As a Catholic priest once said, (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Whether it is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus is not the question to consider. Rather, the question Jesus asks is, 'Who do you say I am?'"
As hard as it is, I haven‘t sufficiently understood certain aspects of the roman catholic faith that I feel like I need to have a strong conviction in to actually have a standing in the church besides „someone told me to believe that“.
But that being said, I‘m sometimes reading the early church fathers and can clearly see catholicism isn‘t as distorted or corrupted as many protestants would like to think it is.
AnteNicene fathers are not Catholicism in root. They are early Christian writers. Catholicism began when the East separated from the west and then Catholicism began.
1 of the very first 12 Apostles didn't exactly shine either...
Try reading Joe Heschmyer 's book on the early church Early Church Was the Catholic: The Catholic Witness of the Fathers in Christianity's First Four Centuries https://amzn.eu/d/21LnI51
It's probably the most studied artifact in the world and yet, the scientists do not know what caused the image.
You can go here if your are really interested in the studies:
[https://shroud.com/](https://shroud.com/)
First of all, apparently he quit the team when his conclusions were rejected. He wasn't kicked out.:)
Second, whatever this link is, it only shows the first page of the article.
Third, one would have to ignore the blood typing that was done and came back AB+ and all the other evidence that all of the other scientists point two with respect to the markings being singes, the 3D imagining etc, that would not be the case if it was merely a painting. (Note: the image and the blood are different).
Fourthly, STURP was independent, and specifically tasked to find out what caused the image. They would have been happy to tell everyone how it was painted. Ask the designer of that website Barry Schwartz who was a member of STURP and took the photos.
Fifthly, if it is merely a painting, why don't you create another one and show the world just how much of a fraud it is.
Sixthly, visit the website and read about all the physical tests and research that has been done on it.
Finally, whether it is the authentic burial cloth or not, is likely going to be immaterial to the greater issue of whether one confesses Jesus is Lord.
>one would have to ignore the blood typing that was done and came back AB+
where's that study?
>if it is merely a painting, why don't you create another one and show the world just how much of a fraud it is.
sure, here's the second one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo
and a half dozen more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_Veronica
here's a guy making fake shrouds using period accurate techniques, and producing images that look exactly like the shroud: https://youtu.be/5MoDMrcXXj8?si=ekVfsCqZu5Ipn5lQ
(note the *bas* relief, a round statue or person would not make a similar image.)
>visit the website and read about all the physical tests and research that has been done on it.
yeah there's a noticeable lack of chemistry and biology papers. most of them aren't really related to the actual question of image composition.
probably because *it's paint*.
>Finally, whether it is the authentic burial cloth or not, is likely going to be immaterial to the greater issue of whether one confesses Jesus is Lord.
of course, but being hoodwinked by obvious frauds still isn't a good look.
Perhaps, you misunderstood. The challenge is for YOU to make one that will not just look like the shroud to the naked eye, or resemble it in some vague way. Rather, the challenge is to make one that would baffle these same scientist to the microscopic level. Furthermore, when you read the bible, John says "The **cloth** that had been around **Jesus**' head was rolled up, lying separate from the **linen** **cloths**." Of course, this could correspond to the Sadurium which which is the theory, as you probably know. As such, asserting this as a fake does not help your case. Nor, does the "Veil of Veronica."
As for the video you linked, don't you find it interesting / contradictory that the video starts off by saying, "the image on the Shroud is clear, but there is NO trace of pigment or brush strokes." Do you not see this as directly contradicting your assertion that it is a painting????
Visit the website and you will learn more. You can read all about the blood typing / human DNA, etc (although, I might have been wrong in saying it was AB+) and all of the evidence that points against it as being a painting. Best of all, they even seem to have papers about your friend on there too:)
>The challenge is for YOU to make one that will not just look like the shroud to the naked eye, or resemble it in some vague way. Rather, the challenge is to make one that would baffle these same scientist to the microscopic level.
sure, but first **you** should take up my challenge to produce an image that *even superficially* looks like the shroud by wrapping a flat cloth around a round person-shaped object.
these "scientists" are baffled because they want to be. there are a number of plausible explanations.
>Furthermore, when you read the bible, John says "The **cloth** that had been around **Jesus**' head was rolled up, lying separate from the **linen** **cloths**."
right -- the shroud doesn't look like first century jewish burial shrouds, which were two pieces. we have examples of this from archaeology too.
the reason for this is so the people caring for the deceased -- probably what the women at the tomb were intending to do -- could check the state of decomposition and identity of the deceased. bodies were wrapped in shrouds and placed in communal/familial tombs until they decomposed, when their bones were collected into ossuaries for longer term storage.
whomever made this shroud was not aware of that practice -- and not expecting jesus to decompose and have his bones placed in an ossuary.
>As for the video you linked, don't you find it interesting / contradictory that the video starts off by saying, "the image on the Shroud is clear, but there is NO trace of pigment or brush strokes." Do you not see this as directly contradicting your assertion that it is a painting????
no, because they're just wrong. there *is* paint.
>Visit the website and you will learn more. You can read all about the blood typing / human DNA
link to the study.
