The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The Shroud of Turin is Christ's burial cloth and is more evidence that He rose from the dead.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Wylted has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,483 times Debate No: 112522
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)




Not sure why the initial time I posted this, it has disappeared from the site. If this is a repeat, I apologize, but I am not seeing it anywhere... I'm brand new to this, so bear with me if I've submitted a duplicate debate subject.
I posit that all the latest evidence pertaining to the Shroud of Turin, supports that it is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus Christ. The textual evidence, including the 9 authors of the New Testament, and several non-biblical statements , all textual evidence, supports the notion that there were many people in the First Century who claimed that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Many of these people were willing to die for this belief, so it is not likely that they merely concocted a lie.
I posit the following:
1) (Ant) If the Shroud of Turin is genuine, and there is textual evidence that supports the notion that many people saw Jesus Christ risen from the dead; (Conseq) Then the best explanation is that Christ rose from the dead.
2) The antecedent is affirmed.
3) Therefore the most likely explanation is that Christ rose from the dead.
I may not have time to debate two different people if that happens. If I do, I'll just be copying and pasting my points from one to the other.


The link below is to an image of the Shroud of Turin. It will probably serve as a good visual aid. Like my opponent I'm having a hard time posting images as well. It may have something to do with me using an I-phone to post all my debate arguments.

I'm going to show that, The Shroud of Turin is indeed a fraud. Me and my opponent are going to give 2 dramatically different stories. You decide which story fits the available evidence better.

History of/and the Shroud

First appearance

The Shroud first appeared in around 1350 [1]. It was in the possession of a French knight by the name of Geoffrey de Charny. The Shroud was put on exhibition. It was basically, like one of those old time traveling freak shows. The Shroud would be taken to a new town and people would come from miles around to see it. This time period was very shortly after the Black Death. People were looking for religion as an escape. If a supposed relic of Christ came to town, it was an amazing thing, to these simple people.

Multiple Shrouds

The Shroud of Turin wasn't the only fake burial Shroud going around at the time. At least 40 others were being peddled or put on exhibition [2]. It seems the fake Shroud business was booming in the 1350s. Selling hope to the hopeless is always a good money making scheme.

Obvious fraud

The earliest recorded writing mentioning the Shroud is in 1389. In a letter to Pope Clement the VII, one of his bishops says his predecessor discovered it was a fraud and secured a confession from the artist who painted it [3]. Even back during the Shrouds first appearance, respected members of the clergy were aware of the fraud. It was just a part of a faith healing scheme. Perhaps people like Benny Hinn looked into the early history of the shroud and felt inspired by it.

The Shroud didn't belong to Jesus

I'm going to show you some familiar looking verses.

Matthew 27:59 - "And Joseph taking the body, wrapped it up in a clean linen cloth."

Mark 15:46 - "And Joseph buying fine linen, and taking him down, wrapped him up in the fine linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewed out of a rock."

Luke 23:53 - And taking him down, he wrapped him in fine linen, and laid him in a sepulchre that was hewed in stone, wherein never yet any man had been laid.

Do you notice how every single verse shows that Jesus was Wrapped in the linen.

The Shroud of Turin, wasn't wrapped around a body. It was folded over like a sandwich [4]. This directly conflicts with the biblical account and therefore couldn't be the burial cloth of Jesus.

More biblical evidence

'Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.' [Jn 19:40]
'So Peter... reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter... went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.' [Jn 20:3-7]
'Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves...' [Lk 24:12]

All these verses show that the shroud Jesus was wrapped in, was in strips. The Shroud of Turin is in one piece. The bible keeps disqualifying the Shroud as a the burial cloth of Jesus.

Evidence Outside the Bible

The first shroud discovered from the time of Jesus, was discovered in 2009. The shroud is a kind of patch work of different cloths with a simple weave pattern. The Shroud of Turin is a single cloth with complex weaving. It's not something very likely to have wrapped Jesus's body [5].

A 14th Century Work of Art

Radio Carbon Dating

3 independent labs tested pieces of the shroud and all agreed that the shroud first originated in late 13th or early 14th century [6]. So it was created shortly before knight Charny, gained possession of it.


Testing was done to prove the image on the cloth was created by paint. This was an artistic rendition of Christ [7]. Another indicator of it being a painting are things such as the convenient placement of Jesus's hands over his groin area, when they should have been over his chest, or once again Jesus being depicted as a good looking Italian guy instead of a Hebrew.

