Shroud of Turin is a fake and Bible proves it.

They Shroud of Turin is claimed to be the shroud over Jesus in the tomb but the Biblical story would prove this inaccurate.

John 20:6-7 READ IT CAREFULLY this was the ritual of Jewish burial...

6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, 7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

The linen clothes and the NAPKIN that was about his head!

The shroud is one piece which supposedly carries Jesus's face image but it says Clothes, usually not for the face. And napkin that was about his head... Why is the Shroud one long sheet? Then let's see if the image of the Shroud would be right even if it were true that they used a full length cloth, which it is not, but let's see...

Jesus allowed them to pull his beard out before he was hung on the cross, why does the Shroud show a full beard?

To many fake supposed relics in the world that make reasonable people question Jesus's existence altogether. This does not serve God well to turn away people because they can reason the ridiculousness of some Dogma's

reply to post by theindependentjournal


I believe it has already been determined a fake scientifically. I will attempt to find the article in which I have read this for you.

Edit: Turin Shroud confirmed as a fake

Nice job discovering this on your own though. Still deserve those props.

[edit on 12/18/08 by Yoda411]

A great pull to reinforce the scientific findings! I too was under the illusion that the shroud was already falsified, but if the Bible does it too... Makes it harder for the followers to say science sux.

Great find OP!

reply to post by Yoda411


Thanks for the Link, I just brought this up because the History Channel or Discovery is gong to do the Shroud show again. I hate it when they do that stuff and it is so anti Biblical narrative. Whether you believe the Bible or not yourselves. Those that believe the Shroud is real obviously do believe the Biblical Narrative but it seems they only go by what someone tells them and not read it for themselves.

The fact that they used a separate cloth for the face seems to me to be God's foreknowledge and he fixed it in the Bible. God knew they would be putting this Shroud thing out and so he made sure that the bible story CLEARLY said the face piece was separate from the death clothes making the Shroud a fake, not to mention the beard pulling out stuff...

Thanks for the link!

Excellent post and topic. It's sheer perfection when the Bible supports scientific skepticism of revisionist ninnies and hucksters (and vice versa).

I will say that I am religious, however, whether or not the shroud is real has no bearing on my faith. I just find it interesting.

I saw the Discovery channel stuff about it and it was shown that the original piece of cloth taken from the shroud for carbon dating was cloth that was used to repair it after it was partially burned in a fire. This was confirmed by the presence of cotton interweved with the original material and dyed to match it. Therefore, the piece taken would show a carbon date that is consistent with the medieval time frame. The last show I saw ended with them taking another piece of the shroud and carbon dating it, but that's where the show ended. I assume there will be another show about it at some point.

If in fact this is the shroud that Jesus was buried in, anything would be possible including a full body image (including hair) and whatever else. It was concluded that it wasn't a painting and something like this could not have been "created" back then by human technology. If it's not the cloth Jesus was wrapped in, then what is it, who's image is on it and where did it come from? It's interesting, but like I said, whether it is Jesus or not doesn't matter much to me as far as faith goes.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by Kratos1220]

Do some basic research on the topic at hand before starting a thread like this. The head-cloth mentioned in scripture is accounted for by the Sudarium of Orviedo. The idea being that the head cloth was placed on first, then the full shroud afterwards, over the top of the body to wrap it completely, according to the normal practice (apparrently - not something I know about firsthand). The two cloths have always been claimed to be the two in scripture, and there has never been a claim that the single shroud was the only item mentioned in scripture.

While neither artifact has been carbon dated to the correct period to be authentic, that is not the point: this thread is a thread about how the Bible refutes the shroud. The fact is that it does not do so.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by d60944]

It has been alot of years since I was taught this stuff but I remember the shroud as being the cloth that the woman wiped Christ's face with as he carried the cross to calvary not as the burial linen.

Originally posted by d60944
The idea being that the head cloth was placed on first, then the full shroud afterwards, over the top of the body to wrap it completely, according to the normal practice...

Normal practice or not, that is not what the verse says.

7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

That verse does indeed appears to refute a napkin and shroud with matching faces, but something that relic profiteers would likely create for exploitation "according to the normal practice."

[edit on 18-12-2008 by Article11]

Shall I re-quote myself again? Do some research on the topic. I even linked for your ease. The Sudarium does not possess an image of a face on it, and never claimed to have had.

Linen cloths (Shroud) with impression of an image on it
Napkin from the head with blood on it (Sudarium)

Two things. Yes. Correct.

What are you finding so difficult about this concept?

I rather suspect this thread was only opened in order to mock at things (though at what precisely I am not yet sure)... *sigh*

[edit on 18-12-2008 by d60944]

[edit on 18-12-2008 by d60944]

Originally posted by d60944
What are you finding so difficult about this concept?