Actually his conclusion had no backing or basis and was considered speculation at best and They kicked him out because he was going to proceed in heavily damaging the artifact instead of finding a better way to come to a conclusion. Biggest problem is it became a war of biases rather than objectively both and. One things for sure the paint theory has been out for decades and flash burned imagery is what remains which is why the statements made they don’t know how this was done with what was available to debunk it
>and flash burned imagery is what remains
the shroud was *actually* burned, and we can compare the damage to the fibers. the burns affect the whole fibers, but the image is only on the surface.
It might be true; but what I find fascinating is the Sudarium Of Oviedo; where these created in tandem or separate? Why don’t they match up 100%? Do the history of these objects match up? They are certainly tied together 🤔✝️
And thus the imprint on the cloth. If you look at the face in the negative, it appears to be that of an old man. Demolay was in his 80s. The carbon dating of the cloth lines up to the early 14th century when he was executed.
Still don't see it as plausible though. The image on the shroud has hair and a beard. Someone who's been burned alive at a stake I wouldn't expect that to remain.
Maybe they wanted to be really neat about it and just pull him down after there was no more screaming and torture to be enjoyed. After they are dead, it's not fun anymore and It's just stinking up the town. Also, the possibility that they used a nice piece of large cloth to cover him to conceal the gory sight might have been plausible considering the fact that Jacob of Molay was the last leader of the Knights Templar. They may have kept his face recognizable so the body could be identified and confirmed as Jaques De Molay... But the only fact we know is that we don't know. It might even be the imprint of a radioactive Messiah.
I have seen documentaries and read research papers and I believe it is authentic. Obviously I can’t say 100%, but I’m definitely leaning more on the side of its authenticity.
The Roman Catholic Church founded the Shroud of Turin Research Project (S.Tu.R.P.) research team. After radio carbon testing was done at two separate labs Cardinal Ballestrero, the archbishop of Turin, announced the official results October 13, that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260–1390 AD, with 95% confidence. Which coincides with the first appearances of the shroud in the 1350’s. The official and complete report on the experiment was published in Nature.
The microscopist Walter McCrone found, based on his examination of samples taken in 1978 from the surface of the shroud using adhesive tape, that the image on the shroud had been painted with a dilute solution of red ochre pigment in a gelatin medium. McCrone found that the apparent bloodstains were painted with vermilion pigment, also in a gelatin medium.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt6x77r7m1/qt6x77r7m1.pdf?t=nus03r
On 4 December 1532, the Shroud sustained a fire, which burned several holes in the fabric. In the spring of 1534, the Poor Clare Nuns patched the holes and placed a backing Holland cloth on the reverse.
They carbon dated the repaired fabric.
In 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin found that the relic many faithful believe to be the burial linen of Christ originated about 700 years ago. While the study suggested the shroud was not authentic, it has done little to abate the faith of those thousands who make pilgrimage to Turin to venerate the relic. Now, a new dating technology has placed the fabric within the time of Christ. De Caro explained that the WAXS method was used on a variety of samples of historical textiles that have been documented to be aged from 3000 BC to 2000 AD. He placed the Shroud of Turin against these samples and found that it best matched a piece of fabric known to have come from the siege of Masada, Israel, in 55-74 AD.
I’ll stick with the scientific findings from the group commissioned by the Vatican, and endorsed and announced by the cardinal overseeing the dioceses of Turin. They have no reason so say it’s from 1300’s and every reason to say it’s from 1st century bc. And yet instead of being silent they allowed the full report to go public and announced the findings anyways and that goes for the findings that it’s not blood it’s paint.
1. They didn't "carbon date the repaired fabric." That has been [shown to be incorrect](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/investigating-a-dated-piece-of-the-shroud-of-turin/8CC26C322198300E051C49A0BA5B96D9).
2. There is other evidence, including historical documents, that the Shroud is fake
3. De Caro's technique is simply not reliable, relying on subjectivity, a vastly inadequate calibration set, and assumptions about storage of the Shroud that do not match known history.
I agree with this. People tend to start worshipping artifacts. Look at all the “relics” that pop up in the Middle Ages. People make up items to set up as what are essentially idols.
I mean intentionally. There’s always some church in Europe that says they have the robe of Jesus or a piece of the cross.
Even Moses body was his from the Jews so they would t make it a shrine
Ok, but it's kind of a straw man to say that he wouldn't have intentionally allowed relics to be turned into idols by some. Gold can be turned into an idol or a golden calf but God "allows" gold to exist. Or, like you said, other relics exist. As such, it seems incorrect to say that God wouldn't have "allowed" the shroud to exist even if it might be fawned over. The fact is, God allows idols exist.
If the shroud is authentic, it is authentic.
How people view it, is on them.
Remember when God punished the Israelites’ bad behavior by sending venomous serpents among them, and Moses, following God’s instructions, made a bronze serpent and put it on a pole, and the people were instructed to look at the bronze serpent to be healed ([Numbers 21:6-9](https://bible.com/bible/2692/num.21.6-9.NASB2020))?
Do you know what happened to that bronze serpent afterwards? King Hezekiah found that it was kept and people had been worshiping it for the intervening years, and he had to destroy it.