Disproportionate body parts

Here is a test, I want everybody reading this to perform. This test isn't something you have to rely on a scientist for. It's not something that requires reading an experts opinion. You can do it yourself to help discredit the shroud. Look at the shroud and how Jesus's hands conveniently cover his crotch area. Lay down now. Make sure it's a hard surface. Relax. Now without stretching, and remaining relaxed cover your crotch with your hands. Now look at the image of Christ and his hand placements. Even if you got long arms and can cover your own crotch while being relaxed and not stretching, do your arms extend as far down as Jesus's arms. I didn't think so. This experiment I pulled from source 8.

The head on the shroud is about 5% too big. The face is too big for the head. The nose is longer then it should be and looks European. The eyes aren't positioned correctly. This style of painting is representational of an amateur Medieval painter [9].


The shroud is a hoax there is more then enough evidence to conclude this. I will go into rebuttals in the next round. I would like to thank my opponent for giving such a thorough argument earlier in this round.

Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to thank my opponent for taking the time to have this discussion with me and doing the work to present research as a counter to the proposition. Based on all most recent scientific and historical data, it is an inference to the best explanation that the Turin Shroud is Christ's burial cloth and supports the evidence that He rose from the dead.
A vast majority of the evidence I will present was found after approx 2000 AD, after advances in technology made further research possible. I anticipate that most of my opponents data will be older. This isn't to say that makes it wrong, just that almost all of it has been refuted by more recent findings.
Support for position:
A representation of some of the most important recent findings and data:
1) The image on the shroud was caused by some form of energy.
"Energy would have been required for the functioning of the discoloration mechanism that to alter the covalent bonds of the carbon atoms in the cellulose molecules that caused the discoloration." (1a)
"Di Lazzaro and his colleagues at Italy"s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) conducted five years of experiments, using state-of-the-art excimer lasers to train short bursts of ultraviolet light on raw linen, in an effort to simulate the image"s coloration" (1b)
1a (academic):
1b (popular):
2) The possibility that the image was painted has been ruled out. The image is uniformly 1-2 threads deep throughout the entire image. Any paint or dye should bleed further into the cloth.
While previous scientific research had indicated that it was at least possible that there were base paint-like components in the image that could have been used, this has been ruled out with the development of microscopic imaging. There are no brush strokes and the image is exactly uniform in depth throughout the entire image.
The famous counter argument was Dr. Walter McCrone's analysis in 1979 Asserting that iron oxide, hematite, mercuric sulphide was present in the cloth and must have been used as paint.
It is important to note that the shroud was venerated and painted copies were made, so the shroud was certainly exposed to paint at the microscopic level, having been in front of painters as they painted it.
There is 0 evidence that the burnt image itself contains paint or pigmentation. If the image is a fake, the forger was able to prevent the paint from going more than 2 threads deep and there are no brush strokes. See image citation below.
Dr McCrones claim was that the blood was not authentic, but was painted over the image. DNA has been found in the blood. (2d)
The most glaring statement from done by Dr Raymond Rogers at Los Alamos National Laboratory "This helped confirm the fact that the image was not painted." (2c)
2a)(book) Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.73
2b) Small sample of image fibers.
2c) (Scientific) Raymond N. Rogers University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM, USA
2d) "Uncovering Sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud"
3) The shroud was Carbon Dated to be from the middle ages by independent labs. It has since been proven that a bad sample was taken. The Church demanded that the sample be taken from a damaged far corner. It has since been shown that this corner had been repaired in the past. Cotton existed in the samples that were taken, but there is no cotton in the rest of the shroud, showing that repair work had been done to the edges during the middle ages.
The shroud has since been dated to the time of Christ. This includes spectroscopic dating.
"The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ."(3a)
Even Dr Ray Rogers, one of the leading Shroud Research Team and was an initial vocal skeptic, admitted the Carbon Dating result was useless.
Citations :
3a) (Popular)
3b) (Popular)
3c) (scientific)
3d) (scientific)
3e) (scientific)
3f) (scientific)
4) Coins on the eyes of the individual (this was a common practice at the time) can be dated to be in circulation by Pilate.
6) There is human blood on the shroud, which refutes one of the most reliable science to dismiss the shroud Dr. Walter McCrone's assertion that it was merely painted. Not only is no paint found on the image, but now we know that the blood is blood.
Citations :
6a) (Scientific) "Uncovering Sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud"
7) There is bilirubin in the blood on the shroud. Bilirubin is responsible for the coloring seen in bruises. If the shroud is a hoax, it means a man was beaten severely.
To create a hoax, the individual tortured somebody to get their blood. They anticipated that we would know how to extract it in the future and prove that it was from a beaten individual.
"Prof. Pierluigi Baima Bollone has shown that the stains on the Shroud of Turin are human blood group AB. From a biochemical viewpoint...not only haemoglobin but also other specific compounds of blood and, among other things, the presence of bilirubin in significant quantities." (7a)
7a) (medical) Dr. Carlo Goldoni Doctor of Medicine, Clinical Pathologist
8) The person on the shroud has a damaged nose and a facial bones, and eyes were swollen. Evidence of a severe beating. (The bible states that Jesus was struck as well as scourged)
8a) (medical) Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) "An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud" Robert Bucklin, M.D., J.D.
9) There are pollen fossils on the shroud from plants that occur only in Israel. There is pollen from the entire route from Israel to Italy, including Turkey. I guess the forger anticipated this as well.
"An analysis of pollen grains and plant images places the origin of the Shroud of Turin ... in Jerusalem before the 8th Century." (9a)
9a)(Scientific) XVI International Botanical Congress
9b)(Scientific) (STRUP) Dr. Avinoam Danin, Professor of Botany, Department of Evolution, Systematics, and Ecology The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Conclusion: With the scientific evidence for the Shroud of Turin and all biblical and non-biblical textual evidence, it is most rational to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and the Turin Shroud is genuine.


