Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest bippy123

Your view on the shroud of turin authentic or a forgery?

16 posts in this topic

Hey folks what is your view on the shroud of turin? is it a forgery, the real burial cloth of Christ? was the image on the cloth a result of some natural process from  body? Are your opinions of it based on current evidences of the shroud or not?

 

This could be fun folks hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a video presentation given by Doctor Wayne Phillips that has the up to date findings on the shroud from the STURP Team and also from other scientists that have studied the shroud.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets start with the 1988 c14 test that alleged that the shroud dated and why the test has been completely invalidated.

Before I go on about how agnostic chemist Ray Rogers completely invalidated the 1988 c14 tests lets take a look at why some scientists had doubts about it even back in 1988.

 

The tests cliamed to have shown that the shroud of turin dated from 1260–1390ad with a 95% certainty.

 

Why did shroud researchers doubt this claim?

There are many places to start but lets start with the hungarian pray codex.

This was a hunagrian manuscript that is dated from 1192 ad, 80 years before the c14 tests/

In that manuscript is a clear illustration of the shroud of turin with the artist drawing the 4 poker holes that are still present on the shroud with the unique 3 way herringbone weave. There is no doubt that this is an illustration of the shroud of turin.

 

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History/Greek-Byzantine/Pray-Codex/

 

The Hungarian Pray Codex, also commonly referred to as the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, is an ancient document in the Budapest National Library. It is named for György Pray (1723-1801), a Jesuit scholar historian who performed the first important study of it.  The codex is significant because it is the earliest known text in the ancient Finno-Ugric tribal languages of the Hungarian region.

This codex was written between 1192 and 1195. One illustration in the manuscript shows Jesus being placed on a burial shroud in one panel and a resurrection scene in another. The second panel shows a burial shroud with the identical pattern of burn holes found on the shroud. The artist has drawn the very unusual three-hop herringbone weave like that of the Shroud of Turin. There are a number of other depictions consistent with the Shroud. Jesus is shown naked with his arms modestly folded at the wrists, the fingers are unusually long and there are no visible thumbs. This seems artistically strange but to forensic pathologists this makes sense. They would simply be folded in under the whole of the hand.

The illustration also shows a clear mark on Jesus’ forehead where the most prominent 3-shaped bloodstain is found on the forehead of the man of the Shroud.   There can be little question that this illustrator of the Pray Codex, far removed from France and drawing at a time before the sacking of Constantinople knew something of the details about the Shroud.

 

This is one of the evidences that put serious doubt on the dates made by the 1988 c14 dating test.

 

More to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once thought it was authentic, but now I’m not so sure anymore. One reason for this is that the shroud is a long, rectangular cloth and Jesus’ burial cloths were several linen strips (used to wrap the body from feet to neck) and a separate cloth for his head (Luke 24:12, John 19:40, John 20:7). Another reason is that Jesus was buried according to Jewish traditions (John 19:40), so his body would have been washed and wrapped up in spices. No trace of any spice has been found on the shroud and the body from the shroud doesn't appear to have been washed either. Also, Jesus had nail holes in his hands (John 20:24-27), while the shroud image has no wound in his hand (only one in his wrist).

 

I think we’ll never be 100% sure if the shroud is authentic or not, but considering some of the facts presented in the Bible and elsewhere, I tend to believe it isn't Jesus’ burial cloth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once thought it was authentic, but now I’m not so sure anymore. One reason for this is that the shroud is a long, rectangular cloth and Jesus’ burial cloths were several linen strips (used to wrap the body from feet to neck) and a separate cloth for his head (Luke 24:12, John 19:40, John 20:7). Another reason is that Jesus was buried according to Jewish traditions (John 19:40), so his body would have been washed and wrapped up in spices. No trace of any spice has been found on the shroud and the body from the shroud doesn't appear to have been washed either. Also, Jesus had nail holes in his hands (John 20:24-27), while the shroud image has no wound in his hand (only one in his wrist).

 

I think we’ll never be 100% sure if the shroud is authentic or not, but considering some of the facts presented in the Bible and elsewhere, I tend to believe it isn't Jesus’ burial cloth.

