It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
The Shroud of Turin is very famous. For those who don't know, the shroud has the alleged image of Jesus Christ on it. However, it was Carbon dated using C-14 testing, and it was dated to 1300 A.D. With that said, it has become clear that the C-14 testing was flawed. Not by the testing itself, but by what the testers failed to realize: the corner in which they tested was a newer piece of the shroud which was used to restore it after a fire in 1532. The corner was also painted to look like the rest of the shroud.

They believe that the Shroud was kept in France by the Knights Templar prior to it being placed in the church which later burned, and caused the part in question to be used. Before that, it was allegedly in Constantinope. Before this, it was in Edessa. They believe they can trace it to 536 A.D.

Also, the Sudarim of Oviedo was the cloth placed over Jesus' face when he was buried. That too had an image of Jesus' face. If you align the two clothes you get the same image of Jesus' face. They can trace this as far back as 700 A.D.

Now, if somehow we could prove that this was the cloth used on Jesus, would you believe that Jesus was god?

Do you believe that these cloths were in fact used on Jesus currently?

Why do you think the Church refuses to allow testing of the Shroud again? Wouldn't it do wonders to help some people struggling to believe to actually come before god? What if the church knows that this is the actual burial cloth and wants it to be kept secret for some alternative hidden reason? What do you all think? Is there some conspiracy underlying this mystical shroud that still has the world's attention?




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Ryanp5555
 


The shroud is definitely very interesting to me, and for a good many reasons, I don't doubt it's from an authentic first-century crucixion. Do I think it's Jesus - yes. Can we prove that outright? Not really, without getting more into interpretation of the high levels of strangeness involved.

As to why the church won't allow more examination, if they're still holding out on such - well, it's a precious relic of course, that I also don't want to see damaged, but I really don't understand most of what the RCC does anyway.

Conspiracy or cover-up...? Maybe, but unless they're downright wicked I can't see the reasoning behind it. Conversely, they might also be concerned that if it's proved to be younger than I think, it could damage the faith.

Good questions, all. Answers just too uncertain, though.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Here's a great and fascinating video (the first of 6 in total) about the Shroud that I think most people here would find really interesting. It adds some skeptical balance to the true origins of the shroud also which can only be a good thing.





He was the ultimate Renaissance man - studying anatomy, designing a rudimentary helicopter and creating some of the most admired paintings of the age.

But could Leonardo da Vinci also have perpetrated history's greatest art forgery?

That's the suggestion of one expert, who claims that Leonardo was responsible for faking the Turin Shroud.



Lillian Schwartz, a graphic consultant at the School of Visual Arts in New York, claims that the image is a self-portrait of Leonardo, which was made using a crude photographic technique.

Using computer scans she found that the face on the Turin Shroud and a self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci share the same dimensions.

'It matched. I'm excited about this,' she said. 'There is no doubt in my mind that the proportions that Leonardo wrote about were used in creating this Shroud's face.'

He would have hung the shroud's fabric over a frame in a blacked- out room and coated it with a substance to make it light-sensitive, just like photographic film.

When the sun's rays passed through a lens in one of the walls, Leonardo's 3D model would have been projected on to the material, creating a permanent image.



Shroud researcher Lynn Picknett said: 'It is spooky, it is jaw-dropping.

'The faker of the shroud had to be a heretic. He had to have a grasp of anatomy and he had to have at his fingertips a technology which would completely fool everyone until the 20th century.' - www.dailymail.co.uk...
(Source is this post here)

Another ATS member posted these in a previous thread of mine also: The Shroud of Turin – Miracle or Man made?
edit on 11-5-2011 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


I'm inclined to disagree with the conclusion, but if there was anyone smart enough to pull off the shroud, it would probably have to be da Vinci - granted. Don't they guess his IQ to have been anywhere up to 220 or so? Willickers...

Thanks, I'll have to check out the other thread and your information this evening. Be well
edit on 5/11/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Let's not allow ourselves to be carried away on a tide of religious fervour here.
Even if the shroud could be dated to the time of the supposed "messiah" , why for one minute would anybody think it is the death shroud of Jesus ?

