Claim: Why the Shroud in question is NOT the image of Christ? Let's go:
Total European Caucasian features - WRONG. Christ was middle eastern and looked like them, not white Caucasian.
The image on the Shroud is of a man. He is powerfully built, has a beard, and is about 181 cm (5 ft 11 in) tall. Jesus was a man. (Mt 26:72; Mk 15:12; Jn 19:5; Acts 2:22; Rom 5:15; 1Tim 2:5) He was a carpenter (Mk 6:3) which is consistent with His muscular physique.
The man on the Shroud was a Jew, according to the late Harvard physical anthropologist Carleton S. Coon. The man on the Shroud has shoulder-length hair which is parted in the middle, but of the numerous Greek and Roman portraits we have, there is not one of a man with middle-parted hair falling to the shoulders. Similarly, a full beard like that on the Shroud is rarely found in a Greek or Roman portrait, but Jews regarded a full beard as a mark of manhood. Also, the manner of burial was first-century Jewish, with the deceased lying on his back, his hands crossed in front covering his pelvic region, and his body covered with a single linen sheet.
Claim: Long hair - WRONG.
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" ~ I Corinthians 11:14
We have no paintings of Christ, not Da Vinci, nor Raphael, El Greco, Caravaggio, Diego Velazquez or even Michelangelo. All these and many more have depicted Christ as an effeminate long haired Caucasian, all of these artists were living in the Middle ages, and to include this shroud thing.
The only real depiction of men in the days that Christ walked the earth are sculptures, mostly in stone, and they show men of that era with short hair.
Response: We know from archeological materials such as Middle Eastern carvings and Egyptian tomb paintings that Jews wore what we would consider today as long hair and beards. Hair reached down to the shoulders on men. Women wore hair down to the waist.
Barrie Schwortz (2016): Skeptics will often quote to me from 1 Corinthians 11:14 – “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” (this and other verses in this article are from the KJV translation). Well, yes, that is what it says. But when exactly was that written? I am not a New Testament scholar, but I know that Paul wrote that about twenty years after the death of Jesus! So this rule would NOT have applied to him or his disciples, since it had not been written yet! What laws did they follow? The best way to address that is to look to the Old Testament, which was the law in Jesus’s time. Here is what it says about long hair and beards: Numbers 6:5 (Re the Nazarite’s vow) – “All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.” And in Leviticus 19:27 – “ Ye shall not round [i.e., cut] the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar [i.e., cut] the corners of thy beard.” Jews were literally forbidden to cut their hair and beards and you can still see that today in any Orthodox or Hassidic Jewish communities where all adult males have long hair and beards. Jesus followed the Law of Moses! 2
Claim: Visage - WRONG.
The shroud, like the paintings if Christ, show a man that would be considered handsome, in a rugged sort of way. But Scripture, in the Messianic Prophecies of Isaiah, describes the appearance of Christ as not so good looking, homely even.
"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." ~ Isaiah 53:2
Response: It's not a painting If this were true, it should be possible to identify the pigments used by chemical analysis, just as conservators can do for the paintings of Old Masters. But the Sturp team found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in sufficient amounts to explain the image. Nor are there any signs of it being rendered in brush strokes.
Obviously, a scourged and crucified man would not look attractive , and the man on the Shroud shows the wounds inflicted - he indeed does not look attractive.
Claim: Visage - WRONG.
Idolotry - WRONGNESS.
Why would God allow such a sign? Why has the Ark of Noah never been found, regardless of some baseless claims to the contrary? Why has the grave of Moses never been found? The Ark of the Covenant or the 'Holy' Chalice aka 'Holy' Grail?
Why would God allow it? He wouldn't. Why? Beause mankind would venerate a piece of cloth over the very Christ. Man would worship it, with the worship that is reserved for the "Living" Christ!
Don't believe me? Think of all the purported sightings of Mary. Why, you can see her just about everywhere these days, even on a piece of toast!!! And it causes such a fervor among those who seek a sign.
Why you can purchase a certified authentic (how is that done?) piece of the actual Cross of Christ right here on the internet, only $19.99 plus shipping! But hurry, stock is limited.
