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.


Shroud of Turin Stirs New Controversy

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:53 PM
It seems this issue is to be resurrected yet again.

I truly think this is a situation where people want to hold on to the faith that this could be the "real" thing. I am Catholic and have to admit there is something very compelling in wanting to believe that this could be Christ's burial cloth. However, even if somehow the previous radiocarbon dating were found to be faulty and that this could indeed have been from the time of Jesus, I am pragmatic enough to also realize that this still does not mean his body was the one wrapped in it.

I have a friend who says proving the validity of this could "finally" establish whether Jesus lived among us as a man. Even if that were true, there are some who believe he existed but was merely a prophet and not the son of God. So does "proving" anything about the cloth really answer the burning questions? If someone said "OK, this cloth was from Christ's time and a man whose image appears on it was, in fact, buried in it," what then?

I suppose I am really questioning whether God/Jesus (if one believes in them) really intended such a debate over a piece of fabric. The friend I mentioned says if He had not then He would not have left it to be discovered. Unfortunately, that answer is too easy for me. I realize I also sound a bit hypocritical since I'm the one starting a thread on this very topic.

In a way, perhaps my friend is correct. Maybe this cloth is indeed important but not on the basis of its authenticity but as a symbol. Perhaps it is meant, by its continued controversy, to remind us of patience and tolerance for others' beliefs. Could it be that we are better off trying to emulate some of the values and virtues of the man some claim had been enshrouded in it rather than worrying about whether it really was him? These are just some thoughts that the appearance of this story spurred in me.

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:59 PM

Originally posted by trek315
Could it be that we are better off trying to emulate some of the values and virtues of the man some claim had been enshrouded in it rather than worrying about whether it really was him?

I would answer in the affirmative. Perhaps the shroud is genuine. I don't know. However, for me, it really matters little. I think people should focus more on the teachings of Christ rather than arguing whether he left his image on some piece of cloth. That is just my opinion.

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:03 AM
I would have to think that the burial cloth of Jesus was saved and preserved as a relic. I do not think it would just disappear, but would exist, to this day. I think the Turin shroud has a good of chance being authentic, as there is not a rival shroud around competing for recognition.
For some reason I have always believed it. All it took was to see a show about it on tv. I saw it and felt it was real.
I did go to Turin to see the place where it is and felt good about it, even though it was not at a time that they took it out of the box.

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:01 PM
reply to post by trek315

I don't think it will be tested again. The Duke of Savoy owns the shroud (the Church just displays it) and does not want any more cuts in it. The church itself does not believe it to be Jesus' body, but an interesting relic of the past. Whose image is it? There was some who thought it belonged to one of the last Knights Templar, but the Shroud shows up in history much earlier than that group.
The compelling evidence is in his wrists. Most artwork at the time showed the nails through the palms. The shroud shows it through the wrists as the palms could not hold up the weight of the body. Pollens taken from it show it to be from Jesus' time frame and the Shroud was covered in a protective oil hundreds of years ago. The testers did not know about the oil, and the dating of the older tests are inconclusive because of it.
Jesus was thought to be a man until the Council of Nicea voted on his divinity and virgin birth. The Gnostics were literally hit in the mouth when they tried to speak, as they wanted Jesus to stay a man and work with his teachings of knowledge being the key to God.

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:04 PM
reply to post by trek315

I think your PoV is dead-on. It really doesn't matter whether or not the shroud is legitimate or not. I don't know many who would debate that Jesus wasn't a real historical figure. And so even if the shroud was authentic it doesn't fuel claims of Jesus' divinity in any way shape or form.

If we are to take anything away from the renewed interest in the shroud -- sans scientific -- that is, it would be as you say serve as a reminder of what Jesus embodied: that of peace and friendship.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Parabolic]

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:44 AM
Great news for anyone who wants to see the shroud.
Start saving your money for a trip you will never forget.
I went there, years ago and thought it was great.

Turin shroud to be shown again in 2010
Jun 03, 2008 04:30 AM
Reuters News Agency

VATICAN CITY–The Shroud of Turin, the mysterious yellowing linen that some Christians believe was Christ's burial cloth and others think is a medieval fake, will go on display again in 2010, Pope Benedict announced yesterday.

The Pope, who is by tradition the owner of the cloth, said he hoped to be able to visit the shroud in the northern Italian city where it is normally kept rolled up in an ornate silver box, "if the Lord grants me life and health."

Turin shroud to be shown again in 2010
The last time the shroud was put on public display was for the Catholic jubilee year in 2000. The relic has been shown only four times in the 20th century.

The cloth, measuring 4.4 by 1.2 metres, bears the inexplicable image, eerily reversed like a photo negative, of a crucified man. It shows the back and front of a bearded man with long hair, his arms crossed on his chest, while the entire cloth is marked by what appears to be rivulets of blood from wounds in the wrists, feet and side.

Scientists cannot explain how the image was left on the cloth. In 1988, carbon dating tests by various labs indicated the shroud dated from between 1260 and 1390 – implying it could not be Christ's burial cloth.

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:04 PM
It is absolutely not the original burial cloth of Jesus. Those are probably lost or destroyed by now. And they would have looked strange if there was any image on it due to the globe effect. They probably had artists make better ones through the centuries. This present one was probably done by Leonardo Da Vinci, using a camera obscura technique. That would use chemicals and/or sunlight to dehydrate the surface of the linen. It is the only way to get the details and photograph like image. The linen may be older than the carbon date, but even if the linen is from the 1st century, it doesn't prove when the image was put on it. There are far too many anomalies for it to be a genuine contact on a body image. The head is too small for the body, no globe effect, the arms too long, etc. etc.

Another interesting point that is always overlooked is that the image is of a man who is not dead. A dead body doesn't bleed like a live body.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Sargoth]

top topics


log in