Summary argument of why the Turin Shroud is authentic

[otseng]

From the thread How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant? ...

Synopsis of argument the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ:

What is the Shroud of Turin?

The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man.

https://www.shroud.com/

Shroud of Turin, also called Holy Shroud, Italian Santa Sindone, a length of linen that for centuries was purported to be the burial garment of Jesus Christ. It has been preserved since 1578 in the royal chapel of the cathedral of San Giovanni Battista in Turin, Italy. Measuring 4.3 metres (14 feet 3 inches) long and 1.1 metres (3 feet 7 inches) wide, it seems to portray two faint brownish images, those of the back and front of a gaunt, sunken-eyed, 5-foot 7-inch man—as if a body had been laid lengthwise along one half of the shroud while the other half had been doubled over the head to cover the whole front of the body from face to feet. The images contain markings that allegedly correspond to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus, including thorn marks on the head, lacerations (as if from flogging) on the back, bruises on the shoulders, and various stains of what is presumed to be blood

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shroud-of-Turin

Summary of arguments on the Shroud of Turin

There's two main views on the shroud:
A) It's a medieval fake that was produced by some artist
B) It's the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth

Arguments against position A:

1. It is not artwork.

a. This is the conclusion of the 1978 STURP team.

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image.

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin.

https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm

b. Silence from art community on the TS

viewtopic.php?p=1106931#p1106931

c. Silence in art journals on the TS

viewtopic.php?p=1108361#p1108361

d. Testimony from Wesselow and Tite that it is not artwork

viewtopic.php?p=1107626#p1107626

viewtopic.php?p=1108258#p1108258

2. Top arguments for fake position are dubious.

a. C-14 dating

viewtopic.php?p=1114068#p1114068

b. d'Arcis memo

viewtopic.php?p=1110516#p1110516

c. McCrone and paint particles

viewtopic.php?p=1118417#p1118417

d. Borrini and Garlaschelli

viewtopic.php?p=1117907#p1117907

viewtopic.php?p=1117908#p1117908

3. There are no viable naturalistic explanations for the origin of the image dispite several attempts.

a. Luigi Garlaschelli

viewtopic.php?p=1107921#p1107921

b. Joe Nickell

viewtopic.php?p=1113694#p1113694

Arguments refuting position A and supporting position B:

1. It is the most scientifically studied artifact.

viewtopic.php?p=1106931#p1106931

2. Features of the shroud predate the invention of scientific technologies by hundreds of years.

a. Photography

viewtopic.php?p=1104936#p1104936

b. 3-D imaging

viewtopic.php?p=1106347#p1106347

c. X-ray

viewtopic.php?p=1105542#p1105542

d. UV imaging

viewtopic.php?p=1115523#p1115523

viewtopic.php?p=1118525#p1118525

3. Image and blood have features we cannot fully explain.

a. Image only on topmost fibers

viewtopic.php?p=1105228#p1105228

b. Blood is still red

viewtopic.php?p=1105590#p1105590

4. Features of the shroud predate the use of art techniques by hundreds of years.

a. Halftone

viewtopic.php?p=1106542#p1106542

b. Airbrush

viewtopic.php?p=1106604#p1106604

c. Hyperrealism

viewtopic.php?p=1106892

5. Image is medically accurate.

viewtopic.php?p=1106892

6. Features depicted are contrary to artwork and instead depict how it should have actually happened.

a. Scourging

viewtopic.php?p=1116515#p1116515

b. Nail through wrist

viewtopic.php?p=1105368#p1105368

c. Crown of thorns

viewtopic.php?p=1116603#p1116603

d. No body image under blood

viewtopic.php?p=1105790#p1105790

e. Rigor mortis

viewtopic.php?p=1107205#p1107205

7. Image formation is not based on what we visually would see, but on how the cloth would be affected by the imaging mechanism. On the first order, things are depicted correctly, but on the second order, we see things missing as well as distortions.

