Shroud of Turin
It is more likely that the Shroud is Authentic or a Fake?
As this is (possibly) an ancient historical artifact, absolute proof is impossible thus there will be shared burden of proof.
Pro will argue that the Shroud dates back to the time of Christ.
Con will argue that it is a forgery.
Con may choose to seize the initiative and begin arguments in the first round and pass in the final round, or may simply accept the challenge in the first round and have final say.
5 rounds, 72 hr argument time, 10k characters.
I will use this round for acceptance.
I wish to thank Wylted for accepting this debate I'm hoping it turns out to be lively. I will be trying to use as few sources as possible as the amount of knowledge on this topic is enormous. As such I will attempt to use distilled and simplified versions where possible. Graphics are not inserting properly for me, sorry you'll have to click the photos to display.
History of the Shroud
Anything closer to modern times will be easier to verify than that which is more ancient. As such, we will trace this back in time. The Shroud can be reliably traced in Western Europe back to 1349 When Geoffroi de Charny was recorded as having possession of it. 
The oldest surviving Hungarian text is the Pray Codex.  This book contains 5 images. I'll focus on one of them:
The top panel of this photo shows the burial of Jesus and the bottom panel shows the tomb on Easter Morn. It is key to note from this picture sever key aspects:
1) It shows the body of Jesus with only 4 fingers on each hand, just as on the shroud.
2) We an see that the shroud is long in that it wraps around the neck and shoulders of the man on the upper left.
3) We see the red crosses artistically denoting Christ's blood.
4) The herringbone pattern of the cloth is noted
5) The L shape burn holed (below the extended arm of the leftmost woman in the bottom panel) is consistent with burn marks that predate the larger burn marks created by in a fire in 1532. 
These are strong evidence of the shroud existing prior to its arrival in Western Europe in the 14th Century.
A French Knight notes a ceremony in 1204 where the shroud was raised every Friday.  Constantinople was sacked later in 1204. In 1205 Theodore nephew of Emperor Isaac II wrote to Pope Innocent III requested that the Pope have the shroud returned to Constantinople.  The Knights Templar were known to have great reverence for holy objects and would have known about its existence in Constantinople. The Knights Templar were disbanded in 1307 with Grand Master Jacque Molay (highest ranking Knight) and Sir Knight Geoffrey de Charny (Preceptor of Normandy for the Knights Templar) were executed together.  Geoffroi de Charny was highly suspected of being a relative of the executed Geffrey de Charny.
In 1287 a young Frenchman, Arnaut Sabbatier, described a Templar initiation rite:
""(I was) shown a long piece of linen on which was impressed the figure of a man and told to worship it, kissing the feet three times" 
Thus there is strong evidence of the possession of the shroud by the Templars from Constantinople to France.
Muslims had conquered the town of Edessa and a group of Muslim prisoners were exchanged for the image of Edessa.  On August 15, 944 Constantinople came into possession of the Image of Edessa. The (Eastern Orthodox) Feast day of the Image in August 16. A copy of the sermon pronounced on the occasion of the arrival of the image has been preserved. in this sermon the priest noted that:
"he imprinted the reflection of his form on the linen" 
So we can see that the Image of Edessa was a full body reflection of the body of Christ.
In 787 at the Seventh Ecumenical Councils, bishops defended the veneration of images by teaching that Christ Himself provided an image for veneration - the Holy Image of Edessa. 
In the 6th century the image of Edessa was found buried in the walls above one of the city gates . Later in the 6th century it was written that "Edessa was protected by a 'divinely wrought portrait' (acheiropoietis) sent by Jesus to Abgar" and in the 730AD, "St. John Damascene in On Holy Images describes the cloth as a himation, which is translated as an oblong cloth or grave cloth. This may be the first mention, among extant documents, of it being a grave cloth." 
The Legend of Abgar reports how the shroud came to Edessa:
"But when the Edessan Christians wrote their history in the 3rd century, they remembered that the Gospel originally came to them in the 1st century from a Jerusalem disciple named Addai and to a King Abgar V, a known historical figure contemporary with Christ. Eusebius included in his Ecclesiastical History a brief late 3rd century version, reporting a famous letter from Jesus still kept in the Edessan archives (Eusebius 1991: 43-47). But later in the 4th century (or possibly early in the 5th) a Syriac writer penned a much expanded text. Known as The Teaching of Addai (hereafter TA) one small passage has Abgar, who is corresponding with Jesus by way of a messenger Hanan, instructing him to make a picture of Jesus:
When Hanan the archivist saw that Jesus had spoken thus to him, he took and painted the portrait of Jesus with choice pigments, since he was the king’s artist, and brought it with him to his lord King Abgar. When King Abgar saw the portrait he received it with great joy and placed it with great honor in one of the buildings of his palaces.
Greek text, the anonymous Acts of Thaddaeus described this new way of understanding the picture’s origin. This document is another brief account of the Gospel coming to Edessa in the 1st century in the time of Abgar V. The king’s messenger, Ananais, was unable to paint Jesus, so:
And He [Jesus] knew as knowing the heart, and asked to wash Himself; and a towel was given Him; and when He washed Himself, He wiped His face with it. And His image having been imprinted upon the linen, He gave it to Ananias. 
The Greek words used for this linen were "rakos (piece of cloth) which was a tetradiplon, a word translated as “doubled in four," 
As you can see in the following picture, folding the shroud in this manner would leave you an image of the face.
Edessa was an early convert to Christianity in first or second century. And had a great deal of Gnosticism intertwined. Embedded in the Acts of Thomas is the Hymn of the Pearl. This is most often attributed to the Syrian Gnostic Bardaisan (152-222AD) at the royal court of Edessa. Supposedly some elements of it suggest a 1st century oral tradition 
In the Hymn Jesus speaks:
I saw my image on my burial garment like in a mirror. Myself facing outward and myself facing inward. As though divided, yet one likenessTwo images, but one likeness of the King of Kings. 
Now mirrors in the ancient world were rare being either beaten metal or calm pools of water. However they understood a mirror image. That a poetic description detailing the shroud written by a man in Edessa is strongly corroborative.
