I have read many articles and published papers in journals, and it seems that no one can definitively say whether this Shroud is a fake depiction of Jesus, or if it is real.

In any event, does it really matter ?

"Since 1978, it was widely reported that the change of color was a change within the fiber; that somehow part of the fiber had turned brown. That isn't the case. Instead, it is a change of color, in various places, to a thin filmy substance that coats some of the fibers. To drive home two important points: 1) the filmy substance only coats some of the fibers and 2) only in some places has the substance changed color.

Chemists know what this filmy substance is. And they also know what chemistry is needed to cause it to change color. The change, visual bits of color, here and there, when viewed at a distance are pictures of Jesus. The pictures on the Shroud of Turin are chemical pictures -- plural because there are two pictures: one of Jesus' front and one of Jesus' backside.

The substance is a dried carbohydrate mixture of starch fractions and various saccharides (sugars). It is as thin (180 to 600 nanometers) as the wall of a soap bubble. It is thinner than the invisible glare proof coating on modern eyeglasses.

The coating is only found on the outermost fibers of the thread. In fact, it is only found where the fibers are close to the surface of the Shroud's cloth. In other words, the fibers inside the thread, deep in the cloth, do not have this filmy substance."

~ http://www.shroudforum.com/

In my personal opinion, I think it is a hoax.

Why ?

Because the Bible specifically states that Jesus was no longer recognizable as a man, after the beating he received from the Romans.

He was nothing but a bloody pulp...the image of "Jesus" on the Shroud is incredibly detailed and immaculate, showing the face of a man that has NOT been beaten.

I have nothing else to go on, really, but that is how I see it.

Also, the hair on this man is falling directly down the sides of his face...if he were laying flat on a stone or something, wouldn't his hair be falling back ?

If he were wrapped tightly, wouldn't it appear to be smashed ?

The way this man appears, he is standing up, having his picture taken. *lol*

Who knows. They saw jesus's face in a tortia onece...

Well they didnt recognize Jesus after his scourging, but the disciples surely wouldnt have remembered how he looked for a day when they saw him for 3 or so years. They immediately recognized him when he appeared in the upper room.

But who are you to say that he didnt take on his heavenly body when he came back?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Well they didnt recognize Jesus after his scourging, but the disciples surely wouldnt have remembered how he looked for a day when they saw him for 3 or so years. They immediately recognized him when he appeared in the upper room.

But who are you to say that he didnt take on his heavenly body when he came back?

Actually, Jesus was "different" after his resurrection.

Luke 24:13-49 - Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

19 “What things?” he asked.

“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.”

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?”

27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.



36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.

49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

* ~ * ~ *

I also never said he DIDN'T take on his heavenly body post resurrection. As a matter of fact, the Bible tells us that his image was restored. He certainly didn't appear beaten beyond recognition upon resurretion. The only evidence available were his piercings.

Anyway, you have taken this completely off the subject. The issue is, WHILE HE WAS DEAD, this image was supposedly imposed onto the Shroud.

If this is so, then the image should be that of a man unrecognizable, because he was so badly beaten.

Is this clear now ?

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-19-2005).]

Jesus' Beating

The Roman legionnaire steps forward with the flagrum (or flagellum) in his hand. This is a short whip consisting of several heavy, leather thongs with two small balls of lead attached near the ends of each. The heavy whip is brought down with full force again and again across Jesus' shoulders, back and legs. At first the heavy thongs cut through the skin only. Then, as the blows continue, they cut deeper into subcutaneous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of the skin, and finally spurting arterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying muscles. The small balls of lead first produce large, deep bruises which are broken open by subsequent blows. Finally the skin of the back is hanging in long ribbons and the entire area is an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue. When it is determined by the centurion in charge that the prisoner is near death, the beating is finally stopped. The half-fainting Jesus is then untied and allowed to slump to the stone pavement, wet with His own blood. The Roman soldiers see a great joke in this provincial Jew claiming to be a king. They throw a robe across His shoulders and place a stick in His hand for a scepter. They still need a crown to make their travesty complete. A small bundle of flexible branches covered with long thorns (commonly used for firewood) are plaited into the shape of a crown and this is pressed into His scalp. Again there is copious bleeding (the scalp being one of the most vascular areas of the body). After mocking Him, and striking Him across the face, the soldiers take the stick from His hand and strike Him across the head, driving the thorns deeper into His scalp. Finally, they tire of their sadistic sport, and the robe is torn from His back. This had already become adherent to the clots of blood and serum in the wounds, and its removal, just as in the careless removal of a surgical bandage, causes excruciating pain...almost as though He were again being whipped, and the wounds again begin to bleed.

