The shroud of Turin is a fake!

[PetriFB]

There are various opinions and researches of the. Some people say that it is the genuine and some that it is the fake and the hoax. The fact is that the shroud of Turin doesn't present Jesus of the Bible. If we can find even one evidence, which disprove the shroud of Turin theory, so the whole story shall be invalidated. We can find a large number of evidence from the Bible, which show that the shroud of Turin cannot be the shroud of the Lord Jesus.

You can read the whole article in here:

http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/shroudofturin.html

[Lux]

Moderator Action

All topics started in the debate subforums must have at least one question for debate, according to the rules:

3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.

I will be moving this to the Random Ramblings subforum, and if you want to state a question and have the thread moved back here you can let me know.

[Zzyzx]

.
I suggest adding the question, "IS the Shroud of Turin a fake?" and moving the thread to C&A.

There are various opinions and researches of the. Some people say that it is the genuine and some that it is the fake and the hoax. The fact is that the shroud of Turin doesn't present Jesus of the Bible. If we can find even one evidence, which disprove the shroud of Turin theory, so the whole story shall be invalidated. We can find a large number of evidence from the Bible, which show that the shroud of Turin cannot be the shroud of the Lord Jesus.

You can read the whole article in here:

http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/shroudofturin.html

That is an excellent article that presents strong arguments against the shroud being legitimate. It is interesting that the argument is presented by a person who appears to be a Biblicist Christian.

Several members here have argued (weakly it seems) that the shroud is genuine.

If Christianity is itself legitimate, why need it be bolstered by fakes, frauds and hoaxes, and why are such fakes so common? Truth has no need for support by lies and fakes.

[Lux]

.
I suggest adding the question, "IS the Shroud of Turin a fake?" and moving the thread to C&A.

Moved back since we have a debate question now, if the OPer doesn't object.

[The Nice Centurion]

.
I suggest adding the question, "IS the Shroud of Turin a fake?" and moving the thread to C&A.

Interesting question. But why, if the shroud isnt genuine, should it be guaranteed that its a consciously produced fake evidence for supporting christian propaganda?

Umberto Ecos "Baudolino" presents one fictional possibility how our shroud could have come to be, without requiring a christian hoaxer from the start.

There are various opinions and researches of the. Some people say that it is the genuine and some that it is the fake and the hoax. The fact is that the shroud of Turin doesn't present Jesus of the Bible. If we can find even one evidence, which disprove the shroud of Turin theory, so the whole story shall be invalidated. We can find a large number of evidence from the Bible, which show that the shroud of Turin cannot be the shroud of the Lord Jesus.

You can read the whole article in here:

http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/shroudofturin.html

That is an excellent article that presents strong arguments against the shroud being legitimate. It is interesting that the argument is presented by a person who appears to be a Biblicist Christian.

Several members here have argued (weakly it seems) that the shroud is genuine.

If Christianity is itself legitimate, why need it be bolstered by fakes, frauds and hoaxes, and why are such fakes so common? Truth has no need for support by lies and fakes.

Then why do so many criminals go free because of not enough evidence?

Why do so many lies continue to be believed?

Truth doesnt automatically prove itself.
Christians who know that, produced lots of pious frauds.

[MilesJBennell]

Christians who know that, produced lots of pious frauds.

If it is a fraud, it is a very good one. To this day no one has any idea on how to produce such a fraud. Quite the accomplishment for an ancient monk.

There are many videos on the topic, here is one if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/live/HAbuG-oVq1 ... Yd9DH3jdQd

[TRANSPONDER]

Christians who know that, produced lots of pious frauds.

If it is a fraud, it is a very good one. To this day no one has any idea on how to produce such a fraud. Quite the accomplishment for an ancient monk.

