FRESH CLUE SHOWS TURIN SHROUD MAY BE GENUINE BURIAL CLOTH OF CHRIST

The Mirror ^ | April 2, 2004 | David Edwards

[Preachin']

Sadly, many people trust more in the authenticity of the shroud, than in Christ Himself.

[cyncooper]

You may be interested in the link I posted at #64.

Excerpt:

3: Coincidence with the Shroud

The sudarium alone has revealed sufficient information to suggest that it was in contact with the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. However, the really fascinating evidence comes to light when this cloth is compared to the Shroud of Turin.

The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.

The length of the nose through which the pleural oedema fluid came onto the sudarium has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches. This is exactly the same length as the nose on the image of the Shroud.

If the face of the image on the Shroud is placed over the stains on the sudarium, perhaps the most obvious coincidence is the exact fit of the stains with the beard on the face. As the sudarium was used to clean the man's face, it appears that it was simply placed on the face to absorb all the blood, but not used in any kind of wiping movement.

A small stain is also visible proceeding from the right hand side of the man's mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the Shroud, but Dr. John Jackson, using the VP-8 and photo enhancements has confirmed its presence.

The thorn wounds on the nape of the neck also coincide perfectly with the bloodstains on the Shroud.

Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud.

~snip~

[justshutupandtakeit]

His conclusion was not based upon the one or two things he mentioned but also on what he considered "the mountain of evidence suggesting ..." You may consider that mountain to be a molehill.

[Alberta's Child]

If the shroud really got it's image by resting on a round head, when laid flat the image on the cloth would be distorted right?

Not exactly. Think of it this way -- if the image was caused by some kind of radiological phenomenon associated with a "resurrection" process, then the influence of round objects on flat surfaces would be diminished -- because a burst of radiation (or something similar) would emanate outwards and impact anything in its path. This, I suspect, is why some parts of the image are darker (in the original) or lighter (in the negative that you see at the top of this thread) -- the image is "strongest" in places where the cloth would have been in direct contact with the body (the tip of the nose, the eyebrows, and the chin, for example) and "weakest" at the points where there would have been some physical separation between the cloth and the body.

[justshutupandtakeit]

See #83.

[Matchett-PI]

"Until something uncontrovertable comes along, I will remain firmly on the side of those that say its the longest running hoax in history."

Grifters (in religion and politics) know that to the superstitious, emotion-driven mentalities (always in the majority in any population), imagination, and wishful thinking will always overide reality.

For merely one instance - if all the pieces of "the cross" which have been sold to such people were assembled, it would be gigantic.

But such mentalities will refuse to believe it when they're told to "follow the money" if they *reeeeally* want to know the real truth about anything (which they don't).

It is a waste of time to attempt to *reason* people out of opinions that they haven't first reasoned themselves into.

[mlmr]

Besides the fact that DNA from 100 years apart of indirect relatives is a shot in the dark (to wit: that Jefferson nonsense), Jesus was not actually the biological son of Joseph (and hence David). He may only have been the bio son of Mary, whose lineage is, of course being a woman, ignored. In any case, being the actual Son of God, it's possible there is no real DNA to go on, anyway.

I take it you are not a biblical scholar. Judism is passed through the mother's line.

[Badeye]

I don't offer any theory regarding this. Nobody can say for sure one way or the other....as someone noted earlier, its a matter of "faith".

Until someone can in fact prove one way or the other, I'll remain a skeptic. Again, I'm not attacking anyone that believes The Shroud story. More power to them. I'm just not one of them.

[mtbopfuyn]

I was speaking about your claim that no one knew about photography earlier, not about the shroud.

[In_25_words_or_less]

HA! And some claim the Word of God has not been changed one iota in all these years.

It hasn't. You've been bamboozled by Westcott and Hort.

[WVNan]

My problem with sceptics is the fact that they have rarely read the complete library of evidence. It is frustrating to try and convince someone of something of which they know nothing. I don't know anyone who "worships" the Shroud. But I do think that it's important in the fact that it has given us our only true image of what our Lord looked like. The images painted of Christ by those who had never seen the Shroud (established by timing & history) were completely different from images painted by those who had access to the Shroud (Constantinople). Our images of Christ as having the common points listed above are fairly accurate.

One point where most get it wrong is the hair. Interestingly, the image on the Shroud shows a "pigtail" down the back of the man. From studying the image it appears that the hair was remarkably the same as Orthodox Jewish men still wear. Orthodox religious people tend to change very little over time.

Again, I tell everyone who is sceptic to read "The Blood & The Shroud" by Ian Wilson, then come back and argue your point.

[ICE-FLYER]

If it was the face of Christ on the cloth you would not be able to tell what He looked like. The scripture was clear that His face was so severly beaten that you could not tell who He was.

So much for the theory. I come down on the side of hoax. Its no more holy than my bed sheets.

[Badeye]

Can't dispute your observations, we've both seen that kind of thing before.

But I won't attribute that to everybody that truly "believes" in The Shroud. And I'm not trying to dissuade anyone of their beliefs.

Just noting I'm highly skeptical of anything created by man as it relates to religious worship. Too many Tammy Faye's out there, ya know?

[justshutupandtakeit]

But the real point is that this image was not visible in any detail until seen as a photographic negative. Thus, no one could have painted it since they couldn't see what they were doing.

[RobbyS]

The Shroud is a proven fake - the kind of quackery that does harm to Christianity. You go beyond your evidence, which allows you a reasonable doubt but not the certainty you assert. First someone has to be able to duplicate the result.

[Khurkris]

Sudarium links, fascinating.

[Campion]

As for how it could be created today ? - perhaps the answer would be to use the paints available at the time

The image on the shroud isn't painted on. The scientific analysis shows that it's scorched into the linen.

[Khurkris]

read 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail', that path has been followed.

[trad_anglican]

Point #1: If someone in the 12th century was intent on making a realistic forgery of Christ's burial shroud, then why would he depict the crucifixion in a manner that did not match the prevailing view of how the crucifixion occurred?

Point #2: I find it extremely unlikely that a forger in the Middle Ages would have known such minute detail about human anatomy that he would have been able to replicate the results of this reflexive action.

The answer to both of these is the same. He would not have to have known or even thought about these, assuming a real crucified body was used to make the image. All the analysis of the image points conclusively to the fact that the person on the Shroud was crucified. If the forger (assuming there was one) used a crucified body to make the image, and knew how the Romans had done it, then he wouldn't have had to have any intimate medical knowledge about what it does and nerve reactions, etc.

The iconography issue is a legitimate one, though.

That leaves the question of the image formation itself. There is only so long that you can support the theory that a medieval forger can fool modern science. At some point that theory becomes more untenable than the authenticity theory. It seems to me that day is approaching.

[cyncooper]

I was speaking about your claim that no one knew about photography earlier, not about the shroud.

My claim?

You are referring to another poster.