Ancient shroud casts doubt on Shroud of Turin

:-P I've made plenty of trips to Mexico and Europe and it always amazes me how many "true" relics of the Saviour exist in churches and shrines. One would think that Christ was a franchise business. Which it probably was just after his death.

"Cast doubts"? You mean this makes the Shroud of Turin look real?

To "cast doubt" means to make something more doubtful than it already was.

I agree with you KDP. I think if you added up all the pieces of the "true cross" that exist around the world, you'd have a small forest.

Cast doubt? How much more doubt do you need? This discovery won't even begin to change anyone's belief in the shroud. They are too far gone.

You'd think the "Avatar" graphic on the Shroud would give it away.

In a previous discussion I mentioned several points raised over 35 years ago that suggest, strongly, that te Shroud is authentic. Among these were anatomical details, details that needed knowledge that was not known in the 13th century such as detals about the method of scourging, etc. Among the points made those many years ago was that there is no paint, or other such on the Shroud - the image is burned into the fabric.
Considering how little fabric from 2000 years ago has survved, the fact that one scrap does not match another i not surprising. In 2000 years if a Vera Wang survives and a bit of fabric from some Levi's survives, the existence of the on does not disprove the validity of the other. In the book on the Shroud that I used as a reference for my earlier comments pointing out the reasons for no declaring i a fraud the author states, wth rference if I remember, that the fabric o the Shroud is of a type well known to exist 2000 years ago.

Have another sip of Koolaid, Chris. Cheers!

At least I am willing to keep an open mind and look at all the evidence I can.

Chris,

Bringing up previously debunked "evidence" doesn't count as being open minded. Every point you make has been successfully and conclusively refuted.

You might try looking for a scientific discussion of the shroud. It's pretty conclusive that the Shroud of Turin is not "the" shroud. Every point you raise can easily be explained by science. Some of them are just dead wrong. When you dig a little deeper into the literature, you'll find that the "It's A Miracle!" explanation is the least likely.

OK, when was the point that the scars of the whipping are consistent with Roman flagra and when was it shown that the information about the Roman whips were known in the 14th century? Every source I've every read that ever mentioned Roman crucifacation pointed out that since the Romans stopped crucifying people in about the 4th century, after the Roman Empire officially became Christian, the information about the procedure was lost until at leas the mid-18th century. It has been pointed out that the image of what appears to be spear wounds are superimposed over the imges of the whippin wounds. It was pointed out, about a hundred years ago, that the image of the person was that of a Sephardic Jew - in the 14th Century artists consistently presented the people in their works as that of the people of their time. When was it shown that artits of the 14th Century ever presented ancient people as something other than 14th Century people? The wound marks where the nails would have gone through the arms are in the wrist area, the proper anatomical area, in the 14th Century and even later when those wounds are shown, they are always shown in the hands where the nails would have torn free. The images of blood flowing shown the arms is consistent with someone hanging on a cross and sinking down due to being tired ad raising up due to the need to breathe - a detail never seen in any 14th Century work that I know of, if one exists please tell me where it is. Dr. Davi Willis, in the early '70s when the Shroud was availabl, discovered seven wounds visible on he Shroud that are not immediately obvious - show me any art work of the 14th Century that has that level of detail. The image has details of anatomy that were unknown in the 14th Century. The image shows a level of realism that in used in art for at least 100 years or so. Dr. Willis also was able to show that the images of the flagra were consistent with two people, of different heights, ding the whipping. Where was this refuted?

Oh, another point gcason, the fact that you started off by saying I should commit suicide is proof, clearly proof, that you believe your argument to be invalid.

Alex, somewhere in the first Shroud of Turin thread, I think, I posted two or three messages giving points from a book on the Shroud that was published sround 1975 I think. I used a borrowed copy of the book to get the points I presented and don't hae it now. The points I jut made are from an incomplete file I have of those points, I have only 6 now but I think I posed something like 20-30. If it isn't hard for you to put up a link to those messages, it might do this discussion well instead of people demanding that die for not accepting their beliefs without question.

Chris,

Drinking the KoolAid means falling for something false--hook, line, and sinker. It does not mean that you should commit suicide. I was saying that you have been duped. Sorry for any confusion.

