Sorry, the Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax

http://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/02/24/sorry-the-shroud-of-turin-is-definitely-a-hoax ^ | Spencer Alexander McDaniel

[annalex]

[...]

Conclusion

So, here’s the evidence I have presented for why the Shroud of Turin is clearly a hoax:

• The forger who made the Shroud of Turin confessed and the earliest definitive mention of the shroud in any historical source is a record of his confession.
• The Shroud of Turin doesn’t match the kinds of funerary wrappings used in Judaea in the time of Jesus or the description of Jesus’s own funerary wrappings given in the Gospel of John.
• The linen of the Shroud of Turin has been securely dated using radiocarbon dating to between c. 1260 and c. 1390 AD—well over a millennium after Jesus’s death.
• The figure on the Shroud of Turin does not have anatomically correct proportions and much more closely resembles figures in fourteenth-century Gothic art than a real human being.
• The bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are not consistent with how blood actually flows naturally and they instead appear to have been painted on.
• The fabric of the Shroud of Turin is made with a kind of weave that is known to have been commonly used during the Late Middle Ages, but does not seem to have been used for burial shrouds in Judaea in the first century AD.

All the evidence points to the inexorable conclusion that the Shroud of Turin is a late medieval hoax.

The fact that the Shroud of Turin is a hoax doesn’t make it any less interesting as a historical artifact; it may be a hoax, but it is still an extremely famous hoax that is probably around seven hundred years old and that can reveal a lot about the nature of religious hoaxes in late medieval France. The Shroud of Turin is worth studying, then, not as an authentic ancient relic, but rather as an authentic medieval religious artifact.

[...]

[Osage Orange]

Doesn’t change anything...I believe.

[BereanBrain]

I am not convinced either way about the shroud, BUT it is a FACT that carbon dating is not accurate enough for the job, and of course, being in a fire would deposit a lot of foreign carbon on any textile.

So, you have to throw out carbon dating....anything < 10,000 years old carbon dating is NOT good for anyway...but if you read, you will see it consistently used to measure < 10,000 years. It is most always used to “confirm” a date....So, it’s biased science, not real science.

In the cases where sample of <10,000 year old known organic source have been sent to many labs, and the the results compared, results varied all over the place. In fact, usually radiocarbon dating is presented with only1 standard deviation, since you can sample the same material 10 times and get 10 different results.

When working with < 10,000 years, the amounts are so minuscule that any contamination swamps the signal of C14. it’s an unfortunate fact, but its true :(

[babble-on]

That was actually the most helpful post on the whole thread.

[100American]

I disagree with what is posted and I do so from my own research. To others I say it does not become the foundation of my faith but an artifact that exists from his Death and the means by which the image exists upon the cloth defies any attempts to recreate it.

From what I have found the probable way the image was made is by his body turning into pure light. Note that in all of the descriptions in scripture the burial shroud and other elements were there on the platform which he lay. Guards were placed at the entrance to prevent theft of his body to be used by followers to stir unrest.

Opinions vary like the winds but I in my heart feel that this is a remnant of the resurrection. My faith was founded long before I knew of it’s existence, all doubting Thomases aside

Choose

But do so wisely, it is for eternity

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Click bait.

[Future Snake Eater]

I’m aware. Usually the dopes who try to debunk it hang all their hopes and dreams on the carbon dating fiasco. That’s a big mistake, but they don’t know enough to know better.

[ealgeone]

...if someone depends upon an artifact for their faith, then their faith is not at all strong.

I think you've about captured it right there.

I am Jewish, so I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus (or any other human being)…

There's still hope for you, brother or sister! :)

[rx]

Yes, the article is filled with unscholarly nonsense.

Download these Authentic Shroud of Turin research results:

[SkyDancer]

I tried posting on that website but it wouldn’t do it, said I was a bot whatever that is.

[MeganC]

This is easy: Prove it is a hoax by faithfully reproducing it.

Simple.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Church has long held that the Shroud is an aid to devout veneration, in bringing Our Crucified Lord graphically to our minds --- whether it is an authentic relic or an artist's depiction.

I stand by this point of view.

