Turin Shroud 'is not a medieval forgery'

[docyabut2]

I find the shroud very interesting, there is the debate on if Jesus did appeared in a spiritual form to some that were whitnesses to or he really did survive the cross and as some say the shroud is the resurrection. I`m Christain and to me its not why Jesus died on the cross, or not, but that he lived to give us those messages of love and hope.

[Copen]

It is amazing how many Christians want so desperately to have some idol made of cloth, wood, metal, etc. which has not eyes to see, nor ears to hear, mouth to speak in which to reverence (worship) as though it is God (include crosses also as idols). Christians of today are as pagan and idolatrous as Israel became in the Old Testament.

Why would God break His own commandment??? We are told in the 10 commandments that we are not to have an image of Him. Why could He leave an image of Himself and break His own commandment???

Why cling to the logic of man when it contradicts scripture???? The Bible says the nails pierced His hands (NOT HIS WRIST as the Shroud indicates). He didn't show doubting Thomas the nail scars in His wrists. Jesus showed the nail scars in His hands and His side.

Don't forget, the devil can heal and if that would sway someone to disbelieve the scriptures in a little place, he has gained a foothold that would cause you to disbelieve something else. If any of the scriptures are not true - - - - - - then all of it is false.

God bless

[Harte]

It is amazing how many Christians want so desperately to have some idol made of cloth, wood, metal, etc. which has not eyes to see, nor ears to hear, mouth to speak in which to reverence (worship) as though it is God (include crosses also as idols). Christians of today are as pagan and idolatrous as Israel became in the Old Testament.

"Today?"

Some of these cross pieces (etc.) date back to the Dark Ages.

Most Christians today wouldn't mind if the Shroud was a fake. I think people understand that the idea of a local tradition does not trump the faith. Centuries ago, there were a handful of these shrouds making the rounds, and if you couldn't keep your disbelief to yourself, why, you'd hang or burn.

Assuming you were lighter than a duck, that is.

[Mr Walker]

Experiments conducted by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy have dated the shroud to ancient times, a few centuries before and after the life of Christ.

Many Catholics believe that the 14ft-long linen cloth, which bears the imprint of the face and body of a bearded man, was used to bury Christ's body when he was lifted down from the cross after being crucified 2,000 years ago.

The tests will revive the debate about the true origins of one of Christianity's most prized but mysterious relics and are likely to be hotly contested by sceptics.

http://www.telegraph...al-forgery.html

This is my understanding of the most modern test results and analysis. It doesnt mean it was the shroud of jesus but it does mean it COULD have been, whereas if made in the middle ages that would have been impossible. It was certainly repaired in the middle ages, complicating the dating process.

[Mr Walker]

my biggest problem with this shroud is one often overlooked, jesus being bornand raised in the time he was would have adhered to a certain standard of appearance. He probably wanted people to listen to him and probably tried to keep up with his appearance, he likely had the style of a commoner and as such would have had close cropped hair and a shaven face. He wouldnt have had long hair or a beard which the face on the shroud features. in the show someone else mentioned, the computer enhanced face looked a lot like a 14th century french or italian man with hair and beard styled to match. the image was also made with a chemical reaction similar to that of a modern day strip of film that has been exposed to an image which also explains the image's lack of pigment and negative image. its a fake however creative. all that aside people also tend to overlook the fact that there are zero credible mentions of jesus in the annals of history, casting serious doubts as to a real jesus having ever existed. dont you think if jesus was going all over the sainai claiming to be god or the son of god there would have been enough people writing and making mention of him for us to have one document survive. instead we get a clever greek book featuring a man claming to be god featuring many facets of dionysius and heracles written by jews that are not wealthy but for some reason are not in israel. it all sounds so out of place and almost disrespectful to our intellegence to expect us to really believe anythin in or about the new testament. in the immortal words of my friend Alan; "i call bullsh*t"

So what do you look like, and how do you fit the standard appearance of your race place and time?

