[_ Old Earth _] Shroud of Turin: plausible forgery?

[Cross_+_Flame]

I'll be honest and say I've been skeptical of the Shroud of Turin, which is the alleged burial cloth of Jesus. It has the image on it that looks a lot like a crucified man. Could it be Jesus?

What has always thrown me is that no one could replicate it; modern science could not replicate the image. It is not painted on, or oiled on, or burned on in any way. The best way to describe it is like a photograph, where lots of dots make up the image. So, that's been an impediment to my unbelief and my belief in the Shroud.

However, science marches on, and one clever fella has been able to tentatively replicate the image on the shroud...using tools from the middle ages (which is when it is Carbon-dated to).

LINK: Experiment: Turin Shroud An Easy Forgery

The scientist basically did the following (< 150 words or 1/4 of article, so within copyright):

Helped by microbiologist Scott Minnich, an associate professor at the University of Idaho, who provided him with scientific advice on structuring the experiment, Wilson put fabric under a glass panel painted with a human face  using white paint  and left it in the sun for a few days.

Wilson found that when a positive image of a man's face was painted onto glass, and left over linen beneath the sun, a color inversion took place, creating a photo negative.

"Wherever light paint had been applied, the linen remained dark beneath, and wherever the darker shade of linen had been left bare, the image lightened. In this regard, the image produced is very similar to that of the Turin Shroud," Wilson told Discovery News.

Compare the following pictures (linked not 'd due to copyright)

LINK: [url=http://www.shroud.com/shrdface.jpg]Shroud of Turin image[/url]
LINK: [url=http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050228/gallery/shroud3_goto.jpg]Replicated Shroud Image[/url]
LINK: [url=http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050228/gallery/shroud2_goto.jpg]Scientists's Template for head[/url]

As you can see, the scientist used tools from the Middle ages (glass and pigment and cloth), which is when the (1) iconic trade was heating up, so people would pay much for relics and iconography, and (2) church architecture was beginning to embrace colored glass and stained glass windows, so such images would be easily available.

So, in short, this is the most rational explanation for the Shroud that I have seen, and while I'm not a believer yet, I might be someday. What do you think? Does this change/challenge your beliefs as to the authenticity of the Shroud?

 

[ThinkerMan]

There was a really good program on one of the "info" channels History/Science/Discovery that repeats fairly often.

It had some great analysis of the image, as well as a few different ways to make it. Even a theory that Da Vinci made it himself that sounded at least plausable.

One of the major problems with it being a cloth actually wrapped around of a face is that it is a perfect 2 dimensional representation.

If the cloth was really wrapped around a 3-D object (the face) then it would be very distorted when viewed in 2-D (a flat cloth). The ears would be farther from the eyes, for example.

The image on the cloth is not distorted, it looks exactly like a 2-D representation of a 3-D object, not a 2-D impression left by a 3-D object.

Wikipedia also has some interesting info various ways to create the image.

 

[cubedbee]

There was a really good program on one of the "info" channels History/Science/Discovery that repeats fairly often.

I'll have to try and tivo that.

It had some great analysis of the image, as well as a few different ways to make it. Even a theory that Da Vinci made it himself that sounded at least plausable.

The first historical mention of the shroud was made in 1357, and its history is continously known since then. Leonardo wasn't born until 1452. I'd have to say that the da Vinci theory is rather implausible.

One of the major problems with it being a cloth actually wrapped around of a face is that it is a perfect 2 dimensional representation.

If the cloth was really wrapped around a 3-D object (the face) then it would be very distorted when viewed in 2-D (a flat cloth). The ears would be farther from the eyes, for example.

The image on the cloth is not distorted, it looks exactly like a 2-D representation of a 3-D object, not a 2-D impression left by a 3-D object.

Wikipedia also has some interesting info various ways to create the image.

You are right that a 2D clothed wrapped around a 3D spheroid like the human head will cause a distorted image when viewed in 2D. But, were the burial cloth stretched taut between the nose and toes of the body, leaving the cloth as a 2D plane suspended above the 3D body, then this distortion would not occur.

I agree that the image can not be a direct physical impression of Jesus' face, but had Jesus been buried in the way I described, and had a flash of light accompanied his resurrection, the image could have been burned on the cloth.

Personally, I'm on the fence about the shroud. It is the only supposed relic that I've ever read about that might be real. Becaue of the original carbon dating and the lack of any historical reference until the 1300's, I lean towards it being a hoax. But, the fact that the image is so unlike any other artifically produced image of that time period and the fact reasonable ways I've seen of replicating the image require materials and knowledge that were unlikely to be known 700 years ago, makes a hoax seem unlikely. If the latest report about the 1988 carbon dating being wrong and the shroud actually being 1300-3000 years old proves to be true, the hoax hypothesis would ruled out in my mind.

