Here is short proof the Shroud of Turin is a fake.

[One Bad Pig]

I think, human nature being what it is, we can safely assume there are some who mistake the icon for the object of worship - I don't think it's either common or particular to a specific group. My guess is we'd find some Protestant clinging to the altar cross instead of to the Lord just as assuredly as we'd find some Catholic hanging onto an icon instead of Christ. I do NOT think either case is common.

Now, when we move outside Christianity, it's pretty easy to find people worshiping all manner of silly things (animism, anyone?).

'Venerate, adore and expect a response' being the short answer to your second question. No, it wasn't a dig at Catholicism or any thing else - not even animism. People is just stupid - which is why we need a Shepherd.

Thank you for the clarification; the language you used IS often intended as a dig at Catholicism or Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy, icons are venerated by everyone, and regarded as more than mere paint on wood; they are venerated for what they represent. If the Shroud of Turin were to be conclusively proved real, I'd venerate that too - not for its own sake, but because of its association with Jesus Christ.

[Teallaura]

Who worships icons, in your opinion? What do you mean by 'worship'?

I think, human nature being what it is, we can safely assume there are some who mistake the icon for the object of worship - I don't think it's either common or particular to a specific group. My guess is we'd find some Protestant clinging to the altar cross instead of to the Lord just as assuredly as we'd find some Catholic hanging onto an icon instead of Christ. I do NOT think either case is common.

Now, when we move outside Christianity, it's pretty easy to find people worshiping all manner of silly things (animism, anyone?).

'Venerate, adore and expect a response' being the short answer to your second question. No, it wasn't a dig at Catholicism or any thing else - not even animism. People is just stupid - which is why we need a Shepherd.

[Teallaura]

I am a tool programmer by trade. I use computer aided manufacturing software. The image on the shroud at best is a straight on projection. Not that of a wrapped cloth. And I was unaware that there was a back side to the image. What the video did was show that it is impossible to be wrapped image. The front and back images are head to head projections at best. The video makes this error very understandable.

Besides I had long reject it on biblical grounds. The head being wrapped in a napkin. (see John 20:4-7.) And Shuny made note of other relevant issues.

1) One of the compelling things about the shroud is that it does not show distortion that would be expected from a cloth on or wrapping something. That's actually a point in its favor since neither the 1st Century nor the Medieval period had the technology to create a projected image. The best attempt to date used a camera obscura and created an extremely poor image. It strains credulity that a medieval artist would have hung a body in a cave for the several days it takes to create that poor image - let alone would have stumbled on the correct combination of chemicals to make the cloth photosensitive as was done in the experiment. It gets just silly to assume that unknown artist then perfected the technique but never used it again for anything else.

2) If you are so poorly versed in the shroud's facts that you didn't know it had the front and back images how could you possibly be well enough informed to make an actually valid assessment of the evidence? A video of a Barbie doll isn't exactly rigorous science - you should have known better and done a little fact checking before you made such a sweeping - and wrong - assertion.

3) The napkin is a non-issue. Raphael posted the foremost argument - that it refers to the cloth used to secure the jaw - and I posted the secondary - that it refers to the cloth used to cover the Lord's face as His body was removed from the cross (possibly the Oviero of Sudarium) which was subsequently removed when the body was placed in the shroud. Since tying the jaw was a required part of Jewish custom, it's silly to assume that it would have been left undone hence both the issue of the face cloth (napkin) and the issue of John's use of the plural are answered. I actually favor the second argument as I think the science on the OoS is compelling but either is sufficient to answer the concern.

4) Shuny's points were refuted - pretty easily.

I don't care if you accept or reject the shroud - it's just a cloth, after all. But if you're going to post 'proof' make sure it actually proves what you think it does.

[One Bad Pig]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion - but not to claiming that Scripture says something it doesn't. Scripture doesn't eliminate the possibility - not even the passages in John.

While I agree some people become unhealthily obsessed with the Shroud, few truly worship it and of those that do, they fall into the same groups as those who worship icons - just paint on wood or cloth which may be a far cry from the burial cloth of the Lord but are certainly worshiped by some. Human stupidity seems a poor reason for God to eliminate things - not sure there'd be a creation left if He did.

Who worships icons, in your opinion? What do you mean by 'worship'?

