Shroud of Turin

[Nitsuj]

Of all the "arguments" for religion, the Turin Shroud seems to be the most convincing. So I have a question: Does anybody have a good explanation for what the Turin Shroud is?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Of all the "arguments" for religion, the Turin Shroud seems to be the most convincing. So I have a question: Does anybody have a good explanation for what the Turin Shroud is?

The Shroud of Turin is a forgery.
So, yes. I agree that the shroud is about as good of a representation of religion as honest religious artifacts go. Not that I still wouldn't like to see the ark of the covenant, despite the threat of face-melting.

[Minimalist]

Can I just ask what you find so "convincing" about it?


It was denounced as a fake when first exhibited in the 14th century.

[Tiberius]

If the Turin Shroud is the best argument for religion, religion has been doomed for a long long time.

[Anomalocaris]

Of all the "arguments" for religion, the Turin Shroud seems to be the most convincing. So I have a question: Does anybody have a good explanation for what the Turin Shroud is?

It's a piece of cloth with an image on it. You know, the sort of thing which overturns entire cosmologies.

[Minimalist]

http://www.crystalinks.com/shroud.html

The known provenance of the cloth now stored in Turin dates to 1357, when the widow of the French knight Geoffroi de Charny had it displayed in a church at Lirey, France (diocese of Troyes). In the Museum Cluny in Paris, the coats of arms of this knight and his widow can be seen on a pilgrim medallion, which also shows an image of the Shroud of Turin.

During the fourteenth century, the shroud was often publicly exposed, though not continuously, since the bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, had prohibited veneration of the image. Thirty-two years after this pronouncement, the image was displayed again, and King Charles VI of France ordered its removal to Troyes, citing the impropriety of the image.

The sheriffs were unable to carry out the order.In 1389 the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis in a letter to the Avignon pope, mentioning that the image had previously been denounced by his predecessor Henri de Poitiers, who had been concerned that no such image was mentioned in scripture. Bishop D'Arcis continued, "Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed." (In German.) The artist is not named in the letter.

[Nitsuj]

I don't find it convincing. I just find it the MOST convincing about all the religous arguments. I never really thought that it could be a forgery. Dumb oversight on my part.

[downbeatplumb]

From the BBC news

unshrouding the science of the shroud

he is convinced that the object dates from the 14th Century. And yet that doesn't take away from the shroud's power to move people, he adds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8615029.stm

[Minimalist]

Just about a year ago, archaeologist Shimon Gibson announced the finding of an actual, first-century, burial shroud ( C14 dated to that century) and which shows how first century burials were done.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnew...salem.html

Radiocarbon tests and artefacts found in the cave prove almost beyond doubt that it was from the same time of Christ's death.

It was made with a simple two-way weave - not the twill weave used on the Turin Shroud, which textile experts say was introduced more than 1,000 years after Christ lived.

And instead of being a single sheet like the famous item in Turin, the Jerusalem shroud is made up of several sections, with a separate piece for the head.

[Captain Scarlet]

I don't find it convincing. I just find it the MOST convincing about all the religous arguments. I never really thought that it could be a forgery. Dumb oversight on my part.

I find it amongst the least convincing. Even if it weren't a forgery, why would it be the image of anything other than a ordinary dead man?