David Rogers gives a long intro and starts talking about the Shroud at 14:37.
14:37
That brings us to tonight's object. Is it real? We're going to Italy, Turin Italy, and we're going to talk about this object the Shroud of Turin. It may be the most famous single object to represent something tied to Jesus directly.
I haven't really encountered any people who believe in it because they "want to believe in it". Rather, it's because of the evidence that supports its authenticity that they believe in it.15:17
Many people believe want to believe some need to believe that this object is literally, literally the linen that was wrapped around the body of Jesus when he was buried as described in John chapter 19.
So, what evidence does he present that it's a medieval fake?
He does mention the photographic negative aspect of the image discovered by Secondo Pia. But he dismisses the fact that photography was not invented until the 19th century.
He says the first recorded appearance of the Shroud was in 1354.17:28
This is a scan a photograph that was taken by an Italian photographer Secondo Pia in 1898.
Around mid-1350s is the commonly accepted date by both authenticists and skeptics. But that does mean it could not have existed prior to that.18:47
We trace this historically well the first recorded appearance of it came in 1354 that's old but it's not you know Jesus old.
What he's referring to is Bishop d'Arcis writing to the antipope Clement VII. The d'Arcis memo is fraught with issues. But the biggest issue is there is no evidence it was ever sent or received.19:07
Afterwards just 1389 which it was first denounced as an utter fraud first by a particular Bishop who then communicated that to the pope at the time and the pope said nope not real.
Next he mentions Calvin.
Yes, the gospel of John mentions strips of linen. But the gospel of John also mentions a separate cloth for the head. So, the Shroud could be the strips of linen and the Sudarium could be the separate cloth for the head. Further, the Shroud is actually not one piece, but two pieces sewn together - the main cloth and the side strip.20:17
John Calvin pointed out a very obvious thing of it well I see that you've got a large woven piece of fabric made also of linen we
know that corresponds to scripture and while there may be things we disagree with John Calvin about he was very
astute in pointing out that it said strips of linen was wrapped around him.
He mentions the 1978 STURP and the only person he mentions is Walter McCrone, though he doesn't say his name.
First of all, McCrone was not on the STURP team. And yes, there was extensive debate between him and the STURP team, in particular with Adler and Heller. McCrone only did visual inspections of the tape samples, whereas Adler and Heller also did chemical analysis. Further, even McCrone says he cannot scientifically demonstrate the shroud image was produced by an artist. He only says it's his opinion.21:41
In the late 1970s and that's not the beginning of it but in the late 1970s a whole series of studies were done the Shroud of Turin uh research project I believe it's what it's called STURP 1978 and they did material analysis and they did chemistry and they did all kinds of imaging of it. And like I said forensic studies of it they look at the anatomy of it and it didn't stop there.
There's one particular guy and he has a very strong history in studying art and the blood work and the chemicals that make up the key patches and they tape special kind of adhesive tape and they were picking parts of it up out of there to go and study he concluded that this there's no traces of blood here there are material components that do match 14th century artworks that's a fact but then the other group pushed against him and then he said well you didn't even use the ri instruments and they said you don't know what you're talking about and then in the year 2000 he was rewarded with a uh a chemistry and um a study research reward because of his work with this they push and pull
He then discusses anatomical issues with the image.
Yes, the right arm is longer than the left because his right shoulder was dislocated.23:08
How does it look proportion-wise and does it actually work? This isn't the strongest argument but interestingly enough it's an odd shape the arms are especially elongated one seems longer than the other.
Yes, there are things on the shroud that are an artifact of the image projection process. It's like saying a map of the world is not real because Greenland is too big.The dimensions of the forehead seem off.
He notes artwork depicts Jesus with a large forehead.
Not only the forehead, but there are many similar features of the shroud with Byzantine art. The question is, did the shroud influence the art or did the art influence the shroud?But not when you compare it to typical gothic art during the time period which raises a suspicion because if you look at art from that time period.
This is evidence the shroud is not artwork. Why should the shroud be hyperrealistic, whereas all artwork is stylized?23:43
And I probably should have put some up here you could see that they weren't really that caring about specific and precise representation of humans it was very stylized.
Next he mentions the carbon dating, but doesn't go into any detail about it.
It takes a while to show all the things wrong with the 1988 C-14 dating. But a very good synopsis is at:23:48
The radiocarbon dated it's between the 13th and 14th century. The last time I could find that they did the carbon dating of it and
people fought back well that's the wrong piece of the Shroud.
http://bereanarchive.org/articles/histo ... bon-dating
Yes, if it's not real, then the shroud should not be used in apologetics. But as he asks, is it real? And what if it was real? Shouldn't it absolutely be used for apologetics?24:34
If it's not real we should be very careful and how we reference this and very careful on how we utilize that in apologetics.
Yes, nobody disagrees with that.25:57
Whether the Shroud is real or not real doesn't change the truth of the scripture.
It takes a deep study of the shroud to really understand it. I've spent an entire year studying the shroud and investigated all the major authentic and skeptical arguments. You can see my research at:26:12
If it's real fantastic that's interesting and then I will take back that the anatomy is odd. I'll take sorry but there's some things that just don't match up, they really don't.
https://defendingchristianity.com/shroud-of-turin/
And I'm 99% confident it is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus.
Yes, the ultimate purpose of the shroud is to point people to Jesus.28:35
The Bible wants us to be interested in the conversation about Jesus and so there is a value in that.