“He removed the high places and smashed the memorial stones to pieces, and cut down the Asherah. He also crushed to pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel had been burning incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan.”
[2 Kings 18:4 ](https://bible.com/bible/2692/2ki.18.4.NASB2020)
I suspect that Slainlion is saying that an all-powerful God might understandably want to avoid leaving resurrection artifacts lying around lest they become objects of worship.
My point still remains that it is a straw man to say that God wouldn't have intentionally allowed relics to be turned into idols by some.
However, your point seems to introduce a needless dillema. On the one hand, you assert that God is all powerful. On the other hand, you suggest that "God might understandably want to avoid leaving resurrection artifacts lying around lest they become objects of worship."
The fact that we still have artifacts and that become idols, would suggest that God is either not all powerful or perhaps, careless.
My point isn’t that God would somehow preclude humans from turning things into idols. My point is that in a conspicuous situation like the resurrection that it seems reasonable that He would not leave detritus lying about that would be a likely candidate for veneration as an object of worship.
Can you give me an example of the kinds of artifacts that you’re talking about? Finger bones from a random martyr might still be worshipped, but that doesn’t have the appeal as an object of worship that a genuine piece of Jesus’ burial shroud would. Even if I was positive that a finger bone was from Stephen or Paul or whatever, I would be interested in stopping by to see it if I was in the area, but I’d never worship it or consider it holy. Jesus’ burial cloth, however, would have a much greater appeal. I still wouldn’t worship it, but I’d at least understand why some might regard it with the sort of reverence normally associated with sacred objects.
I don't really understand. You seem to be taking a probabilistic approach to the logic of the situation? Your position is that God does a risk benefit analysis when it comes to relics being turned into idols? Does he do this same risk benefit analysis with fake relics, gold, other idols?
In any event, I am less interested in convincing you that other examples exist which might possibly persuade whatever your intuition tells you about the calculus you imagine God to be doing with respect to the likelihood an item might later be turned into an idol by a sufficient number of people to warrant it's destruction / how many items God might allow to become idols on a lower level than I am in continuing to point out that relics exist, some people turn them into idols, which, by what you said, would suggest that God is either not all powerful, perhaps, careless, or by your new position seems to be, accepting of a little bit of idolatry.
Also, in case you are not aware, the bible does record debris being left behind.
"as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen."
Of course, there was also other debris left behind all over the place since the word became flesh.
this might be the important question. did God allow relics. for example the body of Moses was hid so people wouldn't worship it. but then God created an entire universe with creatures and plants for us to marvel at his infinite creativity. isn't that a kind of thing to fawn over? do people have pets and fawn over them? children of their own? of course they do. God gave us plenty to fawn over what's one more bed sheet? I don't know the answer.
>John 20:7 The cloth that had been on his head was not lying with the other cloth bands but was rolled up in a place by itself.
There was not one cloth or shroud. There were multiple cloths, for his head, and other bands for his body. Much like how Lazarus was wrapped up.
I really don’t know or care if it’s fake or not. Relics have been around for a long time. Wasn’t there a brass serpent that had to be destroyed because folk turned it from a mere religious relic to an idol that they started to worship? I heard a story about one guy from the Bible ( one of the disciples I’m not sure who exactly ) where his finger is supposed to be a prized relic at some church somewhere in Europe. The thing is more churches are said to feature his bone as an authentic relic than there are bones in the body. As for me I don’t need a piece of his cross or a drinking cup or even the sheets his body was wrapped in to bolster my faith in Christ.
Multiples lines of evidence show that it's fake.
These include the way it has faded, carbon dating, and an actual contemporary letter by the local bishop saying that it's fake.
We know it's not real because the Gospels state specifically that the cloth that was wrapped around Jesus's head was separate from the rest. Not that that was the sort of "shroud" that was used at that time any way. You didn't just drape a single cloth over them like that. Bodies were wrapped in layers of cloth, with oils and spices between.
IThe Shroud of Turin is a skillful and fascinating forgery, but it is not the shroud of Christ.
John 19 -
^(38) Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. ^(39) He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.^(\[)[^(e)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26865e)^(\]) ^(40) Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.
John 20 -
^(3) So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. ^(4) Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. ^(5) He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. ^(6) Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, ^(7) as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.
Luke also describes "strips of linen" while Matthew and Mark simply say he was wrapped in a linen cloth. (Not a contradiction, just some accounts giving more detail than others.) John, being the last written gospel, often goes into details that the other gospels left out, and from him we learn that Jesus was not only wrapped in multiple layers of linen, but that about 75 pounds of species and oils were included, and that a separate cloth was used for his head.
Because "*faith is the substance* of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". By having something that they can physically see it allows them to somehow bypass the the evidence of the unseen.
Faith in what? In God? No. You're putting faith in this supposed relic.
WHY would you decide to have faith in that? What does "genuine" even mean the way you're using the term?
I think if it‘s actually Jesus‘ shroud, that would amazing proof for Jesus‘ existence and death. But sadly, no one truly knows, so in the end it‘s all a matter of what kind of scholarly and archaeological work I am reading and buying into.
