Is the Shroud of Turin Jesus' burial cloth?

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Why then what?

What are you talking about? :scratch:
I am just saying that you posted in the period I was creating a post. Considering nobody else had done so in a long time, it is just an interesting coincidence!
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Nice avoiding the point. If I don't know how something was faked, does that mean it cannot have been faked? And does that, therefore, support your poorly supported assertions?

If you knew anything of the history or science of the shroud (which is extremely unlikely given your previous posts utterly devoid of content) you would know it was Professor Edward Halls who having provably botched the dating - that said and I quote - in his normally unscientific manner in a press conference held by the british museum.

And I quote "some forger faked it up and flogged it"

So it is the date bodgers and British Museum who made the hypothesis.
It is up to them to prove it their hypothesis using medieaval methods. They cannot.

It is not medieval, not just sightings before that, but also forensic correspondence with a far older cloth. It is real crufixion pathology. The mark has only been created chemically by raditations. And such as Lazarro noted by UV tests that recreated the half tone, that it would have taken a singularity - billions of watts in a billion of a second to make it one go.

The science supports authenticity, only Halls pseudoscience supports the idea of medieval origin.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I am just saying that you posted in the period I was creating a post. Considering nobody else had done so in a long time, it is just an interesting coincidence!
Oh ... um ... okay. :)
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Colour me surprised. Though i suspect your reasoning is.different from mine. Which is apart from being an atheist, the first mention in history is a bishop declaring it a fake, and the 2000 years of fake relics.

And that sadly is the state of general knowledge.
You are told what to think. Sadly science differs.
Ripping your post to pieces.

1. That you are a atheist is a total irrelevance. Jesus was clearly a historic figure. Documented as crucified and wrapped in a shroud. So whether or not he is who he claims, the shroud can exist, so your "atheism" only seems to make you non objective, it is irrelevant to the authenticity or otherwise of the shroud. It might surprise you to know that most of the principle scientists involved in shroud research eg rogers ( los alamos researcher and leader of Sturp) was atheist, died convinced of authenticity after the date he helped to debunk was rightly debunked. Adler (principle porphyrin chemist) who did much to validate the forensic pathology was worse than atheist from a belief point of view - was jewish, as was schworz so therefore we can assume as base line belief that christ was not who he said!

2. It was mentioned long before. eg Seen in constantinople and drawn there. Long before france. So not of french origin.
Forensic correspondence with a much older cloth of middle east provenance, pollen and Mt DNA the sudarium shows the shroud was most of a millenium older. Several Other physiochemical linen tests show it was first century.

Only a botched and FALSIFIED RC date hints it is medieaval. The date is irrelevant it was pseudoscience.

3. So you seemingly prefer hearsay to science? A bishop. Who claimed he knew the artist - but what has been proven beyond reasonable doubt is the shroud is real crucifixtion pathology. There is no pigment. No brush strokes. It is not an artwork, so the bishop sure as hell did not know the artist! there was none!
Unless he managed to paint a cloth without using pigment 1000 years before which he can never have seen. The corresponding sudarium! That is some party trick. As is living 1000 years to do it! as was creating a mark only microns deep. As was creating forensic pathology he cannot even have seen!!! till the advent of UV!!! . How did a forger anticipate year 2000 forensics, and create a mark he cannot have known existed. The idea of forgery is not possible.

I despair of the general knowledge about the shroud. And the laziness with which people conclude.
.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I gave a strong Biblical reason from one the the Ten Commandments why I think the shroud of Turin isn't Jesus Christ.
Remind me. Which commandment do you think opposes it?

The cloths, sudarium (of oviedo), shroud (of turin, formerly image of edessa) & sidestrips used as bindings, the tunic (of argentuille) (for which the soldiers cast lots) are all known and extant and have substantial forensic correspondence..
Where is the problem?
The bible tells us there are real cloths of these descriptions (then of course is the job to validate which are the real cloths).
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,465.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
And that sadly is the state of general knowledge.
You are told what to think. Sadly science differs.
Ripping your post to pieces.

1. That you are a atheist is a total irrelevance. Jesus was clearly a historic figure. Documented as crucified and wrapped in a shroud. So whether or not he is who he claims, the shroud can exist, so your "atheism" only seems to make you non objective, it is irrelevant to the authenticity or otherwise of the shroud. It might surprise you to know that most of the principle scientists involved in shroud research eg rogers ( los alamos researcher and leader of Sturp) was atheist, died convinced of authenticity after the date he helped to debunk was rightly debunked. Adler (principle porphyrin chemist) who did much to validate the forensic pathology was worse than atheist from a belief point of view - was jewish, as was schworz so therefore we can assume as base line belief that christ was not who he said!

