talk, as well

  • @eheller3
    @eheller3 Рік тому +6

    Best collection of information on this topic I have yet encountered. Thank you!

  • @micahlindley7515
    @micahlindley7515 Рік тому +21

    I like your videos. You're unbiased about information, and you put in a lot of effort into research.

    • @frankvandorp2059
      @frankvandorp2059 Рік тому +4

      He is extremely biased, he only gave the arguments from the believers' side and almost completely ignored the arguments made against it by the skeptics.

    • @guesswho343
      @guesswho343 Рік тому +2

      Really so the fact it's clearly a painting of an older knight.... try to make one the ears give it away that it's not real and the age of the subject shows it's not Jesus

    • @DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt
      @DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt 7 місяців тому +1

      ​@@guesswho343not a painting

  • @CryptoWarframe
    @CryptoWarframe 3 місяці тому +1

    Grazie, Metatron, video SPETTACOLARE. ❤
    Da Cattolico non so dirti cosa ne penso, ma so dirti che mi stanca la superficialità con cui i diversi "schieramenti" affrontano il discorso; amo la complessità e la profondità che esprimi, invece, in questo video.
    Saremo una impopolare minoranza, ma il mondo ha bisogno di profondità e complessità. Il mondo ha bisogno dei tuoi video, Metatron!!! 👍

  • @valkyriesardo278
    @valkyriesardo278 Рік тому +18

    Very well presented, succint, factual, and well-reasoned. I appreciate your work.

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому

      I don't know for his others videos (maybe he's usually really accurate) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and stil medieval, etc.

  • @RickardLejonhjarta
    @RickardLejonhjarta Рік тому +28

    somehow even more professional than usual
    very well made, my friend

  • @Silvanafromchester
    @Silvanafromchester Рік тому +12

    You BET I'm watching until the end... This is EXCELLENT and I thank you for your brilliant work on this. I appreciate your unbiased and completely scientific reporting..I love how you say throughout that we cannot be sure. I choose to believe that it is genuine even after reading a historical fiction medieval time novel which told the story of a copy being made after the original shroud was accidentally destroyed. Whether genuine or not it is a true work of art and should be revered. Thank you for your wonderful work...I have subscribed to your channel. Greetings from Ontario Canada..🤩

  • @taemanit7605
    @taemanit7605 3 місяці тому

    This was an amazing and multilayered video, thank you

  • @John-nd4fu
    @John-nd4fu Рік тому +10

    A better analysis than anything on cable, fine work.

  • @MatadorM9
    @MatadorM9 Рік тому +45

    Loved this video. If you have more material I would love to see a second part. Could you consider doing a similar video on the image of the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe?
    Would you also consider making a Spanish version of this video? I want my parents to see this video but they can’t understand English. I’m sure there are a lot of Spanish speaking people that would like this content. And I can volunteer with helping with the transition.

    • @beorbeorian150
      @beorbeorian150 Рік тому

      Guadalupe is also a known fake. You can look at historical photos of it and see it change over time. A painter confessed to touching it up. Shame on the church leaders. - [ ] I am ashamed that the current leadership of the Church does not make it clear the shroud is a fake. They hide behind the obscurity of terms like “icon”
      * The shroud is also contrary to the description in the Gospel. Look it up.
      “Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself.”
      * We have no reliable documentation of the Shroud of Turin’s existence until the fourteenth century.
      * The forger who made the Shroud of Turin confessed and the earliest definitive mention of the shroud in any historical source is a record of his confession.
      * The Shroud of Turin doesn’t match the kinds of funerary wrappings used in Judaea in the time of Jesus or the description of Jesus’s own funerary wrappings given in the Gospel of John.
      * The linen of the Shroud of Turin has been securely dated using radiocarbon dating to between c. 1260 and c. 1390 AD-well over a millennium after Jesus’s death.
      * The figure on the Shroud of Turin does not have anatomically correct proportions and much more closely resembles figures in fourteenth-century Gothic art than a real human being.
      * The bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are not consistent with how blood actually flows naturally and they instead appear to have been painted on.
      * The fabric of the Shroud of Turin is made with a kind of weave that is known to have been commonly used during the Late Middle Ages, but does not seem to have been used for burial shrouds in Judaea in the first century AD.

    • @RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217
      @RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 Рік тому

      Guadalupe and santaria have much to do with one another.

    • @bdavis7801
      @bdavis7801 Рік тому

      I second this!

