The Shroud Of Turin New Evidence Explained (Part 1/2)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2025
- The linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin - believed by some to have wrapped the body of Jesus following his crucifixion - may date back to around the time of his death, new evidence suggests.
Here's what we know about the shroud and the latest scientific evidence
⬇️ Follow i for the best in news and analysis. ⬇️
inews.co.uk/
Facebook: / theipaper
Instagram: / theipaper
Twitter: / theipaper
TikTok: / theipaper
LinkedIn: / the-i-paper
#shorts #youtubeshorts #shroud #shroudofturin
Watch part two: th-cam.com/users/shortslsT7L_nyVIU
I love the part when you shared the new evidence uncovered by scientists
It's in part two. Just click the link right under the title.
I love the part where you can press the link on the video to get to part two.
Something everyone forgets is that his beard was torn out on the cross, and he was beaten so bad he didn’t look human anymore. That’s how the Bible describes it. He went through unimaginable stuff, so I personally don’t Think that it’s the right Turin. It would need no beard, and a lot more blood stains. It wasn’t just his hands and feet that were injured. The Bible also described his organs hanging out of his body. It was proclaimed the most brutal crucifixion in human history. :( what are your thoughts?
It’s obvious that this is real deal and it took me a lifetime to realize this fact . There tons of documentaries out there that go over all the evidence.
What would Jesus say about this video? My guess: "For those who see and believe how much more blessed are those who have not seen and believed."
An Intense blast of light created that imprint. I believe that blast of light was life entering the body during the resurrection.
I believe Mars is made of raspberry sorbet.
@jamesmcinnis208 there is evidence to support my belief, there is evidence that disproves yours. L
@@DurtyDom Of course there is, dear.
It’s proof of the resurrection, yes , Jesus was buried in that shroud
The Shroud Of Turin is also the most analyzed and tested relic
Uh, not it isn't. The last time it was tested and researched was the first and last time in 1988. IT was evaluated by three laboratories and never looked into since. I wonder why the vatican wont let anyone see it again.....
@@RVaitorCA You know what? I'm going to believe the educated scholars more than I am you. Thousands say it is, you say it's not. Overruled!
@@beverlyhurd8556 Yeaaa there are more scholars that say it isn't legitimate....
@@beverlyhurd8556 It's pretty easy to find out that the shroud hasn't been analyzed since the last time it was tested, Which was over 30 years ago and the vatican wont allow anyone else to look at it....why.
@@RVaitorCA That's BS. Name a few dozen of these so-called scholars that have _personally_ examined the Shroud and said that it's a fake. Oh? What's that? You cannot? What a shocker that is! Not! 🤦♂
What about the fact that the shroud depicts a man with long hair? Jesus was a devout Jew and it would have been blasphemous for any Jewish man to have long hair.
1Cor 11:13 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
A man having long hair would be taking on the nature of a woman
Your ignorance is not to be denied. When it comes to the passage from I Cor. 11:14, one must remember that it was written at least 20 years *after* the death of Jesus. Closer study will reveal that it is simply Paul's _personal opinion_ and certainly *not* a regulation which would have applied to Jesus during his lifetime.
@@beverlyhurd8556 yeah so why is Paul's writings against homosexual not considered to be also a personal opinion/ prejudice of his?
@@jeevansoggi6527 Gee, I don't know. I never met the man so I cannot ask him. Do you always ask such stupid questions?
I think by now we can no longer call it a theory and to do so one would have to be ignorant or arrogant.
So science is stupid UNTIL someone pretends to have "proof" of Jesus. Got it
Didn't they disprove the shroud of Turin years ago? I remember having a big discussion about it in religious studies in catholic high school. Our teacher was a priest and she was really into the conspiracy of it all lol
In the 1980s a corner piece was carbon dated to around 1300s but this has now been proven to be false. They used cotton edge piece from a repair that doesn’t match the main body of the cloth. The most recent announcement validates the construction of the cloth being from 2000 years ago.
