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.


The Shroud of Turin – Miracle or Man made?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:21 AM

The Shroud of Turin – Miracle or Man made?

*This Negative color photograph was taken by the amateur Italian photographer Secondo Pia*

This is somewhat of an odd place for me to 'attempt' to make a thread in all honesty because 'religion' isn’t really a subject that I put too much thinking time into anymore. Reasoning for that is my own and it's not really relevant here as religion as a whole IS NOT the topic I'm discussing as well as the discussion on whether religion is 'right' or if God is real etc., This thread is a discussion on the Shroud of Turin and the credibility as well as the authenticity and that's where the discussion will lie.

That being so I feel it's only 'right' for me to delve deeper into religion ever so slightly in this quick introduction as I think it’s only fair for people reading to understand why I’m making this thread and where I stand on religion.

Now religion in real life and of course just in general religious topics on ATS are subjects I’ve really just kept my distance from because more often than not I don’t have anything to add/contribute in a fair or unbiased way as well as a quality contribution. Like I’ve mentioned previously me and religion don’t exactly go hand in hand anymore but something that's always intrigued me (I first heard about this during the time I was a Christian so maybe that's why my interest was/is particularly high) was this story of the ‘shroud of Turin’ and how this mysterious 'cloth' that supposedly belonged to the actual Jesus Christ, one that billions around the world to this day worship still, just suddenly turned up one day in and around medieval times seemingly proving the existence of the actual crucifixion that was discussed in the bible.

What really fascinated me though was when I found out that certain tests they did on the shroud from 1978 seemed to prove it to be no fake at all (although proving who the figure was is still elusive it seems) but that's where my interest in religion really sparked and came to life. Sadly though in more recent years my interest in religion and religious topics as a whole including my interest in the shroud itself has somewhat dwindled quite significantly, to the point in fact where I'd no longer consider myself a 'follower of God' or apart of any religion.

Even researching religious topics is a rarity as well but for some reason (and that’s all it is really because I just decided I needed/wanted to research this further with no real reason for doing so) here I am making this thread and I can finally be able to carry on some of the minimal research I started and stopped a while ago.

Now as my interest in this topic and religion as well has grown lately if I was to be totally honest I'd still very much consider myself as atheist now, or at least I think I would. Religion and religions are ‘things’ that I’ve struggled with ever since I came into contact with them and I’ve never really found myself being one or the other and then that’s it. I’ve always been one or the other time and time again and so on…

Personally I can’t see myself being a follower of religion again though as ATS has opened my eyes more than ever and I just can’t see myself accepting something such as religion as it seems to need acceptance without any real evidence or proof of anything…. Well maybe the Shroud can. (I hope I haven’t offended but it’s just my opinion)

Anyway though hopefully that won’t deter people from reading on or people seeing me in somewhat of a negative light for creating a thread such as this giving my own personal beliefs or lack thereof but I feel it's better to explain and know exactly where I stand on the subject prior to explaining/attempting to influence your opinion and as always my view on this topic is still at this moment in time completely neutral or as neutral as I can possibly be and it will remain that way until I can prove for myself otherwise.

Anyway that's enough about my irrelevant beliefs.......

Everything I have wrote here is at this moment in time what I believe to be true.

Thank you and I hope you continue reading...

Shroud History...

The shroud of Turin is a linen cloth measuring around 4.6 x 1.1 meters corresponding to a standard measurement of 8 x 2 Philetaric cubits which was in use in Palestine during the first century. The shroud is also a herringbone twill with a 3:1 weave, of probably 1st century Syrian design. The flax fibrils contain entwisted cotton fibrils from a previous work of the loom. The cotton is Gossypium herbaceum, a Middle Eastern species that's actually not found anywhere in Europe.

* The linen of the shroud was manufactured and woven in the Middle East, most probably Syria, and is a design used in the 1st century, albeit uncommon and expensive. *

The shroud also contains pollen grains from 58 species of plants, 17 indigenous to Europe where the artifact has been for 7 centuries and the majority being plants indigenous, some exclusively, to the area of the Dead Sea and Turkey. These include Nyoscyamus aureus, Artemisia herba-alba and Onosma syriacum

It was seemingly founded around 1357 and as far as I'm aware it's true origin leading up to the 14th century is yet to be verified although there is some theories as to how the shroud may have come about still.

Well, I say how it 'may' have come about and I do stress that word because as far as I know nothing is 100% verified when it comes to this BUT we know of the history leading from the 14th century to modern day and we also know the history of another mysterious cloth or shroud if you will leading from around the time of Christ up to around the 13th century known as the 'Edessa Cloth'. (Edessa, now the city of Urfa in modern day Turkey, is situated about 400 miles north of Jerusalem) The Edessa cloth is a cloth which shows a startling likeness to the actual shroud of Turin and disappeared after the sacking of Constantinople by French and Venetian troops.

(The shroud was later discovered in France by a supposed descendent of one of the men said to have been present in Constantinople during the siege.)

Could be a remarkable coincidence or it could be that the Shroud of Turin and the Edessa Cloth are but the exact same thing.

Put the history of both cloths together however and it seems as though they very much so fill the pieces of the lost history of each other as the evidence for this seems to be overwhelming.

- History of the Edessa Cloth

Much of the early story is fragmentary, some is only circumstantial, and some mere legend. Nonetheless, much of what we do know is clear, corroborated and documented history. It is a history that tells us that the Shroud of Turin and the Edessa Cloth are most likely one and the same piece of cloth.

Somehow, and at sometime, a cloth, with what was believed to be the image of Jesus, turned up in Edessa. Legend tells us it was brought to King Abgar V, the ruler of Edessa, by one of Jesus' disciples, perhaps Thaddeus Jude (Addai). That much is legend. That it is legend does not make it untrue.

So it could be mere legend or it could be based on true events but we know that the Edessa cloth was in fact brought to Edessa and by doing so giving it it's name (it should also be known that it also goes by the name of 'Holy Mandylion', a byzantine Greek word) Who was it brought by - All we know is it could have been brought by Thaddeus Jude (Addai) in around the 4th century from an account from Eusebius of Caesarea Ecclesiastical explaining how a letter in Edessa’s archives written by King Abgar V to Jesus asking Him to come to Edessa to cure him of his leprosy, The shroud was brought and it did seem to cure him of his leprosy thus converting him to Christianity.

