Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see several reasons why many experts see the shroud as fake. None of those are changed by this recent work suggesting that there is real blood on there, as real blood is readily obtainable and has long been recognized as irrelevant.
I recognize that a lot of people *like* the shroud. That's fine. In fact, if it brings one closer to Jesus, then the "shroud" is great as a work of art. It's also true that if we insist it is real, when the evidence suggests otherwise, then a non-Christian thinks that we fall for hoaxes, and that casts doubt on the gospel itself if they then hear us preaching the gospel. Those two facts (that people like the shroud and that it's not clearly real) are doubtless why the Vatican has been clear that they don't claim it to be real.
From before - The shroud of Turin appears to be a work of art made during the middle ages, and thus only tells us what an Italian artist around 1300 AD thought Jesus might have looked like (or, being that the image looks Italian - maybe this is what the artist wanted Jesus to look like? or just a fanciful image?).
That's clear from many different pieces of evidence. One is that carbon dating of multiple samples at several independent labs all consistently show that the shroud of Turin was made around 1300 AD. None of the excuses to ignore the carbon dating hold up. If they were wrong, they wouldn't have all agreed on the same age around 1300 AD.
The clearest evidence is the image itself, which is shown in this thread and below. The face doesn't match the proportions of a real human being. The forehead is tiny, as if Jesus suffered from microcephaly, and the eyebrow positions similarly don't match how real eyebrows are.
The face is too long - as if Jesus had a stretched out head. Plus, if one drapes a cloth over a face (try it), the sides of the cloth bend down on the sides toward the ears, and one ends up with a widened face image - which is the opposite of what is seen in the shroud painting.
The arms are anatomically too long - as if Jesus was a long armed freak, and even worse, one arm is significantly longer than the other arm! Plus, with a limp human lying on their back, one can't physically leave their hands covering their crotch - they fall to the side (lie on your back and try it yourself).
That hands over the crotch itself shows that this is a work of art for public (not pubic) display. After all, if a dead guy were wrapped in a shroud for burial, why would one bother to put their hands over their crotch - to keep the worms from being offended? But, if this were a work of art by an Italian artist in 1300 AD intended for public display, he probably would put the hands over the crotch. No one would pay to come and see Jesus' crotch, after all!
Look, I'm a hunter. I know quite well that even if one would have used ropes or something to tie Jesus' hands over his crotch for the fun of it before burial to keep them from falling to the side, it's still implausible. That's because bodies become stiff shortly after death, and can't be repositioned. The stiff body of Jesus would have had the arms sticking up & out, and the head down, etc - not laying in a nice peaceful pose. Unless one were making a work of art in the first place, in which case they'd make the art depiction in a nice peaceful pose with a distorted face and arms of different lengths.
Not to mention the fact that this doesn't match the way people are wrapped for burial. For burial, the shroud is wrapped around the person, and no clear image would result. That doesn't work very well for an artist, as the image isn't clear. If, on the other hand, the intent from the start was to make a work of art, one can then imagine a simple folded over sheet as we see in the shroud of Turin.
On top of all that, the artist who made it confessed to painting it himself. That was mentioned in a 14th century letter to Pope Clement VII by the bishop who investigated the shroud initially. For 600 Years, Shroud of Turin Has Been Known as a Forgery
There's more, but that's enough to make it obvious that the shroud of Turin is fake. This is a very big topic, of course, and this is only a small overview, but the evidence is pretty clear.
In Christ-
Papias
The carbon dating was in error as the dating was done on the fabric used to repair the shroud in the Middle Ages.
Science have stated that no paint has been used.
Shrouds were wrapped well so I see no reason why the arms cannot be where they are.
There are great articles about the shroud. You should take a look at them.
False. Anyone who's read much about the shroud knows that the carbon testing pieces were taken from the original shroud material, not the middle ages repair area.
Misleading.
Some scientists have pointed out features that they suspect are not consistent with painting. Other scientists have pointed out how these and other features are consistent with painting.
Um, you are contradicting yourself. Take a look at the shroud image, above. To make the image shown, the shroud had to be lain flat, not wrapped around the body. A moments consideration shows that wrapping a body tight enough to hold arms in place won't make an image anything like that on the shroud artwork. Plus, this wouldn't change most of the arm problems mentioned above, such as the freakish length, the different lengths, etc.
Do you really think I haven't read a huge amount on the shroud? I have - certainly enough to know basic facts like the fact that the carbon dating pieces weren't from the repair area and many of the features discussed regarding paint.
There are a lot of religious hoax "artifacts" in the world. If we are going to be taken seriously in pointing out hoaxes like the Mormon Bat Creek Stones or Jordan Lead codices, we'll look like hypocrites if we, at the same time, fall for obvious hoaxes in our own religion. And our religion will look like a hoax itself. The "shroud" is great religious art. We can enjoy it as that, without hurting our gospel message.
In Christ-
Papias
The pieces sampled were from the repairs.
The shroud was laid over Jesus and bound with strips.
