BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Still wondering how many of you firm believers in the Shroud can deal with the elephant in the room - Scripture described the cloths as "strips of linen" and a separate cloth that covered his head, not one single long sheet. And if that head cloth is the Sudarium of Oviedo - then why doesn't it have the same kind of image as what's on the Shroud?

---

The Sudarium of Oviedo was applied to the body as it was being removed from the cross. It was removed before the Shroud covered the body.

The Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud share 120 points of coincidence in the bloodstains.

Both cloths show similar trauma with respect to nasal area, facial swelling, and punctures wounds.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Still wondering how many of you firm believers in the Shroud can deal with the elephant in the room - Scripture described the cloths as "strips of linen" and a separate cloth that covered his head, not one single long sheet. And if that head cloth is the Sudarium of Oviedo - then why doesn't it have the same kind of image as what's on the Shroud?

---

The Sudarium of Oviedo was applied to the body as it was being removed from the cross. It was removed before the Shroud covered the body.

The Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud share 120 points of coincidence in the bloodstains.

Both cloths show similar trauma with respect to nasal area, facial swelling, and punctures wounds.

---

First of all, any coincidence of the bloodstains, if that is indeed true, would only mean that both the Shroud and the Sudarium could have come from the same person. But it doesn't necessarily mean it was Jesus.

Secondly, you're still not addressing the elephant in the room. It never ceases to amaze me how people just completely dismiss or ignore this. Scripture is the only infallible voice among all the evidence surrounding this, and it does not support the Shroud narrative. The desire for these cloths to be real trumps Scripture for some of you, I suppose.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Still wondering how many of you firm believers in the Shroud can deal with the elephant in the room - Scripture described the cloths as "strips of linen" and a separate cloth that covered his head, not one single long sheet. And if that head cloth is the Sudarium of Oviedo - then why doesn't it have the same kind of image as what's on the Shroud?

---

The Sudarium of Oviedo was applied to the body as it was being removed from the cross. It was removed before the Shroud covered the body.

The Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud share 120 points of coincidence in the bloodstains.

Both cloths show similar trauma with respect to nasal area, facial swelling, and punctures wounds.

---

First of all, any coincidence of the bloodstains, if that is indeed true, would only mean that both the Shroud and the Sudarium could have come from the same person. But it doesn't necessarily mean it was Jesus.

Secondly, you're still not addressing the elephant in the room. It never ceases to amaze me how people just completely dismiss or ignore this. Scripture is the only infallible voice among all the evidence surrounding this, and it does not support the Shroud narrative. The desire for these cloths to be real trumps Scripture for some of you, I suppose.

---

If you agree that "Scripture is the only infallible voice." then I'm sure you will respect the fact that Scripture describes all three:

• Sindon a large linen sheet, mentioned in Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, and Luke 23:53.
• Othonia strips or wrappings, found in Luke 24:12 and John 19:40.
• Soudarion a face cloth, mentioned in John 20:7.

No mystery. No elephant.

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Still wondering how many of you firm believers in the Shroud can deal with the elephant in the room - Scripture described the cloths as "strips of linen" and a separate cloth that covered his head, not one single long sheet. And if that head cloth is the Sudarium of Oviedo - then why doesn't it have the same kind of image as what's on the Shroud?

---

The Sudarium of Oviedo was applied to the body as it was being removed from the cross. It was removed before the Shroud covered the body.

The Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud share 120 points of coincidence in the bloodstains.

Both cloths show similar trauma with respect to nasal area, facial swelling, and punctures wounds.

---

First of all, any coincidence of the bloodstains, if that is indeed true, would only mean that both the Shroud and the Sudarium could have come from the same person. But it doesn't necessarily mean it was Jesus.

Secondly, you're still not addressing the elephant in the room. It never ceases to amaze me how people just completely dismiss or ignore this. Scripture is the only infallible voice among all the evidence surrounding this, and it does not support the Shroud narrative. The desire for these cloths to be real trumps Scripture for some of you, I suppose.

---

If you agree that "Scripture is the only infallible voice." then I'm sure you will respect the fact that Scripture describes all three:

• Sindon a large linen sheet, mentioned in Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, and Luke 23:53.
• Othonia strips or wrappings, found in Luke 24:12 and John 19:40.
• Soudarion a face cloth, mentioned in John 20:7.

No mystery. No elephant.

---

Which crucified man in 1st century Jerusalem had 120 matching bloodstain points with a separately preserved face cloth, crown-of-thorns puncture wounds, scourge marks consistent with Roman flagrum, and a documented chain of custody into the Oviedo region?

Hmm I'm having a hard time thinking of who that could be…lmao

---

Are you sure you're not accepting theories as established facts?

And doesn't the documented chain of custody originate from the guy known as "The Prince of Falsifiers"?? LOL.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Did Jesus exist bodily, walk the earth and get crucified and die on the cross?

Did he then resurrect feom the dead and walk amongst us?

---

I think he was most likely a real person, who was executed by the Romans, maybe by crucifixion.

No, that is a multi-version myth that evolved after his death.

---

Know many people who were willing to leave their life and even lose their life for a myth?

The consensus of historians, even the atheist ones, is that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus after his death.

---

Yes, people die for myths - often unknowingly.

Consensus among historians? I don't know about that. That's a bold statement. How would you know what someone really believes? How did they "see" him? Like Paul in an internal vision or dream? The Bible contradicts itself on how some believed they saw him.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

*** And if you're saying that only the body was wrapped in a single shroud, and a separate linen was used to wrap the face, then you just proved the shroud, which has an image of Jesus' face, and the Sudarium, which doesn't, aren't real.

I agree with you now - there's no elephant. It seems you just turned the elephant into King Kong.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Did Jesus exist bodily, walk the earth and get crucified and die on the cross?

Did he then resurrect feom the dead and walk amongst us?

---

I think he was most likely a real person, who was executed by the Romans, maybe by crucifixion.

No, that is a multi-version myth that evolved after his death.

---

Know many people who were willing to leave their life and even lose their life for a myth?

The consensus of historians, even the atheist ones, is that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus after his death.

---

Yes, people die for myths - often unknowingly.

Consensus among historians? I don't know about that. That's a bold statement. How would you know what someone really believes? How did they "see" him? Like Paul in an internal vision or dream? The Bible contradicts itself on how some believed they saw him.

---

The disciples would have to be dying for that which they know is a myth that they themselves created. You're missing the King Kong in the room just like the fella above.

Yes, there's a general consensus among the religious historians that have opined on the topic - the actions of the disciples after Jesus' death show that they sincerely believed they saw him risen back to life.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

---

There's no reason to assume there was even contact, especially since we don't know how the image was produced. In fact modern simulations suggest otherwise. That's why the Agamemnon Effect, which is a result of even contact, wouldn't necessarily be present.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

---

There's no reason to assume there was even contact, especially since we don't know how the image was produced. In fact modern simulations suggest otherwise. That's why the Agamemnon Effect, which is a result of even contact, wouldn't necessarily be present.

---

Well, now you've moved from ignoring the King Kong in the room to making absolutely no sense at all. By this reasoning, heck, the shroud didn't even have to be in the grave at all to begin with! I mean, since we don't know how the image was produced, anything is possible, right? LOL. What "modern simulations" suggested this nonsense?

