"Shroud of Turin"

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-03-22 06:14pm

BBC2 is running a... "documentary" right now (actually, about two hours ago, but the board died) about the Shroud of Turin. The shroud itself has been identified as a forgery, but this documentary tries to use the old tricks of "maybe, perhaps, if you squint, perchance" to muddy the issue.

So far, a googley-eyed presenter, backed by eerie stock music, has been listening to "historians" and "gospel experts" talking about how curious it is that the shroud is the same size as a traditional Jewish burial cloth, how the nails are in the right place and how the wounds confirm to the ones in the story - but rather than conclude that this means the forger(s) were thorough and knew their bibles, he continuously tries to imply that this somehow validates the shroud's authenticity.

And now he's trying to handwave the carbon dating. As long as you pretend there's "contamination", you can just pull an age out of your ass.

Has anyone else followed this? Are the BBC really that sorry about Omaar leaving that they just let him broadcast this crap? Or are they just lenient because it's Easter?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-03-22 06:55pm

Because it's Easter

Nevermind the Shroud has been carbon dated multiple times from multiple areas

Nevermind the Bishop who found the Shroud declared it a fake when it was first found.

Nevermind the Bishop in question who found the shroud from the church got a confession from the Artist who painted the shroud

Nevermind the Shroud first showed up in the hands of a mercenary who was trying to sell it to raise money

Nevermind at this time period "Holy relics" was a booming business

Nevermind the carbon dating all shows it to be roughly as old as the period in question for a forgery to be a good explanation

Nevermind the Shroud Does not match the biblical account nor is it the type typical for then Jewish burial customs

Neverminding all that, it could! Because it's easter! They always run these types of things around this year.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2008-03-22 11:56pm

Mr Bean wrote:Nevermind at this time period "Holy relics" was a booming business

Exactly. How many "splinters of the true cross" have been "found"? How big did they say the cross would be if they were all put together?

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2008-03-23 01:15am

Amusing, if not as amusing as the nonsense surrounding the church of the holy speulchre, which was also debunked at the start of the past century but that remains conveniently ignored.

.
(Quick answer: It's inside the city walls, meaning they would not have buried a jew/Joseph/Jesus there)

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-03-23 06:58am

Darth Servo wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:Nevermind at this time period "Holy relics" was a booming business
Exactly. How many "splinters of the true cross" have been "found"? How big did they say the cross would be if they were all put together?

Three and a half crosses is the current estimation considering shard of the cross is a popular relic within the Asia and Phillipeno parts of the church who of course must have relic's of their own despite coming to the whole god thing a bit late.

Twoyboy · Post by **Twoyboy** » 2008-03-23 07:44am

Mr Bean wrote:Because it's Easter

Nevermind the Shroud has been carbon dated multiple times from multiple areas

Nevermind the Bishop who found the Shroud declared it a fake when it was first found.

Nevermind the Bishop in question who found the shroud from the church got a confession from the Artist who painted the shroud

Nevermind the Shroud first showed up in the hands of a mercenary who was trying to sell it to raise money

Nevermind at this time period "Holy relics" was a booming business

Nevermind the carbon dating all shows it to be roughly as old as the period in question for a forgery to be a good explanation

Nevermind the Shroud Does not match the biblical account nor is it the type typical for then Jewish burial customs

Neverminding all that, it could! Because it's easter! They always run these types of things around this year.

If you have any links to a nice site that runs through those in detail I'd be interested in bookmarking it.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2008-03-23 09:55am

DEATH wrote:Amusing, if not as amusing as the nonsense surrounding the church of the holy speulchre, which was also debunked at the start of the past century but that remains conveniently ignored. .
(Quick answer: It's inside the city walls, meaning they would not have buried a jew/Joseph/Jesus there)

Oooh... This sounds interesting. Quick robin, to the googlemobile!

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-03-23 11:52am

Twoyboy wrote:
If you have any links to a nice site that runs through those in detail I'd be interested in bookmarking it.

Inquest on the Shroud of Turin by Joe Nickell covers pretty much everything, there might be a website out there but I don't know of it off hand.

FYI Joe is the person who's conducted most of the tests on the Shroud.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2008-03-23 12:33pm

From a fiction book I read, the author did real world research and found that traditionally, the Romans would leave the crucified up for several days before tossing the remains in a nearby pit. And none of Jesus' followers were in the area at the time of the crucifixtion, because they were in hiding, IIRC. Which would make sense.

I doubt anyone lovingly took him off the cross after his last breath, and were allowed to spirit his body away.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2008-03-23 04:20pm

I still don't get that point: how does leaving your holy prophet to die in a horrible manner a sacrifice?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2008-03-23 04:27pm

Zixinus wrote:I still don't get that point: how does leaving your holy prophet to die in a horrible manner a sacrifice?

I think the idea is that he was allowing himself to be crucified.

Although that interpretation makes Judas just really useful as opposed to a villain.

