the turin shroud... real??

Answer 1

sure it is, but is it what they say it is

♂

Answer 2

There is no clear evidence of the shroud before the 1300's. The most obvious evidence is if the cloth had been wrapped around a body, the image would have been distorted, with an imprint of the side of the body. The 1978 STURP report into the shroud is the one the Vatican uses as a reference. This reported that the image is due to cellulose decay within the cloth, and spectrally is very similar to the scorch marks from the 1532 fire, suggesting it was created by heat. In 1988, it was radio carbon dated to around 1260–1390 AD. The report stated the sample "came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas". John Jackson rejected the possibility that the C14 sample may have been conducted on a medieval repair fragment, a claim that only surfaced after the medieval date was arrived at. The claim that cotton fragments removed at Oxford prove it was a patch are baseless, as cotton threads are found all over the shroud. An expert in the restoration of textiles, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg headed the restoration and conservation of the Turin Shroud in 2002. She stated it is never possible to repair a fine fabric in a way which would be truly invisible, as the repair will always be "unequivocally visible on the reverse of the fabric." She criticized the theory that the C14 tests were done on an invisible patch as "wishful thinking". She also states that Gabriel Vial, a textile expert who was present when the sample was taken, confirmed repeatedly that the sample was taken from the original cloth, and that "neither on the front nor on the back of the whole cloth is the slightest hint of a mending operation, a patch or some kind of reinforcing darning, to be found". In 2010, a portion of the sample left over from the 1988 test was reexamined, and no evidence of a repair was found. Professor Jill, in his peer reviewed paper concluded that the radiocarbon dating had been performed on a sample of the original shroud material. Professor H E Gove, of the Nuclear Structure Research Laboratory at the University of Rochester, New York, stated that "Even modern so-called invisible weaving can readily be detected under a microscope, so this possibility seems unlikely. It seems very convincing that what was measured in the laboratories was genuine cloth from the shroud after it had been subjected to rigorous cleaning procedures. Probably no sample for carbon dating has ever been subjected to such scrupulously careful examination and treatment, nor perhaps ever will again." The sample had been carefully cleaned, removing any bioplastic that would skew the date. Although blood may have been found on the shroud, the DNA material was has not been demonstrated to be from blood, and contains both male and female DNA, suggesting contamination (Kearse 2012). The small traces of chlorine and potassium, from the "blood" area indicates it is not blood. The other elements indicating it is blood are not unique to blood. Later STURP papers are done by the STURP clique, and the fact that independent papers come up with different results makes the later STURP results suspicious. Danin's pollen data suggests deliberate contamination and only he and Alan Whanger seems to be able to see flower images in the shroud. Later studies suggest the images identified by Whanger were "only visible by incrementing the photographic contrast". Frei, who had been duped about Hitlers diaries fame, was an amateur palynologist, not an expert. Frei's findings were reported in a book, and were not scientifically vetted. Even if their data is correct, that just indicates a Middle Eastern source for the pollen. The Raymond Rogers argument about the lack of vanillin indicating the shroud is older than the 1300's ignores other factors other than age that leads to vanillin loss. His samples were not taken under controlled conditions; he asserts no vanillin on the shroud, but nowhere does he mention taking any samples; his test was inadequately calibrated; he ignores the length of an earlier fire, and guesses at the temperature (contradicting other STURP members); he ignores that it was boiled at least once, possibly more; and the data for the model employed is nowhere to be found. Basically the Rogers paper is not that scientific, despite being accepted by one publisher. It may be peer reviewed, but there is a good reason no one else uses this dubious dating method. Then there are the really whacked out ideas (including a radiation burst that would have killed everyone in Jerusalem). Many of these are dubious, often written about in books and are not scientific. Furthermore, the shroud disagrees with the bible, which says Jesus was buried in strips of linen (Luke 24:12, John 20:5, ὀθόνια, meaning ‘small pieces or strips of linen’. In effect, rigorous scientific tests show it is a medieval forgery, badly done research, wishful thinking, and down right deceit show it is not. And this shows the desperation of the believers, if the shroud is genuine, then Jesus was wrapped in a shroud. If it is a fake, that tells us nothing about the historicity of Jesus and his burial. The shroud being fake would not invalidate Christianity, but the shroud believers are so insecure they grasp at anything. And the big downer for the believers, and it's an experiment anyone can do, the eyes of a normal human are almost exactly in the middle of the face. Those of the shroud are about 66% of the way up the face. If the shroud is real, then Jesus was a facial cripple with the brain the size of a chimpanzee.

Answer 3

There is much debate on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Some are absolutely convinced that it is the burial cloth of Christ. Others believe it to a fabrication, or a work of art. There have been some dating tests completed that date the Shroud of Turin to the 10th century B.C. or later. Other tests have found spores / pollens that are common to Israel and that could be dated to the 1st century A.D. All that to say there is no conclusive date either way.

Answer 4

In 1988, scientists carried out carbon-14 dating of the delicate linen cloth and concluded that the material was made some time between 1260 and 1390. Their study prompted the then archbishop of Turin, where the Shroud is stored, to admit that the garment was a hoax.

Answer 5

It is not the shroud of Jesus.

It is either a real shroud of someone else, or it is an elaborate hoax.

According to the bible, Jesus' head was covered by a seperate linen, not by a single, large shroud.
Carbon dating proves that its origins came from midevil times.
At the time of Jesus' death, pomegranates were in season, and there should have been pollen from this and other plants native to the area in which Jesus was crucified. They are absent.

Nope. This is just another example of relic worship, and is a subtle form of idolatry, which is no less sinful than bowing to a golden calf.

The validity of the Shroud should be no more critical to a born again christian than it is to an atheist.

El Chistoso

Answer 6

Most likely not the shroud used to cover the body of Jesus. The bible tells us that there were two coverings on Jesus, one over His body and one over His head, not one complete shroud.

Answer 7

Fake.

If you look at any image of the shroud, full length, showing the frontal image AND the image of the back of the person, the heads meet at a pivot point.

The artist who faked it forgot to allow for the thickness of the head.

It's not only a fake, it's not a particularly good one.

Answer 8

i think it's fake, but even if it is real.... What does it prove? It proved that some dirty guy who looked like the story book character of "jesus" died one day & was wrapped in a shroud. That doesn't add any kind of validity to the bible whatsoever. Hey, maybe the guy was just a "jesus impersonator" who used to go from mall to mall & let children sit on his lap & ask for gifts! You know?

Answer 9

Concensus from other answers is correct... real shroud, claims that it belonged to Jesus of Nazareth are highly unlikely.

Answer 10

There is a shroud found in Turn and it was someone's death shroud, yes its real. Was it used on Jesus, unlikely.

Answer 11

The shroud is real, however the image is not whom it is claimed to be.