Do you believe the Shroud of Turin is real?

[mouse_has_faith]

However, there were various ways of crucifixion. In fact, in 1968, they found a grave site in Jerusalem, where victims had been crucified.

Which would further invalidate the relevancy of the nail holes in the Shroud.

These are physiological facts, supported by historical evidence.

I’ve already asked you for your source, and you haven’t given it. I’ve supplied mine (for my initial post). Where has the historical evidence been published?

Also, you’ve twice ignored my comments about the depositional context of the Shroud, in which I said: 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.
Also, these two problems remain: no evidence was found of blood on the Shroud, and the BBC website AlanF posted concluded that the 1988 date is still generally held to be the most reliable.

Please stop ignoring this by talking about crucifixion, because as I have said many times, practices are not static, and you should not assume people a thousand years ago were as ignorant as they are generally held to be. Also, in isolation, the position of the nail holes is irrelevant.
Just ignoring my argument won’t make it go away.

AlanF,

There is obviously something wrong with this date: 1300-3000. This is FAR too broad to be of any use. Historic absolute dating methods (e.g. c14) get a much narrower range than that; 1300-3000 is what one would expect from Potassiom Argon and Argon-Argon dating, which is used for the prehistoric period. What source did you get that from? It doesn’t make any sense, because NO c14 date for the historic period (nor any other method for this period) would bring up such a massive calibrated range; there is something seriously wrong there.

 

[the_phoenix]

Some years back when a comet was visible in the sky, I went outside to look. Meanwhile, I had set my VCR to record a tv show. While looking at the comet, I felt moved to pray, “Dear Jesus, the comet is beautiful, but your face is more beautiful.”

Went back inside the house to watch the tv show I had just recorded, and was at first a tad disappointed to discover that my program had been replaced by a different one. My disappointment soon turned to a happy surprised wonder, because what my VCR had taped without my intending it was a special documentary on the Shroud of Turin. So there I was, looking at the beautiful face of Jesus in the cloth.

As it was April Fool’s Day, I thought it was kind of neat that Our Lord had played such a nice joke on me.

~~ the phoenix

 

[GailMac]

Dear Paul Folbrecht - you state:“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…” to which I ask…how much of a “physical artifact” is the Eucharist? Proof enough of the Resurrection? From the womb to the tomb…and beyond! The kiss and blush of my Beloved…a poem. Here’s a link - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=27785

Peace,

Gail

 

[AlanF]

AlanF,

There is obviously something wrong with this date: 1300-3000. This is FAR too broad to be of any use. Historic absolute dating methods (e.g. c14) get a much narrower range than that; 1300-3000 is what one would expect from Potassiom Argon and Argon-Argon dating, which is used for the prehistoric period. What source did you get that from? It doesn’t make any sense, because NO c14 date for the historic period (nor any other method for this period) would bring up such a massive calibrated range; there is something seriously wrong there.

The soursce I got that from was the BBC article I posted, this is not a C14 test that predicted between 1300 - 3000 years old, this is a “determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss” in the fibres of the linin.

Also, these two problems remain: no evidence was found of blood on the Shroud, and the BBC website AlanF posted concluded that the 1988 date is still generally held to be the most reliable.

No it doesn’t, it says “The C-14 dating isn’t being disputed. But [the new research] is saying that they dated the rewoven area.”

 

[mouse_has_faith]

The soursce I got that from was the BBC article I posted, this is not a C14 test that predicted between 1300 - 3000 years old, this is a “determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss” in the fibres of the linin.

Actually I was asking Jim for his source, you’ve already supplied yours (thankyou). It doesn’t really matter if it was a c14 test or a “determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss”, the date is far too broad to be of any use (you do realise this date may also place it in the medieval period, right?), and there remains something seriously wrong there, because no absolute dating method should give such a broad range for the historic period. Alarm bells are ringing.

No it doesn’t, it says “The C-14 dating isn’t being disputed. But [the new research] is saying that they dated the rewoven area.”

