The Shroud of Turin

reply to post by micpsi


So, someone, at some undetermined time, went to the holy land, got linen from the first century (without being ripped off and sold crap), brought it back as a relic - when it was just blank linen - and then forged an image that confounds people to the modern era in contradiction of commonly-accepted views of crucifixion at the time emphasizing crucifixion by way of nails through the palm instead of the wrist...

I'd say much more appealing to occam's razor to just assume SOMETHING imprinted an actual crucifixion on a first-century cloth during the first century, and continue trying to explain how instead of jumping through all those mental hoops...

IMHO, i dont see how anyone can think this is an image of jesus. Reason being is because the image on the shroud looks to be of a man of caucasian decent. I would imagine jesus would have stikingly different features. is this wrongin assuming he would look more middle eastern?

reply to post by molonlabe

Reason being is because the image on the shroud looks to be of a man of caucasian decent. I would imagine jesus would have stikingly different features.

That's an interesting point, and I came across this a while ago which may interest you:

Here's a snippet from my previous thread on the topic:

This painting - The Christ Pantocrator Icon at St. Catherines Monastery in the Sinai

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a1c75e05f32.jpg[/atsimg]

Now, upon adding grid lines to this image and the image from the shroud of Turin, notice the similarities between the two.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/859faa9030e4.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/efc279781436.jpg[/atsimg]

Personally, It's tough to see, but they do look strikingly similar to me.

For a better comparison, have a look at this image:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2e2360356801.jpg[/atsimg]

It seems the painting and the shroud is the same face, according to some researchers. This is particularly interesting as the painting was said to have been made 6 years after the Shroud was said to have arrived in Edessa and was thus based on the face of shroud - the original face of Jesus Christ.

The eyes, mouth, nose and hair (even the longer hair from the right side) all seem to be a perfect fit upon close inspection which would surely surpass mere coincidence, especially understanding the circumstances of how the painting seemingly came about and how shortly after the cloth arrived this painting was made.

Anyway, like the previous theory I added to this thread, I find this one particularly interesting to say the least also thus why I brought it up for discussion. Personally, I don't really have a solid opinion on anything relating to the shroud just yet but It's a fascinating topic for sure. Thanks to the OP for bringing this up btw.

Heh. Ryanp5555, I need to apologize. I seemed to really come down on everything you said. It wasn't intentional. I didn't read the names of each comment until after, so I didn't know how many times I ended up replying to something you said. Wasn't personal.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Now, if somehow we could prove that this was the cloth used on Jesus, would you believe that Jesus was god?

Always heard that he was he son of God, not God itself.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Do you believe that these cloths were in fact used on Jesus currently?

Nope.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Why do you think the Church refuses to allow testing of the Shroud again? Wouldn't it do wonders to help some people struggling to believe to actually come before god? What if the church knows that this is the actual burial cloth and wants it to be kept secret for some alternative hidden reason? What do you all think? Is there some conspiracy underlying this mystical shroud that still has the world's attention?

The biggest reason to not test it is that, even if you don't think that it was ever on Jesus, it's a damn old and fragile piece of fabric. Repeatedly handling it every few years when some new group wants to study it could only lead to it's destruction.

The church has no reason to let anyone try to prove anything anymore. In their minds,it's accepted fact that it is legitimate, so why bother constantly defending against scrutiney.

OR, they don't want to find out it is a fake, so don't allow people the chance to prove it is a fake.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
there is blood all over the cloth. And the way the cloth is stained shows that the blood was there first.

You mean as if someone posed a human body (dead or alive)/manequin-like model, strategically placed blood on the model, draped the cloth over the body (which would stain the blood into the cloth) and then including the actual image around the premade blood stains?

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
even the carbon dating puts the creation of the cloth BEFORE DaVinci was even alive.

This puts the manufacture of the cloth before DaVinci, not the creation of the image. While you might find it far-fetched, I can see a situation where an artist will have come across an old piece of fabric to work on, especially if they knew they were trying to fake it. Obviously,they wouldn't know about carbon dating at the time, but they at the very least knew they would have what appeared to be an old garment.


