I added that little description of what the shroud of turin is for those that have never heard of it before and wouldn't know what it meant.

Pictures of it can be found here (http://images.google.com/images?q=shroud+of+turin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title)

Here is a couple of video's on it for those that would rather watch then read alot: Shroud of Turin (part 1)
Shroud of Turin (part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4SuqG6Jz8M&feature=related)

Shroud of Turin (part 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veE9-mr0B6s&NR=1)

Shroud of Turin (part 4) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhP9KVnHbNk&NR=1)

These video's were not what was on the Discovery show last night...these are kind of old...but still interesting.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_turin
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.

The image on the shroud is much clearer in black-and-white negative than in its natural sepia color. The striking negative image was first observed on the evening of May 28, 1898 on the reverse photographic plate of amateur photographer Secondo Pia who was allowed to photograph it while it was being exhibited in the Turin Cathedral. According to Pia, he almost dropped and broke the photographic plate from the shock of seeing an image of a person on it.

The shroud is the subject of intense debate among some scientists, people of faith, historians, and writers regarding where, when, and how the shroud and its images were created. From a religious standpoint, in 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the Roman Catholic devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus, celebrated every year on Shrove Tuesday. Some believe the shroud is the cloth that covered Jesus when he was placed in his tomb and that his image was recorded on its fibers at or near the time of his alleged resurrection. Skeptics, on the other hand, contend the shroud is a medieval forgery; others attribute the forming of the image to chemical reactions or other natural processes.

Last night on the Discovery Channel they had a TV series dealing with different events of the bible..including Noah's ark..the flood...Moses and the shroud of turin. I didn't figure they would have any newer information on the shroud since the Catholic church won't allow more testing to be on it...which leaves it at a stopping point for dating on this.

The Shroud was damaged in a fire several hundreds of years ago and some people wove into it a new fabric to try to fix some of the frayed and damaged areas...because the Catholic church only allows scientist to take a tiny sample from a corner of it they got this mixed fabric...not realizing it. The newer fabric was woven into the older so when they carbon dated it they got a date between the old and the newer...so then declared the shroud a fake because it wasn't old enough.

Well in my reading all about this on this site here: http://www.shroud.com/
http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm

I knew they had figured this out...but the scientist didn't believe it. On the Discovery channel show last night one of the scientist apparently got so angry about this idea being suggested he decided to prove these people wrong and got his sample to check from the shroud and in looking at it through a microscope saw the interwoven fabric and saw the newer one did indeed have dyes in it to blend it with the older material. Before he had declared it dye free...he was wrong.

Through a special photograph they were able to see what parts of the fabric were new and was was older...but they can't test it again as the church won't let them have anymore. Plus they said they keep the shroud in a box painted with a natural chemical that kills everything...and would contaminate any carbon for carbon dating. But they do have hope because the pieces that were burnt in an earlier fire would be carbon already and were removed from the shroud...those can be tested if the church will let them.

Here is an article about the interwoven material and how it probably did affect the dating on the shroud: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf

God bless

Saw that last night. It was pretty good. I didn't care much for the Noah's Ark article they had though. Basically they were calling the flood a local flood, which is nonsense.
If the flood was only local, then God lied, or did not keep His promise, because there have been thousands of local floods since that time. But if it were a global flood, then God did not lie or break His promise. There has not been a global flood since then.

Saw that last night. It was pretty good. I didn't care much for the Noah's Ark article they had though. Basically they were calling the flood a local flood, which is nonsense.
If the flood was only local, then God lied, or did not keep His promise, because there have been thousands of local floods since that time. But if it were a global flood, then God did not lie or break His promise. There has not been a global flood since then.

Yea I was rolling my eyes alot during the Noah one...:rolleyes: <-- like that...lol

They omitted the fact that nearly every culture around the world has a story about a great flood....(among other things) so I was disappointed in that one but the Moses one was interesting...though I wished they would have pointed out this one fact: IF everything that happened during the plagues and parting of the sea and all was indeed a natural thing...it all happened just at the time moment...is something that no amount of science can explain away...

I didn't really much like their wind set down idea...whatever they called it. I mean if Moses and the Hebrews were that close to the end of the sea...why not just go around? Why bother with parting the water? Second if the wind had to blow that hard to part the water...wouldn't it have been blowing the people over too? :hmm: So that was rather iffy I thought...ok very iffy. Oh and the burning of that one type of tree that wasn't consumed...it was too consumed! It was falling apart! That was no real fire on the burning bush...it was the Glory of God. I don't know why these programs have the need to try to explain things away like that...ugh.

God bless

That was no real fire on the burning bush...it was the Glory of God.

I have to laugh at Mark Driscoll's comment on the burning bush. He says it's just as well God said 'I AM THAT I AM' to Moses, or Moses would've had to go to Pharaoh and say 'The plant is very angry.'

I have to laugh at Mark Driscoll's comment on the burning bush. He says it's just as well God said 'I AM THAT I AM' to Moses, or Moses would've had to go to Pharaoh and say 'The plant is very angry.'

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Like most people here I've seen a good few programs and articles about the shroud over the years and I can't help thinking that the 'image' on the cloth is too clean or unmarked, by that I'm referring to how scriptures tell us that Jesus was marred more than any man and going by what a roman scourge entailed this would indicate a lot of injuries.

?

Like most people here I've seen a good few programs and articles about the shroud over the years and I can't help thinking that the 'image' on the cloth is too clean or unmarked, by that I'm referring to how scriptures tell us that Jesus was marred more than any man and going by what a roman scourge entailed this would indicate a lot of injuries.

