Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

I don't really have an opinion on this - I'm not bothered if it's fake although I'd be impressed if wasn't. But it now seems that carbon dating isn't as reliable as many people thought, according to this.

Re: Tourin Shroud - genuine?
 

Err Russ ;) Title spelling is a bit off :)

Re: Tourin Shroud - genuine?
 

OK OK!! I'm full of a cold and didn't get to sleep 'til 4:40am!!!

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

That Carbon Dating isn't as reliable as many people thought is a well known fact to those who know more about the subject than just what they read in the papers. It is subject to contamination and can be affected by environmental conditions.

However what is, as usual, most irritating, is the ludicrous headline which claims "THE PROOF THAT THIS IS THE FACE OF CHRIST" which is nonsense. Ok, they qualify it underneath with "FRESH CLUE SHOWS TURIN SHROUD MAY BE GENUINE", but it is not *proof* by any means.

And by the time you get to the body of the piece, this has been watered down further to "But new evidence suggests the shroud might be genuine after all."

(My emphasis in all cases).

Unfortunately we then get "stitching on the shroud which could have been created only during the messiah's lifetime has been uncovered." which, again, is nonsense. It's stitching of a *type* that has been seen in 1st Century artefacts, but by no means could it *only* have been created at that time.

The whole article continues in this vein claiming facts and proof when there is only opinion and supposition and it's a typical piece of sloppy tabloid hack-work.

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

Even if the cloth was at some point demonstrably proven to have come from the right period, this does not preclude the possibility that it was faked at a later date using such cloth.

Regardless of the data issues, ther are another couple of major points of contention. The first is the fact that the image is taller on one side than the other. The second is that the image is not projected correctly if one assumes that the cloth was wrapped around a body, so it was almost certainly never used as a shroud.

The most recent research that I have read argues that the shroud was created by da Vinci using a camera obscura. The argument is definitely very plausible.

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

Yeah but it's a great story though :D

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

not the face of christ, no way no how.

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

Why not?

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

My opinion only.

But it's too perfect, it looks like everybody expects christ to look like. The beard, crown of thorns, spear wound to the side. It fits the depiction of the crucifiction exactly.

......Almost like someone made it exactly that way.

I believe it is a very good piece of artwork - it could quite easily have been made with a brush.

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

I'd say it's hard to agree with you on that basis alone - most men of the day had beards and the injuries...well, they're well documented. I'm not saying it IS Jesus but I'm interested in why people think it isn't.

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

what concerns me

is that after all the goings on about 'not making graven images'

he turns around and makes one of himself


and, by a strange quirk of fate, it is a white guy

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

He did not make a 'graven image' for us to worship.

Umm...how do you tell that from the shroud?

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

But it's like someone read the crucifiction and produced the shroud to fit it.

And I suppose on a personal note, to accept that the shroud is real I would have to accept the existence of Jesus Christ as a fact and unfortunately I am very sceptical of that.

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

cruxifixion
was the standard method of executing a non-roman citizen

they killed load and loads of them



here in Sunday school we sort of get the impression that it was done once
and once only

anyway - they did that test about 15 years back also
and it was proved to be as phoney then as it is now

still - tell that to the postcard / souvenier sellers in Turin

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

Admittedly it looks like that, this is why I have no opinion on whether it's genuine. But surely if it was genuine, this is how it would look? So to say "it's like someone read the crucifiction and produced the shroud to fit " is a bit moot?

You don't have to believe He was the Son of God to acknowledge He existed.

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

Its interesting as islam suggests that the claim of being the son of god was actually made up by the jewish elders to justify having him killed.
In the resulting confusion of telling the story by word of mouth, the lie has been turned into truth as it makes jesus seem more important than just the messiah (chosen one).
Hence why islam acknowledges Jesus as the messiah but not the son of god.

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it....

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

Not saying it's right or wrong, just what they believe.
Kinda feels plausible to me.
You'll be able to answer this Russ, or Towney, when in Jesus' life does he first mention he is the son of god?
Was claiming to be a prophet or messiah enough to be killed? Did they add that charge to get the deed done?

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

might be the wrong place to point it out

but why, if those islamic fanatic crowds, are so against making images and pictures of people are they always demonstrating holding up pictures of some bloke and chanting

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

As does evolution?

Not sure when He first said it (don't have my bible with me at the mo) but under Jewish law it was illegal to make such claims. The only people who could 'decide' if someone was the Son of God were the high priests and elders. When Jesus came He pointed out flaws in the way they were living their lives so they felt threatened by Him, particulary as so many people were believing and following Him. Each time they tried to catch Him out, He give them an answer they couldn't respond to.

The council felt this would lead to arnachy (plus they had a sneaky feeling that He would not be argued with simply because He had a valid response to everything they threw at Him) and simply did not believe His claims of divinity and proclaimed Him a 'blasphemer'. Feeling threatened, they declared a death penalty, even though it was against the law of the land at the time.

Re: Turin Shroud - genuine?
 

I was studying archaeology 10 years ago - and back then, researchers were moving their funds away from C-14 dating and towards other, indirect methods (such as dendrochronology, which dates artefacts using tree-rings), precisely because radiocarbon was becoming increasingly seen as insufficiently accurate. It can give you a ball-park date for an artefact, providing that artefact is not supposed to be more than about 70,000 years old, but with accuracy routinely worse than +/- 250 years (often much worse) it's useless at dating something so precisely fixed in time as the Turin Shroud.

I think the context of the Turin Shroud is far more telling as a clue to its likely accuracy (or otherwise). It belongs to a church movement which collectively owns more vials of milk from the breast of the virgin than could possibly be considered decent (I mean, what was she doing expressing her milk in the first place? Somehow I can't see Joseph getting up to do the 2am feed)

Relics, and their control, was key to the authority of the medieval Roman Catholic church. Seen in that light, the Turin shroud is just too convenient for me.

EDIT: Also seems strange to me that the face on the shroud looks like a 'western' man painted in the medieval stylee, rather than an anatomically accurate semitic man. Compare:

Turin Shroud:

http://physicsweb.org/objects/world/...-05-10fig1.jpg

Effigy of Henry III: (13th century)

http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/images...III_image1.gif