The Shroud of Turin

[*crikey*mate*]

I am part way through reading a fiction book featuring The Shroud, and it has sparked my curiosity.

What do you know?

What do you think?

Me? I want to believe that it is real, but I'm not convinced one way or the other just yet, but I am interested in discussing it with anyone else interested in doing so.

 For something of such historical significance to truly exist would be amazing.

[azureline**]

Crikey, the sample didn't make me want to buy it....but it was interesting at least. A bit gruesome for my reading taste but I might revisit it later.

[azureline**]

Either way, the skeptics win this one.

No, they don't....if they did, there would be no shroud/interest etc

[darksideofthemoon]

You know what surprises me. If you really want evidence for the existence of Jesus.  Jesus apparently performed hundreds of miracles, witnessed by thousands, he claimed to be God, so obviously any authorities would've payed attention to any claim. He taught so many, Yet there's not one single contemporaneous record of him, NOT ONE. Why is there not one document of Jesus' writing if he taught so much? And the Romans's are meticulous at record keeping yet nothing. 

I suspect a person called Jesus actually existed. But if you're going to claim he died and then bodily resurrected or walked on water or converted water into wine, a thread of evidence would be nice.  

No, Bob, he didn't claim to be God... later he was considered to be the Son of God as he did call from the cross  "Father, Father, why hast thou forsaken me?"

As far the the shroud is concerned, there is so much controversy that at one point it was considered to be the shroud of Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master of the Knights Templar, who was arrested, tortured and crucified in 1314.

It is recorded that he was burned at the stake in Wikki, but from a history of the Knights, I have read a very clear description of his death and it wasn't at the stake.  In that book it was contemplated that the shroud of Turin could have been his and the marks indicating the type of death the man suffered could well have been his.  This could well be so if the shroud dates are later than that of Jesus

Just another interesting thing that has been put forward.

[**meep**]

Either way, the skeptics win this one.

No, they don't....if they did, there would be no shroud/interest etc

Exactly.

[monman12]

If you have a belief based upon a complete lack of credible evidence, it is understandable that in order to reinforce/underwrite your belief/faith,  you will (be tempted) to embrace anything that might be evidence, however strange/tenuous, even if it means you end up hanging on a thread!

[azureline**]

It isn't anything to do with evidence for me?

[monman12]

"the cheque's in the mail"

[**meep**]

So the bottom line is this: If the shroud is genuine, then the gospel accounts are fake (and Christians can kiss their beloved doctrine of inerrancy goodbye). If the gospel accounts are genuine, then the shroud is fake.

There may have been more than one cloth, just means the other is missing. 😄

When was Jesus  given a "proper" burial?  What was He initially wrapped in?  Was there time to give Him a "proper" burial?

Was he prepared for burial before His death?

3 And being in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, as He sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster flask of very costly oil of spikenard. Then she broke the flask and poured it on His head.

4 But there were some who were indignant among themselves, and said, “Why was this fragrant oil wasted? 5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they criticized her sharply.

6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone. Why do you trouble her?She has done a good work for Me.

7 For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always.

8 She has done what she could. She has come beforehand to anoint My body for burial.

9 Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”

So I guess the bottom line is, no one will be kissing any doctrine goodbye  and it is undertansable why so many people are curious about how the image on the cloth was created.  I would love to know.

[the_great_she_elephant]

The bottom line is that whatever scientific evidence is produced, whatever date is finally ascribed to it and whatever provenance is established,  there is no way anyone is ever going to be able to prove who the man depicted in the image actually is. The best they will ever be able to say with certainty is pretty much what we already know - that it is an image of a man who appears to have been crucified. 

[**meep**]

There has been no conclusive scientific evidence as to how the image was formed and that is what intrigues me the most.

As I said earlier - I think this is the latest:

Dec 2011

Italian researchers at the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development say they believe the image was created by an ultraviolet “flash of light.” However, if that theory is true, it remains a mystery as to exactly how that technology could have been implemented at the time of the Shroud’s creation. While the technology is readily available in present day, it was far beyond the means of anyone around pre-20th Century.