The Shroud Of Turin Haley Campbell

Pros:

1. The shroud is not a painting, the fabric has been tested and there is no evidence of pigments or media found. There is also no outline, binders to hold paint or even brush strokes.

2. The blood on the cloth is human blood. It is type AB. The blood also contains X and Y chromosomes indicating it is the blood of a male.

3. The shroud has been tested multiple times using carbon dating and there have been many different results. The Gospel of Mathew says "the earth shook, the rocks split and the tomb broke open". Some Geologist argue that this earthquake released a burst of neutrons which can alter the results of the radiocarbon dating.

4. Blood chemist found a high concentration of Bilirubin which makes the blood more red, which is consistant with someone who died under great stress or trauma.

5. The gospels say Jesus was wrapped in a "fine linen cloth" and that is exactly what the shroud is.

Cons:

1. But carbon tests carried out in Oxford in 1988 firmly dated the material to 1260-1390.

2. The Catholic Church only officially recorded its existence in A.D. 1353, when it showed up in a tiny church in Lirey, France. So there is no record of its existence for 1,300 years.

3. The faker used a cloth rather than a brush to make the marks, and used gelatine to keep the rusty blood-like images permanently fixed and bright for selling in the booming market for religious relics.

4. The first documented evidence of the Shroud dates back to 1357, when it surfaced at a church at Lirey, near the eastern French town of Troyes. In 1390, Pope Clement VII declared that it was not the true shroud but could be used as a representation of it, provided the faithful be told that it was not genuine.

5. demonstrated the primitive nature of weaving at that time and place. This fact was not lost on the researchers, who released statements to the press that this rare discovery essentially proved the Turin shroud to be a much later fabrication with a twill weave far too complex and intricate for the appropriate period.

My Opinion:

I am unsure on what I believe. All the evidence seems to point to the fact that this is real. It is just hard to determine the authenticity because of how old it truly is. I am leaning more towards the fact that it is real.

References:

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

http://www.livescience.com/52567-shroud-of-turin-dna.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434153/shroud-turin-jesus-christ-blood-relic-sudarium-oviedo

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157217/The-Turin-Shroud-fake-Eminent-historian-claims-40-similar-cloths-originated-1-300-years-AFTER-crucifixion.htm

https://phys.org/news/2005-06-turin-shroud-fake.html#jCp

http://www.truthbeknown.com/shroud.htm

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.