Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Shroud of Turin a confirmed fake?

Interesting article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091005/sc_nm/us_italy_shroud

I�ve always thought the Shroud of Turin was an interesting curiosity, but I�ve never ascribed any religious significance to it. Even if it was the burial shroud of Jesus, what difference does that make, and what religious significance would that be? It would be historically priceless, but religiously worthless because, as it has, it borders on idolatry. Still, I find it interesting.

It is interesting. Doubt if anything can be proven one way or the other but I suppose they'll keep trying.

Yeah they will...kinda pathetic if you ask me.

Not to mention that there were two pieces of the linen that wrapped Jesus. One for his body and one around his head.

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.

Jesus wore a two piece.

This shroud of Turin is a one piece.

Photoshopped.

An icon designed to to lure those who choose to worship idols. Nothing more. Nothing less.

BP...

Can it be????

no chit? wanna guess why its a fake?

Spooky . . . . . . .

I like the fact that a 13th century man was able to outsmart 20 & 21st century scientist. And they still don't know if they are right.

It did take a long time for modern science to figure it out. It is scorched into the fibers of the fabric and when digitized it make a three dimension figure. Those ancient folks were a whole lot smarter the we new-fangled guys.

It has to be a fake, ringworm says so and he knows everything.

Define "fake"...

It may be a genuine shroud but just not that of Jesus..

I think "fake" should really only equate to "forgery" but even if it was a true forgery, its still very interesting....

I agree Pete, it is interesting. I once knew a Jesuit who was part of research project. He was septic before going but was a trained scientist and came home without being able to explain the shroud as anything but a mystery.

I do not pretend to understand what it is or if it is the real shroud of Christ. It does not a big deal to me either way but science has taken a long time without forming a complete opinion.

Garlaschelli received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics but said it had no effect on his results.

Always follow the money trail.

[quote=Scott F]I agree Pete, it is interesting. I once knew a Jesuit who was part of research project. He was septic before going but was a trained scientist and came home without being able to explain the shroud as anything but a mystery.

I do not pretend to understand what it is or if it is the real shroud of Christ. It does not a big deal to me either way but science has taken a long time without forming a complete opinion.


That man shouldn't be doing research, he should be in a hospital!

For every detractor, there are 10 plus standing on a possiblity that it is Christ. I have seen and read so much material against this detractor, establishing facts, like plant species embedded in the shroud found nowhere in the world but Israel near Jerusalem.

Does it really matter to a believer that much?

Whether it is or not, it will not change my belief about Jesus.

The figure in the shroud has abnormal arm and leg lengths, definitely not a typical human.

I kind of always thought it probably was, but it's OK if it's not him.

His face was so beaten by the Romans before the crucifixion that he was not recognizable as Christ, yet the shroud does not demonstrate this. It may have been the glorified body of Christ, thus explaining the face, cured and perfected and miraculously imprinting the shroud.

We don't have to have the shroud, but it sure is interesting.

My reading is that someone has figured out how the shroud could have been faked, not that it in fact was. There is other evidence that calls the shroud into question, but there are so many caveats that I doubt it can positively be proved one way or the other.

As far as bias, that is what peer review is for. Other scientists - experts in the field - will scrutinize the work, the data and to conclusions. There have been doubts about its origin for hundreds of years. In 1389 the local bishop of Troyes denounced the Shroud claiming an artist had confessed to forging it. The latest finding will have little impact on those who venerate it.

Pope John Paul II stated in 1998, "Since we�re not dealing with a matter of faith, the church can�t pronounce itself on such questions. It entrusts to scientists the tasks of continuing to investigate, to reach adequate answers to the questions connected to this shroud."

While I'm not a believer in the Shroud, I don't think this guy proves anything.

Let's see....the shroud is made from cloth that is 1300 years younger than Christ, didn't "appear" until centuries after his death (interstingly just about the age of the cloth), has been proven to be possibly faked using methods available at the time, and at least on man has claimed HE faked it.

Yeah.....I'd say the shroud is REAL.

After all, since it is GOD who is responsble, it wouldn't be all that big a trick to obtain cloth that didn't exist at the time (1300 years too young). Think about it....GOD can do anything! The confusion over the years and multiple explainations actually does sound like the kind of tricks GOD is fond of.

Sort of like when he had his literal words written by dozens of different people over hundreds of years so that mankind would know the way to salvation and truth........but wrote the damn thing in code so it would require htree shamen and a priest to tell anyone what it actually says (5 different interpretations, by the way). Then he hid the writings, threw in a few "red herring" to confuse things and even "appeared" to multiple different holy men over the years giving each the "official" word of GOD.....but none of the "words of GOD" match.

Yeah, shroud seems just like the kind of practical joke GOD would pull.

It seems there were much younger threads woven into the sample taken, as a repair. So once again, there is a fly in the ointment. In any case, the Church's preoccupation with artifacts does bother me. Does faith require proof? I dunno. I would like to think it does not. The problem is that this plane of existance is not the only one, and we may not understand until we have passed to the next one. Probably won't make complete sense unless we are on the other side, looking back. Hard to prove stuff like that.