The poem states inward and outward facing - both the front and back images on the shroud
And though divided, yet one likeness - two images of the same person
Two images, but one likeness of the King of Kings - The shroud bears the image of Jesus Christ.
There is only one source left to go - the Bible.
All four Gospels mention the linen cloth that Jesus was wrapped in:
Matthew 27:59 - "And Joseph taking the body, wrapped it up in a clean linen cloth."
Mark 15:46 - "And Joseph buying fine linen, and taking him down, wrapped him up in the fine linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewed out of a rock."
Luke 23:53 - And taking him down, he wrapped him in fine linen, and laid him in a sepulchre that was hewed in stone, wherein never yet any man had been laid.
John 19:40 - They took therefore the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths, with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
So far we can see that the linens that wrapped the body are important enough to mention in every Gospel. Now we can look at where they are next mentioned.
Peter 24:12 - But Peter rising up, ran to the sepulchre, and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths laid by themselves; and went away wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
John 20:4-8 - And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And when he stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying; but yet he went not in. Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen cloths lying, And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place. Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw, and believed.
The other disciple here was John who was, according to records, the author the this Gospel. He saw the linens and believed. Given that burial cloths were ritually unclean in the culture, no more could possibly be said. However, he didn't believe on looking into the empty tomb. He believed when he saw the linens. It is not unreasonable to interpret this as a hidden message within the Gospel.
It has been shown that a historical trace of the shroud from the resurrection onward is present.
That is it for this round. There is so much more to add on this topic, but that is why this is a 5 round debate. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
The link below is to an image of the Shroud of Turin. It will probably serve as a good visual aid. Like my opponent I'm having a hard time posting images as well. It may have something to do with me using an I-phone to post all my debate arguments.
I'm going to show that, The Shroud of Turin is indeed a fraud. Me and my opponent are going to give 2 dramatically different stories. You decide which story fits the available evidence better.
History of/and the Shroud
The Shroud first appeared in around 1350 . It was in the possession of a French knight by the name of Geoffrey de Charny. The Shroud was put on exhibition. It was basically, like one of those old time traveling freak shows. The Shroud would be taken to a new town and people would come from miles around to see it. This time period was very shortly after the Black Death. People were looking for religion as an escape. If a supposed relic of Christ came to town, it was an amazing thing, to these simple people.
The Shroud of Turin wasn't the only fake burial Shroud going around at the time. At least 40 others were being peddled or put on exhibition . It seems the fake Shroud business was booming in the 1350s. Selling hope to the hopeless is always a good money making scheme.
The earliest recorded writing mentioning the Shroud is in 1389. In a letter to Pope Clement the VII, one of his bishops says his predecessor discovered it was a fraud and secured a confession from the artist who painted it . Even back during the Shrouds first appearance, respected members of the clergy were aware of the fraud. It was just a part of a faith healing scheme. Perhaps people like Benny Hinn looked into the early history of the shroud and felt inspired by it.
The Shroud didn't belong to Jesus
I'm going to show you some familiar looking verses.
Matthew 27:59 - "And Joseph taking the body, wrapped it up in a clean linen cloth."
Mark 15:46 - "And Joseph buying fine linen, and taking him down, wrapped him up in the fine linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewed out of a rock."
Luke 23:53 - And taking him down, he wrapped him in fine linen, and laid him in a sepulchre that was hewed in stone, wherein never yet any man had been laid.
Do you notice how every single verse shows that Jesus was Wrapped in the linen.
The Shroud of Turin, wasn't wrapped around a body. It was folded over like a sandwich . This directly conflicts with the biblical account and therefore couldn't be the burial cloth of Jesus.
More biblical evidence
'Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.' [Jn 19:40]
'So Peter... reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter... went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.' [Jn 20:3-7]
'Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves...' [Lk 24:12]
All these verses show that the shroud Jesus was wrapped in, was in strips. The Shroud of Turin is in one piece. The bible keeps disqualifying the Shroud as a the burial cloth of Jesus.
Evidence Outside the bible
The first shroud discovered from the time of Jesus, was discovered in 2009. The shroud is a kind of patch work of different cloths with a simple weave pattern. The Shroud of Turin is a single cloth with complex weaving. It's not something very likely to have wrapped Jesus's body .
A 14th Century Work of Art
Radio Carbon Dating
3 independent labs tested pieces of the shroud and all agreed that the shroud first originated in late 13th or early 14th century . So it was created shortly before knight Charny, gained possession of it.
Testing was done to prove the image on the cloth was created by paint. This was an artistic rendition of Christ . Another indicator of it being a painting are things such as the convenient placement of Jesus's hands over his groin area, when they should have been over his chest, or once again Jesus being depicted as a good looking Italian guy instead of a Hebrew.
Disproportionate body parts
Here is a test, I want everybody reading this to perform. This test isn't something you have to rely on a scientist for. It's not something that requires reading an experts opinion. You can do it yourself to help discredit the shroud. Look at the shroud and how Jesus's hands conveniently cover his crotch area. Lay down now. Make sure it's a hard surface. Relax. Now without stretching, and remaining relaxed cover your crotch with your hands. Now look at the image of Christ and his hand placements. Even if you got long arms and can cover your own crotch while being relaxed and not stretching, do your arms extend as far down as Jesus's arms. I didn't think so. This experiment I pulled from source 8.
The head on the shroud is about 5% too big. The face is too big for the head. The nose is longer then it should be and looks European. The eyes aren't positioned correctly. This style of painting is representational of an amateur Medieval painter .
The shroud is a hoax there is more then enough evidence to conclude this. I will go into rebuttals in the next round. I would like to thank my opponent for giving such a thorough argument earlier in this round.
I will provide a brief rebuttal then add additional information to my argument
First Appearance - I have already clearly shown that the Shroud existed in the Eastern Empire prior to its appearance in Western Europe through the descendant of a Templar. I have show that the image from the Pray Codex verifies this:
Multiple Shrouds - That there are multiples does not deny the original. Just look at all the "Flappy Bird" knockoffs out there.
Obvious Fraud - The Bishop d'Arcy letter that Con refers to is more questionable than the shroud we are debating.
