Thread: Shroud of Turin debate

Honestly, I would be pretty excited if the Shroud of Turin was somehow proven to actually be the impring of Jesus, as that would lend the Bible a bit more credibility as a historic text (what with Jesus actually existing and all).

However, it seems very unlikely that the Shroud is a legitimate imprint of a person, let alone Jesus Christ.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...cientists.html

Very doubtful about the shroud. Just the dating they did do on parts of it placed it at abou the 14th century, which is conveniently when it appeared in church history. I do not put it past the catholic church of the time to invent that at all.

Also the Holy See won't allow dating of any more of it, which really doesn't bode well.

Not at all convincing.


If it WAS in some sense "supernatural"ly printed on there, all that would convince me of was of the supernatural methods it was printed with. A way of printing we don't know about in science now, would be interesting, but hardly life changing. It would be totally silly to extrapolate from it any more ridiculous claims.

This debate stems from the debate about the age of the earth. It depends on which dating mechanisms you rely upon.

If you rely upon actually scientific, then the Shroud of Turin is not divine nor relate to Jesus at all and was made in the medieval times.

+ Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin
- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Natur.337..611D


"Spectrophotometric results from the 1978 investigation of the Shroud of Turin are presented. The goals of the investigation were to characterize spectrally the body image in a region extending from the near UV to the near IR, to determine if the blood stains are actually blood, and to recommend storage parameters to prevent further degradation of the image. The bloodstained areas have the spectral characteristics of human hemoglobin. The image shows monotonically increasing (featureless) absorption with decreasing wavelength. The contrast is low: R(550 nm) = 0.85 of that for the background linen. Simulated aging by air baking reproduced the color of the background linen. Simultaneously, an invisible deposit of perspiration plus skin oils became visible and displayed a reflection spectrum closely resembling that of the body image. Lightly scorched areas on the Shroud are also somewhat similar spectrally, suggesting that a similar resultant chemistry is possible for dissimilar causes. A likely cause for the bo y image is cellulose degradation stimulated locally by natural or applied substances transferred to the Shroud."
+ http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstra...=ao-19-12-1913


"The Shourd of Turin... has been dated to at least the middle of the 14th century."

- The orphaned manuscript: a gathering of publications on the Shroud of Turin By Alan D. Adler
- http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...age&q=&f=false

I look forward to seeing people debate about specifically is being dated and ignore the actual evidence.

Note:

Even if it was the actual Jesus, all that it would prove is that he was a man who died.

~

The radiocarbon dating of the shroud is still up for debate. There are two reasons why it has been called into question

1. The section of the shroud that was used to test is a corner that appears to have been mended. There is a seem line running through the sample area and the radiocarbon data also shows a diagonal skewing. It has been argued that this section was fixed and therefore would only show the age of the added piece.

2. The shroud has sustained fire damage during its history and so this would have added carbon which would contaminate the sample.

Some of the very scientists who performed the radiocarbon tests have called their validity into question based on these reasons.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The radiocarbon dating of the shroud is still up for debate. There are two reasons why it has been called into question

1. The section of the shroud that was used to test is a corner that appears to have been mended. There is a seem line running through the sample area and the radiocarbon data also shows a diagonal skewing. It has been argued that this section was fixed and therefore would only show the age of the added piece.

2. The shroud has sustained fire damage during its history and so this would have added carbon which would contaminate the sample.

Some of the very scientists who performed the radiocarbon tests have called their validity into question based on these reasons.

Yet the Vatican repeatedly rejects requests to sample a more central part. Also it's not like the dating results were widely off. They coincided pretty accurately with the estimates of historians before the tests were actually done. Also they conincide with the dates when any record of it first popped up.
That may all be a coincidence, but it isn't looking good.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The radiocarbon dating of the shroud is still up for debate. There are two reasons why it has been called into question

Am I mistaken, or has there not been more than one dating on more than one part of it?

1. The section of the shroud that was used to test is a corner that appears to have been mended. There is a seem line running through the sample area and the radiocarbon data also shows a diagonal skewing. It has been argued that this section was fixed and therefore would only show the age of the added piece.

This has been taken into consideration

This is why I also added, pre-emptively, that it is likely people will debate what exactly was dated and that it "must" have been tainted somehow.

2. The shroud has sustained fire damage during its history and so this would have added carbon which would contaminate the sample.

Has been taken into consideration already.

Some of the very scientists who performed the radiocarbon tests have called their validity into question based on these reasons.

This is true. Although, it is also true that there have been different tests done on it.

Furthermore, the church is not very lenient at all on further testing.

I wouldn't either if I knew I lied.


"The Shroud of Turin is a partially scorched linen cloth containing an apparently bloodstained sepia image of a man lying in a state of repose. It is believed by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. A team of scientists, under the auspices of The Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc., performed nondestructive measurements on the Shroud with electromagnetic energy from x ray to the IR to develop data leading to the analysis of the substances making up the body image stains and bloodstains. Presented here are UV-visible reflectance and fluoroescence spectra of the sepia body image area and scorched and bloodstained areas on the shroud."
+ Ultraviolet-visible reflectance and fluorescence spectra of the Shroud of Turin
- http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstra...=ao-19-12-1930

In addition to these sources, I have called upon scholar's journal articles to further provide evidence.