viewtopic.php?p=1107092#p1107092

8. Blood and image patterns precisely match the gospel accounts and uniqely points to Jesus of Nazareth.

viewtopic.php?p=1119259#p1119259

9. There are additional details on the TS that are not present in the gospel accounts.

a. Dislocated shoulder

viewtopic.php?p=1105467#p1105467

b. Whip marks

viewtopic.php?p=1119062#p1119062

c. Shoulder abrasions

viewtopic.php?p=1117201#p1117201

d. Herringbone weave

viewtopic.php?p=1119994#p1119994

10. Features of the shroud point to 1st century Jerusalem origin.

a. Vanillin test

viewtopic.php?p=1113484#p1113484

b. Dimensions of cloth match Assyrian cubit

viewtopic.php?p=1119548#p1119548

c. Side strip seam matches Masada seam

viewtopic.php?p=1119872#p1119872

d. Banding not seen in medieval weaving, but in ancient weaving

viewtopic.php?p=1120100#p1120100

e. Calcium particles on the feet area matching Jerusalem

viewtopic.php?p=1120231#p1120231

f. Wide Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) points to first century

viewtopic.php?p=1120354#p1120354

g. DNA analysis has more people touching the shroud from Middle East than Europe

viewtopic.php?p=1120453#p1120453

viewtopic.php?p=1120776#p1120776

The preponderence of scientific evidence of the shroud as noted above points to the authenticity of the shroud as the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. However, the argument above does not claim anything miraculous occurred or that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. It is through studying the body image we can conclude the body image was a result of something outside of current science.

Summary of top body imaging theories

The imaging theories can be broadly grouped into naturalistic explanations (NE) and non-naturalistic/supernatural explanations (SE).

Naturalistic explanations can be subdivided into a work of an artist (NE-art) or something that would happen naturally without any involvement of an artist (NE-nature).

NE-art would involve things like painting, scorch, dye, rubbing, photograph, and bas-relief. This is the least likely since this was the conclusion of the 1978 STURP investigation:
viewtopic.php?p=1124026#p1124026

I've also argued there is virtual silence from the art community on the TS. Yet, the TS is the most scientifically studied artifact in human history. So, it makes no sense the TS is a work of art.

I've spent time on the bas-relief in several posts arguing it is not viable:
viewtopic.php?p=1113694#p1113694
viewtopic.php?p=1124310#p1124310
viewtopic.php?p=1124427#p1124427

I've also addressed the proto-photograph method:
viewtopic.php?p=1124231#p1124231

The top NE-nature explanation is the Maillard reaction, proposed by Ray Rogers. I've addressed that at:
viewtopic.php?p=1124081#p1124081

Three top SE explanations are corona/electrostatic discharge, neutron emission, and cloth collapse.

I've addressed the corona/electrostatic discharge:
viewtopic.php?p=1124174#p1124174

and the neutron emission:
viewtopic.php?p=1124551#p1124551

I presented the cloth collapse here:
viewtopic.php?p=1123740#p1123740

There are actually more theories than what I've presented, but most all the others are variations on the ones above.

There is no theory that fully explains all the features of the body image, but the one that explains the most is Jackson's cloth collapse theory.

viewtopic.php?p=1125096#p1125096

Therefore Jackson's cloth collapse theory involving the body dematerializing best explains the body image compared to all other imaging theories.

Blood stain theories

No viable artistic method has been proposed to account for the blood stains and there has been no attempt to replicate all the blood markings. So, at this time, really the only viable explanation for the blood on the shroud is the actual burial of Jesus.

viewtopic.php?p=1125806#p1125806

Dematerialization and resurrection

So, what could've caused Jesus to dematerialize? We have no naturalistic scenarios to explain this. It would be a miracle. It is not a proof of Jesus' resurrection, but it would be a rational conclusion given all the evidence from the shroud.

