Shroud of Turin actually proves the Resurrection of Jesus.

162 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sky Pilot's picture


"* Yes, a forgery so very clever that our most intelligent scientists of the 21st century are unable to figure out how the image was made by the forger!"

Who said that the "intelligent scientists" are honest? As I pointed out, anyone with an ounce of sense should know that the shroud is 100% bullshit.

Don't you think that everyone involved in the shroud has a vested interest to prove that it's legit? So they simply fake it in order to keep the cash flowing.

Dave Matson's picture


Your problem is that you've dined on so much pseudoscience that you don't know what the real facts are!

[[* I find it profoundly interesting that not even 21st Century technology can explain the image on the Shroud of Turin, yet we are told that it is a 12th to 13th century fraud! Really? --Jen]]

Joe Nickell showed how the shroud could be created via artistic materials available around 1300 AD.

[[* The Shroud is a 3D negative image etched into the inner surface layer of the Shroud. In the 12th century, there was no concept of negative images, nor 3D imaging. Yet, we are told the Shroud is nothing more than a “clever forgery”. --Jen]]

Don't believe everything you read, especially from those with an ax to grind! Joe Nickell addresses this and many other claims. Hint: Read the book!

[[* Yes, a forgery so very clever that our most intelligent scientists of the 21st century are unable to figure out how the image was made by the forger! --Jen]]

This wasn't the only fake shroud. They were popping up here and there! As noted above, it can be duplicated with the artistic materials circa 1300 AD.

[[* Since there are no other images like it in the history of mankind, (it is truly unique), I believe it is the burial Shroud of Jesus. --Jen]]

There is nothing supernatural or highly advanced about it. You have been reading too much nonsense! Maybe you should read Joe Nickell's book "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin" to get a balanced perspective.

[[* The only piece of evidence that leans towards a fraud is the Carbon 14 dating data. The Carbon testing result has been put into serious doubt by critics, since the sample submitted for Carbon testing was most likely a linen patch placed by nuns who repaired the Shroud with their 13th century linen. The Vatican has refused to allow further Carbon testing. --Jen]]

The stains are not of blood! Try that one out. The Shroud of Turin first appears in an age of similar forgeries. It was soon denounced as a forgery by one of the church officials (after testing it). "Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud" by Walter McCrone is another good book on the subject, one written later and having more details. [added later] A quick check on Wikipedia gives:

Mechthild Flury-Lemberg is an expert in the restoration of textiles, who headed the restoration and conservation of the Turin Shroud in 2002. She has rejected the theory of the "invisible reweaving", pointing out that it would be technically impossible to perform such a repair without leaving traces, and that she found no such traces in her study of the shroud.[48][49]

Sheldon's picture
" I find it profoundly

" I find it profoundly interesting that not even 21st Century technology can explain the image on the Shroud of Turin, yet we are told that it is a 12th to 13th century fraud! Really?"

You seem confused, but fraud *IS the explanation, science has dated it to the middle ages for a start the 14th century, and there were three independent dating done, and they all came to precisely the same result.
"sample submitted for Carbon testing was most likely a linen patch placed by nuns who repaired the Shroud with their 13th century linen. The Vatican has refused to allow further Carbon testing."

Why not test it again and choose a piece those nuns hadn't forged? Oh yeah, because that hilarious excuse would be exposed as a lie, there aren't enough smiley faces in the world, there really aren't.
"Since our greatest minds can not conceive of how the image was made except by supernatural means, "

This will remain a lie no matter how many times you repeat it, but by all means link the research from our "greatest minds" evidencing that this forgery is a supernatural creation? Or are you and the RCC simply using argumentum ad ignorantiam to make that fallacious leap, ignoring the one fact we do have, that it's been dated as a 14th century forgery.

"perhaps logic dictates the Shroud is physical evidence of a supernatural event "

No it really doesn't, you're simply using common logical fallacy to appeal to ignorance.

