[Flightdeck]

"Mark Guscin, of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, says: "The discovery of the stitching along with doubt about the carbon-dating all add to the mountain of evidence suggesting this was probably the shroud Jesus was buried in."

Well, that's quite a stretch. I'd like to believe that, but isn't it possible, nay likely, that a given shroud from a given time period was used to bury someone other than Jesus?

[The G Man]

I was going to copy and paste the exact same quote. A pretty over the top statement by that guy.

[NYer]

Well, that's quite a stretch. I'd like to believe that, but isn't it possible, nay likely, that a given shroud from a given time period was used to bury someone other than Jesus?

As far as anyone knows, Jesus was the only victim of crucifixion that wore a crown of thorns and had his side pierced. These wounds are clearly visible on the shroud.

Check the links provided.

[plain talk]

Well, that's quite a stretch. I'd like to believe that, but isn't it possible, nay likely, that a given shroud from a given time period was used to bury someone other than Jesus?

I thought of the same thing. I'm not sure there's a "mountain of evidence" that it is Jesus' burial cloth. However, if the time period and location can be validated as 1st century Palestine/Israel area, the fact that the image process is so mysterious and unexplainable makes the theory that it is Jesus' burial cloth a plausible theory. Of course, if one just believes Jesus was just another man crucified (and not the son of God), then this would not be near enough evidence.

[EAGLE7]

Yes it's possible. However, the wounds seen on the figure in the shroud are consistent with the Gospel accounts of the wounds inflicted on Jesus, such as the spear wound on His side.

[the OlLine Rebel]

This is my biggest doubt, if you will. I think it's entirely possible the shroud is from the region and time-period of Jesus, but maybe not actually Jesus.

It seems silly to me that every1 - faithful and cynics - seems to base its legitimacy purely on its age. Cynics are desparate to point out it's not that old, while faithful are desparate to find it IS that old. As if that's the only pointer to it being the shroud of Christ.

As it is, I'm open to the possibility.

[cyncooper]

Well, that's quite a stretch. I'd like to believe that, but isn't it possible, nay likely, that a given shroud from a given time period was used to bury someone other than Jesus?

The significance of the stitching is placing it at the time of Jesus. But there is an image on the cloth that is seemingly miraculous and that would be the indication it was not used to bury someone else.

Despite the professor's assertion that we could all make our own shrouds of Turin, why hasn't one other example of such an image on a cloth turned up? Why hasn't yon professor done an experiment proving his theory? Until someone demonstrates how the image was transferred and that it is a natural phenomenon they cannot state how it came to be.

Personally I do believe the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Christ. Especially since I learned last year of the head cloth that has been kept in Spain all of these years.

[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.

[AnalogReigns]

The image on the shroud is of a brutally beaten, scourged, crucified and spear-pierced man. Crucifixion was outlawed early on (3 or 400s? AD) in all Christian countries (no matter how brutal they still were) due to its special meaning for Christians.

I don't know if there was any place on earth--available to 13th Century Europe--that still had crucifixion.

Besides that, no one has been able to figure out, let alone reproduce such an image on cloth.

Carbon 14 dating, especially for (relatively recent) pieces of cloth, is notoriously inaccurate too... For example, wrappings of mummies--known for certain to be 3000 years old--have come up indicating just a few hundred years old. The sample and technique for testing the Shroud in 1988 were seriously flawed.

There are hundreds of other pieces of scientific evidence that point to a first half of the first century crucified man.

[Aquinasfan]

Well, that's quite a stretch. I'd like to believe that, but isn't it possible, nay likely, that a given shroud from a given time period was used to bury someone other than Jesus?

Of course. But a crucifixion victim whose image wasn't painted on but was scorched into the cloth in proportion to the cloth's distance from the body's surface?

[mtg]

You can't convince me there were dinosaurs either. All the proof we have are some bones.

[presidio9]

Who was crucified, poked in the side with a spear, and had thorns on his head? And why would people save something like that? Without the negative image, it does not look like much of anything.