Friday, October 22, 2021
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
You are viewing: Home > News > Spirituality > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
Spirituality

Traces of blood found on the Shroud of Turin

July 17, 2017 | Comment icon 113 comments



Whose blood is on the shroud ? Image Credit: CC 3.0 Mogadir
A new analysis of the world-famous relic has allegedly revealed traces of blood from a torture victim.
The mysterious Turin Shroud, which is believed by many to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus himself, has long been the subject of intense scrutiny, controversy and debate.

Now following a thorough forensic examination of the cloth, researchers in Italy claim to have discovered traces of human blood within its fibers.

Not only that, but a scientific analysis of these blood particles has suggested that the individual in question had likely been subjected to a prolonged period of physical torture before they died.

"Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments point to a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin Shroud," said University of Padua professor Giulio Fanti.
The discovery has reignited debate over the true origins and authenticity of the shroud which for years has divided scientists and theologians alike. Some believe the relic to be a medieval forgery while others are convinced that it is genuine and that it dates back 2,000 years.

But could the presence of blood on the shroud really point to it being the actual burial cloth of Jesus ?

Given that the shroud has been moved around a lot over the centuries, even if there really is someone's blood on it, there is no guarantee that it has actually been there all along.

For all we know, the blood is from a monk or priest who handled the shroud relatively recently.

Source: Christian Post | Comments (113)



Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #104 Posted by jaylemurph 3 years ago
So your theory is you /do/ know better than the Gospels, which were written with a few years of the events, by eyewitnesses to the events, and generally credited as basically true by historians and archaeologists for decades? --Jaylemurph
Comment icon #105 Posted by DieChecker 3 years ago
So, you at least, are saying the Bible is believed by scholars to be generally historically correct? In a non-miraculous manner.... You're risking being tossed from the UM Bible skeptics club! 
Comment icon #106 Posted by bison 3 years ago
It's usually stated that Jesus died around 30 - 36 C.E. The earliest gospel, Mark was written around 66 -70 Luke and Matthew around 85 - 90 John about    90 - 110 We see, then, that  the gospels were written a generation, or two, after Jesus' death. All were written anonymously, despite the names ascribed to them.  It appears that none of the writers were eyewitnesses to the events depicted in them. I don't find it too surprising that these accounts contradict each other on a number of points.   
Comment icon #107 Posted by jaylemurph 3 years ago
They were never meant to be historical documents, per se. Like all of the Bible, they're propaganda. They present a certain image or scenario to a certain group of people. They were never meant to be taken together. The contradictions are literally beside the point. That said, there's no reason the rough outline of Jesus' ministry shouldn't be treated as broadly true. --Jaylemurph
Comment icon #108 Posted by DieChecker 3 years ago
Mark could have been written by a living witness. The Apostiles were supposedly all young men, most (all?) not even married yet. 20 + 40 only is 60. Which... I'd agree is old for back then, but very possible. Though it is said all the Apostles (but John?) were martyred. Still, many saw Jesus and so a first generation witness would be possible.
Comment icon #109 Posted by esoteric_toad 3 years ago
In order for the face to be projected unto the cloth like that the person covered in the shroud would have to have a head like a minecraft character. No distortion of wrapping. That to me is the giveaway that this wasn't a burial shroud at all (of anyone).
Comment icon #110 Posted by stereologist 3 years ago
I don't believe that the gospels were written by the Apostles and the people they are assigned to were not all apostles. What is known is the order in which they appeared and roughly the location of where they appeared. Studies of the wording suggest 4 independent authors. The order of the stories reflects increases in detail which is what is expected in any story that is told. https://books.google.com/books/about/Who_Wrote_the_Gospels.html?id=Zt_YAAAAMAAJ  
Comment icon #111 Posted by brian100 2 years ago
They didn't debunk anything.  
Comment icon #112 Posted by jaylemurph 2 years ago
Well that brilliant riposte was certainly worth necro-posting.  We don’t really just post videos here. What specific points from this video do you want to /discuss/ on this discussion forum — you can’t expect someone to slog through some random video for your pleasure. —Jaylemurph 
Comment icon #113 Posted by Davros of Skaro 2 years ago
Be sure to bust out the 3d glasses for his reply.


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Recent news and articles