There are many videos on the topic, here is one if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/live/HAbuG-oVq1 ... Yd9DH3jdQd

I agree. It is very good. Amazingly good. Mind, I am Very suspicious about some of the trace evidence presented, like the suspiciously reddish and splotcky bloodstains whai I think are pigment, added after the image was created to make it match Jon and the stab wound. Which is contradicted by the synoptics and therefore isn'rt reliable and nor o are those bloodstains.

cue heated denial, but that;s where i stand, on this. I also stand on this - it is a negative image. It is not a painted image. Trust me, If i saw the slightest evidence that it was, I would say so, but i see none - except for the clumsy bloodstains.

What I do see is a flat image that could never have been produced by an intended proper burial as there is no sign of anything more than a sheet laid under and draped over the body.

In OW, even if the ting is genuine, it shows that the burial was never intended to be permanent and virtually guarantees the story the Jews were telling in Matthew's time. "The disciples came and took the body". So even if the shroud is really a relic of jesus (And I'm still quite midway on this) it only helps to disprove the gospel version of the resurrection.

That said, let's read that article and see whether there is anything new.

Hmmph. Well the initial article is not available, and the video is so obviously Shroud is real and proves the Gospels, that i hardly need watch it for anything new. But if anyone wants to plough through that Bible propaganda and post any points they think need looking at, they are welcome to.

[MilesJBennell]

Christians who know that, produced lots of pious frauds.

If it is a fraud, it is a very good one. To this day no one has any idea on how to produce such a fraud. Quite the accomplishment for an ancient monk.

There are many videos on the topic, here is one if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/live/HAbuG-oVq1 ... Yd9DH3jdQd

Hmmph. Well the initial article is not available, and the video is so obviously Shroud is real and proves the Gospels, that i hardly need watch it for anything new. But if anyone wants to plough through that Bible propaganda and post any points they think need looking at, they are welcome to.

https://www.kotipetripaavola.com/turins ... ndlie.html

What the shroud is, is secondary to me, I just want to know how it was made. The image is so thin on the surface of the cloth that it can easily be scraped off with a razor blade, that rules out any paint process. And the image is like a pointillism similar to a Seurat painting. Where the density of the points is proportional to the distance from the cloth to the body. I will be happy to take this as an argument from ignorance for now, knowing that God will reveal this mystery to me in due time.

[TRANSPONDER]

Christians who know that, produced lots of pious frauds.

If it is a fraud, it is a very good one. To this day no one has any idea on how to produce such a fraud. Quite the accomplishment for an ancient monk.

There are many videos on the topic, here is one if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/live/HAbuG-oVq1 ... Yd9DH3jdQd

Hmmph. Well the initial article is not available, and the video is so obviously Shroud is real and proves the Gospels, that i hardly need watch it for anything new. But if anyone wants to plough through that Bible propaganda and post any points they think need looking at, they are welcome to.

https://www.kotipetripaavola.com/turins ... ndlie.html

What the shroud is, is secondary to me, I just want to know how it was made. The image is so thin on the surface of the cloth that it can easily be scraped off with a razor blade, that rules out any paint process. And the image is like a pointillism similar to a Seurat painting. Where the density of the points is proportional to the distance from the cloth to the body. I will be happy to take this as an argument from ignorance for now, knowing that God will reveal this mystery to me in due time.

I gather the image is formed by what appears to be scorch marks on the surface. Yet the bloodstains, I gather, are a substance added, whether blood or originally paint, much if which, in either case, has been removed, by time and a couple of launderings, so I read. The blood is apparently surrounded by water - stains, which is a problem for the paint - theory, yet it looks clumsy to me like someone applied it later.

I'm still not sure, as even the date is disputed, and with a decent point of contamination of the c14. I just maintain overriding points that I rarely see brought up - if it is real, it signified a temporary burial, which would fit with the disciples taking the body, as Matthew mentions was the story in his day. It cannot be a proper wrap around burial as that would not give the flat negative image that we have.

The mystery is ongoing as to how it was formed (appeals to a miracle don't appeal to me) but that it is evidence against a resurrection, real or fake, is a point generally overlooked.