Thursday, April 05, 2012

The Little Problem for the Shroud of Turin

John 20:4-8
So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

Steve Ray is promoting yet another attempt to bolster the Shroud of Turin as well as a poem in its honor. I'm sure that the Shroud is good for Steve Ray's pilgrimage business, but the inconvenient truth is that the shroud cannot possibly be real. Christ's head was wrapped separately from the rest of his body.

It was a little disappointing to see that Greg Koukl and Gary Habermas were promoting the Shroud as well (link to mp3 courtesy of Jason Engwer). I note that Jason seems to think that Haberbmas addressed John 20, but if you listen to the podcast, I think you won't find it addressed.

There are plenty of other objections. C-14 dating places the shroud in the middle ages. Jesus was wrapped with spices.

John 19:39-42
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
The shroud is about 14 ft long. The way it appears to have been arranged around a body is by being placed one full body length under and then over the feet and back up to the head. This is a very odd way of wrapping a body, particularly if the body is being bound together with a significant amount of spices. One would expect a wrapping more like that of a mummy, rather than a simple sandwich. Indeed, ὀθονίοις is plural, suggesting that multiple sheets of linen were used for wrapping the body, rather than a single sheet.

So, we can be sure that the shroud is a hoax, whether that hoax is a medieval forgery or something else.



Chris H said...

Thank for pointing out the relevant biblical passages here. Belief in the veracity of the Shroud seems to be gaining traction in evangelical circles these days, to the point I was even given a book the other day by a Presbyterian elder that argues for the authenticity of the Shroud (The Shroud of Turin by Mary and Alan Whanger). I've never been able to believe that Christ would leave a ready-made idol behind, but hadn't noticed the rather obvious contradictions between the Biblical historical account and the Shroud before.

klockheed said...

I thought this thing had been debunked in the 80s

rlh125 said...

I'm not a Shroud believer, nor am I a Shroud doubter. The jury is still out, as far as I'm concerned. There's good reason to believe, for example, that the carbon dating that was done may have used samples that were repaired at a later time ( ), and I don't believe John 19 and 20 exclude the possibility of a shroud being placed around the body *after* the application of the spices and strips of linen. I hate that my first comment on your site is a disagreement, but I just don't think anything you wrote above presents such a strong case that "we can be SURE that the shroud is a hoax." I just don't see anything in the Bible that excludes the possibility of such a shroud. By the way, The History Channel's "The Real Face of Jesus?" explored interesting aspects of the image. Like I said, I think the jury is still out. But, if it IS authentic, I'm not sure what the relevance is beyond it being a one-of-a-kind curiosity. At the end of "The Real Face if Jesus?" when they claimed to show what Jesus actually looked like based on the Shroud image, all I could think was, "Hnh. It just looks like a typical middle eastern man. How is that a big deal?"

turretinfan said...

The jury's not out, but there are still people who haven't realized it.

If it were placed on the body after the spices (about 75 American pounds of spices) and linen, which according to Jewish custom (which John says they followed) would have been done after washing the body and anointing it with oil, then there would be no way for blood to transfer from the corpse to the external linen sheet.

And there are a myriad of other problems with it. There are fundamental inconsistencies between the front and rear images, for example.

As klockheed pointed out, this was also debunked in the 80's on scientific grounds when they C-14 dated the shroud to the middle ages. To get around that, the counter-argument has been that the shroud was subject to repairs using an "invisible weave." Even then, there is no evidence that the shroud is any earlier than the testing demonstrated.

For example, the history of the shroud goes back to its discovery around the middle of the 14th century by Geoffrey de Charny. The 95% confidence interval for the C-14 testing was 1262-1384. That's about as good confirmation that it was a 14th century hoax as one could hope to get. All of that, of course, leaving aside the fact that the explanation for the shroud contradicts Scripture's account.

Natamllc said...


may I ask you to step back into the very Words of Jesus and Peter then if the jury is still out for you regarding this "physical" shroud purported to be of significance to the Faithful? Don't you find these following verses remarkable in that they incite Faith, the substance of things "hoped" for and the evidence of things "not seen"? The Apostle Paul, in his writings talks about "hope" as leaving once we have what we have hoped for! How then is it that the Holy Spirit would create such confusion, being God Himself and God is not the author of confusion?

Jesus to Thomas: Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Joh 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Peter to those he was assigned to mentor and disciple and teach the True Grace of God too: 1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
1Pe 1:6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials,
1Pe 1:7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith--more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire--may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1Pe 1:8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory,
1Pe 1:9 obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

Jonathan said...

