I just watched Secrats of the Dead on PBS on which they discussed the Shroud of Turin and brought up some new studies on it.
Here is the link to their web site. SECRETS OF THE DEAD

Is it a shroud from the time of Christ of a body or is it a fake from the middle ages?
Read the site and discuss.

great topic

personally, i have times when i believe it's real...

then sometimes, i'm almost sure it's a fake... but i really can't make up my mind...

Hmm...
Is the Shroud real? Yes, it's in Turin!
Is the Shroud a fake? Not exactly (keep reading)
Is the Shroud the shroud Christ was buried in? No, very unlikely.

Not even the Catholic Church who has custody of the shroud will say yea or nay on whether it is "the" shroud Jesus was buried in.

It is a truly interesting relic though, what it's a relic OF we may never know, but it's still kinda cool.

Didn't we have a huge series of posts on this. And came to the conclution that it was a work of Da Vinci...

Anyways, No.. I do not believe it's real. The "image" on the shroud is to much of a look a like to the EuroJesus, and not what Jesus would had looked like in reality. But that's just one of the major wrongs about the shroud.

If you look at the site they have a lot of new research being done. I thought it would be interesting to bring it up.

I am not 100% sure, but it's my opinion it's a fake....

It could very well be real too though, I just don't know for sure besides my opinion.

In "The Hiram Key", they say it's Jacques de Molay. Supposedly the Vatican captured this high ranking templar and re-enacted Jesus' crucifixion to "purge" him of his sins. That would include wrapping him up, and it's some sort of body fluid that preserved his image.

Radiocarbon (Carbon 14) Dating Biggest Mistake
In early 2005 The American Chemical Society website quoted Raymond Rogers, a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory: "The observations do not prove how the image was formed or the 'authenticity' of the Shroud. There could be a nearly infinite number of alternate hypotheses, and the search for new hypotheses should continue."

And, at about the same time, Philip Ball, who had been the Senior Editor for Physical Sciences of the Nature Journal of Science when Nature published the results of the 1988 carbon 14 dating of the Shroud, discussed the new studies that challenged those tests, in the journal's online edition. He paraphrased Rogers: "It is, [Rogers] says, between 1300 and 2000 years old. Let's call it somewhere around the middle of that range, which puts the age at about 2,000 years. Which can mean only one thing . . ."

Why all this attention to the Shroud of Turin Carbon 14 testing? Raymond Rogers had just published an article in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pp. 189-194) that proved that the 1988carbon 14 dating in was incorrect. And simultaneously, John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology, independently confirmed many of Rogers’ findings.

Along with those findings, other information came to light that demonstrated that the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin may have been the biggest carbon 14 dating mistake ever made.

As if that was not enough, Philips, who understood the fact, wrote in Nature, "It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made," underscoring the other fact about the Shroud of Turin. Not only does no one know the real age of the cloth, no one knows how the images were made. They were not painted, as Philips points out. Nor were they some type of medieval photography. That, Philips thought was absurd.

If we rely only on peer-reviewed science journals we know this: The Shroud of Turin is at least 1300 years old. The images are a darkening of an otherwise clear starch and polysaccharide coating thinner than most bacteria. The Shroud of Turin is not medieval.

I couldnt tell you if its real or not...if it is a fake, I would have to say that its the greatest con that ive ever laid eyes on....but again I have no clue, im like phantum...sometimes I do and sometimes I dont, its really up in the air but what I thought was cool was the fact that they thought of putting blood marks on the shoulder from where he was carrying a cross....very strange but I guess any intelligent con artist would think of that

O and good find GW by the way...thanks for that link

Don't know what it is, but based on the physiology of the image, it is not a Jew of the 1st century. It is probably that of a European Male of the medieval period.

heres some additional reading http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/3d.htm

i have to agree with that... because that's what it looks like... lol...
it almost looks like more of a picture than something that would be wrapped around someone's face... but that's just my OPINION...

great observation Mako

check that link out above ^

Edit: but yeah it does look more of the midievil

You mean the Shroud that covered Jesus?

