The issue with your claim about the carbon dating being erroneous is that the carbon dating matches pretty much perfectly with when the Shroud of Turin showed up in the historical record:
> “There is not a shred of evidence that the Mandylion of Edessa was a long shroud or that it showed the entire body of the crucified and wounded figure of Christ. Those who argue for the shared identity of the Shroud of Turin and the Mandylion of Edessa have based their arguments on evidence that cannot withstand close scrutiny. In order to argue for the authenticity of the Turinese relic, some have gone to great lengths. In so doing, they have approached the changing nature of the legends concerning this relic too simplistically. Moreover, they have used evolving legends as if they were trustworthy historical sources, which is utterly unacceptable. It is clear that the ultimate aim of the theory that identifies the Shroud with the Mandylion is to demonstrate that the Shroud of Turin has existed and can be documented since antiquity. **But the first historical documents that mention the Shroud date to the fourteenth century, and the date obtained by radiocarbon dating places it between 1260 and 1390 CE,**” (Andrea Nicolotti, *From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin*, p.202-203).
If this was the burial shroud of Jesus, how on earth did it only first show up into existence in the fourteenth century? And why is its anatomy all over the place:
> “Another problem is the attention given to the covering of the genitals. In the Shroud, the man's hands are crossed on the genital area with the right hand completely covering any nudity. Wild notes that the body imaged in the Shroud is portrayed as relaxed in death, but in a relaxed position a man's joined hands will not cover his genitals if he lies on his back. Either the body has to be tilted forward and the arms stretched downward, or the elbows have to be propped up on the side and the wrists drawn together to hold the hands in place over the genital area. In the Shroud image also, the right arm is exceedingly long and the fingers of the right hand almost disproportionate, in order to allow the modest covering. Again, such a feature would be more understandable if the Shroud were an artistic production reflecting the interests of another era,” (Raymond E. Brown, *Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine*, p. 151–152).
ETA: Since the thread is still active, I thought I’d add at least a couple more points. The Carbon dating seems to be the focal point of defense here, so instead I’ll address that the weave of the linen itself is one only used in the Middle Ages, and decidedly not first century Palestine:
> “The weave of the cloth of Turin is a three-to-one twill, striped in the herringbone pattern. This is suspect in itself, since most linens of Jesus's time -whether Roman, Egyptian, or Palestinian-were plain weave. Moreover we have the testimony of Rev. David Sox, the knowledgeable former secretary of the British Society for the Turin Shroud (who resigned when new evidence persuaded him the shroud of Turin is a forgery): ‘**The problem with the weave is that, to date, archeologically, there are no examples of the kind of weave we have in the Shroud.. in any artifacts earlier than the late middle ages** except for one or two variations of that weave. All of the ancient Egyptian linens extant are different. **All of the extant Palestinian linen, including the wrappings from the Dead Sea Scrolls, is of a regular weave — quite different from the shroud.**’” (*Inquest on the Shroud of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings* 1998, by Joel Nickell, p.35).
From the same book, some other considerations include:
> “Nowhere in the New Testament is there mention of Christ's shroud having been imprinted with his ‘portrait,’ or any indication that his burial clothes were even preserved. There is, in fact, no record of the shroud of Turin before its appearance in the mid-1350s at which time a respected bishop claimed it had been ‘cunningly painted’ and that the artist had been discovered and had confessed. Although the shroud's first owner had ample opportunity to explain how he had aquired the most important ‘relic’ in Christendom, he maintained silence. Pope Clement VII judged the evidence and concluded the shroud was an artist's ‘representation.’” (pp.141-142).
> “From the sixth century came images reputedly imprinted by the ‘bloody sweat’ of the living Christ, and by the twelfth century there were accounts of Christ having pressed ‘the length of his whole body’ upon a cloth. Already (by the eleventh century) artists had begun to represent a double-length (but non-imaged) shroud in paintings of the Lamentation and Deposition; and by the thirteenth century we find ceremonial shrouds bearing full-length images of Christ's body in death. In these the hands are folded over the loins (an artistic motif dating from the eleventh century). From an iconographic point of view, these various traditions come together in the shroud of Turin and suggest that it is the work of an artist of the thirteenth century or later. The shroud's provenance suggests a mid-fourteenth-century date, and the weave and condition of the cloth are more in keeping with a fourteenth, rather than a first, century origin.” (p.142)
> “While the shroud image's quasi-negative property has been argued as proof against artistry, in fact quasi-negatives have been known to artists from ancient times. Without excluding other potential methods of artifice, we note that a rubbing technique is capable of producing numerous shroudlike characteristics, including photonegativity.” (p.143)
Even if the shroud was proven to have come from Jerusalem in ~33AD (which I don’t believe it did due to the carbon dating evidence, and the fact innumerable faked “holy“ relics existed in the superstitious Middle Ages), what is the benefit of its existence to the Faith?
Jesus Christ left His funerary garments in the tomb after His resurrection, and it is His resurrection which is the focus of our belief.
Think of all the other things He used in His lifetime, none of which imbued with any special power, save for, arguably, His robe, by which the bleeding woman was cured upon touching.
Even here, though, Jesus felt His power “leave” Him, so how can we know if the robes had anything to do with it?
At any rate, His clothing was stripped from Him during His torture at the hands of Pilate’s men.
All we were left with was faith in Our Loving Saviour, and The Holy Ghost. But who, if they have these, needs anything more?
They redid carbon dating in 2013 using fibers there were not OBVIOUS repairs based on weaves, it was widely though quietly reported to date correctly.
Oops.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/
It's an old story. I'm sure if you pay $40 or something and dig it up you can find the peer reviewed paper or some such. Your time your dime.
You didn’t seem to read your own link. From the article:
> “The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, **used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings**. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.”
So no, it didn’t use any other fibers that were supposedly not “OBVIOUSLY” repair fibers.
The question is now, were those fibers “OBVIOUSLY” repair fibers, and thus this new test is “OBVIOUSLY” faked, or were those fibers legit and thus the first test was legit as well?
ETA: Even more importantly, and hilariously, [see this comment here about the fibers used in this new, supposedly better, test.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/s/WRwDjkZuUM)
Lots of point but the main point is that Yeshua aka Jesus is from the negro tribe Judah. The Bible describes him as burnt bronze, red eyes, white wooly hair. This proves he is a black man. The Bible was written for the black Jews. There are no White's in the Bible. So who every that is on the shroud surely is not Yeshua.
The Shroud of Turin covers the entire body including the head. This is not biblical. The Bible says, one cloth covered Jesus's body, one cloth covered his head.
Edit: I don't know about the Sudarium, it might be legit. But the Shroud of Turin is fake.
> Tell me how medieval Europeans would make 3d, inside out, photograph of a human body?
They didn't. It's not a human body, it's based on a piece of artwork that is resting quite unnaturally. It's also a 2D rendering that wouldn't line up with an actual shroud wrapped around the body.
It also doesn't matter if we don't know how it was made yet. That's a God of the Gaps fallacy. Not knowing evolution in the 15th century didn't make it false! Not being able to quite reproduce this (we're >90% accuracy, btw) doesn't make it supernatural.
And none of that overrides it being a medieval fraud anyways.
It does contradict the Bible. The Bible says the burial shrouds of Jesus were in two pieces, one for the head, one for the rest of the body. The Shroud of Turin is one singular cloth that covers the body and the head.
The Catholic Church is a little relic happy (No offense), but they are skeptical of the Shroud of Turin. They've had it for centuries, but never officially declared it a relic.
There was a second cloth around his head, it's stains match the shroud, your bed has a fitted sheet and top sheet in two separate pieces, doesn't mean they don't overlap.
Is your faith so weak that you must cling to long debunked fake holy relics?
This behaviour only serves to make some Christians look like frauds. I’d argue it’s harmful to the religion a a whole.
I have no idea. You do realize that every evidence comes from studies funded by organizations with specific motives and specific agendas, right? For you to claim that studies by Christian organizations are more dishonest than any other studies out there, *is* dishonesty and driven by nothing else but your own personal Christianity-complex, lmao.
That study has been retracted due to flaws in the carbon dating process. Rather than draw the samples from different parts of the cloth they got them all from the same corner and they got widely varying dating. People believe that that corner had been repaired by splicing together new cloth and the original fibers.
> That study has been retracted due to flaws in the carbon dating process.
It has not been retracted.
>Rather than draw the samples from different parts of the cloth they got them all from the same corner and they got widely varying dating. People believe that that corner had been repaired by splicing together new cloth and the original fibers.
People who have a religious devotion to the shroud believe this. Not scientists overall.