The obvious point of weakness in the design argument from the Shroud is
that our evidence that weak dematerialization was the mechanism by which the
Shroud was formed, while impressive, is not conclusive. However, the conjecture
that a very powerful intelligence would be responsible for such an extraordinary
event seems highly plausible.

The design argument from the
Shroud, however, on the Jackson-Trenn theory, shows that some intelligent,
purposive, and very powerful agent has acted in a specific event in comparatively
recent history.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/wiebe.pdf

So, what we have with the Shroud of Turin is verifiable evidence that supports the claim of the resurrection of Jesus.

On this theory, the Shroud offers evidence for two of the three crucial elements
implied by the claim that a Resurrection took place. This is an important
achievement, for two centuries of biblical criticism, much of it directed against the
Resurrection, in conjunction with increased standards of evidence as science has
been incorporated into all forms of critical thinking, have undermined confidence
both inside and outside the Church that the Resurrection ever occurred.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/wiebe.pdf

What is also interesting is Jesus said his resurrection would be the only evidence he would provide that he is the Messiah.

When asked by the Pharisees to show that he is from God, Jesus replied with the sign of Jonah.

[Mat 12:38-40 NIV] Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you." 39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

He also had said he would rebuild the temple in 3 days.

[Jhn 2:18-19 NIV] 18 The Jews then responded to him, "What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

Both of these are references to him being resurrected after three days.

This evidence was not only for the Jews of the first century. It is evidence for us today as well. We have the actual shroud of Jesus in our hands today that testifies to Jesus being the Messiah.

viewtopic.php?p=1125229#p1125229

[otseng]

So, given the claim that the TS is evidence of Jesus "being the messiah", if we accept the claim, it is still neither evidence of supernaturalism nor is it evidence of the world being saved, although if that was all there was to the world getting saved, then the world is saved by the messiah not only dying but also resurrecting. That is all that is required.

The most viable explanation on the table for the TS is a non-naturalistic causation. The only other thing you have proposed is some unknown advanced technology, which there is no evidence for and is pure speculation. So, the TS is evidence of a supernatural causation. And his claim of being the Messiah is confirmed by his fulfillment of prophecy of his resurrection.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #21]

The most viable explanation on the table for the TS is a non-naturalistic causation.

According to Supernaturalist Philosophy, yes. But according to Natural Philosophy, no.
It is up to you as someone who supports Supernaturalist Philosophy to explain/show why you believe "non-naturalistic causation" is "the most viable explanation" and you have yet to do so.

All you have done is make the philosophical claim that the existence of the shroud is evidence that Jesus is the Messiah which can legitimately be asked "so what?" as it does not in and of itself explain why "non-naturalistic causation" is applicable to God/gods, messiahs or any other religious stories interpreted as being about "supernatural beings and their artifacts of actions".

The only other thing you have proposed is some unknown advanced technology, which there is no evidence for and is pure speculation.

The evidence for advanced technology is all around us in our own invention of these things and how we can understand that humans from an earlier time would think of such things as products of supernaturalism.

It is not up to me to provide any more evidence than that to explain how supernatural philosophy developed and why it has never been shown to be true.
You even made the philosophical claim that the shroud was the result of "supernatural events" and that proposal itself hasn't been shown to be anything more than pure speculation, so rather than pot calling the kettle black, the point of my particular questions re your claims have to do with us both acknowledging that speculation is involved in both philosophical points of view and both of us have to provide explanations to support said views.

So, the TS is evidence of a supernatural causation.

Show why this has to be the case.

And his claim of being the Messiah is confirmed by his fulfillment of prophecy of his resurrection.

This could be true, if you also agree that the world is saved, and has been since that event. Otherwise, the claim is still an unproven one.
That is why I brought up that other prophecy (The Second Coming) because generic Christianity (at least) has it that the Second Coming event also has something to do with proving Jesus is "The Messiah".

Which is to say, the shroud doesn't in and of itself prove what you claim it does - unless of course - your particular philosophy doesn't require the Second Coming event in order for the world to be saved, since it is only the death and resurrection which is required.