To be fair, radiocarbon dating also traces human dispersal from the Caucasus to West Siberia to Beringia to Alaska to Chile between ~50,000 and 14,000 years before present, and a ~constant record of American settlements from that time until the present. I assume you might reject these dates (considering your most recent post), so why consider the 14C evidence here as credible?

I agree the Shroud is a hoax (though I never thought to consider the passages you raised—interesting post), but I am curious as to how you reconcile using one methodology that seems to contradict your own worldview?


turretinfan said...


There is a difference between a tool being used within a window where the tool can be calibrated and a tool being used outside that window.

Using a tool like C-14 dating within history is different from trying to use it beyond history. Likewise, using it for a small fraction of a half life is different from trying to use it for a large fraction (or even more than one) half life.


Karl Winterling said...

I guess the biggest problems with Roman Catholic historical evidential arguments (like Eucharistic miracles and Marian apparitions) are that none of them are promised in scripture, and that they're only cited as confirmation of what the "Magisterium" teaches. I'm pretty sure that if a miracle or religious experience is not promised in scripture, we should stay away from it.

Jonathan said...


Thanks for the response (I know this is somewhat off-topic). That's an interesting approach, though I am not sure how to distinguish it from "I accept the results when they work in my favor." The radiocarbon method is not calibrated to historical records, but vice-versa. Initial Δ14C (required to calculate a model age) is calibrated through independent dating of tree rings, lake sediments, and marine cores, as well as in comparison to more precise dating methods like 234U/230Th (see the review by Hughen et al., 2005, Science). These records extend to 50,000 years and beyond. Therefore, the radiocarbon dates I cited are being applied within a window where the tool can be calibrated.

Radiocarbon AMS equipment is sufficiently sensitive for precise measurements up to several half-lives. There is no substantial difference in accuracy (as you say) between 700 y/o and 8,000 y/o samples (the 14C half-life is 5,730 years). In case there is a question, why not check it with 234U/230Th, which has a half-life of 245,000 years? Most studies prefer convergent evidence from independent dating methods. Besides, any 'historical' U-Th date is far lower than a single half-life.

Arguably, the results I mentioned are applied "within the window of history", given that these are archeological sites of peoples that left written records (if only in their art). Though if you want to be more specific, one could raise the same issues with Canaanite/Mesopotamian/Egyptian cultures (some of which date to 5–8 kyrs). Perhaps you would like to define that historic window by biblical genealogies, but aren't these susceptible to transmission (copyist) errors? It seems more reasonable to use an objective standard where the assumptions can be verified (manuscript evidence is lacking for the latter, but available evidence shows major discrepancies in genealogical tables among textual traditions and thus reason enough not to use them as a point of departure for historical studies).

My point is, even if the dated portion of the Shroud were repaired by a medieval thread, it's still a pious fraud. :)


turretinfan said...

The principle behind radioactive dating involves certain assumptions about initial radiation levels and rates of decay. There are two reasons to be concerned about using these techniques in the period before written histories other than Scripture. First, we don't know if the assumptions are right in that epoch. Second, we know that there were miraculous events in that epoch including special creation and the great flood.

JasonTE said...

I apologize for my incorrect reference to the Habermas interview. I seem to have confused his interview with Greg Koukl with another interview he did. I've addressed TurretinFan's comments here.

Coram Deo said...

The SoT is an obvious, and poorly executed hoax. I can only assume that those who are duped by it are willing dupes.

There's no "Taco Wrap Jesus" as TF points out it's simply absurd to think that those who lovingly and carefully wrapped Jesus Christ for His burial did so without first cleaning his smitten, stricken, and afflicted body.

Scott C said...

I have done a fair amount of reading on the Shroud and had a 2 hour conversation with Barrie Schwortz, who runs the website. This was one of the passages that seemed irreconcilable with the shroud in my mind. Schwortz and others believe this is explained by the other RCC relic, the Sudarium of Ovieto which is believed to be the "napkin/ face cloth" mentioned in John. His explanation is that when Christ was removed from the cross, the face cloth was placed over his face until he was placed in the tomb. The face was covered as a means of showing honor for the dead. Once he was placed in the tomb he was wrapped with the shroud and the face cloth was removed at this time and set aside. Everything was done quickly to avoid defiling the Sabbath. The passage does not necessarily imply that the face cloth remained on his face as part of the burial clothes. I am not necessarily in agreement with this scenario but it does provide an alternative explanation that does not necessarily conflict with John.

