Shroud of Turin is Man-made, a Medieval fake. Really?

[Lost-in-FL]

OME (AP)-- Scientists have reproduced the Shroud of Turin -- revered as the cloth that covered Jesus in the tomb -- and say the experiment proves the relic was man-made, a group of Italian debunkers claimed Monday.

The shroud bears the figure of a crucified man, complete with blood seeping out of nailed hands and feet, and believers say Christ's image was recorded on the linen fibers at the time of his resurrection.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/shroud-of-turin-reproduce_n_310605.html

http://www.daylife.com/photo/0cBpdZC1gy57z?q=shroud+of+turin

___________________________________________________________

Is this still an issue?

[TreasonousBastard]

1. It'll go on until the shroud turns to dust.

[saltpoint]

2. Which can't happen soon enough to suit me. Jesus, I'm sick of this

hoax about this goddamned rag.

People with bean mesh for brains repeat it as an incontrovertible truth, braying like jackasses every step of the way.

[NWHarkness]

3. Here is what I never got

Let's suppose the Shroud really is an authentic artifact from the First Century.

That still wouldn't prove it was Jesus.

Always reminded me of the old Firesign Theater time traveler bit. "I've been to ancient Greece and I can prove it. Look at this grape!"

[old mark]

4. Hey, it was a real money maker for the church - for a long time, probably

will continue to be for those who think this science stuff is all a plot or a test of their faith. I'm sure there's till a few bucks left in it and I'm sure it will be squeezed dry.

mark

[elocs]

5. It's natural for believers to want something to grasp upon to reinforce their faith.

Thomas said he wouldn't believe it was the resurrected Jesus until he could put his hand in the hole in his side. Jesus did not condemn him for it but told him "...blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

[Silent3]

8. There's that meme again....

I started a whole thread about this, but so far no one wants to defend this idea there. Why should any one be "blessed" for believing without seeing? Again, here's the idea that somehow belief without proof, rather than being stupid and possibly dangerous, is some sort of virtuous act.

It might be a generous act, in some situations, to extend belief without proof to a fellow human being, showing that you're willing to take a risk and give that person a chance to prove themselves worthy of your trust, but all-powerful gods shouldn't have any need for that kind of generosity from mere humans.

[Deep13]

10. Doubt is the real virtue, not faith. nt

[Altoid_Cyclist]

6. Isn't it amazing that science still scares and/or pisses off so many people?

[Tesha]

7. ALL religion is a "man-made fake"; someday we'll all understand that. (NT)

[Warpy]

9. The churches and monasteries in the Middle Ages were infamous

for faking relics of the cross, shards from the holy grail, bone fragments from saints, and other things they could sell to people with money who wanted to bribe their way into heaven. That this is a fake from the same era is no surprise.

Some people will always insist on believing it's the genuine article, of course. Whatever gets them through the night is fine by me.

However, it is a fake.

[supernova]

11. Monasteries and Churches that had "relics"

made up the bulk of the tourist industry in the Middle Ages.

Being a protestant, the whole idea of visiting a place to see a corpse, or a part of a corpse is odd to me.

But, like you said, whatever gets them through the night.

[smoogatz]

12. But it's a wonderful, ingenious fake.

I've always admired a well-executed hoax, and the shroud is truly top-notch as religious fakes go. Still fooling the suckers, 600 years and counting.

[skepticscott]

13. This is not new

Both Walter McCrone and Joe Nickell described techniques for reproducing a Shroud-like image long ago, and a technique called grisaille, by which an image like the shroud could have been produced, was already well-known in the 14th century.

is this still an issue? For some, as with evolution, it always will be. For the sensible and well-informed, it was settled long ago.

[hedgehog]

14. If it is a fake, that detracts nothing from Christian teachings. If it is

the actual burial cloth of a man crucified around 33C.E, what would that prove?

[edhopper]

15. The fact that it is a fake

speaks a lot about the reliability of a church that would promote it.
It's not about the teachings of Jesus, it's about the religious institutions that claim to have authority through God.

[hedgehog]

16. OK - say if someone lied to someone else back in 1439 or whatever?

Is there a note that's been passed down through the centuries "Psst - it's a fake - don't tell the rubes?"

I wouldn't be that concerned if someone convinced me that it's a fake. It's more important to me to see how it's used. For example, consider the Apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima. Both involve visions of Mary. Lourdes has become a symbol of a loving God who seeks to heal us. People visit Lourdes and come home more at ease even if they aren't cured of their physical ailment. They come home with the notion that someone cares. Fatima, on the other hand, is used to advance various right wing agendas right up to Fascism.

[edhopper]

17. But the church still advocates hoaxes

Canonizing Juan Diego for instance.
A lie in the service of good is still a lie.And an organization based on divine truth using lies is suspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Diego

[hedgehog]

18. Is it a hoax if the person advocating it doesn't know it's a hoax?

Aside from that, what if it's not a hoax? People say there was no Juan Diego, people say there was no St. Brigid. Are they right, or are they parading a pseudo sophistication? Until Heinrich Schliemann, the accepted view was that of course there was no factual basis for the Iliad or Odyssey. Archaeologists have spent the last 60 years digging around in Israel and finding that the historical accounts in the Bible have a factual basis, albeit filtered through various agendas.

[PassingFair]

19. They feel "more at ease" after getting a green handkerchief from this dude, too.

It's STILL a SWINDLE and a HOAX.

[dbonds]

23. So if a delusion has a good outcome it is okay?

Since the outcome was all in the mind anyway, there has to be a more reality based way of achieving that.

[Sal316]

20. Just because someone made a copy...

...doesn't mean the original is a fake.

Tha's like saying the real $20 in your wallet is a fraud because someone can make a duplicate.

Ahhh, some atheists...not happy unless they get to pee in believers' cheerios.

[darkstar3]

21. I kind of agree with you

surprisingly enough. But this is just one more in a long line of examples of bad scientific reporting.

Obviously, proving that the Shroud of Turin COULD have been man-made does not automatically mean that it HAD to have been man-made.

But it IS one more nail in the coffin of the myth. And if you've been following the story, you know that this is an important nail. The defenders of the Shroud have said for decades that it could not possibly be a fake because the necessary processes and materials to produce such a fake weren't known in the 14th century. With that claim laid to rest, the story of the Shroud is that much more dubious.

As for your wonderfully enlightened slam of 'some atheists', I have two things to say:
1. When pissing in people's cheerios is your own pass-time, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to accuse others of doing so.
2. Why is it that whenever scientists attempt to tackle the big questions, some religious followers act like those scientists are shitting all over their religion? What right do you have to demand that science not investigate your claims?

Edit: brevity

[edhopper]

22. But there is no evidence that it is real

and ALL the evidence (like carbon dating) shows it is false.
One of the arguments believers have made is that there is no way a medieval forger could have produced it.
This is now shown to be simply not true.

[iris27]

24. Wasn't the shroud already carbon dated and found to be a fake years ago?

The dating revealed that the cloth itself was from about 1250 AD, and that the supposed blood stains on the garment were dated even later, like 1500's. Or so I'd thought I heard.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.