 

[Delphin]

:smt120 I have to admit that I am very skeptical about the Shroud of Turin. For a while, I even believed that Leonardo daVinci himself perpetrated it. Whatever is the source of it, and it does puzzle us even with our advanced science and knowledge, it does not confound my faith in the Bible, and God's will for us. With or without it, Jesus arose from the dead!

Nevertheless, if someday science does prove it comes from the 1st century A. D., and it is likely to be authentic....well, then I'll have to change my mind about it. I'll cross that bridge when it gets there, I guess. :painting:

 

[Scott]

It has the image on it that looks a lot like a crucified man.

Can someone explain why its connected to a crucified man and not a person dead from any other reason. Another question if the first one is answered, what would make one feel that it would be of Jesus, considering that crucifiction was one of the more popular means of execution back then.

 

[bibleberean]

It has the image on it that looks a lot like a crucified man.

Can someone explain why its connected to a crucified man and not a person dead from any other reason. Another question if the first one is answered, what would make one feel that it would be of Jesus, considering that crucifiction was one of the more popular means of execution back then.

Good question and point Scott. Here is something I found in the Calvary Contender.

THE SHROUD IS A FAKE!â€â€New tests show that the so-called “Shroud of Turin†could be somewhere between 1,300 to 3,000 years of age (3/14 Chr. News). Radiocarbon tests of the shroud done in 1988 dated the cloth at A.D. 1260 to 1390â€â€seeming to rule it out as Jesus' burial cloth and suggesting it is a medieval forgery (HT 3/25/05). We do not need the Shroud or anything else to prove that Jesus died and rose again. Eyewitnesses accounts in the Bible are sufficient.

Calvary Contender
VOL. XXII NO. 4 NEWS & VIEWS, NOTES & QUOTES, TO WARN & INFORM April 2005

http://home.hiwaay.net/~contendr/4-2005.html

 

[vinc]

Hope this would be of some use in this thread of discussion...

THE SHROUD IS GENUINE!
Evidence of Conspiracy and Fraud in the Dating of the Shroud of Turin
http://www.ralphsconspiracy.com/#b19

 

[cubedbee]

It has the image on it that looks a lot like a crucified man.

Can someone explain why its connected to a crucified man and not a person dead from any other reason.

There is blood on the wrists and ankles where crucifixion nails would have been driven. Also, the blood from the wrist flows down the arm, which means while the man was bleeding, his arms would have had to be upraised, as in a crucifixion

Another question if the first one is answered, what would make one feel that it would be of Jesus, considering that crucifixion was one of the more popular means of execution back then.

There are numerous tiny blood marks around the head, consistent with the crown of thorns, there are scourge marks on the back, consistent with the lashings of Jesus, and there is a bloody mark on the side of the torso, consistent with a lance wound. The combination of these additional bloodmarks would not be found in a typical crucifixion.

 

[Dave...]

I never really cared much about the shroud. What would we do if it was what people thought it was? Would we worship it? Even if that was not what the intentions would be, if you put it into a glass case, people are going to start claiming miracles and worshiping it.

I don't see pictures in the Bible, I don't believe that God would allow the shroud to exist except to be a stumbling block.

If I had the chance, I would burn it. Then it would not be a problem anymore.

In Christ

Dave

 

[bibleberean]

I never really cared much about the shroud. What would we do if it was what people thought it was? Would we worship it? Even if that was not what the intentions would be, if you put it into a glass case, people are going to start claiming miracles and worshiping it.

I don't see pictures in the Bible, I don't believe that God would allow the shroud to exist except to be a stumbling block.

If I had the chance, I would burn it. Then it would not be a problem anymore.

In Christ

Dave

Good point Dave.

Calvary Contender

VOL. XXII NO. 8 NEWS & VIEWS, NOTES & QUOTES, TO WARN & INFORM August 2005


SHROUD OF TURIN CONFIRMED AS A FAKEâ€â€

A French magazine says it has carried out experiments that proves the Shroud of Turin is a fake. The Shroud is claimed by defenders to be the cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion. It bears the faint image of a blood-covered man with holes in his hands and wounds in his body and head, the apparent result of being crucified, stabbed by a Roman spear and forced to wear a crown of thorns. In 1988 scientists carried out carbon-14 dating of the cloth and concluded that the material was made sometime between 1260 and 1390. This prompted the then archbishop of Turin. where the Shroud is stored, to admit that the garment was a hoax. [7/26 Christian News]

 

[PHIL121]

Carbon 14 dating haspretty much proven the shroud to be a forgery. On that info show Thinker mentioned, I recall some scientist proposing that the dating method was off because of some mold or something like that, but I think the Shroud being faked is pretty much a done deal.