Evidence: The Gathering

[Cyberman]

The shroud of turin is not extremely distorted, therefore is was never wrapped around a body to achieve the end result.

Actually, that is not true The image is distorted and only recently was a team of forensic researchers able to use computer modeling to reconstruct it.

Got a citation for that so we can look it up?

How long should I give this before assuming the answer is "no", I wonder..?

[Angrboda]

Are these the images which predate the 1350 dating?

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/201...cript.html

[Minimalist]

 The shroud of turin is not extremely distorted, therefore is was never wrapped around a body to achieve the end result.

Actually, that is not true The image is distorted and only recently was a team of forensic researchers able to use computer modeling to reconstruct it.

Chad look closely where the front and back of the head come together.

There are two images on the sheet, showing a man's back and front. That is because this burial shroud was apparently wrapped from the the man's toes, up the front of his body, over his head, and down his back to his heels. As seen at the top of the above digitally enhanced photograph, the front and back images of the head are separated by a gap of less than 1 cm (less than a half inch).
Some investigators have suggested that the image on the shroud was caused by some form of radiation emanating from the body, perhaps at about the time of death. This leads immediately to what might be called the "top of the head" problem.

If radiation from the head created the two two images on the shroud, then there seem to be only two possibilities:

1) There was similar radiation from the top of the head. It would have left an image of the top of the victim's head on the shroud. However, there is no such image. Only a tiny gap is seen.
2) There was no radiation from the top of the head. This would result in a dark gap of perhaps 12 cm (almost 5 inches) between the top of the front of the head and the top of the back of the head. No such gap is visible.

Thus the radiation theory seems to fail because it does not match the image.
That still leaves the possibility that the Shroud is some form of image intentionally created -- either as a painting by an artist or by some form of photographic technique.
This leaves two possibilities:

1) The shroud was created as a forgery that was to be "sold" to the public as Jesus' shroud. This seems improbable because the "top of the head" problem would immediately point out that this is not a real 1st century shroud.
2) The shroud was created by a human as a type of icon to be venerated. This seems to be the more likely possibility.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_shro2.htm

Relics were all over Europe like shit on a statue because superstitious fools demanded them.  That's what you have here.

[AtheistAspie]

None of your "facts" constitute real evidence.  You cannot use quotes from a book we believe to be a work of complete fiction (the bible) as evidence for the existence of a man whom we believe to be fictitious.  That's like saying that the giant from Jack and the Beanstalk is a real person, because it said he was in the story.  As for the idea of a person's "coming to know god" being evidence of his existence, this is completely laughable.  If an individual with schizophrenia has a hallucination about a talking purple monkey, should we take that person's claim that he has a relationship with the talking monkey as evidence that the monkey is real?  You seem to have a difficult time ascertaining what facts actually are.  A fact would be someone going to Jesus's tomb and finding a skeleton, extracting DNA from the bone (very difficult procedure), and matching the alleles from the genes within the DNA to a blood lineage that we have proven is absolutely, definitively, the bloodline of Jesus.  Even this fact wouldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the skeleton in the cave was Jesus, it just proves that he had a lineage, and that he, or someone related to him, died in a cave.

[robvalue]

Metis: that's cool, I look forward to the debate!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Actually, that is not true The image is distorted and only recently was a team of forensic researchers able to use computer modeling to reconstruct it.

Got a citation for that so we can look it up?

How long should I give this before assuming the answer is "no", I wonder..?

From the History Channel, skip to about 1:15:00 where they talk about the computer modeling.

[Longhorn]

Lol really Chad? Really?

[abaris]

From the History Channel, skip to about 1:15:00 where they talk about the computer modeling.

The History channel? Really? The same guys who can't even get their facts about 20th century Europe right?

[Neo-Scholastic]

You do realize that questioning the source doesn't refute the message? The fact remains that the facial proportions of the image are consistent with its use a a wrapping. The claim of the earlier poster about 'distortion' is not true.

[abaris]

You do realize that questioning the source doesn't refute the message? The fact remains that the facial proportions of the image are consistent with   its use a a wrapping. The claim of the earlier poster about 'distortion' is not true.

Again, based on the history channel? Questioning the source in this instance is very much in order.

This is from the Smithsonian. I put slightly more credit in their publications than I do in the history channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MoDMrcXXj8