Is the Shroud of Turin Real?

[stephen]

Shroud of Turin: Is It Authentic? [Excerpts]

An amazing cloth shroud....The cloth has a realistic imprint that looks like a man's face. According to tradition, the shroud was miraculously formed when it covered Jesus's body in the tomb. Some people quote Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, and Luke 23:53 to justify the possibility of this miracle.

These verses seem to indicate that a single cloth was used to wrap Jesus when He was taken off the cross. But was this same cloth wrapped around Jesus's body when it was placed in the tomb?

After the crucifixion, Jesus's body would have been bloody from Pilate's whipping (Matthew 27:26), the crown of thorns (Matthew 27:29), and the nails driven into His hands and feet (Acts 2:23). More blood flowed from the spear wound in His side (John 19:34). So this cloth would have absorbed a lot of blood.

Now did this cloth remain on Jesus's body as it was carried to the grave? From a cursory glance at the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, you might think so. However, John reveals more details (John 19:38-40). Joseph of Arimathea took the body prior to its placement in the grave. Later Nicodemus joined him, applying about 75 pounds of spices and wrapping the body in several strips of linen.

To apply the spices, the caretakers must have removed the bloody linen covering Christ at the cross. We have no reason to assume that they reused this single cloth. Instead, we would expect them to follow Jewish customs of cleanliness.

Also, no Gospel author mentions a second single-cloth linen around Jesus's body-only a small cloth wrapped around Jesus' face and several other linen strips around the rest of his body (John 20:7).

At Jesus' resurrection, both John and Luke mention the strips of linen and the cloth on His face (Luke 24:12; John 20:3-7). They mention nothing else. We have no reason to assume any other cloths were present in the tomb. To do so requires us to impose our ideas on the Bible, contrary to reasonable inferences, which is not the way to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).

The Bible, read carefully in context, rules out the Shroud of Turin as Jesus's burial cloth.

Problematic Apologetics - Answers in Genesis

 

[KingdomSeeker]

"and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. John 20:7

The shroud contradicts this, and shows the "linens" as one long piece.

Then years after the shroud is found, they come up with an answer to John 20:7, and the present the "face napkin". which is embroidered apon.


So if John 20:7 isnt enough evidence that the shroud is not Jesus, What about, "Its a shame for a man to have long hair"? Jesus was not a Nazerite, but from nazereth, he was a nazerine. Two different words.

Also, There should be no immages made of anyting above or below. SO why would God contradict himself?

Also, its is a shame to have yor nakedness revealed. This "picture" of "jesus" shows his nakedness. Which would be another direct contradiction of the Words of God.

Lastly there is this:
"According to the burial ceremony of the Jews, the body placed to burial clothes and the hands folded across the chest."

The shroud does not have the arms across the chest.

It is a mockery of Jesus, and puts him to shame in many ways.


It seems as if people so desperately want Jesus to be real.

But he IS real, if only people would go to HIM in stead of man.

If only people would Go to GOD, instead of science for Truth.

This Shroud is a fake. If you are still not convinced. Pray about it. Jesus blesss you.

 

[David777]

Shroud of whatever

This is so Catholic.

I just do not believe this shroud gains so much publicity.

Why do humans rely so much on trinkets.

They need a dose of Jesus Christ, cures all perversions.

Baa.

 

[KingdomSeeker]

This is so Catholic.

I just do not believe this shroud gains so much publicity.

Why do humans rely so much on trinkets.

They need a dose of Jesus Christ, cures all perversions.

Baa.

Im glad YOU dont beleive it David. But there are milions who do, and probably a few millions that are unsure.(and not just catholics either)


I was going to post this link in the mssg above, but i had to get aproval first....this is the rest of the Article(plus it has a few other good things on the site)

http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/shroudofturin.html

 

[DanielO]

I had always thought it might be real. Assuming it's fake, how was it made? According to that last documentary on the History Channel, it could only have been created by an explosion of light, or something like that. If it's real...awesome, if not...then someone went to a lot of trouble to make it. Which begs the questions, How and Why? Perhaps some dude will show up in the near future looking like that model the History channel made...hmm.

