Ancient shroud casts doubt on Shroud of Turin

Archaeologists have found a burial shroud sealed within a 2000-year-old tomb in Jerusalem. Comparing the newly found shroud to the Shroud of Turin adds to the evidence that the Shroud of Turin is a fake. From

The newfound shroud was something of a patchwork of simply woven linen and wool textiles, the study found. The Shroud of Turin, by contrast, is made of a single textile woven in a complex twill pattern, a type of cloth not known to have been available in the region until medieval times, Gibson said.

History Religion

Posted on Mon Dec 21, 2009


Now they have admitted the carbon dating was wrong so it could be real smile
Posted by Katie Immobilier  in  Saint-Tropez  on  Sun Feb 07, 2010  at  04:40 AM
Of course it's fake. Any one that has read the Bible, whether they believe in the resurrection or not, will know that they wrapped the head of Jesus in a separate linen cloth to the one His body was wrapped in.

The fact the people and many Christians are still discussing whether or not it's real is testament to the fact that most of Christianity doesn't even read it's Bible.
Posted by Luke Smith  in  New Zealand  on  Sun Feb 21, 2010  at  02:37 PM
It's pretty conclusive that the Shroud of Turin is not "the" shroud. Every point you raise can easily be explained by science.
Posted by option software  in  usa  on  Thu Mar 04, 2010  at  10:22 PM
I think some have not to make such comment in hurry .I will wait for some more clues just chill guys.
Posted by data center power  in  australia  on  Fri Mar 05, 2010  at  01:44 AM
I still don't get what the big deal is to christians when it comes to relics and proof...that religion asks for pure faith without proof...Jesus himself was peeved about his followers not beliving he had come back (as taught by catholism, can't remember about KDV bible)...furthermore, Abrahamic religions have a distinct mandate about graven images, which is what the shroud is...
Posted by mario  in  new joysey  on  Sun Mar 21, 2010  at  11:18 AM
Mario, anything that is true about some Christians is false about others. Anything! There are Christians who believe that Jesus is/was the Pre-existing Word of God, and some who believe that he was just a normal human selected to be a prophet. Some believe he was always the Son of God, some believe he became so at the Baptism of John and others only when he was resurrected. Some even believe that the ressurection was never a physical event but only that Jesus was stillin the heaarts and minds of his followers. So, some Christians believe that relics and icons are useful tools to help someone come closer to God, others believe that they are conduits of power - that is items that God works through to cause events to happen - and others that relics and icons are part of the Divine and thus worthy of worship by themselves. Anyone who says "all Christians believe" or should believe is speaking in ignorance, bigotry or laziness. I hope my explanation isn't too confusing.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Sun Mar 21, 2010  at  07:55 PM
Christopher: I guess I should have been more clear (sorry about the confusion). I most certainly did not mean (nor said) "all" christians, I was wondering about those that do... your explanation does make sense, thanks...About the details that we know now but were not known in the 14th did they find out today? I mean that info must have been passed down somehow and certainly must have been known in between...unless today's knowledge came through some sort of crime reconstruction which is not always perfect but would be a difficult coincidence to explain away...Also (I guess this is directed at Canadarm)I thought that it was proven that there were no signs of painting nor burning, (meaning not made by a known means) is this the last word? (meaning latest tests)...PS, please note that my questions are pure curiosity as I have not taken a side in this debate.
Posted by mario  in  new joysey  on  Wed Mar 24, 2010  at  08:33 AM
mario; some things such as the whip marks are due to archeology. The Roman army used a unique whip where the head of each whip strand ended in a small lead or bone hourglass-shaped head. As the Roan army was increasingly taken over by barbarian warbands this whip was discontinued, and completely gone by the end of the 4th Century. There were manuscripts hidden away in various monastaries and finds of the heads at various dig sites but no artist in the 14th Century is known to have known about it, and none of the common people of the 14th Century would have known of it. Thus, all paintings known to have originated in the 14th Century where whip marks are shown show the marks thatwould come from the common whip not the Roman one. Analysis of the image has shown that the image is what would have been expected if a flat cloth had laid on a three-diminsional object, there is a slight distortion as a result of this, and this is not something that no one in the 14th Century would have known about or drawn since no one looking at the image would have expected it, or seen it. Remember, a forger presents what the viewer will accept or expect.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Wed Mar 24, 2010  at  11:21 AM
If the Shroud was made in the 14th Century, then the artist put forth a level of detail unmatched even today for most art. A level of detail unneeded for the target audience if indeed a forgery. Why would a forger goto that level ofdetail? The image is not painted on the linen, the linen is burned. This would not be needed if it was made for a 14th Century audience. The image shows that the puncture wounds on the arms are in the wrist not the hand, no other Medieval artwork shows such they all show the puncture wounds in the hands. Even today the puncture wounds are normally shown in the hands. Why would a forger have such a detail that ran counter to the expectations of the target audience? Medieval art shows the whip marks on Jesus to be the common whip, not the whip that the Roman Army would have used, again why that detail that would not impress the target audience. The perspective of the image is that of a three dimensional object being projected onto a two dimensional surface. Again, why the unneeded level of detail and where is there any evidence that someone in the14th Century knew enough about perspective to draw the image like that?
Whatever the Shroud is, I cannot see it being a 14th Century forgery.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Tue Apr 20, 2010  at  05:22 PM
I just Googled the term Sephardic Jew and according to Wikkipedia, for what that's worth,
Posted by oyun oyna  on  Sun May 09, 2010  at  04:39 PM
oyun oyna, that is what I did when I had the discussion on the term. I had grown up understanding the term to mean middle-eastern Jews and understood it in that way when I read it. It seems that it normally means Jews from Iberia but is also commonly used, even by the Israeli government to mean middle-eastern Jews as well as Iberian Jews.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Sun May 09, 2010  at  08:46 PM
Has it ever occurred to you folks that even if the shroud were real, all that proves is's a shroud of a crucified person. Even if it were Jesus' shroud, all that proves's Jesus' shroud. Doesn't prove anything about his divinity, if "God" exists, if the Bible is "true," or anything else. This reminds me of when scientists posit a reason they think life is likely to exist elsewhere in the universe and all the UFO kooks start saying this proves the validity of their position. No it doesn't. Just because there's life in the universe doesn't prove they're visiting earth in little circular ships.
Posted by John  on  Sat Oct 23, 2010  at  03:16 AM
OK, let me say this again. Clothing quality and styles in ancient times were probably just as varied as today, the rangs of materials is less but quality and style will be widely varied. The fact that a shroud has been found that is a mixture of material and workmanship, and that has been made up of reused material, proves or disproves nothing about any other shroud. Unless there is enough information about shrouds in general from this time then this shroud referenced here is evidence only of itself. Bring forth a larger number of shrouds from various sections of the economic spectrum then you may have a better case. Saying that this shroud proves the Shroud of Turin is a fake is just as much fundamentalist-style thinking as what you decry.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Tue Nov 30, 2010  at  06:34 PM
'Sephardic Jew' means a Jewish person of Middle Eastern/North African origin. The Jews of Ibera were descended from the Jews of North Africa, and are still considered the same ethnic group (and many were sent to Northern Africa, a la the expulsion of the Moors).

Just saying. The main other ethnic group is Ashkenazi, meaning Germanic (though were most recently concentrated in Poland/Western Russia and make up most American Jews).

However, you'd have to be extremely gullible to buy this obvious forgery, Christopher.
Posted by adam  on  Fri Apr 15, 2011  at  12:01 AM
Comments: Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.