Yes, I get it now..... even if the shroud only covered the body, while a separate linen covered the head, there's no reason to assume that would prevent the shroud from having an image of the body AND face, while the face linen had no image at all! I mean, God can do anything, right?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

---

There's no reason to assume there was even contact, especially since we don't know how the image was produced. In fact modern simulations suggest otherwise. That's why the Agamemnon Effect, which is a result of even contact, wouldn't necessarily be present.

---

Well, now you've moved from ignoring the King Kong in the room to making absolutely no sense at all. By this reasoning, heck, the shroud didn't even have to be in the grave at all to begin with! I mean, since we don't know how the image was produced, anything is possible, right? LOL. What "modern simulations" suggested this nonsense?

---

Are you asking for a link?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330311578_The_Turin_Shroud_was_not_flattened_before_the_images_formed

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

---

There's no reason to assume there was even contact, especially since we don't know how the image was produced. In fact modern simulations suggest otherwise. That's why the Agamemnon Effect, which is a result of even contact, wouldn't necessarily be present.

---

Well, now you've moved from ignoring the King Kong in the room to making absolutely no sense at all. By this reasoning, heck, the shroud didn't even have to be in the grave at all to begin with! I mean, since we don't know how the image was produced, anything is possible, right? LOL. What "modern simulations" suggested this nonsense?

---

Are you asking for a link?

---

Why? You're unable to explain it yourself? How do you know the study is valid and that it makes sense to you?

I've got a suggestion for you, since intellectual laziness is your thing, apparently - why not just answer all challenges to your views with "look it up on Google"?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

---

There's no reason to assume there was even contact, especially since we don't know how the image was produced. In fact modern simulations suggest otherwise. That's why the Agamemnon Effect, which is a result of even contact, wouldn't necessarily be present.

---

Well, now you've moved from ignoring the King Kong in the room to making absolutely no sense at all. By this reasoning, heck, the shroud didn't even have to be in the grave at all to begin with! I mean, since we don't know how the image was produced, anything is possible, right? LOL. What "modern simulations" suggested this nonsense?

---

Are you asking for a link?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330311578_The_Turin_Shroud_was_not_flattened_before_the_images_formed

---

Apparently, your idea of "modern simulations" consists of a single, unpublished study that was neither peer reviewed nor scrutinized through an editorial process by a scientific journal, written by a single, independent computer scientist researcher. LOL.

What do you think of his methodology and conclusions? Did you see the diagram of the sheet over the face which he based his results on? That sheet was literally floating over the face, as flat as it could possibly be. Do you know many types of linen sheets that do that when placed on a contoured body? Questionable, to say the least.

And what about the part in my post that you conveniently omitted - even if you were to stretch credibility and accept his conclusions, how would all of it square with the assertion made above that the shroud was only a body covering - yet has an image of the face- and that a separate linen (the Sudarium, ostensibly) covered the face - but has no image?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

---

There's no reason to assume there was even contact, especially since we don't know how the image was produced. In fact modern simulations suggest otherwise. That's why the Agamemnon Effect, which is a result of even contact, wouldn't necessarily be present.

---

Well, now you've moved from ignoring the King Kong in the room to making absolutely no sense at all. By this reasoning, heck, the shroud didn't even have to be in the grave at all to begin with! I mean, since we don't know how the image was produced, anything is possible, right? LOL. What "modern simulations" suggested this nonsense?

---

Are you asking for a link?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330311578_The_Turin_Shroud_was_not_flattened_before_the_images_formed

---

Apparently, your idea of "modern simulations" consists of a single, unpublished study that was neither peer reviewed nor scrutinized through an editorial process by a scientific journal, written by a single, independent computer scientist researcher. LOL.

What do you think of his methodology and conclusions? Did you see the diagram of the sheet over the face which he based his results on? That sheet was literally floating over the face, as flat as it could possibly be. Do you know many types of linen sheets that do that when placed on a contoured body? Questionable, to say the least.

And what about the part in my post that you conveniently omitted - even if you were to stretch credibility and accept his conclusions, how would all of it square with the assertion made above that the shroud was only a body covering - yet has an image of the face- and that a separate linen (the Sudarium, ostensibly) covered the face - but has no image?

---

The diagrams are simplified, but the data was taken from an actual linen sheet placed over an actual body. It could be the Sudarium was a chin binding, it isn't the same cloth, or it was unaffected for some other reason. I don't know, and it's not essential to my faith.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

---

There's no reason to assume there was even contact, especially since we don't know how the image was produced. In fact modern simulations suggest otherwise. That's why the Agamemnon Effect, which is a result of even contact, wouldn't necessarily be present.

---

Well, now you've moved from ignoring the King Kong in the room to making absolutely no sense at all. By this reasoning, heck, the shroud didn't even have to be in the grave at all to begin with! I mean, since we don't know how the image was produced, anything is possible, right? LOL. What "modern simulations" suggested this nonsense?

---

Are you asking for a link?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330311578_The_Turin_Shroud_was_not_flattened_before_the_images_formed

---

Apparently, your idea of "modern simulations" consists of a single, unpublished study that was neither peer reviewed nor scrutinized through an editorial process by a scientific journal, written by a single, independent computer scientist researcher. LOL.

What do you think of his methodology and conclusions? Did you see the diagram of the sheet over the face which he based his results on? That sheet was literally floating over the face, as flat as it could possibly be. Do you know many types of linen sheets that do that when placed on a contoured body? Questionable, to say the least.

And what about the part in my post that you conveniently omitted - even if you were to stretch credibility and accept his conclusions, how would all of it square with the assertion made above that the shroud was only a body covering - yet has an image of the face- and that a separate linen (the Sudarium, ostensibly) covered the face - but has no image?

---

The diagrams are simplified, but the data was taken from an actual linen sheet placed over an actual body. It could be the Sudarium was a chin binding, it isn't the same cloth, or it was unaffected for some other reason. I don't know, and it's not essential to my faith.

---

He makes the conclusion that any image distortion of the head would be hard to detect simply on the basis that in his experiment the overall head size, though enlarged due to the widening of the image, remained proportional to a normal head because the length and width of the image of the head were widened in equal proportion. But this completely ignores the effect of the widening on the facial features. His conclusion seems to only be based on the head outline. Since his experiment did not actually produce a head WITH a facial image, there's no way to conclude that there would be no detectable facial image distortion. Looking at his diagrams and photos, its easy to see that any kind of contour of the sheet will widen the nose and spread out the eyes. His experiment doesn't really nullify the Agamemnon mask effect at all. Probaby why it wasn't accepted for publication.

Not to mention the King Kong in the room - that the body shroud had an image of a face, while the separate face cloth didn't - is still there.

I offer no definitive answer in the information below. I do offer some information based on some scientific research. For some the answer may decide totally on faith; others may resort to a combination of faith and reason/logic; others may or may not decide at all. What I did find interesting, if I read it correctly, is that in the primary source for this information, it indicates that the energy/radiation that was apparently used, or something like it, was not invented until about 2,000 years later. At any rate, here is my contribution to the discussion, recognizing that some of this has ben previously discussed, and, perhaps, ignored.

Why the Shroud Has an Image but the Sudarium Does Not

Radiation Hypothesis and "Image Threshold"
Recent studies (McAvoy 2025, Rucker, Jackson, Fanti, et al.) propose that the Shroud's image was formed by a brief, intense burst of radiation at the moment of the Resurrection.
These studies suggest:

• The radiation intensity was just strong enough to discolor the linen fibers of the Shroud.
• The image is only microns deep a very delicate, thresholdlevel effect.
• Anything not in direct contact would not record an image.

