Have you seen the 3 d figure of the shroud of turin

[Tis_Bearself]

I tend to think the Shroud is for real, but it’s definitely just a matter of faith/ what one believes. I’m fine with Catholics who don’t accept it, as long as they don’t try to persuade me.

If there was 100 percent positive proof it was just an artistic rendering, like if the Vatican said they had run extensive tests and it wasn’t real, I would accept that. But based on all what I’ve read, I’m pretty convinced.

 

[PJH_74]

Scripture says the soldiers went to break the legs of the men crucified on either side, but when they got to Jesus, they found him already dead, so did not break his legs.

Opps. Thanks for setting me straight on that!

 

[Delphinus]

Race is more than skin color Bone structure, height, shape of the skull all are good indicators. Either way, it’s my belief looking at the image there it represents the tall, muscular, well-kept medium length hair that is more common among medieval royalty (Christ the King) than a peasant from Palestine who would have much different hair and bone structure than appears on the shroud.

But, that’s the beauty of our Catholic faith, brother (or sister? My apologies!) we can disagree on this one!

 

[tweedlealice]

Crocus,
His legs were NOT BROKEN. Legs were broken to expedite the death of a victim who had NOT DIED YET! Jesus was dead. That’s why the lancer was placed in his heart to see if there was any blood! Plus, that would kill Him.
[John 19:28–37.

Breaking the legs of victims on the cross was a common practice by the Romans to speed up death. Soldiers would use the steel shaft of a short Roman spear to shatter the person’s lower leg bones. This would prevent the individual from pushing up with his legs so he could breathe, and death by asphyxiation would result in a matter of minutes.

When the soldiers approached Jesus, they determined that he was already dead, and one used his spear to pierce Jesus’ side to confirm it (see John 19:34). This fulfilled another Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah: his bones would remain unbroken (see Psalm 34:19–20).
Adapted from interview with Dr. Alexander Metherell

 

[vz71]

Here we go again. It is NOT a fact of any kind.

Pope Pius XI was expressing his opinion/belief and was not talking for the Church which has not declared the Shroud to be genuine and science has NOT proven the Shroud to be genuine.

Where were you during these last few posts that claimed with absolute certainty the shroud a fake?

You are so worried about fact and opinion… except when the opinion agrees with you.
Then apparently passing opinion off as fact is just fine.

 

[undead_rat]

In his recent work* Prof quotes from the Italian Society of Statistics:

The 1988 statements that the line of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval need to be reconsidered in light of the evidence produced by our use of a robust statistical technique. In other words, the 12 (C-14) measurements cannot be considered as repeated measurements of a single unknown quantity, therefore an environmental contamination in the analyzed piece of fabric that acted in a non-uniform linear way can be hypothesized.

If the bias highlighted by the radiocarbon dating of the three labs was directly transferred all along the Shroud, it could be hypothesized, for a length of about 4 meters, a variation of twenty millenniums into the future,

Prof Fanti then states: “This conclusion affirms therefore that the result of the 1988 radiocarbon dating is unreliable and scientifically meaningless.”

*THE SHROUD OF TURIN–FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST!, Fanti/Malfi, 2015, pg.159

If anyone really wants to know the truth about the Shroud of Turin, I highy recommend reading Prof. Fanti’s book

 

[thistle]

Where were you during these last few posts that claimed with absolute certainty the shroud a fake?

You are so worried about fact and opinion… except when the opinion agrees with you.
Then apparently passing opinion off as fact is just fine.

I do not believe it is genuine. However, whether it is a fake (meaning deliberate attempt to deceive) or merely a medieval work of art I don’t know.
Remember the burden of proof is on those who want it to be genuine and not the other way round.

It is NOT A FACT that the Shroud is genuine. It is opinion/belief and it is okay for anyone to believe it is genuine. That is their right. I have no problem with that. They just should not be stating it as a fact.

By the way, even if the cloth were to be proven to be 2000 years old and it has not been it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to prove it is the actual burial cloth of Christ because we were not there to watch him rising and making an image. It would still come down to an individual’s choice to believe it or not.

Also, bear in mind the Shroud is not an article or faith, nor does it add anything to Church doctrine, nor has the Church declared it genuine, nor are Catholics obliged to believe it is genuine.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The thing that gets me about the Shroud is that every Pope from Pius XI onwards has viewed it favorably and most of them also venerated it.

Why would Popes venerate something that could likely be a fake?

I realize that no Catholic is required to believe that the Shroud is real and the Vatican hasn’t officially pronounced on it, but half a dozen Popes showing respect for this Shroud says a lot.