New research on the Shroud of Turin

a reply to: Revolution9


If you read the Bible like a historian you will be able to get a huge amount of information.

Even from the passage I just quoted much can be understood. Jesus was not just some unknown tramp. Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a very important man. He was trying to help Jesus. Joseph was a very wealthy man indeed to have his own tomb in Jerusalem of all places near the Old City waiting for him. Only men of honor would have such resources. They were both followers of Jesus and there were some other Pharisees who followed Christ more secretly, too. Jesus had some rich women followers who supported Him financially.

The Sanhedrin and Herod's authorities were FRIGHTENED by Jesus and His challenge to their authority. The Romans weren't worried until the Jewish authorities forced their hand by their lies about Jesus being some rebel. Jesus said pay your taxes. Jesus said of a Roman centurion that he had more faith than many. Jesus said put up with the Roman occupation because He knew that the alternative would be utter destruction. Of course He was later proved right with the sacking of Jerusalem, slaying of the Jewish people and their scattering far and wide. They did as Judas wanted Jesus to do; they violently rebelled.

a reply to: Revolution9

From John 11:

43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”

See, Lazarus has been buried the same way. It is similar to the Egyptian burial. It seems though that bodies were not so tightly wrapped with precision like the old days of the Mummies. They were buried with spices. Tombs were only a temporary burial. The bones would later be placed in ossuaries.

The gospels are so journalistic. See, the attention to detail in John. Both Jesus' and Lazarus' burials tally in this respect. Both were buried in strips of cloth. Yet the Catholic Church tells us that was not so. I wish they would not "fabricate" so (pun most definitely intended).

a reply to: Revolution9

Excellent series of posts, Revolution9! This is an aspect of the Shroud of Turin that I have struggled with - that the strips of cloths described in the bible seem different than the shroud. If the shroud is authentic, I thought there might be other strips used and then a long piece of cloth covering the entire body. But this was pure speculation on my part.

Your posts prompted me to look into what others say on this issue. I found an old article by Gary Habermas (one the best known apologists specializing in the resurrection) which addressed the issues of Jewish burial customs and the Shroud of Turin. I honestly didn't know what his stand would be regarding the shroud of turin, so this was an interesting read.

Bolding is mine because it is a portion that I think speaks most to the concerns you raise...
source: garyhabermas.com...

Other questions concern the nature of the linen clothing in which Jesus was buried. Some assume that he was wrapped like an Egyptian mummy instead of lengthwise as depicted in the shroud. It should be pointed out here that the term enetylixen (Matt 27:59; Luke 23:53) means "wrapped" or "folded" but is not specific, in that a number of possibilities are included.14

Very interestingly, some ancient Jewish examples portray the type of burial depicted in the shroud. For instance, in an Essene cemetery some persons were found buried like the man in the shroud.15 The Code of Jewish Law also states that the one killed should be buried in a single, plain sheet of linen.16 A consideration of Lazarus' burial also shows that while he was somewhat constrained, he was able to walk out of the tomb under his own power (John 11:44), which is inconsistent with burial like a mummy but quite consistent with the shroud. Thus this type of burial was practiced by at least some Jews at the time of Jesus and therefore is not a contradiction, especially in light of the fact that the gospels do not mention a specific method of wrapping Jesus' body.

Another question concerns whether Jesus was buried in one or more strips of linen. This is a difficult matter in that the gospels speak of these graveclothes in both the singular and the plural.17 However, at least one evangelical commentator states that his chief reason for rejecting the shroud is that the shroud depicts one linen sheet, while John uses the plural.18 This is a good example of a rejection made apart from the facts, for scientific testing indicates that the man buried in the shroud was, in fact, buried in at least four strips of linen. In addition to the major cloth known as the shroud, he was also wrapped around the head with a napkin as well as having his wrists and ankles tied together.19 Lazarus was alsobound around his head, wrists and ankles (John 11:44). Not only is there no discrepancy here, but the shroud actually agrees with and verifies the gospel accounts in spite of the fact that many object on partial data, illustrating the sort of objection referred to earlier.