Plus christ is one of the most written about people in history. What you mean is that there are no precisle contemorary historical accounts about him That is really not suprising, especially if it is true that he realy only achieved fame with his death and ressurection. Before that, he was just another of many local country preachers., but written accounts of his followers/ churches etc, did begin with a decade or two of his death and he is mentioned in historical writings within a century of his death. This is more than many "historical" figures of that time achieved. How many ancient romans from that 30 year period do we now have contemporary historical documentation about? And they lived in the greatest city of the age.

[Falael]

What you don't seem to comprehend is that a miracle, by definition, cannot be scientifically or rationnaly explained.

If it is a forgery like you suggest, how was it made? Even scientists agree that with all their modern technology, they cannot reproduce such an imprint...

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

This shroud is fake. It is desirable to prove it is fake though not essential. What we are dealing with here is the rational versus the irrational, faith versus everybody else. It is not sufficient for believers in medeival nonsense to talk about the bible this and the bible that. Such believers must give proof of these miracles and not expect the rest of us to roll over and submit to their beliefs. The onus to give proof is on the beleivers, not the skeptics, otherwise the world becomes a mad place believing in all manner of nonsense simply because one group of people say it is so and /or the word of some god. Show positive proof that this shroud is what it is said to be, proof, not faith.

Hmm, if believers say it is real and that it is created by a "miracle", (magic would be a more honest word), that cannot be tested by science (how convenient), then Christians should not condemn any non Christian magic, which they do unto the point of death in some cases even to today in parts of the world.. Christians cannot have it both ways, either you believe in magic or not, you believe in the irrational over the rational or not.

[docyabut2]

Who would have ever thought that this one man Jesus , would have had such a impact on the world, if the accounts of his life and death on the cross were not true in some way.I`m usually a skeptic on things, but the shroud is turely a amazing artifact of his time.

[Mr Walker]

ANOTHER HUGE PROBLEM!!! The image on the shroud was not made by light or radiation coming from a body. The wounds are visible in blood and in the hazy coloration that makes the image. explain why details such as wounds, veins and any defining feature including hair (which is dead "tissue" even when were alive) would be visible due to radiation. Light when captured on film (and the way it is "printed") comes from a source image and is reflected back to us in a single beam per micro pixel, omnidirectioanl light is thus diffused in the atmosphere and we are left with a clear image on the back of our retina. Now like any light source the supposed body would emit light (radiation) omnidirectionally (in every direction) and would not create a perfect linear-light patterned image like we see. Imagine a light-bulb shaped like a statue of Jesus. and the statue laid down in a dark room and a sheet of silver-nitrate cellulose film approximately the same size as the shroud over and under the bulb. Blink the bulb on for just a tenth of a second to get the exposure. develop the exposure and i prommise you won't get much of anything in the way of a christ-like image. Apologists are trying to get you to believe that if you do just that, you will get a shroud like image. The shroud is a printed fake made with archaic photographing chemicals and if a person was under that shroud and emitted a light or radiation the image would look nothing like it does. bottom line.

Wait a minute the documentaries I have seen say that the imprint is a natural process related to the properties of blood . It had nothing to do with radiation or light. Simply the imprint of blood soaked into the shroud of a dead man.There are other shrouds of other people with similar blood imprints on them. As far as I was aware, despite watching a number of documetaries, no scientist has suggested that the imprint was made of a light /radiation source, but none have rejected the ability of such an imprint to occur under purely natural conditions. The debate has always been about the AGE of the shroud.

Is there ANY scientific evidence that people in the medieval period had the knowdge or abilty to create a "photographic image"? while the use of nitric acid to separate gold and silver was known at the time and the resultant silver nitrate was a product, any connection to its use as a "photographic' agent would have to be supposition . One possibilty could be that given silvers long known antibiotic properties, and its use for thousands of years as a disinfectant, bodies might have been washed in a solution like this.

