Is the Turin Shroud real?

[28804ecorrell]

If you choose not to believe in the Shroud, then fine thats your choice and your loss. But theres no need to post comments bashing it just because you dont believe in it. Have some respect for those who do believe in it.

[AFRICA4AFRICANS]

WHITE ARE SO FUCKING FUNNY WHAT IN THE HELLL IF HE EVER EXISTED WOULD YOU THINK HE WAS WHITE IN PLACE 110% IS NORMAL

[resurectedfire]

@AFRICA4AFRICANS Just don't forget africa4africans that your people are the real white ones as for albinos ive never seen any other race as truly white as albinos. Yet u might be all together inclined to forget this. So when u say stupid shit like that just remember that some of your African brothers and sisters could also be called white. BTW it doesn't make them magical LOL (inside joke).

[4midfielder]

Wow; that's Jesus.

[JesusLorloves]

WOW THAT IS THE SON OF GOD JESUS MY LORD & SAVER AMEN

[TheBigTruth411]

No. It is not real. It's fake. Google it.

[JesusLorloves]

@TheBigTruth411 do you beileve in jesus

[4midfielder]

@TheBigTruth411 No, it's real. I know this man; he's literally a genius. He introduced my parents, and I'm friends with his grandchildren. If you don;t trust Dr. Zugibe's words, then have faith. That IS, most-definitely, undisputably, Christ.

[202rickh]

A shroud that fell loosely over a human face would adhere to the contours of the face. Thus the space between, for example, tip of nose and cheek bones, etc would be distorted. When you removed the shroud, it would have a spread out, irregular and flattened look to it. Perspective would be lost. This could happen only if the shroud was held on a flat plane above the face, thus allowing accurate perspective to be maintained. Not to mention the distorting effect of folds.

[Flagrum3]

To the Shroud opponents;

It is fine to believe the shroud is not real, but do so with facts that are correct.Draw conclusions from the facts.Make a good case!...Don't be a fundamentalist!...We don't know in certain terms the age of the Shroud or it's provenance.But, to assert that it is a fake in the absence of real evidence takes a leap of faith no less then it does to assert it is real.

[saraa49]

great video

[mjtf1113]

Watch, on YOUTUBE The Shroud Of Turin Michael Jude

[sebreathnach]

Before there can be any intelligent discussion of the origins of Christianity -- or the authenticity of the Turin Shroud -- I believe one should read three things: 'Jesus is Caesar' (Francesco Carotta), 'Caesar's Messiah' (Joseph Atiwll) , and the history of the Piso Family. Maybe then there will be a little less fanaticism....

[bandman48]

who cares... seriously...!

[boozenfags]

I agree with Errskin, I saw the whole of this doc, didn't anybody notice that most of the scientists either wore or had large crucifixes?. Like this Dr Zugibe they are guilty of breaking the rules of science, they gathered evidence around a hypothosis instead of following the evidence because they want to believe in a magic man so much. And, MrZetter, VP8 analysis is for giving relief to maps, that's why no true scientist believes that crap, maybe magic deluded people should stay out of science

[TheRomanGirl]

Errskin

The Church has never said the Shroud is fake! It has protected it for 2000 years. Your remark was not true!

Realise one day that you are walking around on a globe suspended in mid-air & THEN say miracles don't happen and God does not exist!

Christians - watch on Youtube "Pharoahs and Kings" by David Rohl - proving the Old Testament is true - also watch "The Star of Bethlehem" proving that the Star was a real astronomical phenomenom.

[Matthew1944]

@TheRomanGirl - No church didn't say it was a fake BUT

The Catholic Encyclopedia says : A certain difficulty was caused by the existence elsewhere of other Shrouds similarly impressed with the figure of Jesus Christ and some of these cloths, notably those of Besançon, Cadouin, Champiègne, Xabregas, etc.

How many shrouds does one man need?

[Matthew1944]

2) Whatever brought about the Turin shroud effect was not a one of a kind, since there are other shrouds in existance, right along with the holy foreskins, holy baby blanket and vials of Mary's milk.

[lizazoon]

TheRomanGirl: The church has never said the shroud is real. In fact a french bishop in the Middle-Ages declared the shroud a fabrication, admitted by the painter, who painted the shroud, Unfortunately he didn`t mention the name of the artist.