I was watching a program about the thing that covered Jesus. And they said it was a fake though. Made in the middle ages by someone. :/

Recently its been discovered that the carbon dating was done on a piece of shroud that was woven in, or at least thats how ive interpreted....Doesnt mean its jesus but does open the possibility that its anywhere from 1300-2000 yrs old....its still gonna be hard to pawn it to Christ but it least its a step closer to what it actually is

The SOT is a medieval forgery. That said, I would love to see the Vatican allow further testing to make absolutely sure. Their refusal to do so only shows their fear of the possible outcome.

I believe it is. He looks Jewish it has Jewish male AB blood found on it dating back to the time of Jesus, and also contains pieces of wood particles on it.

And all of this proves nothing.

Of course it does. It proves a Jewish male with AB blood was crucified with a crowning of thorns, stabbed in the side, nailed in the wrists and ankles which dates to the time of Jesus. NO ONE else was crucified like that.

LOL!...I'm sorry. A piece of cloth with blood and wood on it, doesn't prove that someone was crucified with a crown of thorns, stabbed in the side, nail holes in hands and feet, placed in a tomb, came back to life 3 days later, and is now our personal savior.

You don't believe it because you don't believe Jesus exitsed at all. I'm Jewish and even I believe Jesus in the Son of God. As for 'personal savior' I never liked that term much too born again christiany, they personally annoy me.

WOW, my dear Ashley, how presumptious of you to KNOW what I believe. I do know that I have many friends that are "born again Christians", and I'm sorry that they annoy you.

My beatles cd collection is more holy than that shroud.

Doesn't it always come down to people who believe in "certain" "objects" or "artifacts "?
Don't you think , that : It's the Belief , that makes the objects "sacred " ?

Sama

" You can get attached to an object . Never get dependant ."

And I would disagree that the image on the SOT looks like a first century Jewish male. Far from it. The image appears more of an idealized portrait of Jesus--very European, long hair so forth and so on. Jesus, for one, would not have had long hair. This was against Torah Law.

Respectfully,

Sean

I thought other people were crucified not just Jesus.

That proves a bunch of nothing on a plate. You just want to believe.

The shroud of Turin looks exactly like the Jesus in GoddessWhispers signature.

The shroud proves as much as evolution, they are equally debatable with many counter arguments, so stop flaming people for their beliefs please... It annoys me so.

It does have that European man look. I have heard some say it is the work of Leonardo, but he would not have done fraud. He was a man of honor, look at his work he was meticulous.



Killing was the national was the past time of Rome. Kind of like soccer. The more painful the better, they liked to set an example. Annoy the Roman leaders by trying to over throw government it could get mighty bad.

Truly, I don't know. There's some very weird stuff about it, like the fact that it is a "negative", in photographic terms, but I can't say for sure. There have been other examinations like the one that examined the remains of pollen and the like- palynology- that said it was from the time of Jesus, and then the Carbon 14 dating that says that it was from the Medieval Times.

Whatever the case, it's still a fascinating relic to read about

I seriously doubt that the Shroud is any kind of holy relic. Even the Church is too cautious to state categorically that it is the Shroud of Christ, which as someone already mentioned indicates that the Church itself has doubts.

And all this carrying-on about the radiocarbon dates...the only people who seem to have a problem with the 1988 results are the "true believers" in the Shroud's authenticity. I guarantee you, if the results had shown that the Shroud had dated back 2000 years, no one would have questioned the results. (Except maybe the NON-believers--this all gets very confusing not to mention subjective!!).

Amd even if it did turn out to be the shroud of a man crucified in the Middle East 2000 years ago (a very big IF IMO)--but if it did, how would that prove whose shroud it was?! Thousands of people were killed just that way, during those years--it was a very common method of execution amongst first-century Romans. And lots of first-century Jews were certainly amongst the victims. That doesn't prove that this Shroud--even if it WERE that old, which is very doubtful--was the burial cloth of one particular Jew.