- The letter was never signed or dated
- The handwriting of the bishop has never been verified
- The artist has never been named nor his confession ever found
- The letter or copies of the letter have never been proven to be genuine
- The Vatican has no evidence this letter was received by the Pope 
The Shroud didn't belong to Jesus & More Biblical Evidence - Con states that wrap in the bible cannot include folded over.
Wrap: To arrange or fold (something) about as cover or protection
A shroud folded over the body meets the definition just as well as one tightly bound.
Con goes on to note that that sometimes the gospels note strips of linen plural and thus the shroud cannot be the actual burial shroud. Let's look at the shroud:
You will note that along the top edge there is a shorter strip of cloth. This is a separate strip of cloth made from the same piece of cloth.  Additionally, the hand stitching of the seam between the main Shroud and the side strip is known only from textiles excavated from the first-century Jewish fortress at Masada, near the Dead Sea. 
Thus we can show that the Shroud we know is actually 2 strips of identical linen joined in a manner only done by 1st century Jews.
If you go to 44:30 of this video  you can see how the shroud could be wrapped by the side strip. Thus we have strips of cloth wrapping the body. Fully in agreement with all accounts of the gospel.
Evidence outside the Bible - Con argues that a body would not be buried using such a fine fabric, but would use simpler cloths. The example he cites is of a man who died of leprosy. Given first century attitudes to lepers this is hardly a reasonable comparison. We know that Joseph of Aramathea was a wealthy man so the cost of the material was not out of his reach. We also know that the Shroud has no wool in it making it a Sindonic fabric meaning the loom itself only ever wove flax. The Jews were prohibited from mixing wool and linen Dt. 22:11. In TB Ketuboth 8b...it became common to spend a fortune on burialshrouds.  People today spend a fortune on caskets why shouldn't thy have done it 2000 years ago.
C14 Dating - The C14 test has been shown to be in error, not because the test is faulty, but because of a sampling error. While 3 tests were done by 3 laboratories, they were all from the same corner of the shroud.
This corner of the shroud showed that is was chemically dissimilar to the remainder of the shroud. The French had invisible reweaving techniques that could invisibly mend fabrics. However this is the only area of the shroud with dyes and cotton present. Time indexes 35:28, 37:05 of video .
This was confirmed by the ultraviolet photographs on the original shroud during the 1978 STRUP showed that this "area was significantly darker, it doesn't fluoresce as much. And it is just this area and the area around the raw sample and where the radio carbon sample was cut." Time index 37:28 
Vanillin in the flax fibres depletes over time. The body of the shroud does not test positive for vanillin except in the corner where the 1988 carbon testing was performed.  The depletion rate of vanillin from the linen is dependent on the average storage temperature. The higher the temperature the faster the depletion. At an average temperature of 25°C it would take 1319 year to fully deplete at 20°C 3095 years. A linen produced in 1260 would still have roughly 37% of its vanillin left.  Thus the shroud is demonstrably older than the carbon 14 tests indicate.
Painting - My opponent is quoting from Dr. McCrone. Dr. McCrone only published in his own Journal and refused to accept reasonable explanations. The image on the shroud is not paint. Walter McCrone Claimed the paint was iron oxide "jeweler's rouge" . However, when the flax is retted, ions of iron (Fe) is attached to the flax from the water. The extremely pure iron oxide is present all over the shroud and not just in the image areas. Additionally, it has been proven that the blood stains on the shroud were actually blood and not pigment. 
In 1978 the STRUP team spent 120 continuous hours conduction examinations on the shroud by top scientists in their fields. The official summary of their findings was: 
Crotch Test - Now repeat the test with something under your head (like a pillow) and your knees slightly bent (rigamortis from the crucifixion) and you'll find that your hands fit nicely (unless you're belly is too big, then you need some exercise for it to work). See attached photo:
This tilting of the head than the wrapping of the cloth will explain the additional "artistic" issues Con mentioned.
Art History of the Shroud
There are 15 markings on the face of the Shroud known as the Vignon markings. It can be shown that by following the historical path of the Shroud that I detailed in Round 2 that we can see that art imitated the shroud.
"Beginning in the sixth century, eastern icons of Christ underwent a radical change and followed the form set forth by this relic" 
The Christ Pantocrator resides in the St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai. See photo:
The gold solidus minted between 692 and 695 has 145 points of congruence: 
I could keep bringing up additional examples however I believe that the point of artistic similarities to the shroud in the Easter Empire has been established.
I'll try to get into the science in round 4.
I'll just be offering rebuttals for round 2 and will address round 3 in the following round.
My opponent weaves an amazing tale. It involves myths about Jesus mixed with religion, history, symbols, intriguing mysteries. We chase a Relic hidden in the walls of a city, stolen by Muslims, the Knights Templar get involved, it was almost lost to multiple fires. This fantastic tale sounds reminiscent of another famous tale. Check out the video.
Wow, truly heart pounding edge of your seat stuff.
Timeline of the Shroud
My opponent is focused on the timeline of the shroud to verify it can be linked directly back to Jesus Christ. This whole timeline is extremely shaky circumstantial evidence. Some of these jumps between points in the timeline, connecting the shroud from one spot to the next, take a bit of a leap in faith to accept. When all this small leaps in faith connecting different points in the timeline add up, it equals a huge jump in faith.
Starting at the End
A burial cloth of Jesus is mentioned in the bible quite a few times, as me and my opponent point out. I showed evidence of the shroud being a piece of art, intended to fool people (I will answer my opponents rebuttals of this, in the next round). You can bet the artist and his purchaser was aware of these stories of a burial cloth in the bible. So of course the artist faked a relic that could be identified with easier.
If any other shroud out of the 40 or so others survived until today, we'd be having this same debate, using almost the same evidence.
We know just from this debate, that people love faking religous artifacts. If just 1 in 40 of those shrouds in the 1350s was real, that would mean the shroud has a 1 in 40 chance of being real. That is a 2.5% chance of being legitimate. We're only talking about, out and out fraud when discussing this shroud here, but other shrouds mentioned (before those 40) that we don't have current access to might not even be fraud. It could just be people seeing Jesus, where they want to see him.
