It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Could the Shroud of Turin verify the supposed remains of Jesus?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 11:11 AM
wellwhatnow -

Just wanted to address a few of your points. You say that you feel the "Leonardo theory" is credible. There is a major problem with that, though. Da Vinci was born in 1452, and we know the shroud was in existence before that. The first public exhibition on record was in 1355.

Re: the image not being distorted. Well, thats a decent argument, HOWEVER, we dont know how exactly the image was formed, so to say that it should or shouldnt be distorted is a bit presumptuous, IMO. However, it does show some diostortion in where the bloodstains are in relation to the face/hair. Hair doesnt bleed, yet on the cloth it seems as though we have some bloodstains on the hair. This actually makes a lot of sense, as the bloodtsains line up PERFECTLY wit head wounds when laid out on a 3-d face and head. So, we do see some image distortion, in a sense, from the 3-d figure that created the image.

Re: why only the front. Uhhhhh.... There IS the image of his back on the cloth. Here's the whole thing:

And here it is, enhanced and converted to negative (by me) to better show the full image:

There are numerous other problems with the shroud being a forgery. The nails in the wrists are a big one. NOBODY in the art of the middle ages ever portrayed him with the nails anywhere other than his PALMS. An artist doing so in the middle ages may well have risked excommunication, as scripture syas "hands". We understand today that the word used meant anything fowrawrd of the forearm, which included wrists, but clearly they didnt understand it that way, and the RCC was so - shall we say, uptight about things like that back then that certainly they would have become quite upset if they felt someone was "disagreeing" with scripture.

Even if the Church wouldnt get upset about it, why would this be the ONLY example we see of medieval art to depict it this way, if indeed it is a medeival forgery?

I am at work, but will post more in a bit.

[edit on 4/12/2007 by ChiliDog]

[edit on 4/12/2007 by ChiliDog]

[edit on 4/12/2007 by ChiliDog]

posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 11:32 AM

Originally posted by ChiliDog
The first public exhibition on record was in 1355.

Now that’s the kind of information I like. I wasn’t aware there was a public exhibition that early. I have to look into that some more.

Originally posted by ChiliDog
…we dont know how exactly the image was formed, so to say that it should or shouldnt be distorted is a bit presumptuous, IMO….

Well, it may very well be presumptuous, but I must hold on to it for now.

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
Just try to wrap a cloth around a somewhat circular object without wrinkling it anywhere. You end up with folds in the fabric and any image that resulted would have these folds in evidence.

I am trying to think up a way to demonstrate what I would expect to see in image distortion. I’ll work on that and see what I can come up with.

Looking forward to hearing more,

posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 11:48 AM
Alright, Im sort of on lunch break - so I will continue. First make sure you saw everything in my post above, I edited it a few times to add some more info. Also, keep in mind, I myself am torn on whether i believe the Shroud to be the authentic burial cloth of my God or not. I find it fascinating, but am also prepared to accept whatever the evidence suggests.

Another problem with the shroud being a forgery is the pollen evidence, found by two independent researches. One was Dr. Max Frei, a Swiss criminologist, who developed a method of tracing where criminals had been by examining pollen on their clothing. I forget the other guy's name, but he was an Israeli scientist. They both found large amounts of pollen on the Shroud that could ONLY have come from the Middle East, and some specific to the area of Jerusalem. Wow! I cant figure out how that could have gotten there, truly. I wont even get into the "images" of certain flowers, as they are so debatable.

Yet another issue for the pro-forger theorists to contend with is the recently discovered "second face" on the back of the shroud. It was only discovered in the last ferw years, because up until then, the backing cloth remained in place. The STURP scientists peeked under it in '78, but couldnt access the back for prolonged periods.

In 2002, the shroud was "restored". Scientists found another image of the face, which amazingly is of the same MECHANISM of the face on the front - the coloration penetrates ONLY the top fiber of the cloth. No known dye, paint, or any other substance does this. Quite frankly, nobody can explain it. It certainly didnt soak through - so how was it formed?

And to re-address the point of there being distortion if the body was really 3-d, are you familiar with the VP-8 image analyzer tests? Basically, no painting or photo contains 3-d information, but when the SHROUD image is analyzed, it DOES contain 3-d information. There really isnt much doubt that however the image was created, it was by SOMETHING with three dimensional properties.

One more interesting thing coming in the next post.

posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 11:58 AM
Finally, I wish to draw your attention to another object which may actually go hand in hand with the Shroud, an object called the "Sudarium of Oveido".

