Shroud of Turin Bryce simpson

The Shroud of Turin is believed to be the cloth that covered Jesus' body after death and it was discovered in the 14th century

  • Pros
  • The forensic evidence present on the shroud, its historical lineage, and the significant amount of testing on the shroud all point to its validity. Additionally, there is no known way to reproduce the shroud using any technology, modern or ancient. It is unique in the world of antiquities and is thus likely true. Posted by: Geogeer
  • The Turin Shroud is not a medieval forgery, as has long been claimed, but could in fact date from the time of Christ’s death, a new book claims : patheos.com
  • In 1532, there was a fire in the church in Chambery, France, where the Shroud was being kept. Part of the metal storage case melted and fell on the cloth, leaving burns, and efforts to extinguish the fire left water stains. Yet the image of the man was hardly touched. newgeology.us
  • If the shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1390 AD, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in 1260 AD would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978... The Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test [i.e. tested positive] for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported." livescience.com
  • Cons
  • I do not believe that the Shroud of Turin is real and that it is a cloth that is deceptive. I know many people want to believe that the Shroud does in fact show Christ's body across it, but I do not believe that enough scientific evidence supports the Shroud being authentic. Site: debate.org
  • The Associated Press reported claims that the shroud bears type AB blood stains. Perhaps this erroneous information has its origin in other fake shrouds of Jesus, since the Shroud of Turin's stains are not only suspiciously red (unlike genuine blood that blackens with age) but they failed batteries of tests by internationally known forensic experts. The "blood" has been definitively proved to be composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint." Site: truthbeknown.com
  • Skeptics have argued that the flower images are too faint for Danin's determination to be definite, that an independent review of the pollen strands showed that one strand out of the 26 provided contained significantly more pollen than the others, perhaps pointing to deliberate contamination. wikipedia.org
  • While debates doubtless will continue over the dating of the cloth, and such matters as whether the stains on the material are paint or blood, or both, the fact is there appears to be no credible way to harmonize the biblical evidence regarding Jesus’ burial with the image on the Shroud of Turin. /www.christiancourier.com

My opinion: Personally, I believe that the shroud of turin is not real. I don't think it makes sense that Jesus was buried in Jerusalem and somehow the cloth that covered his body made its way all the way to Turin, Italy.

Report Abuse

If you feel that this video content violates the Adobe Terms of Use, you may report this content by filling out this quick form.

To report a Copyright Violation, please follow Section 17 in the Terms of Use.