It's also claimed that Thaddeus Jude (Addai) founded a church here as well and started converting the rest of the people to Christianity which one can only assume would be because of the king's new found religion.

In fact here is a painting showing King Abgar V with the shroud and with Jesus’ face clearly shown on the front in a tetradiplon folding from around the 10th century. The shape of the cloth and the centrality of a facial image also suggest what may be the folded Shroud.

The history also does report that the Apostle Thomas does send Jude Thaddeus thus the beginning of what is possibly the most amazing historical findings as well as one of the most controversial finds in all our history.

Another Syrian manuscript, the Doctrine of Addai, fills in some gaps. According to this document, which also mentions the letter, Ananias painted a portrait of Jesus “with choice pigments.” A later document, the Acts of the Holy Apostle Thaddeus, written in the early part of the sixth century, adds more detail. It suggests that the image was formed when Jesus wiped his face on the linen cloth and it refers to the Edessa Cloth as a tetradiplon. We can only assume that this is all legend. But from this material we can gather three very important clues:

- The cloth arrived in Edessa.

Please carry on reading into the next post.

Thank You.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:21 AM

- The image on the cloth is recognized to be unique in that the images were described as painted with choice pigments or formed when Jesus wiped his face on the linen cloth.

- The cloth is described as a tetradiplon, which means doubled in fours. When folded thus, only the face from the Shroud will be visible.

Moving to the 6th century, Evagrius Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History actually mentioned that the cloth was protected by a “divinely wrought portrait,” an acheiropoietos sent by Jesus to Abgar. Further proof that the figure of the man said to be Jesus Christ was visible then as it is now but also raises suspicions that the shroud is possibly a painted image.

It was also at around this time of history that the cloth was said to have been discovered in Edessa concealed behind some stones above one of the city gates. It sound unusual now but in those days it wasn't unusual at all for ancient cities to put some sort of relic in a position such as this above the city gates.

Maybe it was used for some sort of divine protection, maybe it was because Edessa was known to have been repeatedly flooded around this time and they wanted to avoid damage or maybe it was just hidden from potential invaders as many religious relics and ceremonial Christian objects were destroyed at this time in history as this was a time of Christian persecution sadly.

In fact there is evidence of local persecutions in Edessa as early as the latter part of the first century and of Roman persecutions that persisted until the time of Emperor Constantine. If, in fact, the cloth was indeed taken to Edessa in the earlier part of the first century, then it makes historical sense that the cloth would have been hidden for its own protection as early as the reign of Ma’nu VI, Abgar’s son, who is thought to have reverted to paganism.

What is known though is that's where the clot was found and It could have been during repairs of the city walls in 525 CE, or more likely, during a Persian invasion of the city in 544 CE, but the cloth was rediscovered and placed in a church built especially for it.

In 730 CE, St. John Damascene, in his anti iconoclastic movement thesis, On Holy Images, describes the cloth as a 'himation', which is translated as an oblong cloth or grave cloth. This account of the cloth may very well be the very first that refers to it as an actual 'grave cloth' in other words, an actual burial shroud of Jesus thus meaning further proof of the Edessa Cloth and the Shroud of Turin being the same object.

It was in the 10th century that thing’s for the Edessa Cloth seemed to change dramatically as it was at this time that the shroud was 'forcefully' moved to the byzantine capital Constantinople. (At a time where the shroud/cloth may have been known as the ''Holy Mandylion' as was mentioned previously) The cloth then later disappeared during the 4th crusade when Constantinople was under siege from the venetians and the French Crusaders. (See image below)

There is also some evidence that suggests that the Edessa Cloth, then known as the Holy Mandylion, was taken to Athens. About a year after Constantinople was plundered, Theodore Ducas Anglelos wrote in a letter to Pope Innocent III:

The Venetians partitioned the treasure of gold, silver and ivory, while the French did the same with the relics of saints and the most sacred of all, the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after His death and before the resurrection. We know that the sacred objects are preserved by their predators in Venice and France and in other places.

So the shroud, assuming that this Edessa Cloth is the shroud, seemed to move from Edessa to Constantinople, soon after the city was besieged by Venetians and the French who massively looted anything that they could.

What now?

Well, just 3 years later, Nicholas d’Orrante, Abbott of Casole and the Papal Legate in Athens, wrote about relics taken from Constantinople by French knights. Referring specifically to burial cloths, he mentions seeing them “with our own eyes” in Athens.

Which if true means the cloth is certainly in Athens at around 1207 AD. Sadly though this is where not much is heard about the Edessa cloth at all, in fact nothing at this time is known about what is known to us as the shroud of Turin at all.

That is until 1356, Geoffrey de Charny, a French knight and descendent of a prominent knight of the Fourth Crusade, one that no doubt would have looted and potentially been in possession of some of the lost treasures such as the Edessa Cloth, displayed a burial shroud that he claims is the actual burial shroud of Christ therefore we can safely assume that the cloth travelled to Edessa, then Constantinople, then maybe Athens and then found its way to France where the History of the Shroud of Turin finally begins.

Sadly though there is no definitive link between the Edessa cloth and the shroud of Turin but the facts seem to point solely in that direction as the shroud of Turin and the Edessa cloth are both of the exact same description, and of course seem to match up perfectly in history (as discussed above) albeit with a missing link between the 13th and 14th century, one which can possibly be explained by the French Knight Geoffrey de Charny as he came into possession of it as he is a descendent of one of the besiegers of Constantinople. (Although of course it IS NOT confirmed :@@

- Who was Geoffrey de Charny and how did he come to possess the shroud?

Geoffrey de Charny. French Knight, first known owner of the Shroud of Turin in Western Europe.

Geoffrey de Charny, A French knight, come into possession of the shroud, it is said, in around April 10th (or possibly the 16th), 1349, shortly afterwards however, he wrote a letter to Pope Clement VI explaining how he plans to build a church at Lirey, France, to honor the Holy Trinity who answered his prayers for a miraculous escape from the English who held him as a battlefield prisoner.

