The Turin Shroud. Some say it is real. Some say it was a hoax by 13th century forgers. (Not too be confused with the majority of members here) So, what are your views on it? And if you think it was a hoax, why is it a hoax? EDIT: Spoiler The Shroud of Turin (or Turin Shroud) is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man presumed to be Jesus Christ who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. It is believed by many to be the cloth placed on the body of Jesus at the time of his burial, while others argue that the artifact may postdate the death of Jesus Christ by more than a millennium. The image on the shroud is much clearer in black-and-white negative than in its natural sepia color. The striking negative image was first observed on the evening of May 28, 1898, on the reverse photographic plate of amateur photographer Secondo Pia, who was allowed to photograph it while it was being exhibited in the Turin Cathedral. According to Pia, he almost dropped and broke the photographic plate from the shock of seeing an image of a person on it.[2][3] The shroud is the subject of intense debate among scientists, people of faith, historians, and writers regarding where, when, and how the shroud and its images were created. From a religious standpoint, in 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the Roman Catholic devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus, celebrated every year on Shrove Tuesday. Some believe the shroud is the cloth that covered Jesus when he was placed in his tomb and that his image was recorded on its fibers at or near the time of his resurrection. Skeptics, on the other hand, contend the shroud is a medieval forgery; others attribute the forming of the image to chemical reactions or other natural processes. Various tests have been performed on the shroud. Radiocarbon dating in 1988 by three independent teams of scientists yielded results published in Nature indicating that the shroud was made during the Middle Ages, approximately 1300 years after Jesus lived.[4] Claims of bias and error in the testing were raised almost immediately and were addressed by Harry E. Gove.[5] Follow-up analysis published in 2005, for example, claimed that the sample dated by the teams was taken from an area of the shroud that was not a part of the original cloth. The shroud was also damaged by a fire in the Late Middle Ages which could have added carbon material to the cloth, resulting in a higher radiocarbon content and a later calculated age. This analysis itself is questioned by skeptics such as Joe Nickell, who reasons that the conclusions of the author, Raymond Rogers, result from "starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence".[6] Former Nature editor Philip Ball has said that the idea that Rogers steered his study to a preconceived conclusion is "unfair" and Rogers "has a history of respectable work". However, the 2008 research at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit may revise the 1260–1390 dating toward which it originally contributed, leading its director Christopher Ramsey to call the scientific community to probe anew the authenticity of the Shroud.[7][8] "With the radiocarbon measurements and with all of the other evidence which we have about the Shroud, there does seem to be a conflict in the interpretation of the different evidence" Ramsey said to BBC News in 2008, after the new research emerged.[9] Ramsey had stressed that he would be surprised if the 1988 tests were shown to be far off, let alone "a thousand years wrong" but insisted that he would keep an open mind. Wikipedia Another useful site of info. http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm Look through these as well. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=turin+shroud&btnG=Search&meta=
Mind putting up some background? If you want an informed debate, we actually have to know what we're debating about. Lawl.
*Updated with background info* BTW, please don't come out with comments like: "God doesn't exist so this is false as well" or vice versa.
I saw a documentary on this the other day... It was quite conclusive that the Templar Knights knew it was a fake and used it to gain fame and wealth. Also they had experts explain how it couldn't of wrapped his body. They then went on to explain how its possible Da Vinci was hired by the people to make it look like was Jesus. He used himself and a method of light bleaching photography at the time to capture his body, and then with real blood he painted the body and face in more detail.
^^^ What was the doco, and can you provide links or explain how this photography occurred? Did the doco take both sides of the story, was it scientifically conclusive and unbiased?
I've seen a few that put the cloths authenticity in the balance just look up some history channel documentaries they did a good job on it . I think they even took a sample of the shroud and found it to be like 3,000 years younger than the death of Jesus or something which would mean it was a forgery.
If it was 3000 years younger than the death of Jesus it would be from 1000 years in the future. Besides, if you mean the carbon dating process, that has been proven to be flawed and could very well be from the time of Jesus. The sample they took was inconsistent with the rest of the fabric.
In science class we were using Compound Microscopes and we had to watch this video(ya a freaking documentary on how "cool" these things are.) Anyways, this guy examined the shroud and proved it was paint, not blood, skin, or dirt or anything.
I said younger opppsss not what they found it was made after his death not at his time. I wrote that post wrong lol. But carbon dating is almost always right unless the item being tested has been contaminated making the results faulty.
How would simple paint produce the complex structures found on the Shroud? The "painting" is in negative, which means that a painter would have to be viewed in reverse, defying how the human mind is programmed. Then, in Negative the painter would also have to account for the 3D image it presents. On the link i gave is an image of it. EDIT: The image also is anatomically correct, with the characteristic features of rigor mortis, wounds and blood flows. How would a medieval forger be able to make all this with limited knowledge? Also, as I said, Eyeless Sid, the sample they took is faulty. Carbon Dating can be faulty due to environmental conditions over the years.
Da Vinchi was ahead of his time I wouldn't doubt that he could have made the shroud. he was a genius you know and painting in a 3d form wouldn't be hard for a master artisan. The sample they took is as you said in question but the church does not to let anymore people get their hands on it to check its authenticity and probably for good reason if they are hiding the truth.
Not me Im referring to Glitches post. He already said what I was saying so I didn't re post the same thing. I believe me and him watched the same Documentary.
Well the age of the shroud has raised many questions as well as any of the crusader holy relics which all to have seemed to be lost in history and mystery.
Basically it came from the same time period when it was carbon dated which I don't think was that far off. Theres been many holy relics from the crusade that have been lost like the holy grail ,the roman spear that stabbed jesus in the side, part of the crucifix that jesus was crucified on, and some others. Id say its not to far off to say they probably made one or two of them. The shroud is most likely a fake.
We still can't do lots of things that seem to be ancient crafts. Like Greek fire or ancient mechanic clocks or how even the pyramids were made but we can tell how they orriginated whether it be man made or artificial and also when they were made. The shroud happens to be an item which was made after christs death so it couldn't of been made from him. Thats why its believed to be a forgery by the crusaders and even the great Da Vinci. He easily could have made the shroud considering his mastery of art and mechanics which scholars are still studying to today.
Seeing as you believe it to be from the crusades, Da Vinci could in no way have made it. He was in th 1700's, while the crusades were about 500 years earlier. Who else could have the skill to make such an image in the medieval ages? Indeed who would have the intricate knowledge of the body and its features? The main group of educated people were monks, and why would a monk create a false image of their own God? Does not the Bible tell them not to do so? I assure you they would not have done so.