The Shroud of Turin: An Enigmatic Anomaly

[GeorginaS]

I watched this Doco & was not convinced. But also find it hard to believe anyone cold fabricate this. Even in today's age?

It has been recreated, in today's age, even, using medieval technology.

http://www.examiner.com/x-19191-Tucson-Metaphysical--Paranormal-Examiner~y2009m10d5-Italian-scientist-claims-proof-that-the-Shroud-of-Turin-is-a-fake"

 

[Frame Dragger]

It has been recreated, in today's age, even, using medieval technology.

http://www.examiner.com/x-19191-Tuc...ims-proof-that-the-Shroud-of-Turin-is-a-fake"

Close... "You played it for her, you can play it for me!"

 

[CEL]

Of course, the fact that one could fake a shroud using medieval technology does not prove that the original shroud is a fake.
In the other way, even if tests proved that the shroud is from a first century burial, it would not prove that the cadaver in it was Jesus.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I still find it stunning, given the challenges inherent in the art of history, that anyone could believe confirmation of biblical mythology or related artifacts would be possible. Anyway, CEL is right, and even more so because this is purely an issue of WANTING to believe this. If not Turin, the Lourdes... if not that... etc... etc...

 

[GeorginaS]

Of course, the fact that one could fake a shroud using medieval technology does not prove that the original shroud is a fake.
In the other way, even if tests proved that the shroud is from a first century burial, it would not prove that the cadaver in it was Jesus.

Of course creating a new one does not prove the veracity of the first nor does it divulge whose likeness is associated with the first.

One of the long-held myths and part of the cachet of the Shroud of Turin has been the fallacy that no one else has been able to duplicate the thing. That's long been part of the associated lore that supposedly lent credence to the notion that the Shroud had to be a "miracle" because no one else had ever been able to duplicate it. So that's what the point of someone being able to make another, not using modern technology, is about.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My point was precisely that confirmation is not in their best interests, as they deal in doubt and faith, not certainties. The issue isn't dating the shroud, unless you already believe it COULD be a burial cloth, COULD have an "image" of christ on it, etc...

As CEL points out, there have been more than one (successful) attempts to recreate a "shroud of turin" using medieval technology, and it's incredibly easy using oils, mild acids (lemon juice...) and more. Dating it would be interesting, but it would also mean that the people who believe in it, would be disabused of that notion BY the church. Doubt works for everyone here, at least, it works if you're not hoofing it to see the shroud.

I don't see how your point is valid here. The church has made the cloth available for testing a number of times. Clearly they are not trying to hide anything. My understanding is that the repair was noticed by a textiles expert after the carbon dating was done.

So then I assume that the age of the cloth is not yet known; thus the claim that it was the burial cloth of Jesus has not been debunked?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, at one time there were claims that pollen from plant indigenous to the Jerusalem area around 1 AD, were found. Does anyone know if this claim stands or not?

 

[Frame Dragger]

I don't see how your point is valid here. The church has made the cloth available for testing a number of times. Clearly they are not trying to hide anything. My understanding is that the repair was noticed by a textiles expert after the carbon dating was done.

So then I assume that the age of the cloth is not yet known; thus the claim that it was the burial cloth of Jesus has not been debunked?

The age of the cloth is not relevant unless you believe a corpse can leave such an image. Reproductions have all been intetional. Dating it only matters if you think there was a Jesus Christ who died in the manner described, was wrapped in that cloth, and made a negative image of himself.

As for making it available, they have certainly been willing for a very fractional portion of its history, although to be fair carbon dating is the first marginally reliable method around. That said, why NOT make something which you've long since established as a relic in the minds of many, available for some testing?

The entire discussion of the shroud as a burial cloth is based on religion to begin with, much as a search for Noah's Ark. Finding a boat doesn't really matter, even if it is, "Amongst the mountains of Ararat," unless you think that is in some way proof or evidence CAN be found. I'm sorry, but I have little faith in heavily edited, translated, and expurgated literature that has been evolving in some form since Sumer and Babylon were the going thing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The age of the cloth is not relevant unless you believe a corpse can leave such an image. Reproductions have all been intetional. Dating it only matters if you think there was a Jesus Christ who died in the manner described, was wrapped in that cloth, and made a negative image of himself.

