Clear Proof that the Shroud of Turin is Fake

Debunking the 'reasons' that the Shroud of Turin is real

By COGwriter

Many people revere and venerate an article called the Shroud of Turin.

Shroud of Turin

Is the Shroud of Turin a fraud, some type of scam, or perhaps sacred?

While it is generally considered real by many Roman Catholics, many Protestants also think it was or could be the burial cloth of Jesus.

Yet, in the Continuing Church of God (which is NOT Protestant nor Roman Catholic) we as well as those we trace our history through (see Continuing History of the Church of God) do not agree that it is even possible.

If people are willing to believe the Bible, over late traditions, they will come to realize that the Shroud of Turin cannot possibly have been Jesus of Nazareth's burial cloth and is certainly not a sacred relic to be revered.

This article will go over many reasons why people claim it is real and reasons some claim it is not--but it will also provide absolute proof that it cannot be Jesus' burial cloth.

Here is a link to a related video: Could the Shroud of Turin Be Real? 12 Reasons to Consider.

Why the Shroud of Turin is Real According to WND

World Net Daily (WND) ran the following headline about the Shroud of Turin:

9 reasons Shroud of Turin is the real deal

Let's briefly look at each of the nine reasons WND gave:

1. Last summer, researchers from the Institute of Crystallography said they experimented with blood serum extracted from the cloth that suggests the person was suffering before death.

Even if that were true, that is not a reason to conclude that the Shroud was Jesus'. Consider also:

In spite of what the researchers conclude, it is important to note that the mere presence of creatinine on the Shroud fiber does not conclusively indicate that the person wrapped in the Shroud was tortured or suffered greatly. To reach that conclusion, the researchers would need a volume of blood or sweat to compare the concentrations.

Further, the researchers did not find molecules of creatinine or ferritin iron. What they did find was atomic components of these two substances. accessed 04/07/18

Here is another given reason:

2. In 2013, scientific tests on the Shroud of Turin, which went on display in a special TV appearance introduced by the pope, dated the cloth to ancient times, challenging earlier experiments dating it only to the Middle Ages.

Scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, tested fibers from the relic and dated it between 300 B.C. and A.D. 400, which includes the era of Jesus.

Even if that were true (and many have cast doubts on any pre-Middle ages dating), that is not a reason to conclude that the Shroud was Jesus'.

3. Even the blood type found on the cloth has been identified as the rare AB, representing less than 3 percent of the population. Interestingly, another artifact associated with the shroud, known as the Sudarium of Oviedo in Spain, is another linen cloth – 34 inches by 21 inches – a kind of handkerchief that legend said was used to cover Jesus’ head after the crucifixion. The blood type in the Sudarium has also been found to be AB.

Even if that were true that is not a reason to conclude that the Shroud was Jesus' (plus some are not convinced that the Shroud has actual blood on it). Furthermore, the Sudarium of Oviedo has been dated to 570-700 A.D., which, if that is correct, would make it impossible to be related to Jesus.

Additionally, consider:

Again and again, Fanti and other do-or-die shroudologists have relied on questionable shroud samples. ...

But even if the samples had been valid, the claims made from them are not. Carlino et al. are drawing conclusions from a fiber with “red crusts” which they assume to be blood, based on the discredited work of John Heller and Alan Adler who lacked the necessary expertise. They claimed to have “identified the presence of blood, “ but used an additive approach (this plus that) while lacking any definitive test for blood. A forensic expert explained how results similar to theirs could be obtained from tempera paint (Nickell 2013).

Actual shroud “blood” samples have been shown, by internationally known forensic serologists (blood experts), to fail all of the microscopical, chemical, biological, and instrumental tests for blood—not surprisingly, since the stains were suspiciously still red and artistically “picturelike.” One expert found traces of apparent paint, and famed microanalyst Walter C. McCrone (1996) identified the “blood” as red ocher and vermilion pigments in a collagen tempera medium. ( Turin Shroud: “Blood” Still Fake | Center for Inquiry, July 28, 2017)

Anyway, here is WND's next reason:

4. A 2015 study of the pollens found in the shroud found 28 of them grown in Israel, with 20 of them in Jerusalem and eight nearby. Of the 28 plants, 27 are in bloom in March and April, the most likely time of the Passover. Half of the pollens are found only in the Middle East and never in Europe – virtually ruling out a medieval forgery on the continent.