It would be unfair for me to take an extra round to argue. I"m going to skip this round so me and pro both have one argument and one rebuttal round, and I don"t have an unfair advantage. I"ll ignore his rebuttals out of fairness as well. So one argument round each, and one rebuttal round each.
Debate Round No. 2


Preemptive Rebuttal:
If it is argued that, despite all the evidence , there is no way to "prove" that it is actually Jesus' burial cloth, and it could be someone else's, I would agree. I am not arguing it is "proven", only that it is an inference to the best explanation. This is all historians demand when it pertains to ancient history. If the shroud was someone else's, one would have to believe some other person's corpse radiated energy onto the shroud, who was crucified just like Jesus, and there is just coincidentally textual record pertaining to Jesus dying and rising from the dead, and this all just happens to coincide with this shroud from some "other" person. Possible? Sure, it could be.

Preemptive Rebuttals to "Camera Obscura" forgeries.
There are no other burial shrouds ever found with a burnt image of a person as the Shroud of Turin.
Shroud Opponents last corner for explanation is to claim that people in the Middle Ages created primitive camera obscura methods to create the image in the shroud, but no other exaples have been found.
This hypothesis would help explain the lack of paint, but lacks plausibility. We can find textual discussion and diagrams of things from the Middle Ages like helicopters, camera obscura, bicycles and submarines. This does not become evidence that they existed. There is 0 evidence this actually occurred.
"This theory concludes that the raw materials to produce photography not only existed in medieval times, but that a medieval photographer created a light sensitive emulsion, coated it onto linen cloth and "exposed" this medieval "film" using a room sized camera obscura and a dead body hanging in front of its crystal lens as the subject matter.1" (1)

Modern and historical Forgeries:
There have been numerous semi-fakes of the shroud successfully created in modern times, but none of them have all of the features of the Shroud of Turin. All of them have lacked some aspect(s) of the genuine shroud. The attempts at modern forgeries are too numerous to discuss here.
The shroud has some aspects only visible in ultraviolet light, others that only appear in a reverse-negative photograph, others that are only visible through enhanced computer imaging. None of the modern attempts to duplicate all of the aspects of the shroud have been successful.
Major photo-forgery proponent is Prof Nicholas Allen.
"Allen has not been able to provide even one example of this medieval proto-photography process anywhere in art or photographic history, although he has carefully and extensively documented early historical references to lenses and cameras obscura.3" (1)
"The proto-photography theory proposed by Prof. Nicholas Allen was able to create an image on linen cloth, but not one that duplicated the image properties of the Shroud of Turin. When attempting to provide a viable image formation mechanism for the Shroud, one has to account for all of the image properties, not just a few of them. Allen failed to understand certain important facets of the image on the Shroud of Turin." (1)
And obviously, none of the modern forgeries date to the time of Christ.
Either way, even if a modern forgery were to be successful, this does nothing to prove that it was plausible centuries ago.

Another notion is that Leonardo Da Vinci secretly created a camera obscura, and nobody knew about it, made a 3d model of himself, then made this image, and then quit using the camera obscura. (3)
And it's not plausible, because "the first recorded exhibition of the Shroud in Lirey France was in 1356. Leonardo da Vinci was born in 1452..." (3)
1) (STRUP)Barrie Schwortz the Official Documenting Photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project
3) Isabel Piczek

Direct Rebuttals to opponent:
Opponent: "The Shroud first appeared in around 1350 [1]. It was in the possession of a French knight by the name of Geoffrey de Charny."
Rebuttal: This is sort of begging the question, because that is what the debate is about. This statement would go unchallenged if referring to it first appearing in Europe.

