Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Guess this means a Merry Christmas to Christians...the on-going debate over the shrouds authentification has been going on for sometime..I'm sure these claims will be refuted soon.

" Just days before Christmas, a new study has emerged that suggests that one of Christianity's most prized but mysterious relics – the Turin Shroud – is not a medieval forgery but could be the authentic burial robe of Christ. "





Source / Alternative source

Italian scientists have conducted a series of advanced experiments which, they claim, show that the marks on the shroud – purportedly left by the imprint of Christ's body – could not possibly have been faked with technology that was available in the medieval period.

The research will be an early Christmas present for shroud believers, but is likely to be greeted with scepticism by those who doubt that the sepia-coloured, 14ft-long cloth dates from Christ's crucifixion 2,000 years ago.

edit on 19-12-2011 by Daedal because: added pic
edit on 19-12-2011 by Daedal because: Added source




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 

As a Christian, this really is not something that would make a Merry Christmas for me. I believe that the shroud is a fake and is nothing more than a distraction from the truth. As new testament believers we are supposed to have faith and not rely on signs.
Nice find.




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   


the Turin Shroud – is not a medieval forgery but could be the authentic burial robe."


There, I fixed it...good grief thousands of people were crucified...even should it prove to be an authentic burial shroud, (and I don't believe it would be) how on earth could they factually say...that it belonged to ONE in particular..lol I think they should do some DNA testing
They won't do that because the DNA would shatter the myth...



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by Daedal
 

As a Christian, this really is not something that would make a Merry Christmas for me. I believe that the shroud is a fake and is nothing more than a distraction from the truth. As new testament believers we are supposed to have faith and not rely on signs.
Nice find.



Agreed..I'm not sure if this is fake or authentic..and yes faith is paramount.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Thanks OP, keep those Shroud threads coming....

I posted this yesterday on another Shroud thread here, from the Italian
study.


The strongest VUV light source to date is several thousand billion. To reproduce the image of the Shroud would take 34 thousand billion! So say the scientists in a new report, after five years of study.

The Shroud is from God, truly, the shroud covered God, Our Lord Jesus Christ.


colbe



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 


Thanks for highlighting this one, but it would be a big help if you could link to the 'study', and maybe point out who conducted it. It's an extreme claim (though more likely than it either being the image of Jacques Molay or Leonardo da Vinci!) and it'll need thinking about.

Thanks



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snippy23
reply to post by Daedal
 


Thanks for highlighting this one, but it would be a big help if you could link to the 'study', and maybe point out who conducted it. It's an extreme claim (though more likely than it either being the image of Jacques Molay or Leonardo da Vinci!) and it'll need thinking about.

Thanks


Trying to locate the sources..there is a pdf that explains the study but it is in Italian.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
how reliable/reputable is "Vatican Insider"????



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by scary
 


and compare it to what? other confirmed jesus dna?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by scary
 
Hi scary.


There, I fixed it...good grief thousands of people were crucified...even should it prove to be an authentic burial shroud, (and I don't believe it would be) how on earth could they factually say...that it belonged to ONE in particular..lol I think they should do some DNA testing They won't do that because the DNA would shatter the myth...


They've actually done (disputed, of course) blood tests - type AB (I'm wanting to say negative, if I recall from my blood clinic's pamphlet), as also reported with the Sudarium of Oviedo. I can't say I can see how DNA tests would shatter anything, but OK.

As far as proving it to be an authentic crucifixion burial shroud, there are some pretty good arguments - which you've probably already heard. In the middle ages and so on as you can see from ALL the art, Christ was depicted as crucified through the palms - the shroud has the crucifixion wounds through the wrists, as studies have shown must have generally been the case (strength of the hands/weight of the body and all that) and I believe excavations have shown to be the case. The shroud shows a RIDICULOUS amount of valid anatomy and accuracy in pretty much all aspects, and if does happen to be a forgery, is an utmost masterpiece of the most anonymous type of artist who, despite the shroud's legacy, never stepped forward to claim responsibility.

As far as nailing it down to "the" crucifixion - well, there's not really many reasons to suspect that it WOULDN'T be, sheer incredulity aside. It bears *all* the hallmarks of the most significant and unique crucifixion we know - a crown of thorns, a scourging (by known roman weapon, the flagrum), a piercing through the lung/heart, a fairly thorough beating...basically, if it's going to be accepted as an actual crucifixion, there is a total of ONE likely candidate, just based on the internal evidence of the shroud itself, as compared to general crucifixion accounts and related practices.

I'm not sure what further research has borne on it, but coupling this with the supposed flora evidenced in the shroud tying it to the Jerusalem area in the spring, and claims of images on the eye showing coinage local to first-century Judea...well, what can you say, exactly?

