The Shroud Of Turin: Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ  

I’m in the same boat.

You're in luck because the Vatican has wood from the original cross, a few bones from the thumb of Peter, a knuckle from he Apostle Paul, a toe from James, lots of stuff to worship!!!! If you need these so called relics to confirm the Gospel and the existence of historical figures of the Bible than perhaps you didn't understand what the Lord Jesus said to the woman the well, "true believers will count on material evidence to confirm my message....oops, sorry, He told her there is a time coming when true worshippers will WORSHIP IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH!"

​@@eugenejoseph7076 I can't believe your stupidity level !!

and what does that prove other than the guy is dead? the shroud is just another piece of religious crap that has been shown to have no connection to any gods, and why you people keep trying to outsmart god beats me - you are required to have faith no? god leaves NO evidence or my free will is compromised, same with creationism, no one is ever going to show that anything was made by god, all they will discover is more nature did it - god himself (if he were real) does not allow evidence he exists, it spoils the scam.

@@GreatLightStudios interesting wording cos i wonder, why does god need a boat? and even if he did, why does noah have to build it? is god afraid he would kill some animals by mistake? why not just put all the sinners on pluto, let them suffocate cos that's a bit like drowning, and noah and the animals can just carry on? cos god is imaginary and the story is another dumb god story.

I hope you enjoy it 😁

look up Barrie Schwortz the official photographer of the shroud. A jewish non-believer in Jesus yet is convinced by the evidence it is authentic. Its not artwork. NO paints no pigments, it was a burn at low level radiation. The cloth dates back to the 1st century.

Reformed pilgrim, I have had several Biblical scholars address this issue on my show- including Larry Stalley, Gary Habermas and Ben Witherington. This verse is referring to the sheet, plus 1-2 binding strips used to tie the sheet to the body consistent with Jewish tradition, it does not refer to multiple Egyptian mummy-type wrappings. By the way, the Shroud of Turin is not all one piece, John Jackson has proven via backlighting that the Shroud has a long strip of cloth that has been torn off the Shroud to wrap the body which was subsequently sewn back on. You can see it for yourself if you search for a BBC documentary on Shroud on RU-vid and go to the 43-45 min mark or thereabouts. I'd give you the link but RU-vid may delete it.

Also, if the image was formed by a body, it wouldn't look so straight. There would have to be some kind of structure used to hold the cloth in a position that the image could be formed.

@@TimothyFish Yes the vertically mapped wrapping distortions are a well known proven fact (proven by the credible STURP scientists in the peer-review from 1978-1981) that proves no artistic nor natural process could create the Shroud images; only a supernatural mechanism could explain them whereby the cloth was flattened in the process of image formation and/or was already flattened via being propped up and away from the body by spice bundles, etc.

@@RealSeekers, actually, I would say that it is strong evidence that the images were created by an artist. The canvas was flat when it was formed and artists almost always flatten their canvas, even using canvas stretchers to hold the canvas flat while they do their work. While grave clothes (and clothes in general) are wrapped around a body. It is only if you start with the assumption that this cloth was wrapped around a body when the image was formed that it takes a miracle. If you start with the assumption that it was on a canvas stretcher, there's nothing miraculous about it being centered on the canvas and it being without deformation. The process used to form the image isn't known either way, but being on a stretcher, rather than being wrapped around a body fits the image that is on the cloth better.

@@TimothyFish Except for the fact that this fact alone makes it physically impossible for the Shroud images to be a painting according to modern science. Yes they paint on a flattened canvas, but they can't paint in straight vertical lines, it has been proven to be physically impossible to do so let alone do so with 3D photo semi--negative images like we have with the Shroud. No painting in the history of mankind has this feature funnily enough. Here is a quote from the actual scientists as per the secular peer-reviewed science journals; "Why would an artist paint a reverse/negative image? There is no known historical precedent for this artistic approach other than for the Shroud itself and copies made later. Jackson, Jumper and Ercoline conducted extensive experiments utilizing certified forensic artists to test whether such artists could create drawings that when analyzed by a VP-8 analyzer could compare favorably to the Shroud 3-dimensional results. In spite of being coached on what they were trying to achieve, the artists consistently fell short of the Shroud results. It is likely that an artist could learn and improve his/her technique over time if they had the technical instrumentation to check their work. However, given the shortcomings of modern coached forensic artists, there are extreme technical as well as historical difficulties with the idea that an artist in medieval times, or before, could encode 3-dimensional body information into an image artistically crafted in “reverse /negativity”. Jackson, Jumper and Ercoline suggested that “the reason for only fair correlation is probably a combination of limited visual discernment of shading at low contrast and motor (eye/brain/hand) coordination in applying correct shading values”. The distortions can be correlated to an actual 3-dimensional body being wrapped in the Shroud and a vertical projection of the body image. It seems inconceivable that an artist would be aware of such subtle distortions in the image. Even if there was awareness, could a human artist accurately craft such subtleties into a reverse/negative image? We have come to the judgment that this characteristic is inconsistent for an artistic method dependent on eye/brain/hand coordination. Even if the artist was to conceive of putting wrapping distortions into his/her artistic creation (no known historical precedents) it would require a contact modeling to demonstrate where the distortions should be placed in the image. However, it has been pointed out that distortions from a contact modeling would be far greater than those observed on the Shroud where the distortions are correlated with a vertical projection of the image".