You may not have access to these journals, I cannot really tell if they are public or not from this console:


"Scientist Reproduces Shroud of Turin to Prove Fake."
+ http://find.galegroup.com.remote.libproxy.wlu.ca/gtx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Loca le(en,,):FQE%3D(rn,None,10)A209096162$&sgHitCountT ype=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=Adv ancedSearchForm&tabID=T003&prodId=EAIM&searchId=R1 &currentPosition=1&userGroupName=wate18005&docId=A 209096162&docType=IAC


"Is Shroud of Turin a medieval fake?; Scientists who recreated relic insist experiment proves cloth a forgery.(News)."
+ http://find.galegroup.com.remote.libproxy.wlu.ca/gtx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Loca le(en,,):FQE%3D(rn,None,10)A209096162$&sgHitCountT ype=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=Adv ancedSearchForm&tabID=T003&prodId=EAIM&searchId=R1 &currentPosition=1&userGroupName=wate18005&docId=A 209096162&docType=IAC

~

well, this debate wasn't meant to be whether or not it can be proven, but rather a hypothetical, let's say it was proven that: a. the shroud belonged to Jesus and b. the imprint was made by "supernatural" means.

if these things were proven, would it change your beliefs about christianity, the bible, etc?

but I do appreciate the information :>

Please explain how one can conclude that an image is mage by 'supernatural' means when science can only explain to us the causes of the natural?

The only acceptable answer here is that we'd come up with 'I don't know what caused it". But 'I don't know' does not therefore mean supernatural. It means we don't know.

There are far more logical inconsistencies, patented falsities and straight up nonsense in the bible for any sensible person to base their entire decision on the validity of Christianity based on this one funeral cloth. There's more than enough evidence against the case for Christ without adding to the pile.

IMHO, Christians will take whatever offers the possibility to back the bible and run with it while shooing scientists away.

I've found, in my journey, that quite a lot of religious people make faith encompass their entire existence as opposed to simply having faith and keeping it in its proper place.

Therefore, the lot of them, use hearsay stories (stories of miracles or healings) or unexplained artifacts (ie The Shroud of Turin), to further reinforce their belief in a 70 year old looking bearded cloud walking man.

Though, I'm not naive as to think that everything can be explained through science. As Alex said above me said, if science cannot offer an explanation, it stops at "I don't know", it does not go on to say "Well since we can't explain it, then it must be supernatural."

Spoiler for Ever so slightly offensive - Do not click if you are religious and easily offended.:

Religious people are deity ass kissing monkeys if you ask me. Susceptible to being easily wowed by cheap parlor tricks and con-men who're out to make a buck. I say this with those who oppress women, mentally abuse children, spill hate onto those with different sexual and/or spiritual preferences and who commit acts of violence in the name of their god, in mind. Any book that claims to know the truth (written by man obviously) and encourages you to force its beliefs onto another, should be burned.

I'm just glad I didn't live 3 - 400 years ago when there were very few rational and analytical people alive.

I'm not completely insensitive toward the religious lot. I understand that such beliefs, as asinine as they may be, stem from questions about our existence, fear and uncertainty concerning the death process and what lies thereafter. For what it's worth, I do believe in a spirit realm (not up for debate). It's just that people who claim to have "figured everything out" really tick me off.

"He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know." - Lao Tzu

Disclaimer: The views expressed are that of my own and do not reflect the thoughts, opinions or viewpoints of my colleagues, the owner, or Dreamviews as a whole.

It would not change my beliefs at all, because I believe in Jesus historically, but do not think he was the son of God.

This documentary makes a convincing arguement that Leonardo da vinci could have created the shroud of turin.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/leona...nd-the-shroud/

You would have to be very smart to fool modern day scientists, and there's no doubt that Leonardo da vinci was a genius. It's possible he was the mastermind behind this.

Well, I pretty much agree with you.
I have heard of and seen the shroud and have seen the little places where teh nails were.
But, think about it, anybody could have been crucified.
I actually believe that there was probably a man named Jesus Christ, who was possibly born under unique circumstances (but not by a virgin mother). He may have claimed to be the creator's child, or maybe other people said he was. He probably taught a lot of people things, some true, some not. He probably had a lot of followers. Maybe somebody said that God told them Jesus needed to be crucified. So, that's what they did. Thus, he was not necessarily Jesus Christ, our savior, God's son, but just a guy who was crucified because of some delusional liar who decided it needed to be done.

Anyway, the shroud only proves that somebody was crucified and put in the shroud. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by Jesus of Suburbia

Anyway, the shroud only proves that somebody was crucified and put in the shroud. Nothing more.

I wouldn't even go that far. The Shroud could be a complete fraud, as is shown possible by the article about the Italian that recreated it using 13th century technology.