The Sudarium Was Not Positioned Like the Shroud
The Sudarium:

• Was pressed against the face before burial
• Was used to absorb blood and fluids
• Was removed before the body was wrapped in the Shroud
• Was folded and set aside (John 20:7)

Because of this:

• It was not covering the face at the moment of the Resurrection
• It was not in the same geometric position relative to the body
• It did not receive the same radiation exposure.

So, if the radiation hypothesis is correct, the Sudarium would not have received enough radiation to form an image.

Jewish Burial Customs Explain the Two Cloths
The Face Cloth (soudarion)**
In firstcentury Jewish burial:

• A small cloth was tied around the head to keep the jaw closed
• It also absorbed blood and fluids from a traumatic death
• It was applied immediately after death, even before washing the body
• It was removed before the final burial shroud was wrapped

This is consistent with:

• The Sudarium's bloodstains
• Its lack of washing
• Its absence of an image
• John 20:7 saying it was rolled up separately

The Burial Shroud (sindon)**
The larger shroud:

• Covered the entire body
• Was applied after the face cloth was removed
• Was the cloth present at the moment of the Resurrection
• Therefore was in the right position to receive the radiation burst

So the custom was to use both, but not at the same time.

Do the Two Cloths Match Each Other?
Forensic studies (EDICES, Spanish Sindonology Center) show:

• Blood type AB on both cloths
• Matching wound patterns
• Matching nosebleed flows
• Matching beard area stains
• Matching pollen from Jerusalem

This strongly suggests:

• The Sudarium touched the same face as the Shroud
• But at a different time and different position

Which explains why one has an image and the other does not.

So What's the Most Likely Explanation?
Putting it all together:
The Sudarium was used immediately after death
It was removed before the Shroud was applied
It was not present during the Resurrection event
Therefore it did not receive the radiation burst
Therefore it did not form an image
This is the simplest and most consistent explanation with:

• Jewish burial practice
• Gospel accounts
• Forensic stain analysis
• Radiation based image formation models

There's a lot to unpack here:

Regarding the AB blood type on the Shroud and Sudarium: I've already shown where an expert who studied the Shroud (Dr. Kelly Kearse) stated:

"Regarding tests to determine blood type, it could be AB, but I really don't think there's any solid scientific evidence to back that up".

Regarding the rest, let's go through a few of them one at a time. First, regarding Jewish burial customs during the time of Jesus - this is what a Copilot search returned:

"Connection (of the Shroud of Turin) to Jewish Burial Practices

First-century Jewish burial customs were governed by Deuteronomy 21:2223, which required burial before sunset on the Sabbath, and by the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:5), which emphasized same-day interment. The process involved:

• Immediate retrieval of the body by family or community members (Mishnah, Semahot 12.9) Bible Hub.
• **Linen shrouds (PLURAL) (thnia) wrapped around the body, starting at the ankles and ending at the shoulders, leaving the face uncovered for the separate sudarium Bible Hub.
• Spices such as myrrh and aloes, layered between cloths, to honor the dead and mask odor Bible Hub.
• Rock-hewn tombs for the wealthy, often with stone benches for bench burials Bible Hub+1.

** note the bolded part - linen cloth(S), which is consistent with Scripture. Not one long sheet. And also "wrapped" starting at the ankles, and leaving the face uncovered. Not gently draped, making even contact with the body, including the face.

And according to Bible Hub, an archaelogical find confirms this:
"Archaeological parallels: the "Tomb of the Shroud" in the Hinnom Valley (1st century AD) revealed multiple linen layers around a corpse, confirming the description in John.


So there's quite a bit of difference between this and what's being presented in this thread.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

---

There's no reason to assume there was even contact, especially since we don't know how the image was produced. In fact modern simulations suggest otherwise. That's why the Agamemnon Effect, which is a result of even contact, wouldn't necessarily be present.

---

Well, now you've moved from ignoring the King Kong in the room to making absolutely no sense at all. By this reasoning, heck, the shroud didn't even have to be in the grave at all to begin with! I mean, since we don't know how the image was produced, anything is possible, right? LOL. What "modern simulations" suggested this nonsense?

---

Are you asking for a link?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330311578_The_Turin_Shroud_was_not_flattened_before_the_images_formed

---

Apparently, your idea of "modern simulations" consists of a single, unpublished study that was neither peer reviewed nor scrutinized through an editorial process by a scientific journal, written by a single, independent computer scientist researcher. LOL.

What do you think of his methodology and conclusions? Did you see the diagram of the sheet over the face which he based his results on? That sheet was literally floating over the face, as flat as it could possibly be. Do you know many types of linen sheets that do that when placed on a contoured body? Questionable, to say the least.

And what about the part in my post that you conveniently omitted - even if you were to stretch credibility and accept his conclusions, how would all of it square with the assertion made above that the shroud was only a body covering - yet has an image of the face- and that a separate linen (the Sudarium, ostensibly) covered the face - but has no image?

---

The diagrams are simplified, but the data was taken from an actual linen sheet placed over an actual body. It could be the Sudarium was a chin binding, it isn't the same cloth, or it was unaffected for some other reason. I don't know, and it's not essential to my faith.

---

He makes the conclusion that any image distortion of the head would be hard to detect simply on the basis that in his experiment the overall head size, though enlarged due to the widening of the image, remained proportional to a normal head because the length and width of the image of the head were widened in equal proportion. But this completely ignores the effect of the widening on the facial features. His conclusion seems to only be based on the head outline. Since his experiment did not actually produce a head WITH a facial image, there's no way to conclude that there would be no detectable facial image distortion. Looking at his diagrams and photos, its easy to see that any kind of contour of the sheet will widen the nose and spread out the eyes. His experiment doesn't really nullify the Agamemnon mask effect at all. Probaby why it wasn't accepted for publication.

Not to mention the King Kong in the room - that the body shroud had an image of a face, while the separate face cloth didn't - is still there.

---

I don't think it was never submitted for peer-reviewed publication. It's an independent study and a pretty good explanation IMO. He doesn't ignore the effect of widening. He says the distortions are detectable but slight, as would be expected in an image formed by some kind of radiation rather than wrapping or pressing in the manner of the Agamemnon mask. The authenticity of the Sudarium is a separate issue. Budos has offered an explanation for its discrepancies, assuming it's even the same cloth.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's a lot to unpack here:

Regarding the AB blood type on the Shroud and Sudarium: I've already shown where an expert who studied the Shroud (Dr. Kelly Kearse) stated:

"Regarding tests to determine blood type, it could be AB, but I really don't think there's any solid scientific evidence to back that up".

Regarding the rest, let's go through a few of them one at a time. First, regarding Jewish burial customs during the time of Jesus - this is what a Copilot search returned:

"Connection (of the Shroud of Turin) to Jewish Burial Practices

First-century Jewish burial customs were governed by Deuteronomy 21:2223, which required burial before sunset on the Sabbath, and by the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:5), which emphasized same-day interment. The process involved:

• Immediate retrieval of the body by family or community members (Mishnah, Semahot 12.9) Bible Hub.
• **Linen shrouds (PLURAL) (thnia) wrapped around the body, starting at the ankles and ending at the shoulders, leaving the face uncovered for the separate sudarium Bible Hub.
• Spices such as myrrh and aloes, layered between cloths, to honor the dead and mask odor Bible Hub.
• Rock-hewn tombs for the wealthy, often with stone benches for bench burials Bible Hub+1.