(One important fact to mention is that there is a significant amount of belief that the carbon-14 data was invalid. A 2005 report in Thermochimica Acta, a peer-reviewed science journal, states emphatically that the carbon 14 data was flawed because the piece tested wasn't indicative of the actual shroud. www.shroudstory.com... is a page that compares what was tested with what the rest of the shroud is like.)

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
And the shroud itself does look like the stereotypical Jesus.

It also looks like the stereotypical Osama Bin Laden. Well, except for the shroud having a left eye.

Originally posted by micpsi
The telling evidence for it being faked is the fact that the size of the head is not scaled to the length of the body

While this would be an issue if it truly was created like a normal piece of art, this extended head effect happens when draped over a real object at the time the image is "burned" into the cloth. Such as the 3D-type of situation that Ryanp5555 has talked about.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
The person who created it knew, despite all other interpretations, that Jesus had his WRISTS pierced with the nail and not his hands (a belief that didn't come around until modern day)

You're saying then that this was some super-secret fact about crucifixions that no one knew until recently? Wouldn't it actually be more likely that those closer to the time happening would know it happened, the knowledge would be "lost" and we would rediscover it recently? A cycle that can be repeated multiple times in a parabola, depending on what the world situation is at any specific time. For example:
- 100AD person: Crucifixions happened with nails through the wrists.
- 500AD person: Crucifixions happened with nails.
- 1000AD person: Crucifixions happened.
- 2000AD person: Evidence shows crucifixions happened with nails through the wrists! Groundbreaking new information!

Not saying it happened that way. Just making a plausible case.

Originally posted by molonlabe
Reason being is because the image on the shroud looks to be of a man of caucasian decent. Is this wrong in assuming he would look more middle eastern?

This point really comes down to personal opinion. I personally don't think it looks like a "man of caucasian descent" at all. Maybe it is just my eyes seeing what my mind wants them to see, but I can't see anything at all but a middle-easterner.

And since you asked, no it is not wrong to assume he would look middle eastern. Again, saying he should look "more" middle eastern is an opinion, but saying he should look like a middle-easterner is just common sense.

Originally posted by Rising Against
This painting - The Christ Pantocrator Icon at St. Catherines Monastery in the Sinai
... This is particularly interesting as the painting was said to have been made 6 years after the Shroud was said to have arrived in Edessa and was thus based on the face of shroud - the original face of Jesus Christ.

First, a correction. Naturally these "facts" can be debateable, given the subject (all history of it before 1349/1357 is poorly documented), and I could probably just as easily be shown to be wrong. But this is my understanding of it.

Reportedly:
The shroud did not arrive in Edessa in 544. It was found in a wall in Edessa in 544. The same year that Jesus died (fill in the blank on what year you feel that is. I'm going to go with 33AD), Thaddeus/Addai took it to the ruler of Edessa (supposed correspondent of Jesus), Abgar V. Abgar died in 50AD and his son took over. Being a pagan, the son put the shroud in a wall. It was then re-found in 544.

Shroud History is one source that captures most of these details.

Anyway...

Not to be rude, but I'm not sure of your point with this comment. As you said, it seemed to be based on the shroud, which was thought to be his death shroud. How does someone using the shroud as an unconfirmed resource material prove the shroud is connected to Jesus? The way that sounds to me would be:
- someone gets a picture of Jessica Rabbit and says it is Betty Boop
- someone else painting a version of that picture and calls it "Betty Boop" because that is what their source material said
- Then saying that the original picture must be Betty Boop, because the painting is called Betty Boop and they look alike.

Note: I did a bad job explaining what I mean. I apologize. Hopefully you can decipher what I meant.