Sarita lets tackle the head cloth part first. That is called the sudarium of oveido and it is located in Spain . When the sudarium was places over the head image of the shroud there were over 120 congruent matching points making it obvious that the shroud and sudarium covered the same body at very close time intervals.the sudarium also has pollens on it that come from the Jerusalem area.

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2007/08/bogus-shroud-of-turin-10-shrouds-blood.html

So we have taken care of the head cloth.

Lets take Care of the Jewish burial now.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Evangelical_Theological_Soc/Habermas_JETS_Shroud-of-Turin-and-significance.htm

Another frequent issue involves the fact that the man buried in the shroud was not washed before burial, while such was a common Jewish custom (Acts 9:37). Although none of the gospels assert that Jesus'' body was washed, it is often assumed that it was since he was buried according to Jewish tradition (John 19:40).

The Code of Jewish Law sheds some light on this matter, in that we are told that dead bodies were normally washed before burial. However, exceptions include a person who was killed by the government. In such an instance the blood was to remain on the body to be a payment for a person's acts against the state.12 In other words, if Jesus was buried according to Jewish customs, as just mentioned (John 19:40), he could not have been washed. Therefore the tradition of the times required the exact opposite of what some believe is implied. Again, Scripture also provides added insight in that Jesus' burial was incomplete, and one of the purposes of spices (such as the women brought on Sunday morning) was to wash and cleanse the body.13

Therefore especially in light of the fact that the gospels never state that Jesus' body was washed, we have no contradiction here either. Again there is even an unexpected corroboration.

Next post we will deal with the linen strips question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 2 the linen strips question.

Habermas goes on to explain:

Very interestingly, some ancient Jewish examples portray the type of burial depicted in the shroud. For instance, in an Essene cemetery some persons were found buried like the man in the shroud.15 The Code of Jewish Law also states that the one killed should be buried in a single, plain sheet of linen.16 A consideration of Lazarus' burial also shows that while he was somewhat constrained, he was able to walk out of the tomb under his own power (John 11:44), which is inconsistent with burial like a mummy but quite consistent with the shroud. Thus this type of burial was practiced by at least some Jews at the time of Jesus and therefore is not a contradiction, especially in light of the fact that the gospels do not mention a specific method of wrapping Jesus' body.

Another question concerns whether Jesus was buried in one or more strips of linen. This is a difficult matter in that the gospels speak of these graveclothes in both the singular and the plural.17 However, at least one evangelical commentator states that his chief reason for rejecting the shroud is that the shroud depicts one linen sheet, while John uses the plural.18 This is a good example of a rejection made apart from the facts, for scientific testing indicates that the man buried in the shroud was, in fact, buried in at least four strips of linen. In addition to the major cloth known as the shroud, he was also wrapped around the head with a napkin as well as having his wrists and ankles tied together.19 Lazarus was also bound around his head, wrists and ankles (John 11:44). Not only is there no discrepancy here, but the shroud actually agrees with and verifies the gospel accounts in spite of the fact that many object on partial data, illustrating the sort of objection referred to earlier.

These issues are the major ones connected with the relationship between the shroud and the NT.20 A few points might now be stated. First, an exegetical study of the relevant portions of the NT does not render the shroud fraudulent. To the contrary: Not only are there no discrepancies, but the shroud is compatible with the data, and certain texts (such as John 11:44 and 20:6-7) actually favor the type of burial depicted in the shroud. Second, burial like that of the man in the shroud was apparently practiced by Jews in Jesus' time as revealed by the Essene community, the Code of Jewish Law and the Mishna. Although it is not known if this was the predominant type of burial practiced by these first-century Jews, it has been shown to be a viable option. Since we have found that the shroud is neither proven nor disproven by the gospel texts and that it is a viable option, a third point might now be stated. The actual authenticity of the shroud must be made on other grounds, such as scientific and historical investigation.

The marks of the extra side strips were found by physicist john Jackson and showed that the man on the shroud was buried in at least 4 or 5 extra side strips.

Any other objections sarita :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh , sorry I forgot to deal with your objection of the gospel of john saying that Christ has nail wounds through his hands.

