Thought some of us might appreciate this as we approach the Triduum.

The shroud of Turin is an amazing image Christ left for us. For anyone unfamiliar with the Shroud take the time to watch this video, and more videos on the subject.

Perfect time and subject for reflection!

I'm interested in what the good friar has to say, but don't necessarily want to watch a 30 minute video to get five minutes worth of information. Do you happen to know if he has put any of his research or findings into writing?

Highlights:

The shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ, which all of the scientific evidence strongly supports.

The 3 dimensional image layered onto the cloth is the most scientifically analyzed image in the world and cannot be explained or reproduced even with today's technology.

The 372 blood stains match up perfectly with the gospel accounts of Jesus Christ's unusual crucifixion including the crown of thorns and the spear in his side.

The reverse negative image is made after the blood stains and would take the equivalent of more more than 500,000 search lights of energy focused for 1/40 Billionths of a second which is not possible to recreate even with the laser technology in the modern world.

When I was a kid, I was fascinated by this. But, as I grew up, I developed more critical thinking skills. Look, whatever this thing is, it's a "projection" on a stretched piece of cloth and no way an image that was "Wrapped " around a person.

And about 10 years ago, it was demonstrated how this could be precisely reproduce with a few chemicals (amonia?) And sunlight. The more interesting mystery is who did this, because there weren't many people at the time who likely could have pulled this off and probably used a real human cadaver to do it. The most interesting thought is DaVinci himself.

Win At Life said:

---

When I was a kid, I was fascinated by this. But, as I grew up, I developed more critical thinking skills. Look, whatever this thing is, it's a "projection" on a stretched piece of cloth and no way an image that was "Wrapped " around a person.

And about 10 years ago, it was demonstrated how this could be precisely reproduce with a few chemicals (amonia?) And sunlight. The more interesting mystery is who did this, because there weren't many people at the time who likely could have pulled this off and probably used a real human cadaver to do it. The most interesting thought is DaVinci himself.

---

Your second paragraph is false. A similar image could be semi recreated and lasted for 15 minutes. That is nothing at all like this image that has lasted thousands of years, has no detectable chemical elements and does produce a 3D image.

So, this isn't something that I've spent much time on over the years, but didn't the church think, at the time it was 'discovered', it was a hoax?

Sure seems like a case of having a conclusion and trying to cram in as much 'evidence' as possible to reach that conclusion.

Macarthur said:

---

So, this isn't something that I've spent much time on over the years, but didn't the church think, at the time it was 'discovered', it was a hoax?

Sure seems like a case of having a conclusion and trying to cram in as much 'evidence' as possible to reach that conclusion.

---

Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video…

Here's some counterpoints. For the sake of discussion.

https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/02/24/sorry-the-shroud-of-turin-is-definitely-a-hoax/

Thank you for that. Very informative. I believe the Shroud of Turin is really the image of Jesus.

Quote:

---

John 20: 4-11
Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.

---

The linen burial cloth of Jesus, now called the Shroud of Turin, was significant in the belief of Peter and John upon their inspection of the tomb on the day of the Resurrection.

Let that sink in for a minute. When John was outside he saw the linen cloths laying in the tomb, but it was when he went in and was able to really see and inspect the burial cloth he believed. . What did John & Peter see that immediately led to their belief? I think what they saw was the image of their scourged and crucified Rabbi on the cloth.

Now what do you think they did with these burial and face cloths? I don't think they just left them there on the floor of the tomb.

The face cloth of Jesus is called the Sudarium of Oviedo. This cloth matches up perfectly with the wounds of the same person of the shroud of Turin including the same AB blood type. This face cloth is know to have existed going back to at least the 6th century or more than 600 years prior to the flawed "carbon dating" of the shroud. Also, artwork of Jesus dating back to the 5th & 6th centuries is clearly inspired by the image on the Shroud.

The scientific evidence supporting the Shroud of Turin being the burial cloth of Jesus is overwhelming - and is supported in the NT Scriptures above.

Zero doubt in my mind the shroud is a medieval piece of art. Radiocarbon dating has proven this.

Doesn't matter to me either way though. Knowing the shroud isn't real has no bearing on Christs sacrifice.

Even without the radiocarbon dating from three independent labs it's a very weak case.

There is no mention of the shroud whatsoever until the 14th century and in its first mention it's labeled a forgery by the local bishop and notes that the artist was identified (this just so happens to exactly match the radiocarbon dating).

Ignoring that it's an image of a roughly 6ft tall, long straight haired gothic European Jesus who would have really stood out in first century Palestine. And he just so happens to be covering his private bits in a way totally consistent with art and inconsistent with what the arms of a dead guy would do (you need to hold your elbows off the ground to put your hands like that).

