This piece of cloth found appears a mystery to those who behold it. It has on it a photographic negative appearance of a man wrapped in the linen that some claim to be of Jesus Christ. Skeptics cast it off as some medieval hoax. However, the features of this supposed hoax are quite remarkable in that they show details of 3D imagery of something tangible having been under the cloth, as well as degrees of blood stains of some man who was scourged. Could it actually be of Jesus Christ? Does it matter?
Listen to “The Shroud of Turin: Evidence or Hoax?” on Spreaker.
The Shroud has been subject of controversy for centuries. The first known appearance of the Shroud in historical records is in 1355 in France, when it was displayed by Geoffrey de Charny, a French knight. ever since it has periodically been displayed for public view.
The linen has been in several floods, fires, and peridoc repair over the years, yet not the content on the image itself had been altered, only repairs to the outer fraying and charring of the linen altered.
This altering led to Carbon Dating to only go back to medieval times, which accounts for why many regard it as as hoax of that time rather than an authentic early century origin. However, the dating may have been done on the later repair portions rather than on the meat of the Shroud itself.
The image portrays a negative of a photographic embossing on a cloth, which even in medieval times had no technology to demonstrate. Whatever the conclusion, one cannot doubt it was of a real man bearing the physical trauma, particularly scourging, crucifixion, and a spear wound to the side of a subject victim to persecution.
The image itself has been tested an proven is not painted or created with any pigment; rather, it appears to be a superficial discoloration of the fibers of the cloth in layers of 3D imagery according to the distance of the body to the cloth surface. It is also very detailed, showing blood stains in specific locations where crucifixion wounds would have occurred, despite whether it is considered of Jesus or not.
Skeptics claim it a hoax, yet despite their claim cannot explain how it was produced. Their vain efforts to dismiss it as authentic fail in every aspect of disproving it as such. The pollen and area in which the linen was produced has been confirmed it can only be of the specific region in the Middle East in the time of early century origin.
The evidence we can conclude is that despite whether one can claim it as the authentic linen of the burial of Jesus Christ in bodily form, it fits the description of the biblical account of what happened to Jesus, and if not authentic of Christ, is at least of some real man scourged in the same manner as that which Jesus would have been, in the same time period. So You make your own conclusion.
To conclude, whether this is authentic as the true original burial cloth of Jesus or not, doesn’t take away the true account of this Jesus Christ whom many (of us) regard as the resurrected Lord. If a hoax it is only the hoax of the cloth, not the matter that Jesus did what he did and was recorded in historical documents. In the same manner, if this was proven as the historical authentic linen of Jesus, gives it no right that the relic should replace the living Christ, nor to be worshipped in replacement of Jesus Christ himself as the savior of man. The relic is that, a relic, and not supernatural with divine power, not anything that should be revered. It would then be nothing more than an idol, and Christians are warned not to worship idols. However, significant as an evidence of the historical account of Jesus’ death if in fact it could be proven authentic.