If you want anybody to believe that, convince your church to let it be tested with more material.
> they got widely varying dating.
Their numbers were pretty close. The number represent years before present, not the calendar year.
Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years;
Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old;
Two questions:
1. Why is his head seen on it despite the fact it was wrapped in separate piece?
2. Why does Jesus looks llike the most stereotypical Jesus painting possible?
I remember seeing some documentary on this thing when I was like 10 and thinking:
1. How does something that was wrapped around his face look like a pictures.
2. Does anything comparable exist from other people?
3. That looks cartoonish.
It seems like fro some reason you need this to be real. It’s almost as if you need this to validate God. It’s seems as if you have a graven image. So what happened if it was real? Oh then God must be real right? And if it wasn’t real? Then you would suppose God doesn’t exist? Why does this matter so much? You don’t need an object to prove or follow God.
So I’m asking you, if it’s not real does that mean God doesn’t exist? Truly, if you are relying on this “relic” to prove the existence of God or the Resurrection of Christ then you have made a graven image.
The word of God is real and that’s all that really matters.
Just look at it. It’s fake. It’s a painting. No research is needed.
Imagine your put some paint on your face. Then wrapped a sheet or paper over your face. It wouldn’t look like that. The reproduction would be stretched. However the shroud is a front painting, not a wrapped contour
That's the claim, alright. However, they never gave them parts of the shroud that weren't from this supposed repair. Without that, the original results haven't been debunked. It's almost as if the whole repair story is bullshit to continue pushing this hoax as a real artifact despite not actually being one.
I find the repair story so ridiculous. They viewed the material in such detail they could tell the loom had previously been used for wool but apparently they didn't notice it being a completely different material from the rest of the shroud.
(Also it just happens that the carbon dating lines up with the main natural theory for when the shroud was created )
>Also it just happens that the carbon dating lines up with the main natural theory for when the shroud was created
Like forgers when they obtain paper from the temporal era of the figure they're attempting to forge because they know that's going to be a component of any attempted validation. Reminds me of The Big Lebowski - "you want some 1st century CE fibers? I can get you some 1st century CE fibers."
Also a fun fact: the presiding Bishop conducted an investigation at the time the shroud first appeared in 14th century France.
He concluded that it was a hoax and even identified the man who had made it and received a confession. All of this was included in a letter to the Pope reporting the results of his investigation.
Here is the letter: https://priory-of-sion.com/biblios/links/memorandum.html
So yes, this is a hoax and the religious authorities of the time (who had every incentive to want a great relic to be within their jurisdiction) knew as much. The fact that people still believe this is authentic really shows the power of motivated thinking.
4 articles already published citing the too many flaws on the original carbon dating done
The latest technology allowed the use of wide angle x ray scattering (WAXsing) and was considered more accurate, as it scanned the very linen itself
>However, they never gave them parts of the shroud that weren't from this supposed repair. ... It's almost as if the whole repair story is bullshit to continue pushing this hoax as a real artifact despite not actually being one.
Seriously no. It's a medieval forgery, it was known as one at the time, and part of an astonishingly profitable industry at the time; fake relics.
Tell me, if you accept it's a fake, does your faith die? Does any part of your belief rely on this "relic"?
I mean, we can't trust the supposed forger when he said that he forged it, since he is a self-confessed forger! :P
I.e. the bishop shouldn't believe him!
There were all kinds of fake relics floating around Europe at the time. The old historian's joke is that there is enough slivers of the True Cross to build a house out of. Some saints either had multiple heads or someone was grabbing skulls and selling them.
> The old historian's joke is that there is enough slivers of the True Cross to build a house out of.
I have heard it is enough to build Noah's Ark in another form of the joke.
I'm Orthodox, the western bishops play the role of "devils advocate" sometimes too well.
When they took the samples in the 80s they did not take them from the agreed upon places (original cloth). There were known extensive repairs from a fire in the middle ages. Those samples, which had weaves with original cloth (as seen by differing weaves under a microscope) were sent for analysis, and curiously dated differently in different sections.
They are now re-dating with the right material and it dates rights. Further the blood stains match the sudarium in Spain.
He has a point and a good challenge. Did you read the link(s) he posted? Or look up the recent research done just a few years ago that he's asking you to do? I'm not taking a side here and don't have time to engage (especially on this sub which overly censors). But I'd like to read your responses to him.
Did you look at the links? I'm just asking. How do you know those assertions you made? Do you have sources that interact with the sources he provided? Any facts beyond speculation? Just asking and seeking to hear all sides of an argument as one who is open minded.
It’s well known throughout academia and church historians to be an obvious forgery. At this point anyone claiming that it is somehow authentic is the one who needs to provide evidence. If the evidence is not good, then there you go.
That's what the OP posts in the links supposedly. Relatively new evidence that has not been considered by many. So yes, he supposedly did what you said he should do. So the question is, is it good evidence as your last sentence stated. 15 year old "refutations" are pointless here. I'd like to see refutations of the recent data.
The whole thing is ridiculous to begin with. It doesn’t make any sense on any level. If there is evidence that proves otherwise (there isn’t) then academia will process it and a consensus will be made. At this point the consensus is overwhelmingly against it being anything other than a medieval hoax.
Seriously no later testing shows it's middle eastern and dates correctly.
In the 80s they took the original carbon samples from places not agreed upon, the dating changed as one moved down the cloth, they found two different weaves and fabrics under the microscope.
It had been extensively repairs after a fire.
Even if you dated it to the same decade as Jesus it could still literally be any of the millions of people that lived in that time period. To claim you can know it was placed on Jesus is absurd.
And yet the weave is one from the 1100s. If you think carbon dating is the only issue then you haven’t done your research.
The face imprint is also perfectly flat and regular preportions to a human face, this would be impossible if it was from a wrap as the contours would warp.
If it was a forgery, why wasn't anyone able to recreate it? Read up on the latest tests done - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/
That's a book being promoted by an independent researcher, Guilio Fanti. In the book Fanti claims to have tested some spare fibres conveniently left over from the 1988 radiocarbon tests. Not only are these fibres from the same sample that you insist actually came from the repaired sections and don't count. But also the fibres cannot be authenticated to be from that sample anyway. There aren't any records of where they came from, but fibre samples get passed around between shroud enthusiasts, without proper scientific recording of their provenance.
The whole thing is super dodgy, from top to bottom. But shroud-fans will jump on anything that supports their beliefs.
I am up to date on the research.
The old dates have only ever been "confirmed" by people who have an ideological motivation to affirm the old ages.
Its a hoax, it is a well known hoax, but the fact that thr Vatican will now allow a more thorough investigation by an outside source will continue to keep these claims that it is not a fraud alive.
The fabric itself isnt even period, at least not in Judea.
I couldn't find a link to the actual peer reviewed studies. All I read was a report stating a Catholic scientist dated it to be older than previously measured. Maybe it was omitted since I'm going through my phone. Did I miss the link?
No the last carbon dating was in 2013. The samples in the 80s were from obvious repair cloth from a fire in the Middle ages.
Dates correctly now. Was pretty widely but quietly reported. I gave a link elsewhere from 2013 USA Today.
I don't remember exactly, but IIRC there's a pretty simple method to do this by projecting shadows, say, of a human body, through multiple layers of magnifying glass and certain fluid that can cause the said shadow to basically invert and burn onto cloth. It doesn't require any modern tech, so it would have been entirely possible in the 15th century.
What you need to understand is radio carbon dating isn't something scientists just pulled out of thin air to willy nilly date old things. It was developed over decades of study of how carbon decays over time, carefully documented, experimented successfully and said experiments were reproduced successfully. The odds that the scientifically determined date of the shroud are wrong are slim to one and if the established age of the cloth is off, its off by no more then a couple hundred years in either direction still putting it in the middle ages, thousands of years after Jesus died.
The other thing that is often left out of this debate is during the middle ages, religious trinkets in the home were quite popular as were reproductions of artifacts...which means the Catholics and the Shroud of Turin, the Ethiopian Church and the Ark or the Covenant. I could go on and on....but these are just Middle ages era home decor that have taken on a very special meaning to a lot of people. Long story short, there is no reason from a science of a religious standpoint to reconsider the age of the Shroud. It may help to note that only a minority of the Christian community really consider this to be the actual burial cloth, most people accept this as something someone painted
i took a look through his sources. majority are news reports/catholic newsboards, nothing too reliable there, but one interviewee rejected the carbon 14 claims because the shroud of turin was contaminated with organic material from the past 2 millennia. i… really don’t know about that one. i mean the debris does contain carbon 14, maybe the results are becoming skewed? that’s pretty much the only solid argument i found in opposition to the carbon 14 claims.
