The Shroud of Turin

[St Helens RLFC]

(Religious debate, please be respectful)



So the other night, I was watching a programme on the Shroud of Turin, allegedly the burial cloth of Christ. Scientific evidence has not been conclusive as to whether or not this could be true or not.



So what do you think? Could it be the burial cloth of our lord? Is it some medieval artist having a laugh?

 

[redunderthebed]

It.has.being.proven.as.a.fake

But then again religious people supress reason to keep good with there "god". (and i think this doco might be apart of that)

 

[Steve-o]

It.has.being.proven.as.a.fake

But then again religious people supress reason to keep good with there "god". (and i think this doco might be apart of that)
[/b]

I watched this documentary last year, didn't prove anything really.
What conclusion did you hear redunderthebed?

 

[redunderthebed]

<div class='quotemain'>
It.has.being.proven.as.a.fake

But then again religious people supress reason to keep good with there "god". (and i think this doco might be apart of that)
[/b]

I watched this documentary last year, didn't prove anything really.
What conclusion did you hear redunderthebed? [/b][/quote]

That it was made in the middle ages.....i sincerely doubt that there is any other conclusion than that the catholic church doesnt want to be seen to consider a piece of old cloth as holy. :toss:

 

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
It.has.being.proven.as.a.fake

But then again religious people supress reason to keep good with there "god". (and i think this doco might be apart of that)
[/b]

I watched this documentary last year, didn't prove anything really.
What conclusion did you hear redunderthebed? [/b][/quote]

That it was made in the middle ages.....i sincerely doubt that there is any other conclusion than that the catholic church doesnt want to be seen to consider a piece of old cloth as holy. :toss:
[/b][/quote]
Strange, as religions are normally desperate to find anything tangible to 'prove' their beliefs.
Perhaps they prefer that their religion can't be proven.

 

[redunderthebed]

<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
It.has.being.proven.as.a.fake

But then again religious people supress reason to keep good with there "god". (and i think this doco might be apart of that)
[/b]

I watched this documentary last year, didn't prove anything really.
What conclusion did you hear redunderthebed? [/b][/quote]

That it was made in the middle ages.....i sincerely doubt that there is any other conclusion than that the catholic church doesnt want to be seen to consider a piece of old cloth as holy. :toss:
[/b][/quote]
Strange, as religions are normally desperate to find anything tangible to 'prove' their beliefs.
Perhaps they prefer that their religion can't be proven. [/b][/quote]

Thats a very very recent tack that the catholic church and christianity have taken before that they just locked you up ostracised you and the alike that said they did lose that war in the west and now more or less secularism and alike reign.In some ways the catholic church i think would just like there religion and religion in general to be a matter of faith therefor there is no onus of proof of what they say and they can brush people off like that.

 

[Dmx#1]

How is this going to be scientifically proven? Not to say it doesnt exist, but who posses a DNA sample from God? I thought so.

 

[redunderthebed]

How is this going to be scientifically proven? Not to say it doesnt exist, but who posses a DNA sample from God? I thought so. [/b]

Not quite.

The age of the shroud is up for debate not whether jesus actually had anything to do with it. I as an Atheist think its all crap but thats for another day.

 

[O'Rothlain]

Well, redunderthebed is stating a theory, not a fact. The original statement is true...it hasn't been proven either way. All we can do is assume. What we do know of the shrowd is that it has been around for a very long time. Also, most religious pictures/paintings of Christ in both Western and Eastern Christianity are based off of the image from the shrowd. It's interesting to see religious art depicting Christ before the discovery of the shrowd...it changed the art scene.

We may never know, to be honest. What I personally know is that my faith is not based on the shrowd. It's existence does nothing for my faith in Christ either way.

 

[Steve-o]

I believe the Shrouds image fits into the peoples perception of Jesus.

Corinthians 11:14-15
"Does not very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory"

The Christian bible states Jesus was sinless, if he had long hair he would be a "disgrace". Some meaning gets lost in translation but I'm sure 'disgrace' will mean the same as sin in this passage.

Huge contradiction right there.

BTW I don't believe in any religions

 

[St Helens RLFC]

It.has.being.proven.as.a.fake

But then again religious people supress reason to keep good with there "god". (and i think this doco might be apart of that)

[/b]

It obviously suits your agenda to say that it has, but it HASN'T. The carbon dating which "proved" it was a fake was taken from a part of the cloth sewn on when the cloth was damaged in the middle ages.

 

[C A Iversen]

It.has.being.proven.as.a.fake

But then again religious people supress reason to keep good with there "god". (and i think this doco might be apart of that)

[/b]

the "It.has.being.proven.as.a.fake" piece sold me, lol! What further proof do we require? By the way "people supress reason to keep good with THEIR god". I might add that "this doco might be A PART of that". Sorry to correct you, but it's really hard to take someone seriously with those kind of errors.

If you can get the small things right first, then you can focus on the bigger picture.

With proof.

 

[nam97]

It's a photo. Just an early method of photography where certain light emitted onto a cloth would leave an inprint of the desired pattern. In this case, a man.

 

[St Helens RLFC]

But, W_C, let's just say it is a fake for a second... I don't think it's feasible to assume that photographical technology was that far advanced in the middle ages. Even Da Vinci (the botched carbon dating takes it out of his remit by the way, it misses him by 80 years or so) wasn't capable of this sort of work, in my opinion.

I personally think it is a burial shroud. Whether or not it's THE burial shroud of Christ is a different matter.

 

[Fa'atau82]

Personally, i think the Shroud of Turin is an incredible artwork that dates back to the middle ages. Apparently, similar 'shrouds' have been made using bas relief on a scultpure to produce a very similar effect.

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

 

[Laetca]

The image we have of Jesus is like it is (long hair, beard, long clothes, sandals) because that's what pilgrims looked like in the middle ages.
When the catholic religion was final;ly accepted and even made the official religion in many places, many churches were built and to help the mostly illiterate people of that time see what the priest was talking about they added statues and paintings of Christ.
They didn't know what he looekd like, since a lot of people thought he was just an imposter (I once read that at the time of Christ there must have been about 100 self proclaimed messiases/prophets) who would have bothered to actually paint him or even sketch him? And if that were the case, it would be one or two sketches, and the chance they would have ended up in Europe is alltogether slim. Especially since one of the ten commandments states that you are not to make an image of God, and as Christ supposedly was God in Human Form, early christians wouldn't have dared make an image of him, as it would have been a sin.
So the artists in medieval times didn't know how to depict Christ, they just used an image that people would know and feel familiar with. So a Pilgrim.
I once heard that the image of Jesus has changed somewhat through the middle ages, it just looked like what people looked like at whatever time the artwork was being made.
At some point they stopped doing that and all adopted the same image.

Threehundred years from now people won't know where the image of Santa came from, whereas we (some of us) do know. I think it's something similar

At least that's what I think
As for the relic, I have nothing to base my statements on, but I doubt it's the real thing. Just because I don't see how they would have kept it and how it would have passed on from one person to the other until it was declared the shroud of turin.

 

[Macsen]

He would have looked something like this, a middle-eastern fellow of jewish descent:

 

[St Helens RLFC]

The image on the shroud has been accepted by the Catholic Church as what would constitute an image of Christ.

 

[Bullitt]

He would have looked something like this, a middle-eastern fellow of jewish descent:

[/b]

Looks like the oold boy in Northampton town centre who sits in a bus shelter all day long stroking a kitten.

 

[C A Iversen]

Well, maybe the modern version is starting with small furry creatures and slowly working his way back to us?

A few more progressive steps Teh, and you could be being stroked at a bus-stop.