r/europe • u/JackRogers3 • 9h ago
News Newly discovered document adds evidence that Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' crucifixion shroud
https://www.euronews.com/culture/2025/08/29/newly-discovered-document-adds-evidence-that-shroud-of-turin-is-not-jesus-crucifixion-shro47
u/berejser These Islands 9h ago
Was that really still in doubt?
12
u/Patient_Moment_4786 France 8h ago
For a lot of people : yes, unfortunately.
5
6
u/berejser These Islands 8h ago
Are they illiterate or something?
8
4
u/Patient_Moment_4786 France 8h ago
Probably religious people who want to believe it's true.
I honnestly don't know
-3
9
u/trele-morele 5h ago
Most, if not all, religious relics are fakes.
5
u/CriticalBath2367 United Kingdom 4h ago
Does this mean these toenail clippings i bought from a market in Jerusalem, did not belong to John the Baptist?
20
u/GreenEyeOfADemon 🇮🇹 - EUROPE ENDS IN LUHANSK! 🇺🇦 Слава Україні!🇺🇦 9h ago
Did they find the label "Made in China" ?
4
8
u/Jindujun Sweden 8h ago
The fact that it is about 1300 years younger than the supposed time that jesus lived should tell you that.
Oh and all the relics are bullshit. You could argue the unique relics but many of them have multiple copies and that just doesnt happen.
2
u/Otsde-St-9929 4h ago
The dated carbon was 1300 younger. Some people thing that us younger carbon than the original
1
u/TheDuckFarm 1h ago edited 1h ago
Yeah, the argument is that they were supposed to sample 4 different areas, instead they sampled one area 4 times and that section had fire damage that messed up the sample.
What they should do is sample it again according the original specs to either confirm or debunk the first findings.
1
u/Otsde-St-9929 1h ago
It is interesting. I wish I knew enough about fabric to know how reliable that would be
2
3
2
u/bediaxenciJenD81gEEx 7h ago
Right but it's all made up so who cares. I think Christians should just decide that it is real and move on
2
u/ChildofSkoll Éireannaigh Londain 6h ago
The one thing I’ve never gotten over is people not realising that if a shroud was draped on a body and stained by its skin it wouldn’t come out flat
2
u/treebeard87_vn 9h ago
I don't think it existed at the time of Jesus, but come on, 14th century theologian Nicole Oresme saying so should not be considered "evidence". But this Bishop was a remarkable person, that is for sure.
0
u/atchijov 9h ago
Do you need any evidence that physical object has nothing to do with fairy tale character?
17
u/Petrarca_e_grappa Italy 7h ago edited 5h ago
He is an historical figure. He surely existed. Then you can believe he is the son of God or not, but Jesus was a human being that lived during the reign of Augustus and Tiberius. Saying he didn’t exist is just as stupid as saying Fredrick the 2nd (holy roman emperor) was not real.
13
u/Kradara_ 8h ago edited 7h ago
Jesus of Nazareth the person actually did exist though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically.[g]
-8
u/HenryTheWho Slovakia 8h ago
Outside of bible, there is very little evidence to support that claim
12
u/Otsde-St-9929 8h ago
But there is some evidence though and to have two independent sources at all is very unusual
1
u/HenryTheWho Slovakia 7h ago
If you are referring to Flavius(born 37AD) and Tacitus(born 52AD) than those could be hardly considered a primary source if they are describing events that supposedly happened generation or two before they were even born
0
u/Otsde-St-9929 4h ago
Perhaps I am being sloppy with terms but I think the sources are quite good quality for someone so long ago.
-1
u/Larkson9999 7h ago
The only "proof" is that someone named Jesus appeared in Roman execution records. All else are simply third or fourth hand assertions dating back to around fifty years after Jesus supposedly died.
All accounts of any words, followers, and actions are more dubious than just an agreement that someone named Jesus existed.
2
u/TheDuckFarm 1h ago
Socrates left no writings of his own. We only know of him through the writings of his students.
There are more independent sources about Jesus than Socrates and I absolutely believe that Socrates was a real person.
-6
u/ChampionshipOk5046 8h ago
As much as Gandalf
13
u/Kradara_ 8h ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically.[g]
1
u/AmonMetalHead 4h ago
Sure, they agree a person with that name existed and was killed, that doesn't mean he walked around performing miracles or was the messiah
2
-9
u/ChampionshipOk5046 8h ago
I believe in Gandalf
And Gandalf followers aren't hatefilled c*nts
13
u/Kradara_ 8h ago
Does he have historical evidence of existing?
-7
u/ChampionshipOk5046 7h ago
There's no proof of Jesus, but let alone the ridiculous magic he performed, and which ruins your credibility, and and you know it.
I get "belief", and I'm not wasting my time arguing lol. JFC!
13
u/Kradara_ 7h ago
Except there is proof..? lol. The Wikipedia article has an entire section dedicated to it. It’s the Historical Views section. Knock yourself out.
I’m not saying that religious claims of miracles are real, what I am saying is that it’s an undisputed fact that a person called Jesus did exist in 1st century Palestine.
-4
u/gehenna0451 Germany 7h ago
It’s the Historical Views section. Knock yourself out.
The reason historians are quite reluctant to question the historicity of Jesus is because there's a lot of assumed historical figures who you'd have to question by the same standards, not because there's a lot of compelling evidence by modern empirical standards.
All the evidence there is outside of the gospels are Josephus and Tacitus. If you consider what we in the 21st century consider to be fool-proof evidence for an event that's hardly it
2
u/sub_WHISTLE 3h ago
We're talking about people who lived 2000 years ago. Most people from that time period are generally only known from a few text references. Jesus is referenced by near-first hand accounts, by assumed credible historians. If that isn't enough evidence, then what is? Why would we assume they lied?
→ More replies (0)2
u/cardboardunderwear 5h ago
By this comment your argument is not based on evidence.. It's just based your dogma and beliefs....kinda like those of the folks you apparently despise.
0
1
1
1
u/Adorable-Database187 The Netherlands 2h ago
Ok thats nice, but why bother mixing science and religion, just enjoy the comfort it brings and stop shoving it down people's throats.
1
u/marsforthemuses 7h ago
I think it was a label that said "Made in Bangladesh". They were checking whether it could be tumble dried.
-6
u/Otsde-St-9929 8h ago
Id love to know how it was made. I dont know how they had this technology in the 12th cen
7
u/vandrag Ireland 7h ago
By all accounts it was an art project. They prepped a statue with paint and varnishes and laid the shroud over it.
Its why the imprint is not anatomically correct for the human body and why the "blood" pools in odd ways.
In the middle ages relic forgery was big business. Its why there's like 20 Jesus foreskins preserved in churches around the world.
1
u/Otsde-St-9929 4h ago
The fabric is not painted though. The impression is something else. There is no layer of paint.
1
u/vandrag Ireland 4h ago
That's what I said. It's printed, maybe I should have said ink instead of paint. Here's an article that talks about how they did it. https://archaeologymag.com/2025/08/shroud-of-turin-image-came-from-sculpture/
1
u/Otsde-St-9929 4h ago
Thanks. That link from Archaeometry gives an idea of the object it shows, but nothing on what the image is. The image on the fibres is not ink or paint. No one has been able to replicated it. Thats the mystery of it.
1
148
u/AdMean6001 8h ago
Honestly, who believed that? It was debunked by science decades ago. Since 1988, we have known that it dates back to the 13th or 14th century... even the bishop of Turin at the time accepted the findings.