What evidence is there that the image on The Shroud of Turin was created by a?

Question

supernatural occurrence?

The first study that was done was deemed a fake, as the scientist who led the team forged test results and evidence to make the Shroud out to be a fake. In other words, Ian cheated.

A new study has been conducted and has found, among other things, that it's impossible for the image to have been painted on the Shroud. Whatever makes the image appear does not seep into the fibers as paint or ink would. It's as if the image is just "floating" there; discernable to the eye, but no evidence of any substance integrating into the fibers. It's so exciting that this may actually be the burial cloth of Christ!

Link to book by one of the scientists who studied the Shroud in 1978, after Ian Wilson's "rigged" report.

http://www.amazon.com/Report-Shroud-Turin-John-Heller/dp/0395339677

Heller (author) admits to being skeptical about all religous relics, but was amazed by what the Shroud revealed.

The reviews are very helpful also.

I've read this book.

The reason I think it's the burial cloth of Christ is because the image is supernaturally placed there. Please read all the details.

With all due respect, Gary, this study was done on the entire Shroud, and with a team of hundreds who were all in accord that the Shroud defies scientific reasoning.

I should be ashamed for knowing more than you do? I don't think so.

Lots of people answering that no nothing of the Shroud, or even what it looks like...wow!

I challenge everyone to watch the History Channel Documentary on the Shroud. Most of the questions you've posted here are answered in it.

Digital enhancement of the image shows that if a body were indeed underneath the cloth, there would be hills and valleys. Lay a sheet on yourself and you will see what I mean. Digital enhancement done by professionals shows that the seeming improportionate image would be a true one, if judged by 3D standards, and not two-dimensional standards.

What about the image not being marred? It mostly definately is marred horribly.

BTW, those who are proclaiming that Jesus wasn't necessarily attractive; have you looked at the image on the Shroud? It most certainly is not of an attractive (or unmarred) man.

The only one who has given me reason to disbeliever the Shroud is William. He related it to scripture.

Thanks, William.

Sir, please email me with information that backs up your claim that Jesus' beard was plucked; never heard of that before.

d chino, it is distorted. Look at it. It's consistent with a 3D image.

Several of you have made really astonding claims here, but nothing to back them up. Email me with your sources. I have a scientist who actually examined the Shroud, and the History Channel to back me up.

d....your source that the back image is smaller than the front? Word of mouth is not a reliable source.

Gary, I do know more about what scientific studies have been done on the Shroud than you do. Please reference the book in the details section. This is by a scientist who studied the Shroud with a team of over 100 scientists with permission of the Catholic Church.

Gary, the link that you posted has to do with discrediting what the media said about the Shroud, not the scientific study I refer to.

Also, I tried to email you, but you haven't confirmed your email address, so it wouldn't go through.

As I said, your link has nothing to do with the study in 1978, and the report by a scientist who actually participated in the study.

Ok, Gary, peace.

I just don't get why you thought I should be "ashamed" of myself for believing that the Shroud "maybe" the burial cloth of Christ. Love you, brother.

Answer 1

No supernatural anything! John 20:7 "And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself." The linen clothes with which Christ was wrapped were linen separate from the napkin or shroud that was wrapped around His head. The shroud of Torin is a full body shroud, not a napkin as is in the Bible. Therefore the Shroud of Torin is a fake!

Answer 2

It is fake for many reasons.

Outside of the scientific evidence showing its real age is no more then 800 years old; there are the proportions of the figure that do not follow human anatomy.

It has been shown by medical doctors that the proportions of the head, torso, and legs are not consistent with a human body, but in fact were created seperately and combined into one image.

Further the shape of the image indicates that the cloth was NOT wrapped around a body, but was infact projected onto the cloth. If the cloth had been wrapped around a body, and somehow an image was produced and imprinted on the cloth, then when the shroud is layed flat the image would be distored horizontaly, consistent with projecting a 3D image onto a 2D surface.

The best current hypothesis for how the image was created was through using of a reactive chemical paint that was applied to the cloth and then "activated" to create the image on the surface layers. The most likely explanation is that of the first attempts at photography, which would explan the 3D negative nature of the image when viewed in various light spectrums; just like a camera negative.

Edit:

I forgot to mention that when the back and front image are compared THEY DO NOT LINE UP!! The back image is smaller then the front!

How's that for proof it is not authentic!