I get the desire to have physical evidence, but this ain't it. I don't really see why this would effect your belief in the resurrection one way or another

Aggrad08 said:

---

Even without the radiocarbon dating from three independent labs it's a very weak case.

There is no mention of the shroud whatsoever until the 14th century and in its first mention it's labeled a forgery by the local bishop and notes that the artist was identified (this just so happens to exactly match the radiocarbon dating).

Ignoring that it's an image of a roughly 6ft tall, long straight haired gothic European Jesus who would have really stood out in first century Palestine. And he just so happens to be covering his private bits in a way totally consistent with art and inconsistent with what the arms of a dead guy would do (you need to hold your elbows off the ground to put your hands like that).

I get the desire to have physical evidence, but this ain't it. I don't really see why this would effect your belief in the resurrection one way or another

---

Literally all of this is explained. It may not be the real Jesus burial cloth, but your arguments have all been thoroughly examined/debunked.

Isiah 53 says "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him"….

And according to archeological records first century Jewish men were on average 5'5". So a six foot Jesus would've been massive and stood out in the crowd at all times. Doesn't fit the prophecy IMO.

Also just by trusting my eyes the shroud looks like a muscular European man. Also it doesn't look like the imprint of a real body, not in the slightest, it's too "perfect" and just looks a drawing.

Just doesn't add up to me.

They really haven't

The Banned said:

---

The carbon dating was done poorly. Explained in the video. They only took samples from one part of the cloth that had already been identified as controversial by the UV/X-ray scans done. The agreement was to take small pieces from 6-7 separate parts of the cloth. The scientists made their own call when it came time.

---

I think a brief review of even the wiki on this shows this isn't the case:

Some proponents for the authenticity of the shroud have attempted to discount the radiocarbon dating result by claiming that the sample may represent a medieval "invisible" repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth] However, all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-c14.arch.ox.ac.uk-12][12][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-Radiocarbon_Dating_pg_167-168-7][7][/url] including the medieval repair hypothesis,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-R.A._Freer-Waters,_A.J.T._Jull_2010-8][8][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-freeinquiry1-9][9][/url] the bio-contamination hypothesis[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-Gove_1990-11][11][/url] and the carbon monoxide hypothesis.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-c14.arch.ox.ac.uk-12][12][/url]

If there is one you find particularly compelling with can explore it further.

Further they have had three decades in which they could have had another test done and elected not to knowing good and well it won't turn out well for them.

Quote:

---

A shroud was mentioned in the 14th century. Doesn't make it this shroud.

---

This is not a strong argument at all. The shroud has a well document history back to the 14th century. The original record is in the right time at the exact right place to be this shroud. So unless this town had lots of shrouds moving about this is the one.

Further, it's damning that there is no mention of this shroud for the first 1200 years of Christianity.

Quote:

---

The forger admitted to painting it. This cloth has no pigments of any kind. There is absolutely no way this can be a painting or drawing. So whatever that person forged, it wasn't this.

---

None of this is true and I don't know why you think it is.

Appendix-A-Numbered.indd (mccroneinstitute.org)

Quote:

---

Most height estimates are 5'9"-5'11". While taller than average, he wasn't a giant. For example, the Roman Empire had a minimum height requirement of 5'10" for a time and lowered it to 5'8". This isn't insanely abnormal.

---

The average height of a man at the time was 5'-5". Being 4-7" taller than everyone else is tall. There are multiple instances in the bible noting jesus was quite ordinary in appearance and had to be specifically identified to be able to be distinguished from the disciples.

Quote:

---

I don't know how you come up with him being European looking. Most of the people who have studied this in person say the face appears obviously swollen and bruised.

---

Lot's of things are wrong with the face. First, the eyes are way off. He doesn't have them middle of the head like an actual human. You can't explain this by beating as smashing 2-3" off someone's skull doesn't happen perfectly symmetrically and leads to instant death.

Long hair at the time is culturally inappropriate for a man as noted in the NT.

The dudes European, I don't know how you can't see it. Jesus would have looked something like this:




Notice how the eyes are where eyes go.

Quote:

---

As for the arms, that has been explained by rigor mortis. The Bible talks about how Joseph had to petition for Jesus's body. It doesn't give how many hours that took, but it's safe to say they didn't take him down the second he died and wrap him up. With his arms stiffening in a crucified position, straightening them back out would have been difficult/impossible.

---

This is a particularly bizarre argument. Are you getting this from someplace? It's silly from three points of view. Rigor mortis cannot hold you in a position that requires flexed muscles. The person is dead, it holds them in the position that gravity dictates. Riger mortis Starts a few hours after death and last about 8 hours max. How do you propose rigor mortis explains this?

Quote:

---

As you've said, this doesn't have to be His burial cloth for it all to be real, but this cloth is absolutely unexplainable by modern science.

---

This just isnt true. That this is medieval art is very obvious.