As he was already in possession of the shroud at this time it's unclear exactly how he acquired it, some claim he got it from Constantinople, others say he received it from someone else in France, sadly the record just isn't clear at this moment in time and all we can really do is speculate.

Now, not long after the letter was sent, in 1355 I believe, large crowds of pilgrims flocked to this area just in the hope of catching even a small glimpse of the shroud which had already caught the imaginations of the populace. Special souvenir medallions were even seem to have 'been struck' as well. A unique surviving specimen can still be found today at the Cluny Museum in Paris.

What's quite interesting and from my mind quite suspicious is what happened after which is that Reportedly, A Bishop called Henri was said to have been completely and utterly outraged by the Shroud and refused to believe that it could be genuine at all and immediately ordered the expositions halted. The Shroud was then hidden away. Geoffrey de Charny passed away a year later in battle.

More than 30 years later a letter actually signed by King Charles VI of France orders the bailiff of Troyes to seize the Shroud at Lirey and deposit it in another of Troyes' churches pending his further decision about its disposition. This had failed though as the bailiff of Troyes reports that he couldn’t get access to the shroud as the dean claimed he himself couldn’t gain access as he didn’t have a key and it had been locked away, subsequently the king's First Sergeant reports to the bailiff of Troyes that he has informed the dean and canons of the Lirey church that "the cloth was now verbally put into the hands of our lord the king. The decision has also been conveyed to a squire of the de Charny household for conveyance to his master".

Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of Troyes then appeals to anti-pope Clement VII at Avignon concerning the exhibiting of the Shroud at Lirey. He describes the cloth as bearing the double imprint of a crucified man and that it is being claimed as the true Shroud in which Jesus' actual body was wrapped, attracting many crowds of pilgrims.

Clement VII then wrote to Bishop d'Arcis, ordering him to keep silent on the Shroud, under threat of excommunication. On the same date Clement writes a letter to Geoffrey II de Charny apparently restating the conditions under which expositions could be allowed. That day he also writes to other relevant individuals, asking them to ensure that his orders are to be obeyed.

Again around 30 years had passé by this time, as well as the passing of Geoffrey II de Charny, and the very existence of the shroud was seemingly under threat by pillaging, meanwhile the Lirey canons hand over the Shroud to Humbert (the husband of Geoffrey II de Charnys daughter Margaret) for safe-keeping. He keeps it in his castle of Montfort near Montbard. Later it is kept at St.Hippolyte sur Doubs, in the chapel called des Buessarts. According to seventeenth century chroniclers annual expositions of the Shroud are held at this time in a meadow on the banks of the river Doubs called the Pré du Seigneur.

Please carry on reading into the next post.

Thank You.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:21 AM
20 years later, humbert had died and the Dean and canons of Lirey again make themselves heard by petitioning Margaret de Charny to return the Shroud back to them and by 1457 she is threatened with excommunication by the pope. Margaret de Charny's half-brother Charles de Noyers negotiates compensation to the Lirey canons for their loss of the Shroud, which they finally recognize they will not now recover and the excommunication is then seemingly lifted.

Upon Margeets death she leaves her Lirey lands to her cousin and godson Antoine-Guerry des Essars. By an accord drawn up in Paris, Duke Louis I of Savoy agrees to pay the Lirey canons an annual rent, to be drawn from the revenues of the castle of Gaillard, near Geneva, as compensation for their loss of the Shroud. (This is the first surviving document to record that the Shroud has become Savoy property) The accord specifically notes that the Shroud had been given to the church of Lirey by Geoffrey de Charny, lord of Savoisy and Lirey, and that it had then been transferred to Duke Louis by Margaret de Charny.

Just over two decades later a chronicle of Savoy will record his acquisition of the Shroud as his greatest achievement. He is succeeded by his son Duke Amadeus IX an inactive but devout prince who has a Cordelier as preceptor and who shares with his wife Duchess Yolande of France, a particular devotion to the Shroud. Amaedeus is said in 1502 to have instituted the cult of the Shroud in the Sainte Chapelle at Chambéry. Yolande founds Chambéry's Poor Clares convent, whose sisters, in a few decades time, will actually end up repairing the sacred Shroud after a chapel fire. However, Amadeus neglects to honor the terms of Duke Louis's agreement to pay an annual rent to the Lirey canons.

In 1532 this fire actually broke out in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, seriously damaging all its furnishings and fittings etc. The shroud was actually being protected however by four locks, in a silver reliquary. Canon Philibert Lambert and two Franciscans summon the help of a blacksmith to prise open the grille shortly after the fire. By the time they succeed, Marguerite of Austria's Shroud casket/reliquary as made to her orders by Lievin van Latham has become melted beyond repair by the heat.

The Shroud folded inside is preserved bar being scorched and holed by a drop of molten silver that fell on one corner. The repair work was entrusted to local Poor Clare nuns (as mentioned a few paragraphs ago) who carefully removed the burned portion of the Shroud and sewed new pieces of linen in their place. The results were a series of symmetrically spaced diamond-shaped patches along the entire length of the cloth. Some of the scorch marks are still plainly visible. (See image below to see the restoration of the shroud from 2002 for the first time without the burned/damaged areas.)

Here is the link to what is the best record of the entire history of the Shroud of Turin (Not the Edessa Cloth as that's not verified to be the shroud of Turin yet unfortunately) that I could find. It starts in the 14th century.

There's some great information here and definitely worth a look.

- Shroud History - 1300 + -

- Shroud History - 1400 + -

- Shroud History - 1500 + -

- Shroud History - 1600 + -

- Shroud History - 1700 + -

- Shroud History - 1800 + -

- Shroud History - 1900 + -

- Shroud History - 2000 + -

- Shroud History - A Complete History -

The 1978 Scientific Examination

The Shroud of Turin is brought out for public view once roughly every generation giving everyone of faith an attempt to see it for themselves and leaving no one out. One year that was decided for view was 1978 in which time the shroud was viewable for a total of 5 weeks.

During this time it's estimated that a total of 3.5 million people flocked to see it, during this time however and for the very first time in history a scientific team of investigators, (Shroud of Turin Research Project - STURP) primarily American, was also given permission to examine the shroud in great detail over a 2 week period and potentially put to rest or indeed confirm the beliefs or lack of from the most controversial find in history - The Shroud.

