E
edtaylor51
Guest
I doubt it’s real, but it’s of little to no consequence either way, it wouldn’t sway my faith in either direction if it were proven real or a forgery tomorrow.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
anna
Guest
Again, nobody said it was a FACT…You however keep bringing it up as if someone stating that. I am starting to believe however that anyone who does believe it is the Shroud is what’s really bothering you. WHY?
T
thistle
Guest
You are wrong.Again, nobody said it was a FACT…
I will quote from posts in this thread by undead_rat:
"Yes, the Shroud is real"
and again
“With all due respect to the Church, it sometimes is behind the curve when it comes to science, and it is science that has proven that the Shroud is authentic and that its image of Jesus was formed by a miraculous event.”
In the above quote he is even attacking the Church.
L
Lee1
Guest
As far as I know the shroud hasn’t been proven to be authentic.
It doesn’t matter, would a wife show people a pair of socks to prove she had a husband? Slightly different but I hope you get my Dreft.
Fortunately God is real so everything is fine.
It doesn’t matter, would a wife show people a pair of socks to prove she had a husband? Slightly different but I hope you get my Dreft.
Fortunately God is real so everything is fine.
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
If the husband hadn’t been seen in years, and people didn’t believe she had a husband, and the socks were the only physical proof she had of his existence, she might…As far as I know the shroud hasn’t been proven to be authentic.
It doesn’t matter, would a wife show people a pair of socks to prove she had a husband? Slightly different but I hope you get my Dreft.
Fortunately God is real so everything is fine.
A
anna
Guest
You are pulling at threads…You are making a strong accusation by saying someone is attacking the Church…I, would be the first one to ask a moderator to pull the plug on this if that were remotely true… He was referring to science…in both statements. Again I will ask you why does this subject bother you? Yes it has been brought up before and it will continue to be brought up as more info comes in… One has a right to quote different articles, for or against the Shroud, One has a right to their opinion…
L
Lee1
Guest
Where did he go without his socks?
E
edtaylor51
Guest
Wearing Crocs probably.
U
undead_rat
Guest
In 1902 Paul Vignon published his landmark work on the Shroud: THE SHROUD OF CHRIST. In this work he proved that the Shroud was authentic, but he was unable to postulate a valid hypothesis for the formation of the Shroud’s image of Jesus. His “vaporographic prints” theory has been shown to be incorrect.
Vignon’s 1902 work was reprinted in 1970, and this edition contained a new foreward written by Leslie Shepard. Included there was this quote of what Pope Pius XI had said in 1936 about the Shroud:
These are the images of the Divine Redeemer. We might say they are the most beautiful, most moving and dearest we can imagine. They derive directly from the object, surrounded by mystery, which–this can safely be said–it has now been established is no product of human hands. It is the holy Shroud at Turin. We say that it is surrounded by mystery because much remains unexplained about this affair whcih is certainly holy as no other is. But this much can be said—it is absolutely certain that it is not the work of man.
Pope Pius XI said that the Shroud was authentic. I say it too. It is a scientifically proven fact.
Vignon’s 1902 work was reprinted in 1970, and this edition contained a new foreward written by Leslie Shepard. Included there was this quote of what Pope Pius XI had said in 1936 about the Shroud:
These are the images of the Divine Redeemer. We might say they are the most beautiful, most moving and dearest we can imagine. They derive directly from the object, surrounded by mystery, which–this can safely be said–it has now been established is no product of human hands. It is the holy Shroud at Turin. We say that it is surrounded by mystery because much remains unexplained about this affair whcih is certainly holy as no other is. But this much can be said—it is absolutely certain that it is not the work of man.
Pope Pius XI said that the Shroud was authentic. I say it too. It is a scientifically proven fact.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
The Shroud of Turin makes me laugh because for nearly 100 years the Church said it was fake, including getting a confession from the artist.
Then another Bishop came into ownership of it, started charging people to see it, and then it was “real”.
Not to mention it dates EXACTLY to when it’s first historical mention. The cases is closed.
These sorts of things are not good for Christianity, because when they are proven fake it subverts people’s faith.
Then another Bishop came into ownership of it, started charging people to see it, and then it was “real”.
Not to mention it dates EXACTLY to when it’s first historical mention. The cases is closed.
These sorts of things are not good for Christianity, because when they are proven fake it subverts people’s faith.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
These statements make it hard to be a Christian. When things are proven false, it’s no big deal, accept it. Compare with Mormon Book of Abraham. Not something to base your faith on.Pope Pius XI said that the Shroud was authentic. I say it too. It is a scientifically proven fact.