As for making it available, they have certainly been willing for a very fractional portion of its history, although to be fair carbon dating is the first marginally reliable method around. That said, why NOT make something which you've long since established as a relic in the minds of many, available for some testing?

The entire discussion of the shroud as a burial cloth is based on religion to begin with, much as a search for Noah's Ark. Finding a boat doesn't really matter, even if it is, "Amongst the mountains of Ararat," unless you think that is in some way proof or evidence CAN be found. I'm sorry, but I have little faith in heavily edited, translated, and expurgated literature that has been evolving in some form since Sumer and Babylon were the going thing.

Your personal preferences are of no interest in this context. What matters is whether the claim has been debunked. Also, as stated earlier, I don't believe the church has ever claimed that the cloth is authentic. They too seem to view this matter as unresolved even given their beliefs.

What about motive? Does the church make money with this? If so, how, and please present the evidence.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Your personal preferences are of no interest in this context. What matters is whether the claim has been debunked. Also, as stated earlier, I don't believe the church has ever claimed that the cloth is authentic. They too seem to view this matter as unresolved even given their beliefs.

What about motive? Does the church make money with this? If so, how, and please present the evidence.

I would like to know what you mean by my personal preferences. I'm saying that dating the cloth, and it being a shroud for ANYONE, AND it being the shroud of a quasi-mythical individual from at LEAST 2K years ago... has nothing to do with it being authentic. The NOTION of the shroud as authentic, is based on the a priori assumption that it COULD be. One way or another, it's an article of faith, and after that fire, even if http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36027227/ns/technology_and_science-science/" confirmed a date, it wouldn't be accepted by many. We're talking about people who see the virgin in toast, or jesus in wood-paneling... I don't think radiocarbon dating is really the issue.

Ok, I might be completely off-base here, but I get the strong sense that I'm stepping on your metaphorical toes here... and I don't want to do that. I think based on what you're saying, that I should probably withdraw from this thread post haste. I am yet to experience a good outcome in a "does the church make money from X" discussion, on or offline.

 

[Hestia]

I know of many things that the ''church'' has done which if they were to come to general, public light would destroy the church. As for the shroud i would not be surprised if it was a fake, it will certainly not be the first time they made something up just so that more people could believe in Jesus

 

[CEL]

I know of many things that the ''church'' has done which if they were to come to general, public light would destroy the church. As for the shroud i would not be surprised if it was a fake, it will certainly not be the first time they made something up just so that more people could believe in Jesus

Do you mind to mention some of those things you know?

 

[jreelawg]

The Sudarium of Oviedo is a cloth that supposedly covered Jesus's face. It has blood stains which precisely match the blood stains of the shroud. Supposedly a forensic analysis has proven that the two covered the same person. The Sudarium of Oviedo has supposedly been in spain since 631 AD giving doubt to the carbon dating of the shroud.

I don't know where to get a good source for this. I saw it on a history channel documentary. You could tell beyond a doubt that the shroud, and the sudarium were either from the same body, or the shroud was created to match the sudarium, because it's a perfect match.

 

[Hestia]

Do you mind to mention some of those things you know?

I do but i will mention some. 1. Have you seen the amount of symbolism in their mass?
2. Jesus, like many other heroes from ancient civilizations ''died for his people'', and he has the characteristics like all the others(born on the 25 dec/mothers name starts with m/died\went to the underworld to fight evil and rose on the day of the spring equinox, that kind of stuff)
3. Ever wonder why the bible is ''the word of God''? I mean did God come down her and tell them what to write? Heck no! The books are just accounts of people who saw things in their own perspective, and wrote about them. Then some guys came and compiled the ones they thought fit their teachings, and made up the rest along the way. I'm not denying that some of the bible could be true, I'm just saying don't believe everything they shove down your throats. After all What is history but a fable agreed upon? - Napoleon

 

[CEL]

I do but i will mention some. 1. Have you seen the amount of symbolism in their mass?