** note the bolded part - linen cloth(S), which is consistent with Scripture. Not one long sheet. And also "wrapped" starting at the ankles, and leaving the face uncovered. Not gently draped, making even contact with the body, including the face.

And according to Bible Hub, an archaelogical find confirms this:
"Archaeological parallels: the "Tomb of the Shroud" in the Hinnom Valley (1st century AD) revealed multiple linen layers around a corpse, confirming the description in John.


So there's quite a bit of difference between this and what's being presented in this thread.

---

"Multiple linen layers" is not inconsistent with full-body coverings. The Hinnom Valley cloth is better described as a wrapping consistent with Jewish custom, not narrow strips resembling an Egyptian mummy as many assume.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

---

There's no reason to assume there was even contact, especially since we don't know how the image was produced. In fact modern simulations suggest otherwise. That's why the Agamemnon Effect, which is a result of even contact, wouldn't necessarily be present.

---

Well, now you've moved from ignoring the King Kong in the room to making absolutely no sense at all. By this reasoning, heck, the shroud didn't even have to be in the grave at all to begin with! I mean, since we don't know how the image was produced, anything is possible, right? LOL. What "modern simulations" suggested this nonsense?

---

Are you asking for a link?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330311578_The_Turin_Shroud_was_not_flattened_before_the_images_formed

---

Apparently, your idea of "modern simulations" consists of a single, unpublished study that was neither peer reviewed nor scrutinized through an editorial process by a scientific journal, written by a single, independent computer scientist researcher. LOL.

What do you think of his methodology and conclusions? Did you see the diagram of the sheet over the face which he based his results on? That sheet was literally floating over the face, as flat as it could possibly be. Do you know many types of linen sheets that do that when placed on a contoured body? Questionable, to say the least.

And what about the part in my post that you conveniently omitted - even if you were to stretch credibility and accept his conclusions, how would all of it square with the assertion made above that the shroud was only a body covering - yet has an image of the face- and that a separate linen (the Sudarium, ostensibly) covered the face - but has no image?

---

The diagrams are simplified, but the data was taken from an actual linen sheet placed over an actual body. It could be the Sudarium was a chin binding, it isn't the same cloth, or it was unaffected for some other reason. I don't know, and it's not essential to my faith.

---

He makes the conclusion that any image distortion of the head would be hard to detect simply on the basis that in his experiment the overall head size, though enlarged due to the widening of the image, remained proportional to a normal head because the length and width of the image of the head were widened in equal proportion. But this completely ignores the effect of the widening on the facial features. His conclusion seems to only be based on the head outline. Since his experiment did not actually produce a head WITH a facial image, there's no way to conclude that there would be no detectable facial image distortion. Looking at his diagrams and photos, its easy to see that any kind of contour of the sheet will widen the nose and spread out the eyes. His experiment doesn't really nullify the Agamemnon mask effect at all. Probaby why it wasn't accepted for publication.

Not to mention the King Kong in the room - that the body shroud had an image of a face, while the separate face cloth didn't - is still there.

---

I don't think it was never submitted for peer-reviewed publication. It's an independent study and a pretty good explanation IMO. He doesn't ignore the effect of widening. He says the distortions are detectable but slight, as would be expected in an image formed by some kind of radiation rather than wrapping or pressing in the manner of the Agamemnon mask. The authenticity of the Sudarium is a separate issue. Budos has offered an explanation for its discrepancies, assuming it's even the same cloth.

---

There's probably good reason his study was never submitted for publication. And since his experiment did not actually produce a resulting image of the face and body under his assumed conditions, the effect of any distortion can't be visually assessed and compared to the image on the Shroud. So it isn't a good explanation at all. The image of the Shroud doesn't appear to show any distortions whatsoever, whether from the Agamemnon mask effect or from buckling of the cloth in various areas.

Also, it's hardly a good explanation when his experiment was based on his assumption that the image produced on the sheet originated from points on the face and body that only projected vertically towards the sheet, rather than outwardly in all direction from those points. Images, whether it's from contact with the body or even due to a "burst of radiation" from that body, would not be produced that way. Radiation does not only project vertically from a point. This is a rather significant assumption his experiment is based on. You'd have to fall back to your reasoning of "we don't know how the image was formed, so it can be any way imaginable" which would, at least in my mind, disqualify this as a "good explanation".

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's a lot to unpack here:

Regarding the AB blood type on the Shroud and Sudarium: I've already shown where an expert who studied the Shroud (Dr. Kelly Kearse) stated:

"Regarding tests to determine blood type, it could be AB, but I really don't think there's any solid scientific evidence to back that up".

Regarding the rest, let's go through a few of them one at a time. First, regarding Jewish burial customs during the time of Jesus - this is what a Copilot search returned:

"Connection (of the Shroud of Turin) to Jewish Burial Practices

First-century Jewish burial customs were governed by Deuteronomy 21:2223, which required burial before sunset on the Sabbath, and by the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:5), which emphasized same-day interment. The process involved:

• Immediate retrieval of the body by family or community members (Mishnah, Semahot 12.9) Bible Hub.
• **Linen shrouds (PLURAL) (thnia) wrapped around the body, starting at the ankles and ending at the shoulders, leaving the face uncovered for the separate sudarium Bible Hub.
• Spices such as myrrh and aloes, layered between cloths, to honor the dead and mask odor Bible Hub.
• Rock-hewn tombs for the wealthy, often with stone benches for bench burials Bible Hub+1.

** note the bolded part - linen cloth(S), which is consistent with Scripture. Not one long sheet. And also "wrapped" starting at the ankles, and leaving the face uncovered. Not gently draped, making even contact with the body, including the face.

And according to Bible Hub, an archaelogical find confirms this:
"Archaeological parallels: the "Tomb of the Shroud" in the Hinnom Valley (1st century AD) revealed multiple linen layers around a corpse, confirming the description in John.


So there's quite a bit of difference between this and what's being presented in this thread.

---

"Multiple linen layers" is not inconsistent with full-body coverings. The Hinnom Valley cloth is better described as a wrapping consistent with Jewish custom, not narrow strips resembling an Egyptian mummy as many assume.

---

.... which is completely inconsistent with the idea that it was a single long sheet placed under the body and then folded over to drape gently over the whole body.

SMH.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

*** And if you're saying that only the body was wrapped in a single shroud, and a separate linen was used to wrap the face, then you just proved the shroud, which has an image of Jesus' face, and the Sudarium, which doesn't, aren't real.

I agree with you now - there's no elephant. It seems you just turned the elephant into King Kong.

---

I've debunked your "Scripture is the only infallible source" claim and so now you try to jump back to the science.

It's not rocket science but, you are trying your best to deny it.

How hard for you to believe that they wrapped his chin to the top of his head, put him in the shroud, and then wrapped his face with a head covering. They could have easily wrapped the shroud with strips of lined to secure it until the body decomposed to collect the bones.

At the end of the day, whether the Shroud is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus isn't truly important. It's a valuable relic worthy drawing our minds and hearts to Christ's passion.

My faith isn't dependent on the Shroud. My faith is dependent in the man in the Shroud.

The Church has 100's, if not 1000's of miracles that she can point to for belief in God.