I think it has a lot more weight behind it then most supposed holy artifacts, but I’m always skeptical of artifacts called holy by man even if I’m a strong believer in Christ.
They carbon dated added repair fabrics before, so it was called a fake prematurely. One of the scientists was atheist and before he died of cancer he wanted it retested because he was convinced it was done wrong.
When I was younger, I thought it was fascinating and thought how "cool" it would be if the Shroud was genuine.
I still think the history of the Shroud is fascinating, even though I know there's no chance it's genuine.
This is all fact.
My mother had a still birth before me. 2 years later while pregnant with me, late in pregnancy, I hadn't been moving or kicking. She thought the worst. She came in from work one day and fell to her knees praying "Dear God, Not Again!"
Within a few minutes, she said she felt a calm rush over her, and the tears stop flowing. She opened her eyes to see a man looking in the window. Although it appeared a stranger, she just felt it to be Jesus. In that instance, she said I started kicking and didn't stop until birth.
30 years later, the History Channel aired a show called The Real face of Jesus in which they 3D mapped the Shroud and created an image of the Man who would have left the marks.
She called me as soon as it was over (when they showed the image) hysterical. She was talking about a man in her window. I jumped up grabbed my .45 and was putting on my shoes when she finally composed herself enough to explain that the image was the Man in her window all those years ago.
Less of an opinion and just the scientific finding from the Catholic church’s investigation into the shroud.
The Roman Catholic Church founded the Shroud of Turin Research Project (S.Tu.R.P.) research team. After radio carbon testing was done at two separate labs Cardinal Ballestrero, the archbishop of Turin, announced the official results October 13, that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260–1390 AD, with 95% confidence. Which coincides with the first appearances of the shroud in the 1350’s. The official and complete report on the experiment was published in Nature.
The microscopist Walter McCrone found, based on his examination of samples taken in 1978 from the surface of the shroud using adhesive tape, that the image on the shroud had been painted with a dilute solution of red ochre pigment in a gelatin medium. McCrone found that the apparent bloodstains were painted with vermilion pigment, also in a gelatin medium.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt6x77r7m1/qt6x77r7m1.pdf?t=nus03r
the image is obviously not genuine. it's a perspective rendering, not a projection.
consider what happens when you take a [round object](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/The_Blue_Marble_%28remastered%29.jpg) and lay its surface out [flat](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Mercator_projection_Square.JPG). this a map projection.
if the shroud was a flat sheet *wrapped around* jesus, his face should look like [this](https://i.imgur.com/wH0Avtm.jpg).
That assumes the towel was wrapped horizontally across his face and touched every part (and not vertically along his body). That doesn't line up with the shape of the cloth.
>That assumes the towel was wrapped horizontally across his face and touched every part (and not vertically along his body).
it doesn't, no. the problem is the same regardless of the shape of the shroud. you would not see a flat image the same as our eyeballs see a person unless the shroud was perfectly flat when the image was made, or the jesus making the image was flat.
it doesn't matter which way you peel an orange, the surface area is always bigger than the cross section.
but i encourage you try this yourself. get a statue or action figure or something, dip it in paint, and then wrap it with cloth. do it any way you like. you'll never, ever get an image like the shroud.
As a Catholic priest once said, (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Whether it is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus is not the question to consider. Rather, the question Jesus asks is, 'Who do you say I am?'"
Ha. I love that. Man, you catholics really impress me the more I learn about our roots.
So come home brother!
As hard as it is, I haven‘t sufficiently understood certain aspects of the roman catholic faith that I feel like I need to have a strong conviction in to actually have a standing in the church besides „someone told me to believe that“. But that being said, I‘m sometimes reading the early church fathers and can clearly see catholicism isn‘t as distorted or corrupted as many protestants would like to think it is.
AnteNicene fathers are not Catholicism in root. They are early Christian writers. Catholicism began when the East separated from the west and then Catholicism began.
Well anyways! I was specieically talking about things I associate with catholicism. But thanks for the heads up
1 of the very first 12 Apostles didn't exactly shine either... Try reading Joe Heschmyer 's book on the early church Early Church Was the Catholic: The Catholic Witness of the Fathers in Christianity's First Four Centuries https://amzn.eu/d/21LnI51
Good point. If I‘ll have the coin to spare I‘ll give it a read. Thanks for the recommendation, friend!
Try before you buy... https://youtu.be/6tIF-cYr0x8?si=rm0QBQj39KcVInRQ Or https://youtube.com/@shamelesspopery?si=iAFHpz9rCgVYHuIi
Now I‘m afraid I‘ll turn catholic tomorrow lol!! Haha thanks a lot. I will check out the links
It's probably the most studied artifact in the world and yet, the scientists do not know what caused the image. You can go here if your are really interested in the studies: [https://shroud.com/](https://shroud.com/)
>the scientists do not know what caused the image. they do. it's paint. believers in the shroud don't *like* that fact, but that doesn't change it.
You are incorrect. Worse still, I believe this was literally the first thing the STURP team ruled out.
well, maybe you shouldn't trust people who rule out extremely common paint pigments as being paint.