Symbolism is a constant in the rites of every religion.

2. Jesus, like many other heroes from ancient civilizations ''died for his people'', and he has the characteristics like all the others(born on the 25 dec/mothers name starts with m/died\went to the underworld to fight evil and rose on the day of the spring equinox, that kind of stuff)

The winter solstice and the spring equinox were holidays for the Romans and were adapted to Christianity in the fourth century CE.
Osiris died, resurrected and went to judge the dead, just like Christ.

3. Ever wonder why the bible is ''the word of God''? I mean did God come down her and tell them what to write? Heck no! The books are just accounts of people who saw things in their own perspective, and wrote about them. Then some guys came and compiled the ones they thought fit their teachings, and made up the rest along the way. I'm not denying that some of the bible could be true, I'm just saying don't believe everything they shove down your throats. After all What is history but a fable agreed upon? - Napoleon

Only fundamentalists believe the tale that God dictated the Bible to Moses and inspired the writing of the Gospels.
Most learned Christians and Jews believe the Bible is a collection of moral teachings, with very little of real history behind.
None of those things you pointed are any threat to the Church.

 

[zomgwtf]

The Sudarium of Oviedo is a cloth that supposedly covered Jesus's face. It has blood stains which precisely match the blood stains of the shroud. Supposedly a forensic analysis has proven that the two covered the same person. The Sudarium of Oviedo has supposedly been in spain since 631 AD giving doubt to the carbon dating of the shroud.

I don't know where to get a good source for this. I saw it on a history channel documentary. You could tell beyond a doubt that the shroud, and the sudarium were either from the same body, or the shroud was created to match the sudarium, because it's a perfect match.

I'm pretty sure that the Sudarium was 'talked about' back in the late 6th century, that was when it was first ever brought up in history. Radiocarbon dating confirms that this article came from around the 7th century! So basically when it was talked about is the furthest date scientists can trace it back to! That's really odd, so in my opinion, it doesn't add any 'doubt' to the carbon dating of the shroud. It adds more doubt to the stories told about these artices, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, both which have none. The only evidence they have is peoples belief that they are genuine.

Even if they WERE genuine all they do is show that a man existed when Christ was alive and was crucified and covered in clothes. Now I guess you could jump to the conclusion from here that this man must be the person who was written about in the bible but it hardly says anything about the validity of the religious beliefs in the bible.

So, in my opinion, articles like this are just useless artifacts that people tend to cling on to in order to substantiate their beliefs in various mystics. I'm an atheist and I can honestly say: If there was 100% conclusive evidence that a man Jesus Christ did live and people wrote about him in the Bible I would still be an atheist.

 

[Hestia]

Symbolism is a constant in the rites of every religion.

The winter solstice and the spring equinox were holidays for the Romans and were adapted to Christianity in the fourth century CE.
Osiris died, resurrected and went to judge the dead, just like Christ.

Okay, maybe I exaggerated on the ''destroying'' part. My question to is why did they adapt the symbolism of cultures they believed to be pagan? Isn't Christianity here to make us ''see the light'' ? If so, why adopt something you think is unclean? How many of the billions of Catholics around the world do you think see the bible as moral teachings? Quite a small number considering that the church say its the word of God so they believe it. Yes there are those learned ones, but how many of them? Look I'm not saying that Catholic Christianity is wrong. I'm just saying that the church must stop making it seem like the only way to God.
I'm not an atheist or an agnostic. I actually do believe that the is something out there bigger than all of us and watching me right now. I do not know if it is female/ male/ or whether it doesn't have a gender. But i do know that it is out there and moving through me at this very moment. I just do not like the fact that the church says Christianity is the only way to he/she/it. Because it isn't. The shroud of Turin is to me something the church has manufactured for the sole purpose of enticing more to believe. And people believe because everyone has to believe in something.

