Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Okay, so the History Channel is doing a documentary about the Shroud of Turin tonight. Today one of my teachers showed us a documentary from the 90s about it. I must admit, I find it intriguing. What do you all think? Is it authentic? If you're Christian, do you think it is legitimate? If you think it's fake what evidence do you provide that it is fake?

(In case you don't know, the Shroud of Turin is supposedly the burial cloth of Jesus, and has his body imprinted upon it through unknown means (i.e it's not a painting or a scorch mark or whatever). Supposedly they found blood on it that is apparently real, as well as pollen from plants that only reside around Israel).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _Turin.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The theory that it was a work of DaVinci does not sound completely far fetched. Was it made by/of Jesus? No. Not to me.

I can"t read your posts but I find your choice in the first thread for your first one outside your presentation quite significant...

It's fake obviously. I don't need evidence that it's fake, someone who think's it's real is the person who needs the evidence. And as far as "The Most Important Artifact in Religious History"? That's just arrogant and foolish, what are they basing that garbage claim on? Off the top of my head I can think of plenty of religious artifacts/buildings/etc that are much more signifcant than that one.

I assume you're talking to Orthodox, lotek... So far I'm kinda neutral on this. I didn't make the claim, the documentary makers did!!

Important religious artefact - Nope

Amazing curiosity - yes.

I like the fact that the nail-holes are in the historically correct place (through the wrist) , but the shroud probably dates from a time when every artistic depiction of the crucifiction sticks the nails through the palms. Also, hundreds of years ago, someone in the church where they kept it rigged it up on a cool jack-in-the-box mechanism, so it would pop up for the faithful to see at the correct time. That was ingenious and brilliant

I remember seeing that they had done something with a medieval dust-transfer technique to try and replicate the results of the shroud. I never heard what came of that.

I don't have anything to be neutral about with this one (and I realize that it wasn't you making the claim, but this kind of stuff should be instantly recognisable as fake), because either A: it's fake, or B: magic exists and I might as well give up on everything, because boy oh boy have I been mistaken about the nature of reality.

So there is blood on it, and pollin that traces it back to Israel. So it's an Israeli fake that someone bled on! Occam's Razorstrikes again!

Did they carbon date the thing? Every time they do that to a Christian artifact it comes up too young, then the Catholics say that the carbon dating is horribly wrong.

I've seen way crazier things anyways, a vail of "Jesus's blood" that magically liquifies once a year or something all by itself. Or bleeding statues, etc. If those can be explained (I can't honestly remember the explanation) then a peice of cloth with what looks like a face imprinted on it really isn't very impressive.

Agreed. Bleeding statues are more interesting than a face in a negative of a piece of cloth.

I find it funny how people fixate on these simple mysteries when there are really impressive ones out there still unsolved that are much more interesting.

Sandwurm88 wrote:I assume you're talking to Orthodox, lotek... So far I'm kinda neutral on this. I didn't make the claim, the documentary makers did!!

yeah one last time and then as long as he/she/it want to play the mistery card I won't bother, as for the Turin cloth or whatever if it was for real quite frankly we'd know by now...
because the angels would strike down anyone who said it wasn't

A Thing of Eternity wrote:I find it funny how people fixate on these simple mysteries when there are really impressive ones out there still unsolved that are much more interesting.

Exactly!

There's this statue in a cemetery in the town next to where I grew up, of this woman—preggers and about to pop—descending a staircase. She was the wife of a wealthy landowner in the town back in the 1870s and they had a fight one morning and he slapped her at the top of a staircase and knocked her down it, killing her and their about-to-be-born child. On one of her cheeks, supposedly the one where he slapped her, there's a handprint that keeps coming back no matter how often or what method they use to remove it!

a vail of "Jesus's blood"

Oy vail! Vale? Veil? Vile? Um, vial!!!

Definite FAKE.

SandChigger wrote:

a vail of "Jesus's blood"

Oy vail! Vale? Veil? Vile? Um, vial!!!

Definite FAKE.

Whoopsy...

("Definite FAKE" was a comment on the whole shroud thing. Just to be clear. )

Let's not forget about the Lance of Longinus, the spear that poked Jesus to see if he was still awake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Lance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well most of y'all know my belief on Jesus; however, as far as this shroud is concerned...if it's the one I'm thinking of then the image I remember them showing looks too European to be Jesus.

If I remember correctly they did do some carbon dating once and it came back as during the 1300s I believe then the Vatican or someone said that the scientist just happen to get two squares that had been tainted by ash from a fire at the location it was stored at back during that time.

The shroud itself is interesting and I admit I would like to know how the image was produce onto the cloth so that it would still be so visible all these centuries. But for it to be the actual burial cloth for my Savior....I seriously doubt it.

The grail, the cloth, the robe, the spear....all of that, in my opinion, is dust in the wind by now. And nope!, I don't even believe there are pieces of the cross left that will give you magical healing for just 19.95 plus shipping and handling.