How then could the image on the Shroud be that of Jesus ?

If it is Jesus, why is the face clear, and free of damage ?

If we are to believe that the image was imposed onto the Shroud POST resurrection (at which time Jesus was "restored"), why did it happen ?

Scientists have described the actual image as the "result of a very natural, complex chemical reaction between amines (ammonia derivatives) emerging from a body and saccharides within a carbohydrate residue that covers the fibers".

Do you think the miracle of the resurrection had anything to do with chemical reactions ?

I find it to be an event that is strictly spiritual.

I'm waiting, Argon.

Da Vinci is the greatest fag that ever lived....

Eat that homo-haterz and homophobes!

Did I miss something ?

How did Da Vinci come into this ?

*lol*

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Da Vinci is the greatest fag that ever lived....

Eat that homo-haterz and homophobes!

This has to be the most random, off-topic comment I have ever seen.

quote:Originally posted by Shadout Mapes:

This has to be the most random, off-topic comment I have ever seen.

Do you like pancakes?

I like tatertots.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Da Vinci is the greatest fag that ever lived....

Eat that homo-haterz and homophobes!

Digital, sorry in advance for thread-jacking.



Metalligod, does this mean that Da Vinci is your homo-hero? (since you said that he is the greatest AND you are 'taunting' homo-haterz/homophobes).

In other words, are you gay? If so, is this the rage against Christianity that often shows in your posts?

Jesus loves you also.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Digital, sorry in advance for thread-jacking.



Metalligod, does this mean that Da Vinci is your homo-hero? (since you said that he is the greatest AND you are 'taunting' homo-haterz/homophobes).

In other words, are you gay? If so, is this the rage against Christianity that often shows in your posts?

Jesus loves you also.

Gay? No. And you've obviously misread, misinterpreted, and misconstrued my threads. I don't harbor any ill-will towards Christianity, so you've either gotten me confused with someone else, or you can't comprehend what you read. In either case, the discrepancy has been a result of your doing.

My disputing or displaying the obvious faults and flaws of Christianity doesn't make me a Christian-hater of any sort; it makes me a master of the obvious...

Furthermore, I idolise the sheer genius of Da Vinci and his workings, to do otherwise would be simply moot and unintelligent.

I admire the fact that he didn't try to hind who he was in any sense of the word. Despite the fact that homosexualaity is/was considered immoral. That fact alone proves that he was , proves the he was highly respected and in some ways feared, because a lesser man would have been shunned and tormented for doing the same.

He flaunted who he was fearlessly, but intelligently, and he did it in a time in which others would be killed for doing the same, but no, not him. He was practically immune to such tactics. Those qualities allowed him to express both his lifestyle and to some extent, his views on religion.

quote:Originally posted by :

This has to be the most random, off-topic comment I have ever seen.

How so? You obviously know very little on this matter.....

It is my belief as well as millions of others that it was Da Vinci who made the shroud. It was OBVIOUSLY not made by being drapped over someones body. The human body is TREE DIMENSIONAL, whatever was used to make the shroud was obviously one or two -dimensional.

The theorized steps taken to make the shroud have been performed in labs countlessly and produced the exact same results. And also, there are many qualities of the shroud that should and should not be there, if it were made by drapping a humanoidal body.

And why is it that all things that have to do with images of Christ are believed to have his EMBLAZENED features on it, as though it were BURNED into this or that thing by his face and body. Was he some sort of Apollonian creature? -That is, was he a being partly composed of fire or great amounts of heat?

Anyhow, I believe that it was Da Vinci of made the shroud, that's why he is related to the topic, i.e. not off-topic....

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Anyhow, I believe that it was Da Vinci of made the shroud, that's why he is related to the topic, i.e. not off-topic....

to my understanding, what little is known about the cloth begins in the mid 14th century when it came into possession of one Geoffrey de Charny, a french knight.

Wasnt Da Vinci born in 1452? A century later?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

to my understanding, what little is known about the cloth begins in the mid 14th century when it came into possession of one Geoffrey de Charny, a french knight.

Wasnt Da Vinci born in 1452? A century later?

And to my understanding, it was proven that the cloth was a fake, which was later substituted by the visually and fabrically superior FAKE created by Leonardo Da Vinci.

It has not been proven that Leonardo's superior was ever switched with the other, but it is believed so, which is why I stated what I said as a BELIEF and not a fact.

Isn't it apparent that to date, there's no way to prove what is believed on this matter one way or the other? Do you understand that's what the whole contraversy about the shroud is? Anyhow, both sides of the story says that the shroud is, -when the smoke clears...-, a fake.

Whether or not Da Vinci made it, it's apparent that the image emblazened upon the shroud was not made by a 3 DIMENSIONAL figure.....

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Da Vinci is the greatest fag that ever lived....

Eat that homo-haterz and homophobes!

The reason this comment is random is because it has to do with Da Vinci's homosexuality, not his relationship with the shroud (which is sketchy at best). I see your point on how Da Vinci relates to the topic, but "Da Vinci is the greatest fag that ever lived" is still pretty random, even if it is certainly true.

Carbon Dating has been done to the shroud, dating it to 1260-1390. There is a possibility that bacterial residue dating from this period skewed the results, so it could be older, but almost certainly not younger, so I doubt the Da Vinci theory.

The carbon dating thing---

Da Vinci could easily have been using old cloth.

Yes, but for some reason the idea of Da Vinci finding a 150 year old cloth with the purpose of engraving his image on it and switching it with the current Shroud of Turin seems a little far-fetched and romantic. How did he switch the cloths? If it was a large improvement on the existing shroud, why did nobody mention it at the time?

As my last post said, I'm not denying the idea, but merely saying that it's very unlikely.

quote:Originally posted by StraitUpSkankin:

The carbon dating thing---

Da Vinci could easily have been using old cloth.

Thank u, I was going to say that, but I don't feel like 'aruging'.

Anyhow, the fact that he was gay is relevent because it is SHUNNED IN THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. That's why I brought it up, and also because of the fact that I see alot of anti-gay, Totseans whom often happen to be Christian or followers of God, the comment was aimed at those indivisuals.

quote:Originally posted by Shadout Mapes:

Yes, but for some reason the idea of Da Vinci finding a 150 year old cloth with the purpose of engraving his image on it and switching it with the current Shroud of Turin seems a little far-fetched and romantic. How did he switch the cloths? If it was a large improvement on the existing shroud, why did nobody mention it at the time?

As my last post said, I'm not denying the idea, but merely saying that it's very unlikely.

Huh, it wasn't he (suspectedly) who switched the cloths, but it was him who decided to make a forgery of it. If you knew anything about Da Vinci then you'd know that it is/has been HISTORICALLY NOTED that he was a trickster.

He enjoyed tricking 'The Church' into admiring his works which were often times 'encoded' with 'hidden' meanings and 'messages' that went against traditional Church beliefs.

