Shroud of Turin

[Mudhammam]

What are your thoughts on this? What caused the negative image? Does it reveal lacerations to the body's wrists, and if it's a 13th century forgery, how would the fabricator have known to place them there? (All artwork from that period that I have come across depict crucifixion with nails in the palms). Just curious about your thoughts and if there are good sources you can pass along for further info. Scientists who have studied it, appear to me, to be genuinely divided as to the date and cause of its origins.

Also, I've heard that the Church claims further tests threaten to irrevocably damage the Shroud... convenient and suspicious enough, I'd say.

[downbeatplumb]

I'd go with medieval forgery.
Its by far the most likely explanation.

[Minimalist]

It's medieval. "Forgery" is less certain as you do not know what was in the mind of the artist. Certainly who ever painted it is not responsible for the absurd claims of people living 2-3 centuries in the future.

[KUSA]

Even if the shroud was not painted what are the odds of it being jebus and not some other dumbass?

Jebus didn't leave didn't leave a goddamned spec of evidence that he was here so this would be inconsistent of him.

[Diablo]

Wha are your thoughts on this? What caused the negative image? Does it reveal lacerations to the body's wrists, and if it's a 13th century forgery, how would the fabricator have known to place them there? (All artwork from that period that I have come across depict crucifixion with nails in the palms). Just curious about your thoughts and if there are good sources you can pass along for further info. Scientists who have studied it, appear to me, to be genuinely divided as to the date and cause of its origins.

Also, I've heard that the Church claims further tests threaten to irrevocably damage the Shroud... convenient and suspicious enough, I'd say.

As far as the wrists/hands thing is concerned, I recall when I was at school that our RI teacher told us that the nails had to be inserted in the wrists because the palms of the hands would not bear a man's weight.

This is the sort of charming stuff that young kids just love to hear, along with a detailed description of scourging. I do wonder about that teacher....

[Minimalist]

[vorlon13]

IIRC, Scripture records 2 shrouds for Jesus, so Biblically*, the Shroud of Turin is a fake.



*and shouldn't that be enough ??

[Cyberman]

If the shroud really does depict a real human figure, then he would have been enormous. Something like nearly seven feet tall at the front. Interestingly, he was six inches taller viewed from behind. Not to mention his head wasn't attached to his torso.

Seems like the most interesting bits were missed from the bible stories.

[Mudhammam]

So, the question of the Shroud's authenticity allows for two possibilities: Either it's the burial cloth of a genuine victim of Roman punishment or it once cloaked the figure Christians proclaimed to be the Messiah. Neither possibilities would establish anything regarding "supernatural" phenomena per se, though they would both be very historically significant, especially the latter. As to the likelihood that it's THAT Jesus, I've been told by believers that there appears to be markings that indicate wounds on the head (such as from a crown of thorns), as well as the body's side (such as from a piercing by a spear), and that the skeletal image shows no signs of broken bones. Can anyone confirm or deny? To me it seems speculative, but interesting nonetheless.

The thing I'm most interested in is how the image was created, as the negative image was only discovered in the 19th-century after the advent of photography.

-Min, I can't tell if that painting depicts the nails in the wrists (as they would have been) or hands (as popularly depicted).

- Stimbo, damn, the figure is that tall? (Also, look at the fucking schnoz... Christ. And is it just me or IF it was Jesus, does he look a lot older than thirty-three?).

---

Here's some images to make references easier:

[Minimalist]