So, for your claim to be true in that sense, you have to clarify what position you hold on that particular aspect of "what it means to be called "The Messiah"" and whether the claims of Jesus re his resurrection and the subsequent evidence of the shroud, are all that are required.

So there are two specific things you are claiming to which further discussion has to be had, which your "summary argument" has been shown, does not fully cover.

1: The summary does not make the shroud an "authentic" artifact of a supposed supernatural event.
2: The summary does not make Jesus' claim to being the Messiah "authentic" if indeed, the Second Coming is also required.

[otseng]

According to Supernaturalist Philosophy, yes. But according to Natural Philosophy, no.

All I'm assuming is the supernatural could exist, not that it does exist. Naturalism assumes the supernatural does not exist, so by definition, supernaturalistic explanations cannot be entertained. However, it does not mean supernaturalistic explanations cannot be true.

It is up to you as someone who supports Supernaturalist Philosophy to explain/show why you believe "non-naturalistic causation" is "the most viable explanation" and you have yet to do so.

I've already compared all the major naturalistic explanations and the supernaturalistic explanations. Again, what naturalistic explanation am I missing?

All you have done is make the philosophical claim that the existence of the shroud is evidence that Jesus is the Messiah which can legitimately be asked "so what?"

You've already asked "so what" multiple times and I've already answered them:
viewtopic.php?p=1130071#p1130071
viewtopic.php?p=1130148#p1130148
viewtopic.php?p=1130484#p1130484

Continually asking "so what?" reveals to me there are no valid arguments against the TS or the resurrection.

You even made the philosophical claim that the shroud was the result of "supernatural events" and that proposal itself hasn't been shown to be anything more than pure speculation, so rather than pot calling the kettle black, the point of my particular questions re your claims have to do with us both acknowledging that speculation is involved in both philosophical points of view and both of us have to provide explanations to support said views.

I've presented my arguments with corresponding evidence, so it's not pure speculation, but based on empirical evidence. The way to challenge my conclusion is to present counterarguments with evidence.

So, the TS is evidence of a supernatural causation.

Show why this has to be the case.

I've already done it in the OP.

This could be true, if you also agree that the world is saved, and has been since that event.

Though God desires for all to be saved, people will still reject him.

That is why I brought up that other prophecy (The Second Coming) because generic Christianity (at least) has it that the Second Coming event also has something to do with proving Jesus is "The Messiah".

Who knows what will really happen when Jesus comes back again. It could be everyone will bow their knee to him and declare he is Lord. Or some could reject him as Lord.

So there are two specific things you are claiming to which further discussion has to be had, which your "summary argument" has been shown, does not fully cover.

1: The summary does not make the shroud an "authentic" artifact of a supposed supernatural event.
2: The summary does not make Jesus' claim to being the Messiah "authentic" if indeed, the Second Coming is also required.

I've already made a comprehensive argument the TS is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus and it testifies to his resurrection. I knew ahead of time this would be seriously challenged by skeptics so I've spent over 150 pages presenting my case. Feel free to counter any of the actual arguments I've made.

As for the Second Coming, I've never made any claim about it, so it is not relevant to the discussion.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #23]

All I'm assuming is the supernatural could exist, not that it does exist.

Indeed.
But you are also assuming that the shroud is evidence that the body which was in it, "dematerialized".
Since presently no experiments have replicated the same results, why assume those things? Where in the bible does it say that Jesus' body "dematerialized" that anyone should assume that was the case and this is what the shroud evidently reveals?

Again, what naturalistic explanation am I missing?

I have already explained which one you are missing.

Continually asking "so what?" reveals to me there are no valid arguments against the TS or the resurrection.

Not in this case, because I clearly stated "assuming the resurrection is true and the shroud is evidence of that....so what?"

Because, all we have is a shroud, not a savior (messiah) of humanity.