1. There is scientific evidence from 3 independent sources proving it was created in the 14th century.
2. Oddly enough this is precisely when it was first touted by the RCC as a miracle, what a surprise.
3. There is no scientific evidence for anything supernatural here, none.
4. Even if the RCC weren't shamelessly touting yet another forgery as a miracle, and this was dated to the crucifixion, so what?
5. Even if there was no explanation for it, so what?
6. The RCC's long and illustrious career for lies and forgeries means I wouldn't trust them farther than I could throw a tank.

It's a forgery, and the one test that proves it from 3 independent sources is being waved away, with excuses, while the RCC refuse to have it tested again, do behave. Why can't your deity make it indestructible, that would be compelling evidence for something supernatural? A puny piece of human cloth that be burned, if it's going to tease us with evidence then why not stop fucking around with lame trickery.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JenWilJW - Shroud of Turin

JenWilJW - Shroud of Turin actually proves the Resurrection of Jesus.

Really? What form of proof was used?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

JenWilJW - ...a light that is several billion kw of energy...

JenWilJW - release of [several] billion kilowatts...

JenWilJW - ..."exceeds the maximum number release from all ultra-violet light sources available today"...

JenWilJW - "[The light] would require...intensities on the order of several billion watts"

As those statements are dimensionally inconsistent; they are gibberish. Your skeptic alarm should be shrieking at this!

LostLocke's picture
The best part is the fact

The best part is the fact that the "release from all ultra-violet light sources" would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than "several billion watts".
At this stage you would not be imprinting on the shroud, you would literally be nuking it, and all of the Earth, out of existence.

Dave Matson's picture
I like the " release

I like the " release of [several] billion kilowatts..." --JenWilJW part. A touch of humor!

Jared Alesi's picture
But, Assassin's Creed

But, Assassin's Creed Syndicate says that the shroud was a Piece of Eden!

David Killens's picture
After years of discussion,

After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud. Independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD.

JenWilJW's picture
So far we know the light was

So far we know the light was from rays that were 1/10th of an hair thick.

There is blood on the cloth and the blood came before the image.

The man appears crucified, has a crown of thorns, and marks that typically Jesus went through.

Its almost impossible to suggest its a forgery now so we have only 2 options:

1) that this man is Jesus

2) or another Jewish man that just happened to be crucified in the same way and not given the Jewish custom burial as it would have been on passover.

The scientific community need to hold their hands up and state that this is likely to be authentic and not fake. I think the evidence heavily points to its authenticity.

Sky Pilot's picture


"I think the evidence heavily points to its authenticity."

If that's what you really think, fine. But if anyone agrees with you on this issue just like you they will be completely wrong.

Do you want to buy some of Yahweh's hair? I have some for sell at a very good price.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
No, No, I have some nails

No, No, I have some nails from the original cross...see the blood doesn't congeal! It's a miracle!

Oh, I also have some fine authentic indulgences for sale. Very reasonable! Get out of purgatory sooner, why wait!

Tin-Man's picture
Hey, if anybody is interested

Hey, if anybody is interested, I have THE stone that David used to slay Goliath. I'll make you a great deal for it. I bought it from guy who had a kiosk set up in one of the bazaar areas in Iraq. The stone has a small blood stain on it,,and it is even initialed with the letter "D". The guy told me he was touring the battle site and happened to look down and spotted the stone. Said it was "shining like a star in the sky", and that he heard God's voice telling him, "Taketh up this stone as proof of my greatness." He seemed very sincere and legit. He even gave me an official looking letter of authenticity that was signed by the tour guide on the day he found the stone. What more proof does one need?

He told me he also had the sling David had used, but he sold it to some Air Force guy just before I got there. Naturally, I was very skeptical about his sling claim. Seems pretty silly something like that would survive for that long. But those stupid Air Force guys will fall for just about anything, I suppose. *rolling eyes* I also noticed he had a few pieces of fossilized camel poop from Noah's ark, and I'm pretty sure I spotted some locks of hair from Samson. But my squad leader was calling for everybody to get back to our vehicles, so I didn't get a chance to look at anything else.

