2007-03-26 00:42:28 · 17 answers · asked by Winnie S 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Nobody really knows.
2007-03-26 00:44:43 · answer #1 · answered by Older&Wiser 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Looks like a picture hu? Do something of an experiment. Take anything you want and wet it, head of a doll could be about perfect. Now put a white cloth on it so the water soaks through see the face? the ears? Now take it off and look again. Is the image still the same shape? No. Because laying curved over objects distorts the canvas, to stretch it out and and see it flat there is a new shape for you. Look again at the shroud of Turin. Was Jesus 2 dimensional? Where's the top of his head?? Thte sides?? the bottom of his feet? Unless someone cut out in interior I don't know 6 inches of this man then yes, this shroud is a fake. Doesn't mean your god is mind you, but the Shroud, yea.
2007-03-26 01:00:20 · answer #2 · answered by Hit me with it 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
During biblical times, bodies were wrapped in a shroud. Although, no one really knows if "The Shroud of Turin" was the shroud used to wrap the body of Jesus. Over the years the Catholic Church has had a vast amount of artifacts relating to biblical times. There is no telling what is hidden in the Vatican basement (lol). The Vatican have their own archeologists and scientist....so who knows!
2007-03-26 00:47:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. It was tested, it was fake. The church will drag it out again after everybody forgets that it is a fake.
________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
In 1977, a team of scientists selected by the Holy Shroud Guild developed a program of tests to conduct on the Shroud, designated the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). Cardinal Ballestrero, the archbishop of Turin, granted permission, despite disagreement within the Church. The STURP scientists conducted their testing over five days in 1978. Walter McCrone, a member of the team, upon analyzing the samples he had, concluded in 1979 that the image is actually made up of billions of submicron pigment particles. The only fibrils that had been made available for testing of the stains were those that remained affixed to custom-designed adhesive-backed tape applied to thirty-two different sections of the image. (This was done in order to avoid damaging the cloth.) According to McCrone, the pigments used were a combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint. The Electron Optics Group of McCrone Associates published the results of these studies in five articles in peer-reviewed journals: Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19; Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83. STURP, upon learning of his findings, confiscated McCrone's samples and brought in other scientists to replace him. In McCrone's words, he was "drummed out" of STURP, and continued to defend the analysis he had performed, becoming a prominent proponent of the position that the Shroud is a forgery. As of 2004, no other scientists have confirmed McCrone's results with independent experiments, simply because the Vatican refuses to co-operate.
2007-03-26 01:01:25 · answer #4 · answered by U-98 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Carbon dating has shown that the shroud is from the time of the crusades.
Apparently it is the remains of a banner which bore an image of Jesus that was carried into battle.
2007-03-26 00:45:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, it's a clever fake made during the 14th century.
You can also find all over Europe pieces of "the true cross". If assembled, you get a cross that's 300 meters long...
During the middle ages, the commerce of false relics and artifacts was a flourishing business. Now of course we have televangelist...
2007-03-26 02:41:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Church thinks so. They've had it for years. Some of the scientists who were Jewish even converted to Christianity after studying the Shroud. Only a very bright light could have made a negative impression on a piece of cloth like that. They didn't even have cameras back then.
2007-03-26 00:46:32 · answer #7 · answered by madbaldscotsman 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Nope, it's a fake:
- The face doesn't show the distortions expected from wrapping around the head.
- There's no record of its whereabouts prior to the 14th century.
- Carbon-14 dating places its origin in the 14th century.
- Chemical analysis of the "blood" reveals it to be artist pigments commonly used in th 14th century.
- Forged relics were all the rage in the 14th century.
- The forger confessed way back in the 14th century.
...Get the pattern?
2007-03-26 01:05:22 · answer #8 · answered by RickySTT, EAC 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO< the shroud is not as old as Jesus time.
2007-03-26 00:58:46 · answer #9 · answered by chin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many people belive so. Many people do not. What is important to remember is that it has no real bearing on our Christian faith either way.
There is plenty of extra-biblical historical evidence for the life of Jesus. Even secular historians and scholars agree that Jesus was definitely a real person.
You must study for yourself to determine what is true. Do not rely on second-hand information.
2007-03-26 00:51:24 · answer #10 · answered by Christopher 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, it is a cleaver fake.,
-It C14 dates to the middle ages, just before the documentation of it starts
-The front image and the back image are different sizes
-The head is the wrong porportion
-And most importantly microscopic examination has shown two pigments that make up the image.
2007-03-26 00:47:36 · answer #11 · answered by Alex 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