This is a cloth about the size of a hand towel which is kept in Oveido, Spain. It is heavily bloodstained, but with no image. Many scholars date it back to first century Palestine, but the first solid historical reference, as I understand it is from about 615 A.D.

The really interesting part is how it seems to line up with the face on the shroud. A few experts (at least one foresnic pathologist) has stated that he believes beyond a doubt that the Sudarium was used on the SAME face that the shroud bears an image of. They came to this conclusion by matching up where the blood flowed most heavily, the length of the nose, and various other things.

Obviously, if this is the case, then the shroud is much older that the initial Radiocarbon tests indicate. As a matter of fact, we KNOW now that the 1988 radiocarbon dates were, in fact, taken from a REPAIRED section of the shroud, so a Medieval date makes perfect sense. Of course, it doesnt give us any idea of the true age of the shroud itself. Just the time frame in which the repair occurred.

Here is a photo of the Sudarium, with a photo of the shroud face. (not my image)

Ultimately, as has been stated many times in the past, Those who believe in Jesus Christ wont be afffected by the shroud being proven a fake, if indeed it is. Those who do NOT believe in Jesus Christ will likely not be convinced if the hroud is proven real. I'm more curious than anything. I would be very INTERESTED to find out if it were real. A photograph, almost, of my Lord. But I wouldnt be bothered if it were proven a fake. Maybe slightly disappointed, but no biggee. Point is, nobody on either side should put too much stock in this object. After all, it is only a piece of cloth.
[edit on 4/12/2007 by ChiliDog]

[edit on 4/12/2007 by ChiliDog]

posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 04:28 PM
There was an interesting documentary on channel4 in th UK over easter, that suggested new evidence about the origins of the shroud, enititled "Shroud of Christ?"
I only caught a bit of it myself, and can't get on C4 website to check out the repeat (C4 on demand or C4OD).

If anyone else watched it, please let me know if it was credible, or if was another broadcast full of innuendo, maybe's and could'ves.

[edit on 12-4-2007 by budski]

posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 04:30 PM

Originally posted by strangefires
Could the Shroud of Turin verify the supposed remains of Jesus?

There are no remains of Christ. He rose from the dead and went into heaven 40 days later. There is no body on earth to find.

Originally posted by Al Davison
there is a very long thread on this topic from a year or so ago

There have been quite a few threads.

Edited to add - the Shroud is AUTHENTIC

[edit on 4/12/2007 by FlyersFan]

posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 12:36 PM

OK, finally got the link, so here's the show - should be able to watch it, but C4 site having a few probs

posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by budski

OK, finally got the link, so here's the show - should be able to watch it, but C4 site having a few probs

Are you saying this show is veiwable online? I dont see that option anywhere, I'd love to check this one out.

posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 03:19 PM
As far as I understand it the shroud is a fake made by DaVinci.

It's been proven to have been made and subsequent tests link it to techniques DaVinci used. He loved to play jokes on the church anyway and would probably have a blast knowing it's still being worshipped (it's his image on it).

source - national geographic.

My 2 cents and I'm not delving int it further. all the information is available through documentaries on NGC.

posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 06:43 PM
Oh boy I must be living under a rock.I thought the shroud of turin had been confirmed as a fake some time ago.Anyways how can it be confirmed that this imprint was of Jesus the Christ?As far as I know there´s no description by the apostles of how he looked?

If my memory serves me right, the early churchfathers or one of them (I would have to look it up who it was) writes that they don´t know how Jesus looked liked.Following a line where he contemplates Jesus to be either the most beautiful man on earth or the ugliest...

The Image of Jesus the Christ as we know it today (European style) reminds of the image of Serapis

[edit on 14-4-2007 by 11an]

posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 03:30 AM
Okey I have looked up who of the early Christian fathers admitted that Jesus appearence was unknown.According to Catholic Encyclopedia St.Augustine (Accepted by most scholars to be the most important figure in the ancient Western church, St. Augustine was born in Tagaste, Numidia in North Africa) said "in His time there was no authentic portrait of Christ and...the type of features was still undetermined,so that we have absolutley no knowledge of His appearance"

Jesus features was still undetermined?Another word for saying that they where yet not fabricated and standarized?

The only description of Jesus that I could find from his supposed apostles is Matthew 17:2 "And he was transfigured before them,and his face shone like the sun,and his garments became white as light"

If one is to look at the Christian art from the first three to four centuries,
Jesus was depicted in a clearly pagan way.Often as a beardless youth of about 15-18 years,with long and abundant hair encircled by a diadem or band of some sort.The appearance described was the favorite one as He was depicted in other ways to.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in