I have not doubted that the Shroud could have come from the Middle East. But as far as the pollen goes, consider the following:

“I am convinced that this is the shroud that covered Jesus Christ after His crucifixion.” So declared Dr. Max Frei of the University of Zurich after painstakingly testing for pollen grains in the linen of the shroud and analyzing them.

“My analysis of pollen grains has been confirmed under the electron microscope beyond any reasonable doubt…. I isolated from the shroud more than a dozen pollen grains from plants growing in Jerusalem and surrounding deserts. They grow only in the Near East,” he said.

“The pollen most found on the shroud is identical to the most common pollen in the sediment of Lake Tiberias, in Israel” (National Enquirer, Nov. 29, 1977).

But even if we accept that the pollen proves the shroud once resided in Palestine, it would not necessarily connect it with Christ, for Dr. Frei also found in its fibers pollen from the area of southeastern Turkey!

As Jesus was never in Turkey, the pollen argument seems to be a stretch at best--though perhaps pollens got there later from movement. But again, the pollen argument is not proof.

5. Perhaps most fascinating is that the image on the cloth is not a stain. It is not painted on. It is not burned on. Somehow it was seared on to the cloth with a technology no one has yet to determine. Scientists in the 21st century have been unable even to reproduce it. It appears to have been caused by a burst of radiation. ...

6. The image of the man on the shroud can be read by 3D imaging technology, something that can’t be done with paintings. The image on the shroud is also only a few fibers deep.

At least one scientist differs with that conclusion as he said he did reproduce it:

Scientist re-creates Turin Shroud to show it's fake

October 7, 2009

(CNN) -- An Italian scientist says he has reproduced one of the world's most famous Catholic relics, the Shroud of Turin, to support his belief it is a medieval fake, not the cloth Jesus was buried in.

Luigi Garlaschelli created a copy of the shroud by wrapping a specially woven cloth over one of his students, painting it with pigment, baking it in an oven (which he called a "shroud machine") for several hours, then washing it.

His result looks like the cloth that many Christians through the centuries have believed is the actual burial shroud of Jesus, he told CNN.

"What you have now is a very fuzzy, dusty and weak image," he said. "Then for the sake of completeness I have added the bloodstains, the burns, the scorching because there was a fire in 1532."

Garlaschelli says his work disproves the claims of the shroud's strongest supporters.

"Basically the Shroud of Turin has some strange properties and characteristics that they say cannot be reproduced by human hands," he told CNN by phone from Italy, where he is a professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia.

"For example, the image is superficial and has no pigment, it looks so lifelike and so on, and therefore they say it cannot have been done by an artist."

His research shows the pigment may simply have worn off the cloth over the centuries since it was first "discovered" in 1355, but impurities in the pigment etched an image into the fibers of the cloth, leaving behind the ghostly picture that remains today.

"The procedure is very simple. The artist took this sheet and put it over one of his assistants," he said.

"His good idea was to wrap the sheet over the person underneath because he didn't want to obtain an image that was too obviously a painting or a drawing, so with this procedure you get a strange image," said Garlaschelli.

"Time did the rest," he said. ...

The Shroud of Turin is a linen sheet more than 14 feet long and 3 feet, 7 inches wide that carries an imprinted image of the front and the back of a crucified man, according to the Catholic Archdiocese of Turin.

"The imprint shows the peculiar characteristics that usually belong to a photographic negative," says the Web site of the shroud, which is maintained by the archdiocese.

The Vatican does not have an official position on whether the relic is genuinely the cloth Jesus was buried in after being crucified.

"Since it is not a matter of faith, the church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions," the late Pope John Paul II said in 1998.

Carbon dating in the 1990s suggested it dates from the Middle Ages.

Even if Luigi Garlaschelli did not reproduce it as he claims, this still does not prove that the Shroud was Jesus'.