 

[Evo]

Okay, maybe I exaggerated on the ''destroying'' part. My question to is why did they adapt the symbolism of cultures they believed to be pagan? Isn't Christianity here to make us ''see the light'' ? If so, why adopt something you think is unclean?

They did it so they could compete with the popular pagan practices and hopefully get converts.

 

[Hestia]

They did it so they could compete with the popular pagan practices and hopefully get converts.

I know that, but why? If their message was so ''pure'' why did they feel the need to adapt things as i said before they thought were unclean? Why did they need to compete? Aren't people supposed to change their beliefs because they think its something better than what they believe now? Not because it a near replica of the one they have at the time? Sure you change the name and the and what it means, you write it in a different language, but really its still the same thing. Religion isn't supposed to be about how many believers you have, but about the message you bring across and how people receive and interpret and practice it.

 

[jreelawg]

I'm pretty sure that the Sudarium was 'talked about' back in the late 6th century, that was when it was first ever brought up in history. Radiocarbon dating confirms that this article came from around the 7th century! So basically when it was talked about is the furthest date scientists can trace it back to! That's really odd, so in my opinion, it doesn't add any 'doubt' to the carbon dating of the shroud.
...
Even if they WERE genuine all they do is show that a man existed when Christ was alive and was crucified and covered in clothes. Now I guess you could jump to the conclusion from here that this man must be the person who was written about in the bible but it hardly says anything about the validity of the religious beliefs in the bible.

Yeah, but the shroud is dated to the 13th century. If the blood from the 7th or 6th century Sudarium is a match to the shroud. Then the shroud must be as old as the Sudarium, making it at least 5 or 6 hundred years older than the carbon date.

Researchers aren't necessarily trying to prove anything supernatural about the shroud, or the validity of the bible.

 

[zomgwtf]

Yeah, but the shroud is dated to the 13th century. If the blood from the 7th or 6th century Sudarium is a match to the shroud. Then the shroud must be as old as the Sudarium, making it at least 5 or 6 hundred years older than the carbon date.

Researchers aren't necessarily trying to prove anything supernatural about the shroud, or the validity of the bible.

No it means no such thing. Why must the shroud and the Sudarium match in dates? I certainly believe they could have been created from different dates. The testing done on the Sudarium was a blood test. Which came back AB I believe, a common blood type for people from the middle east. The blood stains are in the same locations? Please, all that means to me is that when you wrap cloth around you certain areas of the human anatomy are more prone to be touching the cloth.

Have you actually seen the Sudarium? Should look at images of it, it's hardly revealy of any specific person and you'd be jumping the gun to conclude its the same person on the shroud. (especially since scientific evidence suggests they were from completely different eras)

All that I'm getting out of your posts is this: The dating method must be mistaken because I believe they came from the same time period!

The problem is that science doesn't care about what anyones beliefs are.

EDIT: As and aside I wasn't talking about researchers trying to confirm anything supernatural. I'm talking about religious fanatics who believe that since this is conclusive proof Jesus exists that it necessarily means that Christianity is true. It's a fallacy, a big one. But hey not the first or the last that religious people will make.

 

[CEL]

Okay, maybe I exaggerated on the ''destroying'' part. My question to is why did they adapt the symbolism of cultures they believed to be pagan? Isn't Christianity here to make us ''see the light'' ? If so, why adopt something you think is unclean? How many of the billions of Catholics around the world do you think see the bible as moral teachings? Quite a small number considering that the church say its the word of God so they believe it. Yes there are those learned ones, but how many of them? Look I'm not saying that Catholic Christianity is wrong. I'm just saying that the church must stop making it seem like the only way to God.

You must remember that until the Roman Emperor Constantine I adopted Christianity as the official religion of Rome, this was a marginal religion. The Judeo/Christian god was one more of the several deities worshiped in Rome.
The Council of Nicaea, convened by Constantine, decided for the date of Easter, along with several other decisions, like the divinity of Christ.

