From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15704471/shroud-turin-jerusalem-pollen-discovery.html

I must admit to having mixed feelings about this relic. There are
serious unanswered questions about the shroud, with C14 dating appearing
to point to the mediaeval period for its production. On the other hand
there are evidences in its favour, as outlined in the article referenced above. Most of all, there is the fact that the image on the shroud is remarkable for its apparent accuracy in depicting a man crucified after scourging, and no one has yet explained how the image was produced so
that it appears to be a negative image (anyone remember photographic
negatives from back in the day when cameras used film?)

So part of me wants the shroud to be what is claimed about it - the
burial cloth of Jesus bearing miraculous evidence of His divinity, but
another part of me says that these niggling doubts probably point to
some form of forgery.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 04/04/2026 05:04, Kendall K. Down wrote:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15704471/shroud-turin- jerusalem-pollen-discovery.html

I must admit to having mixed feelings about this relic. There are
serious unanswered questions about the shroud, with C14 dating appearing
to point to the mediaeval period for its production. On the other hand
there are evidences in its favour, as outlined in the article referenced above. Most of all, there is the fact that the image on the shroud is remarkable for its apparent accuracy in depicting a man crucified after scourging, and no one has yet explained how the image was produced so
that it appears to be a negative image (anyone remember photographic negatives from back in the day when cameras used film?)

So part of me wants the shroud to be what is claimed about it - the
burial cloth of Jesus bearing miraculous evidence of His divinity, but another part of me says that these niggling doubts probably point to
some form of forgery.

Is there a detailed history showing its journey from Jerusalem to Turin
over a period of 1300 years?







--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 04/04/2026 11:06, GB wrote:

Is there a detailed history showing its journey from Jerusalem to Turin
over a period of 1300 years?

I think the answer is "No", but you would need to research the Shroud
material for a definitive answer.

As I noted in my original post, there were legitimate questions and
doubts about the Shroud. On the other hand, I do not know of any other instance of a negative image from the mediaeval period, particularly one
that appears to be produced without paint or dye. I was particularly
struck when I first read about the Shroud by the fact that at a time
when other art uniformly showed Jesus with nails through the palms of
His hands, the Shroud appears to show undamaged hands but wounds in the
wrist, which is now agreed to be a more likely location for the nails of crucifixion.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 04/04/2026 05:04, Kendall K. Down wrote:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15704471/shroud-turin- jerusalem-pollen-discovery.html

I must admit to having mixed feelings about this relic. There are
serious unanswered questions about the shroud, with C14 dating appearing
to point to the mediaeval period for its production. On the other hand
there are evidences in its favour, as outlined in the article referenced above. Most of all, there is the fact that the image on the shroud is remarkable for its apparent accuracy in depicting a man crucified after scourging, and no one has yet explained how the image was produced so
that it appears to be a negative image (anyone remember photographic negatives from back in the day when cameras used film?)

So part of me wants the shroud to be what is claimed about it - the
burial cloth of Jesus bearing miraculous evidence of His divinity, but another part of me says that these niggling doubts probably point to
some form of forgery.

Well it's certainly shrouded in mystery - pun intended, but it's widely beleieved to be a fake, dated between 1260 and 1390. Three independent
labs studied it and dismissed it being the genuine article, according to
a publication called Nature.

A plausible explanation for the negative image is that it was wrapped
round a sculpture of Christ.



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 05/04/2026 18:45, John wrote:

Well it's certainly shrouded in mystery - pun intended, but it's widely beleieved to be a fake, dated between 1260 and 1390. Three independent
labs studied it and dismissed it being the genuine article, according to
a publication called Nature.

Indeed.

A plausible explanation for the negative image is that it was wrapped
round a sculpture of Christ.

Really? So if I wrap a hankie around one of my Lilliput Lane figures and
leave it for the weekend, I'll get a negative image imprinted on the
cloth? I'm uncertain of the exact chemical process that would be
responsible; perhaps you can enlighten me?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 06/04/2026 05:24, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 05/04/2026 18:45, John wrote:

Well it's certainly shrouded in mystery - pun intended, but it's
widely beleieved to be a fake, dated between 1260 and 1390. Three
independent labs studied it and dismissed it being the genuine
article, according to a publication called Nature.

Indeed.

A plausible explanation for the negative image is that it was wrapped
round a sculpture of Christ.

Really? So if I wrap a hankie around one of my Lilliput Lane figures and leave it for the weekend, I'll get a negative image imprinted on the
cloth? I'm uncertain of the exact chemical process that would be responsible; perhaps you can enlighten me?

I don't know what Lilliput Lane figures are, but can I check whether
they are made of silver? If so, your experiment might work. :)

It's possible that there was never any intention to deceive, and the
shroud may have been created by accident. Someone may have unwrapped a
statue and left the cloth on a shelf for someone else to find, years later.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 06/04/2026 11:58, GB wrote:

I don't know what Lilliput Lane figures are, but can I check whether
they are made of silver? If so, your experiment might work. :)

Dear oh me! Where have you been the last few years? Lilliput Lane was a
line of small replica buildings made of clay. We bought a dozen or so of buildings that reminded us of places where we had lived but the full
catelogue must have run into hundreds.

No, not made of silver. I had not previously heard of any connection
between silver and the Turin Shroud, nor can I think of any way in which
a silver object could produce the negative image of the Shroud without
leaving some trace on the cloth. If you have ever cleaned any silver you
will know that blackness that gets on the cloth - the Shroud is not
black - and that is from rubbing, not just from contact.

It's possible that there was never any intention to deceive, and the
shroud may have been created by accident. Someone may have unwrapped a statue and left the cloth on a shelf for someone else to find, years later.

Certainly it is possible that the image was produced accidentally. I
must admit that I am sceptical about claims that it was produced by the "energy" of the resurrection.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

In article <10qq2jo$dhbl$1@dont-email.me>,
Kendall K. Down <kendallkdown@googlemail.com> wrote:

So part of me wants the shroud to be what is claimed about it - the
burial cloth of Jesus bearing miraculous evidence of His divinity, but another part of me says that these niggling doubts probably point to
some form of forgery.

Well.
1) Who went back into the tomb to recover the burial cloth, and why?

2) Who kept in and where?

3) The most recent evidence suggests that it is not old enough, or even
from the right area.

https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/shroud-of-turin-claimed-to-be-jesus-burial-cloth-contaminated-with-carrot-and-red-coral-dna

The suggestion about it being laid over a Sculpture comes from a link
within this document.
--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2