It's appreciated by some when such a "give and take" discussion occurs, where we can present our thoughts on a subject in a civil manner, read the information others present to add, support, or disagree on certain points. Including sources to support our findings is especially helpful, for multiple reasons. It presents the opportunity to add to our knowledge, depending upon the information and how we interpret and process it within our individual belief systems. Although I may not agree with each point you make, I do appreciate that you provide a source for which we can review and evaluate. For now, I like the "radiation" hypothesis, as a credible hypothesis, pending follow up research from other researchers. I also agree with Coke Bears statement about believing in the man, Jesus Christ, regardless of what may or may not be true about either piece of cloth,as many others in this thread probably do as well.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

---

There's no reason to assume there was even contact, especially since we don't know how the image was produced. In fact modern simulations suggest otherwise. That's why the Agamemnon Effect, which is a result of even contact, wouldn't necessarily be present.

---

Well, now you've moved from ignoring the King Kong in the room to making absolutely no sense at all. By this reasoning, heck, the shroud didn't even have to be in the grave at all to begin with! I mean, since we don't know how the image was produced, anything is possible, right? LOL. What "modern simulations" suggested this nonsense?

---

Are you asking for a link?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330311578_The_Turin_Shroud_was_not_flattened_before_the_images_formed

---

Apparently, your idea of "modern simulations" consists of a single, unpublished study that was neither peer reviewed nor scrutinized through an editorial process by a scientific journal, written by a single, independent computer scientist researcher. LOL.

What do you think of his methodology and conclusions? Did you see the diagram of the sheet over the face which he based his results on? That sheet was literally floating over the face, as flat as it could possibly be. Do you know many types of linen sheets that do that when placed on a contoured body? Questionable, to say the least.

And what about the part in my post that you conveniently omitted - even if you were to stretch credibility and accept his conclusions, how would all of it square with the assertion made above that the shroud was only a body covering - yet has an image of the face- and that a separate linen (the Sudarium, ostensibly) covered the face - but has no image?

---

The diagrams are simplified, but the data was taken from an actual linen sheet placed over an actual body. It could be the Sudarium was a chin binding, it isn't the same cloth, or it was unaffected for some other reason. I don't know, and it's not essential to my faith.

---

He makes the conclusion that any image distortion of the head would be hard to detect simply on the basis that in his experiment the overall head size, though enlarged due to the widening of the image, remained proportional to a normal head because the length and width of the image of the head were widened in equal proportion. But this completely ignores the effect of the widening on the facial features. His conclusion seems to only be based on the head outline. Since his experiment did not actually produce a head WITH a facial image, there's no way to conclude that there would be no detectable facial image distortion. Looking at his diagrams and photos, its easy to see that any kind of contour of the sheet will widen the nose and spread out the eyes. His experiment doesn't really nullify the Agamemnon mask effect at all. Probaby why it wasn't accepted for publication.

Not to mention the King Kong in the room - that the body shroud had an image of a face, while the separate face cloth didn't - is still there.

---

I don't think it was never submitted for peer-reviewed publication. It's an independent study and a pretty good explanation IMO. He doesn't ignore the effect of widening. He says the distortions are detectable but slight, as would be expected in an image formed by some kind of radiation rather than wrapping or pressing in the manner of the Agamemnon mask. The authenticity of the Sudarium is a separate issue. Budos has offered an explanation for its discrepancies, assuming it's even the same cloth.

---

There's probably good reason his study was never submitted for publication. And since his experiment did not actually produce a resulting image of the face and body under his assumed conditions, the effect of any distortion can't be visually assessed and compared to the image on the Shroud. So it isn't a good explanation at all. The image of the Shroud doesn't appear to show any distortions whatsoever, whether from the Agamemnon mask effect or from buckling of the cloth in various areas.

Also, it's hardly a good explanation when his experiment was based on his assumption that the image produced on the sheet originated from points on the face and body that only projected vertically towards the sheet, rather than outwardly in all direction from those points. Images, whether it's from contact with the body or even due to a "burst of radiation" from that body, would not be produced that way. Radiation does not only project vertically from a point. This is a rather significant assumption his experiment is based on. You'd have to fall back to your reasoning of "we don't know how the image was formed, so it can be any way imaginable" which would, at least in my mind, disqualify this as a "good explanation".

---

It does show distortions, but they're not significant enough to be visible. The assumption of vertical projection is immaterial for reasons explained in the paper. Non-collimated emission/collection yields almost identical results.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's a lot to unpack here:

Regarding the AB blood type on the Shroud and Sudarium: I've already shown where an expert who studied the Shroud (Dr. Kelly Kearse) stated:

"Regarding tests to determine blood type, it could be AB, but I really don't think there's any solid scientific evidence to back that up".

Regarding the rest, let's go through a few of them one at a time. First, regarding Jewish burial customs during the time of Jesus - this is what a Copilot search returned:

"Connection (of the Shroud of Turin) to Jewish Burial Practices

First-century Jewish burial customs were governed by Deuteronomy 21:2223, which required burial before sunset on the Sabbath, and by the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:5), which emphasized same-day interment. The process involved:

• Immediate retrieval of the body by family or community members (Mishnah, Semahot 12.9) Bible Hub.
• **Linen shrouds (PLURAL) (thnia) wrapped around the body, starting at the ankles and ending at the shoulders, leaving the face uncovered for the separate sudarium Bible Hub.
• Spices such as myrrh and aloes, layered between cloths, to honor the dead and mask odor Bible Hub.
• Rock-hewn tombs for the wealthy, often with stone benches for bench burials Bible Hub+1.

** note the bolded part - linen cloth(S), which is consistent with Scripture. Not one long sheet. And also "wrapped" starting at the ankles, and leaving the face uncovered. Not gently draped, making even contact with the body, including the face.

And according to Bible Hub, an archaelogical find confirms this:
"Archaeological parallels: the "Tomb of the Shroud" in the Hinnom Valley (1st century AD) revealed multiple linen layers around a corpse, confirming the description in John.


So there's quite a bit of difference between this and what's being presented in this thread.

---

"Multiple linen layers" is not inconsistent with full-body coverings. The Hinnom Valley cloth is better described as a wrapping consistent with Jewish custom, not narrow strips resembling an Egyptian mummy as many assume.

---

.... which is completely inconsistent with the idea that it was a single long sheet placed under the body and then folded over to drape gently over the whole body.

SMH.

---

Not at all. A single fold is a type of wrapping.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

---

There's no reason to assume there was even contact, especially since we don't know how the image was produced. In fact modern simulations suggest otherwise. That's why the Agamemnon Effect, which is a result of even contact, wouldn't necessarily be present.

---

Well, now you've moved from ignoring the King Kong in the room to making absolutely no sense at all. By this reasoning, heck, the shroud didn't even have to be in the grave at all to begin with! I mean, since we don't know how the image was produced, anything is possible, right? LOL. What "modern simulations" suggested this nonsense?

---

Are you asking for a link?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330311578_The_Turin_Shroud_was_not_flattened_before_the_images_formed

---

Apparently, your idea of "modern simulations" consists of a single, unpublished study that was neither peer reviewed nor scrutinized through an editorial process by a scientific journal, written by a single, independent computer scientist researcher. LOL.

What do you think of his methodology and conclusions? Did you see the diagram of the sheet over the face which he based his results on? That sheet was literally floating over the face, as flat as it could possibly be. Do you know many types of linen sheets that do that when placed on a contoured body? Questionable, to say the least.

And what about the part in my post that you conveniently omitted - even if you were to stretch credibility and accept his conclusions, how would all of it square with the assertion made above that the shroud was only a body covering - yet has an image of the face- and that a separate linen (the Sudarium, ostensibly) covered the face - but has no image?

