Jesus, in the Shroud of Turin is truly a revelation

WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE ^ | 3/12 | Wired

[OPS4]

Praise the Lord, The truth will prevail. Ops4

[weikel]

The shroud is a fake there were tons of hustlers selling fake religious relics in the 14th century.

[jboot]

Indeed they were selling fakes, but most if not all were obviously bogus and shoddy. The shroud is neither of these things. Until a method by which it could have been made is revealed, it is premature to dismiss it as a fake.

[VOA]

bump

[vrwinger]

Great post... If people would just accept that Jesus was indeed who He said He was through scripture, they would save themselves a lot of trouble.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.-- John 14:6

[weikel]

Radio Carbon dating dates it to the 1300s just coincidently a time when the 'phony relics' buisness was at its peak good enough to prove its a fake to me.

[Ff--150]

And...by THOSE STRIPES Mrs. 4CJ is healed!! Isn't He something else?:)

[Alberta's Child]

Seems odd to me that someone in the 13th century would create a shroud that was made in such a way that the most impressive aspects of it (the fact that the shroud is essentially a photographic negative) would not be discovered for another 600 years. The creator of a such an "artifact" would have nothing to gain by doing this.

[j.havenfarm]

Your argument is powerful and trenchant. You heard the man, folks. Move along, now. Nothing to see here. Go buy something.

[weikel]

Oh yes they would relics were worth a lot of money.

[Phantom Lord]

Many have argued that fire damage to the Shroud have rendered carbon dating to be useless in determining the Shrouds true age.

Do i personally think that the Shroud is truly the burial cloth of Jesus? No. Have I rejected the possibility that it truly is? No.

A concrete, irrefutable answer to the question of its authenticity or fraud is not possible at this time and may never be.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"The medical details of crucifixion are so complex that no modern artist has – and no medieval artist could have – duplicated the precise geometry of the body in extremis. "

Except for the fact that Leonardo da Vinci was a genius.

[Alberta's Child]

I think you missed my point.

If you look at the original shroud, you see the faint outline of a tall man with some distinguishable features. Let's assume that the guy who made such a thing would have been able to sell it for $500.

If you look at the negative of the shroud, you see amazing details about the position of the hands, the exact locations of the wounds, etc. (in other words, the shroud is actually the negative and the "negative" of the shroud is the real photograph). If someone in the 13th century truly had the ability to create such a thing, he would have been able to sell it for $500,000 instead of $500.

Logically, it seems that anyone with a profit motive would not have created the shroud as it was seen in the 13th century if he had the ability to create it as it was seen in the 20th century.

[Gargantua]

"...relics were worth a lot of money."

Yeah, as opposed to uninformed, crackpot opinions... which are worthless.

[weikel]

Some phony relics were indeed sold for bigh money I remember in " A Distant Mirror"( Barbara Tuchman) the King of France payed a helluva lot for a "piece of the true cross".

[massadvj]

If they could, they would get rid of all the physical evidence of Christianity – that Jesus lived, died and was buried. And then Christians would have nothing to believe in. Then, after two thousand years, Christians would finally die out.”

This is the most preposterous statement in the post. Who are "they?" Why, the science community, of course.

I have a Ph.D. in a science-related discipline, so I guess that qualifies me as a scientist. I must have missed the class on destruction of the physical evidence of Christianity, because I don't recall studying anything of the kind.

[weikel]

Its possible the radiocarbon dating is inaccurate but the fact that its dated to the 14th century when a lot of phony relics were made makes this a lot less likely.

[eastsider]

How, ask Shroud supporters, is it possible that a clever fake shroud could be made in the 1300s as a perfect photographic negative that would not be properly “seen” until modern photography was invented?

My personal thoughts concerning the shroud notwithstanding, I'm not particularly impressed with this argument. Conceivably, some observant artist in the 14th century could have noticed that if you stare at an object long enough and close your eyes, you "see" a negative of the image you were just observing.

[weikel]

Im not a dogmatic skeptic I can be "tinfoil" if I believe the evidence supports it. For instance I don't think the Todd Beamer passenger revolt happened I believe that plane was shot down.