[Letsmakeasamich]

Your an idiot, quit believing every thing your preacher says, tool.

[lespauls61]

@TheRomanGirl The old testament is true? You mean I can expect to live well into my 900's!!!

[alaya10008]

what would it take for you to believe?

[errskin]

theres a dumb question. here's a question for you first: what would it take for you to stop believing? usually, people answer this by claiming nothing will stop them from believing, which means they aren't actually convinced its true, they just want to believe it. but my answer for the question is anything that proves there is a god. but then i would even need more evidence to figure out which god it is cuz there are so many.

[litewright]

ever heard of faith

[errskin]

faith is believing something you know is not true.

[litewright]

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion is faith or believing something that has no proof which is actually wrong we have proof with the turin with eerything a bunch of people believe there is always going to be a group of people that dont believe. Look at 9\11 some people actually believe that didnt happen even though there is proof. or pre historic time there is actually a group of people that dont believe in that even though there is proof. im guessing you dont believe it

[litewright]

either

[LitterboxDiorama]

Well the Catholic church declared it a fake 20 years ago...so now your taking the word of a scientist over your church? You guys will never cease to amaze me.

[Jerseygirl8999]

Keep thinking that and while you are at it you might want to think of a Good reason for your disbelif when you stand before the throne of Jesus for Judgement.

[errskin]

if i stand in front of the throne of jesus then i will beleive in jesus and there wont be a problem, but until that happens or until i get some other proof then i cant beleive it.

[sthcrox]

cmon, get real, old man

[andytayloruk]

ITS FAKE MORONS

[MrZetterlund777]

I'd hate to break it to you, but it's not fake. It passed the VP8 tests. A painting would epically fail at that. It also showed bone structure of the nose being twisted, and I don't know of any artists from the 16th century with X-ray vision. The image was brought on by a radiation caused by natural phenomena. (some may call supernatural.) Pollen samples taken suggest it spent the majority of it's years in Israel. There's alot to say about this, but I'm on a five-hundred word count here.

[saranjune]

oni de the CREATOR knows de truth,nt humans like us

[luappmek23]

no its just one more forged christian relic like the foreskins of "jesus" get over it its just a medieval fake

[bsbheart2007]

I BELEIVE ITS JESUS ITS NOT FAKE AT ALL

[nicktheflim]

just saw in the paper today how apparenrlt Ray Rogers has carboned it...BUT!

Its a 6ft2" figure on the shroud. Let me tell you...a height like that even 300 years ago is almost totally unheard of. Let alone 2000 years ago. BOLLOCKS!

Also...it looks too much like Jesus...if you know what I'm saying! lol.

[condorito29]

I'm almost positive that the guy on the shroud is 5'11".

But hell, what are three inches anyway.

People were short in the ancient world, but they weren't THAT short.

There are guys walking around today that are a foot taller than the average, and yet no one looks at the NBA as a freak show.

As for why the figure looks like Jesus, its because the Shroud has been around for a while. Images of Jesus were based on the SHROUD. Why do you think there is CONSISTENCY in depictions??

[condorito29]

Think about it. If no one knows what Jesus looked like, why is he ALWAYS shown as a tall guy, with long hair parted in the middle, with a long face, and a forked beard?

The consistency in our depictions of Jesus come from somewhere, and thats the shroud of turin.

Let me get this straight, though.

Scientists from some of the most prestigious institutions have studied this thing and can't figure it out, and your "naah...too tall" somehow counts for more than THAT?

[condorito29]

Do your homework, man.

We are talking about Nature (the most prestigious scientific journal out there), London Journal of Optics, Thermochemical Acta, Los Alamos Labs, and various prestigious universities, and "naaahh.....too tall" explains it away?

unbelievable.

[nicktheflim]

i didnt say jesus didn't exsist dickwad.

I said i think the shroud is fake. two different things.

and yes, it is true. its too tall. read some anthropology books.

[condorito29]

my comment on Jesus existing wasn't meant for you,

I've read plenty of books, homey. the average height for men in those days was about 5'4" (which is only 4" shorter than today) Even if you are right that the guy on the shroud is 6'2", and not 5'11" (his true height), that puts the guy within range of normal height.