Maybe I really just completely misunderstood your point, but it just confused me.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
reply to post by Klassified

 

I don't base my faith on the shroud. I wasn't trying to coax him into saying that he would believe and become a christain and ho hum the world would be great. What I was trying to do was find out an honest answer. What is your opinion? If you could definitively prove that there Jesus either died OR he never existed, I'd stop believing in Jesus. But what if we definitively proved that there was this cloth dated to his time, where it was clear a person was wrapped in it, with wounds consistent with Jesus', and the only thing that could have caused such marks was a ton of radiation? What would you think? That's all I'm asking. I answered your question. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just curious.

edit on 11-5-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)

I thought nothing wrong or ill at all of your thread, or your line of questioning my friend. It's all good.

I think whatever they find out about the shroud, we may never know the truth. But if we did, it would be interesting either way it goes. But it would not convert me to christianity again. Been there, done that.

But I do find the mystery surrounding it fascinating.

reply to post by Rising Against


Excellent comparison! To me the entire face just screams with caucasian features. For instance, the narrow thin nose. Plus the fact that it resembles nearly every statue or painting of jesus that ive ever seen. Jesus with blue eyes, light skin. i was raised catholic and went to catholic school untill i was in the 5th grade. Now as i am older i have turned my back on the catholic church for some of these same reasons.

The depiction of saints and holy people are obviously biased and faulty and this is what lead me to challenge my previous beliefs.

reply to post by cuthbert


Not an issue. Some things you said I disagree with, however, I think you were extremely objective in everything you were saying.

First off, if they do prove it is from the first century than yeah, its possible that someone was crucified and also tortured before given the death sentence, and then stabbed. That is not really all that far out of reach. Hell, it may have become standard procedure with certain rulers in certain areas. So, yeah, I would agree that the mere fact that it was from a certain time doesn't make it Jesus.

Now, you took issue with when I asked if someone would believe Jesus is God. You said Son of God. Yeah that's true. But so is him being God. I don't know if you know this, so sorry if this sounds like I'm belittling you, I don't mean to, but, Christians believe that Jesus, the Son of God, is one three that makes up ONE God. The father, the son (Jesus), and the holy spirit (the one that allows you to feel God on Earth). If you have a hard time understand that, picture this:

God is a big ball of light. When he brought Jesus to earth, he gave him life, however, Jesus was just a chunk of that ball of light placed into a human body. But he was given life by the "father." The Holy Spirit is merely a chunk of the ball that remains on earth to help people come to God. Thus, it's all one God.


As to your comment about nails through the wrists, it's true to some extent. When Leonardo DiVinci was around, and the time where the C-14 tests put the creation of the cloth, the Church had made it the wide spread belief that Jesus was crucified through his hands. Does that mean that Leonardo DaVinci couldn't have figured it out? Of course not. It's just more circumstantial evidence that it wasn't created by an artist.

And yes someone could have had a cloth that was 100-200 years old and used it, but that isn't likely. I doubt, and I have no basis for this, it was easy to get your hands on cloths that old at the time alleged. Not to mention, there is no way DaVinci EVER touched the Shroud as it is known that starting from 1390 to 1532 it was at the Chambery of Turin, locked away. AND at that point the Image was already on the Shroud. DaVinci wasn't born until 1452.

Finally, I don't agree with your assessment of a mannequin. Maybe you could put something on the Mannequin to make the correct impressions on the outside of the mannequin, but that would likely touch the cloth at the same time as the "blood." And even if it didn't, it would be extraordinarily hard to remove the cloth without any sort of distortion in whatever was placed on the mannequin to make the outlines. However, even if you could somehow do that, that still doesn't explain the negative image, which is much clearer and more detailed, on the cloth.

The problem I have with it is that there is too much evidence that this was not created by some artistic endeavor. Does that make it Jesus? No, of course not. Even if it is proved to be from that time period, it won't make it Jesus. However, that's not gonna stop me from believing it is Jesus. Only way I believe it's not Jesus is if the Church decides that the potential societal interests in this cloth are more important than the actual cloth itself, and allows a real testing to be done.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
reply to post by cuthbert

 

I don't know if you know this, so sorry if this sounds like I'm belittling you, I don't mean to, but, Christians believe that Jesus, the Son of God, is one three that makes up ONE God.

