The Turin Shroud

Oct 2009
3,523
San Diego
#52
It is the "shroud" of Turin, not the "sheet" of Turin. Shrouds were wrapped AROUND the corpse, not draped over the top. Many were also secured at the neck, causing even greater contact with the head and face.

I don't care what they call it... that is NOT how the shroud of Turin was wrapped over the body it depicts.


its twice the length of a human body. with the cloth laying flat UNDER the body, wrapping loosely over the head and down the full length of the front of the body. At no point is it in contact with the sides of the head - it is not even wrapped in contact with the crown of the head as you can see from the gap in the staining... at no point is it pleated to be snugged around the neck- at no point does it directly contact the sides of the upper arms or chest or waist or hips.
It is an image of the front of a body and the back of a body.
If it had been wrapped around a body in this fashion- then there would be staining on it from the sides of the head and arms and hips... there isn't so it was not wrapped in that fashion.

Personally, I think was created by an artist. And speaking as an artist, what I would want is a clear depiction of a christ like figure on the cloth... and wrapping the body as pictured here would have smeared any image into a wide smudge unrecognizable as a human form. But wrapping the body as I have described would print an image just like the one observed.

Simply draping the cloth over a figure would have transfer printed the image as it appears.
Ergo- it was made by staining a cloth with an actual image transferred from an actual body or live subject.
 
Last edited:
Likes: macon
Oct 2009
3,523
San Diego
#53
I seem to recall that the Medieval carbon dating occurred as a result of a newer part of this shroud being tested. If so, this would be an argument in favor of doing carbon dating, but for an older (specifically the oldest) part of the Shroud of Turin.
it would not matter what part of the shroud was tested... it was partially burned when the box it was stored in caught fire.

Smoke and soot from the burning box would have permeated every part of the shroud, as smoke damage does to clothing and drapes in a house fire.
The carbon 14 date almost certainly tells you the age of the wood in the BOX it was stored in when it caught fire.
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
#54
it would not matter what part of the shroud was tested... it was partially burned when the box it was stored in caught fire.

Smoke and soot from the burning box would have permeated every part of the shroud, as smoke damage does to clothing and drapes in a house fire.
The carbon 14 date almost certainly tells you the age of the wood in the BOX it was stored in when it caught fire.
Why on Earth do you think fire can reset the carborn dating? IMO it's pure sindologists' fantasy.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,176
Welsh Marches
#55
If you want to be baffled, and amazed because it "FEELS GOOD"? Then have at it. For me it's solved untill proven otherwise which enthusiastic denials does not attain.

There's other problems as well, but even watching this video on mute puts the Shroud in proper perspective.


It's a hoax.
I don't want to be baffled, I would like to understand how this image originated. To say that it is solved 'until proven otherwise' is an utterly meaningless statement. I have explained just one of the difficulties that the image presents to those who would like to understand its origin, the exact nature of the pattern of discolouration, and this raises scientific questions. Could this discoluration only have been produced by radiation? Something that obviously has notable implications. This is a scientific question. The video that you post is totally irrelevant to any specific problem connected with the shroud. Merely to say 'it's a hoax' is an assertion that empty of all content.
 
Last edited:

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,176
Welsh Marches
#56
I seem to recall that the Medieval carbon dating occurred as a result of a newer part of this shroud being tested. If so, this would be an argument in favor of doing carbon dating, but for an older (specifically the oldest) part of the Shroud of Turin.
This is in fact disputed even among those who think that the shroud is authentic, different explanations have been suggested for the error (if it is an error). It should be noted tha Carbon dating is not the only mehtod available, and that other methods have given a much older date, so there is dating evidnece specifically in an addtion to other evidence that suggests that there is good reason to doubt the carbond ating. It would obviously be a good idea to take thrreads from other parts of the shroud and test them by carbon dating, that would show whether or not that aprticular theory is correct (that should have been done in accordance with the original protocol, which was not followed for some reason, they just took a single sample). It is also possible thta there are other causes, since the shroud has been exposed to all kinds of external influences, including smoke and fire; if it was produced by radiation (in accordance with ideas that I have explained above), that would also affect the carbon dating of the whole fabric, and such tests would yield the same result. This is ultimately a purely scientific question.