These issues are the major ones connected with the relationship between the shroud and the NT.20 A few points might now be stated. First, an exegetical study of the relevant portions of the NT does not render the shroud fraudulent. To the contrary: Not only are there no discrepancies, but the shroud is compatible with the data, and certain texts (such as John 11:44 and 20:6-7) actually favor the type of burial depicted in the shroud. Second, burial like that of the man in the shroud was apparently practiced by Jews in Jesus' time as revealed by the Essene community, the Code of Jewish Law and the Mishna. Although it is not known if this was the predominant type of burial practiced by these first-century Jews, it has been shown to be a viable option. Since we have found that the shroud is neither proven nor disproven by the gospel texts and that it is a viable option, a third point might now be stated. The actual authenticity of the shroud must be made on other grounds, such as scientific and historical investigation.

FYI: Here were the footnotes referenced in the quote above:

14. BAG, 264, 270, 177.
15. Wilson, The Scrolls from the Dead Sea (London: Fontana, 1955) 50-51.
16. Code of Jewish Law, "Laws of Mourning," chap. 364.
17. Cf. Mark 15:46; Matt 27:69 with John 19:40; 20:5-7. Especially instructive is that Luke uses both (cf. 23:53 with 24:12, which is probably original).
18. Blodgett, "Questions," 34. Cf. McDowell, Answers, 165-166.
19. I. Wilson, Shroud, 39.
20. Two examples of lesser issues concern the use of the spices and the shroud's depiction of nailing through the wrists instead of the hands. It is stated that spices were used in Jesus' burial (John 19:39), but no one is certain what form these were in (powder or solid, for instance) or how they were placed in the burial process. Such could have been packed around the body or sprinkled over it. But there is no certainty with regard to Jewish burial at this point, so there is no contradiction. Concerning the nailing of the wrists in crucifixion, suffice it to say that evangelicals have long been convinced completely apart from the shroud that Jesus was nailed through his wrists. A discussion of this is beyond the scope of this brief essay, but there is agreement on this point, even in the Greek, as opposed to any discrepancy.

This was written back in 1981, so I don't know if his view changed after that time. His isn't the final word on all of this, of course, but I thought it was interesting to read his perspective on this issue.

The biggest problem for the believers of the shroud is that there are 2 other images that are purported to be the death mask of Christ. The Veil of Veronica and the Sudarium of Orviedo.
Now I'll ask you which one if any is the true one, they all can't be true. Or they can all be fake from the time when religious fakery was in it's heyday, in the Middle Ages. As the carbon dating confirmed. But the believers come up with the excuse of "well the shroud was in a fire a couple of hundred years ago and that skewed the carbon".
Well let me tell you that by the same process with the shroud displayed openly many, many times during it's lifetime the shroud could have been contaminated with DNA, hair samples, blood samples many many times over. So these latest tests prove absolutely nothing. In fact the "blood" could be from a leper from the Middle Ages touching the cloth hoping to be cured.
As for contemporary writings of Jesus, There are no contemporary writings. The earliest writings come from over 80 years after his supposed crucifixion. No, and I mean no contemporary Roman writers mention Jesus. Though the biblical scholars would have you believe his actual disciples wrote about him.

originally posted by: TheOnlyAnswer
This is the dumbest...funniest...response I've read in a while! Thank you

Go ahead, define "divine" in a way that doesn't invoke some other undefinable thing like "God," or pass it off with a nod that it is used to explain some kind of "supernatural" occurrence, which basically boils down to "nobody knows what the deal is." I call that pretty useless.

So death shrouds are very common and this specific one happens to be of G-Zues...

Or death shrouds are non existent except for this one, and it happens to be of G Zeus?

Why would anyone believe this, for any reason other than desperation?



Its from an art collection, it receives restorative work. It was airbrushed by a sicko Catholic, with childrens blood and a straw.

*ENHANCE*

a reply to: Revolution9

The gospels are so journalistic. See, the attention to detail in John. Both Jesus' and Lazarus' burials tally in this respect. Both were buried in strips of cloth. Yet the Catholic Church tells us that was not so. I wish they would not "fabricate" so (pun most definitely intended).

