Turin Shroud - genuine?

[Russ]

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.

[Paul K]

Err Russ Title spelling is a bit off

[Russ]

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

Originally Posted by Russ D

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.

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.

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

Yeah but it's a great story though

[Pierre]

not the face of christ, no way no how.

[Russ]

Why not?

[Pierre]

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.

[Russ]

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.

[peachey]

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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by peachey

what concerns me

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

he turns around and makes one of himself

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

Originally Posted by peachey

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

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

[Pierre]

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.

[peachey]

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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

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?

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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