Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Metatron" channel.

When did the shroud first appear in public. When was the height of fake religious artefacts. What is the estimated age of the shroud. Everybody knows it’s a fake.
3
@beverlyhurd8556 No literally everyone on the planet knows its a fake. I mean Christianity can't even prove beyond reasonable doubt a historical jesus character even existed let alone some fake religious relic from a time the Catholic hierarchy was freaking out because every other church claimed to have a piece of the cross and an audit found there was enough wood for 100 crosses. Give me a break.
3
@beverlyhurd8556 Straight to the strawman argument. I never said he was a myth only there is little evidence he existed. Certainly no physical evidence. Cite the scientific paper that proves the shroud is real. I cite the 1988 radio carbon dating study that confirms its origin in the Middle Ages and despite attempts has never been debunked. Your reply is illogical fallacious nonsense. I have absolutely no need for any belief in a Christian god.
3
@beverlyhurd8556 I was going to ignore it but you argument is so absurd I can’t help myself. To seriously argue that because someone has been written about they must have existed I cite the case of the millions of books printed about a certain fella named Harry Potter, now he must be real for sure. See how ludicrously stupid that argument is.
3
@beverlyhurd8556 Rogers disproved nothing. The sample of the shroud that was taken was explicitly taken away from any stitching or patching and was completely destroyed. Rogers 2005 article has been throughly and completely debunked. He was totally unable to explain the DNA evidence or the weave of the cloth. Rogers attempt to defend the shroud completely failed on every level. Harry Potter though is real I read the book.
2
It is a 14th century forgery at a time when forgeries of religious artefacts was common. There is no historical evidence of it existing before the 14th century. It uses a weave common for the 14th century and has been dated by three independent teams as 14 th century. Job done, move on. Three independent universities all concluded after testing the cloth that the Shroud dates to the 14th century CE. The methods they used are widely accepted in the scientific community. The process to create the weave wasn't even invented until the 5th century CE. There is no historical evidence whatsoever of the shrouds existence prior to its first historical claims by a priest that it is a forgery in the 14th century. Not a single claim by jeffreyerwin3665 is true.
2
Universally accepted radiocarbon dating by three independent universities has determined the date of the cloth to be 14th century. The process to create the weave used in the cloth wasn’t invented till the 6th century. There is no repeat no historical evidence of the Shroud of Turin existing before the 14th century. Jeffreyerwin3665 is factually incorrect in his entire claim.
2
@jeffreyerwin3665 You are just factually wrong. Radiocarbon dating is virtually universally accepted as an accurate measure of dating organic material by the scientific world. You are just wrong about your claim. There is no historical evidence whatsoever of the Shroud of Turin prior to the 14th century, and the first writings about it declare it to be a forgery. The process used to create the weave of the shroud were not invented till 500 years after the alleged death of the Jesus character. Again you are just factually wrong.
1