I had never understood this in the same manner. Lazarus was entombed in burial clothing which I understood as not simply a covering but cloth wraps to contain the spices. It was the purpose of the Hebrews to encourage the flesh to decay as quickly as possible.

On the other hand Jesus had a covering of one continuous sheet and had not as yet the spices and burial clothing. I do not know whether they simply used the continuous sheet and secured this to contain the spices or whether they used new wrappings and replaced the continuous sheet of cloth. I often wondered how this cloth covering was obtained in the first place. This led me to believe the covering is replaced by the burial cloth and that is how it came to be as we see it now.

John 11:44 says - "Loose him, and let him go." in regards to Lazarus, and by this I am led to believe that the burial cloth is tightly bound to the body. Do you have more on this?

It cannot be logically deduced from the detection of creatinine and ferritin in particles of blood on the Shroud of Turin that the latter was the burial shroud of Jesus, who had been tortured before his crucifixion. Although their detection is consistent with this, it is also consistent with other hypotheses suggesting a hoax. Perhaps the forger had access to the corpse of someone who had been murdered and dabbed the corpse's blood onto the linen cloth in order to simulate the crucifixion wounds of Jesus. So the results of this researcher leave the question of the authenticity of the shroud unresolved.

As for the researcher's conclusion that his finding rules out the possibility of the image being painted, it does nothing of the sort because the hoaxer would have used real blood, probably from a recently murder victim, after either painting an image, using the corpse as a model, or projecting an image of the cadaver onto a cloth that had been soaked in a photo-sensitive chemical like silver nitrate. Sceptics, don't betray your lack of imagination by telling me that medieval chemists knew nothing about such chemicals. Alchemists might have been familiar with them but kept their knowledge secret, never written about in books. So, it is entirely possible that photography with a camera obscura was used. Misjudging the size of the focussed image would then explain why the head is too short relative to the length of the torso if the image of the former had been projected on a separate occasion.

a reply to: BigBangWasAnEcho

He looks like he has KISS makeup on in that second pic.

Also like another poster said - if they can examine blood and find out that this person has high levels of whatever then can't they determine DNA ancestry?

originally posted by: entermemo
a reply to: BigBangWasAnEcho


Also like another poster said - if they can examine blood and find out that this person has high levels of whatever then can't they determine DNA ancestry?

No, the sample just isn't large enough to get DNA from unfortunately. The blood is so small that moody was even sure there was any until it was examined. Nanoparticles are what they sound like and we're only discovered for certain after using Transmission Electron Microscopy and Wide Angle X-ray Scanning Microscopy on a single fiber that was taken from the aground 39 years ago. And even if there was an appropriate sized sample to work with, the way the shroud has been stored for centuries combined with being exposed to a fire several hundred years ago, the likelihood of viable DNA surviving is sadly, very small.

a reply to: micpsi

The big flaw to your alchemist theory is the churchs view of alchemy, so we can put that in the unlikely category.

Perhaps the forger had access to the corpse of someone who had been murdered and dabbed the corpse's blood onto the linen cloth in order to simulate the crucifixion wounds of Jesus.

Possible but the article seems to debunk that due to the fact that painting w/blood would have left contamination that would have been detected. Really all the article put forward is that blood was present and the shroud may have actually been on a body.

Have you noticed how many are going to extreme's to find way's to deny this, to deny any chance that this can be a real relic of Christ.
Most of there argument's are bunk but we who know can see them for what they are.
Perhaps it just scares them, perhaps they do not want to believe or would rather there world was nothing more than a product of physical property's.
But whatever there reason they will deny, they will hide behind complex explanation's and will simply choose to ignore.

For the Islamist this is also a problem because there faith deny's the Crucifixion ever took place, for the Rationalist whom does not like to accept any form of God this is an insult to there view of reality for the atheist this is something they shall simply ignore or deny because it is against there belief also and for the Agnostic it is a mystery, they neither believe nor disbelieve and we can only hope this will make some of them come a little closer to the truth.

