Uh Oh!! atheists have some splaining to do.

PFFFF...

"Science" isn't real, until I FEEL it is (situationally).

Hmmmmm 🤔, as an atheist, I'm aware that Jesus probably existed. I've never really doubted it. It's the rest of it I have issues with.
Also, I'm sure lots of men from that region looked alot alike (and we don't even know what Jesus looked like).

I think it's really interesting that this cloth exists. It's fascinating to me that someone's face can get imprinted onto cloth like this. I hope it is real and not the medieval fake it's been made out to be.

I wonder if the body would need to be partially or fully mummified for this to happen. Surely if not then the natural decomposing process would have erased the image and cloth.... off to Google I go. I should be sleeping 🙄

They already did radiocarbon dating. It's not even close to 2000 years old.

Turin Shroud is nonsense for a few reasons.

*Crucified men were naked. After they died, their bodies remained on the cross and were devoured by wild animals. They weren't allowed to be buried. There are no mass graves or remains of the crucified even though Romans crucified thousands of Jews.
* Judean men wore their hair short. The image has long hair.
* Judean men didn't look European. Isa, aka: Jesus, would've looked like a brown-skinned Middle Eastern man with curly short hair.
* The artwork looks like it was done during the Byzantine Era in Europe prior to the Renaissance.

Btw, I believe there was a charismatic man who made a strong impression with his followers and they continued and expanded his teachings. Historic Jesus likely - not the religious Jesus.

Sorry, I don't buy the constantly changing dates. One day it's fake and then it's real again. Too much vested interest in this one. And it could be anyone until the Catholic Church got a hold of it.

For the truly faithful, no miracle is necessary.

Not only has the shroud already been dated convincingly to the years long after Christ but in the middle ages it was one of several such similar relics that claims were made for at the time. In the case of the Turn Shroud researchers have even convincingly recreated it:

https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/italian-scientist-reproduces-shroud-of-turin-idUSTRE5943HL/

There is also the fact that, back in the day an investigating cleric actually discovered and disclosed those who had admitted to fabricating it: in 1389, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis launched the first investigation into the Turin Shroud. In a letter to the first anti-pope of Avignon, Clement VII, d'Arcis wrote about his suspicions and the evidence he had accumulated thus:

"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb. This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to be the shroud of our Lord." Pierre d'Arcis is quite straightforward and doesn't spare words. He "discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed" The shroud is a forgery, and someone who would have every reason to accept it said so.