7. Despite traditions in artwork and movies, the image of the shroud shows the nail marks at the bottom of the hand into the wrist. Only recently has modern science determined nails through the middle of the hands would be insufficient to hold a man’s weight on the cross because the nail would tear through the tissues of this hands.

This is not a reason to conclude that the Shroud was that of Jesus.

8. There are about 100 whip lacerations on the victim’s back that match the flagrums of the first-century Romans for scourging.

This is not a reason to conclude that the Shroud was that of Jesus. Plus, if someone was trying to fake it, they presumably would have done something like that.

9. There is even evidence of what appears to be spear wound – consistent with what is described in John 19:34.

Even if that is true, this is not a reason to conclude that the Shroud was that of Jesus.

While WND sometimes has useful information, pushing this shroud nonsense is absurd.

All its 9 reasons are are 9 reasons, if you overlook others that it did not address, as to why WND thinks it is possible.

Some Reasons Why Some Are Skeptical of the Shroud of Turin

There has long been skepticism regarding the Shroud:

Curiously enough, it was a Roman Catholic bishop who first branded the shroud a fraud. When, in the year 1356, the fourteen-by-three-and-a-half-foot piece of linen was exhibited at the obscure church of Lirey in central France — the first known historical record of its existence — it quickly became the subject of a lengthy memorandum to the Pope from Henry of Arcis, bishop of Troyes. Bishop Henry alleged that the Lirey canons had “falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for their church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say the back and the front, they falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb.” (Briggs LC. ICON SUPREME? THE SHROUD OF TURIN. Plain Truth, December 1978)

Here are a few comments on the Shroud of Turin from the article titled Is the Shroud of Turin true or fraud?:

There is no record of the shroud during the first centuries of the Christian era, it is first mentioned in the 14th century, having been found in the Diocese of Troyes…

The Gospel writers say that the body of Jesus, after being taken from the stake by Joseph of Arimathea, was wrapped in clean fine linen. (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56) The apostle John adds: Nicodemus also came bringing a roll of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds of it. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it up with bandages with the spices, just the way the Jews have the custom of preparing for burial. John 19:39-42…writers of the third and fourth centuries, many of whom wrote about a host of miracles in connection with numerous relics, did not mention the existence of a shroud containing the image of Jesus. What happened to it at this time, if it did exist, is unknown.

Let’s quote John 19:39-42 in its entirety:

39 And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. 40 Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury. 41 Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ Preparation Day, for the tomb was nearby. (John 19:39-42)

Basically, strips of linen were placed on Jesus’ body somewhat like a mummy (this is also basically what happened to Lazarus, see John 11:43-44). The Shroud of Turin is a bunch of linen strips.

Furthermore, if the Shroud of Turin was saturated with myrrh and aloes, it would by now be fairly stiff and would tend to look quite different than it now does. That would be strong proof that the Shroud is not of Jesus and is an apparent fake (apparent because it is remotely plausible it was of someone who was killed other than Jesus).

Notice the following comments:

How Was Christ’s Body Really Wrapped?

The shroud theory demands that Christ’s body was covered differently than was the custom in Jewish burial. The usual fashion was for the body to be wrapped cocoon-wise in strips of linen cloth which were bound at hands and feet. All representations of Christ’s burial in the first four centuries assumed this Egyptian-like style. “The [Jewish] corpse was wrapped in a shroud, and bandages soaked with resin were wound around the hands and feet: a cloth, the sudarium, was placed over the face (John 11:44). Finally the tomb was shut” (Bo Reicke, The New Testament Era, p. 187).

The account of the raising of Lazarus illustrates the method. “The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with bandages, and his face wrapped with a cloth.” It would appear that he was so enclosed and tied as to be scarcely able to walk until “Jesus said to them, `Unbind him, and let him go”‘ (John 11:44). Shroud of Turin theorists postulate that Joseph of Arimathea, not having time to bury Christ’s body properly, simply covered it, leaving the body lying amidst the rolls of cloth he had brought for the usual wrapping, perhaps intending to return and use them after the Sabbath. They suppose this may have been what Peter saw when he came into the tomb after the resurrection and saw “linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head… rolled up in a place by itself (John 20:6-7).