[condorito29]

Remember that point I made earlier about how no one sees the NBA as a freak show? You know, one of the points you didn't bother to refute?

Someone being a foot taller than average is NOT freaky in our day. Likewise, it wasn't freaky in Jesus' day either. Extremely tall? Yes. Freak? No.

[condorito29]

What was my earlier point which you ALSO didn't bother to refute?

Oh yea. Scientists and prestigious scientific institutions have studied this thing for THOUSANDS of hours, and your "naaahh....too tall" somehow trumps THAT??

Why don't you write to Chemistry Today, Nature, Los Alamos Labs, London Journal of Optics, Thermochemical Acta, etc etc, and tell THEM that.

Let them know you are an authority, because you've (supposedly) read books on anthropology.

[condorito29]

I'm sure they'll be SO impressed, and embarrased at their ignorance, that they'll all cease to study the shroud immediately.

They'll issue a statement like:

"We were wrong to consider this cloth extraordinary. We were wrong to think it covered a dead man. Nicktheflim has informed us that the guy is "too tall". Our eyes have been opened. We apologize for wasting everyone's time".

Lol.

Do you know how rediculous you sound?

[nicktheflim]

All I have done is state that I believe, as do many studies, that the body is not jesus, one of the reasons of which being the size of the figure. Thats MY OPINION. Which i am entitled to. Just as you are entitles to BELIEVE it is real...and not state it as fact.

do you know how ridiculous you sound? yes...thats how you spell it.

Obviously the bible didn't teach you to spell.

[nicktheflim]

did i say it hadn't be used for a dead man?

did i say jesus never exsisted?

did i say that this had been "debunked"?

no to all three. Looks like the bible never taught you how to read either.

I'm bored with you now. Fanatics dont amuse me. m

[scarfacechris]

fake fake fake fake, its been debunked, sorry bout your luck.

[condorito29]

debunked by whom?

the C14 tests have been shown to be invalid, and that was the ONLY thing which contradicted the other evidence pointing to an ancient origin.

"fake fake fake fake fake" doesn't really mean anything, does it?

I mean, hell. I can write "2 and 2 are 259.8354, sorry bout your luck" all I want, but until I actually have some EVIDENCE, it just remains an amazingly pretencsious load of crap.

[condorito29]

pretentious....sorry for the type-o

[mrbollocks1979]

lol... this guy tells someone else off for spelling and he then goes ahead and writes "type-o".

[winterstellar]

It has been proven to be a fake in dozens of ways. Such "shrouds" and other fake "relics" were popular in medieval Europe. For instance there were enough "pieces of Jesus' cross" to make a whole forest of crosses, and there were reportedly some thirthy "holy shrouds" like the one in Turin. Only very religious or poorly informed people still believe it is 2000 years old and that it depicts "Jesus". And hey, most scholars agree now that "Jesus" never lived for real anyway. :)

[NilDesperandum777]

Most scholars have acknowledged the historical Jesus as indisputable. The provenance of The Shroud (And The Cloth of Oviedo) predate "theories of refutation" by centuries...As in, the theory of a thirteenth, fourteenth century forgery stands impossible when balanced against a cloth containing identical blood dated to 6th century Spain with further historical support mapping the road from Israel. Irrespective of substantiated facts, you're entitled to desire that they be false.

[lespauls61]

@NilDesperandum777 You mean most evangelical scholars. Theres plenty of secular scholars that believe jesus likely is a myth since there is no evidence to support the claims of the bible.

[NilDesperandum777]

@lespauls61 Evangelical scholars...Certainly, but also Jewish, Agnostic,Atheist,and other Christian denominations as well. Which secular scholars are you referencing?

[lespauls61]

@NilDesperandum777 All your evangelical scholars are extremely biased and ignore the fact that there is NO evidence that the jesus of the bible actually did what people claim. There is no first century evidence that is considered reliable. Josephus is regarded by most to be christian interpolation and written late first century 90 CE or abouts (make up if you dont know what interpolation means).

[NilDesperandum777]

@lespauls61 Any evangelical scholar will necessarily rely on Catholic evidence, and the evidence is mountainous. Sir Simon Greenleaf held as the foremost authority on evidence believed in the authenticity of gospel eyewitnesses. Sir Lionel Luckhoo, the world's most successful trial lawyer agreed. And what has been authenticated of Josephus is still impressive and as you said, still first century. St. Peter was martyred in 67 AD and continued to preach commonly held Christian truths.

