Shroud of Turin Is a Fake, Bloodstains Suggest

[phands]

As if any rational person didn't already know....the Turin tea-towel is a fake....

The Shroud of Turin is said by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus and by others a medieval forgery. Now, a new study using modern forensic techniques suggests the bloodstains on the shroud are completely unrealistic, supporting arguments that it is a fake.

The full article is on LiveScience...

 

[bilby]

Anyone who cared, but wasn't planning to reject this finding regardless of the facts, already knew.

Anyone who was, still will. Because facts don't have any impact on faith.

This research is as useful as proving that the Earth isn't flat, or that the Moon isn't made of cheese.

I have no problem with people repeating past research; But how many times do you need to prove something a fake before its being a fake stops being newsworthy?

 

[whollygoats]

Yeah....This is not 'news'.

So, I guess this is 'olds'?

SOS, warmed over.

 

[Jobar]

Still, it was quite clever of them to compare how blood would actually have flowed from a human body subjected to crucifixion and being stabbed with a spear, and how the bloodstains appear on the Shroud. Never heard of that method being applied before. Thumbs up to those researchers.

Let's see. Just off the top of my head, I know that the Shroud is proven fake by
-carbon dating
-pollen trapped in the weave
-historical testimony, from churchmen of the day
-impossible proportions of the body depicted
-front and back images don't match up exactly
No doubt there are other evidences of fraud that I'm not recalling.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Long ago, Joe Nickell wrote a book, "Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin" that most thoroughly demolished any possible claim that it might be real. No matter how many times it is debunked, some people will reject the facts. Nickell's book is still available used on Amazon it looks like.

 

[bilby]

Holy relics were HUGE money-spinners in the Middle Ages in Europe; They made a lot of churchmen and their churches very, very wealthy.

Combine the huge value of such relics with a credulous populace who lacked the forensic abilities to detect frauds and forgeries, and it is unsurprising that most relics turn out to date from no earlier than the 11th, and more commonly around the 14th, centuries.

These objects were almost universally created closer to our time than to the time of Jesus.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Still, it was quite clever of them to compare how blood would actually have flowed from a human body subjected to crucifixion and being stabbed with a spear, and how the bloodstains appear on the Shroud. Never heard of that method being applied before. Thumbs up to those researchers.

Let's see. Just off the top of my head, I know that the Shroud is proven fake by
-carbon dating
-pollen trapped in the weave
-historical testimony, from churchmen of the day
-impossible proportions of the body depicted
-front and back images don't match up exactly
No doubt there are other evidences of fraud that I'm not recalling.

God is testing you. He wishes for you to realize that this is the one true shroud, even though there have been many claims to such over the centuries.

This is how you know the shroud is a Fake

 

[Tigers!]

A close reading of John 19-20 would show that the Shroud of Turin is a fake.

 

[Jobar]

Long ago, Joe Nickell wrote a book, "Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin" that most thoroughly demolished any possible claim that it might be real. No matter how many times it is debunked, some people will reject the facts. Nickell's book is still available used on Amazon it looks like.

I read it when it was new.

I find it a bit disgusting how 'even-handed' the Wiki article on the  Turin Shroud is, and how many studies from plainly biased researchers are quoted.

 

[Sarpedon]

Not to mention that no culture buries their dead with the corpse's hands covering its genitals.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Not to mention that no culture buries their dead with the corpse's hands covering its genitals.

I don't like siding with the religious arguments, but this comment is kind of racist. Jesus is half-alien and it makes sense that the human drones he implanted the domination virus into would bury him in accordance with the practices of the planet Heaven, so you wouldn't expect all that many parallels to cultural practices from here on Earth.

You really shouldn't be anthropomorphizing like that.

 

[Lion IRC]

A close reading of John 19-20 would show that the Shroud of Turin is a fake.

Not really a slam dunk though.
If it was, then pro-Shroud folks (who trust scripture over science) would concede it's a forgery.

Even a fake Shroud of Turin shows that there was an actual historical event which gave rise to the trade in relics.

I know that the Shroud is proven fake by
-carbon dating
-pollen trapped in the weave
-historical testimony, from churchmen of the day
-impossible proportions of the body depicted
-front and back images don't match up exactly

Note how Jobar didn't claim we could deduce the Shroud was a fake because there was no real Crucifiction of a real Jesus.

