If you've been living under a rock for your whole life, the shroud of turin is a piece of cloth, which measures 14 feet long and 3.5 feet wide and has a faint life sized image of a crucified man on it.
The earliest confirmed debut of the shroud was in 1353 when it was displayed by it's owner, a knight in France. It was passed down through his family, stolen, reclaimed, sold, lost, found again and eventually was given to the Turin cathedral in 1578.

Scientists didnt really care about it until 1898 when the first pictures of it were taken. The real image on the Shroud is so faint that you can hardly see itbut when seen in the 'negative', the image became clearer; showing a detailed look at a crucified man, with nail marks in his wrists and feet and multiple whip slashes across his back. There were marks across the forehead from the Crown of Thorns Jesus was said to have worn and a gash in his side where, according to the Bible, Longenious (a Roman soldier) thrust his spear. Finding these marks was seen as proof of the belief that this was the burial cloth of Jesus.

In 1988 the pope gave permission for small samples of the Shroud to be tested. The samples were given to labs in Oxford, Tucson, Arizona and Zurich. Carbon dating placed the date of the Shroud in the area of 1260-1390 A.D.
This was also backed up by there being no record of it's existance before the 13th century.

Studies showed the image was indeed 3-D; the cloth's image hade faded to show "both curvature and distance" as if it had been wrapped around someone. The image doesn't penetrate the fibers as paint does, but is only on the top. No trace of pigments were found. However, the fact that it was clearly seen in a negative image inspired Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince the pursue the possibility that the Shroud was an early attempt at photography.

Enter stage left Leonardo DaVinci.

Leonardo had a deep interest in optics and experimented with just about everything that existed, and then some. Supposedly he belonged to a secret sect called 'The Priory of Soin' which believed religion had become the new opium of the masses...a form of control used by the Church that had left it's true 'religious", spiritual and Holy intent.
Supposedly Mr.DaVinci made the Shroud as a 'relic' to mock the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. The Shroud can easily be duplicated today using techniques available in his time, which Picknett and Prince were able to do.

The "holy relic" version of the story goes that the image was created by a 'divine burst of energy' from the body of Jesus at the moment of his resurrection.
The problem with this theory is that if this had happened, the radiated energy would effect any carbon tests and render them null and void.
Though tests on dirt, pollen and the construction materials of the cloth can still place it in the 13th century time frame and having been in loads of eastern locations, skeptiks suggest that this is just 'stuff' the Shroud picked up along the years.

The 'real life' theory is he used one of his supply of corpses (which he got for all his anatomy and dissection studies) on which he meticulously duplicated the wounds of Christ.

Some proof in this can be found in the head on the shroud. It is slightly detached from the body and has a different look to it. Thus it can be suggested that DaVinci used his own face as the head. The similarity is striking if not exact:
Leo:
http://www.artofcolour.com/leonardo-natura...onardo-self.jpg
http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/courses/glad...es/leonardo.gif

Shroud:
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic//shroud...shroud-face.jpg
http://www.forteantimes.com/gallery/images/shroud.jpg

This explains the "detatched" look the head on the Shroud has, which is a bit too 'tall' to be the head of the body and makes the entire figure over 6' 3" tall.
It has been recorded that Leonardo was that tall (Obviously nobody knows about Jesus)
The ethnic and historical belief is that people of Jewish heritage back in those days weren't people of tall stature. So, the not-made-very-public opinion is the cloth is of 'recent' manufacture and Leo might very well be behind it.

Suggestion: Leonardo mocked up the shroud. Sorry Christian people...

The shroud of Turin has the image of Jaques De Molay(i think spelling is right) on it. He was a martyer in the 13th century as far as I remember. I read a real good book on the subject, that explained the shroud and the impressions really well.

http://www.knight-lomas.com/secmessiah.html

But de Molay was burned to death not crucified. The shroud of Turin doesn't look much like the body of a burn victim would..

I know. De molay was tortured JEsus style. Beat ,and whipped, but not killed. He was then covered by the shroud, and all the sweat, and blood, created the image that is now seen on the shroud. After all that de molay was burned.

