John 20
Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head.
This is the Sudarium. How did you miss this?
The cotton fibres are younger and possibly from repairs this could skew the results. This is case @Giltil has made.
Answers in Genesis does not believe there ever was a burial shroud covering Jesus body, and they base this on Scripture.
Do you disagree with them?
Are you claiming to speak for all Christians 
My point is people who believe the scriptures are overall reliable will incorporate the documented evidence into their thinking.
People who do not have faith in the reliability of the bible will not incorporate the documented evidence into their thinking.
Looking at the gospel of John there is only the mention of linen strips however a burial shroud is revealed in the gospel of Mathew.
Mathew 25: 59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.
No, I’m not speaking for all Christians. I’m speaking for myself as a Christian. “Not all Christians” does not mean “no Christians.” Unfortunately, you’ve shown that there are Christians who fall for these unevidenced claims about the Shroud of Turin.
That Answers in Genesis does not consider scriptures to be reliable is new information to me. Can you substantiate that claim further?
From AiG:
While scholars go back and forth about the reliability of carbon-dating testing that might offer a date for the shroud and determine its authenticity, the most serious argument against the cloth’s genuineness comes from the most reliable of sources: the Bible. 2
It is clear in the New Testament (viz., the book of John) that multiple pieces of cloth were used in burying Christ, not just one large sheet like the Shroud of Turin (John 19:40). In addition to that verse, the Scripture states in the very next chapter that Jesus was bound with linen strips (plural), not wrapped or cloaked with a single cloth (John 20:6). Lest there be any doubt about singular vs. plural cloths, John 20:7 declares that there was a piece of cloth wrapped around Christ’s head; the Shroud, however, is a 14-foot-long sheet that covered an entire body.
Many well-intentioned Christians like to look for “facts” that can prove that the Bible is true. Instead, their first instinct should be to interpret evidence against what God’s Word says.
Hi Faizal
The AIG argument leaves out Mathew 60 which with 59 says:
Mathew 25: 59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away.
This clearly implies IMO that a single cloth was used by Joseph to wrap Jesus body and place the body in the tomb. I personally find AIG’s explanation strange and not clearly looking at the documented evidence.
Here is a similar description from Luke’s gospel. Luke 23
50 Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, 51 who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea, and he himself was waiting for the kingdom of God. 52 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body. 53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. 54 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.
and
55 The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. 56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.
and Luke 24
24 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus
What un evidenced claims? Have studied this relic or are you shooting from the hip?
None of those passages from Matthew specify that it was a single long piece of cloth. The passages from John cited by AiG are at least as specific in saying it was multiple pieces of linen, which just makes sense from a practical standpoint (though not from the standpoint of creating a fake relic designed to duple people.)
Anyway, the point is that your claim that all people who consider Scripture to be reliable will agree with you is clearly false. AiG is based on the premise that “God’s Word” is the final authority on all matters, and they reject the authenticity of the “shroud” on that basis alone.
How do you know the cotton fibres are younger than the rest of the Shroud? Which fibres exactly have you or anybody else tested to verify that they are, as a matter of fact, older than the cotton ones, let alone old enough to have possibly been the burial cloth of anybody in the early first century (let alone Jesus, specifically)?
And no. Giltil did not “make a case”. He made a claim, based, as all of your lot’s claims are, on bugger-all. An excuse is what it was, on which to ignore the single strongest piece of evidence neither of you have anything substantive to actually present against.
With all due respect (how ever little that is at this point), where do you of all people get the nerve to say others – including your brothers in faith at that – are ignoring the evidence, when you are literally making utterly baseless excuses on which to dismiss available data, whilst having zilch to present that would actually conflict with it?
This is true but it is not my claim.
Do you take the documented claims in the bible to be useful evidence?
I see, so you deny something you claimed in your own words. OK, then, not sure what to do with that.
Not regarding the issue of whether a piece of cloth we know to be at most about 750 years old could have been used to wrap the body of a guy who died 2000 years ago, no. Not in the least useful.
These are my words.
Those who believe in a created universe and the authenticity of the bible are going to see more validating evidence than those who don’t.
They can see more validating documented evidence but still disagree.
How about regarding the claim that the tomb was empty.
Here is a paper with a hypothesis of why the carbon dating came out how it did.
We are not lacking a hypothesis on how the carbon date came out as it did. With regards to the date, what is lacking is any data-based reasons to suspect that this specific sheet of linen has actually a different age than that returned by the carbon dating, let alone specifically something like 2000 years.
A bit of an irrelevancy, given the topic of discussion is whether a specific thirteenth or fourteenth century linen cloth could possibly ever have been inside a tomb at a time before it even existed, no?
This is what the paper tries to explain.
OK, my bad.
Huh? I’m pretty sure AiG believes the tomb was empty. What do you think that Bible story has to do with whether this particular piece of cloth was used to wrap Jesus’s body, regardless of whether the tomb was found empty?
Form its abstract:
The neutron absorption hypothesis proposes that neutrons emitted from the body were absorbed in nitrogen in the cloth to form new C-14 in the fibers, thus shifting the carbon date forward.
You couldn’t make this stuff up. Well, actually, I guess someone did.
My thought is if you believe that the tomb was empty due to the resurrection of Jesus then the burial cloth being real is easier to believe. AIG has their reason for doubting based on their interpretation of scripture. Their interpretation seems faulty to me.
Really? Where? Which part of the paper presents experimental data that indicates that the Shroud of Turin is anywhere near old enough to have been the burial cloth of anybody who died in the 30’s AD?
The existence of a burial cloth is not what’s in dispute here. The Shroud of Turin being it is.