[lespauls61]

@NilDesperandum777 Evangelical scholars are always going to say they think its true, if they didnt that would be a contradiction DUH. You need non christian sources. There are scholars on each side of the fence, you can find just as many that say its false as true and whoever says it are just satating OPINION which is not fact.

[NilDesperandum777]

@lespauls61 I'm trying to find where precisely the need for your opinion from evangelicals was called for, nevermind your "DUH" statement. Conspriacy theories aside, I mentioned two experts on legal evidence who both agree with the historical account. And this notion that academic circles in history are evenly split on the existence of Jesus Christ, is patently false. You may have academics who arent believers, but professional historians dont regard the evidence as casually.

[lespauls61]

@NilDesperandum777 Catholics have no evidence!! I have researched this for several years being a former catholic I wanted to know the truth to what evidence exsisted and to say I was amazed at the LACK of evidence would be an understatement. I was shocked that people pushed this jesus story when there is NO archeological evidence to support any off it.

[NilDesperandum777]

@lespauls61 (1) The very land on which The Vatican is built is evidence. I suggest you research the date of the Vaticanus Mons. And to repeat, the graves of Sts. Paul and Peter are there. There's Early Church testimony that supports the consistency of Christian teaching by Peter and Paul, early first century. A.N. Sherwin of Oxford notes the teachings of Christ were not overrun by legend, which typically takes 2 generations to do so.

[NilDesperandum777]

@lespauls61 (2) Archaeologcal evidence exists in The Catholic and Orthodox communions who have had a presence since the very beginning, since the Last Supper. A cursory review of either communion's (Once perfectly conjoined.) will easily dispel any nothing of lack of evidence. As for "pushing" story, it seems your applying moder day considerations and conditions onto non-existent realities of the time. Such as rates of literacy, environments of free expression and modern methods of record.

[lespauls61]

@NilDesperandum777 From my finding I can tell you there are NO EYEWITNESS writings of jesus in the bible. Matthew, mark, luke,john didnt write a single word. What you have in the gospels is hearsay writing attributed to them!! Remeber if they even exsisted they would have been long dead before the gopels were written.

[NilDesperandum777]

@lespauls61 (1)Well that's simply not the case of most scholars. Theories suggest that certain books and letter would have had scribes writing on behalf of certain eye-witnesses. The need for anonymity was made clearer morevoer by the existence of things like the Circus of Rome, where Christians were routinely tortured and killed. St.Peter for example. The sequence of omitted history also clues scholars into timelines.

[NilDesperandum777]

@lespauls61 (2) For example Acts had to be written before 61 AD having not mentioned the deaths of Peter, Paul and James. It's well attested that Luke was written before Acts. It's well attested to that Mark was written before Luke pushing the date back further. Galatians is believed to date back to at least 45 AD. Phillipians and Colossians contain central Christian themes that predate that. .

[NilDesperandum777]

@lespauls61 (3) And the credo entailed in 1 Cor. 3:15 is believed to date no more than 24 to 36 months after the Christ's death. So this notion that eye-witness testimony was impossible or unavaiable makes no sense at all. You would have to search for supporting scholars in order to endorse that uncommon perspective in historically literate circles. It's also well documented that John lived well 75 AD and died somewhere past 80 AD.

[lespauls61]

@NilDesperandum777 There is no evidence to support the claims that the shroud was from the first century. Its purely wishfull thinking. Why are there no eyewitness accounts/writings of any of jesus may miracles that he allegedly performed? The bible claims thousands of people were witness yet we have not one eyewitness account from any.. NOT ONE.

[NilDesperandum777]

@lespauls61 There's actually a substantial amount of evidence to place the Shroud in 1st century Jerusalem. From chemical analysis, from textile authentication, historical provenance, botanical evidence, and then the congruence of evidence surrounding the forensic details that speak of a first century crucifixion victim. And again, the process of the image and the encoded 3D information. It's throughout a very convincing set of elements.

[Soberminddisciple]

WRONG the Shroud of Turin is not a fake and is considered the most remarkable artifact of all time!