Anyway, if you are interested in the stone, make me an offer or maybe we can trade.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JeniWilJW

@ JeniWilJW

"Its almost impossible to suggest its a forgery now so we have only 2 options:"

It's a forgery. See that wasn't "almost impossible"

Prove that this "jesus" existed please> your version of jesus. As far as I know there is not one jot of evidence that such a person existed.

Thousands of Jews were crucified before and after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. Read some history.

"The scientific community need to hold their hands up and state that this is likely to be authentic and not fake."

The scientific community "need"? Why? A youtube video? Wow, that's some proof. Definitely got me convinced.

Dave Matson's picture


This UV ray stuff is wild-assed speculation! Don't pass it to us as established fact! A lot of scandalous "research" was mixed in with real research when the shroud was examined by a mixed bunch, and the accounts by some of these people only represent themselves. The sober stuff tended to be given a back seat while wildly speculative stuff made the headlines.

The evidence points strongly towards artistic pigment--not blood.

The forger, of course, is not going to leave out these items!

It is a forgery, so your next conclusions are irrelevant.

JenWilJW's picture
"he forger, of course, is not

"The forger, of course, is not going to leave out these items!

It is a forgery, so your next conclusions are irrelevant."

Let us for the sake of argument assume that it was a forgery:

Whats interesting is if the Shroud was faked, whoever did it was completely bent on fooling people of the future.

  • They had to get a cloth from around 200 - 300 A.D. and thats been in Jerusalem, take live blood from a living person in trauma and blood after the person was deceased.
  • Then they had to make dirt from Jerusalem appear on the shroud off the body that caught the ground.
  • They then imprinted the image on to the shroud by no means that can be done today considering that it has to be produced by light.
  • The bloke must have also been around or before the 7th century when the image on the shroud was first mentioned.
  • Its not impossible for someone to go to these great lengths.
  • However, its highly unlikely they would as it wasn't necessary at the time to fool the world in such depth as they had no means of testing its reliability in the same rigorous way we test things by science today.

I'm convinced and probably 99% sure this is Christ and that it was a naturally formed cloth due to circumstances and events.

Sapporo's picture
The probability of the Shroud

The probability of the Shroud representing a supernatural event is 0%.

David Killens's picture
At best, this shroud

At best, this shroud indicates that it may have covered some weird adult with a man's head and a woman's body who died traumatically. Even then that is not hard proof. But it does not prove by any means it belonged to jesus. At best some poor soul who was deformed at birth and suffered a horrible death.

Back in those eras holy relics were the big thing. If you wanted to be any kind of player in religion (such as a monastery or cathedral) you had to posses some holy relic. IMO this shroud was created 1260–1390 AD.

Sheldon's picture
"They had to get a cloth from

"They had to get a cloth from around 200 - 300 A.D."

>>You know that 3 independent scientific testers have unequivocally dated it to the 14th century don't you?

"I'm convinced and probably 99% sure this is Christ and that it was a naturally formed cloth due to circumstances and events."

Bully for you, it's a fake though. Even if it weren't all you'd have is a piece if cloth whose origins you couldn't explain. You will have to explain how this evidences anything supernatural, beyond pure assumption that something you can't explain must therefore have a supernatural explanation. This reasoning was wrong about lightning, earthquakes, tsunamis et al. It's called argumentum ad ignorantiam, a common logical fallacy.

Dave Matson's picture


We might also note that those explanations that invoke weird, supernatural powers (such as a weird beams of UV from Jesus's body) are drawing from the conclusion to prove the conclusion! Start with Jesus as a supernatural being, therefore UV rays of incredible intensity might have emitted from his body, and such rays would account for the markings on the Shroud. That could only mean that the Shroud covered Jesus. Isn't that called "begging the question"?

Sheldon's picture
Yes it is Greensnake, you are

Yes it is Greensnake, you are precisely correct, when they make an argument for the supernatural that assumes the existence of something supernatural in that argument then it is absolutely a logical fallacy called begging the question.

What really baffles me though is why think this evidences anything supernatural? We have a piece of cloth that is clearly made in the 14th century, and has an imprint on it, well so fucking what?

