Posted: Mar 10, 2016 1:19 pm
by Animavore
Oeditor wrote:It's particularly ridiculous when people will believe in Jesus' coffin, the Turin shroud and thousands of pieces of the "true cross" despite dating, even though their original texts make no mention of the provenance of such relics. You'd think it would be obvious that these claims had simply been made-up. Oh...

The shroud of Turin is a known fake and always was, even in its own time.

In 1988 three of the best radiocarbon dating labs in the world tested three pieces of the so-called "Shroud". Their results were that the fabric of the "Shroud" dates to AD 1262-1384 with 95% confidence. This proves the "Shroud" is a Medieval fake and this fits with all the other evidence we have about the "Shroud's" origins:

1. It first appears being exhibited by a French noble family, the de Charnys, in 1353.

2. Its authenticity was immediately challenged by the local bishop, Henri de Poitiers, who found the artist who had faked it. The bishop ordered the de Charnys to stop exhibiting the Shroud.

3. In 1389 the de Charny's try exhibiting the Shroud again. The new bishop of Troyes, Pierre D'Arcis, appeals to Pope Clement VII. Despite being a relative of the de Charnys, the Pope can't argue with the evidence that the Shroud is a fake and orders his relatives to exhibit the Shroud as a representation of the "true" Shroud and not the real thing.

4. The Shroud later passed over to the Savoy family in Italy and the fact that it was a fake was forgotten - the correspondence between Pope Clement and Bishop Pierre D'Arcis was not rediscovered until the Nineteenth Century, by which time the Shroud was being venerated as the real thing by millions.

cont. ... tml#p90885

People really do just believe regardless.