The Shroud of Turin

[Lobouspo]

What are your thoughts/opinions of it? Even many well respected secular scientists acknowledge its extraordinary. The genuine burial cloth of Christ? I don't know. In general, I tend to be skeptical of supposed "holy relics" but the history and various theories about its origin is very interesting.

[Lobouspo]

Does it exist?

 

It absolutely exists, the question is concerning its origins

[M30USA]

I have not heard any evidence convincing enough to make me believe the shroud is Christ's. But I'm always "all ears".

[Lobouspo]

I think what is interesting is that scientists recently used infrared light and spectroscopy which proved its origin from the time of Christ. The real question that scientists have debated is how did the body imprint come to be

[M30USA]

I think what is interesting is that scientists recently used infrared light and spectroscopy which proved its origin from the time of Christ. The real question that scientists have debated is how did the body imprint come to be

 

Yes, I'm aware it's from the time of Christ, etc. There is a lot of evidence which gets it fairly close but still no smoking gun. The problem with this subject is you can never prove the shroud's source in a scientific method manner. You must use a court room type approach and decide, based upon all available evidence, what is most likely? Then again, any event in the past cannot be proven with the scientific method, so it's just like all other events in the past. We use the courtroom approach.

[TheFinalWord]

What are your thoughts/opinions of it? Even many well respected secular scientists acknowledge its extraordinary. The genuine burial cloth of Christ? I don't know. In general, I tend to be skeptical of supposed "holy relics" but the history and various theories about its origin is very interesting.

 

I haven't investigated enough to know. But I am also pretty skeptical, mainly because something like a genuine shroud would be worshiped. I think there is a reason the disciples did not give us a detailed description of Christ's face, body, etc. We humans tend to focus on the outward. If you've found any solid articles I'd be interested to read! Thanks bro.

[Lobouspo]

U

I haven't investigated enough to know. But I am also pretty skeptical, mainly because something like a genuine shroud would be worshiped. I think there is a reason the disciples did not give us a detailed description of Christ's face, body, etc. We humans tend to focus on the outward. If you've found any solid articles I'd be interested to read! Thanks bro.

 

FW...google "Shroud of Turin" and you should see links on articles in Fox and ABC that have new information that has just recently come out the last couple of days. Let me know what you think, pretty interesting stuff. Sorta on the fence myself about the whole thing.

[pie2]

In the clip I saw about how they recreated the person's face, one guy said that the image of the face on the shroud isn't actually that clear. But from the images they show, it looks super clear. So was it exaggerated for television?

[pureinheart]

I believe it is absolutely Jesus burial cloth...and when my brain returns (should the Lord allow AGAIN) I will post my reasons with expert testamonies and findings.

[pureinheart]

In the clip I saw about how they recreated the person's face, one guy said that the image of the face on the shroud isn't actually that clear. But from the images they show, it looks super clear. So was it exaggerated for television?

 

This is because a guy in the 1800's was given all authority to photograph it...the negative turned out to be the clear image...there was so many findings that proved conclusive...I need to look for the videos...they play on the TBN all of the time.

 

Thought it was 18 something, but 1939...watching again right now

Edited March 30, 2013 by pureinheart

[TaraMaiden]

I think what is interesting is that scientists recently used infrared light and spectroscopy which proved its origin from the time of Christ. The real question that scientists have debated is how did the body imprint come to be

 

Incorrect.

There is a great deal of evidence to show in fact, that it's an extremely clever artistic production by, of all people, Leonardo Da Vinci. it may even be that the face is a self-portrait.

[OpenBook]

I'd be more interested in DNA testing on it. (You KNOW they have.) Funny how that isn't reported in the media.

[Lobouspo]

Incorrect.

There is a great deal of evidence to show in fact, that it's an extremely clever artistic production by, of all people, Leonardo Da Vinci. it may even be that the face is a self-portrait.

 

Actually YOU are incorrect they utilized this technology at the University of Padua in Italy look it up

[TaraMaiden]

Give me a link/source.

 

I gave you one....

 

EDIT NOTE:

Don't worry, I looked it up.

 

The Universita Di Padova - (Or university of Padua as the English will call it) is actually largely funded by the Roman Catholic church.

 

This is also telling:

 

Mr Fanti, a Catholic, said his results were the fruit of 15 years of research.

 

Mr Gaeta is also a committed Catholic - he worked for L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, and now works for Famiglia Cristiana, a Catholic weekly.

 

Result?

 

Conspiratorial and doubtful.

 

Frankly, anything that comes out of such sources is highly questionable.

Edited March 31, 2013 by TaraMaiden

[TaraMaiden]

I'd be more interested in DNA testing on it. (You KNOW they have.) Funny how that isn't reported in the media.

 

Well of course they haven't.

They can't DNA test it without prior DNA samples to compare it to!

 

AFAIK, Jesus Christ never agreed to having a DNA sample taken during his trial.

 

Maybe TheFinalWord or M30USA could indicate whether he did, obviously in anticipation of such matters arising....

[TheFinalWord]

Maybe TheFinalWord or M30USA could indicate whether he did, obviously in anticipation of such matters arising....

 

No thanks, I'll leave the forensics and conspiracy theories to you. I'm not a forensics expert and I have not reviewed any evidence that the scientists working on the shroud have tainted their findings with bias.

 

Interesting document.

 

http://www.shroudofturin.com/Resources/SDTV1.2.pdf

 

I agree with the introduction of the document

 

The purpose of this document is to make available to the serious inquirer a comprehensive and up to date source on the various hypotheses and data related to the Shroud of Turin. One thing is certain......the Shroud is an artifact that plainly exists. It is of interest because it is claimed by many to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. This is a remarkable claim. Can it be true? This is a question that interests Christians and non-Christians alike. Only by an examination of the evidence can the inquirer make a judgment regarding the answer to that question.

 

Although, I would add one word "scientific" before the word judgment in bold. In short, reviewing secondary media sources from either side is not sufficient for me to claim the shroud is or is not the burial clothe of Christ, from a scientific perspective. I have theological convictions that it is not the shroud (Exodus 20:4). Those are sufficient for me.

[Lobouspo]

No thanks, I'll leave the forensics and conspiracy theories to you. I'm not a forensics expert and I have not reviewed any evidence that the scientists working on the shroud have tainted their findings with bias.

 

Interesting document.

 

http://www.shroudofturin.com/Resources/SDTV1.2.pdf

 

I agree with the introduction of the document

 

The purpose of this document is to make available to the serious inquirer a comprehensive and up to date source on the various hypotheses and data related to the Shroud of Turin. One thing is certain......the Shroud is an artifact that plainly exists. It is of interest because it is claimed by many to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. This is a remarkable claim. Can it be true? This is a question that interests Christians and non-Christians alike. Only by an examination of the evidence can the inquirer make a judgment regarding the answer to that question.

 

Although, I would add one word "scientific" before the word judgment in bold. In short, reviewing secondary media sources from either side is not sufficient for me to claim the shroud is or is not the burial clothe of Christ, from a scientific perspective. I have theological convictions that it is not the shroud (Exodus 20:4). Those are sufficient for me.

Thanks, very well put tfw

[gaius]

It gives proof to the theory that our ancestors weren't ancient bumpkins, they were probably smarter than us, and had technology and techniques on how to do things that we still don't grasp. Greek Fire ain't the only one. If it really was Jesus under that cloth it wouldn't be an image of white Jesus the church made popular. Calling it divine is a mistake. An arrogant act. Saying if we can't understand something the only explanation is because it's divine.