Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Does the Turin Shroud show the face of the Fisher King ?


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

 
I believe it is the image of Christ and have no reason to doubt it. Carbon dating is very inaccurate on something exposed to a fire. It was kept and taken care of all this time because of it authenticity. But people are welcome to believe in what they wish.
  • Haha 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the most credulous still believe christ was involved in this one.

Actually this new story is far more likely the truth.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus is not amused... 

Quote

JesusOnToast2.jpg

~

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy this explanation.  For this scenario to be plausible the monks would have had to wrap the statute in such a way that:

  1. The cloth is in close contact at all the key points of the body, especially the face, the six-pack, the fine detail of the fingers.  A loose drape hanging over a statue would not produce that effect.  It would have to be tightly tied at regular intervals.  Who would ever wrap a statue like that?
  2. On the shroud, in between the front and back images, there's a gap.  A gap where the sheet would be touching the top of the statue.  There is no image of the top of the statue where the sheet would most obviously be touching it.
  3. Then there's the sides of the cloth - there's no image there.  So the monks wrapped the statue tightly enough to (inadvertently) show each and every phalange, but carefully folded back the cloth at the sides leaving the statue there uncovered?  How does that make any sense?

This is just another desperate, silly theory.  The calibre of the author's approach is summed up in this quote:

“However, there was a twist. The outline of the statue needed enhancing – there were no traces of blood on the head ...  To remedy this the monks of Burton Abbey almost certainly enhanced the image of the Fisher King - using their own blood! This would have been easy for them to obtain as Burton Abbey was famous for bloodletting.”

What on Earth does that mean?  Did no monks anywhere else practise bloodletting?  Did the monks up the road in Derby miss a trick, because they also had a statue and image on a cloth but couldn't work out where to get a bit o' blood from?

This strikes me as typical of the well-intentioned, but ultimately deluded, characters who consider themselves vastly more gifted and insightful than the rest of us.  They get the kernel of an idea, then manage to twist every known (and imagined) fact to suit their narrative.  They churn out unverifiable nonsense like:

“It is possible that the statue of the Fisher King was destroyed at the same time – just in case someone spotted the likeness between it and the supposed image of Christ." 

and kerchinggg! another book finished!

The remaking of Notre-Dame | Financial Times  =  How did the Turin Shroud get its image? - BBC News  ?

2 hours ago, Freez1 said:

Carbon dating is very inaccurate on something exposed to a fire.

I love it when people with no scientific training whatsoever repeat dumb claims like this!  The tiniest bit of research (or knowledge) will reveal the spurious research behind this claim was debunked years ago.  Let me know if you want the full explanation? XxX

4 minutes ago, SHaYap said:

Jesus is not amused... 

That's NOT proof!  Not unless you've also got the reverse image...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

I don't buy this explanation.  For this scenario to be plausible the monks would have had to wrap the statute in such a way that:

  1. The cloth is in close contact at all the key points of the body, especially the face, the six-pack, the fine detail of the fingers.  A loose drape hanging over a statue would not produce that effect.  It would have to be tightly tied at regular intervals.  Who would ever wrap a statue like that?
  2. On the shroud, in between the front and back images, there's a gap.  A gap where the sheet would be touching the top of the statue.  There is no image of the top of the statue where the sheet would most obviously be touching it.
  3. Then there's the sides of the cloth - there's no image there.  So the monks wrapped the statue tightly enough to (inadvertently) show each and every phalange, but carefully folded back the cloth at the sides leaving the statue there uncovered?  How does that make any sense?

This is just another desperate, silly theory.  The calibre of the author's approach is summed up in this quote:

“However, there was a twist. The outline of the statue needed enhancing – there were no traces of blood on the head ...  To remedy this the monks of Burton Abbey almost certainly enhanced the image of the Fisher King - using their own blood! This would have been easy for them to obtain as Burton Abbey was famous for bloodletting.”

What on Earth does that mean?  Did no monks anywhere else practise bloodletting?  Did the monks up the road in Derby miss a trick, because they also had a statue and image on a cloth but couldn't work out where to get a bit o' blood from?

This strikes me as typical of the well-intentioned, but ultimately deluded, characters who consider themselves vastly more gifted and insightful than the rest of us.  They get the kernel of an idea, then manage to twist every known (and imagined) fact to suit their narrative.  They churn out unverifiable nonsense like:

“It is possible that the statue of the Fisher King was destroyed at the same time – just in case someone spotted the likeness between it and the supposed image of Christ." 

and kerchinggg! another book finished!

The remaking of Notre-Dame | Financial Times  =  How did the Turin Shroud get its image? - BBC News  ?

I love it when people with no scientific training whatsoever repeat dumb claims like this!  The tiniest bit of research (or knowledge) will reveal the spurious research behind this claim was debunked years ago.  Let me know if you want the full explanation? XxX

That's NOT proof!  Not unless you've also got the reverse image...

The pic of a statues face and the face on the shroud do look a lot a like.

After all the things i read about the shroud ive come to the conclusion that those who believe christ was wrapped in this cloth base that mostly on faith, since i am always open to new information and changing my mind i will ask right here if a person does believe the shroud was wrapped around christ please give me your top 5 pieces of supportive evidence.