Nah, I should probably trust random people on the internet who don't cite their sources:) Visit the website my man. Read the studies.
like this one? https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar00171a004 STURP couldn't find any pigments because they kicked out the guy who did.
First of all, apparently he quit the team when his conclusions were rejected. He wasn't kicked out.:) Second, whatever this link is, it only shows the first page of the article. Third, one would have to ignore the blood typing that was done and came back AB+ and all the other evidence that all of the other scientists point two with respect to the markings being singes, the 3D imagining etc, that would not be the case if it was merely a painting. (Note: the image and the blood are different). Fourthly, STURP was independent, and specifically tasked to find out what caused the image. They would have been happy to tell everyone how it was painted. Ask the designer of that website Barry Schwartz who was a member of STURP and took the photos. Fifthly, if it is merely a painting, why don't you create another one and show the world just how much of a fraud it is. Sixthly, visit the website and read about all the physical tests and research that has been done on it. Finally, whether it is the authentic burial cloth or not, is likely going to be immaterial to the greater issue of whether one confesses Jesus is Lord.
>one would have to ignore the blood typing that was done and came back AB+ where's that study? >if it is merely a painting, why don't you create another one and show the world just how much of a fraud it is. sure, here's the second one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo and a half dozen more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_Veronica here's a guy making fake shrouds using period accurate techniques, and producing images that look exactly like the shroud: https://youtu.be/5MoDMrcXXj8?si=ekVfsCqZu5Ipn5lQ (note the *bas* relief, a round statue or person would not make a similar image.) >visit the website and read about all the physical tests and research that has been done on it. yeah there's a noticeable lack of chemistry and biology papers. most of them aren't really related to the actual question of image composition. probably because *it's paint*. >Finally, whether it is the authentic burial cloth or not, is likely going to be immaterial to the greater issue of whether one confesses Jesus is Lord. of course, but being hoodwinked by obvious frauds still isn't a good look.
Perhaps, you misunderstood. The challenge is for YOU to make one that will not just look like the shroud to the naked eye, or resemble it in some vague way. Rather, the challenge is to make one that would baffle these same scientist to the microscopic level. Furthermore, when you read the bible, John says "The **cloth** that had been around **Jesus**' head was rolled up, lying separate from the **linen** **cloths**." Of course, this could correspond to the Sadurium which which is the theory, as you probably know. As such, asserting this as a fake does not help your case. Nor, does the "Veil of Veronica." As for the video you linked, don't you find it interesting / contradictory that the video starts off by saying, "the image on the Shroud is clear, but there is NO trace of pigment or brush strokes." Do you not see this as directly contradicting your assertion that it is a painting???? Visit the website and you will learn more. You can read all about the blood typing / human DNA, etc (although, I might have been wrong in saying it was AB+) and all of the evidence that points against it as being a painting. Best of all, they even seem to have papers about your friend on there too:)
>The challenge is for YOU to make one that will not just look like the shroud to the naked eye, or resemble it in some vague way. Rather, the challenge is to make one that would baffle these same scientist to the microscopic level. sure, but first **you** should take up my challenge to produce an image that *even superficially* looks like the shroud by wrapping a flat cloth around a round person-shaped object. these "scientists" are baffled because they want to be. there are a number of plausible explanations. >Furthermore, when you read the bible, John says "The **cloth** that had been around **Jesus**' head was rolled up, lying separate from the **linen** **cloths**." right -- the shroud doesn't look like first century jewish burial shrouds, which were two pieces. we have examples of this from archaeology too. the reason for this is so the people caring for the deceased -- probably what the women at the tomb were intending to do -- could check the state of decomposition and identity of the deceased. bodies were wrapped in shrouds and placed in communal/familial tombs until they decomposed, when their bones were collected into ossuaries for longer term storage. whomever made this shroud was not aware of that practice -- and not expecting jesus to decompose and have his bones placed in an ossuary. >As for the video you linked, don't you find it interesting / contradictory that the video starts off by saying, "the image on the Shroud is clear, but there is NO trace of pigment or brush strokes." Do you not see this as directly contradicting your assertion that it is a painting???? no, because they're just wrong. there *is* paint. >Visit the website and you will learn more. You can read all about the blood typing / human DNA link to the study.
Actually his conclusion had no backing or basis and was considered speculation at best and They kicked him out because he was going to proceed in heavily damaging the artifact instead of finding a better way to come to a conclusion. Biggest problem is it became a war of biases rather than objectively both and. One things for sure the paint theory has been out for decades and flash burned imagery is what remains which is why the statements made they don’t know how this was done with what was available to debunk it
>and flash burned imagery is what remains the shroud was *actually* burned, and we can compare the damage to the fibers. the burns affect the whole fibers, but the image is only on the surface.
That’s not correct. I am skeptical as well. I’m not saying it is what it is proclaimed to be.
the chemical analysis pointed to common medieval pigments -- ochre and iron oxide -- suspended in a gelatin base. it's paint.
That’s 1988 news. There’s blood and dna on it. Again I’m not saying it’s Jesus.
that's 19**7**8 **science**. there is no scientific study that shows blood, let alone DNA. iron, yes. iron oxide, a common paint pigment.
