Shroud of Turin

Hi All,Well, I can't really see all the fuss about this one. The empirical evidence quite clearly indicates that Shroud was made in the 14th century. By "empirical evidence", I refer to the type of pigment and the carbon dating results. The historical evidence supports the same conclusion -- there is no record of the Shroud before the 14th century. Furthermore, there is no record of what Jesus looked like anywhere -- the fact that the image on the Shroud looks like the common artist perception of the time seems very suspicious to me. I have a hard time believing it is not a fraud. Attempts to discredit the C-14 dating results seem very desperate.But what if the Shroud IS a fraud? All that proves is that there was some charlatan faking relics in the 14th Century. Well, THAT is pretty easy to believe. Unless Peter had 27 fingers or so, not ALL those relics can be real. It says absolutely nothing about whether Jesus did or did not rise from the dead. Given that, not much of a topic for debate, really . . .Ian

Hi All,Well, I can't really see all the fuss about this one. The empirical evidence quite clearly indicates that Shroud was made in the 14th century. By "empirical evidence", I refer to the type of pigment and the carbon dating results. The historical evidence supports the same conclusion -- there is no record of the Shroud before the 14th century. Furthermore, there is no record of what Jesus looked like anywhere -- the fact that the image on the Shroud looks like the common artist perception of the time seems very suspicious to me. I have a hard time believing it is not a fraud. Attempts to discredit the C-14 dating results seem very desperate.But what if the Shroud IS a fraud? All that proves is that there was some charlatan faking relics in the 14th Century. Well, THAT is pretty easy to believe. Unless Peter had 27 fingers or so, not ALL those relics can be real. It says absolutely nothing about whether Jesus did or did not rise from the dead. Given that, not much of a topic for debate, really . . .Ian

My apologies--I'm not sure how that post got up there twice. Must have hit a wrong button!As for Da Vinci, 14th century would predate him by a bit, I think. And I'm not up my Art History enough to know what famous artists might have painted it. But if we go with the Dada definition of art, a piece should make you question whether it is or isn't art, then the Shroud of Turin certainly qualifies!Ian