And, Chris, a lot has happened since 1975. Just in October of this year, Italian scientists reproduced the Shroud of Turin using methods available in the 14th century.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/shroud-of-turin-reproduce_n_310605.html

Even given your statement on what the phrase means, a meaning I've never heard before, it still is an admission that you do not believe your argument; if you did believe your own argument, you would have presented evidence and not relied on a pesonal attack. And if the Shroud was reproduced, just how accurate was the reproduction? My point about the Shrud displaying information and an attitude about art that is not consitent with the 14th century still hasen't been addressed. Also, while I do not fixate on the Shroud, I do not believe I heard anything about this reproduction before now. If it made the news, it wasn't very impressive. Talk to me about other 14th Century art that shows the same level of anatomical knowledge, the same knowledge of perspective, the willingness to display people accurately for theproper time and not 14th century pretending to be of another time, talk to me of other 14th Century art that shows the level of detail - detail that would not be visible to thecrods nor which the crowds would care about.

Chris, your gullibility is astounding. The notion that we know in detail what people in the 14th century knew is ludicrous beyond belief. Your views of 14th century art are impressively ignorant. Beyond ignorant.

Moreover, you attribute to the shroud of Turin aspects that simply don't exist. There aren't any anatomical details that weren't obvious to any artist at any time period.

You're probably one of those gullible people who think Egyptians were unaware of drawing in perspective.

Joe, I would suggest you do some studying into military history. Military historians routinely use 14th cetury art of biblical scenes to research 14th century weapons and armor. Fashion historians routinely use 14th century art of biblical scenes to rsearch 14th century clothing. Antropologist have been abl to learn the attitudes of people who lived in pastcenturies, that is a major focus of cultural anthropology. The details, som of them, may have been visible but that does not mean that the artists paid any attention to them. An artist, or a forger, is a product of their culture and will produce art or a forgery consistent with the attitudes of their culture. This is how historians uncover medieval forged charters - the charters do not reflect the situations of the time they were suppoed to have bee written but the situation of decades or centuries later. And as far as th Egyptian art is concerned, is has been well established that rgardless of the level of their knowledge of perspective, their art did not use it because, for example, they depicted the size of people by status - the more important the person, the larger the image of that person.
Now, Havard Professor Carleton S. Coon described the image on the Shroud as that of a Sephardic Jew. Your choices are: 1) Prove tat Professor Coon was wrong, 2) Prove that 14th Century artists displayed Jesus as anyhting but as if he was from their local cultue, 3) Admit that this point casts doubt on te Shroud as a 14th forgery, or 4) Dodge the whole issue. I expect you to take option 4.

Chris,

Sephardic Jews originate in the Iberian Peninsula (Spain) whereas Mizrahi Jews are Middle Eastern.

Wouldn't it strengthen your argument if the image was Mizrahic? It seems to me that the shroud depicting a Sephardic (European) Jew supports the forgery theory.

gcason, I have always heard Sephardic Jews as being the Middle Eastern ones. Professor Coon uses the term in that meaning; I have been just usinga part of his comment since I do not presently have the book I refer to with me, I have only a file I wrote during the earlier thread and the fileis incomplete. I intend to borrow the book again and go throughit for items I believe are in it, and bring up the points the author brought up. Bu, regardless of if the ethnic label is correct, the point that the image is not Southern French or Northern Italian, which it would e if it was a 14th-Century forgery from either of those areas is still domething that shoul be addressed. Remember, a great deal is known abut the attitudes of the people of Western Europe in the 14th Century is known and a forger of that time period would make a forgery that would be acceptable to the people of that era, not ours.

gcason, I just Googled the term Sephardic Jew and according to Wikkipedia, for what that's worth, the term is ofte used to cover both Sephardic Jews (from Iberia) and Mizrahic Jews even in Israel. In fact, it mentions that the Israeli Government lumps the two together as Sephardic Jews for official purposes.

Chris,

You're going to have to start providing some references to back up your statements.

Professor Coons work had to do with racial types, so he almost certainly meant Sephardic in the ethnic sense, not the religious sense. You are incorrect that the term Sephardic applies to Middle Eastern Jews in a racial or ethnic sense. The term specifically refers to Jews who are physically from the Iberian Peninsula.

So, the image on the shroud is a European Jew which strongly supports the shroud being a forgery. The image is not a Middle Eastern Jew, which Jesus certainly was.

I just read the Huffpost story. It's hilarious. In my field, violins, some scientist discovers the secret of Stradivari violins about every year or so. The media jumps on it with both feet, proclaiming the problems solved, and then forgets until the next time. Consequently, I view this type of report with extreme suspicion.