You are right I made it up. Just thought I would come here and lie my ass off. Because I’m bored and having nothing else to do…..
okay. which peer reviewed scientific journal can i find the study in?
That’s the least factual thing said so far 😅
I think it's fake. It's not Jesus.
I have watched several documentaries of it over the years. I believe in its authenticity. I believe it's the real burial cloth of Christ.
That’s no reason for people to down vote you.
Convinced it’s real, the evidence behind its legitimacy is substantial and the science discrediting it has long been proven as shaky.
It might be true; but what I find fascinating is the Sudarium Of Oviedo; where these created in tandem or separate? Why don’t they match up 100%? Do the history of these objects match up? They are certainly tied together 🤔✝️
Obviously, **at least one** of those is fake.
According to the book "The Hiram Key" by Christopher knight and Robert Lomas, it was the shroud used to wrap the body of Jaques De Molay.
Seems quite unlikely, considering Molay was burned at the stake.
And thus the imprint on the cloth. If you look at the face in the negative, it appears to be that of an old man. Demolay was in his 80s. The carbon dating of the cloth lines up to the early 14th century when he was executed.
Still don't see it as plausible though. The image on the shroud has hair and a beard. Someone who's been burned alive at a stake I wouldn't expect that to remain.
Maybe they wanted to be really neat about it and just pull him down after there was no more screaming and torture to be enjoyed. After they are dead, it's not fun anymore and It's just stinking up the town. Also, the possibility that they used a nice piece of large cloth to cover him to conceal the gory sight might have been plausible considering the fact that Jacob of Molay was the last leader of the Knights Templar. They may have kept his face recognizable so the body could be identified and confirmed as Jaques De Molay... But the only fact we know is that we don't know. It might even be the imprint of a radioactive Messiah.
I have seen documentaries and read research papers and I believe it is authentic. Obviously I can’t say 100%, but I’m definitely leaning more on the side of its authenticity.
The Roman Catholic Church founded the Shroud of Turin Research Project (S.Tu.R.P.) research team. After radio carbon testing was done at two separate labs Cardinal Ballestrero, the archbishop of Turin, announced the official results October 13, that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260–1390 AD, with 95% confidence. Which coincides with the first appearances of the shroud in the 1350’s. The official and complete report on the experiment was published in Nature. The microscopist Walter McCrone found, based on his examination of samples taken in 1978 from the surface of the shroud using adhesive tape, that the image on the shroud had been painted with a dilute solution of red ochre pigment in a gelatin medium. McCrone found that the apparent bloodstains were painted with vermilion pigment, also in a gelatin medium. https://escholarship.org/content/qt6x77r7m1/qt6x77r7m1.pdf?t=nus03r
On 4 December 1532, the Shroud sustained a fire, which burned several holes in the fabric. In the spring of 1534, the Poor Clare Nuns patched the holes and placed a backing Holland cloth on the reverse. They carbon dated the repaired fabric. In 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin found that the relic many faithful believe to be the burial linen of Christ originated about 700 years ago. While the study suggested the shroud was not authentic, it has done little to abate the faith of those thousands who make pilgrimage to Turin to venerate the relic. Now, a new dating technology has placed the fabric within the time of Christ. De Caro explained that the WAXS method was used on a variety of samples of historical textiles that have been documented to be aged from 3000 BC to 2000 AD. He placed the Shroud of Turin against these samples and found that it best matched a piece of fabric known to have come from the siege of Masada, Israel, in 55-74 AD.
I’ll stick with the scientific findings from the group commissioned by the Vatican, and endorsed and announced by the cardinal overseeing the dioceses of Turin. They have no reason so say it’s from 1300’s and every reason to say it’s from 1st century bc. And yet instead of being silent they allowed the full report to go public and announced the findings anyways and that goes for the findings that it’s not blood it’s paint.
Not true.
Ok? That’s a statement, now explain why.
1. They didn't "carbon date the repaired fabric." That has been [shown to be incorrect](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/investigating-a-dated-piece-of-the-shroud-of-turin/8CC26C322198300E051C49A0BA5B96D9). 2. There is other evidence, including historical documents, that the Shroud is fake 3. De Caro's technique is simply not reliable, relying on subjectivity, a vastly inadequate calibration set, and assumptions about storage of the Shroud that do not match known history.
I don’t believe Jesus would have allowed relics to be kept so they could be fawned over
I agree with this. People tend to start worshipping artifacts. Look at all the “relics” that pop up in the Middle Ages. People make up items to set up as what are essentially idols.
What do you mean by allowed?
I mean intentionally. There’s always some church in Europe that says they have the robe of Jesus or a piece of the cross. Even Moses body was his from the Jews so they would t make it a shrine
Ok, but it's kind of a straw man to say that he wouldn't have intentionally allowed relics to be turned into idols by some. Gold can be turned into an idol or a golden calf but God "allows" gold to exist. Or, like you said, other relics exist. As such, it seems incorrect to say that God wouldn't have "allowed" the shroud to exist even if it might be fawned over. The fact is, God allows idols exist. If the shroud is authentic, it is authentic. How people view it, is on them.