[37818]

For those of us who don't do video, what's the upshot?

Incidentally, 'short video' makes one wonder what was left out. But whatever, what is the argument?

I am a tool programmer by trade. I use computer aided manufacturing software. The image on the shroud at best is a straight on projection. Not that of a wrapped cloth. And I was unaware that there was a back side to the image. What the video did was show that it is impossible to be wrapped image. The front and back images are head to head projections at best. The video makes this error very understandable.

Besides I had long reject it on biblical grounds. The head being wrapped in a napkin. (see John 20:4-7.) And Shuny made note of other relevant issues.

[Raphael]

Rocks are a far cry from the burial cloth of Christ.

Perhaps, but God also gave men the Ark of the Covenant.

Moses' body was never found so that men would not worship it. This would be over and above even Moses' body in the world of those who worship such things.

And for the same reason Hezekiah did have to destroy the bronze snake Moses had made.

I will never be convinced that the shroud is that of Christ. I believe He was wrapped in linen strips with a separate face cloth, with myrrh and spices mixed into the folds.

Carry on with your speculation, however. I will stand on scripture.

Mossy, I have a small problem with your last sentence.

That being said, may I quote some more from Habermas?

Habermas, Gary R. "The Shroud of Turin and its Significance for Biblical Studies." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 24:1 (1981): 47-54.
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...gnificance.htm

Source: Gary Habermas

II. JEWISH BURIAL

Probably the most common objection to the shroud from an evangelical viewpoint is the question as to whether it conforms to the NT accounts of Jesus' burial. The correct inference is that if the two contradict, then this cannot be the actual burial garment of Jesus.

The basic facts of Jesus' burial are recorded in the gospels, although exact specifics are rarely mentioned, as will be noted below. One interesting point concerns the gospel statements that Jesus' burial was not completed before the sabbath. Therefore the women were returning Sunday morning expecting to complete the anointing of Jesus' body with spices (Luke 23:54-24:1; Mark 16:1).

In comparing the NT accounts with the shroud, the most mentioned question is probably that which concerns the napkin. It is sometimes said that this handkerchief was opened and laid flat over the face and that therefore any image should be on the napkin and not on the main burial cloth. But careful investigation into the NT and other early Jewish literature clearly reveals that this napkin was folded up and tied around the head in order to keep the jaw closed during the onslaught of rigor mortis.

This practice is reported in both the Mishna (o. Sabb. 23.5) and the Code of Jewish Law in a section entitled "Laws of Mourning," which is a record of early Jewish burial practices.9 More important for the evangelical is that the gospels affirm the same. In John 11:44 the napkin is said to have been placed "around" the head (perideö). John 20:7 further explains that this cloth was "wrapped" or "rolled" up (entylissö) .10 The combination of being wrapped up and of being placed around the head clearly supports the position of the napkin explicitly taught in both the Mishna and the Code of Jewish Law. Interestingly enough, the man buried in the shroud also had just such a cloth tied around his jaw.11 Not only is there no contradication [sic] here but we find, rather, an unexpected verification of the method depicted on the shroud.

Another frequent issue involves the fact that the man buried in the shroud was not washed before burial, while such was a common Jewish custom (Acts 9:37). Although none of the gospels assert that Jesus'' body was washed, it is often assumed that it was since he was buried according to Jewish tradition (John 19:40).

The Code of Jewish Law sheds some light on this matter, in that we are told that dead bodies were normally washed before burial. However, exceptions include a person who was killed by the government. In such an instance the blood was to remain on the body to be a payment for a person's acts against the state.12 In other words, if Jesus was buried according to Jewish customs, as just mentioned (John 19:40), he could not have been washed. Therefore the tradition of the times required the exact opposite of what some believe is implied. Again, Scripture also provides added insight in that Jesus' burial was incomplete, and one of the purposes of spices (such as the women brought on Sunday morning) was to wash and cleanse the body.13

Therefore especially in light of the fact that the gospels never state that Jesus' body was washed, we have no contradiction here either. Again there is even an unexpected corroboration.