[lespauls61]

@Soberminddisciple There is NO proof that it is from the first century much less that it was on the mythical jesus. stop spreading lies!!!

[NilDesperandum777]

@lespauls61 I'll interject here and repeat what I noted generally concerning the evidence from textile authenticity. A Dr. Flury-Lemburgh (sp?) on record, noted only one othr instance in which she handled and viewed a linen like the Shroud. It was from the Jewish stronghold of Masada, taken by the Roman Army in the mid to late 1st century. On the Shroud Itself are two coin images that would have only been minted in during the rule of Tiberius. And it goes on and on...

[JesusLorloves]

@Soberminddisciple amen

[kcanvan]

The issue isn't if Jesus existed, that has been proven. It is the fact that Jesus is divine that is the debate.

[winterstellar]

kcanvan You have been severely misinformed if you believe it has been proven that Jesus existed. In fact now most serious historians,scientists and scholars agree that Jesus is most likely only myth, the latest version of a hero myth/legend that had been popular in the area for many centuries, even milennia. Check out the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There", or watch some or all of the excellent canadian videos here on YouTube named *Jesus Never Existed?*, part 1-8. Really interesting stuff!!

[braino2000]

Stunning, INCREDIBLY STUNNING ignorance like most atheists fundementalists.

Never lived for real? FEW historians today would say that Jesus didn't exist. Please do some real research.

[winterstellar]

Serious historians agree on the fact that "Jesus" can't have existed. Christian historians and theologians of course try desperately to hold on to their beliefs about a "historical Jesus", but they are fighting a losing battle. More and more evidence agaist any "Jesus" is unearthed every day, and nothing supporting his existence. Sorry, but that's reality for you

[condorito29]

You are living in a dream world of your own making.

Go to your local university, and ASK a college professor whether or not Academia thinks Jesus existed.

Grow the minerals to do that before you spout off.

Academia is insanely hostile to christiantiy, and it is UNANIMOUS in saying that Jesus of Nazareth actually DID exist.

Who are your "serious" historians?

The guy who wrote the DaVinci Code?

Maybe Professor Hamburgler of the prestigious McAtheist institute in Mannheim.

who knows....

[condorito29]

boy, you really don't know what you are talking about.

do you bother to read books, or ask authorities before spouting off?

Most scholars AGREE that Jesus existed,

The shroud was never proven to be fake. The C14 tests were the only thing which contradicted all the other evidence which pointed to a medieval origin.

Its now been shown by the Journal Thermochemical Acta, and Los Alamos Labs to be an INVALID test, since they unknowingly tested a rewoven/repaired sample with medieval fibers.

[condorito29]

whoops.

correction: "the C14 tests were the only thing which contradicted all the other evidence which pointed to an ANCIENT origin".

ancient weave, nails through the wrists, hairstyle, roman whip marks, etc etc.

But hell, what's a thing like "evidence" to a guy like you?

sure, medieval europe was crawling with bogus relics. that's why this one stands out like crazy.

scientists simply can't wrap their heads around the shroud.

but what's their judgement compared to yours, right?

[SariTsamon]

yeaaaaa but this doesnt show if the Turin Shroud is real or not it just shows the details.

[ColdbusterSS]

ok heres one for you freaks: if hes from Palestine or the surrounding area why does he have the facial features of a CAUCASIAN man??

[condorito29]

Because Caucasian technically includes Semites as well.

The I think the main racial groupings are: Mongoloid (east asians with certain eyes), negrois (self explanatory), and caucasian, which includes dark skinned persians just as much as it includes albino looking irishmen.

[condorito29]

actually, eskimos fall under the 'mongoloid' grouping too.

[braino2000]

Get over it people. By now they've discovered so much from it that they can conclude that it is a

1)First century man from palestine

2)had nails in his hands (crucifixion)

3)Had severe whips/lashes to his back

4)was beaten severely

5)Was between 28 and 25 years old

6) The BLOOD on it is real. They even found a certain BILE chemical that the body produces under extreme torture/pain. Yeah, I'm so sure some guy from 600 years ago planted that there considering medical science didnt exist.

[SHSH1212]

"First century man from palestine"

No.

The rest is irrelevant.

