With Easter approachin, here is a "religious" question.

The Seeker of Good Songs

Well-Known Member
Do you think the "Shroud of Turin" is authentic?

Some background from wiki:
"The Shroud of Turin (or Turin Shroud) is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. It is believed by many to be the cloth placed on Jesus of Nazareth at the time of his burial."
 

anon x

New Member
No.
Are there any shrouds/materials that have had such an imprint?

TO me it's all religious gobbledygook.
(never knew "gobbledygook" 's origin:U.S. Rep. Maury Maverick made up the word as an onomatopoeic imitation of a turkey's gobble,"Wiki) :D
 

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent
Do you think the "Shroud of Turin" is authentic?

Some background from wiki:
"The Shroud of Turin (or Turin Shroud) is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. It is believed by many to be the cloth placed on Jesus of Nazareth at the time of his burial."

no and it was "proved" to be a fake a long time ago i thought :straightface:
now this does not mean, in any way, there was no Jesus :o
and really, worrying about "proof of Jesus" seems to be a matter for those of little faith i think :lbf:
 

anon x

New Member
now this does not mean, in any way, there was no Jesus :o
and really, worrying about "proof of Jesus" seems to be a matter for those of little faith i think :lbf:

Jesus was a real guy but,of course,he wasn't Christ,the son of god.
Can't be a son of something that doesn't exist.
 

I am a Ghost

New Member
It is a c.13th Century fake, in my opinion, but still a fascinating study in it's own right. There are many mysteries surrounding how the image was produced.
 

anon x

New Member
Talking of religion,why are so many into chopping off little boys' foreskins?
:crazy:
 

AllYouNeedIsMoz

Queen Bee
I thought the Shroud's authenticity had been disproved years ago. Am I wrong?
I don't think Jesus wanted people to have proof of His burial. Wouldn't He more want to prove the resurrection?
 

Seasick

Member
he was out of business card so he left the shroud instead.

I'm pretty sure it was proven to be a fake, but as Robby stated that point is meaningless.
 

biru

get the f* out of my lawn
I don't think it's the real deal... but religous beliefs are always really hard to debate, even more so here, where you don't know people and can more easily hurt someone.
 
D

Deleted member 6305

Guest
Again, I don't think it's real.... BUT I do know that they've tested a blood sample from the shroud which came up A positive. That's consistent with Eucharistic miracles that are true.

And God does exist. Just look out your window. There's LIFE out there. :eek:
 

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent
And God does exist. Just look out your window. There's LIFE out there. :eek:

amen & stuff that is not "alive" is pretty awe inspiring too!
artistic.gif
 

Buzzetta

WOOOOOOOO!!!!!
From my understanding the shroud is an ancient forgery however it is believed that the spear of destiny does indeed exist as well as pieces of the crown of thorns. However when it comes to the spear they believe it is one of three or four. The dispute comes from which of the three or four is the real spear that lanced the side of Jesus.
 
D

Deleted member 6305

Guest
What does an A positive blood sample from the Shroud of Turin have to do with the Eucharistic miracles? If you don't mind my asking. :)

Oh I don't mind at all.

In every Eucharistic miracle modern-day scientists have tested blood samples from the host turned into flesh. All have come up A positive. The shroud just goes along with that. I believe it's one of the reasons it's still considered authentic.
 
D

Deleted member 6305

Guest
i think it should also be pointed out they scientists tested flesh and blood alleged to have been transformed from the host. they found that indeed it is flesh and blood.

Yup. In one of my favorite cases, the miracle of Lanciano:

Various ecclesiastical investigations have been conducted upon the miracle since 1574, and the evidence of the miracle remains in Lanciano to this day. In 1970-71, Professor Odoardo Linoli, Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy, and Professor Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena, conducted a scientific investigation into the miracle. The report was published in Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori in 1971, and reaffirmed by a scientific commission appointed by the Higher Council of the World Health Organization in 1973. The following conclusions were drawn:

* The Flesh of the miracle is real Flesh and the Blood is real Blood.
* The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
* The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart, which would be highly unlikely to "fake", given that only an expert hand could have done it, and not without serious difficulties.
* In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium. The Flesh is a heart complete in its essential structure.
* The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood type, AB, which is also the same blood type found on the Shroud of Turin and all other Eucharistic Miracles.
* In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
* In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
* There is no trace whatsoever of any materials or agents used to preserve the Flesh or Blood.

euchmn2m.jpg

* It's AB, not A+. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Disappointed

With Everything
Talking of religion,why are so many into chopping off little boys' foreskins?
:crazy:

It is believed that male circumcision began thousands of years ago, when the Hebrews, who lived in the desert, began removing their infants' foreskins for hygienic reasons. The ancient Hebrews sweated a lot (living in the desert), and didn't bathe very often, so removal of the foreskin was a simple way of preventing infections of that area, and of keeping the penis clean.

Eventually, as the Hebrews encountered other peoples, and the different groups began to mix, the Hebrews considered the circumcised penis a sign of belonging to the Hebrew tribe. It was a way of identifying oneself as a Hebrew. Eventually, it transformed even further, into a religious rite--a contract between the child and his family, and God. Even today, many rabbis believe that a male child who is not circumcised is not considered, by God, to be Jewish.
 
Top Bottom