 

[Juma]

A close reading of John 19-20 would show that the Shroud of Turin is a fake.

Not really a slam dunk though.
If it was, then pro-Shroud folks (who trust scripture over science) would concede it's a forgery.

Even a fake Shroud of Turin shows that there was an actual historical event which gave rise to the trade in relics.

I know that the Shroud is proven fake by
-carbon dating
-pollen trapped in the weave
-historical testimony, from churchmen of the day
-impossible proportions of the body depicted
-front and back images don't match up exactly

Note how Jobar didn't claim we could deduce the Shroud was a fake because there was no real Crucifiction of a real Jesus.

Note that real scientist doesnt say anything about jesus. Even if the shroud could be shown to be from 30 CE, and really corresponds to areal body, nobody could ever prove that it is jesus, or not.

 

[Jobar]

Nope- but I might have.

Not all atheists are also mythicists, Lion. And I was listing the most inarguable evidence that the Shroud is fraudulent, not trying to start yet another debate on historicity vs. mythicism.

 

[Lion IRC]

I am still open-minded about the Shroud of Turin because I don't think science (or scripture) has settled the question yet.

 

[bilby]

A close reading of John 19-20 would show that the Shroud of Turin is a fake.

Not really a slam dunk though.
If it was, then pro-Shroud folks (who trust scripture over science) would concede it's a forgery.

Even a fake Shroud of Turin shows that there was an actual historical event which gave rise to the trade in relics.

Sure; And that event was the widespread Christian belief of the Medieval Period in Western Europe.

Nobody disputes that many or even most people in that region at that time were hugely religious and deeply convinced that such relics were genuine.

But this is more than 1,000 years after the alleged dates of the events in which these relics were said to have been used, all in an era with limited literacy and no printing. With modern archaeological techniques and widespread literacy, Internet access, and almost universal education, you would still not expect a randomly chosen modern person to be able to tell you with any accuracy what occurred in 1018CE, and even expert historians and archaeologists today who specialize in the late Saxon period admit that little is known with any certainty; So the popular opinions amongst people in 1300CE on events alleged to have occurred between 1CE and 30CE are clearly not a reliable guide to what actually happened then.

I know that the Shroud is proven fake by
-carbon dating
-pollen trapped in the weave
-historical testimony, from churchmen of the day
-impossible proportions of the body depicted
-front and back images don't match up exactly

Note how Jobar didn't claim we could deduce the Shroud was a fake because there was no real Crucifiction of a real Jesus.

Note how he didn't need to. If I were to come up with half a dozen reasons to reject the claim that the Earth was flat, but I did NOT include amongst them "Nobody is known to have fallen off the edge", that would NOT be an indication either that I believe that people HAVE fallen off the edge, nor would it imply that people have fallen off the edge even though I disbelieve it.

- - - Updated - - -

I am still open-minded about the Shroud of Turin because I don't think science (or scripture) has settled the question yet.

Then you are mistaken.

But then, if you think that scripture is the kind of thing that can settle questions, that was a given.

"It has been written down, therefore it must be true" is badly fucked up epistemology.

 

[Opoponax]

Do they still do that weird thing where they bring it out and shake it around a little?

What's up with that?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm certain that even if sweet, singin' Jesus appeared to shroud devotees and proclaimed its fakery they'd all just chant "Crucify him!" People do like them idols.

 

[lpetrich]

My favorite medieval-relic story is of the bones of Saint Rosalia in a church in Palermo, Italy. When geologist and paleontologist William Buckland visited that church in 1825, he got a look at those bones, and he concluded that those were the bones of a goat.

Other religions have relics, like the Cloak of Kandahar and the Tooth of Kandy.

The Cloak of Kandahar, Afghanistan was supposedly worn by the prophet Mohammed.

The Tooth of Kandy, Sri Lanka, had supposedly belonged to the Buddha.

 

[bilby]

My favorite medieval-relic story is of the bones of Saint Rosalia in a church in Palermo, Italy. When geologist and paleontologist William Buckland visited that church in 1825, he got a look at those bones, and he concluded that those were the bones of a goat.

Other religions have relics, like the Cloak of Kandahar and the Tooth of Kandy.

The Cloak of Kandahar, Afghanistan was supposedly worn by the prophet Mohammed.

The Tooth of Kandy, Sri Lanka, had supposedly belonged to the Buddha.

I had a tooth of candy, until my dentist pulled it.