I'm not an atheist or an agnostic. I actually do believe that the is something out there bigger than all of us and watching me right now. I do not know if it is female/ male/ or whether it doesn't have a gender. But i do know that it is out there and moving through me at this very moment. I just do not like the fact that the church says Christianity is the only way to he/she/it. Because it isn't. The shroud of Turin is to me something the church has manufactured for the sole purpose of enticing more to believe. And people believe because everyone has to believe in something.

The shroud is one more of the thousands of relics from medieval times. People say that the shards of the true cross of Christ, that exist in European churches, could be used to reconstruct Noah's Ark.
If in our time, with the profusion of information existent, there are still Bible literalists, imagine what was the level of knowledge of medieval people. The Christian religion, based on Greek philosophy, was too much abstract for them. Hence the need of images and relics.

 

[jreelawg]

Have you actually seen the Sudarium? Should look at images of it, it's hardly revealy of any specific person and you'd be jumping the gun to conclude its the same person on the shroud. (especially since scientific evidence suggests they were from completely different eras)

All that I'm getting out of your posts is this: The dating method must be mistaken because I believe they came from the same time period!

They match too perfectly. Like I said, the shroud was either created to match the Sudarium, or they are from the same body. This is not just a case of same areas of the head, but identical patterns of stains indentations, and blood. Same blood type is a bonus I had not even known until now. The scientific evidence is convincing enough, that I would say it is most likely that the shroud and Sedarium came from the same body prior to the carbon date of the shroud. In my opinion at least. That or an elaborate hoax.

 

[jreelawg]

... and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, both which have none. The only evidence they have is peoples belief that they are genuine.

It is hardly an extraordinary claim, that the shroud and the Sedarium covered the same body.

You can't throw out all the evidence about this mystery based on the disbelief of the conclusions some people are attempting to make.

 

[Evo]

I know that, but why? If their message was so ''pure'' why did they feel the need to adapt things as i said before they thought were unclean? Why did they need to compete? Aren't people supposed to change their beliefs because they think its something better than what they believe now? Not because it a near replica of the one they have at the time? Sure you change the name and the and what it means, you write it in a different language, but really its still the same thing. Religion isn't supposed to be about how many believers you have, but about the message you bring across and how people receive and interpret and practice it.

You're describing an ideal of what the church wishes to present itself as opposed to the reality.

Also, the church as we know it today is nothing like it was in the early days.

 

[zomgwtf]

They match too perfectly. Like I said, the shroud was either created to match the Sudarium, or they are from the same body. This is not just a case of same areas of the head, but identical patterns of stains indentations, and blood. Same blood type is a bonus I had not even known until now. The scientific evidence is convincing enough, that I would say it is most likely that the shroud and Sedarium came from the same body prior to the carbon date of the shroud. In my opinion at least. That or an elaborate hoax.

First of all, have you seen the shroud and the Sudarium? They don't match 'too perfectly' at all. All your information it seems is coming from a documentary on the History channel. The same type of documentary that makes people believe it's plausible that 2012 will be the end of the Earth by linking various religions to each other in prophecies. Go do some of your own research. Nothing you are saying is 'scientific evidence' lmfao.

I'll give you some points to think about:
-The shroud and the sudarium do not match perfectly like you seem to think. Go look at images in google images search. They might appear 'similar in symmetry' but that's becaus e the human body is pretty damn symmetrical.
-It's not entirely conclusive the blood is real blood however: Some researchers say it is genuine blood and the type would be AB. Same as on the sundarium.
-Blood type AB is only believed to 'come into existence' around 7th-8th century.
-Blood turns black with algae growth, the stains on the shroud are not black but red.
-Carbon dating puts the at different time periods completely. Carbon dating is pretty damn reliable, and extremely rigourous.
-There are two clothes that covered Jesus, this leads me to be somewhat skeptical considering all the forgeries done by churches over the years. They just mass produce them for effect.
-The type of weave done on the shroud has never been found as far back as 2000 years.
-The type of weave normally done for burial back then was just plain.
-The types of weaving on both shrouds is different.

