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

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) Citations 1) . https://www.shroud.com... (STRUP)Barrie Schwortz the Official Documenting Photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project 2) . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 3) . https://www.shroud.com... 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. Citations) . https://www.shroud.com... 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): . https://www.google.com...: 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. . https://www.newgeology.us... 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. . http://www.headhuntersflyshop.com... 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: . http://www1.cbn.com....