Take care - definitely something I need to get back on looking into.
edit on 12/19/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by Daedal
 

As a Christian, this really is not something that would make a Merry Christmas for me. I believe that the shroud is a fake and is nothing more than a distraction from the truth. As new testament believers we are supposed to have faith and not rely on signs.
Nice find.


Sorry you feel that way. I'm quite the opposite on this matter, myself. Granted, the shroud could not be used to force anyone to believe who did not wish to, but what a boon it would be to those believers having various crises of the faith - a solid confirmation, a source of validating comfort, and so on.

I also wouldn't take the shroud as a 'sign', so to say - Christ worked many signs, foretold of those to come in indication of the end of the age (which we are to read), and believers were given signs to testify to unbelievers as well. I can't really understand how physical confirmation of the reality of Christ and his death on our behalves would be a bad thing, ignorant veneration aside...which might be your deeper point, I take it?

Anyhow, have a merry Christmas!



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Even if they are correct and the marks on the sheet were made by a human body its a huuuge leap of faith (and imagination) to then say the body was definitely Jesus Christ who was the real son of a Christian God who had magic powers.

edit on 19-12-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I like to make perfect posts, but this one won't even come close. I'm trying to find the words and the ideas, so be gentle. Perhaps you can even help me out?

In the realm of Science, theories abound. As time passes some theories are slightly adjusted and some are replaced completely, but each is useful for its time and purpose.

Is the Shroud "real?" My belief is that the best current theory says it is. (If you disagree, hold on a minute, I'm trying to make a point.) I can use that theory, that the Shroud is real, to be of use to me in prayer and meditation, and in increasing my awe at His works.

It may turn out to be false, but my life doesn't depend on it being true. I accept it now as a "good," but am willing to set it aside if necessary.

Does that make any sense?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
How on Earth could they possibly prove it is authentic?

Did the DNA samples match? Or did they observe that the markings on it matched a photograph of Jesus?




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Even if they are correct and the marks on the sheet were made by a human body its a huuuge leap of faith (and imagination) to then say the body was definitely Jesus Christ who was the real son of a Christian God who had magic powers.

edit on 19-12-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


Phoenix,

Jesus is divine and human both, fully. Only God can do that, it is a mystery to our human minds. This
new study which took five years states Science doesn't know how the markings came to be. It would take
so much energy, they gave the figures. It was an instant of "light." Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, should
we say "light."

The blood type on the face cloth is the same as on the shroud and in Eucharistic miracles over 2000 years.

believe, you'll have joy in your heart,


Merry Christmas


colbe



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
______________________

Realistically the shroud is more like this than the
reversed photo-shopped version :


The acids from the body would have discolored the
white linen, not the reverse as deceptively portrayed.
(so from the start there has been misinformation going on)

______________________
edit on 19/12/11 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter
how reliable/reputable is "Vatican Insider"????


Not very reliable!

As an Athiest I would say that the shroud is either fake or real but if it is real it's not of Jesus. Since Jesus was a symbolic figure and never existed there's no way in hell that is a imprint of him.

The Roman Catholic Church is just another name for the Babylonian Trinity Church from long ago. The religion all those thousands of years ago was based on Paganism. Worship of the Sun, Moon and Stars. And during the Babylonian times they did a lot of human sacrifices. Apparently they still do in their newer location Rome.

The Vatican is one of the most disgustingly corrupt institutions of this world. They are involved in Drugs and Money laundering, Paedophilia, Rape, Murder..........etc.

So a Paedophile Murderer source is definately not very reliable.........



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ToneDeaf
______________________

Realistically the shroud is more like this than the
reversed photo-shopped version :


The acids from the body would have discolored the
white linen, not the reverse as deceptively portrayed.
(so from the start there has been misinformation going on)

______________________
edit on 19/12/11 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)


There's no misinformation in the slightest. The "photo-shopped" image you are talking about is known as the photographic negative of the Shroud, and is commonly referred to in that way.

It is used because it shows a more accurate image of the body, etc... No one has ever claimed that that is how the shroud looks.

I mean, just a five second google search would have told you all this!
edit on 12/20/2011 by Pseudonaut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
OK, big deal,

I am getting very tired of the ongoing anti-Jesus thing in this world.

I am into Jesus and I do not need so-called proof.

I am totally fed up with this world which cannot even recognise the beautiful chance we had.

No, we had to prove it over and over again.

Science and blah blah blah - we just could not believe in Jesus.

Well, I believe in Jesus because of my soul belief - something that cannot be proved by science.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
I am not a christian, but I will say that if something physical does something for your faith take it as a sign of positivity. I love affirmations of personal or public faith,





top topics
 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join