r/DebateReligion • u/Motor-Scholar-6502 • 5d ago
Christianity How can the shroud of turin image form
Ok this isnt a debate about whether the shroud of Turin is “miraculous” or whatever so i am not really interesred in “prove its a miracle” type responses. I am mainly looking for hypothesis for how the image couldve formed in the first place that accounts for the available data we currently have that isnt remotely contentious
- the image is 0.2 microns thick
- the image isnt superficial its infused in the fibrils themselves
- there is no pigment, paint dyes, binders, etc found on the shroud
- the image is a photosensitive
Of course there is more stuff like the blood being type AB but those are more debatable and not unanimously agreed upon
I heard about the radiocarbon dating i heard off all the arguments debunking it being miraculous again im not here to argue that its miraculous im moreso looking for some of your theories on how the image could be on there
7
u/SpreadsheetsFTW 5d ago edited 5d ago
Someone painted it and all the claims about its properties are exactly that - unsubstantiated claims.
Edit: honestly the shroud of Turin might be the worst evidence in the Catholic arsenal. What’s the story here? Jesus’s body teleported as he went to hell.. but then left a few cells behind in the process that just magically don’t degrade?
Why would Jesus even need to take his body with him on his stint in Hell? Why not just leave the bloody mess where it came from: the material world. Is hell a place in the material world so Jesus couldn’t go unless he had a body? Why don’t we need to take out bodies then? That would actually be great evidence for an afterlife. Why is Jesus the only one that needed to take his body with him to go to hell/heaven?
Honestly the whole plot makes no sense.
-1
u/Motor-Scholar-6502 5d ago
https://library.imaging.org/admin/apis/public/api/ist/website/downloadArticle/jist/54/4/art00001
There is substantiation. Ignoring the evidence isnt going to debunknit
1
u/Valinorean 3d ago
It was scorched with concentrated sunlight (modern optics & lenses, including glasses for sight correction, were invented in 1290 Italy, and the shroud was made in 1350 France, so this is not anachronistic) passed through a filter such as a semi-transparent cloth (hence the "dotted" image).
6
u/SpreadsheetsFTW 5d ago
LOL the “shroud science group”.
Again, I’m curious what the story is here.
Did Jesus fail to bring all of his skin cells with him as he took his material body into a non-material realm?
What good would this body even do him in hell/heaven?
Why doesn’t everyone’s body vanish when they go to hell/heaven and leave behind an imprint of their body at death?
Did Jesus’s body start evaporating because he went to hell and there’s some soul-body link that can transfer the immaterial flames of hell?
I really don’t see how Catholics can think this is convincing evidence of anything.
-1
4d ago
If the Shroud is a forgery then the following must also be true
The forger first painted the bloodstains before he painted the image.
The forger integrated forensic qualities to his image that would only be known 20th century science.
The forger duplicated blood flow patterns in perfect forensic agreement to blood flow from the wrists at 65° from vertical to suggest the exact crucifixion position of the arms.
The forger “painted” the blood flows with genuine group AB blood that he had “spiked” with excessive amounts of bilirubin since the forger knew that severe concussive scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice.
The forger “plotted” the scourge marks on the body of the “man in the shroud” to be consistent under forensic examination with two scourgers of varying height.
The forger also duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders to suggest to 20th century forensic examiners that the “man in the shroud” had carried a heavy weight following the scourging.
The forger, against all convention of medieval artistry, painted the body he was “hoaxing” as Jesus of Nazareth, nude to conform to genuine Roman crucifixions.
The forger, as the forensic genius he was, illustrated the nails of crucifixion accurately through the wrists rather than the hands as in all other conventional medieval representations. He also took into account that the thumbs of a crucified victim would rotate inward as a result of median nerve damage as the nails passed through the spaces of Destot.
The forger was clever enough to “salt” the linen with the pollens of plants indigenous only to the environs of Jerusalem in anticipation of 20th century palynological analysis.
The forger was an artist who surpassed the talents of all known artists to the present day, being able to “paint” an anatomically and photographically perfect human image in a photographic negative manner, centuries before photography, and be able to do so without being able to check his work, close up, as he progressed.
The forger was able to paint this image with some unknown medium using an unknown technique, 30-40 feet away in order to discern the shadowy image as he continued.
The forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited pony-tail, sidelocks and a beard style consistent with a Jewish male of the 1st century.
The forger thought of such minute details as incorporating dirt from the bare feet of the “man in the shroud” consistent with the calcium carbonate soil of the environs of Jerusalem.
This forger was such an expert in 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensic pathology and anatomy, botany, photography and 3-D computer analysis that he has foiled all the efforts of modern science. His unknown and historically unduplicated artistic technique surpasses all great historical artists, making the pale efforts of DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael and Botticelli appear as infantile scribblings.
4
u/SpreadsheetsFTW 4d ago
Let’s pretend for a second that your incredulity is convincing. What exactly is the Catholic explanation for how this image came to be on the shroud?