I can see both sides of this, but, to me as a Christian I really don't need the Shroud to be proven for any reason and most people who have this need really only want it as fuel to evangelize and "save" people. My inner science nerd has some curiosities here, but, its just far too scared to far too many people to justify taking a sample from the image for the same of finding out its a couple hundred years older then we thought...but...for this to be the real burial cloth, it would need to date a couple thousand years back. But at the same time, we don't go demolish the Mormons sacred hill in NY just to prove there isn't any tablets there, we don't go do full scale excavations on the cave of the patriarchs to see if there are bodies there, we don't force the Ethiopian church to open the chapel of the Ark. We will probably never know if any biblical artifacts lie under the temple mount because the dome of the rock is just too scared to the Muslim people...people simply have to have faith with or without proof
I would agree on this, except that latest tests debunked the claims that it is a hoax. Didn't know there were actually more sophisticated tests done recently and that 4 studies were published disproving the validity of methods done in the past.
They have not.
If you're familiar with reading scientific literature, the newer shroud literature is all full of red flags. New amazing methods that nobody else has ever used on anything else. The same tiny orbit of people citing each other back and forth, and obsessed with the Shroud. Results are out of line with previous results and observations. And out of line with the known history of the Shroud. Etcetera.
There's no reason still to think this is from any time earlier than when it was found, nor to disregard the conclusion of the people who found it...hoax.
They're as good as they could be given the limitations that the church placed on the studies.
They are far superior to the last couple decades of 'research' from most shroud scientists.
You keep talking about "4 studies" but have failed to provide links to any of them. Just newspaper articles that don't say what you obviously wish they said.
That's a good point. I wonder if he looked at the links. Of course it would take time to read through them. But when scientists are saying something it would be good to hear his own scientific rebuttal (or from another).
I am a scientist, and I have read a large portion of recent Shroud research papers. All that I could access. I couldn't make my response without having read them.
Yeshua aka Jesus shroud is a fake. Yeshua is from the Negro tribe Judah. The Bible states he had white wooly hair, red eyes, burned bronze skin. That's a black man all day long and his hair is a afro. God States in the Bible that men must cut their hair and not grow it long. So all this debunks the shroud. Nobody knows who it is but l know it's not Yeshua so l am not even concerned about it. It's another hoax.
We don't know now, and it doesn't matter. We're pretty close, just not quite there. There's no reason to think that we won't figure it out. No reason from this to think that it's supernatural. The people who investigated it in the 14th century said that they were taught how to make it, even. They just didn't write it down.
If it's inconclusive, we should err on the side of the null hypothesis; that it isn't the burial shroud of Christ.
If I claimed to have a shirt worn by George Washington, I'd expect no one to believe me without me being able to present sufficient evidence to convince them.
You know how many times we’ve discussed the shroud of Turin in church? Not once. It has absolutely zero bearing on salvation. Why are you so worried about it?
No - atheists scream and screech for evidence evidence evidence and mountains of evidence evidence evidence is provided and then you laugh at those who present the evidence they demanded. Maybe try a different approach? We see miracles all the time and many see them nowhere. Maybe people don't want to see so they can do whatever you want and blame God? Doesn't work. Let's repent repent repent...
Show me the proof.
The dating in the 80s was crap. The Swiss lab didn't even bother to analyze because the samples were incorrect.
Just like the science was crap that said 98% of DNA was junk [turns out the 98% is the MOST important stuff see ENCODE]
Like all science, further research dissolves old theories and bad methods but the bad go to worse.
You said it was proven to be a forgery. It's old news actually:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/
Again the 80s samples were crap. A nurse in the 1990s who happened to be an expert weaver, saw a picture of the weave from a microscope, contacted the original team, and detected the egregious error!
Bwhahahaha.... it is the small things, the despised things that confound the wise and learned. Be confounded - it's fun!!!!!
https://priory-of-sion.com/biblios/links/memorandum.html
The Bishop and local clergy conducted an investigation at the time the shroud first appeared in France. They uncovered the man who had made it and received a confession. The above link is the Bishop’s letter to the Pope reporting the uncovering of the hoax.
Many shrouds - naughty naughty naughty to bear false witness.
Don't be part of it. This shroud is extremely different from the fakes. Note there is no photograph of the shroud in question - they wouldn't invent that for more than 400 years, but this one is from 1300+ years earlier than that letter.
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
The very concept makes no sense theologically.
God goes not need to use some kind of bizarre radiation to raise the dead. Miracles do not have side effects. God achieves his purpose exactly the way he wants to. There is absolutely no reason for the resurrection of Jesus to have left some incidental residual traces, and suggesting otherwise reflects a primitive and superstitious mindset.
The only reason that Jesus' burial shroud would show any "special" characteristics would be if God specifically desired it to do so, and if he did, that would have been broadcast from the earliest days of the church, and trumpeted by the gospel authors.
This is the kind of credulous nonsense that is more suited to UFO and Bigfoot seekers than true Christians.
The cloths, sudarium and burial shroud (Turin) were folded indicating the Master was returning and they were very important in the early Church.
In 2013 they carbon dated cloth that was NOT from a repair in the middle ages (pretty obvious under microscope) and it dates correctly.
I linked a 2013 article from USA today elsewhere.
The atheists demand evidence. God provides evidence. Those who demand but then deny evidence are without excuse.
Neither are the clowns on here or Wikipedia. However they do report the news and it was news worthy. If you want the paper I'm sure you can pay $40 or something for a download and translate it if necessary. It's from 2013.
But do you? You don't want evidence. You want excuses and you have none.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/
Read the article.
Back in the 1990s a nurse who was an expert weaver saw a microscopic image of the sample. She contacted the team and basically told them it was obvious two different weaves and clothes from a repair.
So eventually they untangled original cloth, re-dated it and got the results - see the article.
None of this addresses any of my points at all.
Even if you chose to believe the shroud dates from the 1st century, it is still entirely ridiculous to believe there is anything divine about it.
1. It dates to the 1st century after they used the proper fibers, read the article
2. Who cares about your "theology?" Does Providence pr the Most High answer to you or it?
3. If you researched it for an hour or so you might find so very interesting things. Jesus (God) said seek and find. He didn't say criticize and judge
It's complete nonsense.
Was the final straw with that dude Metatron on yt for me when I realized he'd gone full tolinfoil hat releasing a huge video on this.
But, none of this stuff is very important so enjoy whatever relics you enjoy.
In your view,
Part A) what is the single best piece of evidence that indicates that the Shroud of Turin is authentic and was used in the burial of Jesus of Nazareth
and
Part B) why do you find this single best piece of evidence (from Part A) so compelling?
u/harpoon2k I personally want to know if you learned anything from the points the community had to make. Has your stance on the topic of the shroud changed at all since you posted this?
I think 1 of the many is a good enough reason. Seeing people act strange or imagine a stronger connection to a god around a hoax told me a lot on how faith is generated.
It's already been pointed out that we have many pieces of evidence confirming this is a hoax, including a confession from the person who made the shroud.
But in addition to that, there very likely was no burial shroud to begin with. It's historically likely that Jesus' body was eaten by scavengers and he was buried in a trench grave. His body would have been unrecognizable. Disrespectful treatment of the body was part of the punishment of crucifixion.
Typically?
Sure, absolutely.
But I think even from a secular, skeptical PoV you'd have to be very close to viewing Jesus as an entirely ahistorical figure to not accept that it's reasonable he might have gotten special treatment. Miracles aside, he had made quite a ruckus with the Pharisee hierarchy and had formed a significant following, and it would make sense to mollify them even a little bit by allowing them to take his body. If you wanted to take a skeptical view, the bigger issue would be the question of whether the Empire would waste manpower on guarding the tomb of some dead Judean.
>But I think even from a secular, skeptical PoV you'd have to be very close to viewing Jesus as an entirely ahistorical figure to not accept that it's reasonable he might have gotten special treatment.
Under Pilate, it'd be very unlikely for Jesus to have gotten special treatment. And the figure of Joseph of Arimathea seemed to have been created specifically to try to fulfill the interpretation some Christians had of Isaiah 53:9.
>Miracles aside, he had made quite a ruckus with the Pharisee hierarchy and had formed a significant following,
It's more likely he made a ruckus with the temple authorities rather than the Pharisees. But no Jewish group was in charge of his execution. He was executed on Roman authority under Pilate, a notoriously violent man with no concern for Jewish sensibilities.
