Scientists Say Shroud of Turin Shows Jesus Was Crucified in 'Very Painful' Position

reply to post by DeadSeraph

It is interesting that the shroud also seems to show scourge wounds on the back of the figure, the buttocks, back of the thighs, and even down to the calves. That appears to be consistent with how the romans actually scourged their victims. Utterly barbaric. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So what? Lots of people were brutally, utterly barbarically tortured and killed. Even IF we are to believe that scientist think this piece of cloth is an authentic funerary wrap, why would you suppose it to be Jesus?

A video made shortly before Raymond Rogers died in 2005 has been discovered, in which the U.S. chemist reveals his own tests show the relic to be much older - dating back to between 1,300 and 3,000 years ago.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Between 1300 and 3000 years old? That's quite a window there, to be so confident that this wrap represents the bloody remains of one man that supposed lived around 2000 years ago.

Jeez, you guys are so desperate to prove your myths and find some magic that you have completely lost any sense of logic and common sense! I'll never understand why Christians obsess on how violently Jesus MAY have been killed. Creepy!

They argue that the Shroud of Turin, believed by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus, shows an image of a man with blood stains streaking down his arms. Matteo Borrini, who led the shroud study at the John Moores University, argues that these stains could only have been obtained if the victim's arms were hung over his head in a "Y" shape, instead of the "T" shape that is so prevalent in Christian art.

Time to throw out all those crosses, then, I suppose. Too bad. It's a strong, solid design.

Some Christian sects believe there was no such thing as the cross (T- or Y-shaped) but that the punishment in those times was carried out on a spike/pole.

Some also refuse to wear crucifixes for this and other reasons (like reject false icons).

reply to post by windword


I'm not desperate to prove anything. I don't need to prove anything. I shared the article because I thought people might find it interesting, not because I thought people like you would be convinced of the authenticity or historicity of Jesus Christ. While I stated in my original post that I am on the fence about the authenticity of the shroud of Turin and I'm undecided about it's authenticity, I am 100% convinced that no amount of evidence in any form would be sufficient for people of your persuasion (be it from the shroud or some other source). So no, I am not desperate to prove anything. I am under no illusions that proving such a thing to you would be an impossible task, regardless of the evidence.

Quite frankly I don't care either way if you believe or not. It's your choice, not mine, and I have no business forcing my beliefs on anyone. It's for each individual to choose what they do or do not believe, and I do not feel the slightest inclination to attempt to prove what I know can only be experienced through faith.

The article is interesting. That's why I shared it. Not because I'm trying to convert you or anyone else here

The purpose of the crucifixion was to have the "damned" victim die a slow agonizing death. The T shaped cross with a person slumped down would leave the arms in a Y shape.

That said, the shroud has not been proven to be the actual burial shroud of Jesus. It is most likely the work of an artist long after the time of Jesus's death.

To draw any conclusions from it, without having been proven to be the actual shroud is foolish.

DeadSeraph
I understand the shroud is a very controversial subject, so don't shoot the messenger. I did find it interesting however that this would seem (on the surface at least) to be more evidence that the shroud is not a medieval forgery.



Something further to consider is that all the artwork in the medieval period presents Christ as being crucified in a T shape, so why would the artist of a forgery paint the figure with blood marks consistent with a Y configuration? Further, how would a medieval forger even know how blood patterns would look on a victim crucified in such a manner?

Could it be perhaps that they were aware of this Y configuration? From what little I have read people were being crucified up into recent times although not often. A forger would know because people who forge things make it their business to know. If they don't they forgery gets called out. It could be as simple as that.

Mianeye
Then we have a problem with the christian cross.

I know the cross is either from the egyptian Ankh(before christ) or from the Romans use of the cross for crusifiction, "but aparently Jesus was put on a pole"

Oh My God (literally), then Festivus had it right all along!!!

Seriously? There is every historical possibility and likelihood they didn't use crosses at all. And yet you still all go on?

Does even the possibility that you've been fed a fib for a couple of thousand years just freak you out?

I think the Shroud is a forgery. Before being wrapped in the burial shroud weren't the bodies washed? This was the burial custom of the time, right? So why would there be blood on the arms? The same for the head wounds.

Granted, there will be some seepage of blood and other fluids from the wounds on the body, but that seepage would now conform to the laws of gravity based on the body's new position.The body is no longer hanging from a cross but lying prone. Additionally, the Shroud itself would prevent any free flow of fluids due to it's absorbancy. Think splotches not rivulets.

To me, I feel that these blood patterns are caused by the artistic license of the forger.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


And yet, here you are fascinated by the same kind of supposed wounds, going on about the scars on the thighs and way Romans scourged their victims.

Like I said, we know that possibly hundreds of thousands of people WERE actually tortured in this way. Given the window of 1300 to 3000 years, what makes you or anyone think that this cloth bears the actual bloody remains of Jesus?

windword
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

And yet, here you are fascinated by the same kind of supposed wounds, going on about the scars on the thighs and way Romans scourged their victims.

