Jesus Christ bombshell: Shroud of Turin NOT a hoax! - after review of original 1988 Carbon-14 test data

  • Thread starter Thread starter observer333
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

observer333

Guest
After studying the data for two years, the new research team announced that the study from 1988 was flawed because it did not involve study of the entire shroud—just some edge pieces. Edge pieces from the shroud are rumored to have been tampered with by nuns in the Middle Ages seeking to restore damage done to the shroud over the years.– From your Phys.org link.

I think we’ve known this for years, haven’t we? What is the news here, exactly?
 
Yes, many other tests over the years have supported its authenticity & its been known since the beginning that C-14 testing only one small edge piece was problematic, but I believe, in this case, French researchers sued Oxford using the UKs freedom of information act to get the original raw data, won, studied it, and conclusively proved it was flawed.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, what they have conclusively proved is that the small piece that was examined was not a representative sample of the whole shroud. They’re not claiming that they can substantiate an earlier date.
 
Yes, but the 1988 C-14 test was the ONLY test that went against authenticity, and there have been many other types of tests. Off the top of my head, for instance, the Vanillin test of the fabric showed that it was approx. 2000 years old.

But don’t take my word for it:
check out: https://www.shroud.com/
 
No bombshell, no unassailable proof of authenticity. Maybe one day, but it hasn’t happened yet.
 
Like I said, the MOST studied artifact in history. There are already tons of evidence all pointing to authenticity…jerusalem pollen & limestone dust, 3-D effect, type AB blood, the matching facecloth (sudarium) in Oviedio, Spain since at least 700 AD (with the same blood type and stain patterns as the shroud face!), the same face/features on many different coins & artwork since at least 600 AD, etc…this is just a sampling…

I can’t recommend this website more: https://www.shroud.com/
 
I think you’re overstating your case. There are a lot of people who want it to be true, including several regular posters here at CAF. But that doesn’t make it true. There are also a lot of people who want it to be false, but that doesn’t make it false. The rest of us are just trying to calculate the balance of probabilities.
 
Seriously, it can hardly be overstated in this case. Have you reviewed any of the evidence? Check it out and then get back to us. You will be surprised. Unfortunately, I must retire for the night…
 
If authenticated, it is a wonderful second class relic of our Lord - first class if it contains blood. But that will never happen to a moral certainty. The thrust has been to disprove it.

It is absolutely extraneous to the faith.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
No bombshell, no unassailable proof of authenticity. Maybe one day, but it hasn’t happened yet.
Click to expand...
It’s certainly not a “bombshell” - but remember that headlines are usually composed by editors and often mis-represent the content of the article.

It adds nothing to the already enormous weight of evidence in favour of the shroud.

It adds little to the long-standing questions over the reliability of the 1988 C-14 datings.

Perhaps it adds this:
A team of researchers from France and Italy has found evidence that suggests testing of the Shroud of Turin back in 1988 was flawed. In their paper published in Oxford University’s Archaeometry , the group describes their reanalysis of the data used in the prior study, and what they found.
Click to expand...
Is this is the most well-credentialed debunking of the 1988 results so far? Have all the previous been well known, but not published with this level of credibility?

The science in the new report:
claimed that the raw data from the 1988 tests showed that the test samples were heterogeneous, invalidating the results.
Click to expand...
The analysts were the first to look at the raw data (which they had to get with FOI demands) and this conclusion that they were “heterogenous” seems to have been significant. I am guessing this means that that the approximate agreement of the three samples was co-incidental, rather than “homogoneous” which would have been expected if they were from the actual shroud.
 
Last edited:
I think even if it is from the same year Christ was crucified; many people were crucified. I think the devotion to it is nice but in my opinion it is spurious at best to actually think this is the cloth Christ was wrapped in. No Fathers speak of it, it doesn’t even come into the historical record until the middle ages. It is a nice wish, but I simply can’t see much of a reason to think it is anyone other than just some guy who was killed anywhere in the first centuries. Someone may have seen it and said he looks like Jesus maybe, and the tale began.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s interesting how you guys casually handwave the evidence. What exactly is spurious about the Vanillin tests, the matching wounds (to the descriptions of Christ’s crucifixion) down to the crowning of thorns and piercing to the heart which were NOT at all the standard punishment, the coins from Jerusalem and info on Pontius Pilate around the same year, the unreplicable information like photography on the cloth, invisible x-ray information, invisible 3D information, and the historical record connecting it to Christians?
 
Last edited:
Thousands of people were crucified at the time of Christ just in Judea. And it was used all over the Roman empire. Whose to say it isn’t just some cloth of some other guy who was crucified? The Church Fathers would have spoken about this if it was true. It literally just jumped into the historical record in the late middle ages.
As Catholics we are not required to believe in the Shroud of Turin. I don’t know why you speak like I am some bad Catholic because I am skeptical about its history.
 
Last edited:
How many of these thousands were also tortured by scourging before execution, crowned with thorns and pierced to the side of the heart just after death and crucified by Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem around 30 AD? And what do you mean the church fathers would’ve spoken abt it? I dont remember them focussing on relics, but there WAS a Christian historian from the time who spoke of the cloth with Christ’s image that cured a King and converted him. Incidentally, that place is also part of the pollen ‘history’ embedded in the shroud.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal1984 said:
As Catholics we are not required to believe in the Shroud of Turin. I don’t know why you speak like I am some bad Catholic because I am skeptical about its history.
Click to expand...
Please stop saying things that arent true. I have not mentioned your Catholicism, even by implication. I questioned your casual dismissal of a TON of evidence as ‘spurious’. Don’t know what that has to do with your faith.
 
This the most fascinating study of the shroud I’ve ever seen.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts are that if people (in general, not talking so much about CAF specifically) put half as much effort into practicing the faith as they do about getting all wound up over the potential authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, the world would be a better place.
 
Last edited:
Actually, GiftofMercy, there’s not a big problem with the method. The problem was the team that carried out the first part of the process: the sampling. They defied a basic procedure and took ALL samples from one small portion without first ensuring it was representative, then cut it up into three portions and sent it to the three labs. That’s all that happened. C14 isn’t 100% accurate but it can give good estimations. Meanwhile other dating methods have been done and they date it to 2,000 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top