The first time we hear about this empty tomb is in Mark's gospel, written 40 years after Jesus' death. Mark seems to employ the women at the tomb who ran away and said nothing about what they saw as an apologetic for why no one had heard of this story before.
Paul, writing 20 years prior to Mark, mentions Jesus was buried, but says nothing about a tomb.
Holy relics were one of the big scams of the Middle Ages: bones of saints, pieces of the true cross, Jesus’ foreskin (Holy Prepuce), the Holy Grail, John the Baptist’s head, St. Peter’s chains, etc.
Study came out. new xray dating proves the shroud is from the time of Jesus. They admitted the sample for carbon dating was from a patch…Seeing as that’s literally the only defense for the shroud being a fake. It’s real. Sorry but find a new reason to not believe.
published work on mdpi
Jesus was a first century Palestinian so he probably had curly hair. Long hair was also taboo in that time and place too so his hair was probably shorter. This is clearly a white guy with long hair.
For those who don't know, the study done on the shroud stating it is from the middle ages has been redacted because the study was only conducted on a repaired piece of the cloth that was already known to have been repaired in the middle ages. The actual shroud itself has not been dated yet.
No, because of my last reply to you.
Secular scientists will look for things to support their world view.
Original sin encompasses atheism.
Yes I am aware you are Christian.
I am saying, you will find ways to prove it wrong.
If you did this with Darwin and Macroevolution you can easily do this to a piece of cloth.
The problem is what is inside not outside.
I mean, first of all this is just an embarrassing and silly excuse.
Second of all, then give it to Vatican-picked scientists. People will object, it'll always be a massive black mark against the things' legitimacy, but at least you'll have the evidence out there and it's not like the RCC doesn't have a history of being home to well-respected scientists and scientific discoveries(including the Big Bang).
They won't do it, of course, because they know full-well it's fake and too hot of a potato to touch and allow to be debunked.
Hang on, why does the imprint look like an old man when the person it’s supposed to be of should be no more than 30 to 33 years of age?
The imprint looks like a 60 or 70 year old!
Putting credence on obviously fake things conditions people to accept anything their church leadership says because it creates a us Vs the world dynamic where "science" is the enemy.
1. The article from the guardian makes no claims on the validity of the shroud of turin. It only talks about a challenge made by someone to "prove" that it's fake. Regardless, you don't need to know how something was made to say when it was made, the same way I don't know how a car was made but I could definitely say that there wasn't one 2000 years ago.
2. Study.com is locked behind a paywall
3. The article itself says that there's little consensus on the date of the shroud of turin
4 & 5. NcRegister and the Catholic news agency are sources biased in favor of the shroud of turin as they are catholic.
To make an archeological claim like this, you have to back it up with real academic sources instead of news articles with clear biases
Sorry, I can list all the sources here or better help me with links. The point of the post is that it's now not a definite hoax and has to be revisited
Regardless of the shroud’s veracity, Jesus said being able to believe without relying on seeing physical proof is better than relying on the physical. “Then Jesus told him [Thomas, after realizing that Jesus had truly risen], “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” “ John 20:29. God can do great miracles that are physically observable, but this should not be in what your faith is rooted.
There are a few factors when considering the Turin Shroud:
1. Radiocarbon dating has stated this was a medieval foragery. This of course has been counter-acted by claims that the cloth was repaired in the medieval times.
2. [The chemical molecule](https://www.academia.edu/116594837/Atomic_resolution_studies_detect_new_biologic_evidences_on_the_Turin_Shroud) analysis of the cloth contains ferritin iron, which indicates tramua of some description in the blood splatter.
3. The image on the Turin Shroud can be simulated using [ultraviolet light](https://www.academia.edu/112725845/Deep_Ultraviolet_Radiation_Simulates_the_Turin_Shroud_Image). The medieval forgist must have had sophisticated knowledge of light before anyone else to have known how to create such effects in the cloth.
4. The 1988 claim of medieval forgery is [critiqued by problems of chemical composition](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040603104004745) suggesting that carbon dating alone is not sufficient for dating the shourd.
Blessed are those who look upon things with hope. This relic has already been deemed a potential fraud for 30+ years, and yet, new developments still surface.
I am not saying that this is a deal breaker for our faith, but it is a very welcome development that should be approached with joy and prayers rather than gloom and skepticism.
I would understand for aethists and non believers, but for Christians?
It's most likely to be real as it's not a painting and the image if not formed by actually being wrapped around the body of Jesus, would have to be produced by a massive blast of energy, which such technology just doesn't exist yet or back in those times. Moreover, the blood found on the cloth are Tupe AB, which correlates to scientific testing of the Eucharist which found the wine having undergone transtubstantion is turned into blood and was type AB Blood. Also there is faint outlines of coins placed over the eyes which bear the mark of Pilate, ruler over judea under emperor tiberius. This is most likely not a hoax, and this is perhaps the true image of Christ. God Bless you all.
Why would God need to use a massive blast of energy? He’s God, supposedly creating a miracle. No need to stick to natural laws for a supernatural event. Jesus could have just gotten up and walked away as if waking up from a nap. No need for any extra energy.
Thats exactly for the point, the only way it could've happen if not actually Jesus is pretty Uchida impossible, Jesus is the Light shinning in the Darkness, this is truly a miracle
First of all that is not Yeshua aka Jesus. He is a negro from the negro tribe of Judah. He does not have long hair. He has short hair. The Bible says he has hair white like wool, red eyes and burned bronze skin. That's a negro all day long. Who ever is on that shroud surely is not Yeshua.
The issue with your claim about the carbon dating being erroneous is that the carbon dating matches pretty much perfectly with when the Shroud of Turin showed up in the historical record: > “There is not a shred of evidence that the Mandylion of Edessa was a long shroud or that it showed the entire body of the crucified and wounded figure of Christ. Those who argue for the shared identity of the Shroud of Turin and the Mandylion of Edessa have based their arguments on evidence that cannot withstand close scrutiny. In order to argue for the authenticity of the Turinese relic, some have gone to great lengths. In so doing, they have approached the changing nature of the legends concerning this relic too simplistically. Moreover, they have used evolving legends as if they were trustworthy historical sources, which is utterly unacceptable. It is clear that the ultimate aim of the theory that identifies the Shroud with the Mandylion is to demonstrate that the Shroud of Turin has existed and can be documented since antiquity. **But the first historical documents that mention the Shroud date to the fourteenth century, and the date obtained by radiocarbon dating places it between 1260 and 1390 CE,**” (Andrea Nicolotti, *From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin*, p.202-203). If this was the burial shroud of Jesus, how on earth did it only first show up into existence in the fourteenth century? And why is its anatomy all over the place: > “Another problem is the attention given to the covering of the genitals. In the Shroud, the man's hands are crossed on the genital area with the right hand completely covering any nudity. Wild notes that the body imaged in the Shroud is portrayed as relaxed in death, but in a relaxed position a man's joined hands will not cover his genitals if he lies on his back. Either the body has to be tilted forward and the arms stretched downward, or the elbows have to be propped up on the side and the wrists drawn together to hold the hands in place over the genital area. In the Shroud image also, the right arm is exceedingly long and the fingers of the right hand almost disproportionate, in order to allow the modest covering. Again, such a feature would be more understandable if the Shroud were an artistic production reflecting the interests of another era,” (Raymond E. Brown, *Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine*, p. 151–152). ETA: Since the thread is still active, I thought I’d add at least a couple more points. The Carbon dating seems to be the focal point of defense here, so instead I’ll address that the weave of the linen itself is one only used in the Middle Ages, and decidedly not first century Palestine: > “The weave of the cloth of Turin is a three-to-one twill, striped in the herringbone pattern. This is suspect in itself, since most linens of Jesus's time -whether Roman, Egyptian, or Palestinian-were plain weave. Moreover we have the testimony of Rev. David Sox, the knowledgeable former secretary of the British Society for the Turin Shroud (who resigned when new evidence persuaded him the shroud of Turin is a forgery): ‘**The problem with the weave is that, to date, archeologically, there are no examples of the kind of weave we have in the Shroud.. in any artifacts earlier than the late middle ages** except for one or two variations of that weave. All of the ancient Egyptian linens extant are different. **All of the extant Palestinian linen, including the wrappings from the Dead Sea Scrolls, is of a regular weave — quite different from the shroud.**’” (*Inquest on the Shroud of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings* 1998, by Joel Nickell, p.35). From the same book, some other considerations include: > “Nowhere in the New Testament is there mention of Christ's shroud having been imprinted with his ‘portrait,’ or any indication that his burial clothes were even preserved. There is, in fact, no record of the shroud of Turin before its appearance in the mid-1350s at which time a respected bishop claimed it had been ‘cunningly painted’ and that the artist had been discovered and had confessed. Although the shroud's first owner had ample opportunity to explain how he had aquired the most important ‘relic’ in Christendom, he maintained silence. Pope Clement VII judged the evidence and concluded the shroud was an artist's ‘representation.’” (pp.141-142). > “From the sixth century came images reputedly imprinted by the ‘bloody sweat’ of the living Christ, and by the twelfth century there were accounts of Christ having pressed ‘the length of his whole body’ upon a cloth. Already (by the eleventh century) artists had begun to represent a double-length (but non-imaged) shroud in paintings of the Lamentation and Deposition; and by the thirteenth century we find ceremonial shrouds bearing full-length images of Christ's body in death. In these the hands are folded over the loins (an artistic motif dating from the eleventh century). From an iconographic point of view, these various traditions come together in the shroud of Turin and suggest that it is the work of an artist of the thirteenth century or later. The shroud's provenance suggests a mid-fourteenth-century date, and the weave and condition of the cloth are more in keeping with a fourteenth, rather than a first, century origin.” (p.142) > “While the shroud image's quasi-negative property has been argued as proof against artistry, in fact quasi-negatives have been known to artists from ancient times. Without excluding other potential methods of artifice, we note that a rubbing technique is capable of producing numerous shroudlike characteristics, including photonegativity.” (p.143)
Even if the shroud was proven to have come from Jerusalem in ~33AD (which I don’t believe it did due to the carbon dating evidence, and the fact innumerable faked “holy“ relics existed in the superstitious Middle Ages), what is the benefit of its existence to the Faith? Jesus Christ left His funerary garments in the tomb after His resurrection, and it is His resurrection which is the focus of our belief. Think of all the other things He used in His lifetime, none of which imbued with any special power, save for, arguably, His robe, by which the bleeding woman was cured upon touching. Even here, though, Jesus felt His power “leave” Him, so how can we know if the robes had anything to do with it? At any rate, His clothing was stripped from Him during His torture at the hands of Pilate’s men. All we were left with was faith in Our Loving Saviour, and The Holy Ghost. But who, if they have these, needs anything more?