When I saw the original announcement that the shroud had been disproved, I immediately read it and scoffed: lots of holes in their "proof", but the media missed them all.

Which is not to say that I believe in the shroud--only that proving something is a lot more complex than getting a handful of scientists (who never seem to be experts in the field their proclaiming in) to sign on.

So, stop beating up on Chris, already, like you guys are all experts on the topic, yourselves: you read what the press had to say, then formed your opinions based on what you already believed. That's not science: it's abnormal psychology.

Violins is never the answer.....
(someone had to say it)

So, Michael's contention is that because people falsely claim to recreate the Stradivari violin sound that the shroud hasn't been recreated? Sorry. Going to need more than that. Please share the holes in the proof you mentioned.

gcason, I just borrowed a copy of THE SHROUD OF TURIN by Ian Wilson which is the source of my points. On page 22 Proffessor Coon is quoted as saying that the image is "of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs." Ian Wilson references a secondary source, which I have never read, Robert K. Wilcox SHROUD page 136. I had thought that the quote was from a primary sourc but it's from a secondary source. However, if the quote is accurate, the fact that it speaks of modern times and lumps Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs together would indicate it is Middle Eastern Jews being rfered to and not Iberian Jews since Arabs were never on the Ibeian peninsula except as a few individuals, all of the Muslem occupirs were of North African stock.

from http://medievalhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_shroud_of_turin_debunked

Scientific Tests

Pieces of the shroud were carbon-dated in 1987 by three separate laboratories. All three

Canadarm, questions were raised about those carbon dating tests almost as soon as they were announced. Look at pictures of the Shroud as displayed during the 14th and 15th Centuries. Always it is displayed with people holding along the long side, either three or five people. It is never held by the short side in any picture of it being displayed. The threads that were tested were taken from the most contaminated area of the Shroud. All of the threads were destroyed during the tests and there was no independant tests to ensure that the threads had all of the contamination removed. If the threads had been taken from an area just a few inches down the short side there would have been little if any contamination but for whatever reason, this area was not selected. I don't know if the area was chosen by the nuns that hold the Shroud or the scientists, but the tests have had serious questions raised about them and the methodology used.

the shroud of Turin is not, and never has been real. I am very much a Christian, but the shroud is a hoax. End of story.

It's about time someone took charge and made that authoritative decision to end this controversy decisively. Thanks to you Kirk, we couldn't have done it without you. I imagine you'll be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize now. You just wait right there by the phone. It's gonna ring anytime now... a n y t i m e ... now...

...


now...

Note the phrasing:

"not known to have been available in the region until medieval times"

In other words, that type of cloth was around at the time, but as far as is known none was in that region at that time...which, scientifically, means nothing.


On top of that, consider:


[I forget if I saw this on NatGeo, Hist, or Disc, but it was one of the those (this is evidence from the past 5 years)]


Earlier tests on the Shroud used samples from the edges (which is standard), but when samples were taken from further in, they dated from the 1st Century AD. The reason for the previous results turns out to be that the edges of the Shroud actually picked up a bacterial infection from the skin of the various nobles who handled it during the Middle Ages (there are in fact depictions from the era of this being done), and it was this biomaterial ground into the cloth by many fingers which had been previously tested.

So if the cloth of the Shroud wasn't around until the Middle Ages, then it's funny that it dates from the 1st Century AD.

On top of that, note the phrasing:

"not known to have been available in the region until medieval times"

In other words, that type of cloth was around at the time, but as far as is known none was in that region at that time...which, scientifically, means nothing.

Sergi Rostov, the phrase "not known to have been available until medieval times" means that there is no evidence for the existence of that type of cloth until medieval times.

Now they have admitted the carbon dating was wrong so it could be real 😊

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.

It's pretty conclusive that the Shroud of Turin is not "the" shroud. Every point you raise can easily be explained by science.

I think some have not to make such comment in hurry .I will wait for some more clues just chill guys.

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...

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.

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 century...how 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.

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.

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.

I just Googled the term Sephardic Jew and according to Wikkipedia, for what that's worth,

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.

Has it ever occurred to you folks that even if the shroud were real, all that proves is that...it's a shroud of a crucified person. Even if it were Jesus' shroud, all that proves is...it'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.

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.

'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.