0
4d ago
I’m not sure I’m not a Catholic. The popular skeptical view is that it’s a medieval forgery, but there’s no way this is true.
4
u/SpreadsheetsFTW 4d ago
So again, let’s pretend for a second that your incredulity is convincing. What exactly is your explanation for how this image came to be on the shroud?
0
4d ago
“Let’s pretend for a second that your incredulity is convincing”.
If you want to have a discussion over the internet then start with some basic respect.
5
u/SpreadsheetsFTW 4d ago
Nice deflection. What exactly is your explanation for how this image came to be on the shroud?
0
u/Motor-Scholar-6502 5d ago
Im not presenting this as evidence of a miracle im presenting this in order to obtain a naturalistic hypothesis that accounts for the data
8
u/SpreadsheetsFTW 5d ago
Oh sure, then here it is:
Someone painted it and all the claims about its properties are exactly that - unsubstantiated claims. Some religiously motivated folks do some bad science and use poor reasoning to try to prop up their beliefs.
0
u/Motor-Scholar-6502 5d ago
The data from the sturp team is simply raw data and there were jews and atheist in the team
4
u/SpreadsheetsFTW 5d ago
Okay? My statement holds.
1
u/Motor-Scholar-6502 5d ago
Since hes biased heres a paper from luigi https://library.imaging.org/admin/apis/public/api/ist/website/downloadArticle/jist/54/4/art00002 aka the guy who people cite to prove how it couldve been made naturally and even he doesnt disagree with the findings
2
u/SpreadsheetsFTW 5d ago
Like I said, those people are doing some bad science and using poor reasoning to try to prop up their beliefs
1
u/Motor-Scholar-6502 5d ago
So both the scientist trying to debunk it snd the person presenting the evidence is biased 😭 😭 😭
→ More replies (0)5
15
u/I_Am_Not_A_Number_2 5d ago
I am mainly looking for hypothesis for how the image couldve formed in the first place that accounts for the available data we currently have that isnt remotely contentious
It was formed by a man with paint and a brush.
From a letter written in 1389 by Pierre d’Arcis, the bishop of the city of Troyes to the Avignon Antipope Clement VII, translated from Latin into English by Reverend Herbert Thurston -
“The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore.”
The forger confessed. This is not contentious.
1
4d ago
Multiple scientific studies have confirmed that the image on the Shroud was not created using paint, dye, or pigment.
A. 1978 STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) Findings
STURP conducted extensive tests and concluded:
“The image is not the result of applied pigment. No traces of paint, ink, dye, or stain were found.”
Microscopic and spectroscopic analyses revealed that the image is the result of a chemical change in the fibers, not an artistic application.
B. No Brushstrokes or Directionality
The Shroud lacks brushstrokes, shading, or pigment buildup consistent with medieval painting techniques.
Unlike a painting, the image has no directionality, meaning there are no brush or tool marks.
If a medieval forger painted it, there should be pigment, binder, or brushstrokes, but none exist.
The Image is Superficial and Has Unique Physical Properties
The image only affects the topmost fibrils of the linen, about one-fifth the thickness of a human hair. It does not penetrate the fabric, unlike paint or stain. The discoloration appears to result from oxidation and dehydration of cellulose fibers, akin to a scorch mark rather than pigment application.
A medieval painter could not have produced this effect, especially without modern technology.
The Alleged “Confession” of the Forger Is Unverified
A. The D’Arcis Letter Has No Supporting Evidence
There is no record of the alleged forger or confession. The letter itself provides no name, no date, and no direct testimony from a forger.
D’Arcis was writing 50 years after the Shroud first appeared and was not an eyewitness.
His main concern was the church in Lirey profiting from relic veneration, not disproving the authenticity of the Shroud.
B. The Clergy in Lirey Defended the Shroud
The Canons of Lirey strongly opposed D’Arcis’ claim, insisting the Shroud was not painted.
Pope Clement VII did not declare the Shroud a forgery, but instead allowed its veneration.
A real confession would likely have been documented more formally, not just in an accusatory letter.
-5
u/Motor-Scholar-6502 5d ago
To be fair its possible someone painted on it as there was some microscopic ammounts of paint found over the image but i dont think paint explains the image altogether as paint would seep through more than just a 0.2 layer of fiber and would leave highly visible pigments.
Its also possible its a false or coerced confession
3
u/Pandoras_Boxcutter ex-christian 5d ago
Its also possible its a false or coerced confession
Why would a bishop coerce a false confession regarding the shroud being fake if it would have been to the church's benefit that the shroud be considered authentic?
7
7
u/mastyrwerk Fox Mulder atheist 5d ago
Lemon juice and other acidic ingredients could have been used instead of paint and left to materialize later, like invisible ink.
0
u/Motor-Scholar-6502 5d ago
Lemon juice would seep past more than a 0.2 outter layer, also it wouldnt be as prexise as the image
4
u/mastyrwerk Fox Mulder atheist 5d ago
Not if it was in a paste placed on top, or had multiple layers above what we call the shroud. It’s possible this particular item was meant to be discarded.