"I hear religious debate!" *Saucy walks in*

One, I have shown that there is no accurate process of dating objects. If you were to use all the different techniques, you would probably get different ages, probably of some saying the shroud was millions of years old. Anyway, history shows that the shroud was in a fire where it was kept and that fire, though it didn't burn, would've added carbon to it, making it age younger than it really was or something like that. The fact that the shroud was found without a body in it leads me to believe that it is indeed the shroud of Jesus. Even if the shroud were to be proven 100% not that of Jesus, it wouldn't matter. Just because they don't have the shroud doesn't mean there's not a Jesus.

Oh yeah, you mentioned pollen and all that, turns out that the pollen matches up with that of the area where he would've been buried. Saw that on Discovery Channel.

I often wondered why, if the shroud wrapped the body of Jesus, didn't the people that were on the scene of the resurrection notice the image? The body was gone, the linens remain, yet no mention of this holy image being left. You would think that the linen would have been the object of adoration and proof! Yet we have no mention of any linen in any ancient text.

Da Vinci was a man of means and humor, his involvement in its creation sounds reasonable. Maybe he did it to ensure lots of laughs in death, while it was debated over.

please saucy, as we have demonstrated time and time again, you are usually wrong, now go away:)

With this issue I believe that the secret not lay with dating techniques but more in the shrouds contruction.

The factors necessary to make such an image, whether they be natural causes or a manipulated process is what must be discerned.

Saucy I realize your wish to have the Shroud be divine, or prove scientists this way or another, but you could prove or eliminate either of those through objective investigation. Where as not to dwell on its alleged purpose but to start with the Shroud as simply the object that you see and not what you want it to be.

I read once that mold may have played a role in the images construction.

I think the Turin Shroud is nothing more than a money making scam, publicity stunt by the church. How does anyone know who this is meant to be. Do we have DNA samples of Jesus? Are there DNA samples on the cloth? No.

I fully believe the Shroud to be the work of Leonardo Da Vinci.

I've been fascinated by this for many years, more so than any other subject.

REGARDING JESUS - one thing that has always bothered me is that if the shroud is the one found found in Jesus' tomb and Jesus had risen from the dead, why was the rock covering the entrance to the tomb rolled back?

If he had risen to spirit, surely he would not have had to roll back the rock. If he didn't, who did?

I dont think it was him who rolled them back... it was the angels that came to tend to him. (Isnt that what the bible says?)

Chauncy: That pictures of the scientific methodology is missing a portion... right between pass and theory... theres recheck.

Well, there's one more thing I didn't mention. The proof is on the shroud. They said that the shroud shows all the same whip marks and everything and some other dude was crucified the same way Jesus was so it was this other guy. Well, having a spear thrust into the side isn't something associated with crucifixion. A storm was brewing and they wanted to make sure Jesus was dead so they thrust a spear into his side. That hasn't happened with any other cases of crucifixion so if there is the image from the spear in the side, then it has to be from Jesus. Scientists proved that indeed it wasn't paint or any other means that put that image on the shroud. Even Da Vinci wasn't that good.

He's an amazing painter, I didn't say he wasn't good enough to paint a 3-D image of a body on a shroud without paint or berries or anything they used as paint.

Saucy, I think Da Vinci would be smart enough to figure out how to use blood to paint the shroud.... other than that i"m not gonna discuss that other guy being mistaken for Jesus thing since I havent heard of that.

A few interesting points - sorry if someone else has mentioned them!

The head on the shroud is 5% too big for the body.

The arms are disproportionate - too long.

There is no gap where the front and back of the head appear.

I believe that Da Vinci purposely put these flaws into the shroud rather than attempt to create a questionable hoax. Perhaps he had a sense of humour and laughed at the thought of people believing it was real.