But Matthew tells us that “Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud” (Matt. 27:59). This shroud was obviously not merely a long flat cloth like the Turin shroud, laid out under the body, then folded over it from the head.

The Gospel of John plainly tells us that Joseph and his company actually “bound it [the body — not merely covered it] in linen cloths [plural] with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews” (John 19:40). This was done even before they carried the body to the tomb (verse 42). (Briggs LC. ICON SUPREME? THE SHROUD OF TURIN. Plain Truth, December 1978)

Consider also that Jesus’ burial cloths, though mentioned in scripture, are basically only mentioned as being folded after the resurrection (and the description of multiple cloths also does not necessarily seem to quite match the Shroud of Turin):

6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went away again to their own homes. (John 20:6-10).

By the time the Apostle John wrote this, if there had been any real special powers associated with the shroud, it would have seemed that he would have mentioned them, but he did not. Instead, he later wrote:

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1 John 5:21)

The Shroud of Turin is treated like an idol by many.

An Impossibile Proof Shows the Shroud is a Fraud

One claimed proof of the Shroud is real is the facial appearance of the one on it. Here is something from Emanuela Marinelli's paper on it:

The similarity between the Shroud face and most of the depictions of Christ known in art, both Eastern and Western, is clear and cannot be attributed to pure chance; it must be the result of a dependency, mediated or immediate, of an image from the other and of all from a common source. (Marinelli E. Translated by Michela Marinelli. The Shroud and the iconography of Christ. St. Louis, October 9 - 12 , 2014)

But is similarities to human traditions proof this is Jesus' image?


Face in Shroud: Actual and Enhanced (Dianelos Georgoudis)

Notice also the following:

In any event, the image on the shroud has a long, sad face and long hair. A writer for the London Tablet was moved to observe: “The first thought likely to occur is: But how very strongly the figure resembles the Christ of any number of old masters [painters of the fifth century on]”‘ (quoted from Wilcox, p. 26).

What the Earlier Paintings Looked Like

There is more to that statement than meets the eye.

The oldest pictures of Christ are paintings on the walls of the catacombs of Rome. Most date from the second and third centuries. It was against the teachings of the church to have such pictures ... Nevertheless, those who sketched them only about 100 years after the apostles — were undoubtedly acquainted with individuals who were familiar with the general appearance of Christ that came by word of mouth from His own generation.

“… There is a painting of the Resurrection of Lazarus in which Christ is shown — youthful and beardless, with short hair and large eyes…. Although it is now only barely recognizable, this picture is of great interest since it is the oldest representation of Jesus that is preserved anywhere” (Roderic Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels, p. 57).

In all of these early portrayals, “He is almost invariably boyish…. His hair is short” (Frederic William Farrar, The Life of Christ as Represented in Art, 1894, p. 43). Short hair was the predominant style among men in the Hellenized areas of the eastern Mediterranean (including Palestine) in Christ’s time. (Briggs LC. ICON SUPREME? THE SHROUD OF TURIN. Plain Truth, December 1978)

As far as the claims by some that the face on the Shroud agrees with various tradition about Jesus’ appearance goes, consider the following:

Notice the following:

The earliest surviving paintings claimed to be of Jesus, from a church at the ruined city of Dura-Europos on the Euphrates (dating from first half of the 3rd Century AD)

Jesus is not shown to have long hair or a long beard.

A while back, the BBC addressed the fact that the commonly seen pictures claiming to be of Jesus are false, but instead are of a Byzantine version of Zeus:

Everyone knows what Jesus looks like. He is the most painted figure in all of Western art, recognised everywhere as having long hair and a beard, a long robe with long sleeves (often white) and a mantle (often blue).

Jesus is so familiar that he can be recognised on pancakes or pieces of toast.

But did he really look like this?

Probably not.

In fact this familiar image of Jesus actually comes from the Byzantine era, from the 4th Century onwards, and Byzantine representations of Jesus were symbolic – they were all about meaning, not historical accuracy.

