Do you believe the Shroud of Turin is real?

[mouse_has_faith]

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.

Really? If that’s true, then it’s very interesting! Please tell me where you got your source, as I did a quick search and found that the subsequent testings of the Tourin Shroud (post 1988) were inconclusive, and that controversy continues. My source is a 2008 university archaeology textbook (Renfrew & Bahn, “Archaeology”).

Forgive my scepticism, but I find it hard to believe the sample tested would have been a piece of burnt cloth or a piece that was later added, as those are both two mistakes beneath a first-year archaeology student, let alone an experienced archaeological team. If that were true, the people involved would be the most grossly incompetent archaeologists around!

However, mistakes HAVE happened in the field before, and I am definently willing to be persuaded otherwise by a reliable source.

(The only thing I will definently object to is the weave pattern comment- things like those are never conclusive. E.g. from “Matti” in Egypt it was discovered the use of resin in cloth weaving was used far, far earlier than previously thought… it is possible, and may I venture, highly-likely, this weave pattern was in use later, especially since many traditional forms of crafts, including textiles, have been practiced, unchanged, into the modern world. So, the weave pattern being contemporary with the first century AD is not conclusive evidence in itself.)

 

[Techno2000]

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.

But don’t you think someone making a fake would have put the nails in the palms, instead of causing themselfs problems with putting the nails in the wrists ?

 

[GemmaRose]

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.

I would refer you to www.shroud.com which contains multitdes of documents regarding the Shroud and more recent scientific experimentation.

When I entered “wrist” into the site’s search function, this is the first choice which came up: shroud.com/zugibe.htm. Although a bit long, it establishes plausible reasons for the placement of the wrist wound as shown on the Shroud.

Also see “The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology” by archaeologist William Meacham (shroud.com/meacham2.htm) from which the following is taken:

The wounds seen in the Shroud image correspond perfectly with those of Christ recorded in the Gospel accounts: beating with fists and blow to the face with a club, flogging, “crown of thorns,” nailing in hands (Aramaic yad, including wrists and base of forearm) and feet, lance thrust to the side (the right side, according to tradition) after death, issue of “blood and water” from the side wound, legs unbroken, McNair (1978:23) contends that such an exact concordance could hardly be coincidental: “it seems to me otiose, if not ridiculous, to spend time arguing . . . about the identity of the man represented in the Turin Shroud. Whether genuine or fake, the representation is obviously Jesus Christ.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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.

Historians are pretty much in agreement, that the Romans nailed through the wrist, when they crucified a person. The weight of the person’s body, would rip through the palms, and the body would fall off the cross.

In the book, “A Surgeon At Calvary,” by Pierre Barbet, Barbet who was a surgeon, experimented with cadavers, by nailing them in various ways to a cross. Those who he nailed through the hands, fell off as the skin alone on their palms, could not hold the body. He concluded that the Shroud showed the proper procedure for nailing a person to a cross, and that would be through the wrist. Other scientist agree.

The stigmata isn’t to show a historical details on crucifixion, but to enlighten us to the passion of Jesus Christ.

Jim

 

[AlanF]

During Holy Week this year I saw a TV programme on the BBC about the shroud that traced it through history to about AD 300.

I’ve found a bit of info about that show here.

I’ve also just fond this interesting article: Turin shroud ‘older than thought’, which says that a new chemical test shows it to be between 1300 - 300 years old.

I think it is probably real.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Well, I believed in Jesus for decades before I knew there even WAS a Shroud of Turin, so my faith doesn’t stand or fall on it.

However, even if it is not the burial cloth of Christ, it’s still an IMAGE or icon of the crucified and dead Savior.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Historians are pretty much in agreement, that the Romans nailed through the wrist, when they crucified a person. The weight of the person’s body, would rip through the palms, and the body would fall off the cross.

In the book, “A Surgeon At Calvary,” by Pierre Barbet, Barbet who was a surgeon, experimented with cadavers, by nailing them in various ways to a cross. Those who he nailed through the hands, fell off as the skin alone on their palms, could not hold the body. He concluded that the Shroud showed the proper procedure for nailing a person to a cross, and that would be through the wrist. Other scientist agree.

Barbet, and others like him, made a consistent and glaring error: they assumed that the feet were supporting no weight. This will obviously not be the case, whether the feet were nailed directly to the cross (isn’t it horrid to even think/talk about such things?!), or, as I think was more likely, there was a small supporting platform. (In that case, they would support a lot of weight).

I saw a program on EWTN on this subject some years ago. That researcher’s conclusion was that the palms were the common nailing point.

Furthermore, other than the feet issue, I believe it was also sometimes or frequently the case that the upper arms were also tied to the crossbar, giving more support.

The stigmata isn’t to show a historical details on crucifixion, but to enlighten us to the passion of Jesus Christ.

Any source on that?

I have to disagree. I cannot imagine why Christ, imposing His wounds on another human being who would then enjoin his (real and terrible) physical suffering with His own, would choose crucifixion wounds that were not accurate.

