[starman2003]

Why? The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yielded a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results provide conclusive evidence that the Shroud of Turin is a mediaeval forgery.

Add to that the lack of any reference to the shroud prior to the 14th century. That would be pretty amazing if it really went back to the first century.

[Hindsite]

Add to that the lack of any reference to the shroud prior to the 14th century. That would be pretty amazing if it really went back to the first century.

It does. Check it out on the Shroud.com and other references.

Here is one reference before it was called the Shroud:

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/20 ... cript.html

One of the five illustrations within the Pray Codex shows the burial of Jesus. It is sometimes claimed that the display shows remarkable similarities with the Shroud of Turin: that Jesus is shown entirely naked with the arms on the pelvis, just like in the body image of the Shroud of Turin; that the thumbs on this image appear to be retracted, with only four fingers visible on each hand, thus matching detail on the Turin Shroud; that the supposed fabric shows a herringbone pattern, identical to the weaving pattern of the Shroud of Turin; and that the four tiny circles on the lower image, which appear to form a letter L, "perfectly reproduce four apparent "poker holes" on the Turin Shroud", which likewise appear to form a letter L. The Codex Pray illustration may serve as evidence for the existence of the Shroud of Turin prior to 1260–1390 AD, carbon 14 dating of the cotton and dye contaminated repaired corner of the Shroud, which was not even the main body of the shroud.

[starman2003]

One of the five illustrations within the Pray Codex shows the burial of Jesus. It is sometimes claimed that the display shows remarkable similarities with the Shroud of Turin: that Jesus is shown entirely naked with the arms on the pelvis, just like in the body image of the Shroud of Turin; that the thumbs on this image appear to be retracted, with only four fingers visible on each hand, thus matching detail on the Turin Shroud; that the supposed fabric shows a herringbone pattern, identical to the weaving pattern of the Shroud of Turin; and that the four tiny circles on the lower image, which appear to form a letter L, "perfectly reproduce four apparent "poker holes" on the Turin Shroud", which likewise appear to form a letter L. The Codex Pray illustration may serve as evidence for the existence of the Shroud of Turin prior to 1260–1390 AD, carbon 14 dating of the cotton and dye contaminated repaired corner of the Shroud, which was not even the main body of the shroud.

The "pray codex" doesn't prove the shroud existed in the 12th century, and is a copy of it; it's far more likely a 14th century forger based his work on the 12th or 13th century codex.
Years ago an Israeli archeologist raised a number of interesting points about the shroud:
"Whoever made this thing, for reasons of modesty, elongated the fingers greatly." It is a bit fishy that jesus happened to die in a way that wouldn't cause certain problems for later believers...
"It has been known for centuries that you have to nail high on the arms to keep the body upright on the cross." The shroud apparently reflects later ignorance, long after he banning of crucifixion, on how it was done.
"No cloth from the first century has been known to survive in the Mediterranean area because the climate is too humid."

[Hindsite]

The "pray codex" doesn't prove the shroud existed in the 12th century, and is a copy of it; it's far more likely a 14th century forger based his work on the 12th or 13th century codex.
Years ago an Israeli archeologist raised a number of interesting points about the shroud:
"Whoever made this thing, for reasons of modesty, elongated the fingers greatly." It is a bit fishy that jesus happened to die in a way that wouldn't cause certain problems for later believers...
"It has been known for centuries that you have to nail high on the arms to keep the body upright on the cross." The shroud apparently reflects later ignorance, long after he banning of crucifixion, on how it was done.
"No cloth from the first century has been known to survive in the Mediterranean area because the climate is too humid."

No, it is not likely that the Shroud is a forgery. The scientists that examined it originally thought they would quickly find the same thing, but eventually eliminated all possibility of it being a forgery of the 14th century or of any century for that matter. It has been proved that the blood stains were on the linen cloth before the image appeared. The image is known to have been formed by a very short wave burst of light that burned or stained the top layer of the linen and gives the image not only a photo negative quality, but also an x-ray appearance. That is why the fingers look elongated, because bones in the hand are also visible.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/17/ ... tic-113215

[starman2003]

No, it is not likely that the Shroud is a forgery. The scientists that examined it originally thought they would quickly find the same thing, but eventually eliminated all possibility of it being a forgery of the 14th century or of any century for that matter.