First of all Christ couldn't have been nailed through the palm because recent tests have shown that the palms cannot hold the weight of a human body in the crucified position and the body would just slide right off.
The Greek word for hand (XEIPA) describes the entire upper limb (wrist also)

Did I adequately answer all your objections sarita?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A consideration of Lazarus' burial also shows that while he was somewhat constrained, he was able to walk out of the tomb under his own power (John 11:44), which is inconsistent with burial like a mummy but quite consistent with the shroud. 

 

So he can come back to life and move a massive boulder (or have an angel do so), but he can't pull a Houdini with some cloth strips? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he can come back to life and move a massive boulder (or have an angel do so), but he can't pull a Houdini with some cloth strips? 

 

Mirage, why would he need to pull a houdini when he was allready crucified and dead. If he has the power to resurrect I would think its logical to assume that he has the power to move a massive rock. Now im not sure from the gospel account if Christ moved the rock or one of his angels, but thats not what we are talking about here. We are talking about theevidences of the burial shroud and that unique image on that cloth that not even 21st centuries top scientists cant replicate.

 

What I was trying to show at the beginning is that the man's image of the shroud matches the passion and crucifixion of the historic Jesus. So much so that even agnostic art hisorian Thomas de Wessellow believesthat it is the burial cloth of the historic Jesus, But instead of dealing with the unique characteristics of the image itself, he states that the image was made from some natural process of bodily gases even though all attempts to replicate the image by natural processes have failed.

 

Wessellow's book The Sign is a major concession from the atheist/agnostic community on the shroud as they know the evidences point towards its authenticity, you have to tip your hat to wessellow that he at least admitted that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mirage, why would he need to pull a houdini when he was allready crucified and dead. If he has the power to resurrect I would think its logical to assume that he has the power to move a massive rock. Now im not sure from the gospel account if Christ moved the rock or one of his angels, but thats not what we are talking about here. We are talking about theevidences of the burial shroud and that unique image on that cloth that not even 21st centuries top scientists cant replicate.

 

What I was trying to show at the beginning is that the man's image of the shroud matches the passion and crucifixion of the historic Jesus. So much so that even agnostic art hisorian Thomas de Wessellow believesthat it is the burial cloth of the historic Jesus, But instead of dealing with the unique characteristics of the image itself, he states that the image was made from some natural process of bodily gases even though all attempts to replicate the image by natural processes have failed.

 

Wessellow's book The Sign is a mjor concession from the atheist/agnostic community on the shroud as they know the evidences point towards its authenticity, you have to tip your hat to wessellow that he at least admitted that much.

 

It was 3 agnostics that really made some good prtogress on shroud research

Doctor August Accetta was one who came closest in replicating many of the unique features of the shroud by swallowing potentially harmful radioactive material and passing gamma rays through his body. It came close to the unique features of the shroud but it lacked the incredible detail of the shroud image. He has 4 peer reviewed papers approved for shroud research in the nuclear field. Accetta's research into the shroud caused him to come back to Christianity.

 

Agnostic Chemist Ray Rogers of the presigious los alamos labs was the one who invalidated the 1988 c14 tests with his 2004 chemical analysis of the shroud fibers. His work passed peer review in the chemical journal Thermochimia acta.

 

And Thomas Wessellow art historian who understood that the evidence for authenticity was good, plus the shroud image is indicative of no artwork from any period in history.

 

Ill through in a 4th agnostic Mark Antonacci a lawyer in Missouri who had an argument with his Christian Girlfriend at the time 20 or so years back. He was so frustrated with her about her faith that he set out to prove Christianity is a fairy tale. He would start with the shroud. 20 years later

he not only couldnt debunk the shroud but ended up converting to Christianity himself. HE wrote a book called the resurrection of the shroud. Now I dont agree with everything antonacci says because he has a daring theory and he got into a fiasco with Ray Rogers, but thats another story all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he can come back to life and move a massive boulder (or have an angel do so), but he can't pull a Houdini with some cloth strips?

