The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

Post by patrickmay » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 5:18 PM UTC

kcplate wrote: post #27

tsimionescu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, the thing is not a shroud, it's essentially a 14th century painting, created as one of a myriad fake relics for money and fame. Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds, and even if it were true that everyone in ancient Israel were wrapped in a linen shroud when they died, people certai…

> Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds Well, they have haven’t they? I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of a believing Christian/catholic. There is really no need for them to try and explain scientifically what is explained miraculously. From the miraculous POV the act of resurrection…

Post by ted_dunning » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 5:40 PM UTC

d_theorist wrote: post #43

tsimionescu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, the thing is not a shroud, it's essentially a 14th century painting, created as one of a myriad fake relics for money and fame. Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds, and even if it were true that everyone in ancient Israel were wrapped in a linen shroud when they died, people certai…

Whatever else you might want to say about the shroud, one thing we know for sure is that it is not a painting. Analysis shows that the image is extremely superficial, only penetrating about 200nm into the fibres of the cloth. This is inconsistent with a painted image.

Post by jfengel » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 5:50 PM UTC

DemocracyFTW2 wrote: post #15

This cannot be a coincidence, just watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8XRpeXopHY The Shroud of Turin is still Fake by Rebecca Watson (Skepchick) But that video is one month old, so—?

Post by Fidelix » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 6:36 PM UTC

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #67

d_theorist wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they weren’t dumb, but having a great understanding of shadows is a far cry from being capable of creating a photo negative. They didn’t even have the concept of a photo negative. How would they even have thought to achieve such a thing? And for what purpose? And, by the way, the image on the shroud is not made of paint, so contemporary proficiency with painting techniques hardly seems relevant.

"being capable of creating a photo negative" You're calling it a photo negative. It's not a photo negative. It's a painting that has shadows and lights inverted. "the image on the shroud is not made of paint" It's made of red paint.

Post by kergonath » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 6:57 PM UTC

pkphilip wrote: post #76

tsimionescu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, the thing is not a shroud, it's essentially a 14th century painting, created as one of a myriad fake relics for money and fame. Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds, and even if it were true that everyone in ancient Israel were wrapped in a linen shroud when they died, people certai…

1. There is no known painting technique - even now, for getting this image onto the shroud. There were no pigments or dyes in sufficient quantity to explain the image on the shroud. 2. About the second point - it remains a mystery but that in no way makes the shroud itself a fake.