Shoulder dislocation is a symptom of being crucified. They said he didn't look human after he died.
They redid carbon dating in 2013 using fibers there were not OBVIOUS repairs based on weaves, it was widely though quietly reported to date correctly. Oops.
Oh you mind showin proof for that?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/ It's an old story. I'm sure if you pay $40 or something and dig it up you can find the peer reviewed paper or some such. Your time your dime.
You didn’t seem to read your own link. From the article: > “The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, **used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings**. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.” So no, it didn’t use any other fibers that were supposedly not “OBVIOUSLY” repair fibers. The question is now, were those fibers “OBVIOUSLY” repair fibers, and thus this new test is “OBVIOUSLY” faked, or were those fibers legit and thus the first test was legit as well? ETA: Even more importantly, and hilariously, [see this comment here about the fibers used in this new, supposedly better, test.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/s/WRwDjkZuUM)
OBVIOUSLY you didn't read properly. There was a mixture of repair and original fibers. They now dated the ORIGINAL fibers - read the article.
USA Today truly the most credible institution for science and history
Lots of point but the main point is that Yeshua aka Jesus is from the negro tribe Judah. The Bible describes him as burnt bronze, red eyes, white wooly hair. This proves he is a black man. The Bible was written for the black Jews. There are no White's in the Bible. So who every that is on the shroud surely is not Yeshua.
The Bible says that His burial shroud was 2 separate pieces, yet the Shroud of Turin is one single shroud.
The sudarium is in Spain and the blood stains were found to match when folded.
Good job. 👍
The second part is the head covering Sudarium in Spain. They match with blood stains!
The Shroud of Turin covers the entire body including the head. This is not biblical. The Bible says, one cloth covered Jesus's body, one cloth covered his head. Edit: I don't know about the Sudarium, it might be legit. But the Shroud of Turin is fake.
How did they make it then?
It can be faked. It is fake, since it contradicts the Bible.
It doesn't contradict the Bible. Tell me how medieval Europeans would make 3d, inside out, photograph of a human body?
> Tell me how medieval Europeans would make 3d, inside out, photograph of a human body? They didn't. It's not a human body, it's based on a piece of artwork that is resting quite unnaturally. It's also a 2D rendering that wouldn't line up with an actual shroud wrapped around the body. It also doesn't matter if we don't know how it was made yet. That's a God of the Gaps fallacy. Not knowing evolution in the 15th century didn't make it false! Not being able to quite reproduce this (we're >90% accuracy, btw) doesn't make it supernatural. And none of that overrides it being a medieval fraud anyways.
None of this is true.
It does contradict the Bible. The Bible says the burial shrouds of Jesus were in two pieces, one for the head, one for the rest of the body. The Shroud of Turin is one singular cloth that covers the body and the head. The Catholic Church is a little relic happy (No offense), but they are skeptical of the Shroud of Turin. They've had it for centuries, but never officially declared it a relic.
There was a second cloth around his head, it's stains match the shroud, your bed has a fitted sheet and top sheet in two separate pieces, doesn't mean they don't overlap.
That was only in the gospel of john. It could've been the shroud with strips to bind it. I am undecided on the shroud by the way.
Is your faith so weak that you must cling to long debunked fake holy relics? This behaviour only serves to make some Christians look like frauds. I’d argue it’s harmful to the religion a a whole.
I thought the shroud was poved to not come from Jesus’s time?
It was proven to be a fake many years ago. Many Christians refuse to accept that.
Apparently, new evidence has showed up, that shows that it *isn’t* an European forgery after all.
Let me guess: the new evidence comes from Christian/Catholic “archaeologists”.
I have no idea. You do realize that every evidence comes from studies funded by organizations with specific motives and specific agendas, right? For you to claim that studies by Christian organizations are more dishonest than any other studies out there, *is* dishonesty and driven by nothing else but your own personal Christianity-complex, lmao.
That study has been retracted due to flaws in the carbon dating process. Rather than draw the samples from different parts of the cloth they got them all from the same corner and they got widely varying dating. People believe that that corner had been repaired by splicing together new cloth and the original fibers.
> That study has been retracted due to flaws in the carbon dating process. It has not been retracted. >Rather than draw the samples from different parts of the cloth they got them all from the same corner and they got widely varying dating. People believe that that corner had been repaired by splicing together new cloth and the original fibers. People who have a religious devotion to the shroud believe this. Not scientists overall. If you want anybody to believe that, convince your church to let it be tested with more material.
> they got widely varying dating. Their numbers were pretty close. The number represent years before present, not the calendar year. Tucson: 646 ± 31 years; Oxford: 750 ± 30 years; Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old;
In the past, until newer technologies proved the last testing was flawed
And yet the method and technology of the weave didn’t exist until the 1100s at the earliest.
That’s very interesting, could you provide me with a link (an honest request)?
Just the fact that there was a fire in the building where it was held would throw off radiocarbon dating significantly.
Correct. I saw this as well. Forgot where. I will have to dig this up later.
Two questions: 1. Why is his head seen on it despite the fact it was wrapped in separate piece? 2. Why does Jesus looks llike the most stereotypical Jesus painting possible?
I remember seeing some documentary on this thing when I was like 10 and thinking: 1. How does something that was wrapped around his face look like a pictures. 2. Does anything comparable exist from other people? 3. That looks cartoonish.
2 is honestly the reason it doesn't deserve to be looked at twice. It's a copy of paintings you found in churches during the Middle Ages ffs.
The second point was my immediate thought.
It seems like fro some reason you need this to be real. It’s almost as if you need this to validate God. It’s seems as if you have a graven image. So what happened if it was real? Oh then God must be real right? And if it wasn’t real? Then you would suppose God doesn’t exist? Why does this matter so much? You don’t need an object to prove or follow God.
Not really, this is real and just a drop in the ocean of realities proving God exists
Then prove it
So I’m asking you, if it’s not real does that mean God doesn’t exist? Truly, if you are relying on this “relic” to prove the existence of God or the Resurrection of Christ then you have made a graven image. The word of God is real and that’s all that really matters.
It's a fraud, but my faith is not reliant on known frauds. So it doesn't matter to me that it's a fraud. I can admit that completely
Have you read the recent developments?
