The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?


These photos can speak for themselves and require no comment on my part. The participants on this thread can decide for themselves whether or not they bear any similarity without the condescending advice of a skeptic that doesn’t even believe that Jesus could walk on water.


The two images, other than having a superficial similarity to Christ, are quite disimilar. The hair and beard is braided in the Mandylion Icon, but not in that artist depiction of the Shroud. The ears are present in the Mandylion, but not in that painting. All points that Hugh Farey made, and which you don’t engage in.

I don’t think a superficial similarity is sufficient to establish that the Shroud of Turin, which appears first in the 14th Century was the cause of icons around the world.

More than likely it appears to be the other way around. With the rich tradition of depictions of Christ having this mutual gheist and familiarity. If they were based on an actual relic why weren’t the details far more unified in style?

I’d also say that you should be comparing the Mandylion to the Shroud itself, not to an artist depiction, otherwise you risk engaging in the cherry picking fallacy, where you select the evidence that best suit your case. A lot of artistic depictions and renditions of the image of the shroud have been made.

If I were to compare it to any icon of fame it would be the Pantocrator, though the face on the shroud is more box like and square whereas the face of the Pantocrator is more angular and refined. The hair styles are more similiar, even if significant differences remain.

I think Hugh Farey has treated you extraordinarily gracefully considering that you’ve accused him of lying, of being a closet denier of the faith, a bahaist, associated him with the number 666, and a lot of gross misconduct. And of anyone in general who criticises your points to be part of a ‘nefarious bahai plot’, or sock-puppets of his account.

If you’d cut that out, and stop being so hyperbolic about various of your claims I think you’d be treated a lot better.

Hugh Farey has at no point denied that Jesus could perform miracle, or that He could supernaturally walk on water. Whether he believed Jesus in matter of fact did so, is a private belief he is quite allowed to hold.

Now can we get away from this snide and slander from your side? This is the way a person who has no argument acts if they’re childish. I’d much rather see you answers to his questions, or just humbly bow out if you can’t do anything more than repeat yourself.


Indeed so. Does anybody think that the one is a “spitting image” of the other? (By whatever definition they choose of ‘spitting image’)


I see similarities between the two.

It looks to me that one is a stylized painting of the other.


Fair enough. I also see similarities. They’re both front facing men with beards. May I ask you to Google “St Artemius”? If one were really looking for a spitting image of the 11th century painting of the Mandylion, I think St Artemius looks a lot more like it than the Shroud. But I’m open to comments. Anybody else?


Is is possible that this icon:

could have been derived from this image?


Clearly not.


Of course the skeptic who has shown that he has an agenda that the Shroud is not ancient doesn’t think that any Mandylion icon could have been painted using the Shroud’s facial image as a model.
His agenda is incorrect, and I believe that his opinion is worthless.


But it is “clearly not” possible that this famous icon was based on the Shroud’s facial Image? That unsupported statement is nothing more than silly conjecture by a skeptic.


The similarities here are much more striking.


There is a superficial similarity. They both look similar to the artistic expressions of Christ. However to say that all expressions of Christ are identical, or even just uniform in appearance is a bit unfair. There’s many opinions as to what kind of beard he had, his hair. Whether his face was angular or square.

That the shroud has such a similarity isn’t much of an argument for its authenticity. It seems much more likely given its 14th Century dating that it is based upon icons, or a relief statue from its own time.


The idea that the carbon fourteen results show a 14th Century dating for the Shroud has been disproven.
Pia’s astounding photos of 1898 proven that the Shroud was authentic, a conclusion supported by the 1978 STURP investigation. Therefore, the 1988 C-14 data could only have been interpreted as showing a date if that date result had been 2000 years old. Since the C-14 data did not show that date, this data must necessarily be interpreted as the result of an event. That event, of course, was the movement of Jesus’ corpse out of this world and into another dimension.


This icon is known to have been based on the Image of Edessa. The question is, Could it have been based on the facial image that we see on the Shroud? That does seem to be the case as sufficient similarity exists to support that hypothesis.