Nobody in this era even knows what he looked like , unless you refer to the stereotypical image of him

edit on 27/04/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
Here's a great and fascinating video (the first of 6 in total) about the Shroud that I think most people here would find really interesting. It adds some skeptical balance to the true origins of the shroud also which can only be a good thing.





He was the ultimate Renaissance man - studying anatomy, designing a rudimentary helicopter and creating some of the most admired paintings of the age.

But could Leonardo da Vinci also have perpetrated history's greatest art forgery?

That's the suggestion of one expert, who claims that Leonardo was responsible for faking the Turin Shroud.



Lillian Schwartz, a graphic consultant at the School of Visual Arts in New York, claims that the image is a self-portrait of Leonardo, which was made using a crude photographic technique.

Using computer scans she found that the face on the Turin Shroud and a self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci share the same dimensions.

'It matched. I'm excited about this,' she said. 'There is no doubt in my mind that the proportions that Leonardo wrote about were used in creating this Shroud's face.'

He would have hung the shroud's fabric over a frame in a blacked- out room and coated it with a substance to make it light-sensitive, just like photographic film.

When the sun's rays passed through a lens in one of the walls, Leonardo's 3D model would have been projected on to the material, creating a permanent image.



Shroud researcher Lynn Picknett said: 'It is spooky, it is jaw-dropping.

'The faker of the shroud had to be a heretic. He had to have a grasp of anatomy and he had to have at his fingertips a technology which would completely fool everyone until the 20th century.' - www.dailymail.co.uk...


Another ATS member posted these in a previous thread of mine also: The Shroud of Turin – Miracle or Man made?


The problem with it being art is that they have 3D imaged the thing. The only thing that makes the same results in terms of its 3D image, is a dual light scan. Basically, if you had a painting, it would show up 2d. If you took a picture it would show up semi-3D but nowhere near as 3D as the cloth. The only thing capable of producing this, as I stated, was a dual light scan. In other words, if you took a modern day scanner you could recreate the 3D image. But undoubtedly, there was nothing like that during Leonardo Divinci's time.

Further, they tested it and found nothing that tested positive as any known painting utensils (including such things as: paint, pencils, etc.). Going even further, there is blood all over the cloth. And the way the cloth is stained shows that the blood was there first. This is how it would have happened had it actually been someone who was bleeding. The blood would be the first thing to show up. Meaning, if it was a drawing, the blood had to be placed on the shroud before the drawing.

Going even further, during DaVinci's time, the thought was that his crucification went through his hands. In the Shroud it was through his wrists. It wasn't until modern day when the wrists became the thought of many because the thought is hands cannot hold up a body.

Finally, even the carbon dating puts the creation of the cloth BEFORE DaVinci was even alive. The cloth would have been nearly 100-200 years old by the time DaVinci even got his hands on it. That is not likely. Not to mention there is plenty of other evidence, including the drawings of the shroud long before 1260-1390 (the carbon dating date) and the stories of it in constantinople which essentially rule out DaVinci.

To me, it has been pretty decisively ruled out that it is a painting or drawing, or other artistic work that was capable at that time. You have to understand, in order for it to be like that, someone would have to have technology that long post-dates their time, understand modern day concepts of rigormortis and how blood stains, use some sort of object to draw it that we did not consider, and understand crucification more than we did until recently. In other words, who ever "drew" it would have to have an eye looking towards the late 20th and early 21st centuries.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tpg65
Let's not allow ourselves to be carried away on a tide of religious fervour here.
Even if the shroud could be dated to the time of the supposed "messiah" , why for one minute would anybody think it is the death shroud of Jesus ?

Nobody in this era even knows what he looked like , unless you refer to the stereotypical image of him

edit on 27/04/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)


Well the wounds on the head and body are consistent with the story of the gospel. The image on the blanket itself likely would not have occurred without a large form of radiation (at least that is what I remember hearing). And the shroud itself does look like the stereotypical Jesus.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by tpg65
Let's not allow ourselves to be carried away on a tide of religious fervour here.
Even if the shroud could be dated to the time of the supposed "messiah" , why for one minute would anybody think it is the death shroud of Jesus ?

Nobody in this era even knows what he looked like , unless you refer to the stereotypical image of him

edit on 27/04/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)


Well the wounds on the head and body are consistent with the story of the gospel. The image on the blanket itself likely would not have occurred without a large form of radiation (at least that is what I remember hearing). And the shroud itself does look like the stereotypical Jesus.


With regards to crucifixion , nails were hammered through the wrists and not the palms and the feet were left to dangle , so eventually , the poor unfortunate person would die from asphyxiation.

The Turin Shroud just leaves too many doubts



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by tpg65
 

Let's not allow ourselves to be carried away on a tide of religious fervour here.
Even if the shroud could be dated to the time of the supposed "messiah" , why for one minute would anybody think it is the death shroud of Jesus ?


heh. Come on friend, think about it for a moment and then ask why anyone would actually think it's NOT the death shroud of Jesus, if shown to be from the first century.

The obvious suggestiveness of a crucifixion bearing all the hallmarks described in the gospels aside, the specific details of the shroud have been baffling scientists for quite some time as no one, even with our modern resources, can create a satisfactory duplicate of it. It seems to beg for and devour inquiry without providing any answers, and I'm not aware of many (fine, any) ancient textiles that can claim the same.

So many anomalies, even discounting its existence in the first place. If ever proven to be from the first century, then it seems to cry out for some sort of 'miraculous' origin and protection.

Maybe I'm drawing a long bow here, but that's how it seems to me at least.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by tpg65

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by tpg65
Let's not allow ourselves to be carried away on a tide of religious fervour here.
Even if the shroud could be dated to the time of the supposed "messiah" , why for one minute would anybody think it is the death shroud of Jesus ?

Nobody in this era even knows what he looked like , unless you refer to the stereotypical image of him

edit on 27/04/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)


Well the wounds on the head and body are consistent with the story of the gospel. The image on the blanket itself likely would not have occurred without a large form of radiation (at least that is what I remember hearing). And the shroud itself does look like the stereotypical Jesus.


With regards to crucifixion , nails were hammered through the wrists and not the palms and the feet were left to dangle , so eventually , the poor unfortunate person would die from asphyxiation.

The Turin Shroud just leaves too many doubts


The Turin Shroud has those exact places were the nails were hammered. It does not have the hands or the feet. Instead the wrists are where the nails went through in the image.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by tpg65

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by tpg65
Let's not allow ourselves to be carried away on a tide of religious fervour here.
Even if the shroud could be dated to the time of the supposed "messiah" , why for one minute would anybody think it is the death shroud of Jesus ?

Nobody in this era even knows what he looked like , unless you refer to the stereotypical image of him

edit on 27/04/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)


Well the wounds on the head and body are consistent with the story of the gospel. The image on the blanket itself likely would not have occurred without a large form of radiation (at least that is what I remember hearing). And the shroud itself does look like the stereotypical Jesus.


With regards to crucifixion , nails were hammered through the wrists and not the palms and the feet were left to dangle , so eventually , the poor unfortunate person would die from asphyxiation.

The Turin Shroud just leaves too many doubts


The Turin Shroud has those exact places were the nails were hammered. It does not have the hands or the feet. Instead the wrists are where the nails went through in the image.


That just proves that the poor unfortunate was crucified , it doesn't make him Jesus . It could have been anybody from that era



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tpg65

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by tpg65

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by tpg65
Let's not allow ourselves to be carried away on a tide of religious fervour here.
Even if the shroud could be dated to the time of the supposed "messiah" , why for one minute would anybody think it is the death shroud of Jesus ?

Nobody in this era even knows what he looked like , unless you refer to the stereotypical image of him

edit on 27/04/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)


Well the wounds on the head and body are consistent with the story of the gospel. The image on the blanket itself likely would not have occurred without a large form of radiation (at least that is what I remember hearing). And the shroud itself does look like the stereotypical Jesus.


