Is the Shroud of Turin Jesus' burial cloth?

[LenKin]

UPDATE: See post #150 on page 8 of this thread where I provide some links that seem to relate to my question below in this OP.

I'm persuaded that the shroud probably is Jesus' burial cloth, because his image seems to have been burned onto the surface of the fibers of the cloth in a unique way by the light from his resurrection instead of by painting or anything normal. Also, because the pollen grains & maybe other microscopic substances are said to be from first century Israel and other places enroute to Turin, Italy. I think the carbon dating of it was done on threads that were added to the cloth after it had been scorched by a fire in a few places, so that dating was useless.

I saw part of a video today or yesterday that claims that the carbon dating was accurate, which I don't believe, but it also claimed that in 2018 a test was done on the blood on the shroud and it was determined that it was not from a body in contact with the cloth but came from a distance above the cloth and it dripped onto the cloth. I don't know if the claim is that all of the blood got onto the cloth that way, or what, but the person in the video was saying it's further proof that it wasn't Jesus and wasn't from his resurrection. Even if some of the blood came from drips, I imagine it could have come from Jesus' body as it was being placed on the cloth.

So if anyone has more details about this 2018 test of the shroud, please let me know about it here. Everyone feel free to express your arguments or evidence pro or con too.

Here are links to some evidence from a friend of mine:
https://www.newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf
Shroud of Turin - evidence it is authentic; the real shroud of Jesus Christ

 

[Hans Blaster]

Most likely -- No, it is a 14th century French forgery.

But congratulations on creating an actual thread on said shroud. Perhaps the Shroud spam in unrelated threads can be redirect here.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Mmmm...

The Authenticity of the shroud will be hotly contested.

Folks have a lot to loose if they have to face the possibility that Jesus resurrection is for real.

Such a revelation demands a response that folks don't want to give.

 

[Shemjaza]

Mmmm...

The Authenticity of the shroud will be hotly contested.

Folks have a lot to loose if they have to face the possibility that Jesus resurrection is for real.

Such a revelation demands a response that folks don't want to give.

The presence of a shroud with Jesus's image on it isn't mentioned in the Bible or in any ancient religious teachings I know of.

You'd think it would have been brought up by the writers of the gospels if it was an artifact that existed at the time.

 

[Kylie]

I doubt it is the cloth used to cover Jesus. The shroud shows the front and back of Jesus' head in such a way that it must have been draped from the front directly over his head to hang down the back. However, there is not enough space between the image of his face and the back of his head to account for the cloth that must have been resting on the top of his head. So, unless Jesus had a very thin head when viewed from the side, it was never draped over a person. I've posted this before, I shall provide that post below:

Originally posted by Kylie on June 11, 2017:

Hey, I took some photos.

I got a doll from the toy store (a cheap old one; my daughter offered up one of her old ones, but I couldn't bring myself to destroy one of her toys) and covered it in paint. I then placed it on a paper towel, with the towel coming up and over the head, just in the same way as the Shroud of Turin. You can see the results below. I have marked the part of the image that was formed from the face, the top of the head and the back of the head.

You can see that the part of the image formed by the top of the head is pretty much the same size as the face and the back of the head.

I then did the same with an image of the Shroud of Turin. You can see in this image that the top of the head is about half the size of the face.

This clearly does not fit with the image being formed after the cloth was draped over an actual person.

Unless, of course, the person looked like this:

 

[Carl Emerson]

The presence of a shroud with Jesus's image on it isn't mentioned in the Bible or in any ancient religious teachings I know of.

You'd think it would have been brought up by the writers of the gospels if it was an artifact that existed at the time.

Why?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Whether the shroud is genuine or not remains inconclusive. There's mountains of evidence saying it is genuine, and there's mountains of evidence saying it isn't.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I doubt it is the cloth used to cover Jesus. The shroud shows the front and back of Jesus' head in such a way that it must have been draped from the front directly over his head to hang down the back. However, there is not enough space between the image of his face and the back of his head to account for the cloth that must have been resting on the top of his head. So, unless Jesus had a very thin head when viewed from the side, it was never draped over a person. I've posted this before, I shall provide that post below:

Originally posted by Kylie on June 11, 2017:

Hey, I took some photos.

I got a doll from the toy store (a cheap old one; my daughter offered up one of her old ones, but I couldn't bring myself to destroy one of her toys) and covered it in paint. I then placed it on a paper towel, with the towel coming up and over the head, just in the same way as the Shroud of Turin. You can see the results below. I have marked the part of the image that was formed from the face, the top of the head and the back of the head.

View attachment 317329

You can see that the part of the image formed by the top of the head is pretty much the same size as the face and the back of the head.

I then did the same with an image of the Shroud of Turin. You can see in this image that the top of the head is about half the size of the face.

View attachment 317330

This clearly does not fit with the image being formed after the cloth was draped over an actual person.

Unless, of course, the person looked like this:

View attachment 317331

Looks distinctly Medieval...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._Adoration_of_the_Infant_Jesus_-_WGA08942.jpg

 

[Shemjaza]

Why?

Because it was a miraculous Christian relic directly and obviously connected to Christ himself and somehow avoided all the groups and factions who had any contact with the Gospel writers and historically significant Christian leaders.

No one at the Council of Nicaea brought it up or described it being found or preserved.

It just seems a very weirdly unlikely series of events if it were genuine.