@@coffee-in-japanthat hasn’t been validated by the scientific community at far as I’m aware and couldn’t find and sources to back your claim. Could you provide the scientific references? Thanks
@@GreenSharpieScience no I can’t because I’m only reiterating news publications rather than scientific sources. I agree that it is hearsay until validated.
no, that evidence was faulty and has been debunked. the new evidence has not PROVED it is jesus' burial cloth however, rather it has made the previous study obsolete and makes the theory it is 2000 years old much more pertinent.
@@JohnDoe-sm7ub can you provide the references to back that claim up?
Even if it was that old, it proves nothing.
Faith is Faith and needs NO proof.
Absolute Heresy.
That's ridiculous. Of course, there are some degrees and levels of faith. But i would hope that it was the research into the historical evidence that shows Christ credibility that convinced you to put faith in Jesus Christ. You don't go on blind faith. Having doubts and a healthy degree of skepticism is good. It's helps fuel critical thinking and is in no way heresy.
@@victoriarussell1861Amen
the bible says to build your faith on rock not sand, meaning to believe off something that makes sense. dont be a fool
And if God left that (or any other archeological artifact from biblical times) for people not as HOLY as you, I guess that was a silly thing to do
all you gotta do is look at his hands
Who is the upside down guy above him? It looks like a guy wearing a hat upside down above him
But how tall was Jesus? That cloth looked gigantic compared to the woman standing near what I believe to be his head.
I think it is said he was around 6 foot.
They analysed the fabric in multiple labs and concluded that the sheet was made around 11/12th century.
Nope just finished new testing, it's 2000 years old
@@alansouter6713 no it is not, there is no new study conducted on the fabric. They created a new image based using AI and calling it as evidenced. All the findings from AI about the body cuts were already discovered and nothing new. Whoever made this, killed someone exactly using the bible description of Jesus death. We already know that the wound marks on the cloth match with the bible description from previous studies, but the fabric is not from the Jesus era.
@@alansouter6713
Oh well then, if the science says so then it must be true 🙄
@@catherinecarter8987 If science says so, it might be true. Which is in itself a ground-breaking statement.
@@arielfernandezalban1406
You misunderstood my point.
If Jesus had been covered with this sheet, it doesn't make him the son of god.
They have Adolf's uniform.....
It validates his existence
&
That’s a weak comparison.
2000 years vs 80 years
@@NIRVU it is indeed a weak comparison. We know much more about the provenance of Hitler's uniform. There is no historical record concerning the shroud before the 14th century
You are overstating your evidence if you use "2000 years"
But the point is, we can't deduce anything from just observing the sheet about the persons divinity, or what he did while alive, or even his name.
@@oscargr_ Never disagreed with your main point so no need to say it again.
Let me shed some light. Are you aware of the “controversy” behind the 1988 carbon-14 dating?
The 1988 carbon-14 tests conducted at Oxford, Zurich, and Arizona Labs used pieces from the same sample cut from a corner of the shroud.
Fastfoward..
A paper published on January 20, 2005, in the journal Thermochimica Acta by Dr. Ray Rogers, a retired scientist from the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and the lead chemist for the original STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) team in 1978, involving approximately 35 scientists who examined the Shroud for five days, has conclusively shown that the sample cut from the Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from an area of the cloth that had been re-woven during the Middle Ages. Here are some excerpts:
"Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area, coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations, prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. Therefore, the radiocarbon date was not valid for determining the true age of the shroud."
"As part of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), I took 32 adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud and associated textiles in 1978. This enabled direct chemical testing on recovered ancient fibers and particulates."
"If the shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1350 AD, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easily detectable. Linen produced in 1260 AD would have retained about 50% of its vanillin in Tyrolian Roland cloth, and all other medieval samples tested positive for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."
Now, there is also controversy surrounding the fire of 1532 in the chapel where the shroud was being held.
