Do you believe the Shroud of Turin is real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Epistemes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Epistemes

Guest
St. Therese’s full name was Therese of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face because she had such a strong devotion to the holy Shroud of Turin. She even composed this prayer based upon the image of the Shroud:

Jesus, who, in your bitter passion, did become the reproach of men and the Man of Sorrows, I venerate your Holy Face on which shone the beauty and gentleness of Divinity. In those disfigured features, I recognize your infinite love, and I long to love you and to make you loved. May I behold your Glorious Face in heaven!

However, since Therese’s death in 1897 many scientists and skeptics have analyzed the Shroud attempting to disprove its authenticity. The results vary – especially depending upon who you ask.

Do you believe the Shroud to be authentic? Why, or why not?
 
Hi Epistemes 👋

Yes, I believe it to be authentic for several reasons. If I’m not mistaken, the Church has deemed it so, so that’s enough for me. On top of that though, when the Vilnius image of the Divine Mercy is superimposed over the Shroud of Turin, they match perfectly. :yup: It’s pretty amazing. 😃
 
Belle10 said:
Hi Epistemes 👋

Yes, I believe it to be authentic for several reasons. If I’m not mistaken, the Church has deemed it so, so that’s enough for me. On top of that though, when the Vilnius image of the Divine Mercy is superimposed over the Shroud of Turin, they match perfectly. :yup: It’s pretty amazing. 😃
Click to expand...
Sorry but you are completely wrong. The Church has not and will not declare the Shroud to be genuine.
We are simply free to believe it is genuine or not.

The bottom line is that it can never be proved to be the burial cloth of Christ. How could it be? Tests have shown pollen from the Middle East and I think the weave or cloth too but nothing else. The next best thing would be to prove it was 2000 years old but there is no evidence to prove that up to now. Even if that could be proved how can you prove its the actual burial cloth?
 
Belle10 said:
Yes, I believe it to be authentic for several reasons. If I’m not mistaken, the Church has deemed it so, so that’s enough for me.
Click to expand...
thistle said:
Sorry but you are completely wrong. The Church has not and will not declare the Shroud to be genuine.
We are simply free to believe it is genuine or not.
Click to expand...
Oh, well I stand corrected then. 🙂

But I still believe. 😃
 
do I think it is the burial cloth of Jesus, no I do not, it is highly unlikely that any relic of his presence survived and as a former professional in the field of historical museums and archives, it lacks provenance. Moreover its known history begins in an era notorious for manufacture of fraudulant relics, the image has to me a medieval appearance, and I don’t see the correspondence to earlier images such as the Mandylion. Since the reports on the science behind the Shroud are so divergent and inconclusive we will have to wait for more advances for a reliable answer on that score. Do I think it has spiritual value as an icon? yes I do as much or more as any of the Eastern icons that claim a divine origin, or as copies of ancient icons. As an icon, no matter what its origin, I think it is very powerful and worthy of veneration.

My biggest problem is with they hyperbolic language of some shroud supporters because perhaps without realizing it they imply that because our faith can be assisted by this or any other icon or relic, that faith therefor is dependent on the authenticity of this or any other icon or relic. and this of course is simply not true. I personally believe in Jesus’ words to Thomas, blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe.

the Church has not made any definitive pronouncement on the authenticity of the Shroud as the actual burial cloth, and I believe my opinion on its value as an icon and its necessity for the faith of the believer is close to that of the Church.
 
I believe it is. On a PBS program (it might have been “the Secrets of the Dead”) it had been proven that it isn’t some medieval work. Of course, some tried to explain it away, or tried to show how one could be made. But the evidence shows otherwise.
 
You may be interested to read my double comment rebuttal to a Holy Shroud debunker at: livescience.com/history/050318_reason_turin_shroud.html

One of the best sites to read about Shroud research is www.shroud.com. The site is the creation of an Orthodox Jew, and let me quote just a small part of his introductory message:
It is with great pride and excitement that I welcome you to this web site. My name is Barrie M. Schwortz, and I am your host. As the Official Documenting Photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc., (STURP), I was privileged to be a member of the team that completed the first extensive scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin in 1978. Between October 8 and October 14, 1978, our team spent 120 hours with the Shroud of Turin.
Click to expand...
In the earliest stages of my involvement , I wondered whether someone raised as an Orthodox Jew should be a part of such a “Christian” project. Even then I clearly understood that this was probably the most important relic of Christianity. In my heart I asked myself, “Should I be a part of this?” But my good friend and fellow team member, the late Don Lynn, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, was quick to remind me that the man in question was also a Jew. He urged me to “go to Turin and do the best job possible” and worry about “why and for what purpose” when I got back. He suggested that one day, I would know. I have never regretted taking his advice.
Click to expand...
Now, over twenty years later, my “purpose” has become very clear. As the Documenting Photographer for the project, I felt a responsibility to complete what I began, and make available some of the 2700 photographs and other materials I collected during the four years of the project. And finally tell the story of what took place in my own words and from my perspective. Frankly, I am still Jewish, yet I believe the Shroud of Turin is the cloth that wrapped the man Jesus after he was crucified.
Click to expand...
This website contains dozens of documents from various scientists who have studied the Shroud, both pro and con.