---

The diagrams are simplified, but the data was taken from an actual linen sheet placed over an actual body. It could be the Sudarium was a chin binding, it isn't the same cloth, or it was unaffected for some other reason. I don't know, and it's not essential to my faith.

---

He makes the conclusion that any image distortion of the head would be hard to detect simply on the basis that in his experiment the overall head size, though enlarged due to the widening of the image, remained proportional to a normal head because the length and width of the image of the head were widened in equal proportion. But this completely ignores the effect of the widening on the facial features. His conclusion seems to only be based on the head outline. Since his experiment did not actually produce a head WITH a facial image, there's no way to conclude that there would be no detectable facial image distortion. Looking at his diagrams and photos, its easy to see that any kind of contour of the sheet will widen the nose and spread out the eyes. His experiment doesn't really nullify the Agamemnon mask effect at all. Probaby why it wasn't accepted for publication.

Not to mention the King Kong in the room - that the body shroud had an image of a face, while the separate face cloth didn't - is still there.

---

I don't think it was never submitted for peer-reviewed publication. It's an independent study and a pretty good explanation IMO. He doesn't ignore the effect of widening. He says the distortions are detectable but slight, as would be expected in an image formed by some kind of radiation rather than wrapping or pressing in the manner of the Agamemnon mask. The authenticity of the Sudarium is a separate issue. Budos has offered an explanation for its discrepancies, assuming it's even the same cloth.

---

There's probably good reason his study was never submitted for publication. And since his experiment did not actually produce a resulting image of the face and body under his assumed conditions, the effect of any distortion can't be visually assessed and compared to the image on the Shroud. So it isn't a good explanation at all. The image of the Shroud doesn't appear to show any distortions whatsoever, whether from the Agamemnon mask effect or from buckling of the cloth in various areas.

Also, it's hardly a good explanation when his experiment was based on his assumption that the image produced on the sheet originated from points on the face and body that only projected vertically towards the sheet, rather than outwardly in all direction from those points. Images, whether it's from contact with the body or even due to a "burst of radiation" from that body, would not be produced that way. Radiation does not only project vertically from a point. This is a rather significant assumption his experiment is based on. You'd have to fall back to your reasoning of "we don't know how the image was formed, so it can be any way imaginable" which would, at least in my mind, disqualify this as a "good explanation".

---

It does show distortions, but they're not significant enough to be visible. The assumption of vertical projection is immaterial for reasons explained in the paper. Non-collimated emission/collection yields almost identical results.

---

Are we not also limited in our knowledge of radiation and what is and is not possible in what it can do, especially depending upon whether or not it's a human using something created by an entity much more knowledgeable and able to control what He created? The X factor may be that, if the theory does prove plausible, pending future studies. We can argue based on what we think we know, and how we interpret our version of the facts, which can limit our options--or can it?

BUDOS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

---

There's no reason to assume there was even contact, especially since we don't know how the image was produced. In fact modern simulations suggest otherwise. That's why the Agamemnon Effect, which is a result of even contact, wouldn't necessarily be present.

---

Well, now you've moved from ignoring the King Kong in the room to making absolutely no sense at all. By this reasoning, heck, the shroud didn't even have to be in the grave at all to begin with! I mean, since we don't know how the image was produced, anything is possible, right? LOL. What "modern simulations" suggested this nonsense?

---

Are you asking for a link?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330311578_The_Turin_Shroud_was_not_flattened_before_the_images_formed

---

Apparently, your idea of "modern simulations" consists of a single, unpublished study that was neither peer reviewed nor scrutinized through an editorial process by a scientific journal, written by a single, independent computer scientist researcher. LOL.

What do you think of his methodology and conclusions? Did you see the diagram of the sheet over the face which he based his results on? That sheet was literally floating over the face, as flat as it could possibly be. Do you know many types of linen sheets that do that when placed on a contoured body? Questionable, to say the least.

And what about the part in my post that you conveniently omitted - even if you were to stretch credibility and accept his conclusions, how would all of it square with the assertion made above that the shroud was only a body covering - yet has an image of the face- and that a separate linen (the Sudarium, ostensibly) covered the face - but has no image?

---

The diagrams are simplified, but the data was taken from an actual linen sheet placed over an actual body. It could be the Sudarium was a chin binding, it isn't the same cloth, or it was unaffected for some other reason. I don't know, and it's not essential to my faith.

---

He makes the conclusion that any image distortion of the head would be hard to detect simply on the basis that in his experiment the overall head size, though enlarged due to the widening of the image, remained proportional to a normal head because the length and width of the image of the head were widened in equal proportion. But this completely ignores the effect of the widening on the facial features. His conclusion seems to only be based on the head outline. Since his experiment did not actually produce a head WITH a facial image, there's no way to conclude that there would be no detectable facial image distortion. Looking at his diagrams and photos, its easy to see that any kind of contour of the sheet will widen the nose and spread out the eyes. His experiment doesn't really nullify the Agamemnon mask effect at all. Probaby why it wasn't accepted for publication.

Not to mention the King Kong in the room - that the body shroud had an image of a face, while the separate face cloth didn't - is still there.

---

I don't think it was never submitted for peer-reviewed publication. It's an independent study and a pretty good explanation IMO. He doesn't ignore the effect of widening. He says the distortions are detectable but slight, as would be expected in an image formed by some kind of radiation rather than wrapping or pressing in the manner of the Agamemnon mask. The authenticity of the Sudarium is a separate issue. Budos has offered an explanation for its discrepancies, assuming it's even the same cloth.

---

There's probably good reason his study was never submitted for publication. And since his experiment did not actually produce a resulting image of the face and body under his assumed conditions, the effect of any distortion can't be visually assessed and compared to the image on the Shroud. So it isn't a good explanation at all. The image of the Shroud doesn't appear to show any distortions whatsoever, whether from the Agamemnon mask effect or from buckling of the cloth in various areas.

Also, it's hardly a good explanation when his experiment was based on his assumption that the image produced on the sheet originated from points on the face and body that only projected vertically towards the sheet, rather than outwardly in all direction from those points. Images, whether it's from contact with the body or even due to a "burst of radiation" from that body, would not be produced that way. Radiation does not only project vertically from a point. This is a rather significant assumption his experiment is based on. You'd have to fall back to your reasoning of "we don't know how the image was formed, so it can be any way imaginable" which would, at least in my mind, disqualify this as a "good explanation".

---

It does show distortions, but they're not significant enough to be visible. The assumption of vertical projection is immaterial for reasons explained in the paper. Non-collimated emission/collection yields almost identical results.

---

Are we not also limited in our knowledge of radiation and what is and is not possible in what it can do, especially depending upon whether or not it's a human using something created by an entity much more knowledgeable and able to control what He created? The X factor may be that, if the theory does prove plausible, pending future studies. We can argue based on what we think we know, and how we interpret our version of the facts, which can limit our options--or can it?

---

Right, and we know that a flow of radiation can be organized in that way. It's done in medicine every day. Medievals wouldn't have had the technology, but that just leaves open the question of how it was done. We don't know.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

---

There's no reason to assume there was even contact, especially since we don't know how the image was produced. In fact modern simulations suggest otherwise. That's why the Agamemnon Effect, which is a result of even contact, wouldn't necessarily be present.