It's estimated that STURP spend roughly around $5M in total and conducted over 1000 special tests as well as taking over 32,000 photographs of the holy relic. STURP's primary goal was to determine the scientific properties of the image on the Shroud of Turin, and what might have caused it. In October of 1978 the STURP team spent 120 continuous hours conducting their examination of the Shroud.

During the time that STURP was researching and studying the shroud one of the team members, Barrie Schwortz, described it:

During this time the Shroud is lengthily submitted to photographic floodlighting, to low-power X-rays and to narrow band ultraviolet light. Dozens of pieces of sticky tape are pressed onto its surface and removed. A side edge is unstitched and an apparatus inserted between the Shroud and its backing cloth to examine the underside, which has not been seen in over 400 years.

The bottom edge (at the foot of the frontal image) is also unstitched and examined...Baima Bollone obtains sample of Shroud bloodstain by mechanically disentangling warp and weft threads in the area of the 'small of the back' bloodstain on the Shroud's dorsal image...performing dozens of tests, taking thousands of photographs, photomicrographs, x-rays and spectra.

A total of 120 continuous hours of testing is done, with team members working on different parts of the Shroud simultaneously. This is the most in-depth series of tests ever performed on the Shroud of Turin.

To this day the research done and the data gathered in the 1978 examination is still used as well as researched by many. Even the Vatican has stated that the material gathered in 1978 constitutes the official scientific data available for Shroud research

Sadly though the Vatican has been reported to have said that there are no plans to allow any further testing of the shroud, except in the area of conservation of the cloth itself.

- The 1981 STURP final report?

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Micro chemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemical’s known to be produced by the body in life or in death.

It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.

The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the micro fibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

Please carry on reading into the next post.

Thank You.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:22 AM
So the conclusion is it's impossible for an artist to create such a piece of work such as the shroud of Turin because of the sheer amount of work, biological and physical evidence, plus the physical and chemical changes in the linen fibers themselves are the cause meaning the actual body from the shroud in fact real as well as the blood which is quite a fascinating discovery.

Also any prior attempts to create the shroud by various artists from around the world have ALL come up short of imitating anything at all resembling the original. The shroud going from the evidence is seemingly 100% real and so are the physical and chemical characteristics. A man did indeed die from crucifixion and was buried with this shroud that was said to have been brought o Edessa by one of Jesus disciples.

- The Investigators from the 1978 Scientific Examination

- Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation*

- Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*

- John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*

- Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography*

- Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography*

- Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography*

- Robert Bucklin, Harris County,Texas, Medical Examiner's Office

- Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.*

- Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado*

- Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*

- Donald & Joan Janney, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*

- J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*

- Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*

- Ray Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*

- Larry Schwalbe, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories

- Diane Soran, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories

- Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM*

- Al Adler, Western Connecticut State University

- Thomas F. D'Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation*

- Jim Drusik, Los Angeles County Museum

- Joseph Gambescia, St. Agnes Medical Center

- Roger & Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation*

- Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph*

- John Heller, New England Institute

- John P. Jackson, U.S. Air Force Academy*

- Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy*

- Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*

- Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*

- Robert W. Mottern, Sandia Laboratories*

- Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center*

- Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios*

Note: The researchers marked with an * participated directly in the 1978 Examination in Turin. All others are STURP research members who worked with the data or samples after the team returned to the United States.


The Carbon Dating of the Shroud

In 1978 A Cardinal named Ballestrero declared that the Church was NOT against the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, and he asked the scientific community to establish a trustworthy method of doing so as talk of testing the shroud in this way was already not a new idea. During STURP experiments from the same year it was selected that only minimal samples would be took (to avoid much damage to the shroud) as well as a location for the sample taking from the shroud and laboratory wise.

6 laboratories were contacted at first as potential candidates for testing, they were:

Two used a proportional counter:

- Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, USA;
- Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, Oxfordshire, UK;

Four used accelerator mass spectrometry:

- the Rochester laboratory, New York, USA;
- the University of Oxford, UK;
- University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA;
- ETH Zurich, Switzerland.

It was in 1982 however that STURP published a list of tests that would be performed on the shroud itself, the tests main priority was to explain how the image was impressed onto the cloth, to verify the relic's purported origin, and to identify better-suited conservation methods as well as the dating of the shroud but this wasn't the main priority in these series of tests.

Because of the huger marketing opportunity, and because it seemed that the laboratories thought that the testing should be conducted differently i.e. make the dating of the shroud the main priority over everything else, it was decided that they would actually split from STURP and conduct experiments without them.

During a conference on radio-carbon dating in Trondheim in 1985, representatives from all candidate laboratories jointly announced the end of collaboration with the S.Tu.R.P. group, proposing an alternative program:

- The British Museum would direct the protocol;

- The S.Tu.R.P. group would only be responsible for sampling the shroud and other (undisclosed) similar objects—a process which would yield actual and "control" shroud samples;

- All samples would be provided in such a way as to be unidentifiable;

- The British Museum would receive the samples, knowing, but not disclosing, whether they were from the shroud or a control object;

- The laboratories would be given samples by the British Museum and would conduct carbon-dating analyses; they must not reveal the dating to anyone but the co-director of the British Museum, Michael Tite;

- The laboratories would be free to perform the prescribed carbon-dating test, along with any other test they elected to, following the method of their choice;

- The results would be communicated to the Vatican before publication.

Carlos Chagas Filho, neurologist and president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, reluctantly approved the protocol, which factually put the S.Tu.R.P group out of the project after the sampling phase.

On September 29th, 1986, an important meeting was arranged in Turin by appropriate authorities where it would be decided which of the two protocols, the original proposed by S.Tu.R.P or the one proposed by the laboratories, would be executed. In the end though so called 'Turin Protocol' was finally arranged which was a compromise of both protocols.

The protocol states:

- Carbon-dating would be the only test performed;

- Original and control samples, indistinguishable, would be provided (blind test);

- The test would be performed concurrently by seven[26] laboratories, under the joint supervision of the Pontifical Academy of Science, the archbishop of Turin, and the British Museum;

- Both dating methods would be adopted;

- The sample offered to each laboratory would weight 28 mg, equivalent to 9 sq. cm. of cloth;

- The British Museum would manage the distribution of the samples;

- Laboratories would not communicate with each other during the analysis, nor divulge the results of the tests to anyone but the three supervising authorities.