I am not arguing against the validity of those things, but rather the validity of assumption that ANY religious story is evidence of artifacts of supernaturalism.

Though God desires for all to be saved, people will still reject him.

So what? Isn't the point of the argument that Jesus is messiah regardless? Why would people "accept" a messiah which hasn't been visible in over 2000 years?

Who knows what will really happen when Jesus comes back again. It could be everyone will bow their knee to him and declare he is Lord. Or some could reject him as Lord.

The point is, what difference would it make if this entity came from a supposed supernatural place or from the natural universe, why should anyone bend the knee - to claims from said being that it is the creator of everything?

Perhaps that won't be the claim and perhaps no knee is expected to be bent and saving humanity will have nothing to do with humans worshiping any being from elsewhere who claim to be their creators.

In the meantime, what we do have is silence and no-show and this would lead to the notion that humans will either have to find a way to save themselves or end up on the list of extinct beings.

Feel free to counter any of the actual arguments I've made.

The actual arguments you have made don't amount to anything in relation to claims Jesus made about himself because we have a shroud but where is the messiah?

Until such an event happens, it is all empty claim and speculation.

As for the Second Coming, I've never made any claim about it, so it is not relevant to the discussion.

Therefore, nor is the claim that Jesus is the messiah or that he is from a supernatural place or that the shroud is evidence of Jesus being the messiah or that Jesus' body "dematerialized" or even that a supernatural universe has to exist to explain why the natural universe exists.

[otseng]

But you are also assuming that the shroud is evidence that the body which was in it, "dematerialized".

It is not an assumption, but a conclusion based on all the evidence on the shroud.

Since presently no experiments have replicated the same results, why assume those things?

Has the Big Bang been replicated? Do you reject the Big Bang because it has not been replicated?

Where in the bible does it say that Jesus' body "dematerialized" that anyone should assume that was the case and this is what the shroud evidently reveals?

This is just semantics. You can use any word you want to describe the disappearance of Jesus and the reappearance elsewhere.

Again, what naturalistic explanation am I missing?

I have already explained which one you are missing.

What you proposed is some unknown advanced technology. That is not an explanation as I've already addressed:

So I ask the personality to consider that if such an event did happen in his lifetime, how would he be able to tell if the event was made possible due to advanced technology - as a more natural and thus likely explanation, than believing (and thus claiming) it was a supernatural event?

What you are appealing to is some unknown explanation, which is not really an explanation. It's like saying, "I don't know how it happened, but it is not any that have been proposed." What we can only go by is the proposals that have been proposed so far and analyze those to see which one fits best with all the data. Yes, additional explanations can be offered in the future, but those cannot be assessed until they have been proposed.

Continually asking "so what?" reveals to me there are no valid arguments against the TS or the resurrection.

Not in this case, because I clearly stated "assuming the resurrection is true and the shroud is evidence of that....so what?"

There is no need to answer this "so what". All I'm claiming is the TS is evidence of the resurrection. Of course there are implications if Jesus resurrected from the dead, but it's not in scope of this OP.

I am not arguing against the validity of those things, but rather the validity of assumption that ANY religious story is evidence of artifacts of supernaturalism.

If you accept the resurrection is true and the shroud is evidence of that then supernaturalism is true.

The point is, what difference would it make if this entity came from a supposed supernatural place or from the natural universe, why should anyone bend the knee - to claims from said being that it is the creator of everything?

That is for another thread.

Feel free to counter any of the actual arguments I've made.

The actual arguments you have made don't amount to anything in relation to claims Jesus made about himself because we have a shroud but where is the messiah?

There is only one thing Jesus claimed to verify he is the Messiah - his resurrection.

Until such an event happens, it is all empty claim and speculation.

Again, this shows the skeptics really have no valid arguments against the TS. I've spent over 150 pages arguing for it and presented enough evidence to fill a book. Please address these. If you cannot, then it is your claim that is empty and speculative.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #25]

But you are also assuming that the shroud is evidence that the body which was in it, "dematerialized".

