The Shroud Of Turin

The 'Shroud of Turin' is a cloth that has been said to be the proof that people have needed to satisfy themselves that Jesus was a real person.  The cloth has the stains that resemble crucifixion and the mark of a figure with a face that has been hailed to be the face of Jesus.   It has become world famous, and many want to believe that it is proof that Jesus existed.  

Its photograph was first displayed in 1898 and has been studied widely.  It has made cover news, and it has been studied by scholars ever since.  However not everyone has been happy with the claim made on the cloth, and some say it is a hoax -  one large enough to push the believe of Jesus further away.


What was wrong with the shroud?  When it was carbon dated in 1978 the cloth was found to have been made after the time of Jesus.  This has been pushed away as people have continued to make claims that the shroud was real.  However with the carbon dating being discovered to have been during the Middle Ages between 1260 – 1390 AD the shroud has been declared as the ultimate hoax.

It has been said that the shroud was the cloth of a crucified man who was crucified in a small town called Lirey.  This town was in possession of a French knight named Geoffroi de Charny.  The shroud was stored in a chapel in Chambery, and in 1532 a harsh church fire damaged the item.  Nuns tried to patch the shroud, however they could only do so much.  The shroud was badly damaged, and it was ordered to be stored in a church in Turin, where it was kept for a vast duration of years.  The shroud was patched up two more times in 1694 and 1868.  In 1983 the item was given to the Holy See, and it was safely stored  In 1997 a church fire damaged the shroud again, and in 2002 the item was repaired once more.  In 2010 the shroud was put on public display and two million people visited the shroud.

However just because people visited the shroud does not make it more authentic.  The people who have studied it at the Vatacan have claimed that it 'represents the image if Jesus', but they have not revealed if they believe it is authentic.  Instead they use the shroud to remember Jesus, and not to  validate his life.


So why would this shroud be so like Jesus's death shroud?  Why was this figure crucified?  There is a theory that figure crucified was being crucified for religious/pagan purposes.  He had not been accused of a crime, he was just enacting the death of Christ.  This may be quite a bit of a shock to realise that some pagans used to enact such a horrible death at such an accurate length -  this man had died for the cause on the day, it had been enacted, however he himself had not been guilty of the crimes Christ had been found guilty of.  This man had been used as a tool.  He was the actor brought in to portray Christ in performance.  He was a figure of ritual, and he proved how far people went when they were in the mood for worship.

So why would such a shroud be kept in the church and so painstakingly mended if the shroud were not historically important?  The answer is that it was important.  The man who had been killed was not only NOT Christ, he was killed to RESEMBLE Christ.  Hence he was the living relic of Christ.  Some have gone so far as to suggest that the man may have been 'like Christ', whilst knowing he 'was not Christ'.  To have him crucified in such a ritual he was discovered as having been guilty of one crime -  he was God's son, he and Jesus had the same father.

Many would have claimed against this -  however it takes only a little thought to see the bigger picture.  If this man was in fact the son of the same figure who had given Mary her child, then it would prove that 'God was still around'.  If this man who had been crucified was like Jesus but living in a different era, then it would prove that 'God had been born again and this son was his next son who was his likeness in spirit and not in form'.  If this was Jesus's brother then it would prove to the world that 'Jesus's father, (who was considered God), still wondered the world and that this was his son.  So when this man died it was a big deal, it proved that the Holy was still alive and that the people knew it.  Of course the priests were going to look after the shroud -  it had the same blood-link as Jesus -  the figure who was the mainstream of their faith; it had God's blood-line; it was a big deal!


The only hindrance on this theory that the man being crucified was Jesus's younger brother and God's newest son, would be if the figure being crucified was older then Jesus.  That would make him Jesus's older brother, and prove that Jesus's father had been around before he had made Jesus.  

So who could this man have been?  Many state that the man and the blood that belonged to him was not only not Jesus, it was that of a man of greatness.  It was Alexander the Great's body, and he was the figure who had been crucified.  Does this mean God was his father Philip?  Perhaps, unless Zeus had interfered with Alexander's birth making him not only illegitimate to Philip's throne but the child of a wanderer who was going to one day going to be called God as Mary offered oath that he had given her her son Jesus.

This would be quite a blood-line Jesus being directly related to Alexander and his real father.  It would open the books and the minds, and it would give a very different blood-line which no follower would have ever have dreamed.  If it were something that the Vatican could approve then it  could even link Churches with Ancient Greek history -  Alexander being the start of the son's of God, and Jesus being the last.

However yet again this kind of  discovery would most likely be up to the believer to believe.  There is possibly little a researcher can do prove the blood link since they don't have the crucified man's body, they don't have Jesus's body, and they don't have God's body.  All they can do is carbon test the blood on the cloth to see if it dates further then the shroud itself -  this would prove the person was an old bloodline, and maybe point to the age of the man himself.  If the blood testing revealed that the man was age old, then it would prove more then just long life, it would prove that the figure could have been Alexander the Great and that God had superb genetics that allowed for long life.  

Before a person claims 'impossible' it must be noted that such a thing could be real.  Mankind has been given images of old people by the media -  however these people have done drugs, put chemicals inside of their bodies, and had numerous orgies to look as old as they do.  They have aged themselves at a fast rate due to their unclean life, and this has given the world 'old' an 'old figure'.  If people were not trying to kill themselves with drugs, or lived in a society with so much disease or sexual intercourse, then it has been speculated that humanity could live to an old age with a young and fit body.  It has been the media who have brainwashed humanity against this possibility, and it has given inaccurate scope on what an aging person might truly be.  

This person who had been crucified may have been a young old man, and he may have been captured as he was mistaken for Jesus.  When he was put on the cross it was to re-live his sins, and when he had died it had been under the name of Jesus -  no one had the mindset who he could have been; all they knew what they he had the right blood to be related to God as Jesus had been related – the ingredients to grant a crucifixion.  So the man had been crucified, and it had been made special -  his cloth had been kept in a church and kept sacred, and it still considered note-worthy as it is looked upon by the modern public eye.  The man had been special, and he had been special because he had been related to God.