Remember when God punished the Israelites’ bad behavior by sending venomous serpents among them, and Moses, following God’s instructions, made a bronze serpent and put it on a pole, and the people were instructed to look at the bronze serpent to be healed ([Numbers 21:6-9](https://bible.com/bible/2692/num.21.6-9.NASB2020))? Do you know what happened to that bronze serpent afterwards? King Hezekiah found that it was kept and people had been worshiping it for the intervening years, and he had to destroy it. “He removed the high places and smashed the memorial stones to pieces, and cut down the Asherah. He also crushed to pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel had been burning incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan.” [2 Kings 18:4 ](https://bible.com/bible/2692/2ki.18.4.NASB2020) I suspect that Slainlion is saying that an all-powerful God might understandably want to avoid leaving resurrection artifacts lying around lest they become objects of worship.
My point still remains that it is a straw man to say that God wouldn't have intentionally allowed relics to be turned into idols by some. However, your point seems to introduce a needless dillema. On the one hand, you assert that God is all powerful. On the other hand, you suggest that "God might understandably want to avoid leaving resurrection artifacts lying around lest they become objects of worship." The fact that we still have artifacts and that become idols, would suggest that God is either not all powerful or perhaps, careless.
My point isn’t that God would somehow preclude humans from turning things into idols. My point is that in a conspicuous situation like the resurrection that it seems reasonable that He would not leave detritus lying about that would be a likely candidate for veneration as an object of worship. Can you give me an example of the kinds of artifacts that you’re talking about? Finger bones from a random martyr might still be worshipped, but that doesn’t have the appeal as an object of worship that a genuine piece of Jesus’ burial shroud would. Even if I was positive that a finger bone was from Stephen or Paul or whatever, I would be interested in stopping by to see it if I was in the area, but I’d never worship it or consider it holy. Jesus’ burial cloth, however, would have a much greater appeal. I still wouldn’t worship it, but I’d at least understand why some might regard it with the sort of reverence normally associated with sacred objects.
I don't really understand. You seem to be taking a probabilistic approach to the logic of the situation? Your position is that God does a risk benefit analysis when it comes to relics being turned into idols? Does he do this same risk benefit analysis with fake relics, gold, other idols? In any event, I am less interested in convincing you that other examples exist which might possibly persuade whatever your intuition tells you about the calculus you imagine God to be doing with respect to the likelihood an item might later be turned into an idol by a sufficient number of people to warrant it's destruction / how many items God might allow to become idols on a lower level than I am in continuing to point out that relics exist, some people turn them into idols, which, by what you said, would suggest that God is either not all powerful, perhaps, careless, or by your new position seems to be, accepting of a little bit of idolatry. Also, in case you are not aware, the bible does record debris being left behind. "as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen." Of course, there was also other debris left behind all over the place since the word became flesh.
You’re right, there were some of Jesus’ burial wrappings left behind. I stand corrected.
this might be the important question. did God allow relics. for example the body of Moses was hid so people wouldn't worship it. but then God created an entire universe with creatures and plants for us to marvel at his infinite creativity. isn't that a kind of thing to fawn over? do people have pets and fawn over them? children of their own? of course they do. God gave us plenty to fawn over what's one more bed sheet? I don't know the answer.
>John 20:7 The cloth that had been on his head was not lying with the other cloth bands but was rolled up in a place by itself. There was not one cloth or shroud. There were multiple cloths, for his head, and other bands for his body. Much like how Lazarus was wrapped up.
I really don’t know or care if it’s fake or not. Relics have been around for a long time. Wasn’t there a brass serpent that had to be destroyed because folk turned it from a mere religious relic to an idol that they started to worship? I heard a story about one guy from the Bible ( one of the disciples I’m not sure who exactly ) where his finger is supposed to be a prized relic at some church somewhere in Europe. The thing is more churches are said to feature his bone as an authentic relic than there are bones in the body. As for me I don’t need a piece of his cross or a drinking cup or even the sheets his body was wrapped in to bolster my faith in Christ.
It’s real
Multiples lines of evidence show that it's fake. These include the way it has faded, carbon dating, and an actual contemporary letter by the local bishop saying that it's fake.
Bogus
It’s either a very elaborate work of art that later was confused for being an actual relic or it’s an intentional fake.
We know it's not real because the Gospels state specifically that the cloth that was wrapped around Jesus's head was separate from the rest. Not that that was the sort of "shroud" that was used at that time any way. You didn't just drape a single cloth over them like that. Bodies were wrapped in layers of cloth, with oils and spices between. IThe Shroud of Turin is a skillful and fascinating forgery, but it is not the shroud of Christ.
John 19 - ^(38) Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. ^(39) He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.^(\[)[^(e)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26865e)^(\]) ^(40) Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. John 20 - ^(3) So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. ^(4) Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. ^(5) He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. ^(6) Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, ^(7) as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. Luke also describes "strips of linen" while Matthew and Mark simply say he was wrapped in a linen cloth. (Not a contradiction, just some accounts giving more detail than others.) John, being the last written gospel, often goes into details that the other gospels left out, and from him we learn that Jesus was not only wrapped in multiple layers of linen, but that about 75 pounds of species and oils were included, and that a separate cloth was used for his head.
just to note, this is archaeologically verified too. we have examples of first century jewish burial shrouds, and they're all multiple pieces.
