Update Poll: Do you believe the Shroud of Turin as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mannyfit75

Guest
This poll is an annual poll to see if you believe the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Personally, I firmly believe it is the burial shroud of the risen Lord. The image was a by-product of energy that was forge by the light radiating from the body, as well as other evidence. I do not believe the shroud is fake because study shows that there are no pain pigmentation.

I ask all Believers and Non-Believers to investigate this.
 
My vote would be yes, due to the scientific results taken from the shroud so far.
If new evidence were to show the opposite then i’d change my vote.
 
nobody can replicate it. with all our big science and all our vast knowledge. NOBODY CAN! 🙂 yes i believe its the real thing.
 
I wrote in the first post “pain pigmentation.” I meant to the shroud has no paint pigmentation or coloring. I just watch the History documentary on “Face of Jesus” and it shows that light was source the image. Light can travel in a straight line or spread out like a light bulb. They did a test, and light would likely move the same way a flat scanner light. It’s pretty interesting.
 
I believe really is the burial cloth of Jesus. Although I would like to see if there is any new evidence.
 
Author Jerome Corsi is currently doing some work on the Shroud of Turin and I look forward to his next report.
 
I’m willing to have suspention of disbelife in regards to the shroud.
 
Based on everything I have read and seen (and there is lots of info available)…
I say YES I DO! :yup:

Go to shroud.com for tons of current info and more!
 
I believe it COULD be, and likely is. But to be 100% certain, no. If it can be shown that the cloth itself dates from 2000 years ago, that would be a very strong indicator. I cannot see how the markings on the shroud could have been made by human hand in midieval times.
 
I heard that the shroud is a negative image - and that makes it remarkable because the shroud was discovered before photography was invented.

So, if it is a fake, then somebody - a brilliant unknown artist - was ahead of their time.
 
exactly, and the only one i know that is outside of time is God. If God allow that to happen, then the shroud must be something important.

so yeah, i believe it to be the real thing.
 
When I pointed out to someone that the only physical process that could cause the photo-negative image to be created on the cloth would be the radiation release caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon. [which would, of course, destroy the cloth].

So they then SERIOUSLY took that to mean that the image on the shroud was man-made.

Seriously.

[can’t make this stuff up]

The person was an absolute diehard atheist.
 
More important,if it is a fake,then why hasn’t anyone made an exact duplicate? Many have made similar copies,but one area always come out all distorted,the face when under X-rays. Naysayers simply cannot prove it is a fake. The date given in 1988 by science was also false due to the fact science used a newer piece of shroud.Likewise smoke residue from a fire ( I beleive in 1548) altered the correct date.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
When I pointed out to someone that the only physical process that could cause the photo-negative image to be created on the cloth would be the radiation release caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon. [which would, of course, destroy the cloth].

So they then SERIOUSLY took that to mean that the image on the shroud was man-made.

Seriously.

[can’t make this stuff up]

The person was an absolute diehard atheist.
Click to expand...
Does your atheist friend believe in evolution, that in it self seems quite the religion in itself.

Back on topic, yes I do believe it to be the burial cloth of Jesus.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
I wrote in the first post “pain pigmentation.” I meant to the shroud has no paint pigmentation or coloring. I just watch the History documentary on “Face of Jesus” and it shows that light was source the image. Light can travel in a straight line or spread out like a light bulb. They did a test, and light would likely move the same way a flat scanner light. It’s pretty interesting.
Click to expand...
I saw that one too. Science so far can’t find a way the Shroud could have been faked, so it does appear that it’s genuine.

I can’t buy the theory of it being a medieval creation, when medieval technology had no way to create it without using paint, and analysis finds no trace of any paint having been used. Medieval science also had no concept of a photographic negative.
 
I answered no. I Don’t know why. It just doesn;t seem right to me at the moment. Sometimes when asked, i’m like. “hmm nah,yeah, i don’t know scratch head”. Perhaps you should have had that as an option.🤷 I think my opinion rest on what evidence i last read on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top