In the Fall of 1933 the Shroud was publicly displayed in the Cathedral of Turin. One of the people who saw it was Hans Scholl, a 15-year-old German vacationing in Italy. His bio says that Scholl was deeply moved by this "real icon" of Christ and the evidence of His grievous death for the salvation of the world.

Scholl returned to Germany, quit the Hitler Youth to which he had briefly belonged, and within 10 years died a martyr's death as the leader of the anti-Hitler Resistance student group, "White Rose". He, his sister Sophie, and their fellow anti-Nazi "conspirators" were beheaded in Munich's Stedelheim Prison in 1943.

I don't say the Shroud "caused" his heroism. The enlightenment of souls in a mystery in the hands of God. But I would say that anything God uses that stirs the heart, strengthens the Faith, and turns a person away from the path of evil and death, is--- well, a good thing. A very good thing.

Amen?

`

Hans and Sophie Scholl, and Christoph Probst
"The White Rose"

[chesley]

Doesn't even matter. My faith, and that of those who think as I do, does not depend in any shape, form, or fashion to the authenticity or not of the Shroud. Jesus rose from the dead, and even if the Shroud was His burial shroud, it has no theological or doctrinal significance.

[kaehurowing]

There’s a YouTube of an interview of the “forger” and Mikey Weinstein on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow. [/sarc]

[MHGinTN]

Regarding the ‘3 dimensions’ reference: I recall reading a report done on the ‘angle of defraction’ of light which might have produced the negative on the cloth. The sum of all angles where imprinting occurred points to a single point inside the cloth for both front and back images on the cloth.

[IronJack]

Both of those are available in the gift shop. Stop in as you exit the display hall.

[aimhigh]

The figure on the Shroud of Turin does not have anatomically correct proportions

Years ago, I read a medical journal article written by a doctor experienced in autopsies. The shroud is anatomically correct.

[The Great RJ]

Perhaps the Shroud is a Medieval forgery, but detailed photographic and spectrographic studies in the 1990s failed to show evidence that the image was painted. There were many “holy relics” during the period and those that survive are easy to detect fakes using modern analysis. Even a clever forger in the 1350s would have had to go to painstaking lengths to create the image on the shroud and what we know of the knowledge and technology of the day such an image might well have been very difficult if not impossible to create. It also begs the question as to why would a forger have gone to such lengths in creating the shroud when far lesser efforts would have been more than sufficient to be believed at the time. The confession by the supposed forger while interesting may have been done for political reasons perhaps like a 14th century Steele dossier. The Medieval forgery theory would be totally convincing if it could be demonstrated how such an image could be created with the technology of the 14fh century

[MHGinTN]

Interesting; thanks for posting the story. So many of these stories that an old man has never heard of ...

[DoodleBob]

Honest to goodness, it is as if Mr Spencer intentionally sought out all of the debunked anti-Shroud shroud arguments and held them up as prima facie evidence. Here is an analogy for how bad is this dude's article:

So, here’s the evidence I have presented for why Paul is clearly Dead:

Billy Shears confessed, and the earliest definitive mention that Paul is Dead in any historical source is a record of his confession.

Paul is barefoot and walking out of step on the cover of Abbey Road. George as the grave digger, John as the Preacher, and Ringo the mortician match the kinds of funerary people used in London in the time of Paul or the description of Paul's own funerary wrappings given in the Ballad of John and Yoko.

The "28 IF" license plate on the VW on Abby Road has been securely dated using radiocarbon dating to between c. 1960-1969 AD—well within the time of Paul's death.

The figure on the Rooftop Concert does not have anatomically correct proportions nor are its movements groovy, and they are much more closely resembles figures in a 1950s do-wop band than a real human being.

The bloodstains on the Butcher Block cover are not consistent with how blood actually flows naturally and they instead appear to have been painted on.

The fabric of Paul's Sgt Pepper OPD patch is made with a kind of weave that is known to have been commonly used in London for people Offically Pronounced Dead, and does seem to have been used for other patches in London in the 20th century AD.

All the evidence points to the inexorable conclusion that Paul is Dead.

[MHGinTN]

The ‘decretals of Isadore come to mind.