Shroud of Turin a Fake, After All?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hope1960

Guest
www.livescience.com

Shroud of Turin Is a Fake, Bloodstains Suggest

The Shroud of Turin, said by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus, is likely a fake, as a new study using modern forensics techniques finds its bloodstains are completely unrealistic.
www.livescience.com www.livescience.com

I always thought the Shroud was authentic but it seems as though it’s a fake, unless posters here have newer information.
 
Last edited:
You are never going to get a definitive answer on the Shroud of Turin, nor does the latest article with an attention-grabbing headline prove anything one way or another.

In the end, it is not important as our faith doesn’t hinge on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, so if you want to think it’s fake, feel free, and those who think it’s real can do that also.
 
www.independent.co.uk

Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine (again)

Forensic analysis of possible bloodstains suggest marks could only have been made by someone adopting different poses, not dead Messiah lying still in tomb before the resurrection
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

In 1390 Bishop D’Arcis claimed to have spoken to a previous Bishop who is said to have talked with the person who created, and admitted it.
 
Last edited:
The truth of my faith is not based on the Shroud of Turin, it’s based on Jesus rising from the dead. By the way, I think you should know, that Father Dwight Longenecker has some writings on this, and he disagrees with the conclusion that these people seem to draw, not to mention so do some other scientists. To me, I think it’s kind of cool, and I really don’t care if it’s authentic, that’s not what my faith is based on. I’m a little confused, given that the only way that they would be able to test the blood, is if they knew Jesus’s blood type. you have a lot of questions, and that’s good, but a lot of people here are not experts on these things. The only reason I even know that about blood types, is because of my mother’s background in biology. I think a lot of people are tending to forget peer-review when they publish articles like this.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I’m a little confused, given that the only way that they would be able to test the blood, is if they knew Jesus’s blood type.
Click to expand...
Unless I missed something, they didn’t need Jesus’ blood type. They arrived at their conclusion based on the direction of blood flow.
 
We are in the Advent season and the article is from July. Why post it now near Christmas?
 
There will probably always be believers and disbelievers when it comes to the Shroud.
 
www.express.co.uk

‘Not scientific!’ Catholic Church HITS BACK over Turin Shroud claims

THE CATHOLIC church has hit back after a new study suggesting the famous Turin shroud, which is claimed to show the face of Jesus, is actually a clever fake made in the Middle Ages.
www.express.co.uk www.express.co.uk

Looks like I jumped the gun, I was so disappointed that I wanted to share this news. It looks like the new report is probably baloney.
As far as the Bishop, I don’t know what his deal was.
 
I’ll say this;

Scientists usually have a control group and an experiment group.
They have to have something to compare it too.

Last I checked, there haven’t been too many other burial shrouds that held the resurrected body of the Son of God.

So if there are anomalies when comparing any other blood soaked fabrics to the Shroud, it may be because one of them was not covering the body of Christ as He was being resurrected…
Just a thought
 
I am quoting from the article:

“But in 1988, scientists carbon-dated the shroud’s origins to between A.D. 1260 and 1390, supporting claims that it is merely a hoax, as Jesus’ lifeis thought to have come to an end in A.D. 33.”

My comment: Articles like this always mention the carbon-dating made in 1988. They don’t mention that dating made in 2013 using infra-red light and spectroscopy found that the cloth actually dates to the first century. When articles only mention test results in their favor, and suppress findings based on more advanced technology, then the sincerity and credibility of the authors become suspect.

“ They found that if one examined all the bloodstains on the shroud together, "you realize these cannot be real bloodstains from a person who was crucified and then put into a grave, but actually handmade by the artist that created the shroud,"study lead author Matteo Borrini, a forensic anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University in England, told Live Science.”

My comment: Bloodstains were handmade by an artist? How? If the bloodstains in the shroud were handmade, then they can be reproduced by hand. As far as I know, none of the scientists (including the authors of the article) were able to show how the image in the shroud was made. To be valid, any claim that the shroud was a fabrication must be accompanied by a demonstration of how the fabrication was made. Recent studies also show that the image on the shroud could have been produced by ultraviolet light, but the voltage and power required to produce that UV light would be enormous (several billion watts). If scientists in the 21st century could not figure out a way of producing the same type image on a piece of cloth, then it is not likely that a simple first century artist or a medieval forger would have the technology to produce the same image.

For instance, two short rivulets of the blood on the back of the left hand of the shroud are only consistent with a person standing with their arms held at a 45-degree angle. In contrast, the forearm bloodstains found on the shroud match a person standing with their arms held nearly vertically. A person couldn’t be in these two positions at once.