I spoke with the priest who was St. Pio’s caretaker in the final years of his life in San Giovanni. This man saw his wounds daily, and he was careful to point out to us that Pio bore “the five wounds of Christ” - unbeknown to many, the saint had the lance wound in his side as well.

I am not an expert in these matters. (My curiosity has now been piqued a bit, and I’m going to do some research.) Christ’s true wounds being in the hands do not nullify the authenticity of the shroud automatically… I think. I don’t know. I know one thing: the support of Church of the person of St. Pio, by way of his canonization, not to mention the hundreds or thousands of miraculous events surrounding his life, is of much greater weight than that behind the shroud.

 

[mouse_has_faith]

Unfortunately, it does not matter which way the Romans crucified people; that in no way validates the Shroud. (For argument’s sake, let’s say you’re correct about Roman cruxifixion practices.) A lot of evidence you are using to say the Shroud was the cloth that wrapped Jesus is circumstantial; they used that weave pattern in the 1st century, the nails are in the place the Romans would placed them for crucifixion. That does not show anything; practices, traditions etc. are not “static”; they are passed down and continue. We are always finding evidence of continued practices or artifacts in use far earlier than was previously thought (e.g. “Matti”, and the iron helmet pre-dating others of its kind at Dura Europos).
The depositional context would need to be established, and a relative/ absolute date for said context; the manufacture does NOT tell us when the Shroud was in use.

The Hebrew university you previously mentioned that proved the 1988 date was incorrect actually didn’t do anything of the sort. What they showed was that pollen in the fabric came from an area near Jerusalem, and it may have dated to the 1st century. However, cloth was often recycled (as you pointed out Jim, the Turin had new pieces “added” throughout the centuries) in antiquity and into modern times; even for burials. The date of manufacture does not mean it was used then, or even in that area (e.g. trade, which is increasingly being shown to have been more extensive than previously thought).

Also, 2 problems are raised: no evidence was found of blood on the Shroud, and the BBC website AlanF posted finished by saying that the 1988 date many still hold to be the most reliable. This is a far cry from historians being “pretty much in agreement”.

AlanF, I have a question for you: if you believe the Shroud is real, why did you voluntarily refute yourself?

a new chemical test shows it to be between 1300 - 300 years old.

Having said all the above, I agree with bpbasilphx that regardless of authenticity, it does not change my belief in any way.

 

[GailMac]

I feel bad for those on this thread who don’t think it is “real” or “genuine.” I have a beautiful copy of it that has been enhanced on my kitchen table that I like looking at in the morning and whenever…It speaks to my heart in ways I have no words for. Well, maybe a few…

Peace,

Gail

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I feel bad for those on this thread who don’t think it is “real” or “genuine.” I have a beautiful copy of it that has been enhanced on my kitchen table that I like looking at in the morning and whenever…It speaks to my heart in ways I have no words for. Well, maybe a few…

Peace,

Gail

Don’t waste your pity on those who supplement their faith with reason, as the Church demands, and aren’t ruled by emotion

If we are to take your post at face value, it seems to suggest that one is to believe in the authenticity of every single claimed Catholic relic with no consideration of the facts. In truth, the vast majority through the ages have proven to be frauds (just like private revelations); this is why the judgment of the Church is so important.

The authenticity of the shroud certainly has nothing at all to do with the authenticity of the Resurrection - sometimes I wonder if people are confusing these two things. If one’s belief in the Resurrection is in any way dependent on the existence of a physical artifact…

 

[thistle]

Historians are pretty much in agreement, that the Romans nailed through the wrist, when they crucified a person. The weight of the person’s body, would rip through the palms, and the body would fall off the cross.
**
In the book, “A Surgeon At Calvary,” by Pierre Barbet, Barbet who was a surgeon, experimented with cadavers, by nailing them in various ways to a cross. Those who he nailed through the hands, fell off as the skin alone on their palms, could not hold the body. He concluded that the Shroud showed the proper procedure for nailing a person to a cross, and that would be through the wrist. Other scientist agree.**

The stigmata isn’t to show a historical details on crucifixion, but to enlighten us to the passion of Jesus Christ.

Jim

His experiments have been proven to be erroneous and other scientists do not agree with him.
Nails through the palm of the hand at the base of the thumb and nails in the feet can hold even a heavy man and the hands will not be torn by the weight.
You can read this in the book The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Enquiry by Dr. Frederick Zugibe which you can get from

ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/THE+CRUCIFIXION+OF+JESUS/cid=28/page_no=1/edp_no=3612/shop.axd/ProductDetails

 

[JimR-OCDS]

thistle

His experiments have been proven to be erroneous and other scientists do not agree with him.

They haven’t proven anything, but have challenged Barbet’s findings with their own ideas. Those challenges have also been challenged by others.

Nails through the palm of the hand at the base of the thumb and nails in the feet can hold even a heavy man and the hands will not be torn by the weight.