Opponent: "The Shroud of Turin wasn't the only fake burial Shroud going around at the time. At least 40 others were being peddled or put on exhibition [2]..."
Rebuttal: That doesn't serve as evidence pertaining to its authenticity or lack of. Van Gogh fakes have existed in the past as well. This fact does not mean there are no authentic Van Goghs. It is a non-sequitur to conclude that "therefore all of them are fake", despite the overwhelming evidence that one is real.

Opponent: "The earliest recorded writing mentioning the Shroud is in 1389. In a letter to Pope Clement the VII, one of his bishops says his predecessor discovered it was a fraud and secured a confession from the artist who painted it [3]."
Rebuttal: Apparently the bishop didn't have access to the modern scientific data. Perhaps he was mistaking it for one of the 39 others that were fake. We also have artistic evidence that precedes textual. The Pray Codex or Hungarian from 1190 Pray Manuscript contains a painting of Christ being wrapped in The Shroud. It even shares burn marks in the current shroud that match exactly (there was a fire in it's history and it has ember burns in it). This precedes all these earliest European textual dates.

Opponent: "Do you notice how every single verse shows that Jesus was Wrapped in the linen...All these verses show that the shroud Jesus was wrapped in, was in strips"
Rebuttal: I think it is an extrapolation to assert that this cannot mean "wrapping vertically from head, to under the feat, and back up to the head", or vice-versa. It simply does not say "he was wrapped like a mummy".
Remember, the shroud was not merely draped over the body, but wrapped. A frontal and dorsal image occurs, implying he was wrapped from head to toe and back around. That is how a 3d image of the man on the shroud was created.
Leaving the dead as a bloody mess for burial is not to be expected, so strips (plural) were used to wrap the wounds.
Citation (artistic rendering):

Opponent: "The first shroud discovered from the time of Jesus, was discovered in 2009. The shroud is a kind of patch work of different cloths with a simple weave pattern. The Shroud of Turin is a single cloth with complex weaving. It's not something very likely to have wrapped Jesus's body [5]."
Rebuttal: It was a more expensive weave, but it was from Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy man.

Opponent: "Disproportionate body parts"
Rebuttal: Radiant light, angle and distance (wish I had more room to get into the science).
Please look at this picture of a fisherman, they are known for making pictures of fish look big. You'll see that his index finger is larger than his whole head.

Importantly, the image from the shroud is Not from a person lying on a flat surface. He is actually bent. There are angles that add to the appearance of slight distortion. Those who make these criticisms are not aware of this and treat it as a 2d image, when in fact 3d imaging has been used on the shroud.
Please view the 3d model has been created based on the imaging:

I would like to take my remaining characters to thank my opponent very much, for this debate to my proposition.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheTrueBeliever 3 years ago
Ah, sorry to see it is forfeited, if that was your intention :(
Perhaps not such an interesting subject for you as for me.
If that's a mistake, let me know and I can try figuring out what's necessary to open it back up.
If that was your intention, thanks for the debate.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
No problem
Posted by TheTrueBeliever 3 years ago
Sorry, meant to say @Wylted :)
Thanks very much for the great points and helping me through with my try at this!
Posted by TheTrueBeliever 3 years ago
@Contender. Thanks much, very kind! I should have my rebuttals submitted within about a day. Thanks
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Carrier is smart but just full of it and trying to sell books
Posted by TheTrueBeliever 3 years ago
Aaron Ra, who the hell is he? So he knows who Jesus is? As opposed to NT Wright who gives about 1000 pages of evidence in "The Resurrection of the Son of God" and is considered probably the greatest biblical scholar on earth. As opposed to Gary Habermas who does the same. Richard Carrier? He's the one or 2 scholars on earth that think Jesus probably did not exist, versus the thousands that do. I agree with the most renowned atheist/agnostic scholar on earth, Bart Ehrman, who thinks Richard Carrier is an imbecile.
Anyhow, vote against me if you think I got "pulverized" before the debate is even finished. Too bad they don't let you vote before it even started, I'm sure you'd be the first one.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Even at 10,000 I always end up doing the same thing. Some things never leave you.
Posted by TheTrueBeliever 3 years ago
I'm so sorry that the argument in that round is so cramped. I did my typing in a text editing tool, then when I pasted it, I found that I had like twice as many characters as the 8,000 characters allowed.
I stripped out several of my points and condensed things. I'm learning as I go, but it looks like setting it at 8,000 was a big mistake.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@Wylted - Yeah I've dealt with our kind friend huggable pet and loved one Pro TheTrueBeliever who believes in, well what does he believe? He obviously believe in god and christ in which he cannot even prove even exists, point blank obviously, AND he believes that he has free will under this god of his which is a true 100% impossibility.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
One of the links said Jesus didn"t exist. LOL. What next? Alexander the Great didn"t exist?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.