My other problem of reconciling the gospel account is from John 19:39-40 that indicates the mixture of myrhh and aloes used in the burial process. If these "spices" were used one would think some remnants would have been discovered in the shroud. I have read of no such discovery. Schwortz argues that the spices were perhaps in bags placed alongside of the body and did not actually make contact with the shroud/ body. He argues they had little time to fully prepare the body before the Sabbath came on. The purpose of the women was to bring further spices and complete the burial procedure Sunday morning. I am less convinced of this scenario, but I admit it has slight plausibility. It seems to me the natural reading of John 19:40 is that the spices were in fact placed directly on the body with burial clothes wrapped around. In either case, the argument that the women came to complete what was only started in haste makes sense. They did bring spices with them Sunday morning (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1).

JasonTE said...

Coram Deo wrote:

“The SoT is an obvious, and poorly executed hoax. I can only assume that those who are duped by it are willing dupes.”

It would be more accurate to say that your post is an obvious and poorly executed hoax. I don’t see you offering any explanation for the most significant evidence supporting the Shroud.

Do you think the non-Christians who have acknowledged that the Shroud has significant evidence in its support, which they can’t explain even in theory, are “willing dupes”? What about the Christians who didn’t initially accept the Shroud, but were later convinced after learning more? They were all “willing dupes”?

It also doesn’t help your credibility when you use a phrase like “Taco Wrap Jesus”. Not only does it raise questions about your state of mind and come across as overly disrespectful, but it also suggests that you don’t know much about the evidence involved. There’s precedent for that type of burial shroud, and defenders of the Shroud of Turin offer other counterarguments to your objections.

Natamllc said...

The term dupes doesn't seem to apply here, unless, and maybe someone can correct the record, the term "dupes" is a word defining what Insurance companies require of important diamonds.

When a person owns and wants an important diamond insured the insurance company requires that important stone duplicated for purposes of display in public places so that in the event it is stolen, the duplicated stone is stolen and there is very little loss.

Now, to be duped, I can tell you a story of the brother of a friend of mine who was duped. He had just walked out of a jewelry store owned and was approached by a man attempting to raise some quick money with a diamond. The man offered to sell this guy a diamond for about $6000. The guy's friend owned the store and was a gemologist. He asked him to let his friend look at the diamond and if it was worth the money he would buy it. They both went in to the store and the store owner looked over the stone. He said to his friend if he didn't buy it he would because he would appraise if for far more than $6000.

An agreement was reached and the guy headed for the bank to withdraw the money. He came back to the store to find the man outside waiting for him. They exchanged money for the diamond. The man with the money left walking away from the store and the guy went right back into the store to gloat over his purchase. The store owner asked to see the stone again to enjoy it a bit. Looking over the stone his countenance changed and he said that that was not the stone he looked at before, but a copy of it. He said this was a duplicated stone and he just got duped.

So, if there is more than on Shroud of Turin there is no way a person can be duped. It is more likely I suppose that a demon is beguiling you to believe the image is that of Christ quite contrary to the Faith once delivered to the Saints. Jesus Himself said it is more blessed to believe having not seen than to believe because of a sign of Him. And evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign.

Coram Deo said...

"Mystery" solved!

Just add some Halloween blood for that little something extra and voila, another Romanist rag fit for veneration by the iconophiles!

rlh125 said...

I'm laughing to find myself debating about the SoT, since I care so little about it, but here goes: Whether the jury is still out depends on who you call the jury. I can only go by the data I have been exposed to (and I suspect you are in the same boat), but there is no question that people who DO care about the SoT are still debating. So, if they are the jury - and being the people who are more focused on the evidence than most, they seem likely suspects for that designation - they are still out. I don't consider the C-14 argument to be a strong one because doubts have been raised about the samples. I *do* think your blood argument is a strong one, but it raises the question of whether the body might have been wrapped in the shroud while it was transported to the tomb, and not after the spices were applied. I know there is a belief that the image formed during the Resurrection itself, but it isn't like the SoT was found with a card telling us how or when the image was formed. As for the inconsistencies between the front and rear images, there didn't seem to be any such issues when the folks who made "The Real Face of Jesus?" created the computer model using the image. Of course, they could have addressed them without telling the audience. It is TV, after all. I think my real problem with dismissing the Shroud so easily is that we have much tougher problems harmonizing certain gospel accounts than we would if we found out tomorrow that we had to harmonize the Shroud with the crucifixion and resurrection accounts.

rlh125 said...

Natamlle, I'm not sure I understand you, but I think I've narrowed down your question to two possibilities:

I *think* you're asking either
1. How God could allow something like the Shroud to remain if it is genuine, but not so obviously genuine to be *indisputably* genuine. Doing so creates confusion.

or, you're asking

2. Why God would allow something like the Shroud to remain because we are supposed to rely on faith, not on things seen (like a physical shroud wiith an image of Jesus burned in it).