    • @MonerLaine
      @MonerLaine Рік тому +2

      Sorry Man but the Guadalupe one Is a painting made in tempera. Unless god mixed the pigment with egg yolk i doubt Is a true artifact.
      How can i tell? Well i'm a painter, and I can see the literal brush strokes and techniques used to Made It.
      Fun fact: the Virgin used to have a crown, someone scrape the painting to erase it, but you can still see a bit of It.
      Also, ir Juan Diego saw a woman in the middle of the night...It was probable la llorona.

  • @michaelpyefinch9906
    @michaelpyefinch9906 Рік тому +7

    The best analysis of the shroud I've ever seen!!

    • @revedargent3467
      @revedargent3467 Рік тому +1

      I don't know for his others videos (maybe he's usually really accurate) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
      No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020), etc.

  • @Ifyoucantdodgeitramit
    @Ifyoucantdodgeitramit 2 місяці тому +1

    The most unbiased and fact based video I've seen thus far. Very much appreciated

  • @EliteGoosePlusOne
    @EliteGoosePlusOne Рік тому +4

    well done dude. this is something i've always been fascinated about and thought i knew a bit about but i learned quite a lot today. thanks.

  • @milenaortiz8875
    @milenaortiz8875 Рік тому +6

    I just love this channel, it has the 2 things I'm passionated about, which are history and languages and this topic the Shroud of Turin has obsessed me since I was a child

  • @keziavb
    @keziavb Рік тому +11

    It's actually my first time hearing about this Shroud and I'm just blown away how good you are at explaining things. It's incredibly fascinating and I felt impressed watching the whole video and also amazed at this discovery. Awesome!

  • @daniellovegreen4288
    @daniellovegreen4288 17 днів тому +2

    Absolutely great analysis. The best ive seen on this shroud. You won a new subscriber.

  • @workingmothercatlover6699
    @workingmothercatlover6699 Рік тому +13

    I once watched a program that essentially brought to life the man who's image is on the shroud. Digitally speaking. It was incredible.

  • @oddrocket2743
    @oddrocket2743 Рік тому +8

    Fascinating. I have always found the subject interesting and you have one of the most complete analyses. I loved the timeline which explained the two potential shrouds! Well done!

  • @tzor
    @tzor Рік тому +106

    Thanks for a well-balanced approach to the issue. As a Roman Catholic I have leaned towards the cloth being authentic but clearly, we don't know, and my faith is not based on that cloth whatsoever. I've never really leaned towards the carbon dating problem, given that the porous linen has been in the presence of smoke (incense and outright fires) for hundreds of years. It is important to note that sometimes the answer is "we don't know (yet)." And while there have been clear forgeries in the past there are many things where the answers are currently, we do not know yet. Since there is no real active in depth studies we may never really know.

    • @Ken_Scaletta
      @Ken_Scaletta Рік тому

      The Catholic Church says it's fake. The Church has known it was fake since the Middle Ages when they found the actual forger. There is no scientific debate or controversy over this fake piece of cloth.

    • @RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217
      @RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 Рік тому +7

      The unsolved mysteries about the shroud that can't be solved _["yet"]_ by our supposedly so intelligent societies should get you to strongly reconsider that just maybe, that was a supernatural effect after all that man will never be able to explain by physical sciences and thus infers that just maybe, it really is the shroud of the true Lord.

    • @KebaRPG
      @KebaRPG Рік тому +8

      Also something that people would miss is that in Orthodox Church there is a long standing tradition of Replicating Relics (especially icons) as a prayerful exercise. Often so as to share the wonder and beauty of the Relic with others so that they may receive the benefits of blessings that come from inspired icons. Therefore considering it was said to have come from Constantinople during the Crusades. It may have been possible the one from Constantinople was such a replica presented to the Bishop of Constantinople from an earlier time by the Bishop of Jerusalem. The possible replica would be presented during Divine Liturgy as the Original was considered too Sacred to remove from the Original Reliquary (as was possibly in Jerusalem).

    • @tzor
      @tzor Рік тому +4

      @@KebaRPG there is the practice of icons within the Orthodox Church. But this is where it gets strange, because icons aren't "drawn" but "written" and as such reflect a visual language that is not in and of itself merely a replication of an image. Iconography is not, by its nature, realistic. Thus, at least in Constantinople, it would have been considered more of a relic than a proper icon.

    • @tzor
      @tzor Рік тому +5

      @@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 but here is the problem, but this is a real minor one. God created the world and the laws of the universe. God cannot deceive or go against His nature. Therefore, He cannot (and will not) violate the laws that He Himself ordained. Since we barely grasp the real "laws" of the universe, it is hard to prove that there isn't a strange "explanation" (no matter how implausible) for this event.

  • @seaniev5953
    @seaniev5953 Рік тому

    I love your channel