And on top of that Mirage you need to see the other evidences show that whatever happened to the man on the shroud, it seemed very unnatural. It is these unique Characteristics on the shroud that has scientists from all over the world interested in the shroud.

It has 3d spatial information encoded into it (the only 2d image in the world that has this)

It has xray information in it of the hands, wrist, jaw, gum , teeth and left femur which causes scientists to believe that some type of light or radiation was responsible for this image.

Last I checked the xray machine weren't invented until the twentieth century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another post by Stephen Jones who in my opinion has one of the best shroud blogs online.

This post is about the congruent matches between te shroud and the Christ pantocrator of 526ad and various other depictions of Jesus from the 6th century onward showing that these artists were using the shroud as their original starting point in making these artistic renderings of Christ.

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2012/02/four-proofs-that-ad-1260-1390_16.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mirage, why would he need to pull a houdini when he was allready crucified and dead. If he has the power to resurrect I would think its logical to assume that he has the power to move a massive rock. Now im not sure from the gospel account if Christ moved the rock or one of his angels, but thats not what we are talking about here. We are talking about theevidences of the burial shroud and that unique image on that cloth that not even 21st centuries top scientists cant replicate.

 

Not what I meant, you implied that being wrapped up like a mummy would inhibit his free movement. I'm saying that if he can do all these other things, undoing some wrappings is clearly child's play and cannot be used as evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not what I meant, you implied that being wrapped up like a mummy would inhibit his free movement. I'm saying that if he can do all these other things, undoing some wrappings is clearly child's play and cannot be used as evidence.

Sorry about that Mirage, got it now, but the article was referencing Lazarus being brought back to life by Christ I believe. That is what habermas was referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All naturalistic  explanations for the image have failed so far except for some kind of energy radiation force eminating from the body. All cobntact and vapor formation explanations have failed for many reasons.

 

http://shroud.wikispaces.com/IMAGE.FORMATION.THEORIES.and.FINDINGS

 

 
  • Note on Hypotheses, Theories and the Scienctific Method

This page is provided to give details on image formation hypotheses/theories and findings which determine the likelihood that the various theories/hypotheses are correct.
Before one analyzes the formation hypotheses/theories it is important to consider the
CHARACTERISICS OF THE IMAGE THAT A THEORY MUST SATISFY ***

Image hyppotheses/theories tend to fall into only a few categories:


1) THE IMAGE IS SIMPLY A PAINTING ... Different techniques have been proposed, none of them satisfy the characteristics of the body image, but there are still many who think this true. Closer examination.

 

2) THE IMAGE IS DUE TO A BAS-RELIEF (hot or covered with dust) ... As no gnomonic distortions are visible in particular in correspondence of Face, some researcher have supposed the use of a bas-relief to obtain the image, but many facts are against these hypotheses.

3) CONTACT IMAGE ... This hypothesis is contradicted by some facts as the presence of image in non-contact areas (for example the zone between cheeks and nose) and the partial lack of characteristic distortion that contact images have.

4) THE IMAGE IS VAPOR MEDIATED ... Many scientists have supposed that the body image formed by the action of the gases correlated to sources related to the state of the body, either bodily fluids or gases associated with the early breakdown of cellular systems in the hours shortly after death.

5) THE IMAGE IS A MEDIEVAL PHOTOGRAPHY ... Some scientist suppposes that the body image formation was due to a proto-photography made by a genius in the Middle Age. Even if the proposed technique is interesting, it is not able to satisfy many characteristics of the Shroud image as, for example, the distortions of calves and the image color at linen fiber level.

6) MIXED MECHANISMS ... Some scientist suppposes that the body image formation was due to the combination of more than one mechanism such as that of the contact image combined with that of the vapor mediated image.

7) THE IMAGE IS DUE TO A SOURCE OF ENERGY (natural or supernatural) ... As the image is a non-contact image, we must refer to a source of energy as the cause of the body image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another very good video that explains the implocations of some of the unique qualities found on the shroud, such as the lack of compression on the dorsal image, the lack of distortion in both images and the 3d spatial information encoded into the image which is a non contact image which dissipates as more than 2 inches.

This is from a documentary DVD called the fabric of time

Enjoy folks

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 0