Historical Fact or Myth?

[Rosexøxø]

Do you believe the ‘Shroud of Turin’ is Authentic/ Legit?

I watched a religious film with my Dad, and one of the scenes previews or insinuates the ‘Shroud of Turin.’

I seen another (based on a true story) film (The Case For Christ if anyone’s interested; it’s more data-collective, by an Atheist Journalist) once before, that also showed the cloth.

I didn’t know what the cloth was called- if it even had a name- until I had searched it up.

I read/skimmed a research article to follow this up, and apparently the major facts and mysteries/ “x-factors” by these scientists/scientist, can be summed up as:

• (X) the visual quality in photographic/ art terms
• (X) the chemical makeup
• (X) alongside the biological matter on/within the cloth

so

visual (scheme) quality: the cloth, if it were a painting was “painted” as a negative, meaning colors and shading is reversed than normal paintings or pictures, and for the time the cloth was discovered: no artist could possibly know of this method of *Paint.* Photography was not a thing.

chemical make-up and biological matter:

it appears that the print could only have been made, really, by a source of light and radiation, specifically. The dried blood also would’ve been impossible to transfer, unless again, direct radiation was involved.

—————————————————————

Some speculate it was when the man named Jesus of Nazareth had “rose again on the third day,” as told and described, by Jewish and Christian religious texts.

So what do you think?

Did some religious enthusiast try to make it “appear believable?” Or is the ‘Shroud of Turin’ credible evidence, of a ‘religious figure/individual,’ who transfigured in a tomb long ago?

(All images sourced from Google)

Seems Legit to Me

Nah, I’m not buying, but I’ll watch the movie, though

This is Folly

Updates

1 y

I like.. DON’T believe it, but I still love the stories of Jesus. I still respect the character. I wish it was even more perfect and certain things didn’t take place in the biblical texts, but it’s a bitter-ending-in-sweet book. It has its takeaways. I just don’t think it’s credible.

The cloth is a nice ‘touch,’ and I just keep thinking about that one thing alone.

What’s really pushing it.. is some people get this print on their phone cases and BED QUILTS/blankets. Whyyy peopleee, whyyy. Lol

[NamerOfStars]

Radiocarbon datings put it at the thirteenth or fourteenth century; obviously, it wasn't the one they used for Jesus. Of course, that doesn't in itself say anything bout the legitimacy of His story, just that this cloth wasn't part of it.

[Rosexøxø]

Yeah, apparently there was some info on additional cloths being woven in, I think? To keep it all together, but I appreciate your answer. Definitely to be considered.

[jshm2]

That fabric is not a winding sheet, as was used by the Jews of that day. Nor does the "character" look like he has been bound in the shroud.

[Anonymous]

i haven't looked into this properly but i very much doubt jesus looked that polished and white when he was from the middle east like 2000+ years ago

[Rosexøxø]

I think I get what you mean. Do you mean the white features? Like smooth-ish hair and long “Roman” nose? Or the coloring of the cloth?

[Rosexøxø]

I have to agree. I wouldn’t expect him to look English or white, given the location

[FreyaRed]

It was made 500 years ago, even catholic church accepted that it's fake

[CubaPirate]

Poppycock

[Rosexøxø]

I certainly won’t stand in the way of your opinion. ☝️👀💯

[NostalgiaSenpi]

It's bollocks

[Rosexøxø]

Lmfao I can see it, now that you mentioned it.