It has been proven that there was no paint used. It has been proven that the image is only a tiny fraction on the surface of the linen.
The way the image is showing proves it was laid on Jesus.
I will put some links to some superb info for you my friend.
New evidence dates Shroud of Turin to time of Christ
Simply false, as pointed out before. Here is the text from the documentation of the radiocarbon work:
The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas."
The documentation is here: Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin
Which doesn't match the image on the shroud itself. If it were bound against the body as you describe, all the features of the shroud would be different. For one example of many, cloth would be wrapped against the side of the head as much as it was over the eyes - thus, the face would be widened horizontally, and the ears would be out on the side of the cloth - yet the image looks much more like a portrait. Don't you see that?
The same goes for the lack of an image of the side of the hips, or sides of knees, or sides of the ankles. It simply doesn't match the shroud.
No, it hasn't. Plenty of work is consistent with paint. Surface painting is quite consistent with artwork, just like the rest of the data given above.
Did you know that the forger who painted it was caught, and he admitted painting it himself?
Only if Jesus wasn't human.
Did you read this? It's not even peer-reviewed, and cites individual work published only in a money-making book. If you think this is evidence, then I'm pretty sad about the critical thinking abilities of our body of Christ.
You also didn't address the other points. So you think Jesus had one arm longer than the other?
In Christ-
Papias
Lol, you need to do your research properly!
You can believe what you want.
Might just be me, but I'm focused on seeing his real face for eternity rather than seeing it in an old stained cloth.People's interest in the shroud can be motivated by a desire to see the face of Jesus.
I see several reasons why many experts see the shroud as fake. None of those are changed by this recent work suggesting that there is real blood on there, as real blood is readily obtainable and has long been recognized as irrelevant.
I recognize that a lot of people *like* the shroud. That's fine. In fact, if it brings one closer to Jesus, then the "shroud" is great as a work of art. It's also true that if we insist it is real, when the evidence suggests otherwise, then a non-Christian thinks that we fall for hoaxes, and that casts doubt on the gospel itself if they then hear us preaching the gospel. Those two facts (that people like the shroud and that it's not clearly real) are doubtless why the Vatican has been clear that they don't claim it to be real.
From before - The shroud of Turin appears to be a work of art made during the middle ages, and thus only tells us what an Italian artist around 1300 AD thought Jesus might have looked like (or, being that the image looks Italian - maybe this is what the artist wanted Jesus to look like? or just a fanciful image?).
That's clear from many different pieces of evidence. One is that carbon dating of multiple samples at several independent labs all consistently show that the shroud of Turin was made around 1300 AD. None of the excuses to ignore the carbon dating hold up. If they were wrong, they wouldn't have all agreed on the same age around 1300 AD.
The clearest evidence is the image itself, which is shown in this thread and below. The face doesn't match the proportions of a real human being. The forehead is tiny, as if Jesus suffered from microcephaly, and the eyebrow positions similarly don't match how real eyebrows are.
The face is too long - as if Jesus had a stretched out head. Plus, if one drapes a cloth over a face (try it), the sides of the cloth bend down on the sides toward the ears, and one ends up with a widened face image - which is the opposite of what is seen in the shroud painting.
The arms are anatomically too long - as if Jesus was a long armed freak, and even worse, one arm is significantly longer than the other arm! Plus, with a limp human lying on their back, one can't physically leave their hands covering their crotch - they fall to the side (lie on your back and try it yourself).
That hands over the crotch itself shows that this is a work of art for public (not pubic) display. After all, if a dead guy were wrapped in a shroud for burial, why would one bother to put their hands over their crotch - to keep the worms from being offended? But, if this were a work of art by an Italian artist in 1300 AD intended for public display, he probably would put the hands over the crotch. No one would pay to come and see Jesus' crotch, after all!
Look, I'm a hunter. I know quite well that even if one would have used ropes or something to tie Jesus' hands over his crotch for the fun of it before burial to keep them from falling to the side, it's still implausible. That's because bodies become stiff shortly after death, and can't be repositioned. The stiff body of Jesus would have had the arms sticking up & out, and the head down, etc - not laying in a nice peaceful pose. Unless one were making a work of art in the first place, in which case they'd make the art depiction in a nice peaceful pose with a distorted face and arms of different lengths.
Not to mention the fact that this doesn't match the way people are wrapped for burial. For burial, the shroud is wrapped around the person, and no clear image would result. That doesn't work very well for an artist, as the image isn't clear. If, on the other hand, the intent from the start was to make a work of art, one can then imagine a simple folded over sheet as we see in the shroud of Turin.
On top of all that, the artist who made it confessed to painting it himself. That was mentioned in a 14th century letter to Pope Clement VII by the bishop who investigated the shroud initially. For 600 Years, Shroud of Turin Has Been Known as a Forgery
There's more, but that's enough to make it obvious that the shroud of Turin is fake. This is a very big topic, of course, and this is only a small overview, but the evidence is pretty clear.
In Christ-
Papias
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?