Carbon dating is flawed I hear, perhaps the history of this cloth was fabricated along with the cloth itself.

 

[betteroffdead]

Now did this cloth remain on Jesus's body as it was carried to the grave?

Would it have been wrapped around His body before His body was taken to the grave, or would it have been wrapped around His body once He had been carried to the grave?

And there is no telling whether or not anyone cleaned up some of the blood before burial.

From a cursory glance at the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, you might think so. However, John reveals more details (John

19:38-40). Joseph of Arimathea took the body prior to its placement in the grave. Later Nicodemus joined him, applying about 75 pounds of spices and wrapping the body in several strips of linen.

To apply the spices, the caretakers must have removed the bloody linen covering Christ at the cross. We have no reason to assume that they reused this single cloth. Instead, we would expect them to follow Jewish customs of cleanliness.

Normal burial procedures were not immediately followed due to time constraints imposed by the approaching Sabbath.

 

[betteroffdead]

After the crucifixion, Jesus's body would have been bloody from Pilate's whipping (Matthew 27:26), the crown of thorns (Matthew 27:29), and the nails driven into His hands and feet (Acts 2:23). More blood flowed from the spear wound in His side (John 19:34). So this cloth would have absorbed a lot of blood.

Not necessarily. Christ would have lost a lot of blood before the actual crucifixion and any of this blood that remained on His body would no doubt have dried before He was taken from the cross. It wouldn't have stained the burial cloths the way fresh blood would have.

The spear wound was post-mortem; it was customary to break the legs of crucifixion victims to hasten their death because the Romans wanted to clock out for the day. But none of Christ's bones were broken because He was already dead. And most of the fluid from the spear wound would not have been whole blood because the way blood behaves post-mortem. It would not have stained cloth the way whole blood would have.

 

[betteroffdead]

"and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. John 20:7

The shroud contradicts this, and shows the "linens" as one long piece.

Assuming that the shroud is all of the other linens rather than just one of them. The shroud could very well have been used and we have no way of knowing at this late date just how many other pieces of linen were used as well.

Also, There should be no immages made of anyting above or below. SO why would God contradict himself? [/quote

There is a difference between a picture of something and a picture of something that is made to be worshipped. The Tabernacle and Temple both were made with artistic representations of objects that were not worshipped as idols: Exodus 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat, and I Kings
6:29 And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without.

Also, its is a shame to have yor nakedness revealed. This "picture" of "jesus" shows his nakedness. Which would be another direct contradiction of the Words of God.

Since the Romans cast lots for His clothing, Christ was likely naked on the cross.

"According to the burial ceremony of the Jews, the body placed to burial clothes and the hands folded across the chest."

The Bible says this where?

 

[betteroffdead]

I had always thought it might be real. Assuming it's fake, how was it made? According to that last documentary on the History Channel, it could only have been created by an explosion of light, or something like that. If it's real...awesome, if not...then someone went to a lot of trouble to make it. Which begs the questions, How and Why? Perhaps some dude will show up in the near future looking like that model the History channel made...hmm.

The History channel is not the best source of information. Producers there far too often put entertainment value over the truth. I know that it has been claimed several times that modern day artists have duplicated the shroud, but to my knowledge these modern reproductions have never been subjects to the same tests that have been applied to the shroud. So we don't know how close these modern efforts come to actually duplicating the shroud.

Carbon dating is flawed I hear, perhaps the history of this cloth was fabricated along with the cloth itself.

I've heard it claimed that the carbon-14 tests were done on the same section of the shroud- likely a medieval era patch, rather than 3 different sections. And each of the 3 testing laboratories conferred with each other before the tests were completed- a big scientific no-no- darwinesque even.

I am not convinced that the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ. But I am convinced that it is likely something more than just a piece of art.