Yes, it does. Another news page on the BBC site (here) says, “Critics say 1989’s carbon dating analysis - which showed the shroud could be no more than 700 years old - remains the most compelling evidence of the shroud’s age.”

 

[AlanF]

Actually I was asking Jim for his source, you’ve already supplied yours (thankyou). It doesn’t really matter if it was a c14 test or a “determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss”, the date is far too broad to be of any use (you do realise this date may also place it in the medieval period, right?), and there remains something seriously wrong there, because no absolute dating method should give such a broad range for the historic period. Alarm bells are ringing.

I don’t think alarm bells should be ringing, testing on vanillin loss won’t give such a prcise age as carbon testing but it does give usefull boundaries, so either the C14 test was right or this one is, they can’t both be right.

Yes, it does. Another news page on the BBC site (here) says, “Critics say 1989’s carbon dating analysis - which showed the shroud could be no more than 700 years old - remains the most compelling evidence of the shroud’s age.”

That article was written 5 years before the one I posted, before Raymond Rogers published his paper, so yes, back then the C14 test was the most compelling. But now it may not be because that test may have been done on the wrong bit of cloth.

 

[mouse_has_faith]

That article was written 5 years before the one I posted, before Raymond Rogers published his paper, so yes, back then the C14 test was the most compelling. But now it may not be because that test may have been done on the wrong bit of cloth.

Fair enough that it is older (I didn’t check the dates), however an archaeology university textbook published this year (“Archaeology”, Renfrew & Bahn [both very respected figures in archaeology]), still holds the 1988 date. This source is somewhat more credible than a BBC news site.

I don’t think alarm bells should be ringing, testing on vanillin loss won’t give such a prcise age as carbon testing but it does give usefull boundaries, so either the C14 test was right or this one is, they can’t both be right.

Alarm bells are ringing for these reasons: absolute dating within the historical period is supposed to give closer dates (c14 generally gives within 50-100 years, but more specific dates can be reached through other methods). A 1700+ calibration is too broad to be of any use within the historical period; it is like saying the Cold War could have happened anywhere between last year or during the reign of Constantine. With that example, do you see how useless such a broad age range is?
If Vanillin loss gives such a broad range, it should not be applied. The boundary is not useful, because a more specific, but still general, boundary for the Shroud could be established through contextual seriation. Such broad dates are fine for prehistory, but not for the historic period. Any competant archaeologist should know this, hence the alarm bells ringing; something is wrong here.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

mouse_has_faith

Which would further invalidate the relevancy of the nail holes in the Shroud.

No it wouldn’t because there were various methods of crucifixion.

I’ve already asked you for your source, and you haven’t given it. I’ve supplied mine (for my initial post). Where has the historical evidence been published?

Oh, sorry, its on the net. Do a search on Roman Crucifixion, and you’ll get loads of sources where historians have discovered various methods. The earlier one I mentioned is here;

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/crucifixion.html

Also, you’ve twice ignored my comments about the depositional context of the Shroud, in which I said: 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.

Not sure what you’re saying here?

Also, these two problems remain: no evidence was found of blood on the Shroud, and the BBC website AlanF posted concluded that the 1988 date is still generally held to be the most reliable.

Again this is debatable. The 1988 radiocarbon testing was proven to be flawed. Others have already posted websites supporting the claim.

Please stop ignoring this by talking about crucifixion, because as I have said many times, practices are not static, and you should not assume people a thousand years ago were as ignorant as they are generally held to be. Also, in isolation, the position of the nail holes is irrelevant.
Just ignoring my argument won’t make it go away.

I’m not ignoring you, nor am I using crucifixion alone as justification for my belief in the authenticity of the Shroud. I only brought crucifixion up, because Barbet study it, and compared it to his study on Roman Crucifixion, and the image on the Shroud is historically accurate.

Also, I haven’t responded here, because from some reason, my instant email notification for this thread was turned off, without my knowledge. It seems to be a common occurrence at this website.