 

[lsume]

I'm persuaded that the shroud probably is Jesus' burial cloth, because his image seems to have been burned onto the surface of the fibers of the cloth in a unique way by the light from his resurrection instead of by painting or anything normal. Also, because the pollen grains & maybe other microscopic substances are said to be from first century Israel and other places enroute to Turin, Italy. I think the carbon dating of it was done on threads that were added to the cloth after it had been scorched by a fire in a few places, so that dating was useless.

I saw part of a video today or yesterday that claims that the carbon dating was accurate, which I don't believe, but it also claimed that in 2018 a test was done on the blood on the shroud and it was determined that it was not from a body in contact with the cloth but came from a distance above the cloth and it dripped onto the cloth. I don't know if the claim is that all of the blood got onto the cloth that way, or what, but the person in the video was saying it's further proof that it wasn't Jesus and wasn't from his resurrection. Even if some of the blood came from drips, I imagine it could have come from Jesus' body as it was being placed on the cloth.

So if anyone has more details about this 2018 test of the shroud, please let me know about it here. Everyone feel free to express your arguments or evidence pro or con too.

Here are links to some evidence from a friend of mine:
https://www.newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf
Shroud of Turin - evidence it is authentic; the real shroud of Jesus Christ

Consider;
1Cor.11

1. [14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
2. 
   
   
3. If you look at a bust of Caesar from the time of Christ, it shows him with short hair. As I recall, the shroud image doesn’t follow the Word.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Consider;
1Cor.11

1. [14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
2. 
   
   
3. If you look at a bust of Caesar from the time of Christ, it shows him with short hair. As I recall, the shroud image doesn’t follow the Word.

Indeed. Early images of Jesus show him with short, curly hair.

Also, the average height of a man in contemporary Judea was 5'5", but the man in the shroud is 5'10" - yet in the Garaden of Gethsemane Judas had to point out who Jesus was, which would be odd if there were such a tall man present.

Even the Catholic Church doesn't consider it to be a relic.

 

[Shemjaza]

Makes me think of a medieval Christian King:

 

[disciple Clint]

I'm persuaded that the shroud probably is Jesus' burial cloth, because his image seems to have been burned onto the surface of the fibers of the cloth in a unique way by the light from his resurrection instead of by painting or anything normal. Also, because the pollen grains & maybe other microscopic substances are said to be from first century Israel and other places enroute to Turin, Italy. I think the carbon dating of it was done on threads that were added to the cloth after it had been scorched by a fire in a few places, so that dating was useless.

I saw part of a video today or yesterday that claims that the carbon dating was accurate, which I don't believe, but it also claimed that in 2018 a test was done on the blood on the shroud and it was determined that it was not from a body in contact with the cloth but came from a distance above the cloth and it dripped onto the cloth. I don't know if the claim is that all of the blood got onto the cloth that way, or what, but the person in the video was saying it's further proof that it wasn't Jesus and wasn't from his resurrection. Even if some of the blood came from drips, I imagine it could have come from Jesus' body as it was being placed on the cloth.

So if anyone has more details about this 2018 test of the shroud, please let me know about it here. Everyone feel free to express your arguments or evidence pro or con too.

Here are links to some evidence from a friend of mine:
https://www.newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf
Shroud of Turin - evidence it is authentic; the real shroud of Jesus Christ

https://magiscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Science_and_the_Shroud_of_Turin-1.pdf

 

[AV1611VET]

Everyone feel free to express your arguments or evidence pro or con too.

It would violate the First Commandment.

And remember Nehushtan?

2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The claim that the radiocarbon sample was taken from a later patch seems ridiculously unlikely. The way the pro-Shroud story is usually told, it requires the patching to have been indistinguishable from the original cloth. An invisible repair. As is often the case, the defects in one miracle can only be waved away by invoking another miracle.

 

[public hermit]

What about the head cloth (sudarium) of Jesus? Wouldn't it be wrapped around his head and face? The shroud doesn't appear to indicate its presence.

"Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself" John 20:6-7

Sudarium - Wikipedia

Sudarium of Oviedo - Wikipedia

 

[BPPLEE]

It would violate the First Commandment.

And remember Nehushtan?

2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

I agree.
I read somewhere that that there were enough pieces of the cross sold to build Noah's Ark

 

[Larniavc]

Folks have a lot to loose if they have to face the possibility that Jesus resurrection is for real.

I think in terms of motivation it’s other way around. Atheists don’t worry about Hell or eternal punishment for metaphysical sin so we don’t care about the Shroud. Modern science tells us in only about 700 years old

On the other hands if it’s not real the belief a Christian has which are so fundamental to their sense of self come crashing down. Ex Christians have told me that realisation is devastating.

So I’d say Christians are more invested in the veracity of this piece of cloth.

 

[BPPLEE]

I think in terms of motivation it’s other way around. Atheists don’t worry about Hell or eternal punishment for metaphysical sin so we don’t care about the Shroud. Modern science tells us in only about 700 years old

On the other hands if it’s not real the belief a Christian has which are so fundamental to their sense of self come crashing down. Ex Christians have told me that realisation is devastating.

So I’d say Christians are more invested in the veracity of this piece of cloth.

Anyone who puts their faith in these relics like Mary's belt or John The Baptist's head is ultimately going to be disappointed Most Fascinating Christian Relics Around The World

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The claim that the radiocarbon sample was taken from a later patch seems ridiculously unlikely. The way the pro-Shroud story is usually told, it requires the patching to have been indistinguishable from the original cloth. An invisible repair. As is often the case, the defects in one miracle can only be waved away by invoking another miracle.

Indeed. The invisible mend has to be undetectable at a microscopic level which is extremely difficult using modern methods and technologies, so highly unlikely to have been achieved 700 years ago.