Is The Shroud of Turin Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection?

I just listened to a lecture by Dr. Gary Habermas at the EPS apologetics conference, and according to Gary it turns out there is very strong evidence in favor the Shroud’s authenticity. There are paintings of Jesus from the third through the tenth centuries that look they copied the face from the shroud. If the shroud was their model it had to preexist the artwork.  It’s not a casual similarity, they have the same bruise marks and all. Forensic scientists have verified that the blood is real and that the body was in a state of rigamortis. Not to mention there is pollen from Jerusalem on it which is an unlikely find if it was a medieval European forgery as skeptics assert.  As usual, skeptics have written it off as a hoax, which is understandable.  In fact, I had discounted it as a forgery like so many other “relics” the medieval church attempted to pass off.  Mainly because there was a carbon 14 test in the 1980s that dated it to the Middle Ages. So you would think that would be the end of it…

However it has now been demonstrated that the cloth they tested was a patch woven into the shroud from when it was scorched by fire – the original fibers are much older. At a symposium in 2005 it was demonstrated that newer fabric was spliced and woven into the old in the sample taken for the test. The carbon 14 test from the 1980s is now regarded as unreliable. Here is the peer reviewed scientific journal article that discredits the 1988 carbon dating.

Abstract :

In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth’s production lay between a.d. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample.

Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin by Raymond N. Rogers

The image on the Shroud of Turin has not been explained by science and appears to be holographic in nature according to particle physicists who have examined the image. Far from being painted on the cloth , there is no other image like it in the world. It appears to be burned into the very top layer of the fibers similar to (but not identical to) radiation. The holographic nature strongly controverts ancient forgery methods, could it be that it evidences Jesus’ miraculous transformation from death to life?

History 101 – Resurrection Challenge

These are just a few principles that historians use to make determinations about sources and testimony. I learned these from Habermas and Licona’s book The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus. Many of the replies I have received on Youtube reveal that skeptics resort to attacking the bible rather than accounting for the historical evidence. When a critic attempts to simply dismiss the bible out of hand, he is committing what is known as the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on its origin. Basically because the bible is a religious book they dismiss it as a historical source. Yet the truth is the New Testament has proven itself reliable over and over again. For instance, skeptics used to claim Pontius Pilate was a fictional character until archeologists uncovered a stone monument bearing his name. There have been many such vindications. A 19th century archeologist,  Sir William Ramsay , set out to expose the book of Acts as a work of fiction but after thorough investigation he ended up being so impressed by Luke’s accuracy that he converted from skeptic to christian believer. He wrote,

    Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense…in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.1

The New Testament is regarded as historically accurate as far as its mundane claims, thus the skeptic cannot simply dismiss its testimony to the miraculous. The evidence is abundant and compelling. How do you account for it?


1 Sir William M. Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.

Coming Soon… Take the Resurrection Challenge Win a Free Book!


Skeptics claim there’s no evidence for the Christian faith. That is simply not true. I fell like it’s time for me to do my small part to help set the record straight on the issue of central importance. And I would love for you to join in. I have been working on mastering the historical evidence for the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus. I would like to suggest to you the book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona. I believe that the position one takes on this particular matter has eternal ramifications. Because I genuinely care about people, believers and skeptics alike, I feel called to present the evidence so people can make an informed decision.

Many people are not aware of the factual historical case for the literal resurrection Of Jesus Christ. This was the pivotal event of all human history. The evidence is astonishingly good considering the extreme antiquity. To stimulate the conversation I will be giving away two brand new books for the best response videos from Christians and skeptics alike.

Just keep your eye out for a new video which will be posted here on this website and on my YT channel by Tuesday August 24th called the “Resurrection Challenge – Can You Account for the Evidence?” Christians should respond with arguments and evidence supporting my presentation and skeptics must posit an alternate scenario that still accounts for the accepted data. I will make a decision at the end of September and mail prizes to the winners.  I will be posting videos all through the month with my research supporting the resurrection. I hope you will follow the evidence where it leads!

In Christ,