However you keep bringing up 'scientific evidence' yet you provide none. Then you discredit the mountains of evidence against the conclusion you've drawn. I believe the tactic you are using is a pretty popular tactic used by YEC or OEC in that they talk a lot of crap about 'scientific evidence conclusively proving such and such by blah blah scientists' yet they never provide the evidence and their scientists are far from what I'd consider 'scientists'. When they DO provide research for you to look over it's normally FAR from the truth or you can't possibly see how they concluded what they've concluded. They then go on a rampage about how you can't discard their evidence because 'it's not in line with your beliefs' (even though that's not what's going on) and so far you've followed this to a T. Good job champ, really.
You're starting to make me think you are a religious fellow, which there is nothing wrong, its just kind of pathetic how you will debate out the 'scientific evidence'.

 

[zomgwtf]

It is hardly an extraordinary claim, that the shroud and the Sedarium covered the same body.

You can't throw out all the evidence about this mystery based on the disbelief of the conclusions some people are attempting to make.

Yes, it actually is an extraordinary claim.

No scientific evidence suggests that they covered the same body or even came from the same time period. No scientific evidence suggests that they had ever even covered the body of a dead body with blood dripping.

Scientific evidence has shown that the blood was not actually blood and gives us dates to which we can pretty firmly say they came from.

Believers of the shroud claim that they both came from the same time period, that this time period was WELL before even the earliest of the clothes by 600 years, that both clothes covered the same person and specifically that the person was Jesus christ after being crucified. This my friend, is really far out there in extraordinary claims.
The only connection between the two cloths is blood type and 'symmetry'. It's pretty much 100% certain that the blood is not actually blood, I believe only one article was published in mainstream journal on the blood type and since then the evidence is stacking up against it actually being blood. Symmetry is hardly an argument to suggest that they are from the same person, same time, that the time was 600 years prior to carbon dating, and that the person was Jesus Christ.

EDIT: Just to make it ABSOLUTELY clear: I'm not throwing out ANY evidence just because of my disbelief. I am throwing out peoples FAITH and their BELIEFS based on the evidence provided. I have absolutely 0 tolerance for people who walk around ignorant of the facts, they might live a life of bliss but that means diddly squat to me.

 

[jreelawg]

I don't think I'm biased at all. I think you can't handle the facts however as you haven't commented on any of them and instead have continued ad hominem attacks.

Since you think I should comment on the evidence you pointed out I will.

The differences in weave patters too me, is not a scientific argument.

The point about AB blood not even existing until the 7th or 8th century. The face cover is about that age, so that fit's with my opinion.

I am not familiar with the thing about algae? Is blood that old always turned black by algae, or does it depend on how it was stored, or wether it was kept dry?

Two cloths, I believe was normal, I think. One is small, and just covers the face, the other the whole body. This doesn't seam strange to me, and it doesn't seam at all like a scientific argument.

 

[Evo]

I don't see anything that matches. Why is there none of the famous blood on the forehead? I see absolutely nothing on the forehead of the Sudarium.

Sudarium

[PLAIN]http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/5484/sudariumofoviedo.jpg

Shroud of Turin

[PLAIN]http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/9413/shroudofturin.jpg

 

[baywax]

They match too perfectly. Like I said, the shroud was either created to match the Sudarium, or they are from the same body. This is not just a case of same areas of the head, but identical patterns of stains indentations, and blood. Same blood type is a bonus I had not even known until now. The scientific evidence is convincing enough, that I would say it is most likely that the shroud and Sedarium came from the same body prior to the carbon date of the shroud. In my opinion at least. That or an elaborate hoax.

Sorry, you'll have to produce some images or even an article about these items that shows what you're claiming. You have to realize the (negative) image of a long haired and bearded man on the "shroud" blatantly shows the front and the back of two different people... the (negative) image face up is about 5 inches taller than the (negative) image of the back.

edit: nice comparison Evo... by the way, I've got an old hanky that's stained and looks like a panda bear.