Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
AndyThorley

The shroud of Turin

84 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

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...

Edited by AndyThorley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

Not to mention the markings on the body of the shroud are exactly the same as a victim of crucifixion.

Medievil paintings of crucified people show them with the nails through the palms. If you nail someone to a plank like that then they fall off...palms are not load bearing.

Wrists are. Plus there's a muscle in there that if you sever it it makes the thumb pull into the palm like crucified people do.

Whoever did this would have to have had some insider knowledge...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

It also matches the supposed path that the shroud took.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. original.gif

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. .

Ok saucy I'm fed up with your "Ive proven that all formes of dating are 100% wrong" bs. Just because 4 (wasnt it 4?) experiments provided the incorrect date doesnt mean that the other dates that were verified to be true should be forgotten...

Radiometric dating:

Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results. Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

Radiometric dates are consistent with several non-radiometric dating methods.

The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot.

Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity.

Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method.

Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older."

The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on only a few examples. They ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates. One study alone contains about 700 radiometric dating samples on Scottish granite, showing consistent results.

Radiocarbon dating:

Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement which exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages not much older than 50,000 years. Using it to date older items will give bad results. In their claims of errors, creationists don't consider such misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for they themselves to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the Carbon-14 dating method. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar back for more than 10,000 years. It has also been tested on items whose age is known through historical records, such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb. Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok saucy I'm fed up with your "Ive proven that all formes of dating are 100% wrong" bs.

Stellar, it's knowledge claimed in ignorance. What a better way to try and dismiss (in a person's own mind) something which is a proven process, when you know little or nothing of how that process really works. It's Saucyology through and through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

Do we have DNA samples of Christopher Columbus?

No we do not.

That means that the discovery of america must be a complete fabrication.

Damn you history teachers for lying to us wink2.gif

Lack of evidence =/= lack of validity.

We know who it's meant to be by making educated guesses. We know where it was and how long ago it was there. We know what happened to the man, we know he fits the traditional description of Jesus (though the bible describes him as a black dude with a 'fro...strange how people miss that one)...

So it's guesswork.

Edited by AndyThorley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by Stellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Da Vinci wasn't that good.

Shame , shame saucy old chap!

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

What inability do you feel he had that would prevent him from creating such an image, I could show you many, many drawings, paintings that display an expertise at 3d design.

He was much more than a painter, he was an inventer first and foremost.

user posted image

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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?

Edited by Stellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

The stone could have been rolled back for any number of reasons.

Personally I think it's because the three ladies who found Jesus had risen wouldnt stand a chance of rolling it on their own wink2.gif

It wouldnt mean that Jesus performed miracles or had any tie to God.

There was a second Jesus? a kind of...Bizarro Jesus if you will?

who went about kicking puppies and pushing old ladies in front of mules?

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.

Now while I would be inclined to agree with you had ONE person written the new testament...it's a whole 'nother ball game when at least 23 different people wrote about it original.gif

The bible isnt a book...it's a collection of books.

That's what Holy Bible means..."Alternative/Different Library"

As for the spear mark on the side of the body on the shroud (the spear has an interesting story. apparently hitler used to own it...but thats another thread tongue.gif), DaVinci could have easily replicated it.

he supposedly used dead bodies to mark the cloth, so why not go all the way and make a little stabby stabby...

I highly doubt the piercing of Christ's side is a modern inclusion in the bible, wouldnt you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.