re: Has the Shroud of Turin been proven authentic?

One of the strangest aspects of the shroud is the fact that the image is a negative; when photographed the image becomes positive, or just the opposite of what normally happens with a photograph. As far as is known it was not possible to produce a negative image in the Middle Ages; photography was unknown, so there was no way to revert back to positive.
Here see the face on the shroud, barely discernible, on the left; and the same face in a photographic negative, producing an image that is much more lifelike and detailed.

Positive and Negative

Correct me if im wrong but isnt it true that no one has been able to explain how the image was produced

quote:

---

There is absolutely zero rational reason to believe it's genuine.

---

There is even less reason to think it is fake.

To call it a fake you'd have to show how they did it. There is nobody today who can even present a theory of how it was done.

Even if you say - ok, it exists but there is no reason to think it is related to Jesus. That's fine - now tell us how it was created. Nobody knows how to do that. Even with the object as an exemplar, they cannot make another one like it.

You would accept this as some wonderful mystery that demanded to be solved if it didn't have a Jesus connection. But with that connection you just want it ignored.

quote:

---

There is even less reason to think it is fake.

---

I dunno...I'd think the evidence is slightly but not convincingly in favor of it being fake.

As far as not being able to recreate it today, we have a tendency to overrate our own intelligence and underrate the intelligence of the people who lived in the past. Basically temporal bias/arrogance. The ancients did a lot of thing we can't replicate. They weren't as dumb as we think.

quote:

---

By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
Published: May 31, 1990

---

This same article has been referenced a lot over the past 25 years, it has since been established that the science behind carbon dating is very sound. The biggest area of debate is the variance in date range from the actual date. It's still a pretty good tool and is fairly accurate from a macroscopic perspective of time.

quote:

---

it has since been established that the science behind carbon dating is very sound.

---

This is true. The problem was not with the carbon dating itself. The problem was that the shroud was damaged in a fire around 1300 and the damaged areas were resewn into the shroud on the outer edges at the same time period. They did the carbon date using a part of the edge that had been replaced. So the carbon date was correct. The cloth used to repair the shroud dated to the time it was repaired. 1300

quote:

---

It definitely could be real.

---

Well it exists, so it is absolutely real.

The primary question is whether or not it was Jesus' burial shroud and there is no way to authenticate that. However a lot of evidence points to it being just that. It is referenced in many religious paintings depicting the event. The pollen evidence is pretty solid.

The secondary question is whether or not it is a fake. That has pretty much been proven false - nobody has any evidence whatsoever that is was 'faked' at any time.

quote:

---

This is true. The problem was not with the carbon dating itself. The problem was that the shroud was damaged in a fire around 1300 and the damaged areas were resewn into the shroud on the outer edges at the same time period. They did the carbon date using a part of the edge that had been replaced. So the carbon date was correct. The cloth used to repair the shroud dated to the time it was repaired. 1300

---

That's pseudoscientic garbage from a Christian apologist desperate to rescue the Shroud as authentic.

All attacks on the accuracy of the carbon dating have been discredited.

The Shroud dates from 1260 to 1390 AD. That's what SCIENCE still states. LINK

quote:

---

How about the presence of several types of pollen only found in Isreal or the age or the impossibility to reproduce the image?

---

There's pollen and DNA from all over the word on the Shroud. Also, I've seen at least a couple of documentaries that reproduced such an image.

Try this little test.... lie down on your back and cross your wrists to see if you can cover your privates as well as the man in the Shroud image does. The image is anatomically incorrect. If a man walked the streets today with such uncommon proportions he'd be gawked at as very irregular. His torso is too short, his arms and legs are too long, and his head is too big. This was the work of a medieval artist trying to keep from showing Jesus's privates to the flock.

quote:

---

That's pseudoscientic garbage from a Christian apologist desperate to rescue the Shroud as authentic. All attacks on the accuracy of the carbon dating have been discredited. The Shroud dates from 1260 to 1390 AD. That's
what SCIENCE still states.
LINK

---

Well alrighty then. I had not heard of that article you cited. And again i did not attack the carbon dating gee wiz fella. Im just trying to follow the science. But i doubt the truthfulness of your article because i had heard that the red ocre painting etc was bull shite. The image is 3d dude. But i will keep reading. Maybe you should too. Lets meet back here next yr and compare notes. I promise not to brain wash you or steal your soul or anything.