They were based on the image of an enthroned emperor, as we see in the altar mosaic of the Santa Pudenziana church in Rome. …

Jesus is dressed in a gold toga. He is the heavenly ruler of all the world, familiar from the famous statue of long-haired and bearded Olympian Zeus on a throne . . . Byzantine artists, looking to show Christ’s heavenly rule as cosmic King, invented him as a younger version of Zeus. What has happened over time is that this visualisation of heavenly Christ – today sometimes remade along hippie lines – has become our standard model of the early Jesus. December 24, 2015

From the above, we can also conclude that when we have reports of people who claim to have seen Jesus in various ways, those who claimed He had long hair, etc., clearly were not seeing Jesus.

The same can be said of the Shroud of Turin–that could not possibly be Jesus.

It is a version of the pagan deity Zeus that many people are bowing down before or otherwise venerating (perhaps it should also be added here that many of the portrayals of Jesus’ mother Mary, came from worship of goddesses, like Diana, who the Greeks called Artemis).

While the BBC article used the expression “probably not” related to whether Jesus had long hair, the biblical answer is DEFINITELY NOT.

Notice what the Bible says:

14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? (1 Corinthians 11:14)

Jesus did not have long hair. If He did, the Apostle Paul would not have written the above. For additional proof, consider the following:

1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:1)

Paul would not be imitating Christ by denouncing His hair length. Consider also that God inspired the Apostle John to write:

6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. (1 John 2:6)

If Jesus had long hair, God would have not inspired John to say to walk as Jesus walked, while also inspiring Paul to write that it is a shame for a man to have long hair.

Now let’s see some more from the BBC article (bolding mine):

When early Christians were not showing Christ as heavenly ruler, they showed Jesus as an actual man like any other: beardless and short-haired. … in the 1st Century Graeco-Roman world, being clean-shaven and short-haired was considered absolutely essential.

No early Christian ever showed Jesus as a long haired person. Having short hair was normal. The earliest found depictions of Jesus do NOT show Jesus to have had long hair. While no one knew, even then, what Jesus actually looked like, it took another century (and likely the influence of the idolatrous Emperor Constantine) before the longed-hair portrayals began to appear en mass.

Furthermore, if Jesus had distinctively long hair, He would have been highly recognizable. But the Bible shows that He was not. Once, while He was speaking to the Jews during the day, they wanted to stone Him, but He escaped right after talking to them (John 10:31-39), which also indicates He was not excessively tall (like the Shroud of Turin suggests) or had distinguishing features like long hair.

The Bible reveals that the Jewish leaders felt the need to pay Judas (Mark 14:10) to point out Jesus with a kiss so they could arrest Him (Mark 14:43-46), which they would not have needed to do if He was distinguished with features like long hair.

Getting back to the BBC article, notice why else Jesus would not have had long hair:

If he had had even slightly long hair, we would expect some reaction. Jewish men who had unkempt beards and were slightly long-haired were immediately identifiable as men who had taken a Nazirite vow. This meant they would dedicate themselves to God for a period of time, not drink wine or cut their hair – and at the end of this period they would shave their heads in a special ceremony in the temple in Jerusalem (as described in Acts chapter 21, verse 24).

But Jesus did not keep a Nazirite vow, because he is often found drinking wine – his critics accuse him of drinking far, far too much of it (Matthew chapter 11, verse 19). If he had had long hair, and looked like a Nazirite, we would expect some comment on the discrepancy between how he appeared and what he was doing – the problem would be that he was drinking wine at all.

And that is correct. Notice that the Bible shows Jesus did drink wine, but that the Nazirites could not:

19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children. (Matthew 11:19)

1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the Lord, 3 he shall separate himself from wine and similar drink; he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink; neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh grapes or raisins. 4 All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, from seed to skin. (Numbers 6:1-4)

While some claim that Jesus never made nor drank wine, but only grape juice, consuming anything from grapes was prohibited for Nazirites. Since Jesus did not sin, He certainly was not under a Nazirite vow walking around with long hair while at the same time drinking anything produced from grapes .

Sadly, many prefer to accept the Byzantine portrayal of Jesus as Zeus.

