The Turin Shroud

A

almareallymatters

Active Member
As it's Easter....

"There are very few Christian relics as important and as controversial as the Shroud of Turin.

This linen cloth, measuring about 4.4m by 1.1m (14.4x3.6 feet) holds the concealed image of a man bearing all the signs of crucifixion.

Scientific tests have proved that there are blood stains around the marks consistent with a crown of thorns and a puncture from a lance to the side.

In a new documentary, we have been given intimate access that no other broadcaster has had before.

Until the 1980s, millions of Christians around the world believed the Shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ.

Put simply, it meant that for millions of people the Shroud was, in effect, a Polaroid of Jesus' death - a snapshot of the defining moment in Christianity. It put the Shroud in a league of its own in the realm of the most important Christian relics.

But in 1989, the significance of the Shroud seemed to evaporate after a radiocarbon dating test pronounced a stunning verdict - the Shroud of Turin was indisputably a medieval fake."

enrie-b.jpg


Do you believe the Turin shroud is the burial cloth of Christ?....or is it a clever hoax?

Love Alma xxx

(The documentry mentioned is on BBC 2 this evening at 8.30pm)
 
bysshe said:
I read an interesting book on that a few years ago, called The Blood and the Shroud, by Ian Wilson. It argues that the testing was inaccurate and that the shroud is genuine.

2-2The-Blood-and-the-Shroud.jpg


http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Shroud-...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206216415&sr=1-1
Click to expand...

I really want to believe it's genuine...just because it would be so BLOODY spectacular if it were!

Everything I have ever watched or read about the shroud has been really intriguing...I'll watch the docu later...and let you know how it turned out! ;)

Love Alma xxx
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
almareallymatters said:
As it's Easter....

"There are very few Christian relics as important and as controversial as the Shroud of Turin.

This linen cloth, measuring about 4.4m by 1.1m (14.4x3.6 feet) holds the concealed image of a man bearing all the signs of crucifixion.

Scientific tests have proved that there are blood stains around the marks consistent with a crown of thorns and a puncture from a lance to the side.

In a new documentary, we have been given intimate access that no other broadcaster has had before.

Until the 1980s, millions of Christians around the world believed the Shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ.

Put simply, it meant that for millions of people the Shroud was, in effect, a Polaroid of Jesus' death - a snapshot of the defining moment in Christianity. It put the Shroud in a league of its own in the realm of the most important Christian relics.

But in 1989, the significance of the Shroud seemed to evaporate after a radiocarbon dating test pronounced a stunning verdict - the Shroud of Turin was indisputably a medieval fake."

enrie-b.jpg


Do you believe the Turin shroud is the burial cloth of Christ?....or is it a clever hoax?

Love Alma xxx

(The documentry mentioned is on BBC 2 this evening at 8.30pm)
Click to expand...

Just as interesting is the Spear of Destiny in what was the lance used to pierce the side of Jesus as it is believed that the lance still exists. The problem is that they believe it is one of three or four but not which exact one.
 
almareallymatters said:
I really want to believe it's genuine...just because it would be so BLOODY spectacular if it were!

Everything I have ever watched or read about the shroud has been really intriguing...I'll watch the docu later...and let you know how it turned out! ;)

Love Alma xxx
Click to expand...

Please do! I find the whole thing fascinating. One of the more controversial findings written about in the book is that they found the presence of DNA on the shroud.

Also interesting was the suggestion that Christ would have probably been crucified facing the cross with the nails driven through the sides of the ankles, rather than the traditional portrayal.
 
almareallymatters said:
As it's Easter....

"There are very few Christian relics as important and as controversial as the Shroud of Turin.

This linen cloth, measuring about 4.4m by 1.1m (14.4x3.6 feet) holds the concealed image of a man bearing all the signs of crucifixion.

Scientific tests have proved that there are blood stains around the marks consistent with a crown of thorns and a puncture from a lance to the side.

In a new documentary, we have been given intimate access that no other broadcaster has had before.

Until the 1980s, millions of Christians around the world believed the Shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ.

Put simply, it meant that for millions of people the Shroud was, in effect, a Polaroid of Jesus' death - a snapshot of the defining moment in Christianity. It put the Shroud in a league of its own in the realm of the most important Christian relics.

But in 1989, the significance of the Shroud seemed to evaporate after a radiocarbon dating test pronounced a stunning verdict - the Shroud of Turin was indisputably a medieval fake."

enrie-b.jpg


Do you believe the Turin shroud is the burial cloth of Christ?....or is it a clever hoax?

Love Alma xxx

(The documentry mentioned is on BBC 2 this evening at 8.30pm)
Click to expand...
personally, I think it's a hoax. I'd quite like to see the programme on it later, but it clashes with the Mighty Boosh. What's a girl to do? :D
 
It may be an authentic shroud, but not Jesus'.
Faith requires belief without evidence, so if you have faith there is no need for the shroud to be authentic.

Relics and rituals help people to identify beliefs with objects, make them seem more "real".

But finding the shroud to be not real means the Church which once claimed it as evidence was mistaken, and so opens the way to ask "what else is the Church mistaken about?"

