The Shroud of Turin...confirmed as fake

Originally posted by Gazrok
Hehe, or if I could just see that damned documentary again.

Yes, but that defeats the purpose of having fun making a mess in your house....er...I mean verifying the validity of the documentary in question.

Originally posted by Gazrok
here seem to be points both for and against. For myself though, those "against" just seem to win out logically.

Up until today I would agree...but until www.shroudstory.com... is addressed, I'm gonna lean with it. I just have one bone to pick. Why is it a .com ? Doesn't help it's case in saying it's not out for profit.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Gazrok
Though hardly the only instance where the various apostles
disagree on the details.

THAT's an understatement!!

if I could just see that damned documentary again. ... they showed you exactly what kind of impression a bloody body would
leave on a cloth wrapped around it.

I'm pretty sure that I saw the same documentary. They said the
head impression was smaller and a bit 'detatched' from the rest of
the body impression. They used that to say it was an 'obvious'
fake. My response - not really. If the head had the additional 'napkin'
wrapped around it then the head part would have been tighter in
and thus a bit smaller of an impression than the looser rest of the
shroud.

I THINK that is probably the same documentary you are referring to.

Originally posted by saint4God
I just have one bone to pick. Why is it a .com ?
Doesn't help it's case in saying it's not out for profit.

Lots of sites have .com at the end. This one also has
it. There isn't a place to send 'donations' or whatever.
It looks to be a privately run site without commercial
interests. However, if you google up the info, you will
see that it is all out there, and this site just put it all
in one place (makes it easier for us, eh?)

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Lots of sites have .com at the end. This one also has
it. There isn't a place to send 'donations' or whatever.
It looks to be a privately run site without commercial
interests. However, if you google up the info, you will
see that it is all out there, and this site just put it all
in one place (makes it easier for us, eh?)

*nods* Yeah, I was looking for a 'gift shop' or such but none to be found. Looks clean sarge.

I just thought of something. We spend all our time here looking for a cover-up, and when we find Jesus' cover-up (shroud) we're saying it's not one.

[edit on 2-7-2005 by saint4God]

Tell me, what kind of procedure did they use that would replicate a man rising from the dead? What did it look like? What was the environment in the room like? All of those questions must be answered before I trust anything someone proves on this subject matter. Also, why are there fibers on the cloth from the time of Jesus in Israel?

So this is what the 18 time the shroud has been proven a fake? .It is nice to see the French have enough knowledge to prove this stuff wrong. And as for the flower prints how the h_ell can you get an imprint on sheets with a flower

Originally posted by Tony238
how the h_ell can you get an imprint on sheets with a flower

*sigh*
Just the same as the imprints of the coins on the eyes.
Imprints that you can actually see dates on the coins.
Items do indeed leave imprints on cloth and 'sheets'.
Especially items that have been through a high temperature situation.
Remember the sailors on the ships when the Nukes were tested in the
south pacific?
They had imprints on their bodies of change in their pockets, of necklaces,
of bottons ... Japanese people who were in the nuclear blast in Hiroshima
had imprints of stripes if they were wearing stripes, of prints on their
clothing ....

If Christ was in the shroud when He rose from the dead, it could indeed
have included a high temperature situation. Anything on or around the
shroud would have left an imprint. That's one theory ... high temperature.

So yes, Tony, it is very possible and actually rather probable that the
imprints of flowers would have been left, just as the coin imprints were
left.

Science ... it's an amazing thing when you understand it.

The Shroud of Turin...confirmed as fake

How is this news? Wasn't it proved as fake decades ago? I underestand there is also no Easter Bunny or Santa Claus either....can anyone else confirm this?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Tony238
how the h_ell can you get an imprint on sheets with a flower

*sigh*
Just the same as the imprints of the coins on the eyes.
Imprints that you can actually see dates on the coins.
Items do indeed leave imprints on cloth and 'sheets'.
Especially items that have been through a high temperature situation.
Remember the sailors on the ships when the Nukes were tested in the
south pacific?
They had imprints on their bodies of change in their pockets, of necklaces,
of bottons ... Japanese people who were in the nuclear blast in Hiroshima
had imprints of stripes if they were wearing stripes, of prints on their
clothing ....

If Christ was in the shroud when He rose from the dead, it could indeed
have included a high temperature situation. Anything on or around the
shroud would have left an imprint. That's one theory ... high temperature.

So yes, Tony, it is very possible and actually rather probable that the
imprints of flowers would have been left, just as the coin imprints were
left.

Science ... it's an amazing thing when you understand it.

So what, now we're talking about atomic jesus.

Funny! There is a guy that makes these a Dime a Dozen! Leonardo Da Vinci!!!!!!!!!!!! He made the first one by heating metal then laying the cloth on top of it. He made the Shroud, it was proven, HE MADE IT! Leo made it, he made others, he gave them out as gifts/show off his abilities. Only christians worship Leonardo Da Vinci's work.

Originally posted by _Uforia_
I underestand there is also no Easter Bunny or Santa Claus either....can anyone else confirm this?