Zeus was the head of the pagan deities that Romans and Greeks (though the Greeks called Zeus ‘Jupiter’) worshiped. Christians certainly were not to continue in pagan worship practices by renaming Zeus as Jesus. Nor were they to rename other pagan deities as something else nor incorporate pagan holidays into their form of worship:

20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. (1 Corinthians 10:20-21)

People are not honoring Jesus by venerating long haired portrayals of Him that came from paganism.

Notice that even Catholic translations of the Bible support that:

14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but when a woman has long hair, it is her glory? (1 Corinthians 11:14-15a, New Jerusalem Bible)

While hair does grow after death, it does not grow quickly enough for the length that is on the Shroud of Turin. Jesus said He would be in the grave three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40), and that would not be enough time for long hair to appear.

The Size of the Shroud Proves it was NOT Jesus, but Instead is a Pious Scam

There is now a 3-dimensional image of the man of the Shroud of Turin:


That image is too big too have been Jesus of the Bible.

Consider the following that disproves the idea that the Shroud was used by Jesus:

Length Measurements on the Shroud of Turin …

Measurements taken by Bruno Barberis and Gian Maria Zaccone give (frontal image at the bottom left, dorsal image at the top) 441.5 cm for the right height, and 442.5 cm for the left height. The bottom width is 113.0 cm and the top width is 113.7 cm.

This means that the Shroud of Turin is 174 inches, 14.5 feet, long. The height of the man in the shroud would need to be about 6 ft. tall.

Now the 3D image is slightly smaller:

Based on this replica, Jesus is thought to have been taller than the average man from the first century.

“According to our studies, Jesus was a man of extraordinary beauty. Long-limbed, but very robust, he was nearly 5 ft. 11 in. tall, whereas the average height at the time was around 5 ft. 5 in. And he had a regal and majestic expression,” said Fanti.

The University of Padua and Padua Hospital collaborated to create the life-sized replica of Jesus ...

That could not be Jesus.


As mentioned before Jesus did not stick out in a crowd (cf. Luke 4:28-29), and even needed someone to identify Him (Matthew 26:48). Men were much shorter then than now and a six foot man would be noticed. If the shroud was that of Jesus, Jesus would have had to be tall to blend into the crowds at that time. There is no reason to believe Jesus was tall or had any special appearance–the Bible indicates the opposite (cf. Isaiah 53:2).

It is Impossible that the Shroud of Turin Was Jesus' Burial Cloth

The Bible clearly teaches that was saturated with myrrh and aloes were used on Jesus' burial cloth. It could not look like the Shroud of Turin.

The Bible teaches against long hair for men, and Jesus would not have had that in His culture back then. Thus, He did NOT look like the image in the Shroud of Turin.

Jesus was not taller than most people. Thus, He was not the one in the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin gives a false impression of Jesus. He was not some big man with long hair.

Most do not know a lot about the Bible and know even less about early church history–and what many think they know is clouded by misinformation and misconceptions.

Jesus said:

24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24)

The truth is that the Shroud of Turin does not provide helpful information into original Christianity. It only seems to be for those who prefer icons and improper traditions of men over what the Bible teaches.

People claiming to be Christians should not promote it as a relic of Jesus!

Because of the facial appearance and the height, is impossible that Jesus is shown in the Shroud of Turin. This item is NOT a sacred relic.

Yet, even if the actual burial cloth of Jesus was the Shroud of Turin or some other similar relic, it should not be venerated by Christians.

History records that the early Christians opposed venerating relics. Many do not seem to realize how negatively early Christians viewed such items: for details, check out the article What Did the Early Church Teach About Idols and Icons?

There is NO PROOF that the Shroud of Turin was used by Jesus. In that sense, it is an absolute fake.

The Continuing Church of God does not consider that the Shroud of Turin is holy nor is possibly the burial cloth of Jesus.

Here is a link to a related video: Could the Shroud of Turin Be Real? 12 Reasons to Consider.

Thiel B. Clear Proof that the Shroud of Turin is Fake. COGwriter (c) 2018 0408

Back to home page