I read the OP, but none of the replies, so this may have been said.

a. there was a man crucified in the manner described by christians in the bible (I don't see how it could possibly be proved that it was Jesus, as there is no real, credible evidence that he even existed, but for the sake of argument we'll say they prove it).

It is actually scientifically and historically understood that jesus and his peers were 'real'. That is to say, they existed. History Channel and Discovery Channel have both had specials on how they found the authentic 'bone' boxes' of John, and several other of Jesus' family/friends.

Just wanted to through that out there. BTW I'm not christian... but I'm well versed in christians issues and topics.

Do you have any type of source that I can watch/read?

Unfortunately I don't. It was maybe a year ago that I remember Daily Planet + History Channel had a segment on finding the bone box of John and several other people froms jesus' times.

Here's a small article I found explaining the reality of Jesus.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Jesus_...ical_construct

It explains how respected historians understand his existance, and how the bible isn't the only written recording of jesus, and many other things.

edit: It also explains how James, jesus' brother, is also known to exist through many historical texts... and how several prominent figures at the time wrote of jesus in their own journals. This article explains how many historians, past and present, acknowledge jesus as real.

For those who don't want to read the link I'll quote the 'good' parts.

-Yes, Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical man. No, he was not a theological construct. There are enough historical witnesses to verify this as fact.
-Lee Strobel did a great job answering this question in his book The Case for Christ. with convincing evidence on this subject and educational research.
-Many books outside of the Bible (Q'ran, Hippocrates, etc.) have detailed descriptions of Jesus. There is also other physical evidence of Jesus... the headboard that was placed above him on the cross. It has been protected by Catholics for centuries, and it was recently examined by forensic scientists. They have concluded, through carbon-dating, that it is the real thing. It dates back to the time when he was crucified. Also, the writing on it has been studied historians and cryptologists. They have concluded that it is accurate with the way things were written in the 1st century AD.
-There Josephus said: �[Annanus the high priest] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.� (Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200) Yes, a Pharisee, a member of the sect many of whose adherents were avowed enemies of Jesus, acknowledged the existence of James, the brother of Jesus.
-Tacitus, born about 55 C.E. and considered one of the world�s greatest historians, mentioned the Christians in his Annals. In the account about Nero�s blaming the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. on them, he wrote: Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus. The details of this account match the information regarding the Jesus of the Bible.
-After summarizing the references to Jesus Christ and his followers by the historians of the first two centuries, The Encyclopedia Britannica (2002 edition) concludes: These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.
-Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in reference to the death of Jesus: That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.14
-The Roman historian Suetonius (c. 69-140 C.E.), in his history The Twelve Caesars, stated regarding the emperor Claudius: Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from the city.� This occurred about the year 52 C.E. (Compare Acts 18:1, 2.) Note that Suetonius expresses no doubt about the existence of Christ. On this factual basis and in spite of life-endangering persecution, early Christians were very active proclaiming their faith.
-But historian Michael Grant notes: 'If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.'

edit: Remember, this is simply arguing his existance... nothing else.

I'm willing to allow a history in which Jesus existed, or at least a figure that the 'Jesus' mythology was created around. However:

- even if he existed, that doesn't prove that the writings of the Bible which were cobbled together from second, third, fourth and further-hand testimony are in any way true.
- even if he did perform said miracles and we assume absolutely no chinese whispers involved here (the biggest pill to swallow), this does not prove he was the son of a god. Perhaps a talented magician.
- even if we allow that he is the son of a god, this in no way lends credence to his teachings. Where a moral philosophy comes from has zero bearing on its veracity. It should be able to stand on its own feet and I would assume that a morality coming, literally from the horses mouth, would be a universal morality that would stand the test of the age of the universe, which it clearly hasn't (re: slavery, treatment of homosexuals, subjugation of women, etc).

It's possible that at one time a few thousand years ago there existed a very charismatic young man who gathered a tremendously devoted following. Speaking as an atheist, I have no problem accepting this if it were the case.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

I wouldn't even go that far. The Shroud could be a complete fraud, as is shown possible by the article about the Italian that recreated it using 13th century technology.

Indeed. I am, however, open to the possibility of it being some random man.
There have been thousands of cruicifications.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

This documentary makes a convincing arguement that Leonardo da vinci could have created the shroud of turin.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/leona...nd-the-shroud/

You would have to be very smart to fool modern day scientists, and there's no doubt that Leonardo da vinci was a genius. It's possible he was the mastermind behind this.

Just wanted to shout out that this is an excellent documentary. Anyone reading this thread should set aside the hour to watch it.

I'm confused, why is there a debate about this? This was proven to be a hoax 20 years ago and many many times again after that.

Because ignoring the facts and attempting to re-write history is always more convenient than changing your world view?

Oh, ok, carry on.

proven to be a hoax 20 years ago? really? why are they still making discovery/science/natgeo/whatever specials on it?

it's not that I don't believe it's possible, but...what's your source?