• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, 11 years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Shroud of Turin

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

D

DVS

Skilled Investigator
Does anyone have any knowledge of this? I figure that this would be an appropriate thread since this could be scientific evidence of the existence of Jesus as well as his death and resurrection. I have read a few cases debunking them which failed, such as the carbon dating and the type of cloth. What interests me is that how they theorize the image was made through some kind of intense radiation event. Obviously, there is nothing conclusive either way. Hopefully, this discussion can be free of religious beliefs and opinions on all sides. :)
 
Different people say different things like with most of what goes on around here.

Debunking attempts haven't really failed in my view. No more so than those who have tried to make a convincing case have. The details of which are fuzzy since I no longer spend time looking into the Shroud. If there's new (past few years) findings, I'll read about it though.


Notice the "The neutrality of this article is disputed". When it comes to people's faiths, bias is a giant. Gives me a headache. If I want a headache, I'll look into ufos. More interesting to me.

Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The most recent tests concluded it was a cunning forgery. I'm sure a future test will prove it's genuine. And round and round we go...
 
Apparently those forgery debunking attempts didnt hold at all. Looks like there is a lack of interest in this topic for some strange reason! I'm bringing this back. Scientist have been pouring over this for decades. Seem to be some updates.


Shroud of Turin Blog

The Shroud of Turin Website - Home Page

I am reading this book:

Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence

It really is good and has a decent theory as to how the image was put on the cloth and, no, sorry it has nothing to do with DaVinci :p
 
The best book on the subject is Joe Nickell's "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin"
Amazon Link:

The most important thing to keep in mind is that the artist (from around 1600 if I remember correctly) admitted to creating the tapestry. When tested the samples revealed paint pigment.

Joe Nickell is constantly referred to as a "debunker", but that is not what he is. He is a paranormal investigator who has gone and examined the various claims he looks into first hand. His research into religious iconography (like the shroud) is first rate. The book is also a pretty enjoyable read.
 
DVS said:
Apparently those forgery debunking attempts didnt hold at all. Looks like there is a lack of interest in this topic for some strange reason! I'm bringing this back. Scientist have been pouring over this for decades. Seem to be some updates.


Shroud of Turin Blog

The Shroud of Turin Website - Home Page

I am reading this book:

Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence

It really is good and has a decent theory as to how the image was put on the cloth and, no, sorry it has nothing to do with DaVinci :p
Click to expand...


I only have an interest in the shroud from the perspective of it being an interesting historical relic. Personally, I believe it is a forgery, and to me that is even more interesting than it being genuine. Again, and only for me, even if it were someday proven conclusively that it is genuine, it would only prove that - that it was genuine. Not that a 'god' was beneath it, just some long dead guy. Cool, perhaps, but not of earth-shattering importance.
But I will check out those links. Could be interesting!
 
The jury's still out on it for me. I'm not convinced it's a forgery. I saw a cool show about it where this guy (a coroner, maybe?) grew his own skin bacteria for a length of time, slathered his body with it, covered himself in a sheet, and lay still for hours. His test produced a very shroud-like image. When I get time today, I'll see if I can find this on the net. Same show had 3-D images taken from known forgeries or recreations and from the shroud...only the shroud showed an intact 3-d face and body..the others were garbled and out of proportion. :confused:
 
From what I have read including the latest updates, the forgery theories was proven to be false. The original Carbon 14 test was invalid and scientific tests have proven that the images or bloodstains were not man made or any form of painting, the blood is real blood and science still cannot pinpoint how the image was made.

It sure is an interesting historical relic, but I feel it's more than a relic. Its something that might validate Jesus' resurrection or at the least give historical evidence of the crucifixtion. I dont get that comment that if proven genuine that its nothing earth shattering? If proven genuine, it's not some 'long dead guy' - it's the body of a crucified person. Consider the crucifiction story and the wounds and other details and the man would be Jesus.

Then you have to look at how these images were made and not even scientists today can fully explain this. The latest theories I have read is that some kind of radiation formed the image on the cloth. It might actually be evidence of the resurrection which obviously would be a huge hurdle for scientists explain away and probably won't because it crosses in the supernatural. Aside from religion, it can also point to validatation of other mysteries such as life after death and other paranormal mysteries.

I just suggest people to read more about. I see that people just avoid this topic or are just opposed to the idea that it might be real because they are atheist, against Christianity, against religion or whatever. If proven fake, it wouldnt really shatter any christians religious beliefs at all, but it sure might disturb the people I just mentioned.
 