Other questions concern the nature of the linen clothing in which Jesus was buried. Some assume that he was wrapped like an Egyptian mummy instead of lengthwise as depicted in the shroud. It should be pointed out here that the term enetylixen (Matt 27:59; Luke 23:53) means "wrapped" or "folded" but is not specific, in that a number of possibilities are included.14

Very interestingly, some ancient Jewish examples portray the type of burial depicted in the shroud. For instance, in an Essene cemetery some persons were found buried like the man in the shroud.15 The Code of Jewish Law also states that the one killed should be buried in a single, plain sheet of linen.16 A consideration of Lazarus' burial also shows that while he was somewhat constrained, he was able to walk out of the tomb under his own power (John 11:44), which is inconsistent with burial like a mummy but quite consistent with the shroud. Thus this type of burial was practiced by at least some Jews at the time of Jesus and therefore is not a contradiction, especially in light of the fact that the gospels do not mention a specific method of wrapping Jesus' body.

Another question concerns whether Jesus was buried in one or more strips of linen. This is a difficult matter in that the gospels speak of these graveclothes in both the singular and the plural.17 However, at least one evangelical commentator states that his chief reason for rejecting the shroud is that the shroud depicts one linen sheet, while John uses the plural.18 This is a good example of a rejection made apart from the facts, for scientific testing indicates that the man buried in the shroud was, in fact, buried in at least four strips of linen. In addition to the major cloth known as the shroud, he was also wrapped around the head with a napkin as well as having his wrists and ankles tied together.19 Lazarus was also bound around his head, wrists and ankles (John 11:44). Not only is there no discrepancy here, but the shroud actually agrees with and verifies the gospel accounts in spite of the fact that many object on partial data, illustrating the sort of objection referred to earlier.

These issues are the major ones connected with the relationship between the shroud and the NT.20 A few points might now be stated. First, an exegetical study of the relevant portions of the NT does not render the shroud fraudulent. To the contrary: Not only are there no discrepancies, but the shroud is compatible with the data, and certain texts (such as John 11:44 and 20:6-7) actually favor the type of burial depicted in the shroud. Second, burial like that of the man in the shroud was apparently practiced by Jews in Jesus' time as revealed by the Essene community, the Code of Jewish Law and the Mishna. Although it is not known if this was the predominant type of burial practiced by these first-century Jews, it has been shown to be a viable option. Since we have found that the shroud is neither proven nor disproven by the gospel texts and that it is a viable option, a third point might now be stated. The actual authenticity of the shroud must be made on other grounds, such as scientific and historical investigation.
________

9. Code of Jewish Law, "Laws of Mourning," chaps. 351-352.
10. See BAG, 270, 646.
11. J . P. Jackson, E. J. Jumper, B. Mattern and ?. E. Stevenson, "The Three-Dimensional Image on Jesus' Burial Cloth," The Proceedings of the 1977 U. S. Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin (ed. ?. E. Stevenson; Colorado Springs, 1977) 91.
12. Code of Jewish Law, "Laws of Mourning," chap. 364.
13. Strangely enough, Jewish tradition allowed washing the body on the sabbath, but only if the body was not moved in the process (6. Sabb. 23.5). Such is a very effective prohibition against any washing on the sabbath.
14. BAG, 264, 270, 177.
15. Wilson, The Scrolls from the Dead Sea (London: Fontana, 1955) 50-51.
16. Code of Jewish Law, "Laws of Mourning," chap. 364.
17. Cf. Mark 15:46; Matt 27:69 with John 19:40; 20:5-7. Especially instructive is that Luke uses both (cf. 23:53 with 24:12, which is probably original).
18. Blodgett, "Questions," 34. Cf. McDowell, Answers, 165-166.
19. I. Wilson, Shroud, 39.

© Copyright Original Source

From the same asking who the man in the shroud could be:

Source: Gary Habermas

III. Jesus and the Man in the Shroud

The identification of the man in the shroud is of course quite a crucial issue. But a question that at first appears to be very difficult again reveals some amazing data.

A good place to begin is a simple comparison of the similarities between the gospel accounts of Jesus' passion and a description of the man buried in the shroud. This burial cloth also reveals a man who was cut throughout the scalp by a number of sharp objects causing him to bleed quite freely. He suffered a number of blows to the face, with large bruises on the cheeks and forehead, a twisted nose, one eye swollen half shut and a cut upper lip. Additionally he was beaten severely with an instrument identified as a Roman flagrum. More than 120 whipping wounds are visible on virtually every area of the body except the face, forearms and feet.

