The Shroud of Turin is said to be proof that Jesus was crucified.

[Zzyzx]

If the shroud could be proved to be authentic and from the appropriate time, would that prove that the ‘image’ was actually Jesus?

What evidence suggests it was not another male of the era?

[1213]

If the shroud could be proved to be authentic and from the appropriate time, would that prove that the ‘image’ was actually Jesus?

I don't think so. But, difficult to imagine who else would be in in the image.

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]

Anyone else with a vague resemblance to the 'white Jesus' commonly pictured could have been used to make the image (or even a mockup of some sort).

[SiNcE_1985]

If the shroud could be proved to be authentic and from the appropriate time, would that prove that the ‘image’ was actually Jesus?

What evidence suggests it was not another male of the era?

If the shroud proved to be authentic, then that would prove the 'image' was actually Jesus.

Kinda self explanatory so why the question is being asked; I don't know.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]

Anyone else with a vague resemblance to the 'white Jesus' commonly pictured could have been used to make the image (or even a mockup of some sort).

Because the image is rare, and by what I know only one made with that technique, I would assume the person is someone important. How do you think the image was formed and why it was made?

[tygger too]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #1]

The actual shroud is a linen cloth 14 feet 3 inches long and 3 feet 7 inches wide that bears the superficial imprint of the WHOLE body of a man (not just the head) as can be seen to the right.

The whole shroud is ONE SOLID PIECE which shows the superficial imprint of the whole body INCLUDING the head.

The reason that this is mentioned first is because in John 20:6-7, it describes what was found in the empty tomb after Jesus’ resurrection: "He [Peter] viewed the bandages lying, also the cloth that had been upon his head not lying with the bandages but separately rolled up in one place."

The fact that a separate piece of cloth is mentioned as being "upon his head" shows that a different piece covered Jesus' head, whereas the Shroud of Turin clearly shows the image of the head ON THE SAME CLOTH that covered the body.

So, the Bible account indicates that the materiel used to cover Jesus’ body was NOT the one-pieced Shroud of Turin.

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #4]

By 'authentic' I meant only that it was an actual burial cloth of a real person -- not a faked similarity

If it was a burial cloth, it could be anyone

[Tcg]

What evidence suggests it was not another male of the era?

Recent evidence shows that the image is more likely to have been created with a low-relief sculpture and not a human body at all. Cícero Moraes, a Brazilian 3D digital designer, conducted experimentation to compare the imprint of a model of a human body with that of a low-relief model. The following is his conclusion:

"The contact pattern generated by the low-relief model is more compatible with the Shroud’s image,” Moraes wrote in a paper published in Archaeometry on July 28. “Showing less anatomical distortion and greater fidelity to the observed contours, while the projection of a 3D body results in a significantly distorted image.”

<https://news.artnet.com/art-world/shrou ... re-2674633>

Of course, given that absolute paucity of evidence pointing to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead, Christian apologists will likely continue to grasp onto anything they think adds the least bit of credence to this central claim of Christianity. If it weren't so sad, it'd be outright hilarious.


Tcg

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #4]

By 'authentic' I meant only that it was an actual burial cloth of a real person -- not a faked similarity

If it was a burial cloth, it could be anyone

There is no way to prove anything, by a burial cloth.

I agree with you, if it was from an actual person, it could be anyone.