Exactly where was this thing from the first century to the 14th? Assuming it was in the Mediterranean basin it shouldn't exist; no known first century cloth survives in that area.

It has been proved that the blood stains were on the linen cloth before the image appeared.

Big deal, the forger could've planned it that way.

The image is known to have been formed by a very short wave burst of light that burned or stained the top layer of the linen

He used heat, big deal.

and gives the image not only a photo negative quality, but also an x-ray appearance. That is why the fingers look elongated, because bones in the hand are also visible.

And the fingers just happened to cover the private parts? That's a clear sign of an artistic work not a forensic thing.

[ingliz]

The image is known to have been formed by a ...

If you are referring to Carpinteri's bullshit theories. No, it is not. Alberto Carpinteri's unsupported ideas about neutron emissions from rocks (maybe, beliefs is a better word) are universally rejected by physicists.

Carpinteri was the president of the National Institute for Research in Metrology (INRiM) until he was dismissed after two-thirds of the board of directors resigned in objection to his support of piezonuclear fission. The resignations came on the heels of a petition signed by 1,200 INRIM researchers and staff addressed to Minister of Education Francesco Profumo expressing their concerns about Carpinteri.

Piezonuclear fission is the notion that "compressing solids can provoke nucleus-splitting reactions."

Three different groups, from Canada, Sweden, and Italy, published papers in 2010 criticising the rock-compression experiments and similar work by Cardone. And in a paper published on 29 May, nine researchers from INRIM took aim at the chemical analysis carried out on the rock samples. They show that many identical numbers reported in the analysis, which are quoted to two decimal places, are more closely correlated than would be expected from independent measurements—although the paper says nothing about how the correlation might have occurred; the implication was he had fiddled the numbers.

Meccanica retracted 11 of its former Editor-in-Chief’s papers, including the one on the Shroud, and a number on piezonuclear fission. The reason? According to the notice, "the editorial process had been compromised."

This article has been withdrawn by the Publisher and the Society in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief due to conflict of interest reasons. In a commitment to scientific integrity we decided to withdraw the article as the editorial process had been compromised.

In short, what we have here is speculation built on sand. A possible physical event possibly causes an impossible nuclear event that possibly causes an image of a body on a cloth wrapped around the body and possibly infuses the cloth with misleading amounts of carbon-14 isotopes. No mention is made of how this alleged nuclear event transformed body parts into paint, however. Nor is any mention made that if Carpinteri's speculations were true, no carbon-14 dating is reliable because some earthquake at some point in time could have resulted in misleading amounts of carbon-14 isotopes.

By trying to connect his beliefs about earthquakes, rocks, and piezonuclear fission to the dating of the shroud of Turin, Carpinteri seems to be reaching out to a fragment of the faith-based community that still clings to whatever thread keeps hope alive that the shroud is miraculous and a physical connection to Jesus. Having been rejected by the scientific community, he now appeals to a group likely to cheer him on in whatever folly he proposes as long as it keeps hope alive.

[Hindsite]

Exactly where was this thing from the first century to the 14th? Assuming it was in the Mediterranean basin it shouldn't exist; no known first century cloth survives in that area.

We can only speculate,at this time. However, from at least the sixth century a “God-made image” of Christ was venerated in Edessa, a Syriac city on the Persian border. In the year 525 the Daisan River, a tributary of the Euphrates, flooded part of the city. During the reconstruction of the city wall the image, on cloth, was discovered hidden in the wall over one of the city gates, reportedly inscribed “O Christ our God, no one who hopes in You will ever be put to shame.” Contemporary writers associated this image with the story of the first-century king of Edessa, Abgar, who had written to Christ asking Him to visit Edessa and heal him of an illness. The Lord reportedly wrote back saying that He could not come but would send one of His disciples in due time. After the resurrection, the disciple Thaddaeus (Addai) brought the Gospel to Edessa and reportedly healed the king. The fourth-century historian Eusebius of Caesarea recorded this story in his History of the Church and claimed to have seen the letter in the Edessa chancery and translated it. The pilgrim nun Egeria, who visited Edessa in 384 also claimed
to have seen this letter. In 593 Evagrius the Stoic in his Ecclesiastical History mentions that Edessa was home to a “God-made image” of the face of Christ imprinted on cloth.