Further, the man of the shroud was forced to carry a heavy object across his shoulders after his beating, recognizable by the large rub marks on the shoulder blades, which smeared the bloody wounds of the whipping underneath. He must have stumbled and fallen down because there are contusions on both knees. More important are the five major wounds associated with death by crucifixion. The man in the shroud has puncture wounds through both wrists and through the tops of both feet. He has also been pierced in the right side of the chest, from which there flowed a large amount of blood, mixed with a watery liquid that is very discernible.

A number of pathologists have studied the shroud image in great detail, noting that the man is clearly in a state of rigor mortis. The wounds are so exact that they can even be identified as pre- or post-mortem. The crown, whipping and four nail wounds are all pre-mortem while the chest wound is post-mortem.

The similarities between the gospel accounts of Jesus' passion and the wounds of the man buried in the shroud are certainly apparent. But even more valuable in terms of this study is the fact that a number of the occurrences in Jesus' passion are known to have been out of the ordinary in usual crucifixion procedure, yet the same things happened to the man buried in the shroud as well.

For instance, how many persons crucified as criminals had a crown of thorns placed on their head? How about the severe beating that both Jesus and the man of the shroud had in common? We know that crucified persons usually had their legs broken in order to hasten death. This is both recorded in the gospel of John (19:31-32) and substantiated by archaeology in the 1968 discovery of a crucified victim. But not only do both of these men not have their ankles broken, but the same procedure was used to insure their deaths. Although a number of other options were possible, both were stabbed in the chest, blood and water proceeded from both wounds, and both were post-mortem. Crucified persons were often thrown in a common grave, but Jesus and the man of the shroud were buried individually. Adding to the unusual quality of burial, both men were wrapped in expensive linen and both were hastily interred.

How many other men in history were crucified in exactly the same way, especially when each had at least a half dozen unusual things done to him? What are the chances that they would not have contradicted on at least one point? The probabilities that both are the same person rise dramatically especially when we consider the very unusual qualities of the crown of thorns and the various intricacies of the chest wound, as well as the other items.

Because of these and other unusual points that both Jesus and the man of the shroud have in common, a number of scholars have studied the data and have concluded that it is highly improbable that the crucifixions of two different men would agree so closely. In other words, Jesus and the man buried in the shroud are very probably the same person.

The reason that many scholars have arrived at very high figures is that the improbabilities of each of these unusual but common points would have to be multiplied individually in order to arrive at a total improbability that Jesus is different from the man of the shroud. To my knowledge, the most conservative figure published to date was the conclusion of two University of Turin scientists, Tino Zeuli, and Bruno Barbaris. After an in-depth study, they concluded that there was one chance in 225 billion that Jesus and the man of the shroud were different persons.21 Official scientific spokesman Kenneth Stevenson and I attempted a very skeptical figuring of these improbabilities and we still arrived at a one-in-83- million probability that the two men are not the same.

Two additional considerations make these figures even more impressive. First, there are no contradictions between Jesus and the man buried in the shroud. It would be very probable that if the two men were different, there would be one or more points in conflict. Perhaps they would agree in other points, but the man in the shroud would not have a spear wound or would be missing the crown of thorns, for instance. But this is not what we find. This point increases the odds that these men are the same.

Second, the shroud has always been kept down through the centuries as the true burial garment of Jesus. In other words, it is not a recently-found relic that merely reminds us of Jesus. Rather, it has been kept as the real artifact long before science could test it. This makes the connection between Jesus and the man in the shroud even stronger.

Therefore while the identification of the man buried in the shroud cannot be made with absolute certainty, there are strong reasons that indicate that it is probably the actual burial garment of Jesus. This is especially so when it has been shown that there are numerous minute points of agreement, no contradictions, and the scientific consensus that this artifact is not a fake.
________

20. Two examples of lesser issues concern the use of the spices and the shroud's depiction of nailing through the wrists instead of the hands. It is stated that spices were used in Jesus' burial (John 19:39), but no one is certain what form these were in (powder or solid, for instance) or how they were placed in the burial process. Such could have been packed around the body or sprinkled over it. But there is no certainty with regard to Jewish burial at this point, so there is no contradiction. Concerning the nailing of the wrists in crucifixion, suffice it to say that evangelicals have long been convinced completely apart from the shroud that Jesus was nailed through his wrists. A discussion of this is beyond the scope of this brief essay, but there is agreement on this point, even in the Greek, as opposed to any discrepancy.