It is not an assumption, but a conclusion based on all the evidence on the shroud.

So you are not assuming your conclusion is correct?

Since presently no experiments have replicated the same results, why assume those things?

Has the Big Bang been replicated?

You think it would be just as difficult to replicate the shroud as it would be to replicate the Big Bang?

Do you reject the Big Bang because it has not been replicated?

How would not replicating the beginning of this universe lead us to the "conclusion" that it was a supernatural artifact?

Where in the bible does it say that Jesus' body "dematerialized" that anyone should assume that was the case and this is what the shroud evidently reveals?

This is just semantics. You can use any word you want to describe the disappearance of Jesus and the reappearance elsewhere.

As long as the word is somehow associated with supernaturalism but not the with idea that advanced technology was involved?

Again, what naturalistic explanation am I missing?

I have already explained which one you are missing.

What you proposed is some unknown advanced technology. That is not an explanation as I've already addressed:
What you are appealing to is some unknown explanation, which is not really an explanation. It's like saying, "I don't know how it happened, but it is not any that have been proposed."

Rather, it is applying the principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more, re possible natural explanations.
Thus, events of the bible can be viewed as artifacts of advanced technology and the proposal should be considered and critiqued and shown to have no basis, before one even proposes supernatural explanations.

What we can only go by is the proposals that have been proposed so far and analyze those to see which one fits best with all the data. Yes, additional explanations can be offered in the future, but those cannot be assessed until they have been proposed.

It has been proposed that all religious stories can be explained naturally. Are you perhaps meaning something else?

There is no need to answer this "so what". All I'm claiming is the TS is evidence of the resurrection. Of course there are implications if Jesus resurrected from the dead, but it's not in scope of this OP.

The OP states the following.
"We have the actual shroud of Jesus in our hands today that testifies to Jesus being the Messiah."

If Jesus being "the messiah" is not the scope of this OP, why did you mention it at all?

I am not arguing against the validity of those things, but rather the validity of assumption that ANY religious story is evidence of artifacts of supernaturalism.

If you accept the resurrection is true and the shroud is evidence of that then supernaturalism is true.

By what rule does this apply as true?

What command has it that I accept supernaturalism is true?

Natural Philosophy explains adequately that all things (including religious belief systems such as supernaturalism) can be explained within the context of the One - Mindful - Universe.

There is only one thing Jesus claimed to verify he is the Messiah - his resurrection.

Apparently "that is for another thread"?

Until such an event (The Second Coming) happens, it is all empty claim and speculation.

Again, this shows the skeptics really have no valid arguments against the TS. I've spent over 150 pages arguing for it and presented enough evidence to fill a book. Please address these. If you cannot, then it is your claim that is empty and speculative.

My "claim" as such is true. Claims that the shroud proves Jesus is the messiah are without merit, even that the shroud exists and goes some way in providing evidence to support the claim, but the FACT remains, UNTIL The Second Coming actually happens and UNTIL it is seen by humanity what is involved with that event, the claim and all subsequent related claims are empty (of supporting evidence) and speculation - including the speculation that Jesus and God et all are "supernatural beings".

But of course, this OP isn't about whether Jesus is the messiah as it "isn't the scope" - and what else can be asked re that except "So What Then?"

Thanks for taking the time to explain your preferred position on this matter otseng. I see you are unwilling to discuss alternate explanations, so there is no point in my continuing my critique in this thread any further.

Go Well.

[otseng]

Thanks for taking the time to explain your preferred position on this matter otseng. I see you are unwilling to discuss alternate explanations, so there is no point in my continuing my critique in this thread any further.

To be clear, I am open to discussing alternative explanations for the shroud, but one has to actually propose an alternative, not simply claim it's some unknown future naturalistic explanation yet to be discovered.

As for Jesus being the Messiah, that is being debated now at:
viewtopic.php?p=1130627#p1130627