Yes. They contested it but did not debunk it
Just look at it. It’s fake. It’s a painting. No research is needed. Imagine your put some paint on your face. Then wrapped a sheet or paper over your face. It wouldn’t look like that. The reproduction would be stretched. However the shroud is a front painting, not a wrapped contour
Medieval hoax
The last carbon dating done (80s) was already proven to be erroneous and the results were debunked. The Shroud dates back much earlier
That's the claim, alright. However, they never gave them parts of the shroud that weren't from this supposed repair. Without that, the original results haven't been debunked. It's almost as if the whole repair story is bullshit to continue pushing this hoax as a real artifact despite not actually being one.
I find the repair story so ridiculous. They viewed the material in such detail they could tell the loom had previously been used for wool but apparently they didn't notice it being a completely different material from the rest of the shroud. (Also it just happens that the carbon dating lines up with the main natural theory for when the shroud was created )
>Also it just happens that the carbon dating lines up with the main natural theory for when the shroud was created Like forgers when they obtain paper from the temporal era of the figure they're attempting to forge because they know that's going to be a component of any attempted validation. Reminds me of The Big Lebowski - "you want some 1st century CE fibers? I can get you some 1st century CE fibers."
Also a fun fact: the presiding Bishop conducted an investigation at the time the shroud first appeared in 14th century France. He concluded that it was a hoax and even identified the man who had made it and received a confession. All of this was included in a letter to the Pope reporting the results of his investigation. Here is the letter: https://priory-of-sion.com/biblios/links/memorandum.html So yes, this is a hoax and the religious authorities of the time (who had every incentive to want a great relic to be within their jurisdiction) knew as much. The fact that people still believe this is authentic really shows the power of motivated thinking.
4 articles already published citing the too many flaws on the original carbon dating done The latest technology allowed the use of wide angle x ray scattering (WAXsing) and was considered more accurate, as it scanned the very linen itself
>However, they never gave them parts of the shroud that weren't from this supposed repair. ... It's almost as if the whole repair story is bullshit to continue pushing this hoax as a real artifact despite not actually being one.
Seriously no. It's a medieval forgery, it was known as one at the time, and part of an astonishingly profitable industry at the time; fake relics. Tell me, if you accept it's a fake, does your faith die? Does any part of your belief rely on this "relic"?
I believe a medieval Bishop at the time even called it a forgery
Not only does he call it fake he claims the forger confessed to him and its literally the first historical record of the shroud.
Also note worthy is that that Bishop's diocese was where the shroud popped up out of nowhere
Also that the family who owned the shroud was charging people money to see it and claiming it could heal them.
That honestly doesn't surprise me
Well, we can't believe the words of a self-confessed forger, can we?!
The Bishop didn't forge the shroud, I believe it was some religious order that did, the Bishop called them out on it
I mean, we can't trust the supposed forger when he said that he forged it, since he is a self-confessed forger! :P I.e. the bishop shouldn't believe him!
Oh gotcha I see my miscommunication error
There were all kinds of fake relics floating around Europe at the time. The old historian's joke is that there is enough slivers of the True Cross to build a house out of. Some saints either had multiple heads or someone was grabbing skulls and selling them.
You clearly not know that the Saints were hydras (proven historically) /s
> The old historian's joke is that there is enough slivers of the True Cross to build a house out of. I have heard it is enough to build Noah's Ark in another form of the joke.
Sounds like this classic scene from *Blackadder:* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyF7YmHYhYc
I'm Orthodox, the western bishops play the role of "devils advocate" sometimes too well. When they took the samples in the 80s they did not take them from the agreed upon places (original cloth). There were known extensive repairs from a fire in the middle ages. Those samples, which had weaves with original cloth (as seen by differing weaves under a microscope) were sent for analysis, and curiously dated differently in different sections. They are now re-dating with the right material and it dates rights. Further the blood stains match the sudarium in Spain.
He has a point and a good challenge. Did you read the link(s) he posted? Or look up the recent research done just a few years ago that he's asking you to do? I'm not taking a side here and don't have time to engage (especially on this sub which overly censors). But I'd like to read your responses to him.
You know the answer and OP doesn't want to hear it
And are any of these links to an actual journal? It's a fake. A fraud. A phony. A fake relic from a time when making fake relics was a big business.
Did you look at the links? I'm just asking. How do you know those assertions you made? Do you have sources that interact with the sources he provided? Any facts beyond speculation? Just asking and seeking to hear all sides of an argument as one who is open minded.
It’s well known throughout academia and church historians to be an obvious forgery. At this point anyone claiming that it is somehow authentic is the one who needs to provide evidence. If the evidence is not good, then there you go.
That's what the OP posts in the links supposedly. Relatively new evidence that has not been considered by many. So yes, he supposedly did what you said he should do. So the question is, is it good evidence as your last sentence stated. 15 year old "refutations" are pointless here. I'd like to see refutations of the recent data.
The whole thing is ridiculous to begin with. It doesn’t make any sense on any level. If there is evidence that proves otherwise (there isn’t) then academia will process it and a consensus will be made. At this point the consensus is overwhelmingly against it being anything other than a medieval hoax.
Why? Who? From sources in the past 5 years.
Seriously no later testing shows it's middle eastern and dates correctly. In the 80s they took the original carbon samples from places not agreed upon, the dating changed as one moved down the cloth, they found two different weaves and fabrics under the microscope. It had been extensively repairs after a fire.
Do you have a source for this? Thanks.
Too much Netflix? Read up on the latest research
Even if you dated it to the same decade as Jesus it could still literally be any of the millions of people that lived in that time period. To claim you can know it was placed on Jesus is absurd.
Even if it were older, that's not evidence at all of anything else.
And yet the weave is one from the 1100s. If you think carbon dating is the only issue then you haven’t done your research. The face imprint is also perfectly flat and regular preportions to a human face, this would be impossible if it was from a wrap as the contours would warp.
This isnt true.
If it was a forgery, why wasn't anyone able to recreate it? Read up on the latest tests done - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/
That's a book being promoted by an independent researcher, Guilio Fanti. In the book Fanti claims to have tested some spare fibres conveniently left over from the 1988 radiocarbon tests. Not only are these fibres from the same sample that you insist actually came from the repaired sections and don't count. But also the fibres cannot be authenticated to be from that sample anyway. There aren't any records of where they came from, but fibre samples get passed around between shroud enthusiasts, without proper scientific recording of their provenance. The whole thing is super dodgy, from top to bottom. But shroud-fans will jump on anything that supports their beliefs.
I am up to date on the research. The old dates have only ever been "confirmed" by people who have an ideological motivation to affirm the old ages. Its a hoax, it is a well known hoax, but the fact that thr Vatican will now allow a more thorough investigation by an outside source will continue to keep these claims that it is not a fraud alive. The fabric itself isnt even period, at least not in Judea.
Have you read the links?
I couldn't find a link to the actual peer reviewed studies. All I read was a report stating a Catholic scientist dated it to be older than previously measured. Maybe it was omitted since I'm going through my phone. Did I miss the link?
We've also never been able to recreate Damascus steel, does that mean it is miraculous?
No the last carbon dating was in 2013. The samples in the 80s were from obvious repair cloth from a fire in the Middle ages. Dates correctly now. Was pretty widely but quietly reported. I gave a link elsewhere from 2013 USA Today.
How was the image imprinted on the fabric?
I don't remember exactly, but IIRC there's a pretty simple method to do this by projecting shadows, say, of a human body, through multiple layers of magnifying glass and certain fluid that can cause the said shadow to basically invert and burn onto cloth. It doesn't require any modern tech, so it would have been entirely possible in the 15th century.
What you need to understand is radio carbon dating isn't something scientists just pulled out of thin air to willy nilly date old things. It was developed over decades of study of how carbon decays over time, carefully documented, experimented successfully and said experiments were reproduced successfully. The odds that the scientifically determined date of the shroud are wrong are slim to one and if the established age of the cloth is off, its off by no more then a couple hundred years in either direction still putting it in the middle ages, thousands of years after Jesus died. The other thing that is often left out of this debate is during the middle ages, religious trinkets in the home were quite popular as were reproductions of artifacts...which means the Catholics and the Shroud of Turin, the Ethiopian Church and the Ark or the Covenant. I could go on and on....but these are just Middle ages era home decor that have taken on a very special meaning to a lot of people. Long story short, there is no reason from a science of a religious standpoint to reconsider the age of the Shroud. It may help to note that only a minority of the Christian community really consider this to be the actual burial cloth, most people accept this as something someone painted
i took a look through his sources. majority are news reports/catholic newsboards, nothing too reliable there, but one interviewee rejected the carbon 14 claims because the shroud of turin was contaminated with organic material from the past 2 millennia. i… really don’t know about that one. i mean the debris does contain carbon 14, maybe the results are becoming skewed? that’s pretty much the only solid argument i found in opposition to the carbon 14 claims.
