3D analysis reveals Shroud of Turin image likely came from sculpture, not Jesus’ body

[Athetotheist]

Here's the latest:
https://archaeologymag.com/2025/08/shro ... sculpture/

[otseng]

And if the mystery of the Turin cloth validates the Christian Bible, then the mystery of the Stone of the Pregnant Woman validates the Temple of Jupiter.

If anybody wants to worship the Temple of Jupiter, so be it. But again, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

And you explain what technology was available during the 1st century instead of a crane which could move 1,000 tons sixty feet uphill when modern cranes max out at 100 tons, a levering system we can't reconstruct, etc.

I'm not making any claim about it, so there's no need for me to explain anything about any stone. However, you are claiming the Shroud is a medieval work, so the burden is on you to explain the Shroud.

That's more an indication of being meticulous than of "arguing".

Tite was with Gonella, Riggi and two textile experts; one from France and the other from Turin. Apparently the latter pointed to the marking of the wound in the side and asked: ‘What’s that large brown patch?’ Obviously his knowledge of the Shroud was rather limited. The two argued with Riggi for more than an hour about where the sample would be taken from.

https://medievalshroud.com/whose-silly- ... it-anyway/

And it seems that there are some problems with your sources. For example, the statement:

No one handling the shroud, including Riggi, wore gloves.

In the thumbnails here,
https://www.shroud.com/78exam.htm

You are conflating two separate events - the 1978 STURP examination and the 1988 C-14 dating.

Whatever hypothesis scientists put forth, whatever theory they formulate, science demands that they keep it noncommittal either way with regard to a Creator because science deals only with what is testable.

OK, how is the Big Bang, singularities, multiverse, and other dimensions testable?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #31]

And you explain what technology was available during the 1st century instead of a crane which could move 1,000 tons sixty feet uphill when modern cranes max out at 100 tons, a levering system we can't reconstruct, etc.

I'm not making any claim about it, so there's no need for me to explain anything about any stone. However, you are claiming the Shroud is a medieval work, so the burden is on you to explain the Shroud.

In other words, you don't assume that there was something mysterious going on with the stone placement just because it hasn't been fully explained. That's my point about the Turin cloth.

Tite was with Gonella, Riggi and two textile experts; one from France and the other from Turin. Apparently the latter pointed to the marking of the wound in the side and asked: ‘What’s that large brown patch?’ Obviously his knowledge of the Shroud was rather limited.

And perhaps he was asking if any analysis had been run to determine what the patch actually was. If no analysis had been run up to that point, no one would know.

You are conflating two separate events - the 1978 STURP examination and the 1988 C-14 dating.

Then I stand corrected on that.....but how do you explain why the Gove/Damon reporting was so far off on when the 1988 examination began?

OK, how is the Big Bang, singularities, multiverse, and other dimensions testable?

If they can't be tested directly, researchers try to get as close as they can by defining the mathematical parameters of what can be observed.


And there's still the question of what Jesus, if he actually looked like the image on the cloth, would think of 1 Corinthians 11:14.

[otseng]

In other words, you don't assume that there was something mysterious going on with the stone placement just because it hasn't been fully explained. That's my point about the Turin cloth.

No, I don't have any position about the stones. If you're not saying anything about the Shroud, then we'd be in the same boat. However, you are claiming to have a position on the Shroud and that it has a naturalistic origin. In effect, what you are saying is no matter what it is, whether it is how stones are formed or the Shroud was formed, it must be a naturalistic explanation.

But specifically with the Shroud, if it does have a naturalistic explanation, it defies the ability to answer what technology was available during the 14th century to use techniques of photography, hyperrealism, halftone, UV imaging, microscopy, 3D imaging, airbrush, x-ray, etc.

So, it boils down to the assumption of naturalism. What evidence and arguments do you have that the assumption is true?

Tite was with Gonella, Riggi and two textile experts; one from France and the other from Turin. Apparently the latter pointed to the marking of the wound in the side and asked: ‘What’s that large brown patch?’ Obviously his knowledge of the Shroud was rather limited.

And perhaps he was asking if any analysis had been run to determine what the patch actually was. If no analysis had been run up to that point, no one would know.

I don't know what you're referring to. The "large brown patch" that they were referring to is the side wound, which has nothing to do with the C-14 sample.

Then I stand corrected on that.....but how do you explain why the Gove/Damon reporting was so far off on when the 1988 examination began?

There's many things that were off. Which one specifically are you referring to?