My comment: The scientists who conducted the research seem to forget that the blood on the arms of our Savior did not merely come from the nails, but also from the scourging. During the scourging his arms could have been vertical, while during the crucifixion his arms were at a 45-degree incline.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
I have never placed too much concern over the Shroud. Catholicism has almost a side-show aspect to it, with shrines, alleged miracles, statues, paintings, souvenirs, etc. I suppose saying this much makes me think that the shroud is perhaps an inspirational work of art. But, nobody can verify its authenticity. I’m not even sure that the Church has attested to its authenticity.

Shroud or no shroud, it doesn’t help or hurt my faith.

There are only so many hours in a person’s life; I’ve spent a couple considering the shroud and I have no conclusion about it. I wouldn’t even call it a fake, because I’ve never considered for long that it was real.
 
Hope1960 said:
Unless I missed something, they didn’t need Jesus’ blood type. They arrived at their conclusion based on the direction of blood flow.
Click to expand...
They don’t give all the details of the study but some of what they said got me scratching my head.
The scientists applied blood — both human and synthetic — onto a live volunteer to see how blood would run in rivulets down his skin as he lay with his arms and body in various positions.
Click to expand...
Why would they use a live volunteer? Wasn’t Jesus dead at the time? Are they 100% certain that they were able to totally move the live volunteer and he was able to act and move freely like a corpse would?
As such, to mimic a spear wound, the researchers stuck a sponge on a wooden plank, soaked the sponge with synthetic blood and jabbed this fake spear into the side of a mannequin to see how the blood ran down the body.
Click to expand...
Seriously? I’m no forensic scientist but what about the gravitational pressure within the body pushing the fluids from Jesus chest cavity? How can that be mimicked by a freely flowing sponge?
For instance, two short rivulets of the blood on the back of the left hand of the shroud are only consistent with a person standing with their arms held at a 45-degree angle.
Click to expand...
So how do they know those two short rivulets actually came from the hand? It’s not like Jesus only had wounds in his hands and feet. Another possibility is… I am pretty sure they didn’t use stretchers back then. Most likely after they wrapped Jesus in the shroud someone lifted his upper body at say a 45 degree angle someone grabbed his feet and they placed his body on a cart to wheel it to the tomb.
However, the stains on the lower back — which supposedly came from the spear wound while the body was positioned on its back — were completely unrealistic, they said.
Click to expand...
And they know this how? So are they claiming Jesus wasn’t scourged? Or was the scourging just to the upper back?

Like I said I am no forensic scientist, but I do watch a lot of NCIS so that kinda makes me an authority. 😉

Anyway, the point I am getting at is if NCIS is correct the one thing I always hear on the show is Ducky complains when someone touches the body. Not touching or moving the body is necessary for good forensic science.

Well these guys seem like they are apply “unrealistic modern forensic techniques” to an unrealistic situation and saying see the results are unrealistic.

Well what do you expect. The body was moved several times and in varying positions. The body was most likely transported in a cart without suspension over rocky soil. Before being placed on a rock slab in a tomb. Add to this they are testing a piece of cloth that was touched by thousands of hands, kept in unfavorable conditions for 2000 years.

Sounds to me like these guys are just trying to publish a paper and make a quick buck or get their 10 minutes of fame.

God Bless
 
There was a presentation on EWTN demonstrating the Shroud and its authenticity that you folks who are interested in truth, not fiction, can listen to HERE. It is rather long, but full of important details that others who have done poor research omit. I watched all five segments as this scientist had appeared on Woman of Grace. It is the most comprehensive and reliable source for those of you who may be skeptical.
 
Last edited:
There’s an interesting documentary on netflix that talks about the whole debate over authenticity and how it’s built up. It probably doesn’t have this article’s info since it’s relatively new but the documentary was really fascinating nonetheless
 
it is authenic don’t belive its not ive got a beautiful picture in my missal gaze
 
Makes no difference to me. I find it hard to believe that the authentic shroud would have survived all these years. Maybe I want to believe and am being skeptical because of it.

There are people who need scientific evidence to support their faith. I remember in 7th grade (Catholic school) we were told that a doctor discovered that a person loses a teensy-tiny amount of weight, fractions of an ounce, at the time of death. This was concluded to be the soul leaving the body, and therefore proof of the existence of God.
 
Last edited:
At the very least, the Shroud is a beautiful piece of art depicting the unconditional love that our Lord Jesus has for you. At the most, it is the most valuable relic in the history of the world, “an icon painted in blood,” is the phrase Pope Benedict used to describe it.

Sceptics will always exist, they were there when Jesus raised Lazarus, “even if a man rises from the dead, they will not be convinced.”

Although THOUSANDS of witnesses saw the Risen Christ, those who refused to be touched simply overlooked the facts.

Many of the “I’m-going-to-prove-the-Shoud-is-a-fake” types are operating under the same cloud of rejection.

Blessed are you who have not seen, and yet still believe,
Deacon Christopher
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top