This phenomenon is called pareidolia. People just love seeing patterns in things. Particularly when they have religious meanings. Check out these 2 Wikipedia articles that give a brief explanation of these types of phenomenon. These articles are accurate, click on the article's sources if you're skeptical.
The first mention of the Shroud
The gospels talk of a burial cloth (or more accurately strips of burial cloth) at least 30 years after Jesus's death and probably later. I don't want to isolate Christian voters, so let's assume the gospels are reasonably accurate when portraying the life and death of Jesus. I've already addressed how, the descriptions of Jesus's burial conflicts with the Shroud of Turin. Let's add another point to show how the burial cloth mentioned in the bible doesn't match up with the Shroud if Turin.
"There is a lack of wrap-around distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. Thus the cloth was never used to wrap a body. If the image had been formed when the cloth was around Jesus' corpse it would have been distorted when the cloth was straightened out. The image would be wider and you would have an imprint of the sides of the body, not just the front and back. The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs."( taken from the following source)
The Gospel of Thomas
My opponent uses the gospel of Thomas and specifically a hymn from it as evidence that Jesus is referencing a burial garment with his image. You won't find many, if any historians who use this gospel to understand the historical Jesus. The gospel just isn't reliable as any sort of historical evidence. There is a reason it was left out of the bible. The event listed in that document isn't referring to a burial garment. Jesus mentions shedding his old clothes and putting on, new superior garments. Here is a few quotes from the gospel of Thomas that also describe that fabric.
Gospel of Thomas chapter 17
"The Glorious Robe all-bespangled
With sparkling splendour of colours:
With Gold and also with Beryls,
Chalcedonies, iris-hued [Opals?],
With Sards of varying colours.
To match its grandeur [?], moreover, it had been completed:
With adamantine jewels
All of its seams were off-fastened.
[Moreover] the King of Kings" Image
Was depicted entirely all o"er it;
And as with Sapphires above
Was it wrought in a motley of colour."
This hymm isn't even meant to be taken literally. You can tell by the way it's written that, the author using a story to convey a message and get the reader to meditate on what it means.
The Image of Edessa
The image of Edessa is actually irrelevant. The image of Edessa isn't the shroud of Turin. The image of Edessa was widely copied as well. Funny enough, every single image copied was considered to be legitimate. People thought the image could magically just replicate it's self. A forger could just keep selling images. All these competing images is probably an explanation for some of the conflicting evidence that suggests it could be a whole body image. It's pretty much a consensus, that it was just a facial image, though.
The Image of Edessa was not a funeral cloth. How do I know? In 1201, when the image of Edessa was in Constantinople, it was in the Pharos chapel beside tons of other religious artifacts. Here is quote from the source I list for all the facts in this paragraph.
" In 1201 it was still there listed alongside other relics. One of these, recorded in the list of 1201, was no less than the "funerary sheets (sindones, in the plural) of Christ, they are of cheap and easy-to find material" and "still smell of myrrh". So these cloths are clearly not the Turin Shroud"
The Knights Templar
A lot of believers in the Shroud of Turin being linked to were criticized in part by the shroud's missing medieval years. Somebody by the name Dr. Frale overcame this objection by supposedly finding a document in the Vatican archives of a witness to a secret initiation rite. If we ignore the fact that Dr. Drake is the only one to see this document, several problems still exist.
Here is a statement from one of my opponents sources,
"Rumours about the secret initiation ceremonies of the Templar order and the allegation of idolatry, specifically the worship of images of bearded men, were crucial in 1307 when hundreds of knights were arrested, tortured into giving false confessions, and then burned at the stake.".
A confession, extracted from torture isn't reliable. Particularly a confession that conforms to what the torturer wants to hear.
"1) It shows the body of Jesus with only 4 fingers on each hand, just as on the shroud."
Nearly everyone in that picture only has 4 fingers. This isn't an artist that is trying to draw an accurate portrayal of Christ's image on the shroud. This is just an artist that sucks at drawing thumbs.
"2) We an see that the shroud is long in that it wraps around the neck and shoulders of the man on the upper left."
Refer to what, I wrote about pareidolia.
"3) We see the red crosses artistically denoting Christ's blood."
Who knows, what that's representing. That interpretation is really subjective. Even if the interpretation is correct it means nothing.
"4) The herringbone pattern of the cloth is noted"
It's a design that's pretty common. I don't see any herringbone pattern on the shroud. I'm sure you'll explain this. If you're referring to the stitching, then you might be, being a little silly. I think all stitching has some variation of a herringbone pattern. Especially in that time period.
"5) The L shape burn holed (below the extended arm of the leftmost woman in the bottom panel) is consistent with burn marks that predate the larger burn marks created by in a fire in 1532."
Those are similar. It's probably just coincidence. I can't see how the artist would be so intent on getting that detail right and yet screw up on so many important details. Details such as hands being in the wrong position, no wounds in wrist or ankles, and no facial hair. Why would the artist go through so much trouble to get those holes right, but screw up everything else?
Pro has provided, extremely weak circumstantial evidence. This evidence isn't compelling in the least, while I've provided scientific evidence of the shroud's date. I've given strong evidence of when it first originated not Da Vinci Code style, speculation. I look forward to counter rebuttals in the next round and turn the floor over to Dan Brown.
I thank Wylted for one of the most amusing rounds of debate I have yet to receive. In fact, if I had to guess I'd say that he is Italian. I do so because he has thrown up a massive amount of spaghetti in a desperate attempt to make something stick. Because hey, if you don't have good arguments, you can at least have lots.
I would like to remind my opponent that he has a shared burden of proof. Now you would think that if my opponent believes that the shroud is a forgery, he would simply show how it could have been made. Right? However we have heard nary a peep except for the discredited work of Walter McCrone.
McCrone was"Asked if he had treated them (purported paint samples) chemically, his answer was "I didn't have to." ...When one one of his colleagues exclaimed, "Do you mean you just looked through your microscope and, and without doing specific test for iron oxide, can proclaim it a painting?" McCrone confidently replied, "Yes." 
This is the type of "science" that pro is expecting you to rely on in this debate.
Let's look at the real science of the shroud.