2. It was mentioned long before. eg Seen in constantinople and drawn there. Long before france. So not of french origin.
Forensic correspondence with a much older cloth of middle east provenance, pollen and Mt DNA the sudarium shows the shroud was most of a millenium older. Several Other physiochemical linen tests show it was first century.

Only a botched and FALSIFIED RC date hints it is medieaval. The date is irrelevant it was pseudoscience.

3. So you seemingly prefer hearsay to science? A bishop. Who claimed he knew the artist - but what has been proven beyond reasonable doubt is the shroud is real crucifixtion pathology. There is no pigment. No brush strokes. It is not an artwork, so the bishop sure as hell did not know the artist! there was none!
Unless he managed to paint a cloth without using pigment 1000 years before which he can never have seen. The corresponding sudarium! That is some party trick. As is living 1000 years to do it!

I despair of the general knowledge about the shroud. And the laziness with which people conclude.
.
Lol. Sorry but it is a medieval fake, like the multiple foreskins, the shards of the cross. It might be older than the radiocarbon dates, I read an interesting book about that, but it is not the shroud. Amongst the thousands of blatantly fraudulent relic this is the one true one, don’t make me laugh.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Lol. Sorry but it is a medieval fake, like the multiple foreskins, the shards of the cross. It might be older than the radiocarbon dates, I read an interesting book about that, but it is not the shroud. Amongst the thousands of blatantly fraudulent relic this is the one true one, don’t make me laugh.

Would you like to give at least some evidence for your statement (that actually matches the science).

Like why would a forger forger forensic correspondence with a sudarium he can never have seen, that had never been within hundreds of miles of the shroud, a cloth of middle eastern orgin.forensics he did not know existed, on a cloth whose provenance is most of a millenium older.
That is some party trick.
Lets suppose our forger had arms 1000 miles long.
And let us suppose he lived 1000 years to make your claim even possible that he therefore forged both?
How was it forged. If you understand the chemistry of the shroud you would know why that is a problem.
It really is a crucifixoion victim whose torture are those described of christ.

Two little details.
How did he do the half tone? And the micron depth image.
The half tone corresponding to cloth distance.
How did he dehydrate and oxidise the cellulose?
Why did he forge the blood stains first, and only then put the image on?

Coming to which,even if he COULD forge it. Why did he forge details that ran counter to all the assumptions? Like bonnet of thorns not crown? Like four fingered hands? Nails in wrists? A forger would play to the assumptions if he wanted to sell it, not the forensic reality.

Your belief it is a forgery makes me laugh. But that is because I know the science and how impossible it would be to forge it!



There are also forgeries of turner paintings.
That does not mean a real turner painting is ergo a fraud.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Remind me.
Post 14 please.
Mountainmike said:
Which commandment do you think opposes it?
The first commandment.
Mountainmike said:
The cloths, sudarium (of oviedo), shroud (of turin, formerly image of edessa) & sidestrips used as bindings, the tunic (of argentuille) (for which the soldiers cast lots) are all known and extant and have substantial forensic correspondence..
I'm not disputing the cloth.

From Wikipedia:
The Shroud of Turin, also known as the Holy Shroud, is a length of linen cloth bearing the negative image of a man. Some describe the image as depicting Jesus of Nazareth and believe the fabric is the burial shroud in which he was wrapped after crucifixion.

SOURCE

I'm disputing the interpretation that it contains the image of Jesus Christ.
Mountainmike said:
Where is the problem?
It's not a problem, unless someone says it is the image of Jesus Christ.

If they do, I submit that violates the First Commandment.
Mountainmike said:
The bible tells us there are real cloths of these descriptions (then of course is the job to validate which are the real cloths).
Again, I'm not disputing the cloth. I'm disputing what some say is on it.
 
Upvote 0

Psalm 27

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2020
1,072
512
Uk
✟114,965.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
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
John 19
40 Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.

John 20
6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself.
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,465.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Would you like to give at least some evidence for your statement (that actually matches the science).

Like why would a forger forger forensic correspondence with a sudarium he can never have seen, that had never been within hundreds of miles of the shroud, a cloth of middle eastern orgin.forensics he did not know existed, on a cloth whose provenance is most of a millenium older.
That is some party trick.
Lets suppose our forger had arms 1000 miles long.
And let us suppose he lived 1000 years to make your claim even possible that he therefore forged both?
How was it forged. If you understand the chemistry of the shroud you would know why that is a problem.
It really is a crucifixoion victim whose torture are those described of christ.

Two little details.
How did he do the half tone? And the micron depth image.
The half tone corresponding to cloth distance.
How did he dehydrate and oxidise the cellulose?
Why did he forge the blood stains first, and only then put the image on?

Coming to which,even if he COULD forge it. Why did he forge details that ran counter to all the assumptions? Like bonnet of thorns not crown? Like four fingered hands? Nails in wrists? A forger would play to the assumptions if he wanted to sell it, not the forensic reality.