Jim

 

[mouse_has_faith]

No it wouldn’t because there were various methods of crucifixion.

The nail holes in the Shroud are irrelevant. Really, they are circumstantial evidence. By itself, it proves nothing for (or really, against) the Shroud being from the time of Christ. Now, with an accurate date, if these marks of crucifixion were accurate, they would lend some support. However, 1) a date contemporary with Jesus has not been established, the 1988 date remains credible (see below), and 2) this is assuming your information on crucifixion practices are correct.

Not sure what you’re saying here?

Ok, I’m saying this: in antiquity, and in the medieval period (and indeed, today!), often items that were made- cloth, pottery, glass, etc., were recycled. For instance, a cloth made in 1000 AD may have been used easily into 1300 AD. Things like glass, cloth, metal were often melted down and reused to make new products (this is why the overwhelming number of artefacts that are found [or the surviving material culture], are potsherds- they can’t be recycled). If the cloth was made during the time of Christ, that does not at all necessarily mean it was used then- i.e. it may have been exported for trade (quite prolific in antiquity and late antiquity), or it may previously have been used for different purposes.
In this case, to determine when the Shroud was used in its current context (for burial), the date of it being discarded would need to be determined; i.e. it’s date of “deposition”. A date for human use of the pit/ deposit, which would be the last possible date for the burial/ discarding of the Shroud, is needed. That could give a clearer indication when the Shroud was used last (it may have been used earlier, re-used, etc.; that is a different matter); so it’d give, in this case, an indication if it was used during the time of Christ.
Normally an absolute date is fine, but as there is so much controversy, this may help clear things up somewhat.

Again this is debatable. The 1988 radiocarbon testing was proven to be flawed. Others have already posted websites supporting the claim.

Why is it debatable? Who has proven it to be flawed? Someone saying the tests were inaccurate doesn’t mean it is “flawed”, and people are always posting websites about all sorts of things; there are plenty of conspiracy and UFO sites out there. People will always be questioning these things, that does not cast doubt on the validity of whatever they’re disputing.
You would need to show me a reliable, reputable source- NOT some website on the net, unless it is an .edu site or otherwise reputable source, that disputes the accuracy of the dating, and has valid reasons for why.

Until then, a university textbook on archaeology, which deals with absolute dating (as is to be expected), still lists the 1988 date; it is still held to be the most accurate (ISBN: 978-0-500-28713-2).

 

[AMDGtoo]

The Shroud’s “sister cloth”, the Sudarium of Oviedo is already known to have an undisputed origin (although it is just the head cloth and shows a connected to the Shroud, it is far less dramatic) so it would be a real “reach” for me to accept those facts yet think someone “made up” the Shroud. BTW I’ve never been able to figure out how extinct pollen from the Jerusalem area at the time of Christ’s crucifixion got on the Shroud if the Shroud was indeed a Middle Ages hoax.

 

[mouse_has_faith]

The Shroud’s “sister cloth”, the Sudarium of Oviedo is already known to have an undisputed origin

Assuming you have a source for that, what does that have to do with anything? The link between the Shroud and the Sudarium has been ruled out for some time.

BTW I’ve never been able to figure out how extinct pollen from the Jerusalem area at the time of Christ’s crucifixion got on the Shroud if the Shroud was indeed a Middle Ages hoax.

Indeed, I’ve never been able to figure out how a cloth that was supposedly wrapped around Jesus’ body has no trace of blood whatsoever on it.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Assuming you have a source for that, what does that have to do with anything? The link between the Shroud and the Sudarium has been ruled out for some time.

Ruled out? Really? This site doesn’t seem to think so:

shroud.com/guscin.htm

Indeed, I’ve never been able to figure out how a cloth that was supposedly wrapped around Jesus’ body has no trace of blood whatsoever on it.

First I’ve heard of that too.

