Why isn’t the shroud of turin in the bible

[Fidei Defensor]

Some new scientific findings on the Shroud: 

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2022/june/is-the-shroud-of-turin-the-authentic-burial-cloth-of-christ-new-scientific-evidence-sheds-light-on-centuries-old-mystery

[HAZARD]

2 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

Some new scientific findings on the Shroud: 

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2022/june/is-the-shroud-of-turin-the-authentic-burial-cloth-of-christ-new-scientific-evidence-sheds-light-on-centuries-old-mystery

 Regarding the Shroud of Turin. If we go the Bible and accept the Scriptures, it must be false and it has nothing to do with Christ.

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (1 Cor. 11:14).

Long hair is a glory and a covering for women not men.

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." (1 Cor. 11:15).

These Scripture being recorded in the Bible, I doubt Jesus would have had long hair as many icons show? That fake shroud of Turin also shows long hair on the face of the one depicted on it, another proof it is a fake.

And Scripture teaches Jesus had a beard.

"I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting." (Isa. 50:6).

The shroud of Turin is like a bed sheet. Its one piece from head to toe. Jesus was wrapped in linen strips as the Scriptures teach, and His head was wrapped in a separate napkin so that negates the shroud for a start.

"Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself." (John 20:6-7).

[Bluedragon]

The false claims are astounding. 

1. Not mentioned in the bible. False, the cloth was folded and left where Jesus had been entombed. Turin did not exist at the time of Christ. How could that have been mentioned by name? 

2. There is nothing that science can point to describe how the image came to be in the cloth. No artist ever, developed a process for what is seen. Considering we use Medieval periods to describe the image and the wounds, and medieval times put the nails through the palms of his hands because the Greek language has no word for wrists .....describe how the wounds are found in the  wrist of this image? 

3. The beard was not entirely ripped out of the face. Detail exactly where it says the entire beard was ripped out in the Bible. 

4. The face was wrapped .....curious that a miracle that radiates the entire body, would be missed by a simple face cloth. That's speculation on my and the claims part. 

5. Chain of evidence claim....Then state where and how the image can to be. 

Every wound as described in crucifixion at that time, by the Romans is found on the image. Front and back.  

No one knows the entire story of the shroud. But one issue is for certain. The carbon dating is wrong because of the patches on the cloth. Because of a fire in the church that damaged the cloth. 

 

[S. Carpenter]

On 12/15/2018 at 9:20 PM, JustPassingThru said:

Like Hezekiah said 2 Ki 18:4, Nehushtan, ...it's just wool, why venerate it?

I read this:

2 Kings 18:4 New International Version

Quote

⁴ He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.)

I'm confused. Where is wool in this passage?

[Deadworm]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:42 PM, Jayne said:

No.  Linen cloths - plural - are mentioned and a separate head piece is mentioned, but not a one piece, covering both head and body is mentioned.

Some translations say linen strips or cloths or wrappings or clothes.  All plural.  All separate from the head piece.

Our first 3 Gospels all use the Greek "sindon," the perfect term to describe the Shroud.  The fold marks match the Hebrew cubit rather than Medieval measurements.  The linen pattern matches the Jewish weave known from Jesus' day and not Medieval style.  The face cloth in John matches that on display at Oviedo in Spain and both the blood type AB and the blood spatter pattern on the Oviedo face cloth match that on the Shroud.  The face cloth (Greek: "soudarion"_ was brought to Spain from Jerusalem in ancient times.

 

[Bluedragon]

Turin would never be mentioned. It didn't exist. 

Curious thought about the shroud and what may make it authentic. 

In the middle ages, when Christian art erupted. The crucifix has the nails through the hands. However, the shroud has the nails through the wrists. Exactly where the nails would have driven in the Roman form of nailing the person to the cross. That evidence exists by way of tombs that have been opened and the fossilized remains of those that were crucified .....have the nails driven between the bones in the wrists. Not all victims of crucifixion were simply thrown in the trash heap. Governors allowed families to receive the crucified. In one case, the nail struck a knot in the beam and bent. The nail was hacked out and went to the grave with the man crucified. 

Remember, even Mel Gibson got it wrong in his movie ....

The image of the shroud has the scourge marks visible. Would an artist of the period include the marks? front and back? 

Carbon dating of the shroud depended on one fiber that was removed. Considering the amount of damage to the shroud due to the church fire, is the dating accurate? The shroud would be soaked with smoke, and remember, the shroud itself was scorched ...

My questions .... who saved the shroud after Jesus left the tomb? Why isn't that person mentioned anywhere? Does that invalidate the existence of the artifact? Constantine's wife supposedly finding the cross ....does that actually exist several  years and after destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD? The lance .....I doubt a soldier would surrender his lance. It was just another crucifixion to him. Maybe the soldiers all recognized the Christ in John Wayne fashion ...It's a wonder the crown of thorns was not found sitting on a fence post. I guess the robe would have been taken by the Roman soldier casting the lucky dice.   

Who would have thought to save all these things? Who would have thought to get them out of Jerusalem before the fall? 