With regards to crucifixion , nails were hammered through the wrists and not the palms and the feet were left to dangle , so eventually , the poor unfortunate person would die from asphyxiation.

The Turin Shroud just leaves too many doubts


The Turin Shroud has those exact places were the nails were hammered. It does not have the hands or the feet. Instead the wrists are where the nails went through in the image.


That just proves that the poor unfortunate was crucified , it doesn't make him Jesus . It could have been anybody from that era


Not really. It would have to be someone who was tortured and had injuries which matched up with a crown of thorns. It would also have to be someone who was placed in a linen cloth. Finally, somehow, the body would have to be permanently imprinted on the shroud. I doubt that if you dug up anyone's grave that had been dead for 500 years and you looked at whatever they were encased in, there would be any remaining marks with the exception of dried blood.

As I stated before, in one of the Shroud shows I watched scientists that examined the shroud said that if this was real they believe that there had to a significant amount of radiation in order to cause the face and body to be imprinted like that.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by tpg65

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by tpg65

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by tpg65
Let's not allow ourselves to be carried away on a tide of religious fervour here.
Even if the shroud could be dated to the time of the supposed "messiah" , why for one minute would anybody think it is the death shroud of Jesus ?

Nobody in this era even knows what he looked like , unless you refer to the stereotypical image of him

edit on 27/04/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)


Well the wounds on the head and body are consistent with the story of the gospel. The image on the blanket itself likely would not have occurred without a large form of radiation (at least that is what I remember hearing). And the shroud itself does look like the stereotypical Jesus.


With regards to crucifixion , nails were hammered through the wrists and not the palms and the feet were left to dangle , so eventually , the poor unfortunate person would die from asphyxiation.

The Turin Shroud just leaves too many doubts


The Turin Shroud has those exact places were the nails were hammered. It does not have the hands or the feet. Instead the wrists are where the nails went through in the image.


That just proves that the poor unfortunate was crucified , it doesn't make him Jesus . It could have been anybody from that era


Not really. It would have to be someone who was tortured and had injuries which matched up with a crown of thorns. It would also have to be someone who was placed in a linen cloth. Finally, somehow, the body would have to be permanently imprinted on the shroud. I doubt that if you dug up anyone's grave that had been dead for 500 years and you looked at whatever they were encased in, there would be any remaining marks with the exception of dried blood.

As I stated before, in one of the Shroud shows I watched scientists that examined the shroud said that if this was real they believe that there had to a significant amount of radiation in order to cause the face and body to be imprinted like that.


Then logic tells me it will be eventually revealed to be a fake.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by tpg65
Let's not allow ourselves to be carried away on a tide of religious fervour here.
Even if the shroud could be dated to the time of the supposed "messiah" , why for one minute would anybody think it is the death shroud of Jesus ?

Nobody in this era even knows what he looked like , unless you refer to the stereotypical image of him

edit on 27/04/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)


Well the wounds on the head and body are consistent with the story of the gospel. The image on the blanket itself likely would not have occurred without a large form of radiation (at least that is what I remember hearing). And the shroud itself does look like the stereotypical Jesus.


The fact that it resembles the stereotypical Jesus is NOT an argument for it being his burial shroud but, actually, an argument for it being faked. Any skilled hoaxer would have added all the wounds of Jesus' crucified body mentioned in the Gospels, so their presence in the shroud is NOT evidence for it being his burial shroud, either.

For me, the telling evidence for it being faked is the fact that the size of the head is not scaled to the length of the body and looks slightly detached - as though this part of the image was added on a different occasion. Then there is the fact of the fainter image of the face and hands on the surface of the cloth discovered in 2004 by Italian physicists Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo on the back of the sheet.
news.bbc.co.uk...
This is usually regarded as ruling out a photographic method. But, actually, it can be regarded as confirmatory evidence, once the plausible possibility is allowed that a trial photograph was made on the back of the cloth using a camera obscura and light-sensitive chemicals in order to test the process.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by tpg65
 


Fair enough. But if it was proven to be real and from 0-100 AD; and it was shown that only a significant amount of radiation could have caused such a thing to happen, what would you believe then?

