Shroud of Turin! The Real Thing or a Real Fake?

Hi Think Atheist community it has been recently reported in a few news articles across the web that the Shroud of Turin (otherwise known as the Shroud of Jesus) is the real deal due to an alleged new found evidence.  This comes as quite a surprise to me as it was sometime ago originally claimed to have been proven as a fake. 

The original findings concluded and I quote:

" the Shroud was made in the 13th century, then it isn't a relic of Christ, for obvious reasons. Radiocarbon dating has repeatedly placed the Shroud as medieval in origin – specifically, between 1260AD and 1390AD." - Telegraph

To me that sounds conclusive enough to determine that the shroud is indeed a fake and forgery. 

However more recent news reports claim that the tests may not have been that conclusive overall. They acknowledge that the material was calculated to have originated in the 13th century with the use of carbon dating, but also claim and I quote:


"
the dating results might have been skewed by contamination and have called for a larger sample to be analysed." - Yahoo! News / Associated Press


Many of the newer reports claim that they have evidence that:

"The research in "The Mystery of the Shroud," by Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua and journalist Saverio Gaeta, is based on chemical and mechanical tests on fibers of material extracted for the carbon-dating research. An article with the findings is expected to be submitted for peer-review ...

the release of a book based on new scientific tests on the shroud that researchers say date the cloth to the 1st century." Yahoo News / Associated Press

However Pope Francis himself has yet to admit that the face impressed upon the cloth is or is not the face of Jesus.  Personally I am not convinced myself at all and I find the "evidence" extremely vague to be honest. Why would the original findings conclude that the cloth was of the 13 century and then a re-test state that its now the 1st century? Something just doesn't feel right about this, its all so very vague to me. 

What are your thoughts on this? 

Sources: 

"The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it" - Telegraph

"Shroud of Turin goes on display amid new research" - Yahoo! News / Associated Press

Views: 1019

Tags: christ, christianity, evidence, fake, jesus, real, research, shroud, turin

Comment by Dr. Bob on April 4, 2013 at 3:14am

It's an interesting artifact, but almost certainly of medieval origin.  The original carbon dating was done quite carefully by all reports, with multiple independent labs in agreement.   Granted that techniques have improved and there's always the possibility of some sort of gross systematic error, but this just doesn't seem likely.

Comment by Jimmy Russell on April 4, 2013 at 1:00pm

Well I remember watching a show on this..and the most obvious evidence it is fake is just it's appearance.  Looking at the shroud the image is as if somone painted it on, while looking at a face.  You can do this experiment for yourself..cover your face in any substance that will transfer to cloth, press said cloth to your face and pull it off and view the results.  What you get is not a projection of your face but a distorted, wide image that you could barely make out as a face.  The actual surface area of your face is quite different that what you see simply looking straight on to it. 

Comment by Real Life James Bond on April 4, 2013 at 3:44pm
Its female blood form the Middle Ages. It is a fake.
Comment by Watchman on April 4, 2013 at 3:47pm

Bearing in mind that a genuine Jewish 1st Century shroud was found in Jerusalem in 2009....

"Researchers say the weave and design of the shroud discovered in a burial cave near Jerusalem's Old City are completely different to the Turin Shroud.
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."

Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... salem.html

Then of course there is always the problem of the Turin shroud being not only of the wrong type of cloth but also of the wrong style ... it should be in at least two pieces not one.

"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."

same link.

but also

http://news.discovery.com/history/archa ... shroud.htm

And just in case anyone wants to argue that Christ would have been given a "special" one piece shroud .....check G John 20:7 .... separate face covering.



This is all aside from the Carbon 14 dates ....

Comment by Jorita on April 4, 2013 at 4:59pm

With what will they compare test results? Do they have a sample of Jesus DNA to compare it with or do they have a origanal picture of what he looked like to compare with the imprint on the cloth, in what manner do they proof that this is the real deal? Even if dated until the same time what proofs that it is the one used for Jesus and not Dick, Tom or Harry? As I am sure he was not the only person buried in this manner or in a cave in that era.

Comment by Dale Headley on April 4, 2013 at 7:36pm

Isn't it an amazing coincidence that the face that seems to appear on the shroud is nearly identical to the image in our contemporary Bibles?   What are the odds?  So I guess that proves that Jesus was racially of European ancestry and not of the ethnic and racial types known to be extant 2000 years ago?   And of course, we know what Jesus looked like because of the photographs taken of him by...never mind!  Or he looked like the drawings found in the scriptures; uh, never mind.  Or he looked like the way he is described in the gospels...uh, forget about it!  And, as to the image on the shroud.  That COULDN'T have been some random dude out of the millions around then, could it?

Comment by Jorita on April 5, 2013 at 2:54am

For some obscure reason they seem to forget that he was not the only person that was crucified in that era and that it could be any person, From what I read over 10 000 people.was killed by the Romans in this manner.

Comment by Amy L. Cook on April 5, 2013 at 2:57am

I saw a documentary about the first round of testing done on the shroud. They carbon dated a corner of the shroud, and also did a fiber analysis. They concluded that not only was it from the 13th century (via carbon dating), but that the cloth it is made from did not even exist in 1 ad. Then, upon further investigation of the shroud as a whole, they deduced that it had been repaired with different cloth at some point; this was of course the corner of the shroud they tested. That's just too convenient for me. It's a fake. Jesus never existed.  

Comment by Ron Humphrey on April 5, 2013 at 7:12am

You will never convince the believers.  No matter the accumulation of evidence pointing to a medieval origin, the deluded ones will never admit it.  

Comment by Jorita on April 5, 2013 at 9:24am

How desperate must one then be to believe, that one would grasp at straws, it is almost as if some peoples faith depends on this. So that they can prove to the world that they are not dilusional

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

My Dad and the Communist Spies

Posted by Brad Snowder on August 20, 2014 at 2:39pm 0 Comments

Breaking Free

Posted by A. T. Heist on August 20, 2014 at 9:56am 4 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service