Turin Shroud (Jesus Christ) is it a fake?
By Makro74
@Makro74 (591)
February 15, 2010 8:43pm CST
The turin Shroud is a miracle of existence - it has been thought to the linen shroud in which Jesus Christ was wrapped in when taking down from the cross.
However, in 1988, carbon dating proved it to be from 1260 to 1450. This, according to the scientific world that the shroud indeed was a fake, or was it? Until recently this was indeed the conclusion, but many deteremined individuals could believe this to be the case.
Roy Rogers, one of the scientist who did the original carbon testing was adament that the science proves it was a fake. Then, further test of the piece of cloth examined saw cotton and other pigments in the material which led him to believe that this was not part of the original cloth. Further analysis, with ultra-violet and examining the woven threads, showed it to be different in nature to the original linen, therefore casting doubts on the original carbon dating test.
Two questions are raised. All the evidence in the image of the cross point to an image of a man crucified and the image also shows biblical accounts of Jesus crucifixion. With this evidence could this be the face of Jesus? In medieval times, as the carbon testing proved, how can anybody have the slightest ability to produce such an image?
Also, and crucially, the Church gave permission for the Turin to be cut for the first test, but won't allow for a second, the first being a 'bad' sample? What has the Church to hide by allowing this to happen? And if it is a fake, why cannot it moved to a Museum?
2 people like this
7 responses
@urbandekay (18278)
•
28 Feb 10
"However, in 1988, carbon dating proved it to be from 1260 to 1450."
The carbon dating was carried out on fragments taken from the edge of the shroud, which having been handled extensively in the 13th to 15th centuries was more likely dating contamination from that period.
No dating has been attempted from the the middle of the fabric.
What is perhaps more interesting is there is another cloth in existence of the type typically wrapped around only the head at the time of Jesus. That cloth has been dated by a number of means to accord with that time and undoubtably shows the signs that it was wrapped around the head of someone who's head was lacerated. Historians record that it was not the normal practice to lacerate the head of the crucified. There is, however, one notable exception.
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@TheMetallion (1834)
• United States
16 Feb 10
Can you cite a reference to your claim about the Carbon dating being called into question? Walter McCrone, who analyzed the fibers the Church permitted to be exampled, concluded that the image is composed of red ochre and vermillion tempera. (myLot doesn't let me paste yet, but the reference to his peer-reviewed publication is in the Wikipedia entry on the shroud.)
@ronaldinu (12422)
• Malta
17 Feb 10
I think that the data gathered till now seems to be inconclusive. My opinion is that if its bringing people closer to God that there is no harm in letting the Turin shroud be exposed for the public. I do believe that my faith should not be moved or changed cos of this Turin shroud. But there might be people who move closer to God through it.
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
22 Mar 10
Christianity does not stand or fall with the Shroud of Turin. So it is best that skeptics as well as believers do not fight over this. There are some other issues that can generate discussion to determine the validity of Christian religion. For me one parameter is whose belief system contributes more to the welfare of the people? Whether it's Islam or atheism or Buddhism or Hinduism or Christianity or something of that sort. It may be difficult to give a knock down argument as we do not have complete data but I think one can discuss over it.
@Pose123 (21635)
• Canada
17 Feb 10
Hi Makro, I don't know but I suspect it probably is a fake. In any case I don't think that it really matters much. I don't believe that it should be destroyed though because no doubt, many do believe it is real, and it makes for interesting conversation sometimes. Why not put it in a museum, more people could see it then, maybe it should even be moved around and displayed at many museums. Blessings.
@syaryel (155)
• Malaysia
16 Feb 10
with due respect and no prejudice,
I honestly think its a fake..logically speaking if the Roman badly wanna kill Jesus, that shroud shouldn't be there in the 1st place..say, somebody else had the actual one, with the technology and know how at that time its virtually impossible to preserve the relic...
science already pointed out the fact...its a big pill indeed, yet had to be taken~if you know what I mean..in short, its just another hoax...
I do respect Christianity...but corruption plague our history..
@sudiptacallingu (10879)
• India
18 Feb 10
I really don’t know! Being a non-Christian, my interest in this is purely from a historical and scientific point. I’ve read a lot on this shroud from the net but nothing is conclusive. As we know, the shroud was supposed to be badly damaged by fire so maybe the present one was stitched onto the original one to strengthen and protect it but even then, how come the present one too has the same imprints of a man? Maybe a very clever forgery…maybe not. We really don’t know how advance technology was in those days…so many things yet to be unraveled…maybe they knew methods of preserving linen for long years.