I fail to see how anyone, who after reading some of this material, could possibly doubt that the Shroud is truly the burial cloth of our Lord, Jesus the Christ.

I believe it to be so.
 
Do I believe it to be a real relic that is useful in prayer and can bring us closer to our Lord? Yes

Do I believe that it is the actual shroud that covered our Lord in the tomb? I couldn’t care less. Its our devotion to our Lord in the tomb that it magnifies and draws us further into the mystery of that matters, not its authenticity. It is purely a matter of belief, not of historical fact, and it would change nothing if we knew conclusively either way.

Just my humble opinion.
 
From memory:

The Shroud was partly scorched at one time, in the Middle Ages. It was patched. Radio-carbon dating was done on threads from a patched bit.

So after one test there was bally-hoo about it being fake, as it only dated to the Middle Ages.

Last I read about it, scientists are now leaning towards the original section being from the time of Christ.
 
Layman said:
From memory:

The Shroud was partly scorched at one time, in the Middle Ages. It was patched. Radio-carbon dating was done on threads from a patched bit.

So after one test there was bally-hoo about it being fake, as it only dated to the Middle Ages.

Last I read about it, scientists are now leaning towards the original section being from the time of Christ.
Click to expand...
There is no “leaning towards”. Either there is evidence that it definitely is about 2000 years old or there is not. If the previous piece of cloth for the dating was contaminated by scorching then a piece of uncontaminated cloth has to be tested and dated. Either that has been done or not but there can’t be “leaning towards”.
 
bilop said:
Credo!

PBS had a very good program on the Shroud in its “Secrets of the Dead” series.

The modern evidence tends to discredit the carbon dating to the middle agges, and supports a first century orgin.

pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_shroudchrist/interview.html
Click to expand...
I saw this program and was surprised and impressed at how well it was done. However, I think it was actually the BBC in England that did the program, PBS merely played it.

Whom ever was responsible, it was well done.

Jim
 
I seem to recall that the Vatican was having a study done on the blood samples from the Shroud of Turin, and St. Veronica’s Veil, which I believe is in Spain.

So far, the blood types match, but it will be interesting to see if there is a DNA match. The thing is, both the Shroud and the Veil, were found at different times, in different parts of the Holy Land. So, it would prove the impossibility of forgery, which I already has been proven on the Shroud, but there are still the skeptics to satisfy, if thats possible.

Jim
 
On things like this, I like to go with the *sensus fidei *until it is conclusively proven otherwise–and the sense of the faithfulthroughout the centuries has been that it is real 🙂
 
Genesis315 said:
On things like this, I like to go with the *sensus fidei *until it is conclusively proven otherwise–and the sense of the faithfulthroughout the centuries has been that it is real 🙂
Click to expand...
Me. too. I wouldn’t be terribly disappointed and it certainly would have no effect on my faith were it to be proved conclusively to be a forgery, but things like this are fun/interesting/mysterious.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I seem to recall that the Vatican was having a study done on the blood samples from the Shroud of Turin, and St. Veronica’s Veil, which I believe is in Spain.

So far, the blood types match, but it will be interesting to see if there is a DNA match. The thing is, both the Shroud and the Veil, were found at different times, in different parts of the Holy Land. So, it would prove the impossibility of forgery, which I already has been proven on the Shroud, but there are still the skeptics to satisfy, if thats possible.

Jim
Click to expand...
It was actually the Sudarium of Oviedo (in Spain).

shroud.com/guscin.htm

The blood types match, and the image of the faces match.

The history of the Sudarium can be traced to the 600s, well before we have records of the Shroud.

It is very strong evidence backing up the authenticity of the Shroud.

God Bless
 
I don’t believe the Shroud of Turin is “real” in the sense that it was used with/ for Jesus. Radiocarbon AMS dating has given it a calibrated age range of 1260-1390 AD.
 
mouse_has_faith said:
I don’t believe the Shroud of Turin is “real” in the sense that it was used with/ for Jesus. Radiocarbon AMS dating has given it a calibrated age range of 1260-1390 AD.
Click to expand...
It has since been shown conclusively, that the radiocarbon dating that was done, was flawed.

The portion of the Shroud that was tested, was a part that was woven into the original, after a fire burned part of it.

Besides the added fabric being newer than the original, fire can change the results of radiocarbon dating.

Since then, Scientist in Israel, have confirmed that the Shroud did in fact come from that part of the world, and the weave pattern, fits into the 1st century era.

Jim
 
I have one problem with the shroud and unfortunately it’s pretty big - the nail wounds are on the wrists and not the hands, right?

If there is one person in history I believe to most definitely have had true stigmata it is St. Padre Pio. Pio’s wounds, of course, were on the palms of his hands, where most scholars believe crucifixion nails typically pierced.

So, as I said, that’s a big problem for me. If somebody could speak to that I would be listening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top