DVS said:
From what I have read including the latest updates, the forgery theories was proven to be false. The original Carbon 14 test was invalid and scientific tests have proven that the images or bloodstains were not man made or any form of painting, the blood is real blood and science still cannot pinpoint how the image was made.

It sure is an interesting historical relic, but I feel it's more than a relic. Its something that might validate Jesus' resurrection or at the least give historical evidence of the crucifixtion. I dont get that comment that if proven genuine that its nothing earth shattering? If proven genuine, it's not some 'long dead guy' - it's the body of a crucified person. Consider the crucifiction story and the wounds and other details and the man would be Jesus.

Then you have to look at how these images were made and not even scientists today can fully explain this. The latest theories I have read is that some kind of radiation formed the image on the cloth. It might actually be evidence of the resurrection which obviously would be a huge hurdle for scientists explain away and probably won't because it crosses in the supernatural. Aside from religion, it can also point to validatation of other mysteries such as life after death and other paranormal mysteries.

I just suggest people to read more about. I see that people just avoid this topic or are just opposed to the idea that it might be real because they are atheist, against Christianity, against religion or whatever. If proven fake, it wouldnt really shatter any christians religious beliefs at all, but it sure might disturb the people I just mentioned.
Click to expand...

Please read Joe Nickell's book. The carbon dating tests were not invalid. They just came up with a date that the believers didn't want so they say that they are invalid. Keep in mind that only believers in the "christ resurrection" creation of the shroud are allowed to examine the shroud.

The "blood" contains no hemoglobin. It is paint. Again, this doesn't correspond with what the believers want it to be so they say that it isn't paint.

Also, please keep in mind that it is not technically a "forgery". It was a work of art that was created by an artist using tools and compounds available to him at the time that believers decided was a "real" shroud. I believe that it was a Cardinal at the Vatican who interviewed the artist. The reason that the Pope/Vatican does not believe the shroud is legitimate is because they know that it was a work of art.

The confusion is further perpetrated by the entertainment industry (of which I am a part of) that generally doesn't look for evidence, but belief when "documentaries" of religious/paranormal subjects are made.
 
You obviously havent read the latest scientific research. Your book was written in 1998, its is 10 years later and that theory has been proven false. Read the book I suggested (written in 2001) and some of the theories it purports actually were validated with the latest set of scientific research.

That story you keep depicting has no basis, it was never historically verified at all. Research has already proven that it is not a 'work of art.' The blood is blood and the image was not painted at all. You do know if your theory stood that the entire image front and back would have to be painted? The fact is there was minute quantities of iron oxide particles found within the cloth on image and non image areas, not even enough to even create a visible image. There was no paint found on the shroud whatsoever. All this is scientifically proven.

The initial C14 dating was found invalid, the cloth they tested were from section of the cloth that was mended in the 1500's, not form the original body of the cloth. The shroud was found to be much older than medeival times, pointing the 1st century. Just read the scientists latest research and concusions so far on the shroud. Its not just researched by believers, the samples are reviewed by many scientists and finding are peer reviewed. They are hardly 'believers' as you would say.

I am just reading all I can and trying to learn and see what the scientific evidence points to. As of now, it still is inconclusive as to its Jesus and his resurrection but it sure does indicate that it is authentic, not a medieval work of art. I know that scares atheists and such, but so what?

By the way the media hardly supports that the shroud is real. They promoted MCCrone medieval painting theory as well as Wilson's (a literature teacher, nonethless) theory it could have been forged by painting an image on a pain of glass. Now both of these can be discarded considering the latest research and image topography.

http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/PapalCustodianvsVatican.htm
 
HA, :p no its isnt a fallacy, you just miss my point! The book was written in 1998, but there has been new research after the book came out that proves the painting/medieval art/forgery theory wrong. Obviously, not the book is old therefore wrong. However, I'm sure there were some flat earth books out at that time as well, those are obviously wrong today. Not the point though! :p

That article is inaccurate. There are actually documented references to the shroud image up at the time of Constantinople way before the alleged 14th century artists painting of the shroud.

http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/history.htm

The actual C14 dating was invalid. It was proven to be a piece of the shroud that was mended in the when it was repaired. The found that the pice that was tested was from a woven piece, not the actual original shroud.

Breaking News: Turin shroud 'older than thought'

One of those links has a response to McCrone from Ray Rogers, who say the Carbon 14 dating was flawed and rejects the medieval forgery theory

"I was the one who "commissioned" him to look at the samples that I took in Turin, when nobody else would trust him. I designed the sampling system and box, and I was the person who signed the paper work in Turin so that I could hand-carry the samples back to the US. The officials in Turin and King Umberto would not allow Walter to touch the relic.