“The fire of 1532 could not have significantly affected the vanillin content of lignin in all parts of the shroud equally. The thermal conductivity of linen is very low; therefore, the unscorched parts of the folded cloth would not have become very hot. "The cloth's center would not have heated at all in the time available. The rapid change in color from black to white at the margins of the scorches illustrates this fact." Different amounts of vanillin would have been lost in different areas. No samples from any location on the shroud tested positive for vanillin. "The lignin on shroud samples and on samples from the Dead Sea Scrolls does not give the vanillin test (i.e., tests negative)."
"Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test (i.e., test negative), the cloth must be quite old." A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.
“A gum/dye/mordant [(for affixing dye)] coating is easy to observe on… radiocarbon [sample] yarns. No other part of the shroud shows such a coating.” “The radiocarbon sample had been dyed. Dyeing was probably done intentionally on pristine replacement material to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth. The dye found on the radiocarbon sample was not used in Europe before about 1291 AD and was not common until more than 100 years later.”
“Specifically, the color and distribution of the coating imply that repairs were made at an unknown time with foreign linen dyed to match the older original material. The consequence of this conclusion is that the radiocarbon sample was not representative of the original cloth.”
“The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. Thus, the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud.”
"A significant amount of charred cellulose was removed during the restoration of the shroud in 2002. A new radiocarbon analysis should be conducted on the charred material retained from the 2002 restoration."
Raymond N. Rogers, January 20, 2005. "Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin." Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Issue 1-2, Pages 189-194.
John Jackson and Keith Propp, 1998. "Effects of Fires and Biodegradation of Carbon Isotopes on Results of Radiocarbon Dating of Old Textiles: The Shroud of Turin." Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 109-121. doi: 10.1006/jasc.1996.0009.
John P. Jackson and Keith Propp, 1997. "On the Evidence That the Radiocarbon Date of the Turin Shroud Was Significantly Affected by the 1532 Fire." Actes du IIIe Symposium Scientifique International du CIELT, Nice, France.
In 2024, still without a new carbon-14 dating being conducted, isotope tests performed in March have disproved the “Monk forgery” theory. These tests indicate that the flax used to make the shroud was grown in the Middle East. Additionally, findings suggest that the shroud may have been used to cover Jesus’s body after crucifixion, based on pollen species pointing to an Eastern Mediterranean origin and a crown of thorns consistent with those from Asia Minor and the Levant rather than a Roman origin.
This brings us to August 2024, where even more evidence has emerged. A new X-ray technique used to study the aging of the linen's flax cellulose found that the breakdown of the cellulose matches that of other 2,000-year-old samples, not medieval ones.
This further supports the Shroud of Turin’s 2,000-year-old legitimacy.
@@oscargr_ Can you see the comment I posted? For some reason It is not showing up for me.
@@oscargr_ If it is authentic, I would question how it was made.
How many other shrouds are there with these tail tail signs on them ghostly image of a human being never heard that question being asked
Woof
Jesus was like 3’11
According to the shroud he was 5"11 - 6 ft
@@2011packattackthe shroud is 14.2 feet long. Jesus would’ve been 7 feet tall or just shy of 7ft if the shroud was real. I’d think that would be a pretty relevant characteristic to be mentioned about him yet it never was…. Cause it’s fake.
23 and me?
The awnser is no
In JESUS time men didn't have long hair,the accepted length of hair was from the base of thefingers
To the base of the palm.
1 Corinthians 11:14
“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?”
In
Your ignorance is not to be denied. When it comes to the passage from I Cor. 11:14, one must remember that it was written at least 20 years *after* the death of Jesus. Closer study will reveal that it is simply Paul's _personal opinion_ and certainly *not* a regulation which would have applied to Jesus during his lifetime.
Its jesus if you believe it or not
@@TheRagingNin Too many thousands of tests have been done on the Shroud that point to it being Jesus and none that suggest that it's not. So it takes a real dummy these days to call it a fake.
Pseudo science! You will never determine anything about this cloth. You will never determine if it is real or not. It is a real way of someone making a lot of cash however!😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂
Now put some napisan and wash it.
No
Lol
No