What do you guys make of the so called “new evidence” on the Shroud of Turin, placing its date around the time of Christ? I am very skeptical. First off the face issue. The face looks like its very Europenized, not someone from the Semitic areas of that time. Also the face when the cloth is laid flat is not distorted. If you pealed off the map from a globe and laid it flat its distorted. Greenland is not as large as its shown on a flat map because of this distortion. Think of it this way, what would the face look like if you had a real body and skinned the face off and laid it flat on a table. Very distorted. This is not. It was painted or how ever it was made on the flat first. I would like to hear other opinions.
1 Like
The Shroud of Turin has been debunked many times. It seems that it was made in the 11th Century and–as Carl Sagan pointed out–it was also debunked in the 11th Century (as a pious fraud) by a savvy Roman Catholic priest.
It seems that it’s no different today, only we use Photoshop to create fake pornographic images of celebrities and politicians . . . and fake nudes of unwitting high school sudents to fuel bullying and nasty gossip.
The Shroud of Turin seems no different.
3 Likes
I did a quick Google search on it and looked at the sources for the reports that there is new evidence for its authenticity. I chuckled and went no further.
2 Likes
There are a ton of questions:
Were the researchers truly independent? Did they do this blind? Did they use a control? How do they rectify this against the previous studies?
After the earlier studies said the cloth dates from the 11th century, the church said they wouldn’t allow anyone else to have access to it. My money is on the researchers being predisposed to a conclusion that the church wanted - and the church knew it.
2 Likes
I am not aware of any such evidence, perhaps you’d be good enough to provide a link to it? I remain dubious otherwise, as the previous claims were debunked comprehensively.
The Catholic Herald seem unable to contain their hubris. Surely we cannot doubt the objective impartiality of the Vatican hierarchy?
In the event science establishes that this piece of cloth dates to 2000 years ago, it still gets a shrug of the shoulders, and a so fucking what…
1 Like
Well . . . if it really was the shroud of Jesus, then maybe we could recover his DNA.
And when human cloning becomes possible, I’m sure that you can see the implications.
1 Like
What would be comparing it to, in order to confirm it was Jesus’s DNA?
This is levity, and I missed it initially, sorry. Yes, instead of a statue of Jesus, every church with sufficient funds can have their very own Jesus, it would certainly make a nifty nativity scene, a real baby Jesus in it.
3 Likes
I wonder how disappointed the faithful would be, when confronted with a typical middle eastern baby Jesus? There are over 200 different Christian sects and denominations in the US alone, over 45k globally (ratty pay attention, this exposes why your narrow claim is a fallacious no true Scotsman), how many would accept a middle eastern baby Jesus in the flesh I wonder? Sometimes it is actually fun to speculate.
1 Like
Think of all the miracles that would be performed! We wouldn’t need any hospitals or doctors with so many Jesuses around.
2 Likes
The research would pay for itself, plus we can get a definitive divine opinion on what exactly a deity wants with us, they should get started on this right away…
1 Like
Where are we on this new evidence? I’d forgotten to be honest, but it’s time to change my bed linen…no stains on that I’m happy to say.
1 Like
I was kind of hoping someone who could do a bit of a deep dive and give us the basic just of the new evidence.
You mean someone else? Since you raised the topic, why don’t you do the heavy lifting.
1 Like
I am not qualified. that is above my pay grade
1 Like
You know how to use Google I imagine, get on with it.
1 Like
In case it hasn’t been mentioned earlier, the picture of the face was done from an outside POV, meaning someone was looking at a face or remembering a face and painting it on as he/she remembered it. The image does NOT coincide with a cloth wrapped around someone’s head.
1 Like
“What would be comparing it to, in order to confirm it was Jesus’s DNA?”
There are multiple foreskins of Jesus available (maybe the regrowth of its foreskin is his first miracle) Holy Prepuce - Wikipedia and there are also his diapers available, in the Aachen Cathedral
It is thus possible to compare these DNAs
The supposed new proof regards the origin of the line cloth that is compatible with palestine, something confirmed also by pollen analysis.
It is of course the most likely explanation that was a forgery from that area brought back by crusaders
I
I can give you a couple of hints to start you off …
Check out John 20:7 where Jesus’ shroud is described in detail…
it has a separate head and face covering. Unlike the one-piece shroud of Turin …which is famously one large piece of cloth.
There is archaeological evidence that this separate head and face covering has been found in other 1st century Jewish burial’s …
(Look up SUDARIUM)
If your up to it look up weave patterns for 1st century Jerusalem shrouds …
What is easier to believe, that the image of a man magically imprinted its self on his shroud, or that churches that are well known to fake holy relics to attract patronage and pilgrims faked it for fun and profit?
At some point it nearly burned in a fire and some dumb ass nearly qualified themselves for a Darwin Award by rescuing it.
2 Likes