Raesene · Post by **Raesene** » 2008-03-23 05:33pm

Gandalf wrote:
Zixinus wrote:I still don't get that point: how does leaving your holy prophet to die in a horrible manner a sacrifice?
I think the idea is that he was allowing himself to be crucified.

Although that interpretation makes Judas just really useful as opposed to a villain.

Which is a point lost to most Christians - without Judas (or someone like him), no crucifixion, no planned sacrifice, no salvation.

Lord Poe wrote:From a fiction book I read, the author did real world research and found that traditionally, the Romans would leave the crucified up for several days before tossing the remains in a nearby pit.

Isn't there also a reference in the bible that they removed the body due to the passover festival or some other religious law that required that a corpse must be buried before dusk ? If that regulation really existed, the Romans could have followed it to prevent another riot with lots of fanatic pilgims in Jerusalem.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2008-03-23 05:37pm

Gandalf wrote:
Zixinus wrote:I still don't get that point: how does leaving your holy prophet to die in a horrible manner a sacrifice?
I think the idea is that he was allowing himself to be crucified.

Although that interpretation makes Judas just really useful as opposed to a villain.

No, no, he WAS a villain because he betrayed Jesus...who was omniscient, omnipotent, knew he was going to betray him anyhow and could have stopped him, but he was still a traitor! Oh yeah, and Jesus HAD to be crucified to get rid of our sins, but Judas was still totally evil. It's got nothing to do with our failing to keep our prophet from being crucified at all.

It doesn't have to make sense. It's religion.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2008-03-23 09:27pm

DEATH wrote:Amusing, if not as amusing as the nonsense surrounding the church of the holy speulchre, which was also debunked at the start of the past century but that remains conveniently ignored. .
(Quick answer: It's inside the city walls, meaning they would not have buried a jew/Joseph/Jesus there)

OT I know, but I was always under the impression that the early christians didn't know where the tomb of Jesus was.
Oddly enough, the apologists seem to be arguing that they did, and that the walls of Jerusleum was moved sometime in the late 1st century AD..............................

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-03-23 09:32pm

Lord Poe wrote:From a fiction book I read, the author did real world research and found that traditionally, the Romans would leave the crucified up for several days before tossing the remains in a nearby pit. And none of Jesus' followers were in the area at the time of the crucifixtion, because they were in hiding, IIRC. Which would make sense.

I doubt anyone lovingly took him off the cross after his last breath, and were allowed to spirit his body away.

Yeah, but when you don't write the story down until 40 years later, you can say whatever you want.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2008-03-24 01:29am

Zixinus wrote:I still don't get that point: how does leaving your holy prophet to die in a horrible manner a sacrifice?

If religion made sense there would be no need for priests.

It's also convenient to have at least a few contradictions that are glaringly obvious to anyone willing to think about them logically when acknowledging those contradictions means having the idea that you built your worldview around collapse. The net result is that people are discouraged from thinking about anything logically, and thus are forced to just believe whatever the local authority figure tells them to believe.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2008-03-24 01:31pm

Don't forget all the other Relics like Jesus's Foreskin

The Vortex Empire · Post by **The Vortex Empire** » 2008-03-24 03:06pm

Kitsune wrote:Don't forget all the other Relics like Jesus's Foreskin

You're kidding me, right?

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2008-03-24 03:28pm

The Vortex Empire wrote:
Kitsune wrote:Don't forget all the other Relics like Jesus's Foreskin
You're kidding me, right?

Umm, I wish I was.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_foreskin

ShadowRider77 · Post by **ShadowRider77** » 2008-03-25 08:12am

Hello everyone, this is my first post on this board. As you all can see, I am writing from that unfortunate province of the world that is Italy, and needless to say the topic of the Holy Dishrag of Turin is very very much felt around here. I am not sure if anyone who has not witnessed it first-hand can realize the sheer intensity of the devotion surrounding that particular relic (When I was a kid I underwent the standard indoctrination process that almost all kids receive here, catechism school and a youth center run by the church and so on, and one year they carried us all to see that thing. The 'teachers' and the priest spoke of it for months, going over and over again on the 'meaning' of that particular relic...I was very young then, 5 or 6, cannot remember, but I remember I could already spot something weird about that...a pity that so many supposedly 'adult' people cannot...). I am not kidding, I spoke with persons who are perfectly rational and level headed on almost everything, but go all "I am true and you are wrong!" whenever you dare to raise the issue of the 'authenticity' of that painting...

Anyway, naturally all the catholic-oriented press in Italy has jumped with joy at the news of the BBC's "new revelations". Never mind that all the supposed 'evidences' they brought are basically third-hand 'witnessings' or legends, and that as far as I could see none of the actual scientists who performed the radiometric dating are putting the results in discussion (but naturally, the titles were all like "New scientific evidence confirm the Shroud! Previous dating was surely wrong!").

The fact that we are approaching elections and that this time, more than ever before, the bishops are throwing in all their might to sway the electors (fear of Zapatero, anyone?), of course has its relevance...