In 1898 Secondo Pia took a picture of the shroud only to find that the shroud is not a picture, but a negative:
Atheists were enraged and called him a fraud. However in 1931 Giuseppe Enri photographed the shroud confirming Pia's findings. 
In 1973 Dr. Max Frei collected pollen samples from the shroud. 
In 1976 it was found that the image on the Shroud incorporated 3D image information:
In 1978 the STRUP team studied the shroud for 120 consecutive hours.  I posted the summary of findings from the team in round 3, which I will summarize here.
The shroud is not formed by any pigments dyes or stains. It is not the product of an artist.
The blood is real blood containing hemoglobin. The blood contains an elevated bilirubin count which is consistent with a haemolytic process caused by torture. 
There are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately. This is because:The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team.
Additionally the image on the shroud cannot be seen when closer than about 15' because of the way the image is formed. it is like standing too close to a jumbotron.
The image on the shroud has an estimated thickness of 200-800 nanometers and only coats the outermost fibrils of the shroud. That is half the thickness of a soap bubble and thinner than most bacteria. 
We also have the Sudarium of Oviedo to consider.
The sudarium is the head cloth that was put over Jesus when he was transported to the tomb. Both cloths contain type AB blood, both have blood that was shed before and after death. And the wound locations on both match with each other as confirmed by several qualified forensic doctors to conclude that both the sudarium and the shroud were in contact with the same dead body. Time stamp 37:00- video one.
Both the sudarium and the shroud have blood stains that are 1 part blood and 6 parts pulmonary fluid. Additionally both cloths contain pollens of the Gundelia tournefortii that grows only in Israel and southern Lebanon. 
The oral history of the Sudarium holds that it was in Palestine until just before 614 AD.  Its history in Spain can be formally attested to in Spain since the 700s .
Back to the Gospel of John:
And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.
So now we have all of the relics of the tomb. The shroud cloths (shown to be sewn together in 1st century Jewish style) and the head cloth rolled up by itself.
Now a quick rebuttal to my opponents last spaghetti toss of arguments. These will be brief due to the inclusion of the scientific evidence above:
As my opponent cannot substantiate solid opposition to the timeline, he uses loaded terms like leap of faith to entice atheists against sound historical sleuthing. As noted, the timeline was backed up with examples of art that would be admissible in court due to the massive congruities.
Con seems fixated on the fact that there may have been other "shrouds" If he can give me evidence that any of these other shrouds defy scientific explanation and legally match 6th century art we'll talk.
Con attempts to use pareidolia to argue for inauthenticity when the majority of the scientists that were a part of the STURP team were not Christian. Additionally the Vignon Marks visible on eastern Iconography discussed in the previous round show conclusively that the shroud was their model.
As for the image distortion, Con would have to show how and when the image was made in order to prove the distortions are necessary. If con has an applicable theory I'm eager to read it.
Gospel of Thomas/Image of Edessa- I find it funny that an atheist is essentially using Church authority on scripture for his argument. Coming back to my previous picture:
I have anticipated my opponents argument before he even posted it! I already noted that the word used to describe the shroud was tetradiplon which means folded in 4. The picture I provided shows that by folding the shroud in 4 you'd see only the face. Additionally if a golden bejeweled cloth covering all but the face of the shroud was in place (like in the above photo), someone who didn't know any different would assume it was part of the shroud. I thank my opponent for confirming my argument for me.
My opponent's statement that there was no shroud present in 1201 is in complete disagreement with the confirmed evidence in 1205 Theodore nephew of Emperor Isaac II wrote to Pope Innocent III requested that the Pope have the shroud returned to Constantinople.
My opponent talks about the Knights Templar being tortured in 1307 and that their testimony cannot be trusted. And yet my quote was from a young Frenchman, Arnaut Sabbatier in 1287. Thus my evidence was not extracted under torture. Additionally, my opponent notes that the idea of the Knights worshipping an image of a bearded man existed before they were arrested. There is nothing to say that this image wasn't the shroud. If anything this credits my assertion that the Knights Templar held the shroud.
Pray Codex picture
There are the correct number of fingers visible for what each person is doing. 4 fingers and an thumb on the bottle being poured out, 4 fingers and a thumb on the man on the upper right holding the end of the shroud. Four fingers and a thumb on the woman in the bottom picture.
It is pretty obvious that the man on the left is holding the rest of the shroud up and around his neck with the man on the right holding the end of it. They are helping in the burial.
As for the red crosses, my opponent has to learn Christian symbolism in art. In Christianity red is associated with the blood of Christ.  And a cross is a symbol we use to this day to represent Christ. Thus when one sees a red cross in Christian art it means the blood of Christ.
I thank Con for bringing up the Herringbone Pattern. The weave of the fabric is a very distinctive and rare three-over-one twill.  The zig-zag line you see on the bottom picture are a rough approximation of what the weave looks like up close.
Con attempts to deny the obvious presence of the poker holes because they are thoroughly damning to his argument. I am ready to admit that the artist was of limited capabilities. So let's look at Con's arguments using Con's image:
Hands wrong position. Nope - bottom hand over top.
No wounds on hands or wrists. Actually the artist shows no wounds anywhere including the obvious spear wound in the side. That the artist did not include those particular wounds is consistent by choosing not to show any wounds whatsoever.
No facial hair - if we zoom in on the face:
There is obvious short beard hairs. The artist would have been intimately familiar with the bible where the prophesy of Jesus from Isaiah states:
I gave my back to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard; I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting. - Isaiah 50:6.
So the artist showed a beard on Jesus, but one that had little left.
So as we can see, the details are not in error, but simply created by an artist of limited ability (though probably still better than me!)
Finally my opponent keeps clinging to his C14 test even though I have conclusively shown that through the lack of vanillin present in the flax fibres the C14 cannot be valid, and a peer reviewed paper showing why the C14 was in error. 
Sorry my friend, no spaghetti stuck this time, better luck next round.
I'm not avoiding or dropping any arguments. I'm just referring to arguments in previous rounds so one earlier in the same round is almost being entirely ignored. In part, I'm doing this to deal with space constraints. In part it's because it is the fairest way to treat my opponent. On a related note, Italians don't throw spaghetti at the wall. Real Italians cook their pasta al dente. If it sticks to the wall it's over cooked.