As for the importance of the artifact-- I think that would derive from the fact that if they could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was the genuine artifact (no pun intended) then it would settle so many questions about Jesus and the resurrection and might even end some of these religious 'wars.'

As was mentioned before-- the placement of the nail scars where nicely done. So many people today think of the nails going thru the palms but from what I've read and heard the method used back then would not have the nails in the palm of the hands.

So here's one Christian who does not believe in the authenticity of the shroud of Turin.

But that's just my humble opinion.

carbon dating was done on the shroud, I think in the early 90s -
returned a date for manufacture of the cloth about 1450 maybe....

case closed ....

except .....

another study two years ago showed the sample for dating was taken from a
corner that all the parties involved agreed would not harm the image itself -

turns out that was the corner church records show was repaired .... 'bout 1450 ....

so far church hasn't allowed another sample for testing
(rape and torture all the deaf kids you want, tho ... g'head ...)
{something, something, something .... DarkSide ....}

is it the burial cloth of one of the (many) Nazarene Essenes executed by the Roman Occupation ?

who gives a fuck ?

{something, something, something ... Complete.}

The only importance in this blankie is personal to and bestowed by the believers of the faith. It has no relevance outside if that, just the same as any other religious item.

The Cloth is not the image that would be left by a man WRAPPED in burial cloths. I'm in the it was an old school camera obscura image camp myself. The book about it being a photo of Da Vinci was pretty fascinating. I've always thought that the Catholic doctrine of relics was way too pagan. Importance should be measured archaeologically.

The Veil of Turin is fake. They carbon-14-demonstrated it during the 90's.
As a european, I know about a lot of so-called relics. Back to the Dark Ages the people were willing to believe there were some mystic artifacts on Earth :
-The masses because these artifacts were thought to have great powers, especially thaumaturgic ones.
-The church because they helped it to enforce its rule on the masses' thinking. Don't forget that christianity, back then, was very new in Europe. Most of Europe wasn't christian before 1000 A.D.. Countries like Sweden weren't before later.
You have to know that every single great church in Europe was built on an older pagan temple. This is clear that they were built here to enforce christian preponderance. However, this a thing to build a church and another one to make people forget their old pagan habits, but of course, the church found its way. For example, their is a city in France, Le Puy-en-Velay, in which there is a very old pagan place with a "mystical black stone" supposed to have healing powers. When the christian became majority at Le Puy-en-Velay, they didn't destroy the stone. They told the populace that the stone had its healing powers because some saint walked on it or something like this ! Nowadays you can have a look at this stone at one of the churches here.
During the Dark Ages, the worship (and market) of relics was very important. Every single big medieval city had its relics. King Saint Louis of France supposedly bought the "real cross". Some very clever merchants sold even "real drops of the Holy Virgin's milk" as relics !

maybe you didn't catch the gist of what I posted above -
the carbon-dating previously done cannot now be used
to discredit the dating of the blankie back to the time
of the little baby jesus,
because the sample taken then was from a corner edge
known to have been repaired in the 1400s (or whenever);
therefore,
the later dating could have resulted from the sample
being taken from material used in the repair, and so
did not prove or disprove an earlier date for the blankie.

Yes right, and sorry. Guess I was too quick on that one.

Anudar wrote:The Veil of Turin is fake. They carbon-14-demonstrated it during the 90's.
As a european, I know about a lot of so-called relics. Back to the Dark Ages the people were willing to believe there were some mystic artifacts on Earth :
-The masses because these artifacts were thought to have great powers, especially thaumaturgic ones.
-The church because they helped it to enforce its rule on the masses' thinking. Don't forget that christianity, back then, was very new in Europe. Most of Europe wasn't christian before 1000 A.D.. Countries like Sweden weren't before later.
You have to know that every single great church in Europe was built on an older pagan temple. This is clear that they were built here to enforce christian preponderance. However, this a thing to build a church and another one to make people forget their old pagan habits, but of course, the church found its way. For example, their is a city in France, Le Puy-en-Velay, in which there is a very old pagan place with a "mystical black stone" supposed to have healing powers. When the christian became majority at Le Puy-en-Velay, they didn't destroy the stone. They told the populace that the stone had its healing powers because some saint walked on it or something like this ! Nowadays you can have a look at this stone at one of the churches here.
During the Dark Ages, the worship (and market) of relics was very important. Every single big medieval city had its relics. King Saint Louis of France supposedly bought the "real cross". Some very clever merchants sold even "real drops of the Holy Virgin's milk" as relics !

It was big business. Loads of churches had (or have) pieces of the cross, a couple of places claimed to have Jesus' foreskin, and I think it was Erasmus (not the cross dressing robot) who said there was so much milk of the Virgin in Europe's churches that she would have been hard pressed to make that much milk, even if she'd been a cow!

No idea about the shroud, but I'd love to know how it was done.