The Shroud Of Turin

[SaraCarter33]

Does anybody here take a interest in the shroud of turin?



And what are your views and opinions on it?

[Kaz]

Would be interested to see if theres further tests.

Chances are they've already been done and its been proven not to be Christ's shroud.

[belinda]

Faaaaake

No provenence before 1200s

[Adam Went]

I thought there had been some tests done, with the result being that dreaded word: Inconclusive.

It's the sort of thing you'd like to believe to be real, but there has to be some serious question marks over it. Although it has been shown that the Codex Gigas ("Devil's Bible") really was written by one person, and that Robin Hood was a real person....so who knows, anything is possible really!

Cheers,
Adam.

[The Good Michael]

The last book I read indicates that there was some dna of pollen found only in plants in the Middle East, that are now extinct (I believe), uncovered in the most recent testing. It is another matter of wanting to believe rather than having real evidence for believing in its antiquity. We could throw in the reliquary of James in here too.

Mike

[kensei]

The maddening thing about the Shroud of Turin is that "scientific experts" with equal qualifications on both sides of the fence have done studies of it both "proving" that it's real and "proving" that it's fake. How can a layman possibly decide who to side with? It truly seems to come down to faith.

[SaraCarter33]

I believe that the shroud is 100% accurate i do not believe nor do i buy into the scientist's claim in it being a fake. I also disagree with the carbon 14 dating, those who ran those tests should have known that the shroud of turin had some damage done to it in some fire sometime in the 1500's.




i am a firm believer that it is the real thing i just don't believe those who call it fake and i will always believe that it is real. plus the scientific experts who did the test on it in 1988 cut off a clean part of it and tested it i don't agree with their results at all.


i did not mean to offend anybody and apologize if i did so.

@kensi i agree with you.

[kensei]

Sara, I don't think you should apologize for offending people who disagree with you, any more than they should apologize to you. It should be a respectful debate. Personally, in spite of a rather convincing theory I heard that made the shroud out to be a contracted hoax by Leonardo Da Vinci, I think I tend to fall on your side that it is probably the real thing, the physical residue of a miracle. Passionate doubters of such a thing were inevitable.

[DVV]

Hello Sara,

at the present time, all we can say is "fake not proven".
And that's the conclusion of Raymond Rogers himself. His 2005 article is essential to understand the problem.

Amitiés,
David

[belinda]

'There hasn't been enough testing done on it either way. Too much is invested in it for it to be proven to be anything.


It's really not very feasable and also the fake relic trade was at it's height at that time.

You don't have to apologise for believing in it anymore than anybody else does for not believing it to be real.

The Davinci theory is an interesting one.

You may have guessed by now that I am not religious though I do find theology interesting

Sara just wondering what made you a firm believer in it? Do you have a long time interest in it?

[sdreid]

My belief is that it was a cloth wrapped over a statue, otherwise hair and flesh wouldn't show up equally well. It was then apparently doctored up with blood stains and the like. The figure never looked proportionate to me either and the man looks about 73 instead of 33 years old so count me well out for now. Nobody protested the carbon 14 until they didn't get the result they wanted either. I have no problem if you think it's real though because there's still some chance that it could be.

[DVV]

My belief is that it was a cloth wrapped over a statue, otherwise hair and flesh wouldn't show up equally well. It was then apparently doctored up with blood stains and the like. The figure never looked proportionate to me either and the man looks about 73 instead of 33 years old so count me well out for now. Nobody protested the carbon 14 until they didn't get the result they wanted either. I have no problem if you think it's real though because there's still some chance that it could be.

Hi Stan,

Ray Rogers himself has finally invalidated the carbon 14 test, when he realized that the samples used contained two different fibres from two different periods (see his 2005 article).
As to the age of the figure, it's really impossible to estimate (even if it was Jesus, he was already dead - a painful death, btw - and Jesus never died at 33, but rather at about 37 /40).
I'm not saying it's the Christ shroud, but that the problem is still unsolved.

Amitiés,
David

[SaraCarter33]

belinda i have always been a firm believer in it and i will not give reasons why i strongly believe in it, and i have had a long interest in it for a very long time. and it is impossible to fake such a thing as the shroud of turin and you and nobody else will ever change my mind.


@DVV i very much disagree with the shroud being wrapped over a statue it does not make any sense.


i am very sorry for even making this topic cause i did not think it would cause such a stir sheesh. when it comes to this topic one of my main interests besides jack the ripper. i stick to my guns and i stick to my beliefs sorry but that is the way it is.

[DVV]

Hello Sara,

are you sure you are talking to me ? or about my post ?

[bolo]

Evening all,

when I was 11, I came across a book on the shroud of Turin in my father's study. It contained a brief history of the shroud, some insight into the controversy around its authenticity and a chapter on the methods and medical aspects of crucifixion. This last part proved to be a gruesome read, specially for a little boy of 11.

Many years later I read Jesus starb nicht am Kreuz. Die Botschaft des Turiner Grabtuchs (Jesus did not die on the cross. The message of the shroud of Turin), by Elmar Gruber and Holger Kersten (1998). According to their research, the Vatican faked the result of the radiocarbon dating and surpressed other evidence which would have shown that the shroud is real and was used as a bandage soaked with aloe and myrrh that was placed over Jesus' maltreated body in order to heal his wounds. The negative image we see on the shroud is the result of a chemical reaction of myrrh and aloe with blood and sweat of the body. Gruber and Kersten believe that Jesus was still alive when Roman soldiers took him off the cross and handed his apparently dead body over to Joseph of Arimathea who then transferred the coma patient to his "healing cave".

The structure and arguments of the authors are well presented and laid out but... well... higher powers, surpressed evidence, powerful organisations... doesn't that ring a bell?

In short, I'm a fence sitter in this regard, if it's real, it's real, if not, I won't cry myself to sleep over it.

Regards,

Boris