STURP's findings and work have been brought up a lot, so let's focus on them briefly. STURP is not an unbiased organization. They have a strong pro authenticity stance on the shroud and were hand picked by the Catholic Church, to be allowed to examine the cloth. Here is a quote taken from a sit I previously referenced.
"The STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) group of scientists examined the shroud in 1978. Unfortunately almost all of these scientists were deeply religious, many were not specialised in the field they investigated and they were actively trying to prove its authenticity. In their book 'Debunked!', physicists Georges Charpak and Henri Broch noted that STURP consisted of 40 scientists, made up of 39 devout believers and 1 agnostic. Knowing that the proportion of believers to agnostics is much different in scientific circles than it is in the general population, they calculated that the odds of selecting a group of 40 scientists at random and achieving this high ratio of believers is 7 chances in 1,000,000,000,000,000. In other words the makeup of this group is stacked and very biased towards authenticating the shroud, and therefore you must take their claims with an extremely large grain of salt. In fact before they even examined the shroud, STURP scientists went on record with statements such as:
"I am forced to conclude that the image was formed by a burst of radiant energy " light if you will. I think there is no question about that."
"What better way, if you're a deity, of regenerating faith in a sceptical age, than to leave evidence 2000 years ago that could be defined only by the technology available in that sceptical age."
"The one possible alternative is that the images were created by a burst of radiant light, such as Christ might have produced at the moment of resurrection."
"I believe it through the eyes of faith, and as a scientist I have seen evidence that it could be His shroud.""
"The Bishop d'Arcy letter that Con refers to is more questionable than the shroud we are debating."
No historian outside of shroud believers doubt the authenticity of that letter. The letter isn't questionable. There is such a huge consensus among historians, that the letter's authenticity should be taken as fact.
The Shroud didn't belong to Jesus & More Biblical Evidence
"You will note that along the top edge there is a shorter strip of cloth. This is a separate strip of cloth made from the same piece of cloth.  Additionally, the hand stitching of the seam between the main Shroud and the side strip is known only from textiles excavated from the first-century Jewish fortress at Masada, near the Dead Sea. "
The original source for all this information is a book written by Ian Wilson. To put it mildly Wilson, is full of crap.
Other books by Ian Wilson
1.Worlds Beyond: From the Files of the Society for Psychical Research, 1986 ISBN 0-297-78604-0
2.The After Death Experience: The Physics of the Non-Physical, 1989 ISBN 0-688-08000-6
3.In Search of Ghosts, 1996 ISBN 0-7472-4707-2
4.Superself: The Hidden Powers Within Us, 1989 ISBN 0-283-99656-0
The materials and the stitching in the shroud were common in medieval times.
The Shroud Turin contradicts biblical accounts of the burial cloth of Jesus. When the bible refers to strips of cloth, it means a bunch of tiny strips wrapped around Jesus.
"(Luke XXIV.12 and John XX.5, both using the Greek plural word P00;_2;a2;_7;_3;^5;, meaning "small pieces or strips of linen")"
It should also be noted that the shroud wouldn't have been folded over Jesus. He had a separate face wrap, so the folding over would have been unnecessary.
"as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen."
Evidence Outside of the Bible
The recently discovered Jewish burial cloth for the first century, is the only one we have that we can use for comparison. Everything we know about Jesus suggests that his burial clothes would be simple and cheap, not expensive and finely made.
"The Jews were prohibited from mixing wool and linen Dt. 22:11"
This sounds like the "no true Scotsmen" logical fallacy.
No true Jew would have a burial cloth mixed with wool and linen. It's a statement that is made even more absurd when you take into account, that one of the reasons Jesus ended up on the cross is, because of how much he bucked tradition. The leper's burial cloth and the biblical narrative are the only clues we have to what Jesus was likely wearing after his death.
Cotton fibers were found all over the shroud as can be confirmed by Dr. McCrone's work, and you can't reliably date a cloth using vanillin. If you could that would have been done instead of the C14 tests.
In the video provided by my opponent, you can see how "Shroudies" were doing anything they could to discount the C14 tests, as soon as they were completed. Great care was taken to take a sample of the cloth from a spot that wasn't altered for repairs. Such incredible care was taken, precisely to squash conspiracy theories like this before they got started. Unfortunately, nothing can stop a good conspiracy theory.
Those aren't blood stains on the shroud of Turin. Walter McCrone tested them and found it to be paint residue. Other indicators it isn't blood, is the red color instead of brown like it should be when blood has been dry for a while, and the blood stains being a little too neat and not matting down the hair of Jesus.
My crotch test still stands as proof if some of the issues with the disproportionate image of Jesus. Jesus wasn't asleep he was dead. He didn't have a pillow. His hands cover his crotch, because the artist found it inappropriate to show the penis of Jesus, it's the same reason the image of his butt doesn't appear on the cloth, despite the fact it should be very clear.
Art History of the Shroud
In this section my opponent brings up many examples of how the shroud of Turin is similar to Byzantine art. I agree, the shroud does look like Byzantine art. It looks remarkably similar.
If anything the similarities should be used to point to the fact that it is Byzantine art. You shouldn't have brought up these points, they're evidence for my position not yours.
The shroud is fake.
Thank-you to any readers who have made it this far through the debate. As this is the final round I'll provide some final rebuttals and make a closing statemetnt.
Please read these rebuttals with Con's Round 4 arguments open beside this one for easy reference.
Once again Con is attempting to play the faith (or lack of faith) card. His insinuation is that people of faith cannot be faithful scientists because the team was made up of 39 devout believers and one agnostic. From the book Resurrecting the Shroud: 
"With religious orientations ranging from Catholic to Jewish, Protestant to agnostic, many were highly skeptical at first and even believed the Shroud would be declared a fraud within minutes after they began the examination."
Con wants you to believe that Devout Jews want to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Protestants want to give credit to the Catholic Church? The results of the investigations on the shroud have all been published in peer reviewed journals . Does Con have equivalent counter sources? Nothing that he has presented yet. Just insinuation.