This wasn't the end of protocol though:

The proposed violations to the Turin protocol sparked another acrimonious debate among scientists, so vehement, in fact, that the sampling procedure, scheduled for May 1987, was postponed.

On April 17, 1988, ten years after the S.Tu.R.P. project had been initiated, British Museum scientific director Michael Tite published in Nature the "final" protocol:

- The laboratories at Oxford, Zurich and Tucson would perform the test;

- They would receive one sample weighting 40 mg., sampled from a single portion of weave;

- The laboratories would receive two more samples, clearly distinguishable from the original one—a decision calling on the ethical dependability of the laboratories;

- Samples would be delivered to the laboratories' representatives in Turin;

- Each test would be filmed;

- There would be no comparison of results (nor communication) between laboratories until the results be certified as definitive, univocal and complete;

- The proportional counter method would not be used because it required gram quantities rather than milligram quantities of carbon.

Among the most obvious differences between the final version of the protocol and the previous ones stands the decision to sample from a single location on the cloth.

This is particularly significant because, should the chosen portion be not part of the original weave, should it have been contaminated by external agents, or should it be in any way not representative of the remainder of the shroud, the results would only be applicable to that portion of the cloth.

Please carry on reading into the next post.

Thank You.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:22 AM

A further, relevant difference was the drop of the blind test method, considered by most scholar as the very foundation of the scientific method.

The sole supervising institution would end up being the British Museum, headed by Michael Tite and the proportional counter method would not be used because this would require gram quantities rather than milligram quantities.

On April 21st, 1988, the testing finally began. What was found should have finally put this story to rest for good as but instead it seemed to create more questions than it solved answers. What was discovered was that the shroud was a medieval relic dating from 1260-1390 with a 95% confidence. (However, that date does not agree with observations on the linen-production technology nor the chemistry of fibers obtained directly from the main part of the cloth in 1978)

This also fits quite nicely with the actual finding of the shroud itself by Geoffrey de Charny so surely this means the end of the Shroud of Turin as it's a proven fake right?.... Wrong!

In depth Look at the Carbon Dating of the Shroud


- The biggest mistake in carbon dating history

Here are some interesting short video's explaining why the carbon dating from 1988 could be wrong that are worth a watch.

- Part 1 of the Prologue to the 2009 BBC Special: New Evidence - Shroud of Turin -

- Part 1 of the Prologue to the 2009 BBC Special: New Evidence - Shroud of Turin -

(Scroll down to see full documentary)

Some might think that rejecting the scientific claims of the 1988 carbon dating would just be denial or people just looking for a reason to not believe what was now a scientific fact. Normally I’d agree but from the evidence I'm one of the non believers from the 1988 testing and the matte of the fact truly is the shroud is NOT as old as was found in the tests.

Sure it could be denial on my part also but you can't deny the facts in all honesty can you??

UV photograph taken before sample was snipped. Shows that carbon 14 sample area is chemically different than the rest of the Shroud of Turin.

Low level x-ray image of the carbon 14 sample area.

Transmitted light photograph of the carbon 14 sample area.

This last image shows which piece of the shroud went where. But the matter of the fact is what was tested in 1988 wasn't fully apart of the original shroud! New studies conducted between 2001 and 2008 demonstrate that what was tested was chemically different than the rest of the cloth which was probably due to the repair from the 1532 fire, It seems that all the tests proved was that the repairers used technology from around there own time which explains why the dating dated to that era.

Also it's not a scientific fact that the repair was faulty and another section of the shroud should have been selected.

Splices and the presence of dyestuff and cotton fibers suggest that the carbon 14 samples were taken from a medieval repair patch to the cloth.

Recent analysis of Lignin Decomposition Kinetics also show that the cloth is at least twice as old as the carbon 14 date estimated meaning the shroud could have been made around the time of Christ. The results of these studies are reported in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta in a paper by the late Raymond N. Rogers, a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California.

Some of the cellulose fibers that when twisted together make up the threads of the Shroud's cloth are coated with a thin carbohydrate layer of starch fractions and various sugars. This chemical layer, which is about as thick as the transparent scratch-resistant coatings used for eye glasses, is essentially colorless and is found only on the outermost fibers near the surface. In some places, the layer has undergone a chemical change that appears straw-yellow.

This chemical change is similar to the change that takes place when sugar is heated to make caramel or when proteins react with sugar giving beer its color. And it is the straw-yellow, selectively present in some parts of the carbohydrate layer that makes up the image we see on the Shroud. When scientists speak of image fibers they are referring to the coating on lengths of fiber that have undergone this chemical change.

Photomicrograph: gum is swelling and slowly detaching from the fibers and alizarin mordant lakes can be seen. Yellow dye is in solution. Unique to sample area. Evidence of discrete repairs using methods common in medieval Europe.

Gum encrusted cotton fiber found only in the carbon 14 sample area and not elsewhere on the Shroud of Turin.

Spliced thread showing dye used to match other material. Found only in the carbon 14 sample area.

*Close up image*


- Chemical Differences

Madder Root Dye - Found in the Carbon 14 Sample but NOT in any other area of the shroud.

Alum Mordant - Found in the Carbon 14 Sample but NOT in any other area of the shroud.

Plant Gum Complex with Dye - Found in the Carbon 14 Sample but NOT in any other area of the shroud.

Cotton Fibers - Found in the Carbon 14 Sample but NOT in any other area of the shroud.

Spliced Threads - Found in the Carbon 14 Sample but NOT in any other area of the shroud.

Vanillin in Lignin - Found in the Carbon 14 Sample but NOT in any other area of the shroud.


So the testing found vanillin which is interesting in its own right because it's found nowhere else on the shroud which proves (for a fact) that it's older than the carbon testing because Vanillin disappears slowly from the lignin in flax fibers and all of it has already disappeared. Proving the shroud of Turin is not in fact medieval.

"From the article in Thermochimica Acta: "A linen produced in A.D. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth [shroud's backing cloth], and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."