Your belief it is a forgery makes me laugh. But that is because I know the science and how impossible it would be to forge it!



There are also forgeries of turner paintings.
That does not mean a real turner painting is ergo a fraud.
And yet the bible says this is not his burial shroud.
John 19
40 Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.

John 20
6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself.

Multiple strips of linen, a separate clothed for his head.

The shroud of Turin is not the shroud, unless you believe the bible is lying, or ignorant.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Post 14 please.The first commandment.I'm not disputing the cloth.

From Wikipedia:

SOURCE

I'm disputing the interpretation that it contains the image of Jesus Christ.It's not a problem, unless someone says it is the image of Jesus Christ.

If they do, I submit that violates the First Commandment.Again, I'm not disputing the cloth. I'm disputing what some say is on it.

I don’t see that.
First, it is not claiming to be a God , but is evidence of the real one!
Second if it is real, it is God created it: His rules are for others not Him. He can create any images he likes.

Of course we would argue it is the creation of images worshipped as Gods that is barred. But whatever the truth of that, He can create images of Himself!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And yet the bible says this is not his burial shroud.
John 19
40 Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.

John 20
6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself.

Multiple strips of linen, a separate clothed for his head.

The shroud of Turin is not the shroud, unless you believe the bible is lying, or ignorant.

Since you don’t accept the gospels it is strange you should claim them as authority!


But it is easily reconciled if you ever actually study the shroud.

Mat 15:46 Joseph of Arimathea bought A ( as in one) linen shroud.

Strips cloths were found in the tomb.

Scientific analysis shows that at some point a side strip was removed from the full size was later reattached. The stitching is visible, it was Used as a tie band.

Analysis by Jackson et al , by comparing marks on the strip shows how it was used to tie up the body. So cut from the whole, used as a tie band , found as multiple cloths, then later re attached as a single relic

it was also standard burial practice.

The handkerchief is the sudarium of Oviedo.
Not a problem
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But whatever the truth of that, He can create images of Himself!
And if that happened -- (and I don't think it did) -- but if God did that, then He performed a miracle, didn't He?

And if He performed a miracle, why in the world are you appealing to science to corroborate it?

You're on their turf now, Mike.

These academians will eat you up and spit you out.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,465.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
And if that happened -- (and I don't think it did) -- but if God did that, then He performed a miracle, didn't He?

And if He performed a miracle, why in the world are you appealing to science to corroborate it?

You're on their turf now, Mike.

These academians will eat you up and spit you out.
And if it’s a miracle why on earth the thousands of fake relics making a mockery? If god exists there is a serious absence of smoking sandals.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If god exists there is a serious absence of smoking sandals.
Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psalm 27
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,465.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.
And Las Vegas still exists. The lack of smoking sandals is deafening.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And if that happened -- (and I don't think it did) -- but if God did that, then He performed a miracle, didn't He?

And if He performed a miracle, why in the world are you appealing to science to corroborate it?

You're on their turf now, Mike.

These academians will eat you up and spit you out.

Let me quote a scientist.

A prof called Lazarro matched the mark chemistry with a UV laser.
But he also concluded the total energy it would take for the entire shroud is around the same as the Lebanon dock explosion. But unlike Lebanon it happened in a tiny fraction of a second. The energy release was awesome! A singularity.
You bet it was a miracle.
Science models what it does, it cannot say who done it!


Heres how I think of it, and so do science philosophers.

Science doesn’t explain the world, it just models what it is usually observed to do, just like a flight simulator video game models some aspects of the world and aeroplanes. But it isn’t the world. The phenomena and concepts of physics , do not directly correspond to the unknowable universe. Ask Kant.

now - faith statement .

God it seems has an autopilot when he wants to leave it on auto. He can also switch to manual. When he does it can do as He commands.

The two are not in conflict, the only conflict comes when some wrongly assume the model of science IS the world.

I’ve yet to see one spit me out. Most don’t seem to grasp what science IS.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
A prof called Lazarro matched the mark chemistry with a UV laser.
But he also concluded the total energy it would take for the entire shroud is around the same as the Lebanon dock explosion. But unlike Lebanon it happened in a tiny fraction of a second. The energy release was awesome! A singularity.
You bet it was a miracle.
Science models what it does, it cannot say who done it!
But your science philosopher will, won't he?

Did it occur to you -- (even briefly) -- that Satan did it? or one of his fallen angels?

Or do you believe God did it because some science philosopher said so?

Science gives reality a bad name.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
But your science philosopher will, won't he?

Did it occur to you -- (even briefly) -- that Satan did it? or one of his fallen angels?

Or do you believe God did it because some science philosopher said so?

Science gives reality a bad name.

But science isnt reality. So it cannot give it good name or bad.
Science is a model. A useful model. But a model none the less.
What "is" is something else. And for you and I, thats the reality.
 
Upvote 0