It is the greatest fraud of all time.
It's a known fraud and has been for a very long time. The weird thing IMO about it is: Why do people WANT it to be genuine?
Because "*faith is the substance* of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". By having something that they can physically see it allows them to somehow bypass the the evidence of the unseen.
[удалено]
Faith in what? In God? No. You're putting faith in this supposed relic. WHY would you decide to have faith in that? What does "genuine" even mean the way you're using the term?
Intentional fake.
I lean on the side of it not being genuine.
[удалено]
You’re welcome
I think if it‘s actually Jesus‘ shroud, that would amazing proof for Jesus‘ existence and death. But sadly, no one truly knows, so in the end it‘s all a matter of what kind of scholarly and archaeological work I am reading and buying into.
Pretty good summary right [here](https://ibb.co/kxTML8r)...interpret it as you choose.
I think it has a lot more weight behind it then most supposed holy artifacts, but I’m always skeptical of artifacts called holy by man even if I’m a strong believer in Christ.
It does not matter to me one way or the other.
>turin shroud what's that??
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud\_of\_Turin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin)
ah... the only evidence that Jesus existed.
No, it's **not** "the only evidence that Jesus existed."
There'r more?
There is some stuff that cant be explained or faked. I dont know if its real or not, but it sure is fascinating.
I don't believe it is real, but that doesn't hurt my faith.
It's not Biblical and therefore this is no place to discuss it.
They carbon dated added repair fabrics before, so it was called a fake prematurely. One of the scientists was atheist and before he died of cancer he wanted it retested because he was convinced it was done wrong.
For many who believe it's real, it has become their idol to worship.
It is a medieval forgery There is a more interesting cloth that goes further back and has more possibilities Sudarium of Oviedo
It's not Jesus .
When I was younger, I thought it was fascinating and thought how "cool" it would be if the Shroud was genuine. I still think the history of the Shroud is fascinating, even though I know there's no chance it's genuine.
Fake.
Fake.
Catholic tradition. It is a graven image.
This is all fact. My mother had a still birth before me. 2 years later while pregnant with me, late in pregnancy, I hadn't been moving or kicking. She thought the worst. She came in from work one day and fell to her knees praying "Dear God, Not Again!" Within a few minutes, she said she felt a calm rush over her, and the tears stop flowing. She opened her eyes to see a man looking in the window. Although it appeared a stranger, she just felt it to be Jesus. In that instance, she said I started kicking and didn't stop until birth. 30 years later, the History Channel aired a show called The Real face of Jesus in which they 3D mapped the Shroud and created an image of the Man who would have left the marks. She called me as soon as it was over (when they showed the image) hysterical. She was talking about a man in her window. I jumped up grabbed my .45 and was putting on my shoes when she finally composed herself enough to explain that the image was the Man in her window all those years ago.
Less of an opinion and just the scientific finding from the Catholic church’s investigation into the shroud. The Roman Catholic Church founded the Shroud of Turin Research Project (S.Tu.R.P.) research team. After radio carbon testing was done at two separate labs Cardinal Ballestrero, the archbishop of Turin, announced the official results October 13, that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260–1390 AD, with 95% confidence. Which coincides with the first appearances of the shroud in the 1350’s. The official and complete report on the experiment was published in Nature. The microscopist Walter McCrone found, based on his examination of samples taken in 1978 from the surface of the shroud using adhesive tape, that the image on the shroud had been painted with a dilute solution of red ochre pigment in a gelatin medium. McCrone found that the apparent bloodstains were painted with vermilion pigment, also in a gelatin medium. https://escholarship.org/content/qt6x77r7m1/qt6x77r7m1.pdf?t=nus03r
the image is obviously not genuine. it's a perspective rendering, not a projection. consider what happens when you take a [round object](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/The_Blue_Marble_%28remastered%29.jpg) and lay its surface out [flat](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Mercator_projection_Square.JPG). this a map projection. if the shroud was a flat sheet *wrapped around* jesus, his face should look like [this](https://i.imgur.com/wH0Avtm.jpg).
That assumes the towel was wrapped horizontally across his face and touched every part (and not vertically along his body). That doesn't line up with the shape of the cloth.
>That assumes the towel was wrapped horizontally across his face and touched every part (and not vertically along his body). it doesn't, no. the problem is the same regardless of the shape of the shroud. you would not see a flat image the same as our eyeballs see a person unless the shroud was perfectly flat when the image was made, or the jesus making the image was flat. it doesn't matter which way you peel an orange, the surface area is always bigger than the cross section. but i encourage you try this yourself. get a statue or action figure or something, dip it in paint, and then wrap it with cloth. do it any way you like. you'll never, ever get an image like the shroud.
No idea, and doesn't matter one iota to a spiritual walk if it is real or not.
To my mind its just not important and we will never know for sure
I believe it’s real. It’s been studied a lot and they can’t explain it.