---

Well, now you've moved from ignoring the King Kong in the room to making absolutely no sense at all. By this reasoning, heck, the shroud didn't even have to be in the grave at all to begin with! I mean, since we don't know how the image was produced, anything is possible, right? LOL. What "modern simulations" suggested this nonsense?

---

Are you asking for a link?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330311578_The_Turin_Shroud_was_not_flattened_before_the_images_formed

---

Apparently, your idea of "modern simulations" consists of a single, unpublished study that was neither peer reviewed nor scrutinized through an editorial process by a scientific journal, written by a single, independent computer scientist researcher. LOL.

What do you think of his methodology and conclusions? Did you see the diagram of the sheet over the face which he based his results on? That sheet was literally floating over the face, as flat as it could possibly be. Do you know many types of linen sheets that do that when placed on a contoured body? Questionable, to say the least.

And what about the part in my post that you conveniently omitted - even if you were to stretch credibility and accept his conclusions, how would all of it square with the assertion made above that the shroud was only a body covering - yet has an image of the face- and that a separate linen (the Sudarium, ostensibly) covered the face - but has no image?

---

The diagrams are simplified, but the data was taken from an actual linen sheet placed over an actual body. It could be the Sudarium was a chin binding, it isn't the same cloth, or it was unaffected for some other reason. I don't know, and it's not essential to my faith.

---

He makes the conclusion that any image distortion of the head would be hard to detect simply on the basis that in his experiment the overall head size, though enlarged due to the widening of the image, remained proportional to a normal head because the length and width of the image of the head were widened in equal proportion. But this completely ignores the effect of the widening on the facial features. His conclusion seems to only be based on the head outline. Since his experiment did not actually produce a head WITH a facial image, there's no way to conclude that there would be no detectable facial image distortion. Looking at his diagrams and photos, its easy to see that any kind of contour of the sheet will widen the nose and spread out the eyes. His experiment doesn't really nullify the Agamemnon mask effect at all. Probaby why it wasn't accepted for publication.

Not to mention the King Kong in the room - that the body shroud had an image of a face, while the separate face cloth didn't - is still there.

---

I don't think it was never submitted for peer-reviewed publication. It's an independent study and a pretty good explanation IMO. He doesn't ignore the effect of widening. He says the distortions are detectable but slight, as would be expected in an image formed by some kind of radiation rather than wrapping or pressing in the manner of the Agamemnon mask. The authenticity of the Sudarium is a separate issue. Budos has offered an explanation for its discrepancies, assuming it's even the same cloth.

---

There's probably good reason his study was never submitted for publication. And since his experiment did not actually produce a resulting image of the face and body under his assumed conditions, the effect of any distortion can't be visually assessed and compared to the image on the Shroud. So it isn't a good explanation at all. The image of the Shroud doesn't appear to show any distortions whatsoever, whether from the Agamemnon mask effect or from buckling of the cloth in various areas.

Also, it's hardly a good explanation when his experiment was based on his assumption that the image produced on the sheet originated from points on the face and body that only projected vertically towards the sheet, rather than outwardly in all direction from those points. Images, whether it's from contact with the body or even due to a "burst of radiation" from that body, would not be produced that way. Radiation does not only project vertically from a point. This is a rather significant assumption his experiment is based on. You'd have to fall back to your reasoning of "we don't know how the image was formed, so it can be any way imaginable" which would, at least in my mind, disqualify this as a "good explanation".

---

It does show distortions, but they're not significant enough to be visible. The assumption of vertical projection is immaterial for reasons explained in the paper. Non-collimated emission/collection yields almost identical results.

---

Are we not also limited in our knowledge of radiation and what is and is not possible in what it can do, especially depending upon whether or not it's a human using something created by an entity much more knowledgeable and able to control what He created? The X factor may be that, if the theory does prove plausible, pending future studies. We can argue based on what we think we know, and how we interpret our version of the facts, which can limit our options--or can it?

---

Right, and we know that a flow of radiation can be organized in that way. It's done in medicine every day. Medievals wouldn't have had the technology, but that just leaves open the question of how it was done. We don't know.

---

And that point should not get lost in all the debate. The Shroud is unique by any reasonable standard.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The large sheet mentioned in Scripture was used to put Jesus' body in right after he was taken down from the cross. But there's no mention of that sheet being in the grave after he was raised. It's likely that the sheet was used to cover his body immediately after the crucifixion and during transport to the grave, where he was then rewrapped in the strips of linen. This presents the problem of why the bloodstains on the long, single sheet weren't smeared in a widespread pattern, since it would definitely not have been smoothly draped over the body as Jesus was moved to the grave - rather, it would have been creased, crumpled, folded in areas during the jostling of the body while it was being moved. When you stretch out a cloth like that, you're definitely NOT going to get bloodstains that fit cleanly over where the wounds are; rather, you're going to get a splayed out image with blood smeared in a more wide pattern. Also, if the long sheet was used for transport of the body, but was not used to cover the body in the grave, then how did it get the image?

And since we know for sure that there were linen strips in the grave (but we don't know there was a long sheet in the grave) where do those strips fit in? Were they wrapped around the body first, and then the long sheet was re-used to cover the whole body? If so, that would mean the "energy burst" which formed the image went through all the folds, creases, and crumples of the strips of linen only to affect a very thin layer on the long sheet uniformly, which wouldn't make any sense. If the the strips of linen were used to wrap the body OVER the long sheet, then that would further crease and crumple the long sheet, thus distorting the image and the blood stains even more.

Yes, the "strips of linen" is still a major elephant.

Same thing with the face cloth in the grave - was it over the long sheet or under it? Shouldn't it also have an image from the same mechanism that produced it in the long sheet?

---

Jews did not wrap their dead like the Egyptian mummies. Archeologists don't believe that the Egyptians were doing this in the first century.

Jews would bind the hand, feet, and jaw (underneath to the top of the head with strips of linen. Then they would wrap the body in a single shroud and wrap the face with a separate linen. After a year, the family would enter the tomb to gather, clean, and place the bones in an ossuary (bone box.)

This all lines up with scripture. Just because the sindon is NOT mentioned at the resurrection doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, no elephant.

---

The linen strips and ***separate linen wrapping over the face that you're describing would not allow a single sheet shroud to drape over and make contact evenly over the body and face, which would be necessary to form the clean three-dimensional image that is seen.

*** And if you're saying that only the body was wrapped in a single shroud, and a separate linen was used to wrap the face, then you just proved the shroud, which has an image of Jesus' face, and the Sudarium, which doesn't, aren't real.

I agree with you now - there's no elephant. It seems you just turned the elephant into King Kong.

---

I've debunked your "Scripture is the only infallible source" claim and so now you try to jump back to the science.

It's not rocket science but, you are trying your best to deny it.

How hard for you to believe that they wrapped his chin to the top of his head, put him in the shroud, and then wrapped his face with a head covering. They could have easily wrapped the shroud with strips of lined to secure it until the body decomposed to collect the bones.

At the end of the day, whether the Shroud is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus isn't truly important. It's a valuable relic worthy drawing our minds and hearts to Christ's passion.

My faith isn't dependent on the Shroud. My faith is dependent in the man in the Shroud.

The Church has 100's, if not 1000's of miracles that she can point to for belief in God.

---

You debunked the "Scripture is the only infallible source" claim? I really think you're creating your own reality.

You're not realizing that your own theory, such as the shroud being wrapped by the strips of linen, would most certainly create significant folds and buckles in the shroud and would prevent such a clean image from being formed, like the one seen in the Shroud of Turin.