Okay, you guys may be right. I really don't know very much about Da Vinci or anything. He's obviously brilliant and gifted. Or was anyway. Whether it was Jesus, some other dead dude or a great work of art by Da Vinci, doesn't effect my faith in any way. I was simply trying to figure out all I could about this shroud. I saw a thing on the Discovery Channel about it near Easter and many of the scientisits studying it believe it to be the real thing. That's why they're conducted many, many studies on it. Though, if all the scientists studying it say it is that of Jesus, I'm sure you would still hold your doubts and if they say it wasn't Jesus, you would laugh in my face. I think it's Jesus because 1) there is no body wrapped up in the shroud 2) all the wounds are identical to Jesus and only Jesus because his case was unique. Most people who were crucified did not endure a beating. Pontus Pilate thought it would make the crowd of angry jews happy if they beat Jesus nearly to death because he didn't want to kill Jesus. When the crowd wasn't happy, he then condemed Jesus to death. Nobody else had the crown of thorns or spear to the side. 3) the head was too large and the arms were too long? When they moved the body around, the blood certainly would smeared to other parts, making the face appear larger and arms longer and so forth. Also, the blood would've soaked into the cloth, making it appear larger and who knows what other things could've changed the appearance of the image over two thousand years. You guys only dismiss it because it would prove the existance of Jesus, which is something you will not accept. I would certainly accept it if the scientists did confirm that it wasn't Jesus because it wouldn't hurt my faith any, but it would hurt your arguements if it was Jesus. I simply do not know.

Da Vinci would surely be one sick puppy if he painted the shroud with blood. It would have to be blood of a human because I believe the scientists did test it and confirmed the DNA was that of a human.

No, you know why we dont accept that scientists say it is Jesus? We dont accept it because 1) not all scientists agree on the fact and 2) theres no way to prove that its Jesus' also. And even if it was Jesus' it does not mean that Jesus was the same as was portrayed in the Bible. It wouldnt mean that Jesus performed miracles or had any tie to God. Also, maybe whoever wrote in the NT about the death of Jesus (biblical fictional character wise) based it on a death of one of his friends or someone else that he witnessed... Just like many writers of today, even when making fantasy stories, base certain things on their own experiances.

And you know what? If it was scientificaly proven to belong to Jesus (Bible Jesus) then we'd wouldnt deny it... we'd have no choice but to accept it. You on the other hand... even if its proven NOT to belong to Jesus you would come in and argue that science is wrong and it still probably is Jesus.... well, at least until you find something else to use as "evidence" of the Bible. What if God was disproven scientificly? Would you accept it or would you still say science is wrong?

How much of it is people copying what one person wrote and how much of it is people writing what they saw?

You don't doubt that newspapers all write about an event that happened, right?
You wouldnt say that they're copying one another...

I've seen many instances of the same exact article from different news sources... but you still dont understand what I'm trying to say. How many people write what they see about 50 years AFTER Jesus' death btw?

All the disciples wrote about what they experienced. Don't you think that concerning the reputation of the women back then that the male disciples would write that women saw Jesus first? Do you really think they would write that they were hiding and scared about themselves? Do you think they would write about events that really didn't happen when all the jews were watching their every move, waiting for them to make a mistake? Don't you think that the Roman government would've destroyed the documents, never letting them get out into the public if what was written wasn't right? Do you think two women have the strength to take out fifteen roman guards who were ordered to watch Jesus' grave site and roll a 2 ton rock out of the doorway? Don't you think that Jesus would've have the same bruises and slashes all over his body after only three days inside the grave? Many of you claim he didn't really die and that explains how they saw Jesus three days later. He didn't look the same the second time around. There is just so much to show that the events in the new testament really happened. The reason why Jesus was crucified was because the high priests saw what he was doing, how he was transforming their religion and how so many people were following him. They knew that things were about to change. They cared more about their fancy houses and power and position in the roman empire than Jesus and what he was doing. He was actually out there helping people and he didn't even have a pillow to lay his head. He cared about people and did a lot. He had nothing and was more influential than any other figure in history or today. More than 20 authors wrote about him in the bible and there are other records of his existance but you refuse to believe he lived. If you don't want to believe the shroud was that of Jesus, that's fine. I already said I wouldn't care if it wasn't his. Just because the shroud isn't his doesn't mean there was no Jesus. Right now, your stance is that Jesus doesn't exist. That's what you've been telling me. If they said it was that of Jesus, you would be proven wrong and that's just something that shouldn't happen. The only reason why other scientists don't believe it's jesus is because they will refuse he ever lived.

I was wondering if anyone has ever mentioned the co-relation between the wound in Jesus's side and the area that the rib was taken out of Adam to create Eve. the alleged side wound would then be a literary reference to the creation story.....any thoughts?

That's another good one Chauny? I just figured one out myself. What was the judgement of man in the beginning for eating the fruit? Having being banished from the garden. Their punishment, the bible said, was thorns and thistles. Now, that's interesting seeming as though part of what Jesus paid for was a crown of thorns.

