Thread: Shroud of Turin debate

I recently had a little debate with my cousin (OldManRiver) on the Shroud of Turin.

I don't know a whole lot about it, but I saw a segment on it (on the history channel or something) and it seems there is much debate over exactly how the image got on the cloth.

some believe it was supernaturally imprinted...

Spoiler for Miraculous Formation (from wiki article):

Some believers have suggested that the image on the shroud was miraculously produced at the moment of Resurrection by divine methods intended to record the various stages of the Passion of Christ in that "the blood stains from the Shroud seem to record at one moment all the events of the Passion".[47][48] Quoting Pope Paul VI's statement that the shroud is "the wonderful document of His Passion, Death and Resurrection, written for us in letters of blood" author Antonio Cassanelli argues that the shroud is a deliberate divine record of the five stages of the Passion of Christ.[49]
Some believers also contend that empirical analysis and scientific methods will perhaps never advance to a level sufficient for understanding the divine methods used for image formation on the shroud, since the body around whom the shroud was wrapped was not merely human, but divine.[50]

our debate was basically this: what if scientists proved that the imprint on the shroud really is of Jesus, and that the imprint was made by some "supernatural" means? (that is, made by some advanced method completely unknown to us until this point, so, "supernatural.")

what would you do? would it change your beliefs about religion, spirituality?

he said that he would read what Jesus said in the bible, and try to follow it.

my argument however, is that the ONLY THINGS that this would prove, are

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).

b. he had "supernatural" abilities, at least at the moment of his death.

this would certainly NOT prove that:

a. the whole bible is credible, even the things that Jesus supposedly said. (after all, it has been proven that all of it was written a hundred years or so after his death. I don't know exactly how long after? but many years.)

b. there is an afterlife/that heaven and hell exist

c. the god of the Hebrew bible is real

so, if it were proved that the imprint on the Shroud of Turin is of Jesus, and that it was imprinted on the cloth by "supernatural" means...it wouldn't change how I feel about religion/spirituality much at all.

what about you?

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, 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.

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.

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.

Independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded that the shroud material dated to 1260-1390 AD, with 95% confidence.

Alan Adler identified the reddish stains as type AB blood, a blood type that didn't exist int he human species until the 700s. Pier Baima Bollone confirmed this in an independent study.

Since then, both claims have been supported by many followup examinations.

They make documentaries and such on it because people are fascinated by mysteries, even after they've been solved. There are still documentaries done on who wrote the Codex Gigas, even though the author's name was found in the text. They still make documentaries on the whereabouts of the Arc of the Covenant, even though most archeologists are in agreement that it's in Ethiopia. They still make document on whether or not Area 51 is real, even though you can see it with binoculars.

you cannot be serious. I don't care about mysteries, I'm fine with good ol' boring truth. and I don't care if the shroud is real or not, although I'm pretty outraged that they'd still make segments on it knowing it's not real - assuming what you said is true (I'll have to look it all up once I get on a computer).

ok, so where did you get this info? I mean, did you have to do much research? I realize I probably sound like a moron who gets all his info through tv :/

the thing is, I would actually study things like this, but I don't feel that same urgency about "finding the truth" that I did a few years ago...you know? I feel content and secure enough in what I've found. although I guess I should go back to studying, as I keep getting dragged into arguments and discussions...

Originally Posted by nerve

you cannot be serious. I don't care about mysteries, I'm fine with good ol' boring truth. and I don't care if the shroud is real or not, although I'm pretty outraged that they'd still make segments on it knowing it's not real - assuming what you said is true (I'll have to look it all up once I get on a computer).

ok, so where did you get this info? I mean, did you have to do much research? I realize I probably sound like a moron who gets all his info through tv :/

the thing is, I would actually study things like this, but I don't feel that same urgency about "finding the truth" that I did a few years ago...you know? I feel content and secure enough in what I've found. although I guess I should go back to studying, as I keep getting dragged into arguments and discussions...

I first read about it in Scientific American, but you can find all of the research today on the internet. Google Shroud of Turin + Carbon 14 / AB Blood, you should come up with plenty. Filter by .edu sites if you want to avoid senseless crap.

Those are pretty much the only channels I will watch on television anymore; History, Discovery, National Geographic. They have a lot of great shows but don't forget that television is there to entertain...and you really cannot assume that something is accurate just because it was on Discovery. Usually if I see something like that on tv that catches my attention I will spend awhile on google just looking stuff up for myself. I realize you can't trust everything on the internet either, but at least you get much more of the story and can look at it from all sides and then make up your own mind about it.

If that were the real face of a man it ought to be suffering from a globe effect, where the facial features are deformed because your transferring the features from a 3 dimensional object (a face) onto a 2 dimensional surface. That doesn't happen with the Shroud.

edit: Most likely physical appearance of Jesus, based on genotypical features of people in the middle east in the first century.

Associated video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilh8QkjpCh8

Even if the carbon dating were inaccurate, you have to account for the blood type found on the cloth having not existed until the 8th century AD. Or the image of the 'back' of the man being 8cm taller than the front, or the head sitting too low on the body, or or or or - see where I'm going here. Carbon dating is not the crux that we rest all our assumptions on.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

If that were the real face of a man it ought to be suffering from a globe effect, where the facial features are deformed because your transferring the features from a 3 dimensional object (a face) onto a 2 dimensional surface. That doesn't happen with the Shroud.

yeah, i'm pretty sure you didn't watch that video at all, maybe the "preview" for it. In that Doc' they do account for the 2d distortions by replicating the effect in a reverse way, they explain it all in the documentary how exactly they specifically accomplish it. The only things they had to guess at were the skin tone, finger nails, facial hair and the fine detail of the hair on his head.

they do encounter the problem with the 2d cloth rounding the features and "hiding" the true depth in the cloth, but they explain the advanced programs and techniques used to reverse apply the effect in a way that removes the distortion by negatively applying it.

watch the movie like i suggested or just assume what you want but commenting on how the results aren't viable without first learning the procedures and techniques used to reach them makes it look like you're grasping for points to hold up your stance in this debate without looking at other points made. Basically you're looking at it with a biased attitude for the benefit of pressing you opinion on another instead of trying to take SOMETHING away from the debate beneficially.

I was simply stating that they found a process to reveal the the most basic features of the person the cloth wrapped. They also give very very good points as to why the carbon dating is most likely wrong, and some other data as to why it's believed to have been originated in the area of jesus's death.

ie. representations in older artworks of the cloth revealing certain peoples holding the shroud much before the period of the carbon dating, pollen samples in the cloth showing where it has been, art showing where the shroud was held when displayed by religious or royal figures in the past (the exact corner that was tested, the exact spot actually)...

take a look at that video, i'm not a christian and i don't believe in the religion so there's no reason to assume i'm trying to make you believe and repent, i'm trying to suggest that the cloth probably did cover someone (probably the man considered Jesus though i can't assume that) that was crucified in that time and had similar things done to him as the christian bible describes....

dono though i wasn't there, i can't say for sure.

see what you made me do?

I looked at the site you linked and it was just articles about the video you were referring to, i had to go to youtube just to find anything regarding it. But please, if you'd like to post a link to the actual video itself I'm more than willing to watch it.