As Con has yet to provide a valid means of how the shroud could have been created (and if he does I will not have the opportunity for rebuttal), the claim of a burst light is not rediculous. ENEA, the National Agency for New Technologies, published a report on 5 years of experiments. Their conclusions were that the image on the shroud could be reproduce using ultraviolet light. However, it would require 34 Trillion watts of power using a single laser. The highest power laser built today is no more than several billion watts. 
Con raised the Bishop d'Arcy letter again. However, the letter was never signed or sent. The shroud drew pilgrims away from the bishop's cathedral and to the shroud. This cost the bishop great amounts of money for his diocese. He would have incentive to declare the shroud a fraud, but never carried through. Maybe his concience got the better of him, or he maybe could not substantiate cliams others of fewer scruples had presented to him. No signature, not sent - not binding in court.
Con attacks Ian Wilson for the Masada-Shroud link. However it is not Ian Wilson who makes this claim but the Swiss textile expert Mme. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg in 2002 as referenced to in Reference 21 of this paper .
Con notes that the Greek word othonion (greek letters do not show well) means small pieces of cloth.
However, Strong's Concordance translates this as a piece of fine linen or a linen bandage or a wrapping.  Greeks used the word to denote a ship's sail.  The usage of this word in the singular (vs. plural in the resurrection accounts) can be found in Acts 10:11 - and he saw the sky opened up and a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the groud. And there were in it all kinds of four footed animals... We can clearly see that this is not a tiny piece of cloth! Con's Greek assertion does not hold water.
I find it funny that Con should quote about the head cloth from the Gospel of John when I just used this exact quote in my previous argument. The Sudarium of Oviedo both answers the question of the head cloth and provide support to my argument. I once again thank Con for confirming my arguments for me.
That Con should argue that the lack of cotton in linen in accordance with Deuteronomy 22:11 is meaningless is absurd. Atheists are always bringing this very verse up in mockery of Christians. Back in Round 3 I gave quotes from a jewish source that a fortune was spent on burial shrouds. This argument is just Con attempting to muddy the waters.
Con has once again returned to the discredited Walter McCrone, whom we have shown didn't even bother to perform chemical tests when declaring what a substance was. There are fibrils of cotton in the shroud:
"The shroud is a herringbone twill with a 3:1 weave, of probably 1st century Syrian design. The flax fibrils contain entwisted cotton fibrils from a previous work of the loom.The cotton is Gossypium herbaceum, a Middle Eastern species not found in Europe." 
Yes incidental fibrils, not fibres with gum to glue them. And note that the species is not european.
Ooooooo "shroudies". Say it with me "Shroudies". Its truly sad that Con has been reduced to a Grade 8 level of debate. "Oh yeah, well you're a shroudie."
I agree that you cannot reliably date a cloth using vanillin. You can however give an applicable range. It was shown that the cloth would have to be between 1300 and 3000 years old to lose all of its vanillin. This range is outside of the C14 tests, but within the range of 33AD. Con argues incredible care was taken in the location selection for the C14 test. The team performing the C14 tests did not review the previously mentioned ultra violet photographs from the STURP analysis, which clearly showed that the test area was of different chemical composition.
Con references Walter McCrone again, who admitted to not chemically testing the samples, whereas the STURP team did and concluded the presence of blood. The red colour is the result of the highly elevated amount of bilirubin in the blood.
"You now mix bilirubin which is yellow-orange with methemoglobin in its para-hemic form which is an orangey-brown and you get blood which has a red color. In fact, we have been able to simulate this spectrum in the laboratory by the process described above. This very strongly suggests that the blood stains are of a man who was severely beaten." 
Crotch test revisited - Con now knows exactly how the body must have been lying and that the head couldn't have been tilted forward. Not even from rigamortis setting in on a dead body hanging on the cross with its head fallen forward. Nope impossible. Con argues that the buttocks are not visible. Let's look:
When I look at the negative image on the bottom I clearly see the buttocks covered in scourge marks. Maybe Con is looking at a different shroud.
That con brings up art history is entertaining, to say the least. His claim is that the shroud was made to look like the byzantine art and not the other way around. Let's assume that you are a 6th - 10th century Christian and you want to paint an image of Christ. Do you paint him flawless with the short hair stylings of the times or do you paint him with large owlish eyes, an enlarged left nostril and an accentuated right cheek? Here is a list of the 15 Vignon Marks:
Items like the two strands of hair are common. The funny thing is that they are actually two flows of blood on the forehead of the shroud. The only reason that you would create an image with these obvious flaws is that you have something tangible that you believe to be a true representation of Jesus. One finds that as the shroud travelled, the artwork changed to match it. Byzantine art is clear evidence on for Pro.
You see Con's arguments make no sense. On one hand he says that the shroud is painted in 13-14th century europe, then he says that byzantine art supports his argument. Which is it?
During this debate I have shown the path through history of the Shroud of Turin and how it all agrees with biblical and historical evidence. This evidence has been augmented with correlations through the multiple disciplines of science, art history, textiles and Judaism.
The Shroud and Sudarium of Oveido complete the fabrics said to be at the tomb. The stitching on the shroud is consistent with stiching that has only been confirmed to exist in 1st Century Israel. We have shown it in Edessa and how art changed to match its 6th century appearance in Edessa. The shroud was shown to be mentioned at the 7th ecumenical council and how it was later transferred to Constantinople.
A drawing of it at Constantinople was included in the Pray Codex - which included the "L-Shaped" burn holes on the shroud. It was shown that the nephew of the Emperor demanded the return of the shroud after Constantinople was sacked by Crusaders. A descendant of one of the final high ranking Templars appeared with the shroud in France.
I have shown that the C14 tests are the only piece of evidence that does not fit. That does not mean that it should be discarded, but it must be determined why. It has been shown that the area of the shroud where the C14 tests were conducted was shown to be different both by ultraviolet photography and examination from a remant sample from the C14 test. Additionally, the lack of vanillin in the fibres confirms the age of the shroud to be hundreds of years older than the C14 test states.
The image on the shroud has been proven not to be paint and that the blood on the shroud is real blood of a man that was tortured. The method of formation of the image on the shroud has never been repeated by anyone and there is no known way either modern or ancient to reproduce the image.
