Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • mossrose
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Raphael
    replied
    NOTE: I am fairly agnostic on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, I do think it's an intriguing topic though.

    I know that Gary Habermas thinks that it is plausible that the Shroud could be genuine.

    Talking about the head cloth he says this:
    Source: Gary Habermas

    http://www.garyhabermas.com/qa/qa_index.htm#shr
    The Shroud of Turin:

    Question: John 20:7 mentions that the cloth that wrapped Jesus' face in burial was folded and separated from the other burial clothes. Is there a reason why John comments on this? What is its significance?

    Answer: Unfortunately, we cannot speculate any further about Jesus' face napkin with any degree of assurance, simply because we are not told. It could be as simple as John thinking that it was interesting that they were separate and simply recorded the available data. But you're right that it does nothing to disprove the shroud of Turin, since the man in the shroud also appears to have a face cloth wrapped around his head.

    Question: In John 20:7, John records that there was separate linen used for Jesus' face in his burial. However, the Shroud reveals the image of man on the entire linen, including the face, which is not isolated to a separate linen. Therefore, the Shroud seems to contradict the record that we have in John, and should not be believed to be Christ's cloth.

    Answer: In my opinion, I don't think John 20:7 disproves the shroud of Turin at all. In our books on the shroud, Ken Stevenson and I argued that there was indeed a face cloth around the head of the man buried in the shroud. There appears to be a gap caused by something between the man's face and hair, keeping the hair from resting on the face. If this is the face cloth, it appears to be what is what is described in John. John 11:43-44 (Lazarus) and 20:7 (Jesus) are the only places in the New Testament where a face cloth is mentioned and in both places, it is described as being placed around the head or face. Further, as we describe in our book, the Jewish Mishnah commands that the jaw be bound up after death. On the shroud, it appears that this is exactly what happened. For example, the beard under the chin is also pulled back against the throat by the same invisible object that appears to be wrapped around the face of the man.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Also, I've posted these two links before, Frank Turek interviewed Gary Habermas on the Shroud a few years back on Cross Examined.
    http://mediaserver3.afa.net/archives...NKT_012112.mp3

    He also gave a lecture at The Christian Apologetics Conference in Gothenburg, Sweden titled: The Shroud of Turin: A Non-Reproducible Artifact That Points To A Supernatural Cause
    http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/Ha...%201%20E1b.mp3

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    The face cloth isn't believed to have been used during the burial but during the removal from the cross - so no, it isn't. Incidentally, it is possibly still in existence - it is theorized to be the Sudarium of Oviedo. The analysis of the patterns of the blood stains is pretty compelling.

    The body wasn't fully anointed - or the women wouldn't have been going to anoint it Sunday morning.

    Originally posted by Matt 27:59, NIV
    Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
    The body wasn't bound like a mummy - Scripture doesn't indicate it and history doesn't support it (bodies couldn't be wrapped that fast). It would have had bindings to keep the body from shifting (some of which are visible in the Shroud) but not necessarily being bound around the cloth. Some spices were placed with the body but clearly the burial was rushed and the job not finished. Matt's account is consistent with the Shroud - and with John's.

    Does that prove the Shroud belonged to the Lord? No, of course not. But Scripture does not eliminate the possibility.

    There are papers from more knowledgeable scholars than I that attest to the comparability. I'll be happy to track some down for you if you are genuinely interested. But there is no easy refutation of the Shroud - no gotcha - that's gonna create an irrefutable proof. No one would still be studying it if there were.

    Leave a comment:


  • mossrose
    replied
    John 20:7 NASB

    and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.

    John 19:39-40 NASB

    39 Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.
    The myrrh and aloes were sticky and were used to adhere the strips of linen to themselves and to the body.

    Which would have made the resurrection even more astounding, since the wrappings would have been all stuck together and couldn't have been removed without unwrapping them.

    And the face cloth is a problem. The shroud wouldn't have needed a face cloth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    I think she's talking about the description of the burial, or perhaps the patterns on the cloth itself.
    I know what she was talking about - but Scripture doesn't preclude a burial shroud (and it isn't inconsistent with 1st Cent. burial).

    This will now devolve into a debate of what the word 'is' means...

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    It's proved a fake from the scripture record. Don't need nobody with a barbie doll or anything else to tell me that it isn't the shroud of Christ.

    It might be somebody's, but it isn't His.
    I tend to agree. It just does not match up with what read in John and the other Gospels or what was known about Jewish burial customs of the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Scripture records the existence of burial cloths.
    I think she's talking about the description of the burial, or perhaps the patterns on the cloth itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Scripture records the existence of burial cloths.

    Leave a comment:


  • mossrose
    replied
    It's proved a fake from the scripture record. Don't need nobody with a barbie doll or anything else to tell me that it isn't the shroud of Christ.

    It might be somebody's, but it isn't His.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    he uses a barbie doll to prove he's an idiot.
    Fixed it for ya...

    What a waste of pixels...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Ah... Thanks.
    he uses a barbie doll to prove the shroud is fake.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Ah... Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Yeah, I thought as much. Still waiting for Bible's answer, though.
    The video creator thinks there's not enough room between the front and back images, mostly because he's confusing a water spot that lies between them with the back of the head.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I actually ignored the video. I went by the history of the evidence.
    Yeah, I thought as much. Still waiting for Bible's answer, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    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 actually ignored the video. I went by the history of the evidence.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by rogue06, 10-20-2021, 05:48 PM
4 responses
44 views
1 like
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X