From the sixth century to the eighth an icon of Christ on cloth served as a banner for the Byzantine army. It had led the army of Heraclius in his seventh-century battles against the Persians but had disappeared in 705, according to the Byzantine writer Georgios Kedrenos, during an interruption in the reign of Justinian II. In 944 Edessa, then under Islamic rule, was besieged by a Byzantine army led by its leading general, John Kourkouas, who exchanged a group of Muslim prisoners for the “God-made image.” It was taken to Constantinople where it was received in triumph and enshrined in the chapel of the imperial palace. It is this event which the Byzantine Churches still commemorate on August 16. The Mandylion remained in Constantinople until the city was sacked by the Crusaders in 1204. Many of its treasures were looted and taken to western Europe. The Crusader-King Baldwin II sold a number of Byzantine treasures to King Louis IX of France. The relics were enshrined in his Sainte Chapelle in Paris until they disappeared during the French Revolution.

The image of Edessa was described in a sixth-century Greek text as a tetradiplon (folded four times). Several modern authors have argued that the Shroud of Turin, folded in this manner, would display only the holy face. They also point to the distinct crease marks on the Shroud, suggesting that it had been folded for a long time. Finally they cite a certain Gregory, a tenth-century treasurer at Hagia Sophia, who said that the image of Edessa was painted “in sweat and blood.” They also note that scientists have identified traces of pollen on the Shroud native to all three of the locations associated with the Mandylion: Jerusalem, Edessa and Constantinople.

https://melkite.org/tag/transfer-of-the-holy-mandylion

Big deal, the forger could've planned it that way.


He used heat, big deal.

I think that would take incredible planning, the invention of photography to produce the negative image, the invention of an x-ray machine, and the invention of a very short wave radiation machine.

And the fingers just happened to cover the private parts? That's a clear sign of an artistic work not a forensic thing.

That might also be a sign of Jewish burial practices.

HalleluYah
Praise the Lord

[ingliz]

a “God-made image” of Christ was venerated in Edessa,

A Mandylion of Edessa is to be found in the Pope's private Redemptoris Mater Chapel (formerly the Matilda Chapel) in the Vatican.



Another is known to have been sold to Louis IX of France (1214-1270) and disappeared in the chaos of the French Revolution.

The legend behind the story of the Mandylion of Edessa is derived from another, older Syriac legend, which began with an exchange of letters between King Abgar of Edessa and Jesus Christ. Slowly the content of the letter written by Jesus, together with its apotropaic function for the city, were transferred, as from 5th century, onto an image. In 6th century, the image itself, which was originally a colored picture of the face of Jesus, was transformed, especially in the Byzantine environment, into a miraculous imprint of Jesus' face left on a cloth, but not everyone was aware of this evolution. One of these Mandylion was moved to Constantinople in 944, where it remained until the Fourth Crusade. It was then sold to Louis IX of France and disappeared in the chaos of the French Revolution.

There is the Holy Face of Genoa donated to the doge, Leonardo Montaldo, by the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaeologus.

And now you are saying yet another Mandylion is the Shroud of Turin?

It seems the Edessans were doing a brisk trade in the Holy towels of Jesus back in the day.

a sign of Jewish burial practices.

No.

Straighten the limbs; arms should rest beside the body, try to keep the fingers extended, arms are not crossed over chest.

Hands over the genitals is not a Jewish burial practice but it was commonly seen in Christian burials of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries pointing to it being likely that the Turin Shroud was made then.

[Hindsite]

A Mandylion of Edessa is to be found in the Pope's private Redemptoris Mater Chapel (formerly the Matilda Chapel) in the Vatican.

Another is known to have been sold to Louis IX of France (1214-1270) and disappeared in the chaos of the French Revolution.


There is the Holy Face of Genoa donated to the doge, Leonardo Montaldo, by the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaeologus.

And now you are saying yet another Mandylion is the Shroud of Turin?

It seems the Edessans were doing a brisk trade in the Holy towels of Jesus back in the day.

Perhaps. But remember that the original image was claimed to be made by God and by the blood and sweat of Jesus. Today the Shroud of Turin is the only artifact that fits that description.

Hands over the genitals is not a Jewish burial practice but it was commonly seen in Christian burials of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries pointing to it being likely that the Turin Shroud was made then.