[Mr Walker]

There are recods aon almost every roman of any importance even if they are mentioned in passing. This Jesus fella, if real. Incited an entire community to kill someone on a holiday and let a murderer go free. You expect me or anyone else to believe no one wrote about him, in a society with one of the highest literacy rates in the world at the time. I fit rather well into my society with my looks but were not a society like ancient Jerusalem. Social standards meant everything, and for a rabbi (jesus was a rabbi, or so he is claimed to be) to have long hair and a big beard would have been unacceptable to many many people. Assuming that Jesus was real the miracles he supposedly performed would have freaked a lot of paople out especially since there has been a long standing prohibition on miracle works in Jewish society. It even say in Deuteronomy that anyone performing miracles, speaking of other gods (jesus himself, and the holy spirit) and prophecising the future are to be put to death, because they are testing your faith in G-d, and obviously based on the events outlined in the NT and the statutes set forth in Deut. it's obvious that Jesus broke the rules and paid the ultimate price. Some 30 years after jesus' alleged life/death Simon Bar Cochbah was hailed as a messiah and actually fit the bill almost perfectly (much closer than Jesus) and was later killed because his revolt against the Romans ultimately got the city destroyed. Simon BC was well documented and curiously no one that wrote about him compared him to Jesus, mostly because Jesus was unimportant. It's funny to me that not one of the historical mentions of Jesus (which are all either fake, or not in refrence to the biblical Jesus) were made by Jews, (outside the bible) and all of the books of the bible are written by Greek Jews that abviously never read the old testament or intentionally misquoted the OT to make their story fit. The biggest problem i see with the Jesus story is that not only is he abviously an amalgamation of gods and demi-gods from the region but He is referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, which was not a real city until the 4th century and was likely named after Jesus. That being said the messiah was supposed to be someone from the city of David (bethlehem ''bet'lechim" 'house of bread) where jesus was born but obviously he grew up in another place but since no one knows where that is 4th century bible authors attributed the city of Nazareth with Bethlehem because Bethlehem was a lost city at the time and wasnt re founded until the second crusade. Claiming that the NT is the word of god is just plain lunacy and you all know it. Only matthew was written within 30-40 years of what it accounts but it wasnt written by an israelite and was likely a greek who was way out of touch with his Jewish roots. The misquiotations and taking verses out of context, using psalms as prophecy and so and so forth are obvious signs of uninspired and downright fictional authorship. All that aside, Jesus never did and never will fufill the prophecies surrounding the Messiah, he was never anointed with oil, and he indirectly caused the holocaust, I'd sat that Jesus was anything but the Messiah, since the jesus came into the picture, jews have never need more persecution and anguish. point!... my phone sucks and i have big thumbs, forgive mistakes. im lazy.

You are allowing your distaste for the religious side of christ to influence your belief in his historical side. There is no historical doubt that christ, as portrayed in the gospels as a man, existed. He had followers at the time of his death who worshipped locally, and with in a decade or two were as widespread as rome. There were locala churches across the middle east before the gospels as we know them were ever published. The mythology of christianity today incoporates babylonian egyptian pagan and other mythos. The old testament jewish writings incorporate babylonian and egyptian beliefs, as one would expect given their formation in those parts of the world. Jesus created a pivotal evolution fronm judaism to christianity aided and abbetted by paul /saul But christianity gained the dominance it did in large part because of its universla appeal to the psyche of humanity. Judaism had, "by design," a much more limited appeal, and was self limiting.

And actually there are very few contemporary records of romans of the period, and those include only those already famous in their life times. Christ never was famous or well known in his life, or even after it for some time. In fact he was unknown to people, until the few days surrounding his death, except to the locals who walked with him listened to him and observed him. Some of these loved him, some hated what he was saying. Iam sure some wrote letters some wrote diaries some recorded his sayings These seem to no longer exist as many historical documents no longer exist but his life lived on in the folowers in the local area who quickly spread the message out into the surounding areas. Paul was writing to churches of these members. He didnt create the "mythology"/story of christ, or the churches, or the followers of christ. They already existed and had done, from 30AD They began as " christian jews" because christ was a jew.

With Paul's work the gospel spread to non jews and they became the principle audience, because they were more open to conversion than the already very devout jews, many of whom who saw christ as a blasphemer, or at the very least as a "very naughty boy." The later christians did wrong inpersecuting the jews but then the jews had always been persecuted for example by the romans.

