Aren't we all missing the point here? It's not what Jesus looked like, it's what he said that matters. Blessed are the cheesemakers. I think you'll find he was referring to all manufacturers of dairy products.
It's a genuine fake. You can forgive uneducated peasants in the middle-ages for being duped by this sort of thing but, with the wealth of evidence available to us today, you'd have to be some sort of credulous cretin to believe in this guff.
It has never been done in the same way, the image on the shroud itself is unique and could only have been produced by techniques too advanced for 20 years ago, let alone 800. And how do you mean that the image on the shroud isn't accurate? It's been shown that somebody who has died by crucifixion and scourging would have similar wounds etc.
Wouldn't the fact the the Jesus of the Bible is a complete myth be a more compelling argument for his death shroud being a fake? Its age being almost definitely medieval because consumer demand for religious artefacts didn't really exist prior to then, and it has to be after the second to third centuries because the ressurection and virgin birth was only added around this time.
I don't know where to begin in disputing these ridiculous arguments. I presume by 'Jesus of the Bible' you mean Jesus as the son of God? You can't say it's a 'complete myth' any more than the various subatomic particles, the evidence for both is there. I may choose to say that because I can't see a strange quark it doesn't exist. However, I won't, because I'm not an idiot. There's the evidence for Jesus as a human for starters, it depends on if you believe the evidence if you think that He's the son of God. You could describe this Jesus as a legend, but not a complete myth, you can't prove that He was never there. As for the virgin birth (which has nothing to do with the shroud of Turin anyway) and resurrection, they were commonly held between early Christians, they were only written down and completely confirmed later when persecutions of Christians stopped and it became a mainstream religion.
We have people disputing the C14 tests - care to elaborate on this? I remember the dodge the Vatican used last time to defuse the carbon dating....it was apparently the fault of the scientists because they had lifted the sample fibres from a 14th century repaired section. Three independent labs (one of which was Oxford) were each given four samples. That’s twelve samples conveniently lifted from the non “genuine” bits. The Vatican haven’t risked a repeat performance. No surprises there. JerseyMackem (at least I think it was JerseyMackem) comes out with “The only way scientists have been able to make anything close to it has been with advanced UV radiation technology, which would have been impossible in the middle ages. If it is a fake, how the hell did they make it?” The classic logical fallacy of “the argument from personal incredulity”, so popular on here with religious types. And amazingly, exactly the argument put forward by Italian “scientists” last month that resurrected (if you’ll pardon the expression) this issue. The idea that some Italian scientists having made their own version of the shroud using high-intensity ultraviolet lasers is supposed to be evidence that some kind of supernatural force did it is beyond daft. Optics, as a science, was very popular in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Arabic works explained accurately and geometrically the properties of light reflection and refraction. Englishman Roger Bacon wrote a book on the art of making mirrors and focusing lenses to create what we today would understand as laser weapons (well, sort of). Ultraviolet wavelengths can be isolated by using lenses made of fused quartz, which occurs naturally as metamorphic rock crystal and was a staple of the medieval Lapidiary's art. Most of the gemstones set into medieval shrines and jewellery are rock crystal - its natural transparency making it an excellent window for protecting the relics within but leaving them visible to the viewer. Then there is the fact that the proportions on the shroud figure resemble those in medieval art very closely. A typical figure of jesus in any fourteenth century stained glass window would have those proportions. So, the people who stood to benefit most from the forgery of such a relic would have not only the expertise but the materials to put it to use readily to hand, and around the time the carbon dating suggests. By the way, these “supernatural” explanations (along with gods) are both logically impossible (the word "supernatural" is technically meaningless) and without a shred of supporting evidence (save the good old argument from personal incredulity). ANY explanation which does not invoke such impossibilities is more plausible, since "impossible" is the least plausible state of all.
I'm not saying that it's the shroud that Jesus was buried in, or that the image was created by any supernatural force. I just want people to get their facts right. The only fragments that were allowed to be taken were from the outermost pieces, so it doesn't alter the possibly sacred image. More recent examinations of it have shown that it is likely that these parts were created from repairs done in the middle ages. The Church won't allow pieces to be taken from the centre, because it could be sacred, and the process destroys any pieces. Destroying cloth that could have bits of Jesus on it is immensely irreverent, it's better to look on it as an image, that may have been used to bury Jesus. The Church doesn't really have too much of an interest of it being real or fake, it being a fake is no skin off their nose and has nothing to do with whether Jesus lived or not.
“More recent examinations of it have shown that it is likely that these parts were created from repairs done in the middle ages.” No, after the carbon dating proved it was a fake there was a “restoration”, the Vatican having chickened out of further independent analysis. No “scientist” involved has ever spoken on the record about the circumstances. You say: “The Church won't allow pieces to be taken from the centre, because it could be sacred, and the process destroys any pieces. Destroying cloth that could have bits of Jesus on it is immensely irreverent, it's better to look on it as an image, that may have been used to bury Jesus.” Then come out with: “The Church doesn't really have too much of an interest of it being real or fake, it being a fake is no skin off their nose” Extraordinary stuff. On the one hand the “bits of Jesus” are immensely important and “sacred”, but on the other hand they couldn’t care less if it was fake or not. “Couldn’t care less if it’s fake, guv, but don’t go near the middle bit because we’re pretending it’s hugely sacred and important. Oh, and by the way, the bits you took last time were 14th century repairs, honest guv’. You’d think they’d be keen to prove it, given its significance, wouldn’t you? Or are you admitting that you live in dreamland and it’s merely preferable to real life?