?

Well if you watched the video's I posted the image DOES show this. They talk on video three about the intense beating and whipping He took and the back of the shroud shows these heavy marks and bleeding from it. It also shows this man was stabbed in the side too...

The image of the blood didn't show up until a special camera was used...just like the image itself is like a negative of a picture and only showed properly when taken with a camera. As someone said for this to be faked makes no sense...even if someone did it in the middle ages, they would have no way of knowing ahead of time that cameras would be invented for this image to show properly. The video's I posted on here are a bit old..what they had on the Discovery channel the other night showed more up to date stuff and newer studies on this.

God bless

Indeed it does, but is an 'intense beating' the same as 'marred more than any man' ... sorry but the image on the shroud does not indicate that to me.

Indeed it does, but is an 'intense beating' the same as 'marred more than any man' ... sorry but the image on the shroud does not indicate that to me.

I don't know if there is scriptures saying He was beaten more then any other man though...:hmm: What Jesus went through, sadly, was common back then. Three things happened differently though...the crown of thorns being placed on His head..the shroud shows blood around the head indicating something caused bleeding from there...being stabbed in the side with a sword was also very unsually. Normally when they wanted to hurry the death of the condemned man, they broke his legs. When he could no longer raise himself up to breath, he would suffocate very quickly. This is what they did with the two thieves on other side of Christ...but when the solider came to Christ he saw he was already dead....but in order to make sure, stabbed His side. That fulfilled the prophecies in the OT that not a bone would be broken. The shroud doesn't show broken bones in the legs either and shows blood stains from a side wound.

God bless

The main thing which leads me to think that this is not an image of Christ, is the fact that whoever it was would have been far too big to blend into a crowd, and look unremarkable in a Judean crowd. The average height of native Judeans at the time was five foot two to four... this guy is not far short of six foot. Which would also have made him too big to ride on a colt.

I could be wrong of course, but I think that this is a very elegantly constructed fraud.

The main thing which leads me to think that this is not an image of Christ, is the fact that whoever it was would have been far too big to blend into a crowd, and look unremarkable in a Judean crowd. The average height of native Judeans at the time was five foot two to four... this guy is not far short of six foot. Which would also have made him too big to ride on a colt.

I could be wrong of course, but I think that this is a very elegantly constructed fraud.

Well that is a good observation daughter...I found this information:

Height of the Man on the Shroud of Turin (http://www.factsplusfacts.com/resources/Image01.htm)

It is hard to know. Estimates generally range from 5'9" to 5'11".

One reason is that we don't know how flat the body is on the cloth. If the image is anatomically correct -- and it seems to be -- we know that the knees are bent and the head is tilted forward as though resting on a pillow (outside of the cloth).

Another reason is that we don't really know the size of the cloth at the time the image was formed. How much has it changed over the years due to stretching or shrinking? It has been held aloft, nailed up for display, rolled up, folded. It has been exposed to sunshine and dampness. It was seared in a fire that was doused with water. During a restoration effort in 2002 it was stretched with weights and steamed to remove wrinkles. By some estimates the length of the cloth was increased by eight centimeters during the restoration.


I found a site that said the average Jew was five four...though I don't know if they mean now, or back then. They also bring up the fact that the Jews in the OT did alot of intermarrying with pagans, something with the Lord had warned them not to do but they did anyway. :( The question on this article was how pure is the Jewish race due to this fact. I hadn't thought about the shroud being stretched over time. It was in a fire, and at different points in time new material was woven into the original fabric to maintain it...that is why they got a false reading on the date to start with...this new material was woven in and intertwine with the old so well it was invisible to the naked eye...it wasn't until much later they discovered that. The original material would have had to been stretched in order for the weavers to weave the newer material in. Whether the whole thing was stretched or just the damaged areas they were working on though they probably don't know.

God bless

This verse would seem to indicate a visible appearance of being physically marred, enough to astonish the people.

Isa 52:14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

This verse would seem to indicate a visible appearance of being physically marred, enough to astonish the people.

Isa 52:14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

Yes visage means face...his face was so badly beaten He was barely recognized. I am not sure how much we can tell from the image on the shroud in regards to that...

God bless

So... what exactly made the negative image? Did Jesus' body burst with phosphorous or something?

So... what exactly made the negative image? Did Jesus' body burst with phosphorous or something?

They have no clue as there is nothing else like this in the world...so they have nothing to compare it too...and the church won't let them do any more studies on it...:(

Some think at the moment He came back to life, something radiated from His body so strongly it put this image on the cloth...I have heard that theory more then once...but its not like they can find other instances of this to compared it too...:lol:


God bless

me personally, i don't believe it's the image of Christ. It says in the Gospels that His face was wrapped in a separate cloth and it says in Isaiah that His beard was pulled out. i don't want to cause people to doubt, but that's just the way i see it

me personally, i don't believe it's the image of Christ. It says in the Gospels that His face was wrapped in a separate cloth and it says in Isaiah that His beard was pulled out. i don't want to cause people to doubt, but that's just the way i see it

The napkin didn't cover His face but His head:

John 20:7

7 while the cloth that had covered Jesus’ head was folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings.

Some monks in some far away land have the napkin hidden away, by the way.

I kind of doubt every single hair on Christ's bread was pulled out. I image it was tuffs pulled out here and there in order to shame Him...:(

God bless