If the shroud were real it would not necessarily prove any of the other claims made about Jesus' death and resurrection were true. And surely cloth that old would have decayed to dust by now?

I may watch to see the arguments about it. Cheers.
 
hatfull said:
personally, I think it's a hoax. I'd quite like to see the programme on it later, but it clashes with the Mighty Boosh. What's a girl to do? :D
Click to expand...

Julian. . . Jesus. . .

That is a tough decision. ;)
 
Buzzetta said:
Just as interesting is the Spear of Destiny in what was the lance used to pierce the side of Jesus as it is believed that the lance still exists. The problem is that they believe it is one of three or four but not which exact one.
Click to expand...

Off topic, I know, but have you seen Constantine?

Somewhat relevant now, Graham Hancock wrote a book called Sign and the Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, which suggests that the Ark is housed [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]at the Ethiopian Orthodox Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion in the town of Axum[/FONT].

AFR23.jpg


http://www.amazon.com/Sign-Seal-Que...=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206217462&sr=1-5
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
bysshe said:
Also interesting was the suggestion that Christ would have probably been crucified facing the cross with the nails driven through the sides of the ankles, rather than the traditional portrayal.
Click to expand...

I have read that as well, however I am of the belief that it was as depicted. Last year Discovery documented that it IS possible to crucify someone by the hands and not through the wrists. There was always the fear that the hands would tear apart unable to hold the weight.

However remember that there was as little shelf for the crucified to rest their legs on to support their weight even with nails driven into the feet. That is why after awhile the Romans would grow bored of watching and break the legs of the crucified so that they would not be able to support that weight.

Remember also that the purpose of being crucified was for it to be a slow and painful death through suffocation. The lungs and chest muscles tire with the arms forcibly raised and after awhile tire to the point that they can no longer expand and contract the diaphragm enabling the inhaling and exhaling of oxygen. Basically your lungs slowly stop working. It was a very slow and painful death.

Why would they have been facing forward then? The Roman punishment of crucifixion was meant as a punishment to deter others from committing similar crimes against the state. There was no DNA evidence, video tape or forensics. If they caught you they wanted to make a spectacle of it as a warning to others. It was along the lines of, "We may not catch you but if we do this is what happens." The Romans would have wanted the spectators to get a full on look, facial expressions and all.

Okay... back to writing lesson plans.
 
It could be any bearded bloke from the time couldn't it?

Jesus was a popular name in those day as well.
 
Buzzetta said:
I have read that as well, however I am of the belief that it was as depicted. Last year Discovery documented that it IS possible to crucify someone by the hands and not through the wrists. There was always the fear that the hands would tear apart unable to hold the weight.

However remember that there was as little shelf for the crucified to rest their legs on to support their weight even with nails driven into the feet. That is why after awhile the Romans would grow bored of watching and break the legs of the crucified so that they would not be able to support that weight.

Remember also that the purpose of being crucified was for it to be a slow and painful death through suffocation. The lungs and chest muscles tire with the arms forcibly raised and after awhile tire to the point that they can no longer expand and contract the diaphragm enabling the inhaling and exhaling of oxygen. Basically your lungs slowly stop working. It was a very slow and painful death.

Why would they have been facing forward then? The Roman punishment of crucifixion was meant as a punishment to deter others from committing similar crimes against the state. There was no DNA evidence, video tape or forensics. If they caught you they wanted to make a spectacle of it as a warning to others. It was along the lines of, "We may not catch you but if we do this is what happens." The Romans would have wanted the spectators to get a full on look, facial expressions and all.

Okay... back to writing lesson plans.
Click to expand...

Here's a link citing the following article: Tzaferis, Vassilios. “Crucifixion — The Archaeological Evidence”, Biblical Archaeology Review 11, February, 1985: 44–53.

http://riverflowsdown.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/nothing-fiction-about-crucifixion/
 
Hellie said:
It could be any bearded bloke from the time couldn't it?

Jesus was a popular name in those day as well.
Click to expand...

did you miss this part in the original post?

Scientific tests have proved that there are blood stains around the marks consistent with a crown of thorns and a puncture from a lance to the side.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
nugz said:
did you miss this part in the original post?

Scientific tests have proved that there are blood stains around the marks consistent with a crown of thorns and a puncture from a lance to the side.
Click to expand...


er no:o...its my worst fault I'm so impatient I skim everything.

The program about is on now as I speak.

Makes me think of the Mel Gibson film....utterly brilliant and disturbing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nicky wire's legs
  • Poll
The Supermodel Poll
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
3K
gordyboy9
gordyboy9
W
The Tortured Poets Department.
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
goinghome
goinghome
W
Spot The Smiths/Moz Refs
Replies
0
Views
412
Who Rattled Your Cage
W
TheSmiths_1985
The epic banter thread
15 16 17
Replies
329
Views
12K
TheSmiths_1985
TheSmiths_1985
goinghome
The Lazy Sunbathers / Climate Change
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
goinghome
goinghome
Back
Top Bottom