The Carbon Dating from 1988 is now technically a proven fake and may very well go down as the biggest mistake in carbon dating history but still more tests on the shroud have been rejected still creating the mystery and confusement surrounding the shroud so apparent still.

There was another hypothesis floating about to explain why the carbon 14 testing might be wrong. It was gaining traction among some shroud researchers and on the internet. Two shroud researchers, M. Sue Benford and Joe Marino suggested that the sample used in the carbon dating was from a corner of the cloth that had been mended using a technique known as invisible reweaving – an actual technique practiced by medieval tapestry restorers and practiced today by tailors to repair tears in expensive clothing.

At the behest of Benford and Marino, several textile experts examined documenting photographs of the radiocarbon samples and found what they believed was visual evidence of reweaving. Based on estimates from these photographs, and based on a historically-plausible date for reweaving, Ronald Hatfield of the radiocarbon dating firm Beta Analytic provided estimates that show that the cloth might be 2000 years old.

Patches applied to the shroud following the 1532 fire were obvious; as noticeable as leather patches sewn to the elbows of an old sweater. Would repairs in 1531 (a plausible date from the historical records) or at any other time, have been so expertly done that that they would have gone unnoticed when the carbon 14 samples were cut from the cloth?

Rogers was skeptical. According to Ball, “Rogers thought that he would be able to ‘disprove [the] theory in five minutes.’” (brackets are Ball’s). Inside the Vatican, an independent journal on Vatican affairs, reported.....

Please carry on reading into the next post.

Thank You.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:22 AM

Rogers, who usually viewed attempts to invalidate the 1988 study as ‘ludicrous’ . . . set out to show their [Benford and Marino] claim was wrong, but in the process, he discovered they were correct.

This interesting documentary covers this area as well as others and is definitely worth watching.

- Shroud - new evidence - BBC Special - part 1 of 5 -

- Shroud - new evidence - BBC Special - part 2 of 5 -

- Shroud - new evidence - BBC Special - part 3 of 5 -

- Shroud - new evidence - BBC Special - part 4 of 5 -

- Shroud - new evidence - BBC Special - part 5 of 5 -

A complete examination of the Shroud

Here is examination area #1.)

Close-up of a scorch area. Note the holes burned through the cloth at left, with the Holland cloth (sewn onto the entire back of the Shroud in 1534) showing through them. Several small patches (center and right) are visible, with a very small patch visible just below the one on the right. A water stain marks the cloth above and below the right patch. At far right are portions of two large patches. A crease is seen going through the center of the entire symmetrical scorch, indicating where the Shroud was folded at the time of the 1532 fire

Here is examination area #2.)

Close-up of the water stain located between the ventral and dorsal head images. Most water stains on the Shroud are from the water used to douse the 1532 fire. You can also see the top of the back of the head at far left. Note that the visible area of this close-up extends beyond the left edge of the Master Photograph. Also notice the "#3" bloodstain at the far right of the image and the other bloodstains visible in the dorsal head image area at left. According to forensic pathologists, these could have been caused by a "crown" or cap of thorns placed firmly onto the head prior to crucifixion.

Here is examination area #3.)

Close-up of the Facial Image as it appears to the eye (left) and on a photographic negative (right). These images have been rotated 90 degrees for a more pleasing view. Also, the negative image has been flipped left to right to appear as it would on a photographic negative. Notice how this causes the dark bloodstain on the forehead to reverse into the distinctive "#3" shape, by which it is most often identified. Remember too, the closer you are to the image, the less distinct it appears. Try backing away from your monitor as you watch the image on your screen. Notice how both images improve as the distance increases.

Here is examination area #4.)

Close-up of a water stain located in the center of the chest. Note the dense bloodstain from the side wound at the top of the image. Most water stains on the Shroud are from the water used to douse the 1532 fire.

Here is examination area #5.

Close-up of a scorch. Note the small holes burned through the cloth at left. The Holland Cloth is visible through these holes.

Here is examination area #6)

Close-up of a scorch. Note the holes burned through the cloth and several small patches. At right are portions of two large patches. Also visible in the center of the scorch is water stain. A crease is seen going through the center of the symmetrical scorch, indicating where the Shroud was folded at the time of the 1532 fire.

Here is examination area #7.)

Close-up of one of the arms of the Shroud image. Note the bloodstains running down the arm. According to expert forensic pathologists, two different blood trails are visible on the arms, indicating that the victim pulled himself up on the cross to gasp breaths of air. This changed the angle of his arms and caused dual blood flows.

Here is examination area #8.)

Close-up of a burn hole on the Shroud. Note that you can see the Holland Cloth through the hole at the far right and the other two dark areas are not burned completely through the cloth. The Holland Cloth is a large linen cloth that was sewn onto the back of the Shroud by the Poor Clare nuns in 1534. It was added in addition to the patches, to help stabilize the cloth after it was burned in a fire in Chambery, France, in 1532.

Here is examination area #9.)

Close-up of the torso area of the Shroud image. Note the arms and bloodstains in the upper and lower right corners of the image. To the left is a large water stain, and in the upper left corner, a small portion of the side wound bloodstain is visible. Also, several scourge marks are visible on the torso and arms of the body.

Here is examination area #10.)

Close-up of the hands of the Shroud image. Note the bloodstains in the wrist area. Most art depicts the crucifixion with nails through the palms of the hands. However, the weight of a body cannot be supported by the structure of the hands. The nails must be driven through the wrist to support the weight of a body.

Here is examination area #11.)

Close-up of the hip area of the Shroud image. Note the crossed hands in the left part of the image. Also, many scourge marks are visible on thighs, hips and torso. To the right is a large water stain.

Please carry on reading into the next post.

Thank You.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:23 AM
Here is examination area #12.)

Close-up of a water stain. This stain is centered around the knees. You can also clearly see the thighs and legs in the negative image at right. Tilt your head to the left to see the legs in the correct orientation. Many scourge marks are visible along both legs and thighs. Note the patches at the top and bottom of the image. Most water stains on the Shroud are from the water used to douse the 1532 fire.

Here is examination area #13.)

Close-up of burn holes on the Shroud image. Note that you can see the Holland Cloth through the three large holes. The Holland Cloth is a large linen cloth that was sewn onto the back of the Shroud by the Poor Clare nuns in 1534. It was added in addition to the patches, to help stabilize the cloth after it was burned in a fire in Chambery, France, in 1532.