Incidentally the Carbon dating for the sudarium was incorrect, dating it to c.700 while it is known to have reached Oviedo by the 590s and is mentioned 20 years earlier than that.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,176
Welsh Marches
#57
No Linschoten, it wasn't possible. Even if I'm skeptical and I tend to think to a medieval origin of the Shroud, I reject all the super modern explanations supporting the idea of a forgery. A laser [or a not existing yet quantum emitter] could obtain that result.

No.

The real alternative is hat in Middle Ages someone decided to kill and to wrap in that way a person. Not impossible in that historical context. May be a Muslim prisoner captured during the Crusaders ...

This is to underline that we cannot exclude something simply because we consider it impossible TODAY [in our cultural context].
THis would explain the stains but not the image. There would also be a major problem, however, with regard to the stains, because the head stains accord quite precisely with those on the Oviedo sudarium, which can be securely dated back to the 6th Century. Also, the victim of this procedure would have had to be sourged and actually crucified to produce those stains, with the nails through the wrists rather than through the palm of the hand as shown in the medieval imagery of the period. The scourge marks are archaeologically accurate mroeover, would they have known at that period how a Roman scourge was constructed (with bones at the end of the threads, or weights)?
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
#58
Whatever the method was used to produce the image it cannot be an artifact from the first century. Here's my reasoning why:

1. Vatican is a very pragmatic organization. It thinks about the income before it thinks about anything else. Would it gain materially if it comes true the Shroud is authentic? At least if it comes from the first century? Of course. It would prove many things and it would guaranty the immense influx of the new adepts of Christianity.

2. If Vatican knows for sure the Shroud is a first century thing would it hesitate to declare that? Of course not. If the Vatican knows it is genuine it would be telling it from every corner.

3. The first dating was performed in 1988 and the process was cumbersome. A large piece of material was needed for dating.

4. Now the dating techniques have advanced to a great extent. Just a tiny bit is needed for testing.

5. There are more than 100 laboratories around the world that offer their services to all people. One just sends them a sample, pays and looks up the result in the internet. Simple. And very cheap by Vatican standarts.

6. In 2002 the Shroud underwent repair works after which lots of material was removed and stored some place.

7. Now - can one imagine Vatican looses the chance to send some sample and test it blind? And if it comes out the sample is old enough to be THE SHROUD, would Vatican use the chance to use the opportunity of performing a new public and publicized test and come out a winner?
 
Last edited:

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
#59
This is in fact disputed even among those who think that the shroud is authentic, different explanations have been suggested for the error (if it is an error). It should be noted tha Carbon dating is not the only mehtod available, and that other methods have given a much older date, so there is dating evidnece specifically in an addtion to other evidence that suggests that there is good reason to doubt the carbond ating. It would obviously be a good idea to take thrreads from other parts of the shroud and test them by carbon dating, that would show whether or not that aprticular theory is correct (that should have been done in accordance with the original protocol, which was not followed for some reason, they just took a single sample). It is also possible thta there are other causes, since the shroud has been exposed to all kinds of external influences, including smoke and fire; if it was produced by radiation (in accordance with ideas that I have explained above), that would also affect the carbon dating of the whole fabric, and such tests would yield the same result. This is ultimately a purely scientific question.

Incidentally the Carbon dating for the sudarium was incorrect, dating it to c.700 while it is known to have reached Oviedo by the 590s and is mentioned 20 years earlier than that.
If it was radiation that made the image on the Shroud (the radiation was coming from raising Jesus) how come there's no image on Oviedo cloth? Only corresponding stains?
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,176
Welsh Marches
#60
If the radiations was caused in that way, it would be undertandable that the image would be on the shroud that was enclosing the body, rather than the face-cloth, which would have been taken off and laid at one side.
 

Similar History Discussions