I know the skeptics are going to claim a lot of things in an attempt to discredit the authenticity of the Shroud as the burial cloth of Jesus. But don't forget that Jesus was stripped of his clothes to be crucified, so it would seem likely, considering the traditional modesty of Israel, that those placing Jesus in the tomb would cover his private parts. Also remember, those that buried Jesus the Christ could also be referred to as Christians. If this is abnormal, then there are other things abnormal that point to the Shroud image being that of Jesus.

Examples of abnormal crucifixion procedures to which both Jesus and the man who was buried in the shroud were apparently subjected include the following:

The severity of the beating, the sharp objects pressed into the scalp, the side wound (instead of broken ankles), featuring a post-mortem flow of blood and watery fluid. Further, neither was thrown into a common grave or left to the vultures, as was normal, but both were wrapped in linen and buried individually, although still hastily.

Of these “common oddities,” I think that the scalp punctures and side wound are the most irregular. After all, why crown a man who is being crucified as a common criminal? And of all of the possible forms of coup de grace in order to insure the death of the victim, why would both have the same sort of side wound, along with the same attending features? The individual, hasty burials are also out of the ordinary.

In fact, the correspondence between the two is so close that someone might even be tempted to postulate the thesis that someone was purposefully (and sadistically!) crucified precisely in order to look like Jesus. So on this view, the similarities are accounted for by a “copy-cat” scenario.

But interestingly, it is precisely this procedure that creates its own major problems. The cloth would have to mimic the presentation in the Gospels in order to be deemed the burial garment of Jesus, yet this fails to explain why the wrist wounds are not located in the palms, as depicted in Medieval times. Indeed, art historian Phillip McNair states that of the hundreds of examples of Medieval crucifixion art that he has observed, not a single one portrays the wounds in the wrists. Further, the pierced scalp of the man in the shroud arguably represents an object that covers the entire skull, not the tiny wreathlet of Christian art. With cases like these, the very exceptions themselves are disconfirming, since they so clearly militate against the scenario that the cloth was faked in order to mimic Jesus’ death. Exceptions like those on the shroud point away from the copy-cat scenario.

Next, what about any possible pointers from the shroud to Jesus’ resurrection? Actually, there are a few interesting implications regarding this possibility. First, the body wrapped in the shroud apparently did not decompose. Numerous medical investigators have argued that the man is dead, due to several indicators like the presence of rigor mortis. Yet, scientific testing has not discovered any evidence of decomposition on the cloth. The implications here seem clear: the absence of bodily decomposition means that the body was not in contact with the cloth for a prolonged period of time.

So the body was separated from the material after a comparatively short period of time. As Robert Bucklin states, “None of the research done on the Shroud image has produced any evidence that there has been cellular changes such as might be expected as the result of a long postmortem interval.”

The second intriguing implication concerns the body’s removal from the cloth. We just noted that the lack of decomposition indicates that the body did not remain in the cloth very long. However, the body does not appear to have been moved by conventional means, either, due to the condition of the bloodstains, which are anatomically correct, including precisely outlined borders, with blood clots intact. If the cloth had been pulled away from the body, the blood clots would have smeared or broken.

Third, the nature of the image on the shroud now comes prominently into focus. While it may be said that no image-creating technique has been clearly established, the leading candidate still seems to be that it is most similar to some kind of radiation. In a little-publicized survey by Robert Wilcox of the 1978 scientific investigators, most did not give a specific answer concerning the cause of the image. Of the seven who did, five said that they thought it fit into the category of radiation.

Some would go a step further and relate such a scorch to the resurrection of Jesus, as well, although comparatively few have published these views. Robert Bucklin is an exception. He said, “a few of us have openly expressed our opinions that there is support for the resurrection in the things we see on the Shroud of Turin.” Elaborating, Bucklin added, “When this medical information is combined with the physical, chemical, and historical facts, there is strong evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.”

Fourth, the closer the correspondence between the shroud and the Gospels, the closer we can attempt to tie the shroud phenomena to an historical investigation of Jesus’ resurrection. If the shroud is thoroughly consistent with reliable Gospel accounts, one might attempt an argument that it also corresponds on the subject of Jesus’ resurrection. If the shroud is an authentic archaeological artifact and perhaps the actual burial garment of Jesus, thereby corresponding so minutely to His death, could we push on to His resurrection, too, especially in light of the strong historical evidence for this event?