[braino2000]

WOW!! What a great rebuttal!!

The rest isn't irrelevant. Have you done any research on the shroud or do you just refuse to believe it because of your worldview? Yeah, finding a bile in the real blood tissue that is produced under torturous conditions has NO relevance does it? Every person who has researched the shroud has said its real, or there is no evidence that it's fake.

[SHSH1212]

No, whether or not I believe in a god is irrelevant. The carbon dating method put it at ~1300 C.E. To say that it is the death shroud of Jesus without sufficient evidence to place it within a decent range from his death would be bad assumption. With that out of the way, the rest can easily be faked.

[braino2000]

That's cute. For one, carbon dating has shown repeatedly to be unreliable, secondly, they most recent test on it have proven much earlier. Besides, easily faked? Evidence please. They haven't come within shouting distance of reproducing it, let alone with primitive tools/technology from the middle ages.

[SHSH1212]

Carbon dating is hardly inaccurate. Who was the most recent to test it? The shroud is of a man who was crucified. This process can easily be repeated to the desired effect.

[braino2000]

Once again, they have tried many ways to reproduce it... They haven't yet. Not even the most skilled artists can do it, with todays technology. The first carbon dating was with the smoke/burned particals on the shroud... But theyve found that the clean linen is much older, not to mention, they found pollen from israel from thats about 2000 years old.

[SHSH1212]

To convince skeptics, they would need to send the clean linen to multiple, credible sources.

[Jfscloud723]

What happened is when the Shroud was in France there was an attempt to preserve the shroud by trying to fix the outer parts of it using their modern day cotton. The part of the shroud that was tested was the bottom corner. That is why it comes out to 12-1300 AD. They were unknowingly testing the restored section of the shroud. Whats more is that the Shroud is made of actual blood, which was tested and shown to be male human blood. However testing for ancestry was a failure.

[SHSH1212]

Ya, If they dated the parts that they sure were "original", then it would be proof, whether it showed that it was 2000 or 700 years old.

[016511]

Message to dakilangAral; The face cloth was used to preserve His blood as he was taken from the cross because jews thought the soul was in the blood,He was taken to the tomb,the face cloth discarded and then he was wrapped in the shroud as jewish law dictated,the face cloth (sudarium) has also been found in Spain I think,simple to understand unless you have an agenda not to!

[swansandtyphus]

I have searched for holy relics all my life.

I have some of the holy dandruff, the holy toenail clippings, the holy stubble, the holy ejaculation, the holy urine, the holy stool, the holy snot and the holy earwax of Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Anyone know where I can get his dirty diapers?

[condorito29]

wow.

what a learned comment. full of erudition and respect for the facts.

bullshit teenaged sarcasm aside, do you actually have anything to SAY?

"the shroud is, like, so bogus, man" doesn't actually count for anything.

[swansandtyphus]

Teenage humour is better than persistence of infantile naivety into adulthood.

[Quixote1818]

If you wrap cloth around a face covered with paint then it leaves a distorted looking image that hardly looks like a face. The ears end up way out to the side and the cheeks stretch way out. Try putting paint on your face and wrapping a cloth around it. I promise it wont look anything like you or any person. It's clearly a fake.

[braino2000]

If you think the shroud is fake you REALLY need to research. Every critical ( and even the most secular ) scientist who has researched it has either said it's authentic, or there is simply no evidence that it's fake. ALL of the wounds on it match the NT accounts. It's hilarious that people are still claiming there is no evidence for Christ. In fact, it's really quite incredible.

[Richardhedditch261]

The close-up facial pictures from the Turin Shroud reveal that the subject's eyes were actually open.The shroud has all the distinguishing features[lines,folds,marks,etc­] needed to be ancient.

[DakilangAral]

The Shroud of Turin is a hoax becoz when Jesus Christ was put in a tomb, his face was separately wrapped from his body. Here's a proof direct from the Bible.

John 20:6 - And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there,

John 20:7- and the 'FACE-CLOTH' which had been 'ON HIS HEAD', 'NOT LYING' with the 'LINEN WRAPPINGS', but rolled up in a place by itself.

the linen thats been wrap from his body is different from the face-cloth.

[ScorpioTV]

FANTASTIC FIND!