After critical analysis, I believe I can reasonably conclude that the person we know as "Santa Claus" did in fact exist at one time and is now dead. The perpetuation and change of his life from fact to mythology is a fascinating one. Nevertheless, written record seems to indicate a truth of the original Saint Nicholas who was a very generous man in his community and celebrated the Christ. Christians therefore should be encouraged to remember the birth of Christ, despite the unknown date origin, as he was the most significant person to appear upon the earth.

The "Ishtar Bunny" was more of an iconic form representing fertility in early goddess worshiping individuals who celebrated the spring equinox. Is there in fact an Easter Bunny? Bunnies are very much a physical animal that can be tested and proven to exist. Labelling one after a religious holiday is as taxonomically correct as calling it a "bunny" in and of itself, though of different origin, in the same way a person is called an "April Baby" as a descriptor of when s/he was born. Christians however, should not have anything to do with Ishtar/Easter per Exodus 20:3 as other such scriptural writings not to celebrate non-God holidays. Resurrection Sunday, however, is a completely different holyday.

I believe this so called relic is a fake. make in the middle ages. it has been proved and the facts are there. all you have to do is look and read. so many hard cores want to believe this is real. just proves the weak minded. science is making new discoveries every day on religions. open you rmind and you will find your god/s.

I've been very slowly picking my way through a book entitled "The Jesus Conspiracy" by Kersten and Gruber for a few months. ( I haven't had a lot of time for reading for pleasure, lately, including ATS.)

I don't know how credible these guys are but I will say that there is a tremendous amount of material about the RCC vs. the carbon dating vs. the samples, etc. It is quite a conspiracy story! The authors did travel all over the globe and personally interview a lot of the folks who were directly and indirectly involved. Still, I have drawn no conclusions and I'm only about 2/3 through with my reading.

If this topic really interests you, you should check out this book and see what you think. It is pretty much entirely about the Shroud and the history and facts and myths surrounding it - in spite of the book's title which might lead one to skip over it.

OK, so here is the authors' primary conclusions as I understand them (and the authors seem to be Christians):

1) the Shroud is authentic in terms of being the burial cloth used at the time the body of Jesus was removed from the cross

2) Jesus did NOT die on the cross! Yep, that's what he/they are saying. They make a very compelling argument that Jesus was crucified but removed from the cross while still alive (though badly injured). Jesus did indeed rise and leave the tomb but, he was never dead.

3) a careful reading of the scriptures will prove at least a couple of main points: a) the gospels do NOT say that Jesus died - in fact, they say pretty much the opposite; b) the authors of the gospels, particularly whomever wrote the Gospel of John, fully intended that the readers of that day should understand that Jesus ESCAPED death on the cross - there is plenty of code and plenty of clues in those scriptures that clearly convey to the readers, especially those who fully understand the Jewish burial customs of that time, that there is no way that Jesus was ever dead because his body was treated in the manner of a man with grievous injury and was never treated in the manner of one who has died.

OK, there's a lot more...I'll tell you if you ask or you can read it for yourself.

Remember, as I said from the beginning, I do NOT claim that these are my beliefs - at least, not yet. The evidence and scholarship seems pretty solid, though.

Originally posted by Al Davison
2) Jesus did NOT die on the cross! Yep, that's what he/they are saying. They make a very compelling argument that Jesus was crucified but removed from the cross while still alive (though badly injured). Jesus did indeed rise and leave the tomb but, he was never dead.

3) a careful reading of the scriptures will prove at least a couple of main points: a) the gospels do NOT say that Jesus died - in fact, they say pretty much the opposite; b) the authors of the gospels, particularly whomever wrote the Gospel of John, fully intended that the readers of that day should understand that Jesus ESCAPED death on the cross - there is plenty of code and plenty of clues in those scriptures that clearly convey to the readers, espec

ially those who fully understand the Jewish burial customs of that time, that there is no way that Jesus was ever dead because his body was treated in the manner of a man with grievous injury and was never treated in the manner of one who has died.

OK, there's a lot more...I'll tell you if you ask or you can read it for yourself.

Remember, as I said from the beginning, I do NOT claim that these are my beliefs - at least, not yet. The evidence and scholarship seems pretty solid, though.

Mark 15:37 & 38. Dead.

Luke 23:46. Dead Jim.

Luke 24:46. Has to die to be the Messiah. See why this is an important point to falsify for a successful conspiracy?

John 19:30, cross-reference Matthew 27:30. Gave up his spirit = dead. Then they poked him with a spear to make sure he was dead.

Dead dead dead, Jesus was dead. Also, what medical wonder would save him if he had three nails the size of railroad spikes driving into him, asphixiated (remember he drew his last breath by the accounts), a crown of thorns mashed on his head, beaten from interrogations, and a spear jabbed in his side? Also, he wasn't the only one that was risen from the dead. Read after Matthew 27:30 (and Lazarus). Take note who specifically rose and why they did. He was the one who rose himself, and the one that paid the debt of sin in full.

And this is just the Gospels! There's plenty more friends, read on read on.

The good news is, he is no longer dead, but very much alive. Want to receive the gift of eternal life too? Send U2U for details.