Response: Mark Niyr (2020): Isn’t the Shroud a violation of the commandment that forbids making a graven image? This is one of the most common objections that some Christians have raised regarding the Shroud. The prohibition comes from one of the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth (Exod. 20:4 KJV). But of course, if the Shroud is authentic, then man did not make the image—God did. Nonetheless, sincere intentions motivate this question. It is helpful to understand this commandment from the Jewish perspective. The Hebrew Scriptures sometimes articulate a style of Hebraism known as a Hebrew doublet. It is a Hebrew manner of expression wherein a statement is made, but then immediately following that statement a subsequent restatement of the matter is provided that is designed to provide further clarification or understanding as to the meaning of the prior statement. This is what is found with this prohibition against graven images (Exodus 20:5‐6). The subsequent restatement following this prohibition provides the Hebrew doublet which clarifies the meaning of the prior statement. Below is the subsequent Hebrew doublet statement:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD [YHVH] thy God am a jealous God . . . (Exod. 20:5‐6 KJV, emphasis added).
The above Hebrew doublet (Exodus 20:5‐6) explains that the prohibition against graven images applied to making images for the purpose of idolatrous worship. If it were not for this Hebrew doublet clarification, then all images would be prohibited (including all photographs, paintings, statues, etc. of anything in heaven above, the earth beneath, or in the ocean).3
This shroud is a FRAUD for the gullible, and for those who cannot be satisfied with the revealed Word of God, for those who seek a sign beyond that of Jonah.
". . . An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:" ~ Matthew 12:39
Believing in this cloth is IDOLATRY. Pure idolatry.
How much time and effort has gone into trying to prove that the shroud is the real deal? All for naught, all disregarding the obvious in appearance, in Scripture and rational thought.
All these futile and outright comical attempts to grasp straws! As my momma used to say, like trying to scratch your right ear with your left elbow.
THE SHROUD IS DEMONSTRABLY AND OBVIOUSLY NOTHING MORE THAN A PIECE OF CLOTH WITH THE IMPRINTED FACE OF A DEAD EUROPEAN.
Response: How was the image made?
Enea (2010): The mysterious images of a crucified man on the Shroud of Turin are inexplicable ( by natural, - human-made means). Despite what has been written in the largely clueless press, no one, not even with state-of-the-art technology, has ever duplicated the images. The experimental STURP results proved the images embedded into the linen cloth are not the result of painting or a contact print, and the color is very superficial, as it resides on the topmost fibers in the cloth weave. For lack of a proven explanation, they are best described as photographic-like, although the characteristics of the Shroud image at microscopic level are not compatible with photographic techniques.1
1. It's not a painting: If this were true, it should be possible to identify the pigments used by chemical analysis, just as conservators can do for the paintings of Old Masters. But the Sturp team found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in sufficient amounts to explain the image. Nor are there any signs of it being rendered in brush strokes.
2. The entire image is very superficial in nature, Around 20 - 30 microns in-depth is approximately 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches) only on the uppermost surface of the fibrils, the inner side is not, thus it could not have been formed by chemicals, The image resides on the outermost layer of the linen fibers.
3. It's not a photograph: Secondo Pia's photograph showed that the image on the cloth is a negative: dark where it should be bright.
4. It was not made by a natural chemical process: It has been confirmed that the image is the result of oxidation, dehydration, and conjugation of the fibers of the shroud themselves. It is like the imaged areas on the shroud suddenly rapidly aged compared to the rest of the shroud. The image on the shroud is the only one of its kind in this world, and there are no known methods that can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological, or medical circumstances explain the image adequately (S.T.U.R.P's conclusion)
5. The image was not produced by vapors from chemicals or vapors from the corpse itself. Vapors from chemicals, or from the corpse itself, do not explain how the image is present on parts of the body where the cloth clearly did not touch the body (i.e. areas on either side of Christ’s projected nose).
6. A burst of 34 thousand billion Watts of vacuum-ultraviolet radiation produced a discoloration on the uppermost surface of the Shroud’s fibrils (without scorching it), which gave rise to a perfect three-dimensional negative image of both the frontal and dorsal parts of the body wrapped in it.” We currently do not know of any natural cause for a human corpse producing ultraviolet radiation like this. A very short and intense flash of directional VUV radiation can color the linen fabric. The total power of the VUV radiation required for instantly color the surface of a linen corresponding to a human body of medium height, equal to the corporate body surface area = 2000 MW / cm2 x 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion Watts.