For the sake of argument assume it's not from the 14th century and could be dated to the time theists say the crucifixion took place, lets say we currently have no explanation for the imprint, and there appears to be what might have been blood on it. Even allowing for all that which is as far as anyone can objectively go, it tells us nothing and evidences nothing. You'd also have to wonder why a deity that could do literally anything is fucking around with bits of cloth that don't properly evidence it's existence, does their god love gullibility and superstition or something?

"Blessed are the superstitious for theirs is the (fake) kingdom of heaven. The gullible shall inherit the earth.....honest, now just give me your PIN and card details so you can be saved.

It is mind boggling.

Dave Matson's picture


Your first mistake, a whopper, is to present these items as though they were cold-cut facts. The trouble with not having a good scientific background is that you can't tell the difference between reputable authorities and scandalous claims by people with PhD's and an ax to grind. Not knowing how science works, you will latch onto those things that "confirm" your own pet ideas. No doubt you got these claims from materials that seemed respectable to you.

1. The carbon-14 test reflects a date around 1300 AD (1325 +-65 years). Your rebuttal that it was taken from a repair patch added at that late date is refuted by the Wikipedia quote I gave. A respected textile expert, respected enough to be invited to do studies on the shroud in 2002, plainly stated that any such repair would leave evidence and she found no evidence. Do you really think that seasoned scientists would date a patch that had obviously been added at a later date to the original shroud? The claim was probably made, likely on the basis of flimsy evidence, that a patch was so skillfully done as to be invisible.

Some wild conclusions were made by some biased individuals who were part of the group studying the shroud. Others ruled out blood stains beyond any reasonable doubt. If you read Walter McCrone's book "Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud" you will get an excellent view of the politics that surrounded the study. Some scandalous things were going on! Politics intruded at every turn. McCrone states:

The image is due to two paint pigments in two very dilute collagen tempera (watercolor) paints; there is NO [underlined, non-caps in the original] blood in the Shroud image. The Shroud was first painted with a dilute red ochre paint. Then, the blood stains were added with a second dilute vermilion paint. Both red pigments (red ochre and vermilion), the paint medium (collagen tempera), and faint monochrome images were popular with artists during the Middle Ages

2. Is this the firm conclusion of the group or are we getting some half-baked analysis from one of the individuals in that group? Without clear documentation I'm not going to take this as a fact.

3. Once again, this seems to be the wild speculation of an individual (s) rather than a consensus opinion of the group's participants. If you read some of the skeptical literature you may discover that a clever artist, using materials of his time, could reproduce a remarkable likeness of the shroud! And that includes the 3-D effect as well as the "negative" image. Therefore, I do not accept this item as a cold-cut fact. It needs serious support!

4. According to McCrone the Shroud of Turin first makes the scene in 1356 and was probably intended for a newly built church in Lirey, France. It was exhibited there in 1356. Pilgrims immediately took it to be the shroud of Jesus, prompting Henri, Bishop of Troyes, to state that this was false and that he actually knew the guy who painted it. Obviously, your 7th century date is in serious need of validation.

5. Because you are working from undocumented "facts," your final point is mute.

Sheldon's picture
"The scientific community

"The scientific community need to hold their hands up and state that this is likely to be authentic and not fake."

Except science has shown it is a 14th century fake, and so they don't have to do any such thing. Who to believe, the god bothering left footers responsible for protecting a global paedophile ring, or science.

It's not a tough choice...

"The man appears crucified,"

Hahhahahahhahahahaha, I bet that was the trickiest part of the forgery and all, ffs give me strength.

Sky Pilot's picture
I've got the broken pieces

I've got the broken pieces from the original stone tablets that Yahweh himself engraved with the Ten Commandments that the nutty Moses broke when he came down from the mountain. The asking price is the 30 pieces of silver that Judas got for betraying Jesus. And I've got the sandals that Jesus was wearing when he walked on water. They're still damp.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

Ha! I have the original stamped passport that Mary Magdalene, her two kids and Mary the Virgin used when Josephus smuggled them from Israel in to France. Genuine. Stamps and everything!