For what it's worth I agree with you to some extent about Teddi's desire to keep things nebulous as to some mysterious unknown form of energy as the explanation for the Shroud images- given God, of course this shouldn't be dismissed since anything is possible with God. However, I much prefer the bottom up approach of Bob Rucker's model over and against the top-down method of Teddi. Have you seen Bob's work and hypothesis- he very much knows and has calculated scientifically the necessary and sufficient conditions in exquisite detail for his radiation hypothesis. As to my comment, I was more referring to the bloodstains not the body images in terms of my issue as there are stains in places that would require pressure to wet bloodstains to make contact with the cloth but if such happened, then there would be damage, alteration or smearing to some degree evident but it's not there- so they must have gotten there supernaturally and not via direct contact. The only other method would be painting, but we can disprove that accounts for the bloodstains entirely, even if the painter used real blood instead of paint.

@@RealSeekers, I tend to apply Occam's razor to stuff like this, which would put the possibility that the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus, with an image on it formed by a form of radiation that was never used prior or since, very far down on our list of possibilities to consider. If the image was formed by draping the image over an object, we would need to rule out the possibility that it was draped over a basrelief representing a crucified man before we consider the possibility that it was draped over an actual body, since a badrelief wouldn't cause the distortion to the fabric that a body would. Besides, that would also give an explanation for why the cloth was centered on the head. And given the Catholic fixation with putting blood on artwork, it would explain the blood placement, though it doesn't explain the pressure you referred to. Even if we could show that radiation was used to form the image, there is a form of radiation that we know creates a color that is similar to that of the color in the image and has been readily usable long before people were using a herringbone weave in cloth. And since there are burn marks on the cloth, we know that it was exposed to this type of radiation. Much like a hot iron that is left on a shirt too long, metal that is heated with fire can be used to discolor cloth. In the hands of an artist, it would be possible to create artwork on fabric. I think we would need to rule out that possibility long before we get to it being formed by a miracle.

@@TimothyFish I find the use of Occam's Razor to be very arbitrary on the part of skeptics online, basically it used as a way to just dismiss the possibility of miracles as an explanation. The fact it is a unique event says nothing about it being non-simple and given we can prove God exists and there is a religious-authenticating context whereby God could potentially be religiously motivated to perform a unique miraculous basic action in this case with the Shroud, it is arguably the simplest explanation of them all. Now, you do propose two naturalistic or alternative natural artistic mechanisms with the bas-relief and scorching- scientists have likewise refuted both of these options conclusively- even the ultimate and most knowledgeable Shroud skeptic in the world Hugh Farey himself admits these alternatives are proven failures based on his own skeptical experiments to try and prove them true and yet he failed miserably. Let me quote the actual peer-reviewed scientists yet again for you on this front; "A bas-relief image-formation method is capable of accounting for Shroud image’s cloth-body distance correlation. However, experiments conducted by Jackson, Jumper and Ercoline led to the conclusion that the bas-relief would need to be very shallow. Giulio Fanti, on the other hand, in his book The Shroud of Turin Optical Research discussed luminance analysis of Delfino’s bas-relief image as compared to the Shroud. Fanti’s detailed analysis appears to lead to the conclusion that the Shroud 3-dimensional image would be subtly but obviously different than a bas-relief 3-dimensional VP-8 rendering. To achieve an image the cloth must come into contact with the bas-relief. The Shroud wrapping distortions are subtle. To achieve the same distortions with a bas-relief a separate bas-relief would have to be used for the frontal image and a second bas-relief for the dorsal image. Jackson noted that a shallow bas-relief would appear to just complicate reproducing the wrapping distortions found on the Shroud where the wrapping distortions are consistent with an actual human body and a vertical projection of the body image. We hold that it is an inconsistency that an artist would have anticipated this requirement and then been able to execute it with the realism observed on the Shroud with a contact dependent method such as a bas-relief". Funny you mention the scorch or burn marks which disprove your notion of an artistic scorch since burns glow red under UV fluorescence and yet the body images do not, this is why even Hugh Farey dismissed this theory as proven nonsense. Again, in the words of the actual scientists studying the Shroud, "The chemistry of the colored micro layer on Shroud image fibers does resemble the chemistry of a scorch. Still, the Shroud image does not fluoresce brightly when illuminated with ultraviolet light. A scorch typically does fluoresce brightly. This indicates that there is a subtle difference in chemistry". This is not to mention the issue of body image superficiality which absolutely rules out your scorching bas-relief notion; "The scorch has to be extremely light. Also, to ensure there is color in all the correct places, such as those places on the Shroud where there is no cloth contact, the covering cloth must likely be subjected to time consuming patting down in order to achieve at least momentary contact. Jackson’s research team has studied and experimented with the heated bas relief technique. In discussing his experiments Jackson stated that the “heat will discolor through the thickness of the Shroud in about 1/100 to 1/10 of a second so you would have to have the bas relief on the cloth and take it away on a timescale like that in order to be consistent with what is observed”. If the cloth is dampened with water to slow the process other problems arise. It just doesn’t appear possible to achieve the superficiality with even a relatively small area like the face, let alone for the whole Shroud frontal and dorsal images. Delfino did not make such a demonstration. As Jackson has stated “it just goes on and on…..problems that don’t seem to work”. It is not sufficient to demonstrate the ability to create microscopic coloring of individual linen fibers through heating that seems to match Shroud image superficiality. One must produce an extensive frontal and dorsal image with consistent micro-superficiality. We are unaware of any success stories even though numerous experiments have been attempted". I ask you Timothy, time to follow the evidence, artistic mechanisms just don't work, time to consider a miracle of God as the explanation!