I understand, Saucy, that you want to protect your religion for all you're worth because you feel your beliefs are at stake. But there are no religions at stake. Jesus could have existed even without the shroud. Heck, we have to Bible as our proof. Also, your flirting with the big fat line between religion and ignorance. You've repeatedly stated things and then, when people shoot down your statements, you agree with them and come up with a new excuse. Jesus was a wonderful person and nobody here is saying he doesn't exist. We are simple questioning whether or not an ancient relic is a fake or not.

Hey there Saucy. Just thought I'd throw in to explain why Jesus had a crown of thorns and why it had nothing to do with verse in Genesis you allude to.

In the Early days of Rome,when they were still consolidating thiier hold on the Italian Peninsula, there was a Bandit, who's real name has been lost, who acquired a large band of followers. He was so good at terrorizing the countryside and evading the Army that his men jokingly called him the Bandit King. They crowned him king with a laurel crown and started referring to him as Laurelius(One who is crowned). Eventually Laurelius was captured and his men defeated. They took his Laurel Crown and replaced it with one of thorns and then crucified him.
It became sort of a Roman tradition thereafter that self-styled Kings would wear the crown of thorns. Since they no-doubt heard that Jesus was said to be King of the Jews they crowned him at his crucifixion too.

..On a side note Laurelius was later a play in the Roman Theatre. Whenever it was performed a convicted criminal would play the part of Laurelius, and was crucified live on stage. And people say the theatre is boring!

Moe wonders when someone will discover a relic called "The Holy Hanky of Jerusalem".
Jesus had to wipe his boogers on something.

Thanks for everyone's concern, but I have to say that my religion is not at stake. I've said many times areound that I will not lose my faith because of a couple of people disagree with me on this forum. There are many christians here at this site and I'm only one of the very few that enjoys argueing with those who do not believe. I am at an early stage in my religion and I'm going through a transitional stage from where I believed in evolution and wasn't religious to suddenly beliveing. That's an akward stage for anyone. I do not agree with what everyone says. I've even said that if the shroud was found not to be that of Jesus, it wouldn't hurt my religion. Just because there is no shroud, doesn't mean there is no Jesus. I know what I believe and I'm not gonna change it because of what others say on a forum.

Also, many people here say that Jesus never existed and refuse to believe he does. They believe the bible is just make-believe. I realize that sometimes I may give in because I get tired of arguing and it's pointless. I get made fun of and the rest and I get sick of it, but if I just give up altogether, people will think I gave in and they're right. I know I'm not right about everything and that I have a lot of learning to do and I even interpret things wrong, but don't call me ignorant because I'm learning.

Thanks for the information Falco Rex. I thought Jesus was the only one who had the crown of thorns.

See I never said that Jesus never existed. I just think of him as like.. Gahndi.. A guy who took a look around and said "Peace is a good thing!" And went to share his views. But back then in the age of gods, and magic... people can easily use the power of suggestion to make things more then they seem.

Let me explain this to one more time. When I said the bible has an incredible 100% accuracy, I was refering to the old testament prophecies concerning Jesus. I don't give a damn if you don't believe the old testament was written before the new testament, but it has been proven historically that it was. The authors of the old testament, who lived a thousand years before Christ, predicted the life of Jesus and got every singe prophecy correct. Everything written in the old testament happened just it was suppose to. In that fact, the bible has a 100% accuracy. You also cannot prove that the bible is wrong historically or in any other manner so....

Ofcourse it's going to look correct. I'm quite sure the people who wrote about Jesus and the new testement read the koran/old testement and did pretty much what people do today with Nostradomous(Spillink?) pretictions. "Yeah..hey... that kinda fits... this guy kinda is doing what the Koran says... *scribble scribe write*

First of all saucy, the bible is the bible, 100% accurate means everything in the bible is 100% accurate, not part. Second of all, how can it be proven if it wasnt even proven that Jesus existed, let alone existed and performed miracles and did everything the Bible sais he did? Heres the first step, you gotta admit the possibility that Jesus was edited/created by man(for whatever reasons) in order to match the prophecies, and infact the real Jesus (if he existed) might have not been the way the Bible depicts him. Dont you agree with that as a possibility? You cannot prove the Bible WITH the Bible. What you're doing here is along the same lines as "The Bible is Gods word" "How do you know" "Because the Bible says that its Gods word"