[edit on 17-11-2005 by saint4God]

Well, Saint, that's the English translation. The authors of this book were using the more ancient texts - the Greek and Aramaic. They even point out some of the early Latin that agrees with the idea that the authors of John were trying to let the followers of Jesus know that he did not die from the crucifixion ordeal.

Not dead, not resurrected but rather resuscitated is the word used. The whole "death" thing was to try to fit the story to the prophecies - according to these authors.

Anyway, I know what you believe. I think you also know what I believe. I'm on record in many other parts of ATS as saying that this whole crucifixion/resurrection story seems to have a lot of holes in it. But, we don't have to agree on that. ;-)

I haven't decided what parts of this particular book that I believe or whether I actually will even form an opinion - it's just interesting reading at this point.

Jacque De Molay may be who is on the shroud. He was the last leader of the Knights Templar, and captured and tortured on 13 October, 1307. He was nailed to a door, then supposedly wrapped in the cloth. The cloth was far older, though. There is a strong connection with the first family to show the shroud and present it to the public, and Jacque Molay. Jacque Molay was taken care of after his injuries, by the same family to present the shroud to the world, about 40 years later.

Originally posted by Al Davison
Well, Saint, that's the English translation. The authors of this book were using the more ancient texts - the Greek and Aramaic. They even point out some of the early Latin that agrees with the idea that the authors of John were trying to let the followers of Jesus know that he did not die from the crucifixion ordeal.

The New Internation Version (text I'm referring to) was translated from original text to English by over 200 scholars who were very well read and skilled in translating. I guess I could be the 201st but I doubt I'd find much difference. Oh and then there are the friends of mine who can also read Greek, Hebrew, etc. who say that's what it says also. How many of the verses I've referenced can be thrown out until there is no longer any Book at all? I certainly didn't refer to all of the passages that say this.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by saint4God]

I'm in no position to argue one version over another because I'm not a scholar and I don't read any language other than English. I'm just telling y'all about an interesting book I'm reading.

Another interesting point of view discussed by the authors is the version of Christianity practiced by the Cathars and other similar sects. They were deeply devout Christians who completely rejected the notion that Jesus had died during the Crucifixion event. They considered that to be a foolish notion perpetuated by Paulinists. They fervently held that John's gospel was intended to show that their Christ was far too powerful to have been killed in such a manner. Of course, the RCC considered them heretics and promised a 2-year forgiveness of all sins for every Cathar that they could kill. Then, sometime soon after, there was the Albigensian Crusade that finally resulted in the violent murder of every man, woman, and child of the Cathars (who were primarily located in Albi - well, that's the short version of the story). The point being that there were many Christians who rejected the idea that Jesus died on the cross and they reviled the symbol of the cross as belonging to people who were not really Christians but Paulinists.

The stories that the Templars trampled crucifixes as their protest against the "false" Christians may have been related.

The main points the book makes that ring most true is the gospel accounts of the treatment of the "body" of Jesus after He was removed from the cross. The treatment was definitely not in keeping with the customs and laws regarding a dead body. The 100 lbs of herbs were used for healing and treating injuries - never for preparing a body for burial.

In fact, the role played by Joseph of Arimethea was highly suspicious - beginning with the idea that he had a brand new "family" tomb built in a place nowhere near where he or any of his family had ever lived. Then there was the matter of him being able to swiftly obtain the "body" - another highly unusual circumstance. JoA was a very wealthy individual and apparently well-connected with the Roman authorities. There are many other details (according to the Gospel accounts) that also make no sense at all with regard to the treatment of a person executed using the most extreme methods employed by the Romans.

Then, there is the blood on the Shroud itself - the authors contend that it is authentic and they fully support the idea that it is the blood of Jesus. They also point out that it seems the body was still bleeding after being placed on the Shroud cloth. Dead bodies do not continue to bleed.

Again, and again, I'm just saying that this is an interesting book with some unusual but compelling historical points of view. I make no claim to either side of this debate. It does make one wonder which side of this debate held more "truth" about the actual events and what might have happened if the RCC had not killed them all in order to wipe out a version of Christianity at odds with their own.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by Al Davison]

Why should it be that religion depends on a piece of clothing? why would God create such a piece that would bring doubt and disagreement amongst His children?

We are sitting here debating if a piece of clothing is for real while millions of men, women and children are getting slaughtered every year in the name of religion.

We should either ban all religions or finally prove one of them as the true one. This thing can't go on for long, or else humanity will destroy itself.

Originally posted by masterp
Why should it be that religion depends on a piece of clothing? why would God create such a piece that would bring doubt and disagreement amongst His children?

We are sitting here debating if a piece of clothing is for real while millions of men, women and children are getting slaughtered every year in the name of religion.

We should either ban all religions or finally prove one of them as the true one. This thing can't go on for long, or else humanity will destroy itself.

My, my! Such drama!

Actually, I don't think we are discussing religion = we are, in fact, discussing a piece of cloth. Actually, we're discussing the history of said cloth. The conspiracy relates to the authenticity of this historical artifact and whether it has been deliberately misrepresented.

The "Saving Humanity from the Evils of Religion" forum is 2 doors down to your right.