This, of course, is all hypothetical because I don't see the Church releasing the shroud from its place at the Vatican.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Even if a fresh carbon dating were to establish that the cloth dates to the first century AD, that is STILL not proof that it was the burial shroud of Jesus because a hoaxer could have used cloth brought back by someone on pilgrimage to the Holy Land that was already very old.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Ryanp5555
 

Obviously, you're a christian. And that's fine. I'm all for folks choosing for themselves what to believe in. No matter what they prove about this shroud, I won't believe that Christ was or is God.

The real question is, what will you believe if it is "proven" not to be the image or shroud of Christ?

S&F, because I like being updated on stuff like this occasionally.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by tpg65
Let's not allow ourselves to be carried away on a tide of religious fervour here.
Even if the shroud could be dated to the time of the supposed "messiah" , why for one minute would anybody think it is the death shroud of Jesus ?

Nobody in this era even knows what he looked like , unless you refer to the stereotypical image of him

edit on 27/04/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)


Well the wounds on the head and body are consistent with the story of the gospel. The image on the blanket itself likely would not have occurred without a large form of radiation (at least that is what I remember hearing). And the shroud itself does look like the stereotypical Jesus.


The fact that it resembles the stereotypical Jesus is NOT an argument for it being his burial shroud but, actually, an argument for it being faked. Any skilled hoaxer would have added all the wounds of Jesus' crucified body mentioned in the Gospels, so their presence in the shroud is NOT evidence for it being his burial shroud, either.

For me, the telling evidence for it being faked is the fact that the size of the head is not scaled to the length of the body and looks slightly detached - as though this part of the image was added on a different occasion. Then there is the fact of the fainter image of the face and hands on the surface of the cloth discovered in 2004 by Italian physicists Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo on the back of the sheet.
news.bbc.co.uk...
This is usually regarded as ruling out a photographic method. But, actually, it can be regarded as confirmatory evidence, once the plausible possibility is allowed that a trial photograph was made on the back of the cloth using a camera obscura and light-sensitive chemicals in order to test the process.


Okay, but again, a photograph would not have created the 3D image the scientists used in the 80's when testing this Shroud. Even a Digital Camera from today would not create that image. Only thing that we have found that can produce the same results from the 3D imaging the scientists did was a computer scanner. Again, there was absolutely no trace of any chemical used in creating art. They have all but ruled out it being a drawing or photograph. Finally, the "faint face" has always been considered to be the back of the body. If you look at the negatives of the shroud it makes it clear.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


I don't base my faith on the shroud. I wasn't trying to coax him into saying that he would believe and become a christain and ho hum the world would be great. What I was trying to do was find out an honest answer. What is your opinion? If you could definitively prove that there Jesus either died OR he never existed, I'd stop believing in Jesus. But what if we definitively proved that there was this cloth dated to his time, where it was clear a person was wrapped in it, with wounds consistent with Jesus', and the only thing that could have caused such marks was a ton of radiation? What would you think? That's all I'm asking. I answered your question. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just curious.
edit on 11-5-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Again, here is what you are saying when you argue that it is an elaborate hoax:

-- The person who created it knew the stronger image would be a negative
-- The person who created it had didn't use any materials to paint/draw it that we can find on the shroud
-- The person who created it somehow created a 3D image which can only be replicated by modern day scanners
-- The person who created it somehow copied an image from people from earlier than when it was created
-- The person who created it knew of rigormortis and how to draw that
-- The person who created it knew that blood would be imprinted first and thus drew the blood on the shroud before the body
-- The person who created it knew, despite all other interpretations, that Jesus had his WRISTS pierced with the nail and not his hands (a belief that didn't come around until modern day)


In other words, the person who created it knew to create it looking towards the late 20th early 21st century. This is not practical. It's not a drawing. It is a person.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join