Walter lied to me about how he would handle the samples, and he early ruined them for additional chemical tests. Incidentally, has anyone seen direct evidence that Walter found Madder on the cloth? I can refute almost every claim he made, and I debated the subject with his people at a Gordon Conference. I can present my evidence as photomicrographs of classical tests, spectra, and mass spectra. "

OUCH!

No I havent, have you read Antoinucci's book? I do recommend that one as well. I will check it out at the library or something. But like I have said earlier, I have read into those theories and the latest on the shroud proves that it was not a medeival painting.
 
DVS said:
It sure is an interesting historical relic, but I feel it's more than a relic. Its something that might validate Jesus' resurrection or at the least give historical evidence of the crucifixtion. I dont get that comment that if proven genuine that its nothing earth shattering? If proven genuine, it's not some 'long dead guy' - it's the body of a crucified person. Consider the crucifiction story and the wounds and other details and the man would be Jesus.
Click to expand...

I said that was my personal opinion. What I mean is, that whether or not Jesus existed, the possibility of the shroud being genuine doesn't prove he is any sort of a god; that's all I meant. It would only mean some poor guy was crucified. Since, even if the shroud is genuine it cannot be validly used to prove the existance of a god, that is what I meant by it not being "earth-shattering." It would only be proof of the existance of a "prophet" called Jesus, or Joshua ben Josef, or whatever name he may have gone by.

Another question, tho, if the shroud has been "proven" to be geniune, and from I can gather it has not, how would the fact that the image resembles a sitting rather than lying down individual? I always found that odd.
 
Ankhes said:
I said that was my personal opinion. What I mean is, that whether or not Jesus existed, the possibility of the shroud being genuine doesn't prove he is any sort of a god; that's all I meant. It would only mean some poor guy was crucified. Since, even if the shroud is genuine it cannot be validly used to prove the existance of a god, that is what I meant by it not being "earth-shattering." It would only be proof of the existance of a "prophet" called Jesus, or Joshua ben Josef, or whatever name he may have gone by.

Another question, tho, if the shroud has been "proven" to be geniune, and from I can gather it has not, how would the fact that the image resembles a sitting rather than lying down individual? I always found that odd.
Click to expand...

I agree that even if the cloth is re-dated to the 1st Century it's still doesn't necessarily mean that it has anything to do with Jesus. Surely the *only* thing you *can prove* is the age of the cloth - it's association with Jesus is purely rumour, isn't it - if they used shrouds to cover the dead in the 1st Century then the chances are that they made them in the thousands, so why associate this one to Jesus?

In any case, the various Christian-based religions have 'managed' to maintain the 'God/Jesus' story without conclusive proof for hundreds of years - dating the cloth to the 1st Century now won't change the beliefs of anyone, so in that respect it wouldn't be 'earth shattering' at all because those that already believe don't need proof of anything and those that don't believe aren't gonna change their mind because of a piece of cloth...
 
I made a Shroud of Turin Beach Towel.

You should have seen the looks when I pulled that one out at the beach.
 
Tommy Allison said:
I made a Shroud of Turin Beach Towel.

You should have seen the looks when I pulled that one out at the beach.
Click to expand...

I think the souvenir stores in Turin sell matching bed sheets and bath towel sets...

...sorta reminds me of Bill Hicks comment about Christians wearing crucifixes, in a round-a-bout way...
 
Rick Deckard said:
I agree that even if the cloth is re-dated to the 1st Century it's still doesn't necessarily mean that it has anything to do with Jesus. Surely the *only* thing you *can prove* is the age of the cloth - it's association with Jesus is purely rumour, isn't it - if they used shrouds to cover the dead in the 1st Century then the chances are that they made them in the thousands, so why associate this one to Jesus?
Click to expand...

People are saying" 'yeah even if its authentic, then it still has nothing to do with Jesus'. The entire historical story surrounding the shroud from beginning to end has been associated with Jesus. You can look at the wounds from head to foot and it correlates with Jesus' crucifiction. Looking at all the evidence, it does indicate that this figure does resemble Jesus and his specific wounds (head, side, knee, over 100 scourge marks, etc..) as stated at the biblical account of the crucifiction at the least. There is a reason this particular burial shroud the most scientificially researched relic in human history. Sure, others where crucified and if they used the similar burial shrouds in the thousands then why is this the only one they are studying? Where are the other thousands? Show me the other shrouds with the same characteristics.

If its authentic, then it can't be proven that it's Jesus. I guess that comforts people to an extent.
 
Back
Top