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/habermas.pdf

[MB.]

Can we talk about Jesus appearing on toast in a small town in Michigan instead?

[Hindsite]

Can we talk about Jesus appearing on toast in a small town in Michigan instead?

This thread is about the Resurrection of Jesus, that would be off topic.
Just make a separate thread for that subject, please.

[ingliz]

would cover his private parts.

No.

One's genitals are unclean and hands cannot be allowed to touch what is impure even in death.

9. Prior to burial, the body receives a ritual washing and immersion into a mikvah. This is called tahara or "purification".

In every case, the washing indicates a spiritual renewal and an intention to live (and die) with purity.

Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J. Readers Guide to Clean/Unclean, Pure/Polluted, and Holy/Profane: The Idea and System of Purity

Also remember...

If we were looking for circularity, your argument is most impressive. A tour de force. Bravo!

The implications here seem clear...

... a body was never in contact with the cloth.

the correspondence between the two is so close

The correspondence between the two is so close that someone might even be tempted to postulate the thesis that someone purposefully created an image that looks like the biblical Jesus to deceive the faithful.

For some time in the diocese of Troyes, the dean of a certain collegiate church, namely that of Lirey, falsely and untruthfully, consumed by the passion of avarice, driven not by any reason of devotion but only of profit, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted on which, by a clever sleight of hand,

Further, the pierced scalp of the man in the shroud arguably represents an object that covers the entire skull

St. Vincent of Lerins wrote Sermo in Parasceve that the crown of thorns was, "in the shape of a pileus, so that it touched and covered His head in every part." A Roman pileus was a close-fitting semioval felt cap, which enveloped the head.

If the cloth had been pulled away from the body, the blood clots would have smeared or broken.

Obviously, a body was never in contact with the cloth.

[Hindsite]

No.
One's genitals are unclean and hands cannot be allowed to touch what is impure even in death.

One's genitals are not unclean. It is the hands and feet that are unclean and need washing. But there was no time to wash the body of Jesus, because the high Sabbath of Passover and Feast of Unleaven Bread was upon them. But this was taken care of before hand for Jesus said, "By pouring this perfume on Me, she has prepared My body for burial." (Matthew 26:12)

Obviously, a body was never in contact with the cloth.

The scientists say otherwise. They say the front and back of the cloth was in contact with a beaten, bruised, pierced, scourged, crucified, and bleeding man. "Most bloodstains on the Shroud are exudates from clotted wounds transferred to the cloth by contact with a wounded human body. "

The Shroud of Turin - Evidence it is authentic
http://newgeology.us/presentation24.html

HalleluYah
Praise the Lord

[MB.]

Shroud of Turin is the fakest shit, I can't believe we're debating this.

[Hindsite]

Shroud of Turin is the fakest shit, I can't believe we're debating this.

I already seen this idiot. This man is like the FAKE News. He has never even examined the Shroud of Turin or the Sudarium of Oviedo.

[MB.]

the Sudarium of Oviedo.

Another fake, carbon dated to between 500 and 600 years after Christ's alleged death. Dude, I think YOU are the one reading too much FAKE NEWS.

Shroud of Turin dates to AD 1260-1390 with 95% reliability.

[Hindsite]

Another fake, carbon dated to between 500 and 600 years after Christ's alleged death. Dude, I think YOU are the one reading too much FAKE NEWS.

Shroud of Turin dates to AD 1260-1390 with 95% reliability.

I already pointed out that Carbon 14 dating was done on a repaired corner that was not even part of the main body of the Shroud. If you would rather watch a video about it, then here you go:

Also read this if you failed to do so earlier:
The Shroud of Turin - Evidence it is authentic
http://newgeology.us/presentation24.html

[MB.]

So what you're saying is, you're more of an expert on radiocarbon dating than the scientists at the University of Cambridge who published their findings in the journal Radiocarbon in 2016?

[Hindsite]

So what you're saying is, you're more of an expert on radiocarbon dating than the scientists at the University of Cambridge who published their findings in the journal Radiocarbon in 2016?

No. if you would bother to read my references and watch the video I just posted, you would not have to ask such a stupid question.

[MB.]

The youtube video you posted was posted in 2010, the peer reviewed journal from nuclear physicists at Cambridge I posted was published in 2016.

If you were me, who would you believe in this situation?