My “silly conjecture” that the Mandylion/Image of Edessa was not the Shroud is based, among other things, on seven specific differences between the two which are enumerated twice among the comments above. Nobody has seen fit to comment on them, but they explain in precise detail why the two pictures are different. To claim there is “sufficient similarity” is in my view unjustified.

The Sinai Icon reproduced above is not a “replication of the Image of Edessa”, and I’m certain Undead_rat knows that, so I’m not sure why he says it is. Perhaps he’ll explain.


First of all these of the words “proven” and “disproven” really don’t belong in a discussion like this, and aren’t used by the STURP team, or historians in general, or scientists in general. In science, or any empirical based investigation there is nothing that can ever rise to the level of “proof”

It is impossible for any evidence to rise the credibility of a claim to 100%, in which no alternative to the conclusion could ever be considered.

Instead the question is what sort of explanation is more reasonable, or better fitting with the evidence.

The STURP investigation does say that they don’t consider a painting, but they don’t say its authentic, has been proven authentic, or anything like that. They say specifically that the image “encodes” 3D information.

The Pia photo is just that, a photo negative of the Shroud. In that image the details are more pronounced because its easier for the human eye to discern details that are light in color against a black background, than vice versa.

I have asked you before how the Pia photo is supposed to demonstrate that the shroud is an authentic relic, and you haven’t responded to this point, other than reasserting that you consider the Pia photo just that.

It is not a dogma of that Church, nor Tradition, that Christ’s body “moved out of this world and into another dimension.” We have no descriptions in Tradition at all about what ocured during those moments.

Even if Christ’s body disappeared and reappeared somewhere else, there is furthermore no reason to presume that His body would give off radiation. Or that if it gave of radiation that it would be of the right type to cause that image.

It seems to be a very complex hypothesis imported in order to justify a doubt about the Shroud being dated to the 14th Century.

I’d go at it in another direction. We have good reasons to think that the 14th Century dating is correct for all the reasons that have been listed in this thread. Its from the cloth itself, not a repair, it wasn’t heavily contaminated, and we know of no reliable way that its age could be altered in a proper way and yet leave the image in the way the Shroud has it.

The Pia photo explains to me then only something about the nature of the Shroud, giving clues as to how it was physically made.


Both the Pia photos, and the Enrie photos, and many subsequent photos, were taken using methods which substantially enhanced the contrast between the image and the cloth. It is interesting to feed any of the negatives of these photos into photo imaging software and derive the positives using an ‘invert’ function. The results are quite a shock, as they look nothing like the Shroud at all in intensity, colour or contrast. This I believe is the reason that the positive photos, particularly in close-up, are seldom if ever published.


I took this picture myself, many years ago.


Pia’s astounding photos were sufficient evidence for Pope Pius XI to sign off on the Shroud, and they are good enough for me. Of course Catholics are not required to believe that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus or that His image on it is miraculous. The real mystery is why anyone who purports to be Catholic would spend a great deal of time and money trying to prove that the Image on the Shroud cannot be of miraculous origin. Only the Bahai’ Faith is threatened by this proposition, so I stand by what I have said before. I believe that there is an agenda being promulgated on this forum, and I don’t buy the denials.


I am a friend of the son of the forensic pathologist who did the first detailed study of the Shroud. He (the son) was also the first photographer to take detailed color photographs of the Shroud. I have studied the Shroud for over thirty years. I am a scientist (actually an aerospace engineer) and I have great respect for the C14 test. However, the historical significance of the image on the Shroud, the way it affected the “non painted by hand” icons through history and many other areas of forensic interest make me believe that there is a fair probability (over 50%) that the Shroud is genuine. I do not feel sanguine against non-authenticists, because, clearly, the issue is not a slam dunk. In my personal opinion, after many years of careful study of all available literature in Italian, English and Spanish, I tend towards the authenticity of the Shroud.


Belief is of primary concern, proof is only a secondary issue. I believe!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit