Is the Turin Shroud genuine after all?

[sade]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/04/10/article-1168962-0464D4A1000005DC-991_233x494.jpg

To believers it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, miraculously marked with his image.

But the Turin shroud was widely dismissed as a hoax in 1988 when scientific tests found it could not be more than 1,000 years old.

Now one of the scientists who first studied 12 foot-long sheet has spoken - from beyond the grave - of how he came to believe that it could be genuine.

A video made shortly before Raymond Rogers died in 2005 has been discovered, in which the U.S. chemist reveals his own tests show the relic to be much older - dating back to between 1,300 and 3,000 years ago.

Dr Rogers said: 'I don't believe in miracles that defy the laws of nature. After the 1988 investigation I'd given up on the shroud.

'But now I am coming to the conclusion that it has a very good chance of being the piece of cloth that was used to bury the historic Jesus.'

And I say it's a load of bollocks! And check out the comments of smart people and how they've been rated negatively.:rolleyes:
-edit- Forgot link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168962/Is-Turin-Shroud-genuine-From-grave-startling-new-claim.html
I also found it to be interesting that they mentioned the Knights Templars....

[drhemp]

Yes a genuine hoax.

[dlb2007]

I have actually seen it i was litterally not more than a couple of feet from it, i am not going to go into the details of if it were real or not but i will say this i believe it is real not because of arguments but because of an intense visual experience brought on me from the shroud in which i experienced personal future events that have now occured and what i believe to be a mild foretaste of hell...no it was not a good/pleasent experience

[synergy777]

its not yeshua/jesus in my opinion.

it could be simon magus, da vinci or another templar icon.

[bowtiedaddy]

No fucking way. An imprint would never be that detailed. I can't believe some people actually think it's real.

Granted, at least they didn't try to make him look Germanic, and made him look somewhat semitic.

[sade]

Link to the daily mail added, since I forgot to add it. :D

[motleyhoo]

It is quite possibly genuine, but just because it is genuine does not mean that the imprint is that of Jesus. The pundits seem to be stuck on the theory that if they can prove when the shroud was made they can make their case. That really proves nothing at all. Knowing the date still does not link it to a person in any way other than circumstantial.

[steevo]

I would say that it's a hoax. And lets face it, it's just a piece of cloth.

[onourwayto2012]

I have actually seen it i was litterally not more than a couple of feet from it, i am not going to go into the details of if it were real or not but i will say this i believe it is real not because of arguments but because of an intense visual experience brought on me from the shroud in which i experienced personal future events that have now occured and what i believe to be a mild foretaste of hell...no it was not a good/pleasent experience

wow.... that's an interesting story.....the last part sounds pretty creepy though

[endlessvista]

It is quite possibly genuine, but just because it is genuine does not mean that the imprint is that of Jesus. The pundits seem to be stuck on the theory that if they can prove when the shroud was made they can make their case. That really proves nothing at all. Knowing the date still does not link it to a person in any way other than circumstantial.

That's how I feel about it. There is some amazing qualities about it alright.

[jp13]

"And I say it's a load of bollocks! And check out the comments of smart people and how they've been rated negatively.
-edit- Forgot link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...new-claim.html
I also found it to be interesting that they mentioned the Knights Templars.... "
Thats the 2nd time today I've heard something on MSM about the Knights Templars.
The other time was on TV BBC1 at 4.15pm 'Cash in The Attic'
Jenny Bond (I think that is her name, used to be a royal correspondent, and was in the jungle as well) mentioned the KT in respect to the place where the people were living, used to be KT property, she said they were stopped because the King was jealous of the amount of money they had.
Talk about dumbing down, it's worse than that, they take any and all interest out of a subject that many would find interesting (Dan Brown for example) so that even if you do watch it, it will wash over you so quickly you will have forgotten you heard it.

[fekdemasons]

Yes a genuine hoax.


As opposed to what ? A fake hoax ?

Sorry , I'm just nitpicking Dh but its a contradiction isn't it ?

I'll get back in my box except to say , Was it common practice to be buried with ones hands covering the Genital area at that time ?

After all did it matter when the shroud was first used , if genuine then there would be no reason to do this other than if you knew the shroud would be subjected to this scrutiny..

[jp13]

I think the image looks more like a knight or a king, it even looks like a crown on top of the head (doh! crown of thorns), I remember some program said that it might have been an early type of photography, and linking it with Da Vinci of course.

[drhemp]

Sorry , I'm just nitpicking Dh but its a contradiction isn't it ?


Then don't.

[fekdemasons]

Where are the blood stains ? You would maybe expect to see evidence of the crucifiction / torture , i.e. crown of thorns , whipped and beaten , nails through the feet and hands , spear in the side etc.

[fekdemasons]

Then don't.


Oh ok then

[tussin]

i was reading the Hiram Key and the person who was wrapped in that shroud was Jacques de Molay.

i dont beleive its any sort of hoax. the book of enoch and the dead seas scrolls are also real to me.

[tomahawk]

No, during the middle ages "relics" were in vogue big time. Every inbred warlord in Europe had a "genuine" crucifixion nail, the bones of St Peter and a piece of the "true cross" on his mantelpiece.

[joe911]

i watched a good doc on it before,,think it was called the case for christs resurection,,might not have been in the film but maybe in the extras,,ill have a look...

[banphrionsalola]

clive prince and lynn picknett wrote a book on this called "The Turin Shroud - How Da Vinci Fooled History". I haven't ready it myself but i have ready other books by the authors and these guys seem to know their stuff. Might be worth a read!!!!

[marpat]

Even if it was from the right period this does not mean it was his shroud. It is one thing for the date to be in the right area but what does that mean in itself?

I think a lot of relics are just money spinners for the church or things to keep people believing when they are doubtful.

[ziegenfarm]

i had heard a couple of things and, ofcourse, have no way of knowing if they might be true or not. once i heard that the blood stains were tested and believed to be ABneg. i had also heard that it might have been the shroud of jacques demolay.....that is if it was not the shroud of jesus. who knows.

[marpat]

And so what is they were AB-? does anybody know the blood group of Jesus or do they assume it will be very rare just because of our ideas of him?

[branjo]

The strange thing about the shroud is that the apparent "sweat" markings of the dude in it, are not an organic reaction to the cloth, it is said that the marks where caused by either intense "light" or "heat" or both. The blood is said to be real, but could this also mean that the "guy" in question might have been revived by a certain kind of "technology" as opposed to divinity.

I don't know either way, but Greg Braden has some deeper info on it. Very interesting to say the least, whether or not the mark is of who they say it is, is still pretty much anyone's guess.