Christian Icons thread - Part I. The Shroud of Turin.

[Rik Meleet]

I'm going to start a series of threads the coming time on Christian Icons (like the Turin Shroud, Arc of the Covenant etc.) on which people have several opinions.

The Shroud of Turin

Wiki - Link.

Some claim this is the shroud that Jesus was buried in. Others say it is a clever hoax. Some think it is a shroud, but not that of Jesus, just a depiction of a man. Some claim it is Medeival, some say it is of biblical times, others say it is Renaisance.

But I want to know what you think, so:

What do you think the Shroud of Turin is ?
Please back up your statements and explain why.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I think the Shroud of Turin has too much of a cult following for it to be wise for me to venture an opinion.

Why should it matter to me?

 

[Abaddon]

a fun forgery.

 

[Yoda Power]

I think most relics in the world are just hoaks.

 

[bhsup]

I don't know positively what it is, but if I remember correctly pretty much most of the evidence and testing points to the middle ages as the time of its 'creation'. If it is indeed a forgery, hats off the the artist because it's pretty brilliant.

On the topic of icons in general, I really don't care about them one way or another from a religious standpoint. They're pretty meaningless compared to the living God.

 

[Yeeek]

Living God?

 

[Rik Meleet]

I don't know positively what it is, but if I remember correctly pretty much most of the evidence and testing points to the middle ages as the time of its 'creation'. If it is indeed a forgery, hats off the the artist because it's pretty brilliant.

On the topic of icons in general, I really don't care about them one way or another from a religious standpoint. They're pretty meaningless compared to the living God.

Jesus is an Icon.

 

[bhsup]

Jesus is an Icon.

Hrm, yeah in one sense of the word he is. I was thinking more along the lines of what I thought you were going to start making threads about. The shroud, the bones of <insert saint here>, splinter of the true cross, the spear of Longinus (spelling?), and so forth.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Even if it is not a forgery what is it supposed to be? An imprint of Jesus on cloth?

 

[bhsup]

That's what a lot of folks believe. One explanation put forth is that the energy released during the resurrection of Christ left the imprint upon the material.

 

[7ronin]

I believe that the shroud is a medieval forgery. Primarily, because of the carbon dating that was done in the 1980's which showed a 13th-14th century origin. Of course, the shroud adherents claim that the testing was improperly performed.

 

[Che Guava]

Something just doen't seem right about it to me. Somehow he looks a little too much like medieval depictions of Christ. I always figured if we ever did find a real representation of Jesus, he would look more...semetic?

 

[Rik Meleet]

Che: what would your conclusion from that?

If it is perfect; people will distrust if because it is too perfect. If it doesn't look the way we expect it too look, people distrust it for that reason.

 

[Birdjaguar]

A fabulous forgery we cannot, with all our technology, yet explain or the true image of Jesus. Either way it is an awesome mystery.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The head and body were clearly done seperately by different artists. The body isnt proportioned right. The chest area wasnt executed that well, but in particular, the hands are a dead giveaway. Theyre all wrong, in size and shape. Looks pretty obvious to me that the shroud was a project involving more than one person, maybe over an extended period of time. I think somebody did the face, and someone else maybe many years later, added the body.

 

[Shaihulud]

I heard it say that it was done by Leonardo da Vinci, using a primitive version of photochromatic material to achieve that strange effect. It was a documentary and a few years ago.

 

[Che Guava]

everything that follows is crazy hearsay:

Despite all he crazy conspiracy theories surrounding christianity, the only one that I ever heard that made sense to me was about the image of christ. I don't have any links or literature to support it now, but basically the story was told to me like this:

Introducing christianity to europe was something of an ordeal because of the long tradition of pagan rites and rituals. As a way of compromising, the church ended up adopting a lot of pagan traditions and fitting them into christian mold. One aspect of the pagan beleifs is that of visually appealing idols, something you don't find so much in the abrahamic tradition (which is why the other two abrahamic religions that stayed closer to the middle east, judaism and islam, rarely depict thier prophets in images), so the church began commisioning paintings, statues, murals etc of the life of christ. When it came down to choosing the 'look' of christ, it was decided that a european face would be used to ensure that these newly converted pagans would take christ on as thier own. So the actual christ would have probably looked like the semetic ethiopians of today, and not like that shown on the shroud.

ok, now that I'm done talking out my ass, people who know what they're talking about can set me straight

 

[Birdjaguar]

Lots of reasons why it is a fake, but none that expalin how the image was created.

 

[classical_hero]

I really do not understand why some people are so into all this icon business. It is better if someone is Christian to be looking to God, not in these symbols. It is like being married and prefering to look at the photo of your spouse and not bothering to even be with the person even though you have the real thing.

 

[Shaihulud]

It is better if someone is Christian to be looking to God, not in these symbols.

People are creatures of small faith, they sometimes need abit of justification and miracles to keep from being disillusioned.