If #1, my answer is that, despite the fact that people get confused by certain things God does, the fault lies with us, not Him. For instance, lock a diehard dispensationalist and a diehard adherent to covenant theology in a room with a Bible and tell them to discuss eschatology. SOMEONE in that room is confused, despite the fact that God gave us the Bible. Is He the author of that confusion? No. So, IF (and this is not necessarily my position) the Shroud is genuine and has endured all these years, any confusion that arises is on us, not Him.

If #2, my answer is that the existence of historical evidence for what is found in the Bible abounds and, if genuine, the Shroud would just be one more piece. If it is fake, it is nothing more than the most clever phony relic in church history. I will sleep just fine tonight not knowing which it is, and every other Christian should feel the same. If somehow it can be proven genuine, does it damage the faith or the trustworthiness of the Bible? Not in the least. Will its genuineness save a single person? Not one. If it can be proven an utter (*extremely* impressive) forgery, does it damage the faith or the trustworthiness of the Bible or the faith. No. Will it have caused a single person to go to hell? Not one. That's why it really doesn't interest me except as an idle curiosity.

Natamllc said...


well said.


I believe there is a "thing", the Shroud of Turin. Is it circa Christ pre-resurrection after burial and before Mary saw Jesus in the garden where the tomb was as recorded in the Gospel narrative? From my abilities of comprehension and with His Faith I say "no" it is not. It's my belief this shroud is a religious relic purported to bear the miraculous image of God, come in the flesh, captured on this relic some saying because of the power of God raising Christ from the dead, putting this Eternal Life and Power that Christ is back into the buried corpse wrapped up in burial garments, shrouds for the head and body. It is this power of Christ that imprinted the physical body of Christ on the shroud even in spite of the reality produced by those who live with the same Faith given to Abraham to live by whereby God reckons us as Righteous.


Two things, one Biblical and the other something I witnessed with my own eyes that when I read the verses harkening me back to the Biblical verse for my answer, no. The verse came alive within my spirit when I read it so when I was first introduced to the "thing", the Shroud of Turin, I quickly dismissed it as something that produces confusion; and God not being the author of confusion, I chalked it up to a topic generated by demons and not something produced by the Holy Spirit.

Here's the verse:

Isa_52:14 As many were astonished at you-- his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind--

I trust the Holy Spirit. I trust that He has had those words written for the naive as well as the intelligent so that we would disregard this thing.

Here is what I experienced that I experienced that the Holy Spirit used to help me clearly understand the value of the Shroud in question:

I was traveling down a hill behind a guy riding his bicycle. The hill was steep. He got going too fast and lost control and I witnessed him go head over heels and smack down on the roadway hitting so hard he went limp and became still like a dead man. I pulled over and parked my car and went to this man laying still on the side of the road. By the time I got to him others were gathered around him too. We began to turn him over. He was laying there and you could easily see one side of his face. As we turned him over to deal with the obvious blood flow his head flopped and now we could see the other side of his face. The one side was clearly a face. The other side, the side that hit the roadway was so marred you could not tell he had any facial features. The experience that came over me was tremendous so that years later when I read Isaiah 52:14 the Holy Spirit whispered into my heart that Christ was so marred his appearance was beyond human semblance, too!

When you look at the images left on the shroud you clearly see a human's semblance. Purportedly this is the face of God in the flesh!

So, how can we have the Bible saying one thing and a religious order saying another billing it as the very image of "God" incarnate captured for us to finally recognize Him in human form and semblance?

I say you can't.

I am glad to read now which side you are on!

I apologize if my query was offensive to you?

JasonTE said...

Coram Deo,

The article by Nicholas Allen that you've linked seems to contradict what you said earlier. You told us that the Shroud is an "obvious, and poorly executed hoax". You said that those who accept it are "willing dupes". Yet, Allen's theory didn't originate until the late twentieth century. It wasn't discovered by noticing "obvious" problems. Rather, his theory was proposed in an attempt to dismiss evidence of authenticity that was (and still is) hard to dismiss. Allen proposes that some form of photography was known to a medieval forger around half a millennium before the time when photography has been thought to have originated. The effect Allen produced in his research failed to duplicate the features of the Shroud of Turin. See Barrie Schwortz's critique of Allen here. Apparently, Allen's medieval forger knew enough about anatomy and other relevant fields to produce an image of Jesus that avoided the common errors of his day. He didn't use his technology or knowledge to produce anything else we're aware of, and his discoveries were then lost to history after he produced his forgery. And what about the other features suggesting the authenticity of the Shroud, which Allen's theory doesn't even address? Explain how all of these problems with Allen's approach are consistent with your previous claim that the Shroud is "obviously" a hoax and "poorly executed". Explain how you supposedly know that everybody who accepts the authenticity of the Shroud is a "willing dupe".

turretinfan said...

