Shroud of Turin...is this still a controversy?

[Cardinal]

@PlainJain

This has been demonstrated not to be the case. If you wrap a cloth around a human head and measure the distance between the ears you will see that it is quite a bit bigger than the measurement on the shroud. It will also be quite distorted and not look anything like the shroud.

I had not thought of this. Thanks for that. I’ll use that in the future when this comes up.

[monavis]

@Recliner

In essence, I think its really this: “Woah, this image looks totally like Jesus!”

Its a striking image, and it fits our artistic notions of Jesus to varying degrees. In fact, since it may well have been intended as a depiction of Jesus from the get-go, it kinda makes sense.

If the Bible writer is correct then it could not be the Shroud of Jesus, as John (Chapter 20 verse 4 through 8) tells of more than one cloth and a separate cloth for the head. So even if the shroud was authentic(which I do not believe) then it would be someone else!

[XT]

Anyone catch the show last night (think it was on History) where they used various paintings and the Shroud to model the ‘true’ face of Jesus?

-XT

[Irishman]

Captain Lance Murdoch said:

I wonder why this object has gotten so much attention. There are thousands of alleged holy relics ranging from the “true” cross to Jesus’ foreskin that have been collected by the Church of the centuries. Despite it’s dubious history and the carbon dating the Shroud seems to get more devotion than any other relic in Europe by a wide margin.

Mystery mongers making the mundane more magical.

First of all, it is about Jesus rather than just some saint.
Second, it is an image, not just a bit of wood or strange skin.
Third, the image is striking.
Fourth, the accidental discovery of a camera negative showing the image in more detail is intriguing, spawing ideas of some sort of energy flash creating the image.

Fifth, claims that the image does not have any pigment present (despite McCrone’s analysis) leave people speculating how the image could have been made.

Sixth, real questions about how a midieval artist could have created the image that is difficult for modern replication has given it an additional air of mystery, feeding the fire.

Seventh, the Catholic Church refuses to denounce it despite having evidence from their own clergy that it was faked. They would rather encourage the mysticism and have people honor it as an article of faith (independent of any claims of authenticity) than to tell people “No, this isn’t real, but it is a good reminder of Jesus’s sacrifice and worthy of veneration despite not being authentic.”

Now if it just had an image of Bigfoot riding the Loch Ness Monster in the background, then it would be something.