Replies

Historically, the Shroud of Turin is one of some forty reputed burial cloths of Jesus, although it is the only one to bear the apparent imprints and bloodstains of a crucified man. Religious critics have long noted that the Turin shroud is incompatible with the bible, which describes multiple burial wrappings, including a separate “napkin” that covered Jesus’ face (John 20:5–7).

The Turin cloth first appeared in north-central France in the mid-fourteenth century. At that time the local bishop uncovered an artist who confessed he had “cunningly painted” the image. Subsequently, in 1389, Pope Clement VII officially declared the shroud to be only a painted “representation.”

Years later, this finding was conveniently forgotten by the granddaughter of the original owner. She sold it to the House of Savoy, which later became the Italian monarchy. Eventually the cloth was transferred to Turin. In 1983 Italy’s exiled king died, bequeathing the shroud to the Vatican.

The shroud’s modern history has confirmed the assessment of the skeptical bishop and Pope Clement. Forensic tests of the “blood” — which has remained suspiciously bright red — were consistently negative, and in 1980 renowned microanalyst Walter C. McCrone determined that the image was composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.

Finally in 1988 the cloth was radiocarbon dated by three independent labs using accelerator mass spectrometry. The resulting age span of circa 1260–1390 was given added credibility by correct dates obtained from a variety of control swatches, including Cleopatra’s mummy wrapping.

These findings are mutually supportive. The tempera paint indicates the image is the work of an artist, which in turn is supported by the bishop’s claim that an artist confessed, as well as by the prior lack of historical record. The radiocarbon date is consistent with the time of the reported artist’s confession. And so on.

http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html

One of the more compelling pieces of evidence about the Shroud is the physiological aspect of the "hand" wounds. If you look at any paintings of the crucifixion of Christ, you'll notice that almost all of them show the nails driven through the palms of His hands.

The image on the Shroud, however, clearly shows that the "hand" wounds are actually in the wrists. It would be physically impossible for a nail driven through a himan hand to bear the weight of a person's body, so when a person was crucified the nails were driven through the wrists between the two bones in the forearm (the radius and the ulna).

If someone in the 12th or 13th century were intent on deceiving the public with a fraudulent burial shroud, then why would he include a detail like this that conflicted with almost every accepted depiction of the event in question?

Religious critics have long noted that the Turin shroud is incompatible with the bible, which describes multiple burial wrappings, including a separate “napkin” that covered Jesus’ face (John 20:5–7).

John 20
1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.
2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"
3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb.
4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.
5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.
6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,
7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.
8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.
9(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

Question: What did they see and what did they believe?

Wouldn't they have naturally assumed that someone stole the body, or that it had been moved, as Mary Magdalene suggested?

Read it again:

6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,
7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.
8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.

Would this reaction conform to the disciple seeing an image on the Shroud?

Shroud of Turin Looking More Genuine, Researcher Contends.

Excerpt:

His announcement came in the wake of a Spanish TV report Wednesday on new research which shows that another shroud, venerated for 1,000 years in the Cathedral of Oviedo, Spain, is probably the cloth that covered Christ´s head after his crucifixion.

SNIP

Meanwhile, TV station "Antena 3" said that other research indicates that the relic in Oviedo, in northwest Spain, also has amazing points of coincidence with the Shroud of Turin.

For 12 years a multidisciplinary team of 40 scientists applied modern techniques, used in criminal investigations, on the Oviedo relic. The forensic experts discovered human bloodstains of the AB group, identical to those on the Shroud of Turin.