I don't know if I'm willing to accept that Jesus never lived. It's the whole bases of my religion. It's the whole reason why I argue so hard. It was Jesus' disciples who wrote about him and we know they lived. If they wrote all of the new testament and it wasn't written how they died, then how do we know? How do we know that most of them were crucified when it wasn't recorded in the bible? History shows that they lived and were the starters of christianity. The very same history shows the Jesus too lived. You may not see it sitting behind the computer or by simply readind the bible. He's in written recorded history. Not just the bible, but Roman history and if you were to visit Jerusalem, you can follow where he walked and was crucified. It should become very clear that indeed a man named Jesus did live two thousand years ago and he had a major impact on life. Some of us don't believe in Jesus, some believe he lived, but was nothing more than a man, and some say he was the messiah. What I believe and what you believe are obviously conflicting. WE ARE NOT GOING TO MOVE IN OUR POSITION ON THIS SUBJECT! WHY ARGUE IT? You say it's a learning experience? No. It's a chance for you to bash those who believe Jesus is the messiah. That's what you've been doing all along. You want a good religious debate, then that's what my site is for. I could use a few people like you over there, people with a differing view point. All i've been asking is that you don't bash me or anyone else because of our beliefs. I'm not anymore ignorant than you just because I believe in God or that Jesus performed miracles. It's what Jesus did when he was here that makes the difference for us. You don't believe it? Fine, that's your choice, you've defended your case, you're a good person, but there's no reason to keep these threads open here at this site.

I agree with you saucy. This thread is about the Turin Shroud.

Back on topic, if you can, people.

Saucy, my man...correct me if I'm incorrect, but did the romans not give Jesus the crown of thorns mocking his claims to be the king of the Jews? (Or the way people were calling him king of the jews, whatever)

Yeah, they gave Jesus the crown of thorns because they were mocking him. The idea that this shroud has an image of wounds from the crown of thorns and a spear to this side, it really negates any evidence that it was someone else. It's now either a painting by Da Vinci or the real Jesus.

Pathologist who have examined the Shroud have concluded that it is the image of crucified man.
The man is dead, in a state of rigor mortis. There are numerous wounds on the body and blood flows from many of these wounds. Most notable is a piercing wound on one visible wrist, though there are blood flows on both arms that suggest similar wounds to both wrists. There are similar wounds on the feet. The side has been pierced and there is a significant flow of blood and a clear liquid, possibly as a result of fluid accumulation in the chest cavities related to terminal cardio-respiratory failure. About the head are small puncture wounds with rivulets of blood flowing downward and into the hair. One eye seems particularly swollen and the nose seems to have suffered an abrasion. There are abrasions on the nose, on the knees, and across the shoulders. There are the definite images of a traumatic scourging on the back, chest and legs. The triple pattern of dumbbell shape wounds appear to have been made with a Roman flagrum. There are as many as 120 such wounds and it appears that the blows were delivered from both sides and at somewhat different heights, perhaps by two men.

There is dirt on the knees, on the tip of the nose, and on the feet. This dirt contains travertine aragonite limestone found in Israel, likely only found in this part of the world.

The blood stains on the cloth are human blood, type AB. The stains on the Shroud suggest that there was a separation of blood and serum which happens after the heart stops beating. It is significant to note that the blood stains are not on top of any image. This means that the blood stains pre-existed any image formation. The blood is also very red in appearance. The late Dr. Alan Adler, a chemist who has studied the Shroud extensively explains that this is due to the presence of bilirubin, a substance produced when the human body is under severe traumatic stress.

The image of the man on the Shroud is anatomically correct and the differences in the vein and arterial blood flow conform to the proper circulation of blood in the body. The distinctive rivulets of blood flowing from the wrist wounds could only occur if the arms were stretched out approximately 65 degrees to the horizon. The thumbs are not visible as would be the case if nails or spikes were driven though the wrists. They would fold under into the palms of the hands. All of this was beyond the knowledge of the medieval period (or before) when such an image, if it was man-made, would have had to have been created.


Here's some scientific evidence I found to be quite interesting.

the question is, why doesn't 'jesus' look semetic?

I'm sorry, i've heard that term before...semetic....anit-semetic, but I never figured out what it meant. Can someone enlighten me?