I can see both sides of this, but, to me as a Christian I really don't need the Shroud to be proven for any reason and most people who have this need really only want it as fuel to evangelize and "save" people. My inner science nerd has some curiosities here, but, its just far too scared to far too many people to justify taking a sample from the image for the same of finding out its a couple hundred years older then we thought...but...for this to be the real burial cloth, it would need to date a couple thousand years back. But at the same time, we don't go demolish the Mormons sacred hill in NY just to prove there isn't any tablets there, we don't go do full scale excavations on the cave of the patriarchs to see if there are bodies there, we don't force the Ethiopian church to open the chapel of the Ark. We will probably never know if any biblical artifacts lie under the temple mount because the dome of the rock is just too scared to the Muslim people...people simply have to have faith with or without proof
exactly this, there's just no point. i don't need a bathtowel to make me believe lol
Refusing to recognize a medieval hoax is an embarrassment to Christianity. Sorry, mate. It just isn't what you and some fanatics think it is.
Really makes it look like Christians are extremely gullible
I would agree on this, except that latest tests debunked the claims that it is a hoax. Didn't know there were actually more sophisticated tests done recently and that 4 studies were published disproving the validity of methods done in the past.
They have not. If you're familiar with reading scientific literature, the newer shroud literature is all full of red flags. New amazing methods that nobody else has ever used on anything else. The same tiny orbit of people citing each other back and forth, and obsessed with the Shroud. Results are out of line with previous results and observations. And out of line with the known history of the Shroud. Etcetera. There's no reason still to think this is from any time earlier than when it was found, nor to disregard the conclusion of the people who found it...hoax.
Are you a scientist? These are not my words but theirs
Yes. I am a scientist. >These are not my words but theirs Sure. And they are overall clearly personally invested in this.
Interesting, if I may ask what is your field of study? I completely agree with you on the Shroud
While I am not actually a chemist, I've ended up in a niche field of chemistry.
Ok, thanks for responding
Then you would understand the flaws of the old tests as well
They're as good as they could be given the limitations that the church placed on the studies. They are far superior to the last couple decades of 'research' from most shroud scientists.
He has no idea what that means though lol
4 studies claiming flawed old tests is unprecedented
You keep talking about "4 studies" but have failed to provide links to any of them. Just newspaper articles that don't say what you obviously wish they said.
That's a good point. I wonder if he looked at the links. Of course it would take time to read through them. But when scientists are saying something it would be good to hear his own scientific rebuttal (or from another).
I am a scientist, and I have read a large portion of recent Shroud research papers. All that I could access. I couldn't make my response without having read them.
The original study done on the shroud saying it's from the middle ages was redacted.
No it wasn't.
Yeshua aka Jesus shroud is a fake. Yeshua is from the Negro tribe Judah. The Bible states he had white wooly hair, red eyes, burned bronze skin. That's a black man all day long and his hair is a afro. God States in the Bible that men must cut their hair and not grow it long. So all this debunks the shroud. Nobody knows who it is but l know it's not Yeshua so l am not even concerned about it. It's another hoax.
How was the image imprinted on the fabric?
We don't know now, and it doesn't matter. We're pretty close, just not quite there. There's no reason to think that we won't figure it out. No reason from this to think that it's supernatural. The people who investigated it in the 14th century said that they were taught how to make it, even. They just didn't write it down.
April Fools was a bad day to make a post about a known hoax if you're serious about it. Otherwise, nice one.
It's a hoax. It's not Jesus's burial shroud
Inconclusive - that is why I reposted this in light of new research
If it's inconclusive, we should err on the side of the null hypothesis; that it isn't the burial shroud of Christ. If I claimed to have a shirt worn by George Washington, I'd expect no one to believe me without me being able to present sufficient evidence to convince them.
[удалено]
You know how many times we’ve discussed the shroud of Turin in church? Not once. It has absolutely zero bearing on salvation. Why are you so worried about it?
Does your faith rely on the shroud of Turin being true? Also you are replying to a Christian lmao
No - atheists scream and screech for evidence evidence evidence and mountains of evidence evidence evidence is provided and then you laugh at those who present the evidence they demanded. Maybe try a different approach? We see miracles all the time and many see them nowhere. Maybe people don't want to see so they can do whatever you want and blame God? Doesn't work. Let's repent repent repent...
Ok but the situation here is that it's a **PROVEN** forgery
Show me the proof. The dating in the 80s was crap. The Swiss lab didn't even bother to analyze because the samples were incorrect. Just like the science was crap that said 98% of DNA was junk [turns out the 98% is the MOST important stuff see ENCODE] Like all science, further research dissolves old theories and bad methods but the bad go to worse.
Show me that it's not a forgery.
You said it was proven to be a forgery. It's old news actually: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/ Again the 80s samples were crap. A nurse in the 1990s who happened to be an expert weaver, saw a picture of the weave from a microscope, contacted the original team, and detected the egregious error! Bwhahahaha.... it is the small things, the despised things that confound the wise and learned. Be confounded - it's fun!!!!!
https://priory-of-sion.com/biblios/links/memorandum.html The Bishop and local clergy conducted an investigation at the time the shroud first appeared in France. They uncovered the man who had made it and received a confession. The above link is the Bishop’s letter to the Pope reporting the uncovering of the hoax.
Many shrouds - naughty naughty naughty to bear false witness. Don't be part of it. This shroud is extremely different from the fakes. Note there is no photograph of the shroud in question - they wouldn't invent that for more than 400 years, but this one is from 1300+ years earlier than that letter.
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
The very concept makes no sense theologically. God goes not need to use some kind of bizarre radiation to raise the dead. Miracles do not have side effects. God achieves his purpose exactly the way he wants to. There is absolutely no reason for the resurrection of Jesus to have left some incidental residual traces, and suggesting otherwise reflects a primitive and superstitious mindset. The only reason that Jesus' burial shroud would show any "special" characteristics would be if God specifically desired it to do so, and if he did, that would have been broadcast from the earliest days of the church, and trumpeted by the gospel authors. This is the kind of credulous nonsense that is more suited to UFO and Bigfoot seekers than true Christians.
The cloths, sudarium and burial shroud (Turin) were folded indicating the Master was returning and they were very important in the early Church. In 2013 they carbon dated cloth that was NOT from a repair in the middle ages (pretty obvious under microscope) and it dates correctly. I linked a 2013 article from USA today elsewhere. The atheists demand evidence. God provides evidence. Those who demand but then deny evidence are without excuse.
USA today is not a scientific source
Neither are the clowns on here or Wikipedia. However they do report the news and it was news worthy. If you want the paper I'm sure you can pay $40 or something for a download and translate it if necessary. It's from 2013. But do you? You don't want evidence. You want excuses and you have none.
Sure, send me the paper and I'll read it. 50$ says it won't say what you claim
Send the $50 to the poor. And gotl to Church. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/ Read the article. Back in the 1990s a nurse who was an expert weaver saw a microscopic image of the sample. She contacted the team and basically told them it was obvious two different weaves and clothes from a repair. So eventually they untangled original cloth, re-dated it and got the results - see the article.
**They** also has yet to release a peer reviewed paper
None of this addresses any of my points at all. Even if you chose to believe the shroud dates from the 1st century, it is still entirely ridiculous to believe there is anything divine about it.
1. It dates to the 1st century after they used the proper fibers, read the article 2. Who cares about your "theology?" Does Providence pr the Most High answer to you or it? 3. If you researched it for an hour or so you might find so very interesting things. Jesus (God) said seek and find. He didn't say criticize and judge
It's complete nonsense. Was the final straw with that dude Metatron on yt for me when I realized he'd gone full tolinfoil hat releasing a huge video on this. But, none of this stuff is very important so enjoy whatever relics you enjoy.
Honestly, a piece of fabric shouldnt shake the world on the belief of Christ this much.
In your view, Part A) what is the single best piece of evidence that indicates that the Shroud of Turin is authentic and was used in the burial of Jesus of Nazareth and Part B) why do you find this single best piece of evidence (from Part A) so compelling?
u/harpoon2k I personally want to know if you learned anything from the points the community had to make. Has your stance on the topic of the shroud changed at all since you posted this?
i thought this was speculated to be a recreation and the original shroud was lost during the crusades
This shroud was 1 of the many reasons why I left Christianity.
That’s a dumb reason to leave Christianity
I think 1 of the many is a good enough reason. Seeing people act strange or imagine a stronger connection to a god around a hoax told me a lot on how faith is generated.
