Nonsense!
First, X-rays were discovered, not invented!
Second, the image on the Shroud of Turin can be seen in an 1898 photograph by Secondo Pia, with no use of x-rays.
Posted on 08/21/2024 5:38:05 AM PDT by Gary from Dayton
Filmmaker David Rolfe was a self-professed atheist when he set out to make a documentary about one of the most revered religious artifacts in history - the Shroud of Turin.
With the 1978 movie, the photography expert set out to find a prosaic explanation as to how a blood-soaked imprint of a man matching Jesus Christ's description manifested onto the cloth relic.
Instead, he was so convinced of its authenticity he converted to Christianity
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Nonsense!
First, X-rays were discovered, not invented!
Second, the image on the Shroud of Turin can be seen in an 1898 photograph by Secondo Pia, with no use of x-rays.
That's a good point.
“It’s just another religious scam”
That nobody can prove is a scam. That is why it interest me.
While we may never know the real origins of the Shroud of Turin, all the analysis with the most modern methods haven’t demonstrated it to be a crude medieval fake or given any convincing explanation how the image was formed particularly with the technology of the reputed radio carbon dating of the 1300s.
Well what ever you do don’t try studying the face cloth too.
Seems they have many similar features yet took a much different path after their origins through history.
Real what? Really Jesus? Unless he comes back and claims it, that will never be proven.
Welcome to the Shroud of Turin Website - SCROLL DOWN FOR MENU
ὀθονίων othoniōn
and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the
linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.
ὀθονίων othoniōn linen cloth
noun, genitive, *plural*, neuter
CDWGTHB bandage; linen clothes
It doesn't preclude one of those "cloths" being a shroud that covered the whole body.
If you look up "Jewish burial customs second temple period," most sources seem to agree that there was a shroud, a "napkin" (Gr sudarion) covering the face, and linen bands (there's the "strips") with which the arms and legs were bound.
In the Army we had to have name tapes on all our shirts. Thats the only way I remembered everyone’s name for the 1st week.
And this is why I wrote, "The testimony of two Apostles is that they did not see a burial cloth."
To make that more clear...
The testimony of two Apostles does not specify a burial cloth.
The Lord works in mysterious ways!
You’re pretty miserly in your concession on the Pray Codex. C’mon now: the holes that exactly match burn holes on the shroud, the herringbone pattern of the cloth, Jesus nude when he was absolutely never portrayed in that way in art, hands over the privates, missing thumbs. It is literally unlike any other artistic representation of Christ down from the cross. I’ll propose the evidence that the codex depicts the shroud is true by clear and convincing evidence, I.e., “sufficiently strong to command the assent of every reasonable mind.” As I said before, my point is that the notion, repeated by another poster, that the shroud appeared out of nowhere in 1354 is simply false. Acknowledgement of its existence as depicted in the codex just before year 1200 also smokes the carbon-14 findings, since that’s well before the oldest date claimed in those findings
Me, I’ve read, I think, every major work on the shroud in English. I’m convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. As to others, I think an open-minded view of the entirety of the evidence is close to clear and convincing. At the very least, I could convince a jury in my sleep that the authenticity is supported by the preponderance of the evidence
It specifies (when translated correctly) more than one burial cloth. So what’s your point? More than one means there was (at least) one.
No specified shroud in the text.
That’s what we know.
Separate face cloth
That’s what we know from the text.
Believers claim that is the Sudarian of Oviedo, the provenance of which goes back at least 7 centuries before the Shroud's public appearance in France. To the extent technology offers, its blood and the pattern of their stains, matches that on the Shroud.
so how come one has proven it didn’t cover the body of the christ???
Seems the shroud wouldn’t have a face image if they had the face cloth on
Ruh roh, Shaggy. Scripture?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.