@@RealSeekers, most people apply Occam's Razor incorrectly. A lot of people think it means that the most simple answer is the answer. That's incorrect. It is actually a way of organizing the work that needs to be done. Instead of spending time on things that difficult to prove or disprove, you should focus on the things that are simple to prove or disprove first. If you make it through those without finding the explanation, then you focus on the more complex. Miracles, by their very nature, are among the most difficult things to prove. So, while Occam's Razor shouldn't be used to rule them out, it will always result in them being considered last. The UV fluorescence thing doesn't actually result out scorching the fabric as the means that the artist used. The fluorescence exists in rapidly burned cloth, so it appears in the fire damaged portion, but an artist who is trying to scorch an image on fabric isn't going to use enough heat for a fast burn, because too much heat would be something that couldn't be corrected. You quoted Farey as saying, "However, experiments conducted by Jackson, Jumper and Ercoline led to the conclusion that the bas-relief would need to be very shallow." Having a two-sided bar-relief that is shallow isn't a big deal. many of the examples of bas-relief that we have are quite shallow. But that does support my original objection to the idea that the image could be made by an actual human body with the cloth draped over it. A human body isn't shallow, in the least. It would be silly to say that it can't be formed by being draped over a piece of artwork, because the artwork would have to be shallow and then say that it must have been formed by being draped over a human body. You're moving the wrong direction in your explanation. Even if you were able to rule out all of the notions of how the artist might have created it, there still isn't a good explanation for why we should think that this thing is the burial cloth of Jesus. It doesn't match the biblical description. It doesn't match how people think burial cloths were done during that time. There's no mention of there being an image on the cloth in the Bible. Even some of the popes didn't think that this thing was the burial cloth. There's, literally, nothing but wishful thinking to suggest that this thing is a burial cloth, let alone the burial cloth of Jesus.

@@TimothyFish Yes there a re multiple approaches to Simplicity and what that entails in the peer-reviewed literature. That said, look I just don't think you understand the Pro-Shroud claim- no one says the Shroud was draped over the body in the way you are supposing for the Radiation hypotheses so we don't have the problem you do as an artistic bas-relief proponent. One such way was positing a cloth collapse notion or Ray Rogers posited spice bundles propping the cloth up and away from the body others like Bob Rucker or Mark Antonacci have different hypotheses that account for this issue- have you read their scholarly work and understood it properly? If you have, then why raise this objection since you should know it doesn't apply at all to the Pro-Shroud side.

Isaiah also 53:2 says he grew up before him like a young plant, yet the Gospels don't say Jesus looked like a tree. A poetic way of saying he was beat in a horrific manner doesn't necessitate that he looked like Quasimodo stung by a thousand bees or something. But also, Moses was still just a man, yet if the image on the shroud is in fact the image of the real Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Son of God, than it doesn't make me worship the dirty cloth, it makes me worship the true living Jesus who was resurrected on the third day.

@@TheRockofGod21 This is a helpful response. Thanks!

@@TheRockofGod21 Satan would have achieved his goal because there are literally pilgrimages to see the shroud, praying to it, wishing they could touch it - no different than how they pray to other idols and relics.

"Thomas, you believe because you saw, but blessed are those who believe without seeing". Who cares about a bloody cloth! Goodness gracious.

@@wretchedsinnerRighteousSavior So then Jesus shouldn't have been buried in a tomb or crucified along a known path, because people go to those places and "worship" those places, wishing to touch the stone that the cross touched, etc. people are going to do what people are going to do, it doesn't mean God won't let items come about. My whole point is, if it is authentic, it should be evaluated properly based on all the evidence, not what our presuppositions tell us is something God "wouldn't" allow. Which I find most anti-shroud proponents arguments boil down to: "why would God allow something like that to exist?" Honestly, idk, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't. Let's find out if it's the real McCoy, based on the evidence. I for one, am convinced it is real, and that's based on the myriad of evidence in favor of it's authenticity. If you're not convinced it is, I hope that'd be based on the evidence against it, and not a presupposition of what God would or would not do. Either way, if you're a Christian we can still be brothers in Christ, and call it a day God bless.