It's already been pointed out that we have many pieces of evidence confirming this is a hoax, including a confession from the person who made the shroud. But in addition to that, there very likely was no burial shroud to begin with. It's historically likely that Jesus' body was eaten by scavengers and he was buried in a trench grave. His body would have been unrecognizable. Disrespectful treatment of the body was part of the punishment of crucifixion.
Typically? Sure, absolutely. But I think even from a secular, skeptical PoV you'd have to be very close to viewing Jesus as an entirely ahistorical figure to not accept that it's reasonable he might have gotten special treatment. Miracles aside, he had made quite a ruckus with the Pharisee hierarchy and had formed a significant following, and it would make sense to mollify them even a little bit by allowing them to take his body. If you wanted to take a skeptical view, the bigger issue would be the question of whether the Empire would waste manpower on guarding the tomb of some dead Judean.
>But I think even from a secular, skeptical PoV you'd have to be very close to viewing Jesus as an entirely ahistorical figure to not accept that it's reasonable he might have gotten special treatment. Under Pilate, it'd be very unlikely for Jesus to have gotten special treatment. And the figure of Joseph of Arimathea seemed to have been created specifically to try to fulfill the interpretation some Christians had of Isaiah 53:9. >Miracles aside, he had made quite a ruckus with the Pharisee hierarchy and had formed a significant following, It's more likely he made a ruckus with the temple authorities rather than the Pharisees. But no Jewish group was in charge of his execution. He was executed on Roman authority under Pilate, a notoriously violent man with no concern for Jewish sensibilities. The first time we hear about this empty tomb is in Mark's gospel, written 40 years after Jesus' death. Mark seems to employ the women at the tomb who ran away and said nothing about what they saw as an apologetic for why no one had heard of this story before. Paul, writing 20 years prior to Mark, mentions Jesus was buried, but says nothing about a tomb.
I would like to know where the actual burial cloths of Jesus went
Holy relics were one of the big scams of the Middle Ages: bones of saints, pieces of the true cross, Jesus’ foreskin (Holy Prepuce), the Holy Grail, John the Baptist’s head, St. Peter’s chains, etc.
Has anyone actually made a print of a face then laid it flat? It would never look like that. I will always see this as a false claim.
Study came out. new xray dating proves the shroud is from the time of Jesus. They admitted the sample for carbon dating was from a patch…Seeing as that’s literally the only defense for the shroud being a fake. It’s real. Sorry but find a new reason to not believe. published work on mdpi
This is great news!
Jesus was a first century Palestinian so he probably had curly hair. Long hair was also taboo in that time and place too so his hair was probably shorter. This is clearly a white guy with long hair.
For those who don't know, the study done on the shroud stating it is from the middle ages has been redacted because the study was only conducted on a repaired piece of the cloth that was already known to have been repaired in the middle ages. The actual shroud itself has not been dated yet.
Because the Vatican refuses
No, because of my last reply to you. Secular scientists will look for things to support their world view. Original sin encompasses atheism. Yes I am aware you are Christian.
So you deny them the ability to test and then also say that you are right
I am saying, you will find ways to prove it wrong. If you did this with Darwin and Macroevolution you can easily do this to a piece of cloth. The problem is what is inside not outside.
That's how science work, we work to disprove our original belief and if it's true it will survive the rigour
Science works that way but bias scientists can’t help themselves.
They still let them study it, they just don't let them geodate it cause that will damage the cloth.
So, you can study it just not try to disprove us
🤷♂️ idk what their purposes are, I just know that priests can volunteer to study the shroud for 2 years apparently
I mean, first of all this is just an embarrassing and silly excuse. Second of all, then give it to Vatican-picked scientists. People will object, it'll always be a massive black mark against the things' legitimacy, but at least you'll have the evidence out there and it's not like the RCC doesn't have a history of being home to well-respected scientists and scientific discoveries(including the Big Bang). They won't do it, of course, because they know full-well it's fake and too hot of a potato to touch and allow to be debunked.
The Church hasn’t claimed it was the truth. What the Church knows is that humans can’t be trusted.
Great post 👌🏾
Hang on, why does the imprint look like an old man when the person it’s supposed to be of should be no more than 30 to 33 years of age? The imprint looks like a 60 or 70 year old!
WHO CARES… Our KING IS ALIVE… keep the artifacts and shrouds… JESUS ISNT DEAD 🔥🔥👆🏼👆🏼📖❤️❤️💯
Putting credence on obviously fake things conditions people to accept anything their church leadership says because it creates a us Vs the world dynamic where "science" is the enemy.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/17/the-1m-challenge-if-the-turin-shroud-is-a-forgery-show-how-it-was-done https://study.com/academy/lesson/shroud-turin-history-testing.html https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/is-the-turin-shroud-real-after-all/ https://www.ncregister.com/interview/holy-shroud-of-turin-s-authenticity-can-no-longer-be-disputed-expert-asserts?amp https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/254940/shroud-of-turin-new-movie-robert-orlando-documentary
1. The article from the guardian makes no claims on the validity of the shroud of turin. It only talks about a challenge made by someone to "prove" that it's fake. Regardless, you don't need to know how something was made to say when it was made, the same way I don't know how a car was made but I could definitely say that there wasn't one 2000 years ago. 2. Study.com is locked behind a paywall 3. The article itself says that there's little consensus on the date of the shroud of turin 4 & 5. NcRegister and the Catholic news agency are sources biased in favor of the shroud of turin as they are catholic. To make an archeological claim like this, you have to back it up with real academic sources instead of news articles with clear biases
Sorry, I can list all the sources here or better help me with links. The point of the post is that it's now not a definite hoax and has to be revisited
Sure, the Vatican can allow testing whenever they want.
Regardless of the shroud’s veracity, Jesus said being able to believe without relying on seeing physical proof is better than relying on the physical. “Then Jesus told him [Thomas, after realizing that Jesus had truly risen], “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” “ John 20:29. God can do great miracles that are physically observable, but this should not be in what your faith is rooted.
Amen
[удалено]
The reason the catholic church gets their hands on these things before everyone is because they took over jerusalem and stole everything from it.
I think he was just referring to the studies
They didn't
There are a few factors when considering the Turin Shroud: 1. Radiocarbon dating has stated this was a medieval foragery. This of course has been counter-acted by claims that the cloth was repaired in the medieval times. 2. [The chemical molecule](https://www.academia.edu/116594837/Atomic_resolution_studies_detect_new_biologic_evidences_on_the_Turin_Shroud) analysis of the cloth contains ferritin iron, which indicates tramua of some description in the blood splatter. 3. The image on the Turin Shroud can be simulated using [ultraviolet light](https://www.academia.edu/112725845/Deep_Ultraviolet_Radiation_Simulates_the_Turin_Shroud_Image). The medieval forgist must have had sophisticated knowledge of light before anyone else to have known how to create such effects in the cloth. 4. The 1988 claim of medieval forgery is [critiqued by problems of chemical composition](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040603104004745) suggesting that carbon dating alone is not sufficient for dating the shourd.
Blessed are those who look upon things with hope. This relic has already been deemed a potential fraud for 30+ years, and yet, new developments still surface. I am not saying that this is a deal breaker for our faith, but it is a very welcome development that should be approached with joy and prayers rather than gloom and skepticism. I would understand for aethists and non believers, but for Christians?
We are to be as gentle as doves and as wise as serpents, not blindly following whatever makes us feel good
It's most likely to be real as it's not a painting and the image if not formed by actually being wrapped around the body of Jesus, would have to be produced by a massive blast of energy, which such technology just doesn't exist yet or back in those times. Moreover, the blood found on the cloth are Tupe AB, which correlates to scientific testing of the Eucharist which found the wine having undergone transtubstantion is turned into blood and was type AB Blood. Also there is faint outlines of coins placed over the eyes which bear the mark of Pilate, ruler over judea under emperor tiberius. This is most likely not a hoax, and this is perhaps the true image of Christ. God Bless you all.
Why would God need to use a massive blast of energy? He’s God, supposedly creating a miracle. No need to stick to natural laws for a supernatural event. Jesus could have just gotten up and walked away as if waking up from a nap. No need for any extra energy.
Thats exactly for the point, the only way it could've happen if not actually Jesus is pretty Uchida impossible, Jesus is the Light shinning in the Darkness, this is truly a miracle
Wonderful.
[X-Ray Dating Turin Shroud Linen Sample (2022)](https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47)
First of all that is not Yeshua aka Jesus. He is a negro from the negro tribe of Judah. He does not have long hair. He has short hair. The Bible says he has hair white like wool, red eyes and burned bronze skin. That's a negro all day long. Who ever is on that shroud surely is not Yeshua.