The catholic church misunderstood the relationship between christ, judaism, and christianity. Judaism is the birth place and cornerstone of christianty, and christ would have been impossible without its background.and history.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Mr Walker

[+Link of Hyrule]

There are recods aon almost every roman of any importance even if they are mentioned in passing. This Jesus fella, if real. Incited an entire community to kill someone on a holiday and let a murderer go free. You expect me or anyone else to believe no one wrote about him, in a society with one of the highest literacy rates in the world at the time. I fit rather well into my society with my looks but were not a society like ancient Jerusalem. Social standards meant everything, and for a rabbi (jesus was a rabbi, or so he is claimed to be) to have long hair and a big beard would have been unacceptable to many many people. Assuming that Jesus was real the miracles he supposedly performed would have freaked a lot of paople out especially since there has been a long standing prohibition on miracle works in Jewish society. It even say in Deuteronomy that anyone performing miracles, speaking of other gods (jesus himself, and the holy spirit) and prophecising the future are to be put to death, because they are testing your faith in G-d, and obviously based on the events outlined in the NT and the statutes set forth in Deut. it's obvious that Jesus broke the rules and paid the ultimate price. Some 30 years after jesus' alleged life/death Simon Bar Cochbah was hailed as a messiah and actually fit the bill almost perfectly (much closer than Jesus) and was later killed because his revolt against the Romans ultimately got the city destroyed. Simon BC was well documented and curiously no one that wrote about him compared him to Jesus, mostly because Jesus was unimportant. It's funny to me that not one of the historical mentions of Jesus (which are all either fake, or not in refrence to the biblical Jesus) were made by Jews, (outside the bible) and all of the books of the bible are written by Greek Jews that abviously never read the old testament or intentionally misquoted the OT to make their story fit. The biggest problem i see with the Jesus story is that not only is he abviously an amalgamation of gods and demi-gods from the region but He is referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, which was not a real city until the 4th century and was likely named after Jesus. That being said the messiah was supposed to be someone from the city of David (bethlehem ''bet'lechim" 'house of bread) where jesus was born but obviously he grew up in another place but since no one knows where that is 4th century bible authors attributed the city of Nazareth with Bethlehem because Bethlehem was a lost city at the time and wasnt re founded until the second crusade. Claiming that the NT is the word of god is just plain lunacy and you all know it. Only matthew was written within 30-40 years of what it accounts but it wasnt written by an israelite and was likely a greek who was way out of touch with his Jewish roots. The misquiotations and taking verses out of context, using psalms as prophecy and so and so forth are obvious signs of uninspired and downright fictional authorship. All that aside, Jesus never did and never will fufill the prophecies surrounding the Messiah, he was never anointed with oil, and he indirectly caused the holocaust, I'd sat that Jesus was anything but the Messiah, since the jesus came into the picture, jews have never need more persecution and anguish. point!... my phone sucks and i have big thumbs, forgive mistakes. im lazy.

Hi brizink,

I was wondering what your thoughts were about the following paragraphs (an excerpt from the Introduction of a favourite book of mine):

Christianity arrived on the scene at a time of great literary activity. Philosophers were writing weighty tomes on the meaning of life. Poets and playwrights were composing material to make people laugh and cry. Emperors were crafting royal propaganda to ensure they were well remembered. And historians were recording for posterity all that they could discover about the startling events surrounding the rise of the Roman Empire. The non-biblical writings from this period (100BC-AD200) fill many shelves in your local university library.

One lucky outcome of this flurry of literary output is that a small town Jewish teacher, named Yeshua, Anglicised as Jesus, happened to rate a mention in several of the writings of the period. This is not as predictable as you might imagine. Although today we recognise Jesus as the founder of the world's largest religion, back in the first century he was hardly known outside the tiny strip of Roman ruled land called Palestine. It is a happy accident of history that Jesus rated a mention outside the texts of the New Testament.

~ Google Books link

If this introduction is to be believed, the fact that we even have any writings about Jesus at all is a bit of an historical lucky break. If you can, I'd actually recommend getting a hold of this book. As I said, it's a favourite of mine. I own two copies. One for my own personal collection to read and review whenever needed, and one that I routinely lend out to anyone I know who is interested in this kind of thing.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[Curley Fryes]

It is amazing how many Christians want so desperately to have some idol made of cloth, wood, metal, etc. which has not eyes to see, nor ears to hear, mouth to speak in which to reverence (worship) as though it is God (include crosses also as idols). Christians of today are as pagan and idolatrous as Israel became in the Old Testament.