Here is examination area #14.)

This is a non-image background area of the Shroud. Most scientific comparisons require a "control" area, something to use as a standard against which to compare. In the case of the Shroud of Turin, it is an area that has no body image, scorches, bloodstains, water stains, patches or any other "landmarks". Some variations are still seen in the background.

Here is examination area #16.)

Close-up of the legs of the Shroud image. Note the water stain at the left end of the image. Also, a number of scourge marks are visible on the legs. To the right is the bloodstain on top of the foot.

Here is examination area #17.)

Close-up of a scorch area. At far left and far right are portions of large patches. A water stain marks the cloth near the patches at left. A scorch line follows a crease that goes through the center of the entire symmetrical scorch, indicating the Shroud was folded here at the time of the 1532 fire.

Didn’t they find real blood?

From forensic observations, it's been found that the blood that was found on the shroud of Turin (such as at the wrists, forehead, side wound and ankles etc.) are in fact real blood! Not just any blood though but they was able to determine that the blood found was created under greatly stressful circumstances very much like what would be caused from a crucifixion type scenario.

First off though, one argument that's been circulating about this against the blood being real is the color of the blood itself. (as shown in the 2 images above) It's something that I'm sure people will be thinking of looking at the images and that's 'doesn't blood always turn black'? 'The blood there is red'!!


Ancient cloth, as it was manufactured in the Middle East during the first century, was starched on the loom and then washed in suds of the Soapwort plant. Ingredients of this natural soap are hemolytic, which would keep the blood red.

The blood on the Shroud is rich in bilirubin, a bile pigment produced when a human body is under severe traumatic stress. Bilirubin is bright red and stays red and will cause old blood to remain red in color.

The matter of the fact is this theory has been repeatedly debunked and the blood is red because of natural causes, the fact that it is red doesn’t disprove anything and thinking it does is scientifically invalid it seems.

The clots, the serum separations, the mingling of body fluids, the directionality of the flows, and all other medically expected attributes would have been nearly impossible to create by brushing or daubing or pouring human blood onto the cloth. The blood, rich in the bilirubin, a bile pigment that the body produces under extreme trauma, is unquestionably the blood of the man whose lifeless, crucified body was enshrouded in the cloth; even if only for the purpose of crafting a relic-forgery in medieval times.

Also looking at the wounds that were recreate for the first time above which was create from studying the shroud itself remarkably enough they are even able to tell exactly how he received his injuries.

They claim that:

The man of the shroud was savagely flogged. Whatever was used, it is consistent with a Roman flagrum, a whip of short leather thongs tipped with bits of lead, bronze or bone which tore into flesh and muscle. (see image below to see an artist’s impression of this)

There are dozens upon dozens of dumbbell shaped welts and contusions, the type of wound that the flagellum would have caused. There is blood from the flagellation within the imaged wounds. From the angles of attack, the way the marks fall on the man's back, buttocks, and legs, it seems that man was whipped by two men, one taller than the other, who stood on either side of him.

At some time the man may have been forced to wear a crown of thorns. That seems to be a logical explanation for the numerous small puncture wounds about the top of his head. But from the wounds and many drops of blood, the crown seems to have been a rough bunch of thorns and not the wreath shaped crown of thorns so common in artistic depictions.

Anyway from the blood on the shroud we can tell that the man in the shroud was in fact lying on his back with his feet near one end of the fourteen foot long, banner shaped piece of cloth. The cloth was then drawn over his head and then draped over his face and the full length of his body.

Many of the stains have the distinctive forensic signature of clotting with red corpuscles about the edge of the clot and a clear yellowish halo of serum. Blood also ran from a chest wound, flowed around the side of the body and formed a puddle of blood about the man’s lower back. Mingled with these large bloodstains are stains from a clear bodily fluid, perhaps pericardial fluid or fluid from the pleural sac or pleural cavity. This suggests that the man received a postmortem stabbing wound in the vicinity of the heart.

They can also see from changes in bloodstream angles that the man must have pulled himself up repeatedly, perhaps raising himself up to relieve the weight on his nailed feet, perhaps to relieve the pressure on his chest that he might breathe.

Please carry on reading into the next post.

Thank You.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:23 AM

The Christ Pantocrator Icon at St. Catherines Monastery in the Sinai

Now personally I'm not 100% convinced still that the person in the shroud was the actual Jesus Christ, the Shroud itself is another story of course but I find this particular area (this painting) quite fascinating to say the least and it could provide evidence for where the face of Jesus actually came from.

Before I explain take a look at the painting itself.

Just looking at it you wouldn’t really tell anything is different/out of the ordinary/'special' really but that may not be true at all. Here these 2 images may explain. (the second image is a negative photograph of the face from the shroud)

Gridlines have been added for a better understanding of the similarities.

Notice how similar they are? Possibly even too similar.

Maybe this picture can explain what I mean a bit better?

Notice how they are the exact same face?

Which is interesting because the painting was painted 6 years after the Shroud was said to have arrived in Edessa which could is a remarkable really and could prove the historical story that I explained right at the beginning to be in fact true!

The eyes, mouth, nose and hair (even the longer hair from the right side) all seem to be a perfect fit which would surely surpass mere coincidence, especially understanding the circumstances of how the painting seemingly came about and how shortly after the cloth arrived this painting was made.

So I ask, could this painting have been the very first we have of the famous Jesus Christ as well as being the first of what would be a dramatic change in the way we portray him as after this painting his image on icons, frescos and mosaics all suddenly changed from what he was before which was as a young shepherd or modeled after the Greek Apollo.

After the discovery of the Edessa Cloth, images of Jesus became suddenly full-frontal facial images.

Was this painting based on the Cloth of Edessa which as evidence suggests could very well be the Shroud of Turin?


Now regardless of personal believe in Christianity, Catholicism or any of the other religions you can't help but be caught in the 'magic' of the shroud and its fascinating mysteries, but is it real? Is it the actual burial shroud of Jesus Christ?

Personally I'm starting to think so.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:39 AM
reply to post by Rising Against

Rising Against.....

This looks to be an excellent work-through of a very interesting topic.