21. V. J. Donovan, "The Shroud and the Laws of Probability," The Catholic Digest (April 1980) 51.

© Copyright Original Source

[Raphael]

I see it as an object of historical inquiry, just like piecing together the pictures of any other ancient historical event. But I'm not a fan of people basing apologetics arguments based on it.

Likewise, I'm agnostic about it's authenticity. but it is an intriguing subject.
Because I don't think we can know for definite if it is authentic, I would hesitate using it for an apologetics base.

[Teallaura]

That's fair.

But would it be any less interesting as an object of historical inquiry if it didn't have Jesus' name tacked to it?

Probably, just no where near as popular. It's really fascinating in a lot of nerdy geeky ways.

[Teallaura]

I haven't claimed at all that scripture is saying something it isn't.

Tell me this. Why should Christians even care about whether the shroud is real or not?

There are three (to my knowledge) possible understandings of the passages in John - only one eliminates the Shroud. So no, Scripture doesn't say it isn't real - Scripture is silent on that and what it does say doesn't definitively tell us one way or the other.

IF it is the Lord's then it stands to reason that God left it for some purpose, most probably apologetic. That is grounds for us to care. IF it is really the Lord's it would be a valuable apologetic tool. IF it is NOT then it is a powerful anti-apologetic - and in either case one that will have to be addressed. That's sufficient grounds for some Christians to take note and study the thing.

Should all Christians? Nope - it's just cloth. Scripture never commands us to revere artifacts but does have a bunch of other things we should be more concerned with so while it's okay to find it interesting, it's NOT okay to make it more important than following Jesus. No different from any other thing we get carried away about, really.

[mossrose]

I see it as an object of historical inquiry, just like piecing together the pictures of any other ancient historical event. But I'm not a fan of people basing apologetics arguments based on it.

That's fair.

But would it be any less interesting as an object of historical inquiry if it didn't have Jesus' name tacked to it?

[KingsGambit]

I haven't claimed at all that scripture is saying something it isn't.

Tell me this. Why should Christians even care about whether the shroud is real or not?

I see it as an object of historical inquiry, just like piecing together the pictures of any other ancient historical event. But I'm not a fan of people basing apologetics arguments based on it.

[mossrose]

I haven't claimed at all that scripture is saying something it isn't.

Tell me this. Why should Christians even care about whether the shroud is real or not?

[Teallaura]

Rocks are a far cry from the burial cloth of Christ.

Moses' body was never found so that men would not worship it. This would be over and above even Moses' body in the world of those who worship such things.

I will never be convinced that the shroud is that of Christ. I believe He was wrapped in linen strips with a separate face cloth, with myrrh and spices mixed into the folds.

Carry on with your speculation, however. I will stand on scripture.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion - but not to claiming that Scripture says something it doesn't. Scripture doesn't eliminate the possibility - not even the passages in John.

While I agree some people become unhealthily obsessed with the Shroud, few truly worship it and of those that do, they fall into the same groups as those who worship icons - just paint on wood or cloth which may be a far cry from the burial cloth of the Lord but are certainly worshiped by some. Human stupidity seems a poor reason for God to eliminate things - not sure there'd be a creation left if He did.

[mossrose]

Rocks are a far cry from the burial cloth of Christ.

Moses' body was never found so that men would not worship it. This would be over and above even Moses' body in the world of those who worship such things.

I will never be convinced that the shroud is that of Christ. I believe He was wrapped in linen strips with a separate face cloth, with myrrh and spices mixed into the folds.

Carry on with your speculation, however. I will stand on scripture.

[Teallaura]

The real problem with the shroud being really the burial cloth of Christ is that men will worship it.

I don't think God would provide us with a relic that would be held up as an icon to be worshipped.

Men worship carved rocks - there wouldn't be much left of creation if God eliminated things merely because humans are dumb enough to worship them.