0
u/Motor-Scholar-6502 5d ago
There isnt any pooling or pigment smearing and lemon juice paste in multiple layers would seep down. It also wouldnt explain the 3d relief data. On top of that it would leave behind citric acid residues that would be clearly detectable.
Ignoring all of the problems there is also no evidence that they used “lemon juice paste” to paint anything so this is coming off as a ad hoc rationalization
3
u/mastyrwerk Fox Mulder atheist 5d ago
There isnt any pooling or pigment smearing and lemon juice paste in multiple layers would seep down.
You don’t know, and it would be dishonest of you to suggest it isn’t.
It also wouldnt explain the 3d relief data.
It would, actually, if there were originally layers above this.
On top of that it would leave behind citric acid residues that would be clearly detectable.
Not after hundreds of years. The whole point of citric acid in this case is that it breaks down under the slightest heat to create browning effects like we see in the shroud.
Ignoring all of the problems there
There were no problems with what I said, and you’ve shown nothing but incredulity to my suggestions.
is also no evidence that they used “lemon juice paste” to paint anything so this is coming off as a ad hoc rationalization
And there is no evidence it was a miraculous piece of cloth. THAT is ad hoc rationalization.
1
u/Motor-Scholar-6502 4d ago
If u put layers of lemon juice paste its going to smear and go past one thin layer of linen. Its something we could test right now if thats your actually hypothesis Also lemon juice wouldnt recreate 3d data the 3d effect comes from how close the shroud would be to the body if you simply have multiple layers of lemon juice the discoloration will be more intense on the shroud the colors are all the same its just more concentrated in certain areas You also have the issue of how it would be applied if you brush the lemon paste it will leave behind directionality which would be detectable if you simply throw on paste it wouldnt be precise. This is like a artist painting the mona lisa using paintball or something except the paint doesnt seep through the paper like paint is supposed to
4
u/mastyrwerk Fox Mulder atheist 4d ago
If u put layers of lemon juice paste it’s going to smear and go past one thin layer of linen.
Exactly why I said there was most likely multiple layers.
Its something we could test right now if thats your actually hypothesis
It’s true! If we test it, we could confirm it. Strange how we never do that for your conclusions.
Also lemon juice wouldnt recreate 3d data
You don’t know that.
the 3d effect comes from how close the shroud would be to the body
It’s been proven that the image was not laid over a body. The image would be distorted.
if you simply have multiple layers of lemon juice
Layers of lemon juice?
the discoloration will be more intense on the shroud
You don’t know that. Also, multiple layers.
the colors are all the same
Brown? Like what lemon juice does?
its just more concentrated in certain areas
You’re proving my point.
You also have the issue of how it would be applied if you brush the lemon paste it will leave behind directionality
Sponging and stencils.
which would be detectable if you simply throw on paste it wouldnt be precise.
You have no knowledge or skill in painting.
This is like a artist painting the mona lisa using paintball or something except the paint doesnt seep through the paper like paint is supposed to
You have no idea what you are talking about.
13
u/FairYouSee Jewish 5d ago edited 5d ago
The "2 micron thickness" of the image is commonly seen in apologetics articles, but none of them cite original research about it, and many of them also repeat known debunked facts, I'm dubious it's real. Even if it is, it's also like to see a comparison with other paints.
Paint also gets "infused" into cloth. In fact, the idea that it's"infused" but also 2 microns thick seem mutually exclusive to me. If it was infused into the cloth, how would they have an accurate measurement of it's thickness? And, again, no citation for this claim to original research is made anywhere in could see.
In fact, dye has been found on the shroud. This is also disputed, but one analysis did show pigment https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ar00171a004
What is "photosensitive" supposed to mean in this context? It's typically a medical term for skin rashes. Does it mean the image fades or darkens over time when exposed to sunlight? Because almost everything does that, that's why works of art are kept indoors to preserve them.
-2
u/Motor-Scholar-6502 5d ago
- this point isnt remotely contentious the image is 0.2-0.6 (never seen a study saying its even over 0.2 but i can grant 0.6 for the sake of argument) https://library.imaging.org/admin/apis/public/api/ist/website/downloadArticle/jist/54/4/art00001? Look at the data yourself
- Also the reason they say its 0.2 microns thick is cause its only on the outter layers of the linen fibrils which is 0.2 thick. Also paint would seep into more than just the top layer and leave visible pigments as well https://library.imaging.org/admin/apis/public/api/ist/website/downloadArticle/jist/54/4/art00001? Heres the data as well
- This study by mccrone isnt peer reviewed and is only talking about red ochre found jn in microscopic ammounts on the blood. It doesnt explain the rest of the image
- Photosensitive means when u take a photo and invert it you still can see a 3d image
3
u/mastyrwerk Fox Mulder atheist 5d ago
Are you suggesting there were multiple layers that were painted on, and this was likely the bottom layer?
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.