OK, how is the Big Bang, singularities, multiverse, and other dimensions testable?

If they can't be tested directly, researchers try to get as close as they can by defining the mathematical parameters of what can be observed.

If it is not directly testable, then by definition it's not testable.

And there's still the question of what Jesus, if he actually looked like the image on the cloth, would think of 1 Corinthians 11:14.

1 Corinthians 11:14 (ESV)
11:14 - Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,

You already mentioned this earlier and I responded with:

The figure in the image is male with long hair, which is a dishonor according to Christian scripture (1 Corinthians 11:14).

I've spent a considerable time addressing this:

viewtopic.php?p=1113875#p1113875
viewtopic.php?p=1113985#p1113985
viewtopic.php?p=1114067#p1114067
viewtopic.php?p=1114160#p1114160
viewtopic.php?p=1114281#p1114281
viewtopic.php?p=1114376#p1114376
viewtopic.php?p=1114727#p1114727
viewtopic.php?p=1114869#p1114869
viewtopic.php?p=1114983#p1114983

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #33]

No, I don't have any position about the stones. If you're not saying anything about the Shroud, then we'd be in the same boat. However, you are claiming to have a position on the Shroud and that it has a naturalistic origin. In effect, what you are saying is no matter what it is, whether it is how stones are formed or the Shroud was formed, it must be a naturalistic explanation.

I'm not saying that everything must have a naturalistic explanation. I'm saying that a naturalistic explanation should be kept in consideration until entirely ruled out in every aspect.

But specifically with the Shroud, if it does have a naturalistic explanation, it defies the ability to answer what technology was available during the 14th century to use techniques of photography, hyperrealism, halftone, UV imaging, microscopy, 3D imaging, airbrush, x-ray, etc.

But stone placements with the technology available in the 1st century surpassing what modern cranes can do doesn't carry as much weight (no pun intended) with you?

Tite was with Gonella, Riggi and two textile experts; one from France and the other from Turin. Apparently the latter pointed to the marking of the wound in the side and asked: ‘What’s that large brown patch?’ Obviously his knowledge of the Shroud was rather limited.

And perhaps he was asking if any analysis had been run to determine what the patch actually was. If no analysis had been run up to that point, no one would know.

I don't know what you're referring to. The "large brown patch" that they were referring to is the side wound, which has nothing to do with the C-14 sample.

Perhaps he was asking for analysis of the substance which made the marking.


Then I stand corrected on that.....but how do you explain why the Gove/Damon reporting was so far off on when the 1988 examination began?

There's many things that were off. Which one specifically are you referring to?

Indicating that the examination began on April 21, 1988 when the team didn't arrive until October of that year.


The figure in the image is male with long hair, which is a dishonor according to Christian scripture (1 Corinthians 11:14).

I've spent a considerable time addressing this:

And I spent considerable time providing counterarguments.

[otseng]

I'm not saying that everything must have a naturalistic explanation. I'm saying that a naturalistic explanation should be kept in consideration until entirely ruled out in every aspect.

Of course, but the problem with the Shroud is there are a slew of issues that have no known naturalistic explanations, even after many decades of study of the Shroud. And even if there was a naturalistic explanation for things, it would still not make any sense. Take for instance the photographic negative property of the image. It is conceivable a medieval artist could have discovered photography by himself, but it's not likely. Photography took decades of technological development by many smart people. For one person to do that would be miraculous. And then for that person to be unknown in history would also be just as miraculous. And for him to only produce one artifact would be unexplainable.

There's many things that were off. Which one specifically are you referring to?

Indicating that the examination began on April 21, 1988 when the team didn't arrive until October of that year.

What team are you talking about that arrived on Oct 1988?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #35]

Of course, but the problem with the Shroud is there are a slew of issues that have no known naturalistic explanations, even after many decades of study of the Shroud. And even if there was a naturalistic explanation for things, it would still not make any sense. Take for instance the photographic negative property of the image. It is conceivable a medieval artist could have discovered photography by himself, but it's not likely. Photography took decades of technological development by many smart people. For one person to do that would be miraculous. And then for that person to be unknown in history would also be just as miraculous. And for him to only produce one artifact would be unexplainable.

Take it back to the link at the bottom of post #16 and add it to the list.

There's many things that were off. Which one specifically are you referring to?

Indicating that the examination began on April 21, 1988 when the team didn't arrive until October of that year.

What team are you talking about that arrived on Oct 1988?

How many teams arrived in Turin in 1988?