It is a hoax ... it isn't a hoax. Is, isn't. Brother.
Sunday, February 8, 2009 
IF THE SHROUD OF TURIN IS A HOAX, WHO DID IT AND WHY?
We used to be encouraged that there was a “relic” which actually confirmed the resurrection of Jesus. But when the Shroud of Turin turned out to be a hoax … we had to ask ourselves … if it is a hoax, dating back to the 13th century or so … what would have been the objective of the hoaxer?
And the answer is: To deceive people, obviously. But why? To encourage them to believe in the resurrection of Jesus? No, a liar wouldn’t be interested in doing that. To sell it and make a buck? Perhaps. To make a buck through indulgences? Perhaps. To impress friends and relatives? Maybe. Forgers of historical documents (and relics) can be weird people — with the pathological ability to derive grand status from something they didn’t really discover but faked.
Or is the phony shroud meant to portray Jesus in a way other than how Jesus really looked/looks? (In the books of Daniel and Revelation, figures who arguably are Jesus have hair like wool.)
The next question is … Who would have been capable in the 13th century of fabricating such a hoax, the skill and technology of which still baffles scientists today? Please don’t say Leonardo da Vinci.
The answer … might be: Freaks (ET’s) with high-tech photography skills (used the Middle Ages when these skills did not readily exist) … which may one day aid these high-tech freaks in pitting themselves against the real Jesus … and scamming people by offering a substitute Jesus with long flowing hair, instead of one with hair like wool. Which would surely help in any campaign to deceive even the elect. Whaddya think?
STOP THE PRESSES! Now there is word on the basis of new research that the Shroud of Turin may possibly be 2,000 years old after all. This is what I hate about science — things can be absolutely, unquestionably true … until somebody else writes a book. We’ll follow up. Brother. — rcg
HERE’S AN EVEN BETTER SITE which provides very thorough details on these new findings, which discredit the analysis of the 1988 sample of cloth, which may have been part of a rewoven, repaired portion of the cloth, which would throw off the Carbon 14 dating. At this point … who cares? The scientists have ruined the aura of the thing. Now they’re all arguing. Again. Still.