Answer 3

Check out the book second messiah. It shows good evidence that the cloth is probably the image of the Grand Master of the Knights Templar Hugh de Payen. After they tortured him they laid him on a bed and wraped him up in the cloth and the image was created. I cannot explain in full here about how it was done but It is compelling evidence. Also why do people asume that it is Christ. The image that we have of him comes from the middle ages . If you read some actual accounts on what Jesuslooked like you would be surpised. He is not as attractive as people imagine him to be...Not that it makes a bit of difference as to what the man looked like it just goes to show that when people are feed certain information for a while it becomes a fact in their mind and they cannot open themselves up to any other possibilities.

Answer 4

Shroud of Turin is a fake for sure! it is not reasonable or logical to wrap a cloth to show his face perfectly in any cloth like this and where is all the blood.his face imprinted with no disfigurement? he was seriously mauled, beard plucked out, beaten beyond recognizable but we have this nice image of a six foot man when the Bibles says he was plain, and looked like any other man. No way was Jesus 6 foot tall, someone would have said he was tall because six foot was no short or average man in them days. Also these type of things are what Catholics need to believe in God not a christian. This cloth was invented about the same time as lighting candles for the dead, nine original nails in the cross, and a Forrest of splinters from the cross emerged from the church for making money schemes. Also gallons of milk supposedly drops of mother Mary's milk in vials. All of this was ways the church made money during the Dark Ages. So a cloth is no different an idea, imagine it's money value if it was real, why someone would even want something like this is well beyond me. Yes give me the rags from a cruifixion of Jesus and maybe God will like me for this??? NO WAY

Answer 5

Yes, I've read a book about it to. The test was done at the vattican, so it wasn't screwed up. The tests showed that it was produced around 1300 AD. Much too late to have been real. There were literally thousands of 'relics' being produced at that time and passed off as real. It also fits the history of the shroud, since that's the time it was first mentioned in any documents.

Answer 6

A brand new book came out, actually it's some of Carl Sagan's lectures that his wife just released, and it discusses the Shroud of Turin. Regardless of how it was made, it underwent radio-carbon dating and it dates from 1260 - 1390 AD. The analysis came from one Dr. Walter McCrone who "worked on it for some years. He found the 'blood' to be iron oxide pigments and there is nothing that cannot be explained by the technology available in the fourteenth century."

Answer 7

I'm far from an atheist. But I'm not very religious. Still the shroud is very interesting. All the tests that could be done show something far out of the ordinary. Truly something amazing.

O an that's a lot of crap that tests show the shroud was far to young. As it turns out it was in a fire. The smoke from the fire makes the test unable to detect the true age. There is no debate over that among scientists.

Answer 8

That is an absolute lie, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a Christian.

When material from the Shroud was provided for analysis, it was sent to three separate laboratories, independently so that no lab new what the others had or were doing. The three laboratories all reached the exact same conclusion that the Shroud is not even 1000 years old, let alone 2000.

It is a fake, and every Christian with a brain knows it. it is inexcusable to continue spreading such lies, especially when the results are documented and have been widely distributed to the public. The only way for a person to not know the truth is either: a). they really do not want to know the truth and, therefore, do not even try, or; b). they are lying. There is no third option here.

So, which are you?

-----------------------------

iqfrenzy4 -

No physical testing has been done on the entire shroud and there is nothing supernatural or mystical about it. There is nothing that cannot be replicated. In fact, Penn & Teller could probably make a better one.

And, I was at one of the three C-14 accelerator mass spectrometer laboratories (U of Arizona) and I seriously doubt that you know more than I on this - or anything for that matter.

So, I have seen the shroud up close and personal, I have walked the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem and been allowed special access to the church of the holy sepulcher.

Here's a little quiz that should be easy if you have really looked into this.

Can you explain to us how the C-14 curve (equation) is calibrated (i.e. against what natural archive or proxy record)?

-------------------------------------
jovent202 -

Your are right that there is no debate, but you are wrong about the reason. Smoke and fire are no problem - this is not 1950, you know.

I am curious where all this bogus information is coming from. The only explanation is that somewhere, someone so making a lot of money off the dreams of people and what that want to believe. The people who start and spread the lies are playing good decent people for fools.