D
Delphinus
Guest
Another Shroud skeptic here…this just fans the flames here.
I’m glad the church doesn’t say we HAVE to accept it.
Background on me - I’m a Charismatic Catholic…I’m all about miracles and such…The Shroud, to me, is totally discredited for simply one reason.
THAT Jesus is very clearly a white, large, well-groomed male that is more likely to be Scandinavian than a poor carpenter living in the backwater of Israel in the first century. The hair and style of this Jesus is fresh out of the expectations of middle ages royalty, not a carpenter from Israel.
Jesus was a REAL guy living in a REAL time with a REAL body and a REAL race. No one remarked at his pale skin, especially since that would have been the mark of a gentile (Roman) and everyone knew he was descended from David - Jews.
Either way, at the end of the day, I don’t think it really matters. What matters is if we know the TRUE Jesus. Things like The Shroud are red herrings.
I’m glad the church doesn’t say we HAVE to accept it.
Background on me - I’m a Charismatic Catholic…I’m all about miracles and such…The Shroud, to me, is totally discredited for simply one reason.
THAT Jesus is very clearly a white, large, well-groomed male that is more likely to be Scandinavian than a poor carpenter living in the backwater of Israel in the first century. The hair and style of this Jesus is fresh out of the expectations of middle ages royalty, not a carpenter from Israel.
Jesus was a REAL guy living in a REAL time with a REAL body and a REAL race. No one remarked at his pale skin, especially since that would have been the mark of a gentile (Roman) and everyone knew he was descended from David - Jews.
Either way, at the end of the day, I don’t think it really matters. What matters is if we know the TRUE Jesus. Things like The Shroud are red herrings.
U
undead_rat
Guest
–No Catholic Bishop owned the Shroud until King Umberto died in the 1980s and willed it to the Bishop of Rome.The Shroud of Turin makes me laugh because for nearly 100 years the Church said it was fake, including getting a confession from the artist.
Then another Bishop came into ownership of it, started charging people to see it, and then it was “real”.
Not to mention it dates EXACTLY to when it’s first historical mention. The cases is closed.
These sorts of things are not good for Christianity, because when they are proven fake it subverts people’s faith.
—The first historical mention of the Shroud was in A.D. 33 when it was presented to King Abgar V in Edessa. If as a “date” you are refering to the atheist’s interpretion of the Shroud’s 1988 C-14 evidence, that interpretation has been debunked by Prof. Fanti in his 2015 book.* The linen cloth of the Shroud has been proven to date to 35 B.C. +/- 300 years.
—The Shroud was subjected to an intense scientific investigation in 1978. If it was a fake, that study would have found it out. STURP was asked this question at its press conference:
“Have you found anything that would preclude the Shroud’s being authentic?”
The answer was an unqualified, “No!”**
Sir, may I respectfully ask that you read some of the many books that are available on the Shroud before you make accusations.
*THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, FIRST CENTURY AD!, Fanti/Malfi, 2015
** REPORT ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Heller, 1983
U
undead_rat
Guest
The Image on the Shroud is a monochrome sepia color which has some of the characterists of a photographic negative. It in no way indicates a skin color of the person it represents. Where did you get this idea?…The Shroud, to me, is totally discredited for simply one reason.
THAT Jesus is very clearly a white, large, well-groomed male that is more likely to be Scandinavian than a poor carpenter living in the backwater of Israel in the first century. The hair and style of this Jesus is fresh out of the expectations of middle ages royalty, not a carpenter from Israel.
Jewish men in ancient Israel did not cut their hair or beards out of obedience to Leviticus 19:27.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
The lastest research substantiates the earlier studies that found the Shroud to be authentic. Prof. Fanti has proved that the Shroud’s linen dates to 35 B.C. +/- 300 years.These statements make it hard to be a Christian. When things are proven false, it’s no big deal, accept it. Compare with Mormon Book of Abraham. Not something to base your faith on.
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
Emmaus? Or the road to it?Where did he go without his socks?
L
Lee1
Guest
Could there be any other possible owner of these socks apart from the husband of the woman stating that they are his?
T
thistle
Guest
Here we go again. It is NOT a fact of any kind.Pope Pius XI said that the Shroud was authentic. I say it too. It is a scientifically proven fact.
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.
A
anna
Guest
Thistle, I will not bounce back and forth with you over what I believe, I respect what you believe and I ask the same of you. You are trying to shred posts that do not coincide with you. Good night and God bless you in the New Year.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.