The topic is the SHROUD is a fake. The verse says that wasn't over the head.

So why does THE SHROUD have a face?

(Of a head too small for the body by the way, but that's another topic)

I rather suspect this thread was only opened in oreder to mock at things (though what precisely I am not yet sure)... *sigh*

Doubtful, the original poster seems to have a history of strict literalism.

Problem with that?

I'll read to you again, and ask you to address the topic at hand.

7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

Why would the shroud have an image of a head?

[edit on 18-12-2008 by Article11]

Originally posted by d60944
Shall I re-quote myself again? Do some research on the topic. I even linked for your ease. The Sudarium does not possess an image of a face on it, and never claimed to have had.

By the way, I read it (had before anyway) and it says 'some' matching blood stains. I said matching faces. Crucify me. Heh.

Point remains the verse is different from what you claim as "the normal practice of the day."

Heck, why even write it down if it wasn't abnormal to do it as such?

And lo, upon entering the tomb Jesus was wrapped as is the custom of the day.... sure would have made more sense, huh?

Now I'm mocking, but you sure earned it.

You are saying that the scripture says that the burial cloths did not also cover the head. The passage doesn't say that though, does it?

My understanding of the claims made by both items are that the head-cloth was placed about the head (in some manner I am not precisely sure), then the whole configuration then wrapped in cloths. All of it. Head included.

I stress I am not engaging with the authenticity of the items at all. I am objecting to the pretense that scripture has anything valid to counter the objects at all. Carbon dating has more to say.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by d60944]

The bible proves it?
Oh ok then good.
Now all you have to do is prove, the Bible is real.

Originally posted by d60944
You are saying that the scripture says that the burial cloths did not also cover the head. The passage doesn't say that though, does it?

I think that's what the original poster is saying, but I'll let her clarify.

Either way, I agree with you on carbon dating (and numerous other problems with the shroud itself) showing it most likely fraudulent before any Bible verse, but found it interesting a bible verse may indeed contradict a relic or holy symbol itself (as my signature does).

I attend a Jewish school on the Sabbaths and am currently in Hanukkah and I know a little about Jewish traditions but you didn't answer the one about the hairs that Isaiah foretold of.

Isa 50:6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

Where and how did the shroud have supposed images of the beard? I still hold to the Biblical verses and my personal life experiences on the burial cloth but by all means think the Shroud is real all you like.

I just find all these so called Biblical Relics to be counter to the word, I mean for heavens sake how many pieces of the cross can there be that every Priest has a piece of it. And how is it that Peter is buried in Rome and Jerusalem and who has the head of John the Baptist and WHY???

I just find the Shroud to be so fantastically bad that I posted on it instead of a broad attack of Relics (so called).

If the topic is simply "the shroud is a fake" then it's a thoroughly pointless one, done many times on here, and could be deleted immediately. The arguments and counterstatements are well known. Much more interesting is the claim that the Bible refutes the shroud. I think it's important to point out that it does not do so. Neither does it prove it at all. Call it an attack on woolly thinking if you like. Much better arguments to use - but on other threads, not on one claiming that the Bible disproves it as the thread's main "claim to fame"

It strikes me that some might perhaps also be getting confused by the choice of the word "clothes" presented in the OP. The original Greek of the Gospel is οθονια - the accusative plural neuter of οθονιον meaning linen strips/cloths/bandages/material - typically for wrapping the dead:

www.perseus.tufts.edu...

Not clothes in the sense we use the word today, at all.

The Shroud is composed of linen strips stitched together in conformity with this. Whoever made it knew what they were doing...

[edit on 18-12-2008 by d60944 - edited to use a more academic and non-partisan translation engine!]

[edit on 18-12-2008 by d60944]

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
I just find all these so called Biblical Relics to be counter to the word, I mean for heavens sake how many pieces of the cross can there be that every Priest has a piece of it. And how is it that Peter is buried in Rome and Jerusalem and who has the head of John the Baptist and WHY???

I just find the Shroud to be so fantastically bad that I posted on it instead of a broad attack of Relics (so called).

Hey - you ain't seen nothing yet. Islam has Moses's staff and Kind David's turban in Istanbul which I saw a couple of weeks ago. All marked up in their cases confidently (and untestedly) to several millennia BC.

I think the thing about the beard is a petty point. How much hair do you have to pull out? How much was there there to begin with? How much needs to be left? Petty answers, yes, but a petty objection for them to match :-)

Again, why on earth do you think I'm defencing the Shroud's authenticity in all this!? I'm really not. I'm defending accurate presentation of facts. That is all.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by d60944]