[BardleyCfan]

the cloth is real

[stillsavinglives]

absolutely true!

[FreeAgain2]

In Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin: A Review Raymond N. Rogers, a Fellow at the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory writes:

The combined evidence from chemistry, cotton, technology, photography, and residual lignin proves that the material of the main part of the Shroud is significantly different from the radiocarbon sampling area. The validity of the radiocarbon sample must be questioned with regard to dating the production of the main part of the cloth.

[Famagusta23456789876]

very interesting

[andrewkenworthy]

it was carbon dated, and thats that, if ya get a group of bible bashers doing the test off course they want to believe,its was show in a documentary how the photograph was impressioned into the shroud, blood, its not hard to find blood, its in all of us,did god leave his dna sequence, cop the fuck on relgious nuts, its some dead dudes impression used to fucking con people.just like iraqs wmds a fucking big lie.

[Pettos91]

interesting!

[jessy84das07]

to proove this shraud authentic, you need to show a sign that is non human.

[jessy84das07]

I watched a program where they think how this could be fake. If a person suffered the same faith as jesus, how would we know who is the figure of jesus and who is not. the program depicts a person suffering the same faith as jesus and that body is covered by a clot. all human bodies react the same way to the same pains. we know what happen to jesus, only we are nnot sure how he may have looked like when it happened.

[newman20072008]

i AGREE with : louchan92

[louchan92]

I think it is real. For a start, the blood stains were proved to be real blood and nobody knows how it could have been painted. The whole carbon dating issue, well apparently there was some mix up and it came out 1300 years late so it could be from around the year 30-38, when Jesus died. That is why I think it is real... Sorry for this being so long...

[DryBONESreborn]

IF only there was a high dose of radation to show some cool Spirit power action. :) I heard they are re-investigating to see if it's real again.

[newman20072008]

its REAL end of story

[DatFwad]

How can you say that until it is completely proved that it is real? It is not accepted yet in the scientific community that it is genuine, so therefore your comment is completely ignorant!! Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so. Think about it!!

[braino2000]

Everyone who's researched it has either said it's real or there is NO evidence that it's fake.

[braino2000]

Yeah, but people in the scientific community have said its either real, or there's no evidence that its fake. It is still to be reproduce, scientists havent reproduced it and never will, just like their dream of making "artificial life"

[airuok]

the 1988 carbon dating study was found to be inaccurate in 2005 due to mold spores within water damage resulting from a fire. the shroud remains to be the single most scientifically studied artifact in history.

[wojciech123456]

this shroud was checked using carbon dating and it indicated that its only about 1000 years old... so unfortunetly it must be fake

[welshwinger]

For crying out loud, can you keep up?

THE CARBON DATING IS THOUGHT TO BE COMPLETELY WRONG!!!!! so no, 'unfortuntely' you are wrong in saying 'it must be fake'. it may be, but as yet there is no completely conclusive proof either way, so stop spamming up this board with your silly comments.

[rskrj]

You will see the truth, with your own eyes. Sooner than you think. By then, it may be too late for you.

[PappyRoo]

Shroud dot com has the most up to date info from an even-handed perspective.

[trina1is1dying]

i believe wikipedia.

[outthr]

I'd like to think that some of you negative creeps out there could experience this type of torture, and then someone comes along and said it's fake.

[Johannes9126]

Nice painting you have there. Unfortunately it isn't 2000 years old.

[djemil5]

Check out my video. It called "Shroud of Christ is confirmed to be 2000 years old.

You will see why it's no longer considered a painting.

[Johannes9126]

I have seen your vid already. The thing seems to be some kind of photo. And it is dated to be no more than 1500 years old...

[outthr]

Are you still going around with that same old story?

[Johannes9126]

Says someone who thinks 2012 will be a predicted turning-point in human history...

[outthr]

You'r a narrow minded biggot.

[Johannes9126]

I know I am not. I am just not as gullible as some other people.

[RiffRaff3169]

No because its be debunked. It has been backdated to around 1000 - 1200AD by 3 seperate universities.

[outthr]

No such thing ever happened-three separate universities, come on you can do better then that!

[gr333nyboy]

its an uncomfortable truth

[PappyRoo]

why are not more people interested in the shroud?

[outthr]

Because they are narrow-minded biggots.