Perhaps, if the victim is nailed, hands and feet to a cross, while its still on the ground, as in the movie, “The Passion.” However, as Barbet showed, Roman’s would not have put such effort and expense into crucifixions, in fact, when they crucified some 5000 Jews in a given period, they would’ve used the simplest and most efficient means possible. Historians agree, that it is more likely that the victim carried a cross-beam to the place of crucifixion, where a permanent upright post was kept. They would’ve have laid the victim on the ground and nailed his wrist to the cross beam. Then they would’ve hoisted the beam up, thereby hanging the victim from the nails in his wrist, until they attached the beam to the upright post. Had they nailed him threw the palms of his hands, as Barbet experimented with his cadavers, the weight of their body would’ve torn the nails through their palms. The Jesus of Nazareth movie, was more historically accurate to Roman crucifixion, than Mel Gibson’s “The Passion.” However, that doesn’t mean the crucifixion in the Gibson movie was not accurate in Jesus case, because Jesus execution was not the norm, there may have been other circumstances that took place where a full cross crucifixion, with pre-drilled holes as shown in the movie, was plausible. I won’t get into those here.

Also, Barbet showed that from his study of the Shroud, the victim suffered what he called, “double-bleeds,” that is, the victim was nailed and hung, with feet nailed into the post. The victim, in order to get his breath would life himself up by pressing down on his feet, but then would fall, thereby causing a new bleed. The Shroud shows this, according to the surgeon.

Take a look at the Shroud, and you’ll see that the nail hole is on the back of the hand, close to the wrist, which fits with Roman crucifixion. From this, Barbet concluded that the Shroud was historically correct, when it came to Roman crucifixion.

Also, I believe they have found the remains of victims of Roman crucifixion, and it is concluded that the position of the nail wounds on the body image on the Shroud, are correct.

Jim

 

[mouse_has_faith]

The victim, in order to get his breath would life himself up by pressing down on his feet, but then would fall, thereby causing a new bleed.

Actually, I’m pretty sure the Romans broke their legs.

Also, like I said before, it doesn’t matter if the Shroud presents the nails etc. in the right place- that is circumstantial. Please see my previous post in this thread.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

mouse_has_faith

Actually, I’m pretty sure the Romans broke their legs.

Not necessarily. The Gospel accounts of the legs being broken on the two thieves, was to speed up their deaths because the Sabbath was coming and Pilate, in order to appease the Jews, did not want bodies left hanging on the crosses during the Sabbath.

Also, like I said before, it doesn’t matter if the Shroud presents the nails etc. in the right place- that is circumstantial.

The Shroud shows that it the method of nailing throw the base f the wrist, is historically accurate.

Jim

 

[mouse_has_faith]

Not necessarily. The Gospel accounts of the legs being broken on the two thieves, was to speed up their deaths because the Sabbath was coming and Pilate, in order to appease the Jews, did not want bodies left hanging on the crosses during the Sabbath.

Fair enough, but I am speaking generally here, not specifically about Jesus.

The Shroud shows that it the method of nailing throw the base f the wrist, is historically accurate.

And first its authenticity has to be established; it being accurate does not establish this.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

The Shroud shows that it the method of nailing throw the base f the wrist, is historically accurate.

You are making a circular argument. The shroud’s locations of the wrist wounds are not necessarily historically accurate. You seem to just be ignoring evidence to the contrary.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

The most impressive thing about the shroud is our inability to
explain and replicate it. Plus the oddness of a negative image.
But it does exist and push come to shove, however unlikley it may seem, it may simply the same as the ant preserved in amber. Or it may be regarded as, like Our Lord Himself, a sign of contradiction.

 

[Holly3278]

Yes, I do believe the Shroud of Turin to be real.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You are making a circular argument. The shroud’s locations of the wrist wounds are not necessarily historically accurate. You seem to just be ignoring evidence to the contrary.

The historical evidence that exist on Roman Crucifixion, supports that the nail holes in the image in the Shroud are correct. This does not prove the Shroud is that of Jesus, only that complies with what we know about Roman crucifixion.

However, there were various ways of crucifixion. In fact, in 1968, they found a grave site in Jerusalem, where victims had been crucified. However, these victims were nailed through the arms to the cross, and through the sides of the ankles, not the tops of the feet.

The only way nails through the palms could hold the human to the cross, without tearing through the skin would be, that the victims hands and feet were nailed to a fully constructed cross, as it lay on the ground, i.e. as in “The Passion Movie,” or, in addition to nails, ropes were used.

These are physiological facts, supported by historical evidence.

Jim

 

[AlanF]

AlanF, I have a question for you: if you believe the Shroud is real, why did you voluntarily refute yourself?

a new chemical test shows it to be between 1300 - 300 years old.

Oops, typo!
That was supposed to read “1300 - 3000”.

Barbet, and others like him, made a consistent and glaring error: they assumed that the feet were supporting no weight. This will obviously not be the case, whether the feet were nailed directly to the cross (isn’t it horrid to even think/talk about such things?!), or, as I think was more likely, there was a small supporting platform. (In that case, they would support a lot of weight).

The Eastern Orthodox crosses have foot crossbars on them.