When I did a search about the shroud, I got this:

Tests were taken out by forensic scientists and chemists on the bloodstain Shroud of Turin and results show positive to those bloodstains were in fact to be created by real blood. Immunologists, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as RH and ABO typing of blood antigens revel that the stains were human blood. Hence, this mean the bloodstains were formed by real human bleeding from real wounds on a real human body that came into direct contact with the cloth.

As I understand it, the blood type is AB; same as on the Sudarium.

 

[thistle]

Ruled out? Really? This site doesn’t seem to think so:

shroud.com/guscin.htm

First I’ve heard of that too.

When I did a search about the shroud, I got this:

As I understand it, the blood type is AB; same as on the Sudarium.

Why does any of this matter anyway?
If someone really needs relics then their faith must be pretty weak and focussing on these things is not the way to strengthen a person’s faith.

 

[AMDGtoo]

If someone really needs relics then their faith must be pretty weak and focussing on these things is not the way to strengthen a person’s faith.

Or it might not be that anyone “needs” the relic to stregthen their fait at all. It could just confirm what we know all along–that God often uses the ordinary in our lives, and it could just reaffirm the authenticity of the relic in question as well.

 

[mouse_has_faith]

Ruled out? Really? This site doesn’t seem to think so:

shroud.com/guscin.htm

The BBC news site presents it so. Your source is no more trustworthy than this one.

First I’ve heard of that too.

When I did a search about the shroud, I got this: [snip]

I Googled part of that quote and it came up on “shroud.org”; hardly an academic or reputable source. (Assuming I accept the notion that there is blood and that the blood type is the same, that is circumstantial. It really is irrelevant.)

There are a lot of conflicting things about the Shroud out there, it is unlikely that those who really want to believe in it’s authenticity will ever accept anything but.
However, all things being equal, which do you think is really likely to be the more trustworthy and accurate source? The university archaeology textbook published this year (in it’s fifth edition), or some internet websites which anyone can put up?

 

[AMDGtoo]

However, all things being equal, which do you think is really likely to be the more trustworthy and accurate source? The university archaeology textbook published this year (in it’s fifth edition), or some internet websites which anyone can put up?

Oh, I don’t know, at the present there are a lot of “revisionist” texts out there (from “archeology” and otherwise, that claim that there is “proof” of a blood brother of Jesus to “proof” that Jesus was really married, to some “proofs” that Jesus never existed to others that say that he was just a man, to texts on modern history that say that the Bombing of Pearl Harbor was a big conspiracy to others that claim that the Holocaust never existed), so I don’t conclude that all textbooks are not just projecting their own “agendas”. And certainly I wouldn’t simply pick one source that seems to have an “agenda” as projecting “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”–especially if that source refuses to consider all test results (even more recent ones) and historical claims as well as answering other things “unexplainable” concerning the shroud. Of course, thats just me.

 

[mouse_has_faith]

You haven’t proven anything against my book, you also have not put forward any reasons as to why your source is trustworthy. Just making gross generalisations about unnamed random textbooks not only has nothing to do with the subject, it also proves nothing (except that you seem to harbour a great deal of bias against textbooks), and fails to help your position.

I am still waiting to hear why your internet website is more authoratative than the university textbook.

 

[JReducation]

Granted, the Shroud is impressive. However, our faith does not depend on it. Our faith is totally dependant on the faith of the Apostles that was handed down to us through sacred tradition and later preserved in the scriptures and the teaching of the Church.

I often find myself shying away from miracles and looking at examples of life changes in persons who have been deeply influenced by their encounter with Christ, such as St. Therese of Liseux.

Her life is more telling than the shroud. The fact that the entire world was changed by the Christ even is the greatest proof of the resurrection.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[CWBetts]

I simply have the faith that it is. Why must we have conclusive proof? If we have proof, of what value is our faith?

 

[thistle]

I simply have the faith that it is. Why must we have conclusive proof? If we have proof, of what value is our faith?

Better to focus your faith in Christ instead of a piece of cloth. The piece of cloth does nothing for your salvation.