For an extra 10,000 francs I will throw in a piece of wood from the ship they used! (makes a great talking point in the man cave)

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man

@Old Man

Hah! I've got you ALL beat. I just happen to have a couple of apple trees growing in my yard that the wife and I planted a couple of years ago. And we used the seeds from the apple Adam and Eve ate off the Tree of Knowledge. We found the apple core at a local antique store, and got a really good deal on it. It was somehow miraculously preserved with several seeds still in it.

Edit to add:

The only problem is the the neighbors keep complaining, because the only way we can get them to grow is by walking around in the yard naked all the time.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Oh shit, I had one of those,

Oh shit, I had one of those, but it had this enormous fucking snake in it, kept yakking at the missus about eating the fruit . On and on...bloody hell even at night nag nag nag.
In the end I chopped the fucker down and gave the last piece of fruit to my neighbour, He owns an antique store.
I've got a great antique mirror now. My missus stands in front of it "mirror mirrror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all" she says every bloody morning. Thats going soon. Bloody thing lies.

Jared Alesi's picture
Of course it lies! She's

Of course it lies! She's asking it incorrectly. If she wants the true answer, she must say the line in its original form: "Magic Mirror upon the wall, who is fairest of them all?"

Sheldon's picture
"All empirical evidence and

"All empirical evidence and logical reasoning concerning the shroud of Turin will lead any objective, rational person to the firm conclusion that the shroud is an artefact created by an artist in the fourteenth-century." --Steven D. Schafersman "

Since our greatest minds can not conceive of how the image was made except by supernatural means,"

Even if that were true it is a fallacious appeal to ignorance, a common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Any argument containing logical fallacies cannot rationally be asserted as true. Not knowing how something happened means we can make no claims abut how it happened, it does not mean we can make up absurd supernatural claims without any evidence to support them. It's odd theists are ignorant of such basic facts concerning arguments they use, but it's far odder you don't see the irony in asserting something as fact, when you state in the same sentence that " our greatest minds can not conceive" it? Something of a contradiction, either they cannot conceive how it was done, or there is evidence validated by "our greatest minds" that it was done by a supernatural act? You seem to want to make both claims despite them being mutually exclusive.

"* Christian imagines what Jesus looks like and this comes indirectly from the Shroud image that was responsible for most of the early portraits of Jesus from 300 A.D."

That would be difficult since it was created in the 14th century?

"In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three independent sources--Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology--and each of them dated the cloth as originating in medieval times, around 1350."

Three independent objective sources, all producing the same result, that's a slam dunk I think.

So your claim is meaningless without any objective evidence that Jesus a) existed and b) what he looked like. Copying a forgery tells us nothing.

"Science has literally confirmed it is a crucified man and that the image has been produced by no natural light but a light that is several billion kw of energy and bursts of light as short as a millionth of a second."

I don't know what literally confirmed means here, but science evidences things, when the weight of evidence puts something beyond any reasonable doubt as it does with established scientific theories like evolution, they are established scientific facts, but still remain tentative, and must always do so. Firstly nothing in that sentence literally shows what you're claiming, and no scientist would make such a claim unless they were biased and using a priori religious beliefs. Secondly Even if it confirmed a crucified man, and we had no explanation for how it got there, this does not evidence anything at all, it simply would indicate something we have no explanation for, you and the RCC are leaping to unevidenced conclusions, and science never does this. Lastly even if scientific evidence indicated it was an image whose provenance was dated exactly to the crucifixion, it still doesn't objectively evidence anything supernatural like a resurrection, so your opening claim is just pure unevidenced hubris.

You really need to look at the claims with a little less bias, and put a little less faith in the claims of the RCC, whose history of lies and forgeries are expansive and well documented.

David Killens's picture
The amusing part is that so

The amusing part is that so many want to believe so much they never stop and ask themselves why the shroud displays a man's head and a women's body.

Those slender fingers, the wide hips, yup, jesus was a dude with the body of a babe.

Kataclismic's picture
I don't get it. So when all

I don't get it. So when all else fails we'll claim that a dirty rag is proof somebody went to heaven? Good luck with that.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.