Hoping they exist ..but doubtful 

[Deadworm]

 

On 8/18/2022 at 4:17 PM, Bluedragon said:

My questions .... who saved the shroud after Jesus left the tomb? Why isn't that person mentioned anywhere? Does that invalidate the existence of the artifact? 

The late first century Gospel of Thomas is commonly thought to originate from Edessa in eastern Syria.  Thomas didn't write it, but during his missionary work in the East, he may be the source for some of its sayings of Jesus.  In between the ancient walls of Edessa a cloth image of Jesus was discovered, which may have been the Shroud of Turin.  Thomas's role in the Shroud's chain of custody is little more than speculation, but it provides the best case for the question of what happened to the Shroud and who took custody of it.

[Bluedragon]

I've read the write ups on Thomas. I side with the reasons to delete it from the Bible. The New Testament was all written within the lifespans of the Apostles. Written before the fall of Jerusalem. Thomas to me equates to the Koran. Written well after the lifespan of anyone that knew Mohammed. I'll stay in my atmosphere in having more confidence in the guys that knew Jesus and knew the people that knew him. Other than Muslim campfire fairy tales. You may have a point that there was a concerted effort to save some of the artifacts along the way. But it is not mentioned in the Bible itself. That doesn't mean the shroud doesn't exist. 

My contention being that medieval forgery theory doesn't make sense. Simply looking at the position of the nail wounds in the wrists, tells a historian immediately no one in the Medieval period painted the shroud. And the claim is supported by archeological discoveries along the way. There would be no nail wounds in the palms. They would have been exactly where they should be ....In the wrists. The shroud reveals that evidence. 

[Deadworm]

6 hours ago, Bluedragon said:

BD: "I've read the write ups on Thomas. I side with the reasons to delete it from the Bible."

No one said GT should be included in the Bible or that Thomas wrote the Gospel that bears its name--just that Thomas may have brought some of the sayings brought to Edessa during his eastern missionary tour.  Scholars recognize that GT sometimes preserves the more original version of some Gospel sayings.

BD: "The New Testament was all written within the lifespans of the Apostles. Written before the fall of Jerusalem."

The scholarly consensus (both evangelical and secular) is that only Paul's epistles and possibly Mark were written before the fall of Jerusalem.  I should know because I was a NT professor for several years and have a huge library of academic books on biblical origins.

 

 

 

[Bluedragon]

10 hours ago, Deadworm said:

 

"may have" Is not close to absolute. 

I appreciate your scholarly background. I'll provide my observation on my experience with professors. Having muti degrees in business, I pursued courses with Professors that were more experienced outside a classroom than they were within. Nearest example being that I would have walked miles to take a fantasy class or two with Indian Jones. I want the guy that teaches more outside the book,than from within. I can read the book myself. Given that my latest degrees were from St Leo University in Florida and I was required to take religious studies for their degree programs ....My pursuit in those studies were met with disappointment. There was no one that at any time that were elbows deep in dirt or under stacks of dusty relics of the past. I want the guy that wrote the textbook. He will not teach from the confines of his works in creating the book. 

That being said, I take the position of the Gospels being written in the late 2nd century with a grain of salt. Case in point. A fragment of Mark was discovered inside the Paper Machete death mask of a mummy. First discovered, the preliminary date presented was 55AD. After careful study by layers of Archeological experts the date is perceived to be at least 150AD. My contention with Archeology is that everything gets turned on it's head within the confines of the next shovel full of dirt.   

Simply stated: Had that fragment of Mark passed muster in dating and was indeed 55AD, every library of every Biblical Scholar would appear in the used bookstore down the street. 

My belief follows the line of Theologians and Scholars who believe the New Testament was complete when Peter and Paul were martyred in 64 and 67AD. With the exception of John and Revelations. I do not follow the thought that Mark in Chapter 13 was describing the actual fall of Jerusalem, he was simply stating a prophecy by Jesus that the City and the temple would fall and it would be a sign to the Apostles that Jesus was exactly who he claimed to be.  In other words, I do not follow liberal Theology at all. I prefer to not put words in the mouth of Jesus that do not exist. 

Forgive me if I'm stepping on your toes a little here. I honor your background and studies. To me debating theology is a lot like debating football rules in a room full of football officials. Humanity determines the outcome of those debates. Having been a Football Official from youth to NCAA and Semi Pro NFL ....I have the background to understand that debate perfectly. 

Because the New Testament does not have one description of the fall of Jerusalem or the destruction of the Temple in an actual account ....provides me with a foundation from which to form an opinion as to the dating when each book was written. Because the multiple letters were written on scrolls that were sent from church to church, were copied again and again simply tells me that the best dates available and used are simply the earliest finding and dating of a copy and not the earliest finding and dating of the original. Simply put ....if this example of Mark is projected to be 150AD. That is a copy of a copy of a copy and not the original which most likely doesn't exist anymore ......How can a reliable date on the actual writing of the text be presented when the reality is not in anyone's hands? More reliable is simply .....read the text within. 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2022 by Bluedragon
edit