In other news, I just went to a lecture on the Shroud of Turin and, guys, this thing is AMAZING. I took some notes that I’ll share with you all. They’re not very detailed, but there are definitely books and DVDs and other things out there that are full of information on the Shroud.
On the authenticity of the Shroud:
The burial style is consistent with Jewish burial customs of the time.
The image is a negative image (which is why the negative looks more life-like) which contains distance information (i.e. how far away the skin was from the cloth when the image was made).
There are no substances on the cloth to account for the image. Period.
The image does not penetrate through the cloth (unlike the blood stains and water stains). In fact, the image only penetrates the top 2 microfibers of the threads!
The weave of the shroud is unique: a 3-to-1 herringbone pattern twill. This cloth would have been very rare and therefore very expensive. (Bought by Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man??)
The blood stains are confirmed to indeed be human blood, blood type AB, not whole blood but “blood clot exudates” (so basically blood/fluid seeping from clotting wounds) consistent with the injuries of a man who was killed upright.
Using pollen samples found in the shroud, experts estimate that the cloth originated in Israel within “10-20 km east and west of Jerusalem.”
Dirt samples from the shroud (only located in the knee and feet areas) are consistent only with soil from the Damascus gate of Jerusalem!
The carbon-dating controversy: the sample taken for C-14 analysis was not art of the original shroud! It was part of a repair job done in the middle ages. (The repair cloth contains cotton fibers, whereas the original cloth does not.)
So it’s pretty clear that the Shroud is authentic—but how do we know that it’s Jesus??
Crown of thorns on his head
Severe scourging, from neck to ankles
Crucified (Note: it was uncommon to be scourged and crucified. Usually sentences would be one or the other.)
Legs of the crucified man were not broken
Blood stain from a wound in his side
No stains of decomposition on the fabric
It would have been quite unusual for a crucified man to have an individual burial (usually they would be thrown into a common grave), much less with a very expensive cloth.
So… I’m convinced. How about you?

In other news, I just went to a lecture on the Shroud of Turin and, guys, this thing is AMAZING. I took some notes that I’ll share with you all. They’re not very detailed, but there are definitely books and DVDs and other things out there that are full of information on the Shroud.

On the authenticity of the Shroud:

  • The burial style is consistent with Jewish burial customs of the time.
  • The image is a negative image (which is why the negative looks more life-like) which contains distance information (i.e. how far away the skin was from the cloth when the image was made).
  • There are no substances on the cloth to account for the image. Period.
  • The image does not penetrate through the cloth (unlike the blood stains and water stains). In fact, the image only penetrates the top 2 microfibers of the threads!
  • The weave of the shroud is unique: a 3-to-1 herringbone pattern twill. This cloth would have been very rare and therefore very expensive. (Bought by Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man??)
  • The blood stains are confirmed to indeed be human blood, blood type AB, not whole blood but “blood clot exudates” (so basically blood/fluid seeping from clotting wounds) consistent with the injuries of a man who was killed upright.
  • Using pollen samples found in the shroud, experts estimate that the cloth originated in Israel within “10-20 km east and west of Jerusalem.”
  • Dirt samples from the shroud (only located in the knee and feet areas) are consistent only with soil from the Damascus gate of Jerusalem!
  • The carbon-dating controversy: the sample taken for C-14 analysis was not art of the original shroud! It was part of a repair job done in the middle ages. (The repair cloth contains cotton fibers, whereas the original cloth does not.)

So it’s pretty clear that the Shroud is authentic—but how do we know that it’s Jesus??

  • Crown of thorns on his head
  • Severe scourging, from neck to ankles
  • Crucified (Note: it was uncommon to be scourged and crucified. Usually sentences would be one or the other.)
  • Legs of the crucified man were not broken
  • Blood stain from a wound in his side
  • No stains of decomposition on the fabric
  • It would have been quite unusual for a crucified man to have an individual burial (usually they would be thrown into a common grave), much less with a very expensive cloth.

So… I’m convinced. How about you?

89 notes

  1. eulalia-blogs reblogged this from approximatelyinfinity and added:
    When my eyes first saw this image I was convinced that it was my King my heart told me so. There is a gentle peace in...
  2. elenatintil reblogged this from littleladypoetry
  3. littleladypoetry reblogged this from adaltaredei
  4. bcndn63 reblogged this from adaltaredei
  5. adaltaredei reblogged this from alwaysabeautifullife
  6. alwaysabeautifullife reblogged this from greluc
  7. greluc reblogged this from adaltaredei
  8. takakoschigusa reblogged this from kotohikikayoko08
  9. water-in-the-dirt reblogged this from animatedbylove
  10. princessofthefather reblogged this from rainyautumntwilight
  11. rainyautumntwilight reblogged this from approximatelyinfinity
  12. quillofavon reblogged this from but-the-beauty-is
  13. pilgrimdaisy reblogged this from thirstingforlife
  14. foxxman007 reblogged this from lunarwolf95
  15. verbs-everywhere reblogged this from lunarwolf95
  16. lunarwolf95 reblogged this from thirstingforlife
  17. thirstingforlife reblogged this from but-the-beauty-is
  18. but-the-beauty-is reblogged this from remainherewithme
  19. remainherewithme reblogged this from adaltaredei
  20. lavidalocaentejas said: Great post, thanks for sharing!