Con has an equal burden of proof in this debate. He has failed to provide a means of reproducing the shroud, and he has failed to provide an argument that could not be properly refuted. I ask anyone voting on this debate to remember that I will not have an opportuntiy to refute any arguments made by Con in this round. However, I do ask them to remember how throroughly I have refuted every argument put forth so far.
Once again I wish to thank readers that have remained with this debate the whole way through. And I also wish to thank Wylted for his efforts in this debate. While we had some friendly debate banter, I believe that we both enjoyed ourselves in this first DDO Shroud of Turin debate.
Thank you pro for your arguments.
I want to note that pro is making out the word Shroudies, to be a negative thing. I've only ever seen the term used by people who believe in the authenticity of the shroud. They use it the same way Bronies use the word Brony. It's just a loving way to refer to each other. I resent the cheap attempt at gaining a conduct point. Our playful banter is one thing, but a cheap attempt at conduct points is quite another.
We have 2 different competing theories here. One theory is the cloth is a fraud. The other is that it's the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Let's examine the theories side by side to see whats more likely.
Let's see which scientific dating method is more accurate.
Cons theory- an early 14th century artwork backed by C14 tests done by 3 different laboratories, that is accurate to within 30 years.
Pro's theory- The cloth being dated using vanillin, shows the shroud dates back to the time of Christ. When I challenge him on this what does he say? Well let's look.
"I agree that you cannot reliably date a cloth using vanillin."
That's my opponents words from the last round.
Let's see which historical dating method is superior.
Con's Theory-The Shroud can be reliably traced back to 1349. Historians pretty much unanimously agree on this. My opponent agrees on this. Here is a quote of his from round 2.
" The Shroud can be reliably traced in Western Europe back to 1349 When Geoffroi de Charny was recorded as having possession of it."
Pro's Theory- The Shroud is the only piece of clothe that dates back to Jesus's time period that has ever fully survived, despite exposure to air, fire, war and other elements that shrouds sealed off from those things never experienced. His theory involves conspiracies involving the Knights Templar (aka the people blamed for everything before the Mason's came along), a coverup by the scientific community etc.
Pro claims it's just a coincidence that historians agree with scientists on the original date of the shroud. I disagree. I think the fact that 2 different fields dating the shroud to the same time period, actually confirm it's date even more solidly.
Why hasn't the image been reproduced?
I haven't brought this forward, for good reason. It doesn't matter. Similar looking images have been reproduced using methods available in that time period. It doesn't matter. In order to really reproduce the image you'd have to first create the image and then second wait 700 years to see what it looks like. My opponent is asking me to recreate an image and then age it 700 years to prove his theory wrong. This is an unfair thing to ask. Obviously 700 year old paintings look significantly different then fresh paintings.
Peer Reviewed Journals
My opponent try's to use the term peer reviewed journals to create some sort of superior credibility for his position. When he say's peer reviewed he isn't kidding. STURP, has their findings in several peer reviewed journals. Journals that include other things such scientific studies proving Young Earth Creationism. I have no problem with looking at STURP's findings, but no they don't get extra credibility because of publishing their stuff in Christian Science journals. There is nothing wrong with these journals, but it should be recognized they have a slight bias.
Card Stacking Fallacy and Genetic Fallacy
I've provided plenty of evidence that the shroud is a fraud. It's all been dismissed as coming from the discredited McCrone. My opponent is saying that any evidence coming from McCrone shouldn't be considered because it came from McCrone. This is the genetic fallacy (dismissing evidence, because of who showed it to you). McCrone is one of the few people in the world to actually study the shroud first hand, so it's really convenient to just outright dismiss the evidence he brings to the table.
What makes him discredited anyway? Oh yeah that's right, he brought evidence forward that disagrees with STURP's conclusions. The second he brought the evidence to their attention, they demanded he sign a confidentiality statement. When he refused, they kicked him off the team.
My opponent has used the card stacking fallacy. He's over emphasized any evidence for his position being true, while any inconvenient evidence is either from a discredited person or test etc..
Because he uses the genetic and card stacking fallacy, his case probably appears a little stronger then what it actually is. Hopefully that doesn't fool anybody reading.
A Few Additional Responses
"I find it funny that Con should quote about the head cloth from the Gospel of John when I just used this exact quote in my previous argument. The Sudarium of Oviedo both answers the question of the head cloth and provide support to my argument. I once again thank Con for confirming my arguments for me."
Actually it doesn't support your argument. If he had separate piece of cloth for his head than his body no facial image would have been left on the shroud. So having one piece of cloth for the head and a separate for the body hurts your argument.
The shroud not being a bunch of strips like the bible states also hurts your argument.
"Gospel of Thomas/Image of Edessa- I find it funny that an atheist is essentially using Church authority on scripture for his argument. "
That's because you used the gospel of Thomas as proof. The portion of the gospel that pro uses as proof is Jesus stating what type of clothe he was wearing. The description doesn't match the one he was in the grave in. Jesus spoke of jewels on the clothe in the passage. So he's clearly not talking about something he was buried in. Pro is trying to say jewels were on the image of Edessa, but this is beside the point. Jesus was talking about cloths he was wearing not clothes he used to wear after stuff was added onto it.
"As for the red crosses, my opponent has to learn Christian symbolism in art. In Christianity red is associated with the blood of Christ. And a cross is a symbol we use to this day to represent Christ. Thus when one sees a red cross in Christian art it means the blood of Christ."
This is the same B.S. That conspiracy theorists use. I could interpret the supposed symbolism on that image in 100 different ways that are convenient to my side. I have actual evidence though, so I won't. It's really not that much different then folding up the dollar bill in a way that proves 9/11 was an inside job.
I've built my case on scientific evidence and research by mainstream historians. My opponent has used pseudo science and history revisionists to build his. When you look past my opponents pseudo science, history revisionism and logical fallacies, than you can see his case is very weak.
The shroud of Turin neither proves not disproves the resurrection of Jesus whether it's authentic or not. There isn't this imagined bias he think's exists in the mind of atheists. I just want people to know that me disproving the shroud has in no way disproved the divinity of Jesus, and I recognize this fact. I'm glad that me and Geogeer could have this debate. Thank you and vote con.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|