Like I said, we know that possibly hundreds of thousands of people WERE actually tortured in this way. Given the window of 1300 to 3000 years, what makes you or anyone think that this cloth bears the actual bloody remains of Jesus?

Crown of thorns, check. Spear in the side, check. Scourging and whippings (not always done), check. Age about right, check. Saving of he cloth, check. Each one of those narrows it down even more.

Scientists Say Shroud of Turin Shows Jesus Was Crucified in 'Very Painful' Position page: 2

As opposed to the popular belief that he was crucified in a very comfortable position?

The original Greek word that is translated currently as "cross" is "stauros", which from what I understand means "pole, or upright stake"; so I guess this would make sense given the position you have to be in on a pole.

Just who was it that said 'there are enough pieces of the true cross to make a five bedroomed house'?

OP: Do you believe this is the burial Shroud of Jesus Christ?

If so, could you share the reasons why?

reply to post by Foundryman

I think the Shroud is a forgery. Before being wrapped in the burial shroud weren't the bodies washed? This was the burial custom of the time, right? So why would there be blood on the arms? The same for the head wounds.

According to the account in the Bible, Jesus was "buried" in a hurry by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus -- Jesus died at 3pm, and prior to sundown and the beginning of the Sabbath, they had to go to Pilate and get permission to take the body, go back to Calvary, get Jesus, take him to Joseph's tomb (which was nearby, but not exactly next door,) put some spices on the body, wrap it in the burial clothes, stick him in the tomb, close it up and get home. It is highly unlikely that these two would have put a ton of effort into preparing Jesus for burial (touching a dead body made you unclean, for one,) as I'm sure that Joseph figured that this was just a temporary resting place until they could take his remains back to Galilee.

The women who discovered the empty tomb on Sunday were, according to the only record of the event, going there to prepare his body for the actual burial, but instead of Jesus, they found the burial clothing, so at least according to scripture, the shroud can be accounted for, along with the wounds that were evidenced.

reply to post by pikestaff

Just who was it that said 'there are enough pieces of the true cross to make a five bedroomed house'?

Actually, I think that the quote is "there are enough pieces of the true cross to rebuild Noah's Ark" -- and I've said it a number of times, myself.

There is a difference, though -- after the crucifixion, the cross was in the hands of the Roman soldiers, who undoubtably reused it the next day, and it surely wouldn't be identifiable. But the shroud was in the hands of Jesus' followers, so it is not inconceivable that they would have hung onto it as a relic, whether there was a visible image on it or not. If they did, it likely would have stayed within the Christian community, though perhaps being lost after the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD and not being recovered until later. That is total speculation, though -- all we know is that it was present in the tomb, and then something claimed to be the same thing surfaced in the 14th Century.

reply to post by Aleister


To this day, people still re-enact the crucifixion every Easter. And, that's been going on for centuries.

The crucified devotees spent several minutes nailed to crosses in Pampanga province while thousands of tourists watched and took photos of the spectacle, which the church discourages. Earlier in the day, hooded male penitents trudged through the province's villages under the blazing sun while flagellating their bleeding backs with makeshift whips. Others carried wooden crosses to dramatize Christ's sacrifice
news.yahoo.com...

IF this is a real death shroud, it could easily be the bloody remains of someone else, especially given the majority of scholars agreement on the date being medieval. Not to mention the medieval tourists' demand for religious relics.


All this hype over some burial cloth just goes to show that Christianity is fascinated with torture, death, and blood lust.

reply to post by windword


I don't think any of the reenactors scourge their skin until it's falling off and then spear themselves in the heart until a mix of water and blood come out. Then again, I may be wrong.

windword
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

And yet, here you are fascinated by the same kind of supposed wounds, going on about the scars on the thighs and way Romans scourged their victims.

Like I said, we know that possibly hundreds of thousands of people WERE actually tortured in this way. Given the window of 1300 to 3000 years, what makes you or anyone think that this cloth bears the actual bloody remains of Jesus?

I'm not sure how I can make this any more clear to you: I don't believe the shroud shows the bloody remains of Jesus because I don't know if it is authentic or not. I would have to believe in it's authenticity 100% before I could proclaim it is the image of Jesus himself (as opposed to a forgery that displays His likeness). If by some miracle it WAS conclusively proven to be authentic, then yes I would probably gravitate towards the position that it shows Jesus Christ since the wounds are all consistent with the biblical account of His crucifixion (including the crown of thorns).

Edit to add for further clarification:

The authenticity of the shroud of Turin has no bearing on my faith whatsoever. Scientists could announce tomorrow that the whole thing is a fake and it wouldn't impact me one iota. I find it to be an interesting curiosity, but it has little to do with what I base my faith on.