Thanks for pointing this out. At the expense of undermining everything I have said on this whole topic, I actually have never heard that part before (I have no doubt you are right, though). I don't consider myself naive or ignorant on most of the main beliefs and topics (humorously, considering I'm an Athiest -- shocker, huh? --, I keep a copy of the Bible on my bookshelf within arms reach of me), but sometimes even simple concepts can sneak through, I guess.

And, I can see the line of thought through your example. So, thanks for the reply.

I believe the Holy Trinity is what your referring to. All three do not make God. In the name of the Father (god), Son (jesus), and the Holy Spirit (?). So all three are seperate entities.

Originally posted by molonlabe
I believe the Holy Trinity is what your referring to. All three do not make God. In the name of the Father (god), Son (jesus), and the Holy Spirit (?). So all three are seperate entities.

Yeah it is the holy trinity. And yes, all three do make one god. They are separate entities but one God. I know Wikipedia isn't the greatest source but here is what it says about the Holy Trinity:

According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is what Advent.org (a catholic encyclopedia) defines the holy trinity as:

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

www.newadvent.org...

I've also been through years of religious education, and have come away with the same opinion. Almost all of my friends are Christians, and define the holy trinity in the same way. Are they three separate entities? Yes. Are they still one? Yes. One way to picture this is if you have three fingers but one hand.

Why do you think the Church refuses to allow testing of the Shroud again? Wouldn't it do wonders to help some people struggling to believe to actually come before god? What if the church knows that this is the actual burial cloth and wants it to be kept secret for some alternative hidden reason? What do you all think? Is there some conspiracy underlying this mystical shroud that still has the world's attention?

I have watched a fascinating documentary on this subject. There is a very good reason the church does not allow further carbon dating - after the sample was cut off the corner the cloth was taken and given a radiation treatment to stop it from deteriorating.

So sadly, even though the carbon date is wrong and has been explained why scientifically , there are no samples available to re-test because the radiation treatment rendered the cloth useless for carbon dating forever more

reply to post by markosity1973


Thanks for the info. Sort of ends the discussion, but interesting to know!

shroud is definitely very interesting ....i have read many books and articles about it.....still nobody knows if its real or not

Here is an intresting video on the Shroud of Turin. It makes you wonder at the very least. The second video is by Kent Mattox. When you consider the state of the world these days it maight be signifacant.






www.youtube.com... Channel

reply to post by Eschat


You do realize this is spamming, right? Posting the same video on multiple threads. Or maybe I am wrong. It is the same preacher, anyway.

Since I started this post I might as well link my photo of myself at the Shroud Cathedral.
This is from my trip to Turin. I rode my skateboard to the spot from my hotel.
The point of this is that I would not have bothered if I did not think there was probably something to the whole shroud thing.
(The white dot on the top of my head is probably lint or something from when I scanned the photo taken with an old fashioned film camera.)

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Eschat

 

You do realize this is spamming, right? Posting the same video on multiple threads. Or maybe I am wrong. It is the same preacher, anyway.

Since I started this post I might as well link my photo of myself at the Shroud Cathedral.
This is from my trip to Turin. I rode my skateboard to the spot from my hotel.
The point of this is that I would not have bothered if I did not think there was probably something to the whole shroud thing.
(The white dot on the top of my head is probably lint or something from when I scanned the photo taken with an old fashioned film camera.)

edit on 3-7-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I woulda thought you were wearing some sort of sports hat with the league's emblem on the back (with your hat flipped backwards).

reply to post by Ryanp5555


I was thinking more like a beret with a little emblem like my clan badge or something.
That's why I said that. I know I did not have a hat. It was early morning and cloudy.
Anyway, I was really happy and I thought I was somehow near God.