Something can be achieved with technical complexity but Scriptural illiteracy. Those are not contradictory ideas. Indeed, they are the sort of thing one might expect from a Biblically semi-literate 14th century alchemist.

rlh125 said...

"I apologize if my query was offensive to you?"

Not in the least.

rlh125 said...

For me, the fact that no one, with all the technology we have at hand, can conclusively tell us how such an image was created (after all, if it's a hoax it was only meant to fool people half a century ago, not people with the tools we have) makes it an odd enough piece that I require more to dismiss it than I would if someone ran up to me and said, "I have the toenail of the Apostle Peter!" Granted, it is an unwillingness to allow extensive tests (which would damage the Shroud) that keeps us from definitively answering how the Shroud was made.

You are absolutely convinced it is a hoax. You're probably right. Probably. ;^)

Natamllc said...


I am not saying it is a hoax or a duplication of some "thing", the shroud of Turin so as to dupe anyone.

What I am saying is God knows full well how that image came to be put on that shroud.

What I am saying is that God did not put the image on it for the purpose of revealing what His Son looks like. He would not violate His prohibition. Jesus wouldn't violate the prohibition. If He did the Holy Spirit could not vindicate Him as Holy to the Lord, fully holy in flesh as an innocent sinless offering for the sins of His people securing our Eternal Redemption.

I hope providing a proffer of Scripture, Isaiah 52:14 would be sufficient enough to establish that image on the shroud could not be Christ seeing there is a semblance of a face that would contradict the Scriptures thus making a portion of what Christ testified too of no effect to those He testified too:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

What this uncovers is man's natural hunger for something more than the Faith once delivered to the Saints to live as sojourners for God in Holiness and Peace in this fallen evil corrupt fallen world of people ruled by the devil and his minions until the time when God makes all Christ's enemies a footstool for His feet, presumably the feet of the Church seeing we are one with Him by the Hand of God.

Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
Eph 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--
Eph 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--
Eph 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Eph 2:7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

JasonTE said...

TurretinFan wrote:

"With respect to the latter hypothesis, there is no actual evidence that an invisible weave was performed. With respect to the former hypothesis, since the only known fires to which the shroud was exposed were more recent than the discovery of the Shroud, and the dating all goes back to approximately the 'discovery' of the shroud, there is no reason to suppose that the fire is the source of the result....While such 'doubts' may detract from the conclusiveness of the dating, considering that there has not been any other date obtained from the shroud, the vast weight of the evidence is that the shroud began to exist about the time it was 'discovered.'"

No, Ray Rogers and others have done testing that undermines the carbon dating and/or suggests an earlier date. See Dan Porter's article here. There are many indications of the Shroud's age, and the carbon dating is in a distinct minority when it suggests such a late date.

You write:

"Literally the only thing that commends the shroud is that it is not clear how and by whom the image was produced. Moreover, at least one viable mechanism (silver nitrate coating exposed to a camera obscura image of a corpse and then washed with urine) has been proposed."

There are a lot of problems with the mechanism you're referring to, which I addressed earlier in response to Coram Deo. And the Shroud has more to commend it than you're suggesting: the aspects of it that differ from medieval standards, the accuracy of the depictions of the wounds, etc. Barrie Schwortz discusses some of these things in his article I linked earlier. Gary Habermas discusses some of them in the radio program I linked, which you also linked in your first post in this thread. I don't understand why you keep ignoring these things.

Coram Deo said...


You can have your fevered high-noon fantasies, friend.

To imagine that the One true and living God chose not to preserve the autographs of His Word, but decided to preserve "stain-on-a-sheet Jesus" is beyond the pale for me.

The SoT is just another old rag that men have turned into an icon.

Telson7 said...

There are various opinions and researches of the shroud of Turin. Some people say that it is the genuine and some that it is the fake and the hoax. The fact is that the shroud of Turin doesn't present Jesus of the Bible. If we can find even one evidence, which disprove the shroud of Turin theory, so the whole story shall be invalidated. We can find a large number of evidence from the Bible, which show that the shroud of Turin cannot be the shroud of the Lord Jesus.

Source of the text;