-------------------------------------------------------

Recent Shroud Claims Based on Earlier, Scientifically Discredited Data

AMHERST, N.Y.--New claims that pollen grains on the Shroud of Turin link it to pre-eighth-century Jerusalem were made August 2 by researchers at the International Botanical Congress in St. Louis. In fact, however, the claims are based on earlier, scientifically discredited data. Here is a brief review of some of the claims that were reported uncritically by the Associated Press and other media sources.


POLLENS. It was reported that pollens on the shroud proved it came from Palestine, but the source for the pollens was a freelance criminologist, Max Frei, who once pronounced the forged "Hitler Diaries" genuine. Frei's tape-lifted samples from the Shroud were controversial from the outset since similar samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978 had comparatively few pollens. As it turned out, after Frei's tapes were examined following his death in 1983, they also had very few pollens--except for a particular one that bore a suspicious cluster on the "lead" (or end), rather than on the portion that had been applied to the shroud.

FLORAL IMAGES. Accompanying the unscientific pollen evidence were claims that faint plant images have been "tentatively" identified on the shroud. These follow previous "discoveries" of "Roman coins" over the eyes and even Latin and Greek words, such as "Jesus" and "Nazareth," that some researchers see-Rorschach-like-in the shroud's mottled stains. The floral images were reported by a psychiatrist who has taken up image analysis and made other discredited claims about the shroud image.

BLOOD. The Associated Press reported claims that the shroud bears type AB blood stains. Perhaps this erroneous information has its origin in other fake shrouds of Jesus, since the Shroud of Turin's stains are not only suspiciously red (unlike genuine blood that blackens with age) but they failed batteries of tests by internationally known forensic experts. The "blood" has been definitively proved to be composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.

OVIEDO CLOTH. Uncritical reportage suggested the Shroud of Turin gained credibility by being linked to another notorious cloth, the Sudarium of Oviedo, which some believe was the "napkin" that covered Jesus' face. Unfortunately like other "relics" of Jesus-some 40 shrouds, vials of his blood and tears, and other products of medieval relic-mongering-the Oviedo cloth is of questionable provenance. It has no historical record prior to the eighth century and, in contrast to the shroud, lacks a facial image. The supposed matching of bloodstains on the Turin and Oviedo cloths is but another exercise in wishful thinking. As to the alleged matchup of pollens, once again the evidence comes from the questionable tapes of Max Frei.

DATING. The assertion that blood and pollen matching prove the Shroud of Turin dates to at least the eighth century is--based on the evidence--absurd. The shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated to circa 1260-1390 by three separate laboratories. The date is consistent with a fourteenth-century bishop's report to Pope Clement VII that an earlier bishop had discovered the forger and that he had confessed.

CONCLUSION. As in the past, claims that the Turin cloth may be authentic are simply based on "shroud science"--an approach that begins with the desired answer. In contrast, genuine science demonstrates emphatically that the shroud image is the work of a medieval artist and that the cloth never held a body--let alone that of Jesus.

http://www.csicop.org/articles/19990806-shroud/

---------------------------------------

OK, let’s try

william r’s approach.

Not only does the bible state that there were two pieces of cloth, but also that his body was bathed in an excessive amount of spices and resins before being wrapped in the linen cloth. There is no suggestion that these are evident on the shroud.

If people want a resolution to this, then bug the Catholic Church. If this linen could be substanciated as a physical material connection to Jesus, isn’t it the Church’s duty to let humaninity in on it? Would God object to the destruction of a small piece of a piece of a 2000 year old piece of cloth if it could lead mankind to acknowledge his son?

The only reason pro-shroud analysts get away with their claims is because the Catholic Chruch has refused to be open and honest. They either make all the rules, or, after rules are agreed upon, they change their minds at the last minute.

Perhaps the best evidence that the Shroud is fake is the Church’s refusal to allow objective examination. Think about this – if DNA could be recovered from the shroud, we could compare it with the rest of the human race. Would you pay a few bucks to see how you genetic blueprint compares to something recovered from the shroud?

Answer 9

Even if it was proven to be the shroud of a man of about 33 years of age who died in Jerusalem around Christ's time, what would make you think it was Christ's shroud?

"Because it looks like Jesus"? We don't know what he looked like.

All respect to those who think otherwise. . .I'm all too often wrong.

Answer 10

I cannot help but feel this is the hysteria of a bunch of people. The shroud is just a piece of stained cloth.