Why would God break His own commandment??? We are told in the 10 commandments that we are not to have an image of Him. Why could He leave an image of Himself and break His own commandment???

Why cling to the logic of man when it contradicts scripture???? The Bible says the nails pierced His hands (NOT HIS WRIST as the Shroud indicates). He didn't show doubting Thomas the nail scars in His wrists. Jesus showed the nail scars in His hands and His side.

Don't forget, the devil can heal and if that would sway someone to disbelieve the scriptures in a little place, he has gained a foothold that would cause you to disbelieve something else. If any of the scriptures are not true - - - - - - then all of it is false.

God bless

The image is supposedly of Jesus, not God.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

The image is supposedly of Jesus, not God.

Then there is no trinity, and the Hebrew god does not exist. Just as I thought

[Mr Walker]

Then there is no trinity, and the Hebrew god does not exist. Just as I thought

The problem may be your understanding of the trinity. Jesus is, in part, the human face of god (when on earth) In heaven he has a differnt form.Hhe is known as the word or creative aspect of god. God the father is a sapient being who can manifest in both energy and material forms at will.

To me an anlogy is like this. Jesus is my body. God is my mind/consciousness will and spirit, and the holy spirit is my energy system/ force, and that which allows me to act. In the case of god, as in our own case, all these things are part of a singular consciouness yet have their own consciousness and identity. I am like that also.

I have my own consciousness and identity yet can link with that of god and of other human beings in an emotional, intellectual and spiritual level. Personally i would argue that humans are linked ot god on a physical level also from my experiences, but others would disagree. The hebrews didnt really see god as a trinity in the same way/fashion as some christians view him, although there were similarities. God walked among them. He was a personal being who could communicate one on one with them, work physical miracles on earth, and who was an integral part of their daily life, yet he was also a being of spirit, and very different from humans in nature and form.

Think of it this way. If you viewed my burial shroud image, would that represent who I am or tell you anything about me as a living person? Of course not. The I is inside. The consciousness, life and spirit of a self aware being is not represented in the image of a dead body, which is only its material host.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Copen]

The image is supposedly of Jesus, not God.

Jesus is God!

The image is supposedly of Jesus, not God.

Jesus is God. The only image we are to see of God is man who is God Triune image. Man has a mind, a heart, and a flesh body. They are united as one, yet they are individually separate and perform different functions. They are each made up of each other. Flesh is in the heart and flesh is in the mind. You can't take the flesh out of the heart or out of the mind. They are in each other united as one. Thus is the Holy Spirit replicated in the power of the mind and emotions, the Father in the heart, and Jesus Christ in the body of flesh. Jesus is in the Father and is the Father. "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father, for I am in Him and He in Me."

[docyabut2]

Seems like good ol fashioned apologist gobblty-gook to me. the author presents his argument well and that muc deserves merit but the fact is that Jesus was discussed endlessly by the Sanhedrin or local Rabbinical order or Jerusalem quite extensively which as you may know were very meticulous and recorded rulings and associated findings tirelessly much like any court of law would today. Nothing from around the time of Jesus, or otherwise mentions a Jesus/Yeshuah for any reason within a reasonable time frame. Someone else made the argument that because he had man y followers to begin with and within a short period of time after his death he was venerated and worshiped all the way in Rome means he must have existed. This is just ridiculous because if we use that train of thought and apply it to any other deity, we must assume they pretty much all had to have existed. I don't believe he existed but that's not the real topic anyway. The legitimacy of this shroud is the topic. It's clearly a fake, and the facts are that G-d is responsible for all things (according to Christians) including the apparent laws of the universe and all the sciences associated with them. In that right, we should be able to apply at least some amount of that knowledge and prove a measurable portion of some proposed miracles, or on the flip-side of that, disprove them.

Perhaps the Jewish priests in their records would never have recorded the crucifixion of Jesus at that time, because he was a man labeled, named on a board set above his cross, as a king of the Jews.