Thanks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

That's NOT proof!  Not unless you've also got the reverse image...

Jam or peanut butter? 

~

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

I don't buy this explanation.  For this scenario to be plausible the monks would have had to wrap the statute in such a way that:

  1. The cloth is in close contact at all the key points of the body, especially the face, the six-pack, the fine detail of the fingers.  A loose drape hanging over a statue would not produce that effect.  It would have to be tightly tied at regular intervals.  Who would ever wrap a statue like that?
  2. On the shroud, in between the front and back images, there's a gap.  A gap where the sheet would be touching the top of the statue.  There is no image of the top of the statue where the sheet would most obviously be touching it.
  3. Then there's the sides of the cloth - there's no image there.  So the monks wrapped the statue tightly enough to (inadvertently) show each and every phalange, but carefully folded back the cloth at the sides leaving the statue there uncovered?  How does that make any sense?

This is just another desperate, silly theory.  The calibre of the author's approach is summed up in this quote:

“However, there was a twist. The outline of the statue needed enhancing – there were no traces of blood on the head ...  To remedy this the monks of Burton Abbey almost certainly enhanced the image of the Fisher King - using their own blood! This would have been easy for them to obtain as Burton Abbey was famous for bloodletting.”

What on Earth does that mean?  Did no monks anywhere else practise bloodletting?  Did the monks up the road in Derby miss a trick, because they also had a statue and image on a cloth but couldn't work out where to get a bit o' blood from?

This strikes me as typical of the well-intentioned, but ultimately deluded, characters who consider themselves vastly more gifted and insightful than the rest of us.  They get the kernel of an idea, then manage to twist every known (and imagined) fact to suit their narrative.  They churn out unverifiable nonsense like:

“It is possible that the statue of the Fisher King was destroyed at the same time – just in case someone spotted the likeness between it and the supposed image of Christ." 

and kerchinggg! another book finished!

The remaking of Notre-Dame | Financial Times  =  How did the Turin Shroud get its image? - BBC News  ?

I love it when people with no scientific training whatsoever repeat dumb claims like this!  The tiniest bit of research (or knowledge) will reveal the spurious research behind this claim was debunked years ago.  Let me know if you want the full explanation? XxX

That's NOT proof!  Not unless you've also got the reverse image...

I cant wait for your rejection/rebuttal  paper to be published.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the Shroud of Turin was used to wrap the body of Christ. And this story of a statute of the Fisher King of the Grail stories I have never heard of. Even if Burton Abbey had susch a statute, it doesn't explain the scourge marks and some other features on the shroud itself.Nice try.
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
10 hours ago, HollyDolly said:

I still think the Shroud of Turin was used to wrap the body of Christ. And this story of a statute of the Fisher King of the Grail stories I have never heard of. Even if Burton Abbey had susch a statute, it doesn't explain the scourge marks and some other features on the shroud itself.Nice try.

And i do not believe the SoT was used to wrap christ, any human or a statue and the reason is,

If i take a lite colored cloth and get it a wee bit damp and set ut aside then take black eye shadow powder and apply it to my eye lids, lips, chin, nose tip ears then lay back eyes closed and lay that cloth on my face and press it down on my eyes, lips ears etc to pick up some power and lift the cloth off my face and lay it flat the image is all weird wide distorted not the pretty well proportioned face etc painted on the shroud.

The shroud wasnt wrapped around anything it was created while flat.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the image is a Frankish knight.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2022 at 11:52 PM, Freez1 said:

I believe it is the image of Christ and have no reason to doubt it. Carbon dating is very inaccurate on something exposed to a fire. It was kept and taken care of all this time because of it authenticity. But people are welcome to believe in what they wish.

Yes, because Jesus obviously had Northern European facial features and body structure. :rolleyes:

  • Like 6
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Piney said:

I still think the image is a Frankish knight.

Way back the first time i saw SoT i thought the knight thing too but in my case for some reason i went with a knight from the round table lore,

If hung overlapped then a viewer could see the front and back as the move past it.

The subjects hair could be chainmail, look at the back of the subject to me that looks far more like armour than a nude dead body.

Where the subjects hands are would fit perfectly with a sword from there to the ground, as many knights posed at rest.

 

OIP._rB2LlaO5sw7fS2fZiKPEgHaKW?w=193&h=2

 

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@the13bats

My theory is because the images musculature shows someone who spent a lifetime on a horse swinging weapons. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is any sort of image of a male face always the face of Jesus? Why do people make a big deal out of these rather dim images? Do they walk around looking at the clouds and seeing the face of Jesus in each days random cloud arraignment. What I like the best are the ones with the typical European features that   you see all to often in pictures depicting Jesus. They seem to forget that he was a Jewish gentleman of Middle Eastern decent. Throw in the fact that he worked out in the sun for many years before hitting the road to spread his gospel. The often seen view of Jesus as a rather pale skinned European man has always rather bothered me. It seems that a lot of people feel that what Jesus looked like is important.

I expect that when or if a Deity wishes to make his image known it is unlikely it will be on a piece of toast, a table cloth, or some other odd piece of trash. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lies .... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I was looking at my dog's anus when suddenly... Jesus! : r/funny

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.