Regarding the shroud "drawing minds and hearts to Christ's passion" - it also has the potential to draw minds and hearts to a false image, which can be later used to deceive them. It bears repeating - there is a good reason why Scripture, or oral tradition for that matter, never gives us a physical description of what Jesus looked like. God didn't want us to know. He doesn't want us to see Jesus as an image, but rather for us to "see" Jesus with our hearts. He doesn't want us to have relics either. He wants us to relate to Him personally and spiritually, not through any physical object. He doesn't want another golden calf. Plus, I truly believe that God knew that if Jesus appearance was described or depicted in some form (like the Shroud) there would have been many impostors to mislead people. And Satan being one of them is certainly no exception.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's a lot to unpack here:

Regarding the AB blood type on the Shroud and Sudarium: I've already shown where an expert who studied the Shroud (Dr. Kelly Kearse) stated:

"Regarding tests to determine blood type, it could be AB, but I really don't think there's any solid scientific evidence to back that up".

Regarding the rest, let's go through a few of them one at a time. First, regarding Jewish burial customs during the time of Jesus - this is what a Copilot search returned:

"Connection (of the Shroud of Turin) to Jewish Burial Practices

First-century Jewish burial customs were governed by Deuteronomy 21:2223, which required burial before sunset on the Sabbath, and by the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:5), which emphasized same-day interment. The process involved:

• Immediate retrieval of the body by family or community members (Mishnah, Semahot 12.9) Bible Hub.
• **Linen shrouds (PLURAL) (thnia) wrapped around the body, starting at the ankles and ending at the shoulders, leaving the face uncovered for the separate sudarium Bible Hub.
• Spices such as myrrh and aloes, layered between cloths, to honor the dead and mask odor Bible Hub.
• Rock-hewn tombs for the wealthy, often with stone benches for bench burials Bible Hub+1.

** note the bolded part - linen cloth(S), which is consistent with Scripture. Not one long sheet. And also "wrapped" starting at the ankles, and leaving the face uncovered. Not gently draped, making even contact with the body, including the face.

And according to Bible Hub, an archaelogical find confirms this:
"Archaeological parallels: the "Tomb of the Shroud" in the Hinnom Valley (1st century AD) revealed multiple linen layers around a corpse, confirming the description in John.


So there's quite a bit of difference between this and what's being presented in this thread.

---

"Multiple linen layers" is not inconsistent with full-body coverings. The Hinnom Valley cloth is better described as a wrapping consistent with Jewish custom, not narrow strips resembling an Egyptian mummy as many assume.

---

.... which is completely inconsistent with the idea that it was a single long sheet placed under the body and then folded over to drape gently over the whole body.

SMH.

---

Not at all. A single fold is a type of wrapping.

---

Well, no (smh). Look at pictures of how ancient Jews "wrapped" the bodies with linen. Also review what Bible Hub described (given above) as Jewish burial practices during the first century - "wrapped, starting at the ankles and ending at the shoulders, leaving the face uncovered". This clearly is not consistent with the Shroud of Turin at all.

Here is a video about the Tomb of the Shroud, where the discoverer, James Tabor, shows how the body was "wrapped" by the shroud based on a reconstruction by experts. I've time stamped it to begin at that part in the video:

Thank you for including the time stamp, but after watching a few minutes I'm not sure what the video proves. Wrapping can be done in lots of different ways. There's no evidence of a universal rule in Jewish burial practice at the time.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Did Jesus exist bodily, walk the earth and get crucified and die on the cross?

Did he then resurrect feom the dead and walk amongst us?

---

I think he was most likely a real person, who was executed by the Romans, maybe by crucifixion.

No, that is a multi-version myth that evolved after his death.

---

Know many people who were willing to leave their life and even lose their life for a myth?

The consensus of historians, even the atheist ones, is that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus after his death.

---

Yes, people die for myths - often unknowingly.

Consensus among historians? I don't know about that. That's a bold statement. How would you know what someone really believes? How did they "see" him? Like Paul in an internal vision or dream? The Bible contradicts itself on how some believed they saw him.

---

The disciples would have to be dying for that which they know is a myth that they themselves created. You're missing the King Kong in the room just like the fella above.

Yes, there's a general consensus among the religious historians that have opined on the topic - the actions of the disciples after Jesus' death show that they sincerely believed they saw him risen back to life.

---

First, as I recall, it is highly questionable whether any of the disciples other than Peter, possibly James died for their beliefs. Many scholars believe that "dying for their beliefs" is a theological embellishment that came later. Dying for something you mistakenly believe is true doesn't make the belief/message objectively true.

Second, there is consensus among scholars that some disciples claimed they saw him as either an apparition, vision or dream later, after crucifixion, and that many doubted the claims. Paul's writings and Acts attest to that. This isn't unique to Christianity.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Did Jesus exist bodily, walk the earth and get crucified and die on the cross?

Did he then resurrect feom the dead and walk amongst us?

---

I think he was most likely a real person, who was executed by the Romans, maybe by crucifixion.

No, that is a multi-version myth that evolved after his death.

---

Know many people who were willing to leave their life and even lose their life for a myth?

The consensus of historians, even the atheist ones, is that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus after his death.

---

Yes, people die for myths - often unknowingly.

Consensus among historians? I don't know about that. That's a bold statement. How would you know what someone really believes? How did they "see" him? Like Paul in an internal vision or dream? The Bible contradicts itself on how some believed they saw him.

---

The disciples would have to be dying for that which they know is a myth that they themselves created. You're missing the King Kong in the room just like the fella above.

Yes, there's a general consensus among the religious historians that have opined on the topic - the actions of the disciples after Jesus' death show that they sincerely believed they saw him risen back to life.

---

First, as I recall, it is highly questionable whether any of the disciples other than Peter, possibly James died for their beliefs. Many scholars believe that "dying for their beliefs" is a theological embellishment that came later. Dying for something you mistakenly believe is true doesn't make the belief/message objectively true.

Second, there is consensus among scholars that some disciples claimed they saw him as either an apparition, vision or dream later, after crucifixion, and that many doubted the claims. Paul's writings and Acts attest to that. This isn't unique to Christianity.

---

Peter, James, and you're forgetting Paul. The rest is from tradition, against which I don't see you providing any counter evidence. Regardless, even you admit that it is true that at least some of the disciples were martyred - for what you would say is a myth they themselves created. And that absurdity is why your view will always lose.

And it doesn't have to be just dying. The disciples left their lives to give themselves fully to attesting to what they witnessed. They likely faced persecution and at least the threat of death. And why would they do this for a myth they themselves created?

You: "there is consensus among scholars that some disciples claimed they saw him as either an apparition, vision or dream later, after crucifixion, and that many doubted the claims" - It's straight from the Bible that the disciples thought at first Jesus was an apparition, but Jesus proved to them he was real. And yes, they did see him after crucifixion. And yes, many non-disciples who heard their testimony doubted their claims. Paul makes NO statement whatsoever that any of the original disciples doubted that Jesus had resurrected. So your statement here adds absolutely nothing to move the needle at all.

No one is saying that the disciples being martyred or persefuted makes their message objectively true. What it DOES say, is that the original disciples firmly believed it was true. And that is the consensus of religious historians, even atheist ones like your hero Bart Ehrman. And so the question becomes - do you believe in their witness? There is FAR more reason TO believe them, then not.