But for those of us that already believe it is just another fact we already accept.

There is one other group that don't want this to be real, christian's whom believe there own version and anti catholic's whom will deny this simply because it is in a catholic cathedral.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Have you noticed how many are going to extreme's to find way's to deny this

the numbers zero.

but there's a tonne of uneducated religious loons denying science and historical evidence (suprise).

a reply to: growler

Utter rubbish, are you talking empirical science or your interpretation of it, what drives you and why did you even respond to my post unless you DO have an Axe to grind against this shroud research and don't go into one of those long winded lambasting self justification's that you are correct when in fact you are not on this point because it is just laughable to be honest and also very sad.

You know there are two kind's of scientists, those that record and use all the result's and those that throw away the one's that don't fit the criteria they are trying to prove, sadly there are more theory's that have become accepted that have this flaw behind them.

I am about to go into a snooze and am actually having trouble keeping my eye's open but shall most likely check back at some point tomorrow afternoon, it is now half past midnight were I am and well past time for some shut eye so truly I wish you a good night but don't try to worm out of the fact's with such a bland and ridiculous statement.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: growler

Utter rubbish, are you talking empirical science or your interpretation of it, what drives you and why did you even respond to my post unless you DO have an Axe to grind against this shroud research and don't go into one of those long winded lambasting self justification's that you are correct when in fact you are not on this point because it is just laughable to be honest and also very sad.

You know there are two kind's of scientists, those that record and use all the result's and those that throw away the one's that don't fit the criteria they are trying to prove, sadly there are more theory's that have become accepted that have this flaw behind them.

I am about to go into a snooze and am actually having trouble keeping my eye's open but shall most likely check back at some point tomorrow afternoon, it is now half past midnight were I am and well past time for some shut eye so truly I wish you a good night but don't try to worm out of the fact's with such a bland and ridiculous statement.

Go ahead and have a nod. The most basic problem is..... there is absolutely no evidence a magical Jesus existed. None. And a bunch of evidence Christianity distroyed anything and everything that would dispute or challenge Christianity. When you wake up, please present your evidence that Jesus actually existed. Then we can talk about an image of him. Sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite. Please do tell when you have time.

Denny

a reply to: DaCook

Never mind the argument's based on Symantec's but there is actually reference to Christ from non biblical sources outside of the religion, but of course there will always be those of you whom would deny he existed even if he was stood right in front of you.
www.bethinking.org...

Now most of you whom do not believe would claim the religion did not exist until century's later but would also be utterly wrong, the oldest contiguous and unbroken church is actually the Syriac Orthodox church, second oldest surviving is probably the Coptic church and the western church's only really formed from the earlier churches which were not so organised under Constantine whom adopted the growing faith of the underground religion of Christianity as the new state religion, from his state religion Rome and the Greek Orthodoxy both are descended and both claim to be more legitimate than the other.
So how old then are the earliest evidence of early christian Writing's, well 1st century is probably accurate and definitely second century have also been identified.
www.hope-of-israel.org...
www.magd.ox.ac.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.livescience.com...

In the past identifying these fragment's was much harder but as technology and more proper science has made inroad's into archaeology these type of find's are now happening, sadly we can only ponder at what has been lost with earlier and more destructive techniques.

The source is biased and the study based on old information is lay pseudo-science and wishful thinking at best. What a joke.

Most likely, the shroud is a fake. It may have been used to bury someone, but that it was Jesus would be a very long shot indeed. Interstellar shot.

Let it be. There is no point in determining whether is is real or fake. That fact isn't necessary to prove anything but what it is or is not. Whether it is a relic of Christ or not. I would think that this should only concern the Church.

I only hope that if it is real that there is no significant DNA to be abused by science.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Clearly you completely miss the point. If proven, that would mean it was proven that the image was, in fact, created by someone coming back to life, who was dead. Proven from the right time period (and pollen data indicates that's likely), and proven to fit the description of what happened to Jesus, which it does.