By the way, did you know that there is another supposed burial shroud of Jesus, and it is in Vatican City? (!) So why the cloth in Turin is so revered, and the priests take so much pains to 'demonstrate' that it is authentic and that it 'proves' that their deity/prophet/zombie/whatever, but the shroud in Vatican City is pretty much ignored? Seriously, I could never get an answer. Practically all the catholics I ask about this make blank stares, plain tell me that I am lying, or at the very best they come out with "Well, because the one in Turin is the true one, and the other is false!" (of course, silly me for not realizing it...

). I remember a gal I knew (actually, there is a whole and quite funny episode to be told about this person, and how I came to meet her and her fellows, but I don't want to do uselessly clutter this board on my very first post...) who (after the blank stares and mutterings, of course...) came out with "Well, probably the one in Vatican is someone else's shroud...Lazarus'! Yeah, it is surely Lazarus' Shroud!". And believe me, she was dead serious when she said it...

Oh, well, anyway, just my 0,02 € (about 0,03 $...) on this. See you all...

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2008-03-25 09:12am

Welcome to the board, standard warnings apply.

You'd think that Jesus' shroud would be the one in Vatican City, not a shroud for some hack whose sole claim to fame was to be a guinea pig for Jesus' Full-Life spell.

ShadowRider77 · Post by **ShadowRider77** » 2008-03-25 11:48am

Darth Yoshi wrote:Welcome to the board, standard warnings apply.

You'd think that Jesus' shroud would be the one in Vatican City, not a shroud for some hack whose sole claim to fame was to be a guinea pig for Jesus' Full-Life spell.

Indeed. But I fear you are applying rational thinking outside its boundaries of application...

By the way, and slightly OT: I cannot remember if an explanation was ever given on why did Jesus decide to raise from the dead Lazarus and he alone. Back in my youth years, all I remember was hearing how 'good' and 'saint' and 'mighty' Jesus was, for single-handedly raising a dead, mummified & buried old man back from the dead. Ok, yadda, but, again, why Lazarus? He was dead from old age, or anyway of natural cause, if I recall correctly, so why he got to be raised, and that poor sod who was flattened by a 2-ton block of stone back at the cave got to remain dead (and more probably than not, his widow and little child got to starve to death...). Because Lazarus was related to someone Jesus knew? Because he had a very pretty daughter in whose panties Peter wanted to slip, and he discreetly pleaded to Jesus that being the disciple of the one who just raised her father from death could slightly improve his chances?
Or maybe, as you suggested, Jesus just wanted to have a test-run on that whole die-and-resurrect routine, and Lazarus's funeral just happened to be at the good place & time. "Johnny, stand and walk...sorry? His name was not Johnny? La-zha-what?!!? Could you spell it, please...?"

Ok, end OT

Buddha · Post by **Buddha** » 2008-03-25 11:56am

Would it be wishful thinking for me to want them to make a special on all those stupas and chortens they got all over Asia? I mean, half (almost half) of the world's population thinks that Gotama's remains and relics are in these damn things and nobody thinks to check. It's sort of like the shroud of Turin, but much older. I doubt that this is going to be brought under question come Wesak.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2008-03-25 06:46pm

Darth Wong wrote:Yeah, but when you don't write the story down until 40 years later, you can say whatever you want.

Heh, lately, the only religious research I've been doing is watching Gene Simmons smack down Christians at his website who attack him for being in a satanic band, or for being Jewish.

Gene Simmons wrote:What I'm about to say, may strike some of you as shocking. But, it's true nonetheless. Ask your Theology Professor. Ask your religious leader.

No one that wrote the New Testament was actually an eye witness to the events written about (true or untrue) in the New Testament. Most of what we know of the New Testament historical events, were written by the Hebrew Roman scribe JOSEPHUS. He was fluent in Hebrew and kept records of the events that happened in the area Rabbi Y'sua Ben Yosef lived in, including the Rabbi's activities and life.

Other than Josephus, none of the writers of the New Testament were alive nor witnessed any of the events written about in the New Testament. And that means, all the quotations marks around words people supposedly spoke, are, shall we say, poetic license. Or, they're untrue and never happened. None of the quotes you or the New Testament mention were actually spoken. Or, at least no one can prove them, because the writers of the New Testament Gospels weren't there.

The earliest writers may have been alive 70 years after the birth, death and/or resurrection. And, as regards the resurrection, no one saw it happen. Not even the writers of the New Testament. Read it and study it. I have. It's a beautiful book.

But the main issue here is...faith. If you have it, nothing and no one should shake your belief.

But, don't mix faith with historical fact.

I wish you well.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2008-03-26 07:22pm

I'm going to add one more "Nevermind" to Mr. Bean's list:

Nevermind that, being a 3D object, a body would not leave the kinds of photographic-like marks on an actual shroud covering it, no matter how the body makes an image on the shroud.

(Here's an experiment you can do at home: get a clean bedsheet, cover your body with ink, and have a friend wrap you in the sheet, then unwrap it and view the results. It will NEVER look like the shroud image.)