I look forward to having a really good read & a think about all of this!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:01 AM
Forgive me for not reading the whole excellently put together thread, my point may well be explained somewhere in it but I'll just ask.

Isn't it the case that if a cloth is placed across a face like that the imprint left is actually elongated horizontally. The same is seen when skinning a 3D model, the actual skin does not directly drop onto the face the skin molds to every contour and bone so when laid out is much wider as the skin has to cover much more area.

This isn't seen on the shroud....Why?

The shroud in this case seems to be a 'picture'...

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:06 AM
S&F for a great post...

I just dont believe the whole Jesus thing..

Wasn't it the same old Virgin Birth, Crusified, Rise again thing played out many times before???

Or did God think every thousand years or so we needed to be reminded?

I dont know, I'm certainly not knocking your thread but you see where I'm coming from..

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:06 AM
I still don't know why religious scholars try so hard to find scientific or historical evidence of Jesus' existence etc.

Whatever happened to FAITH?

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:14 AM
reply to post by Mclaneinc

Star for a great question man.

Anyway the answer in short is we don't know (as far as I'm aware)...... and It's as simple as that but still, here are some theories about how it could have occurred but IMO there is just no way that this shroud is a painted image and that’s mainly because of the sheer amount of evidence of the shroud itself being real

Whether it’s the actual burial shroud of Jesus, I’m not 100% convinced by but it’s interesting to say the least still.

Anyway hopefully this will be helpful to you still....

How do the shroud proponents think the image was formed? Do they have theories that are plausible and that would tend to conflict with the medieval date or human manufacture?

The following are the most popular theories:

- Contact: The shroud, being in direct contact with the body, absorbed the oils and spices that were on the body. This theory can be discounted since oils and spices were not found on the shroud, also a cloth wrapped around the body would produce an expanded image of the body when flattened out. The image would also be blurred as the oils soaked into the cloth.

- Vapour: The theory that the image was caused by the projection of body vapours. This can also be rejected since vapours don't travel in straight lines, but disperse, so once again the image would be blurred, which it isn't.

- Flash photolysis: The most popular theory. The image was caused by a short burst of radiation caused by the resurrection. This too has been discredited because the fibres in the image areas show no additional degradation than the non-image areas. Radiation would cause visible damage to the fibres (when viewed microscopically) and this is not evident. Radiation would also cause the image to penetrate the cloth, unlike the superficial shroud image that is observed. This radiation is also said by some to have altered the C14 ratio, causing an erroneous carbon dating result. However to believe that the shroud received the exact amount of radiation required to alter the date of the cloth to the medieval date of its first documented appearance would be a remarkable coincidence. There is also no evidence that a body can be resurrected or that it emits radiation when doing so.

- Leonardo: The shroud was created by Leonardo da Vinci who invented photography in secret. Although not supporting a 1st century date or connection with Jesus, this theory is often mentioned by some as the origin of the shroud. Proponents conveniently ignore the fact that the shroud had existed for a hundred years before Leonardo was even born (1452 CE).

Thus it is clear that shroud proponents have no viable theory of image formation that fits the characteristics of the shroud. When asked how the image formed, if they're honest, they should also answer, 'I don't know'. Of course they could answer that it was a miracle, but miracle in this context is just another word for mystery. And a mystery is something we don't understand, so we're back at not knowing.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:17 AM

Originally posted by TheBloodRed
I still don't know why religious scholars try so hard to find scientific or historical evidence of Jesus' existence etc.

Whatever happened to FAITH?

Basically this.

People look for the proof of a man who said some nice things about 2000 years ago, but take it for granted that an all powerful, all loving, all knowing God exists.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:18 AM

Originally posted by TheBloodRed
I still don't know why religious scholars try so hard to find scientific or historical evidence of Jesus' existence etc.

Whatever happened to FAITH?

I'm confused.

What's wrong with trying to find complete undeniable evidence of the existence of what would be the greatest find in history?

And forgive me, but you need to understand people do have faith…. However, It’s in science and that means we want evidence for whatever claims are made. Now what could be wrong with that?

It's just 2 different types of faith but faith nonetheless

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:22 AM
Faith is basically a synonym of "trust". If you have faith in your religion and your god then why seek proof?

Searching for evidence only shows doubt about the existence at all.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:26 AM
reply to post by TheBloodRed

Yes, but not everyone can have faith like that my friend, people are different, we have different beliefs and we have different ways of believing in those beliefs and we’re a better world for it IMO.

We all seek the truth...Isn't that why you believe in God, well this is why I look for evidence. I'm only on this site because all 'I seek is proof.'

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Rising Against

This is somewhat of an odd place for me to 'attempt' to make a thread in all honesty because 'religion' isn’t really a subject that I put too much thinking time into anymore. Reasoning for that is my own and it's not really relevant here as religion as a whole IS NOT the topic I'm discussing as well as the discussion on whether religion is 'right' or if God is real etc., This thread is a discussion on the Shroud of Turin and the credibility as well as the authenticity and that's where the discussion will lie.

Ultimately, it is utterly irrelevant whether the Shroud of Turin is authentic or not; there are arguments both for and against which I have read in rigorous detail.

And, as long as people are involved in either one side or the other of this particular argument, they will be distracted from a much more important issue here.

Why was Jesus crucified in the first place?

He was not crucified as a result of the Pharisee Paul's Satanic doctrine of "vicarious atonement", which led directly to the Holocaust of millions of Jews.

Jesus was crucified because he taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'; just like Isaiah and Daniel before him; and just like Mohammed after him.

Michael Cecil

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:55 AM
reply to post by Michael Cecil

As I already explained (and as you already quoted yourself!
) I’m not making this thread to discuss why Jesus was crucified, that’s another thread for another person on another day, I’m simply here making this thread to discuss whether the shroud of Turin was his actual burial cloth.

To clarify, I'm here to discuss what happened AFTER the crucifixion, not the crucifixion itself.

And yes, I’m afraid it is relevant, if you think otherwise however then this may not be the thread for you it seems.

I thought I made that clear already so I'm unsure why you're trying to push the thread in that direction.

ETA: If you want to discuss the crucifixion or why he was crucified then feel free to make a thread of your own on the subject.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]

new topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in