For instance, his original painting of 'Madonna of the Rocks', or his famous, 'The Last supper'. Ever notice the fact that he depicts Peter making a swiping motion to the throat of the supposed Joseph (which is obviously a woman, i.e. not Joseph...)?

Or the fact that the Grail is 'missing' from the picture?

He made subtle indicative clues to his true feelings in his works, which couldn't intern be used against by the Church to persecute him. Hell, sometimes he even mad his feelings about religious matter blatant in his works sometimes. He was begged over and over to redo his Madonna on the Rocks, over and over again, because he first depicted Mary making a claw-like gesture to the head of baby Jesus, and Uriel gesturig for her to behead baby Jesus. Also, John the Baptist is blessing baby Jesus and not vice versa. That's why there's about three 'known' versions.

But the only one who knows 100% factually, the feelings and meanings of his works is he himself, Da Vinci. Yet and still, the "evidence" is there...

Next: It is highly debated that Mona Lisa (whom is known to have never actually existed) may indeed be a self-portrait of Da Vinci in drag. He continuously did things to aggrivate and/or annoy 'The Church' to humor himself, and, he was known to be a cross-dresser.

It may seem a little, 'romantic', to you, but to anyone who's done the smallest amount of research on Da Vinci, knows that it's well with-in his doing.

He enjoyed very much tricking or angering Church members, so keep that in mind when you make such assertions like what's quoted above.....

-I'm not gonna make corrections to this, too tired, so pick it apart if you will, the bulk of what I'm saying is apparent and accurate enough... 4 me anyway.....

Sorry, but SIN is shunned...that includes sexual immorality.

That certainly doesn't keep us from appreciating his genius.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Sorry, but SIN is shunned...that includes sexual immorality.

Unnecessary comment, it's somewhat self-defeating. As a matter of fact, it corroborates what I was saying, but whatever, I no longer argue.

quote:That certainly doesn't keep us from appreciating his genius.

Speak 4 yourself. There are many indivisuals who won't look past the things they don't like in others, which in return impares their ability to appreciate or respect the other qualities of the disliked indivisual.

:edit:Itotallyskewedmyownpost,butit'sfixednow:

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 04-27-2005).]

bill brasky uses the shroud of turin as a golf towel.

i saw on the news that its easy to sun bleach that in.

Metalligod: You still don't mention how nobody noticed the apparent switch in images. The Shroud made it's first appearance in Europe 150 years before Da Vinci wrote about photography. I don't deny that Leonardo had the motive to do it, but evidence points otherwise. The Leonardo-Shroud theory was only introduced in 1994 (a little late for the secret to get out). Here's a link I found (which itself might be biased but gives credible sources) that states there's no evidence the Shroud is a photograph: http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-Photographic.htm

Digital_Savior: How can you shun one of the greatest people mankind has ever produced? If anyone deserves eternal awards for their contributions, it'd be someone like Leonardo.

I didn't say that I shun him.

I said Christianity shuns sin.

Please take care to "read", and then "understand" what it is I am saying.

Wrong, you said:

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Sorry, but SIN is shunned...that includes sexual immorality.



Nothing about Christianity, so I naturally assumed it was your beliefs doing the shunning. If you meant Christianity, then consider my previous statement addressed to Christians instead.

I represent Christianity, since I am a Christian, no ?

Where else would my beliefs come from ?

"My sister!"

*slap*

"My daughter!"

*slap*

"My sister!"

*slap*

"My daughter!"

*slap*

"My sister AND my daughter!"

"My sister!"

*slap*

"My daughter!"

*slap*

"My sister!"

*slap*

"My daughter!"

*slap*

"My sister AND my daughter!"

"My sister!"

*slap*

"My daughter!"

*slap*

"My sister!"

*slap*

"My daughter!"

*slap*

"My sister AND my daughter!"

"My sister!"

*slap*

"My daughter!"

*slap*

"My sister!"

*slap*

"My daughter!"

*slap*

"My sister AND my daughter!"