Thanks for the link Barb. It was intersesting to note that the Reverend made direct reference to John 20 in his writing. I did see that special and thought that it was well done. Thanks again.I’ve heard it discussed on various Shroud of Turin programs on EWTN, the cloths possibly being the object for consideration.
Found this website where it is discussed:
shroud.com/dreisbc2.htm
Did you happen to see the program where the face of the man on the Shroud of Turin was digitally reproduced?
Wild speculation.Being a believer in the authenticity of the Shroud, I have always wondered if Peter and John were the first witnesses. St. John simply ends the chapter with “and he believed”. Could the Shroud’s image or perhaps even the Sudarium been the cause for that sudden belief. Anyone know if there have been any writings on this subject? Thanks.
I searched the net and found a picture of Pope John Paul II praying before the shroud so I would think that he thought it was the burial cloth of Christ even if the church has not come out and said so.Wild speculation.
I do not believe anyway that it is genuine. Even the Church has not declared it to be genuine.
I saw on program about in on the History Channel, where an expert tried to reconstruct the face of the man on the Shroud. He also theorized how it could possibly have been transferred on the shroud and the technology to do that did not exist then and I think he said does not exist today.Being a believer in the authenticity of the Shroud, I have always wondered if Peter and John were the first witnesses. St. John simply ends the chapter with “and he believed”. Could the Shroud’s image or perhaps even the Sudarium been the cause for that sudden belief. Anyone know if there have been any writings on this subject? Thanks.
Let me repeat what I said.I searched the net and found a picture of Pope John Paul II praying before the shroud so I would think that he thought it was the burial cloth of Christ even if the church has not come out and said so.
I for one believe it is the burial cloth of Christ.
And the Church has NOT declared it to be a hoax.Let me repeat what I said.
The Church has NOT declared the Shroud to be genuine.
However, it is difficult to find another explanation for it.Let me repeat what I said.
The Church has NOT declared the Shroud to be genuine.
That is not relevant. The OP is talking about its authenticy and seems to be implying that the Church has said its authentic. The Church has not made any statement about its authenticity, i.e. the Church has not declared it to be authentic.And the Church has NOT declared it to be a hoax.
I didn’t mean to imply that the Church has declared the Shroud authentic. My OP was in regard to what Peter and John witenessed when they entered the tomb. St. John tells us that they did not yet know the Scripture and the Resurrection, yet they believed. I simply wondered what mad such a dramatic impact on them. I too have studied many sources on the authenticity of the Shroud and have come to believe that it is the burial cloth of our Lord. As you said, we are all free to believe or reject it’s authenticity. Even though the Church has not done anything officially, the exposition last year sure proves that the Church is doing nothing to dissuade our belief in it.That is not relevant. The OP is talking about its authenticy and seems to be implying that the Church has said its authentic. The Church has not made any statement about its authenticity, i.e. the Church has not declared it to be authentic.
People are free to believe it to be real or not.
There is overwhelming evidence to support it being a medieval hoax.
There is zero evidence to support it being the burial cloth of Christ.
(and yes I have books on the Shroud, read the articles on Shroud websites, have several dvd’s about the Shroud and watched the tv documentaries on the Shroud)
There is no doubt in my mind the image was made by a camera obscura.
Sorry. I misunderstood.I didn’t mean to imply that the Church has declared the Shroud authentic. My OP was in regard to what Peter and John witenessed when they entered the tomb. St. John tells us that they did not yet know the Scripture and the Resurrection, yet they believed. I simply wondered what mad such a dramatic impact on them. I too have studied many sources on the authenticity of the Shroud and have come to believe that it is the burial cloth of our Lord. As you said, we are all free to believe or reject it’s authenticity. Even though the Church has not done anything officially, the exposition last year sure proves that the Church is doing nothing to dissuade our belief in it.
No problem Thistle. I think Antonacci’s book had the most impact. It was a combination of evidence regarding blood testing, wound analysis, microscopic examination of the linen, and most of all the, the image analyzer used to produce the 3D relief map of the face. If I remember correctly, that can not be done on a photograph.Sorry. I misunderstood.
Just for my information, in your research what evidence have you read about that leads you to believe it is genuine?
Well said Reuben. One should never base their faith on something like the Shroud, but it can be a powerful and tangible way to focus in on the Passion of Christ. Having relatives in Rome, I have been blessed to make several visits there. Even though I know that the authenticity of many of the relics in Rome are also up for debate, It’s still hard to describe the feeling I get when I ascend the Holy Stairs, or gaze upon the Calvary relics brought back by St. Helen at Santa Croce. The Passion for me, becomes very real.The Church has not made an official proclamation that the shroud is authentic for good reason. The Church being cautious and how conservative she is with regards to authenticity, one reason being that there is simply no evidence to link the shroud to the time of the apostles, much less to the passion and the resurrection. Except from the fact it was noticed from the medieval age, had been relocated, once been retrieved and partially damaged by fire, we don’t have much information as to the origin of the shroud.
Nevertheless, what happened was truly unique which even science is totally at a loss as to explain how it actually was done. For us, it can be a very powerful spiritual artifact that would stir our own faith to the reality that it depicts a long time ago.
It is not surprising at all that the late JP II prayed before it as many of us would want to, given the opportunity.
Personally, I feel that we don’t have to believe that it is authentic, and given the scarcity of information available linking it to the Jesus himself, a matter of faith to believe whether it is authentic or not, does not arise. On the other hand, our faith is obviously helped by the reality it depicts and we cannot rule out that miracle might had happened on that piece of cloth, not during the time of the passion but the time when it (imprint) happened.
I can identify with you there, Tony.Well said Reuben. One should never base their faith on something like the Shroud, but it can be a powerful and tangible way to focus in on the Passion of Christ. Having relatives in Rome, I have been blessed to make several visits there. Even though I know that the authenticity of many of the relics in Rome are also up for debate, It’s still hard to describe the feeling I get when I ascend the Holy Stairs, or gaze upon the Calvary relics brought back by St. Helen at Santa Croce. The Passion for me, becomes very real.
It can be done using a camera obscura which was not only known in medieval times but long before that. In the latest documentary on the Shroud (I’ll try to dig up the name) how the image was produced using only technology, chemicals and other materials of the time of Da Vinci (who is the likely hoaxer) was clearly demonstrated. This process also produces the negative affect that we get with the Shroud when photographed.No problem Thistle. I think Antonacci’s book had the most impact. It was a combination of evidence regarding blood testing, wound analysis, microscopic examination of the linen, and most of all the, the image analyzer used to produce the 3D relief map of the face. If I remember correctly, that can not be done on a photograph.
Could that be because they used a piece from a patch that was put on in the middle ages when the shroud was burned in a fire? Have they been allowed to test an original piece of the shroud? I am just curious.It can be done using a camera obscura which was not only known in medieval times but long before that. In the latest documentary on the Shroud (I’ll try to dig up the name) how the image was produced using only technology, chemicals and other materials of the time of Da Vinci (who is the likely hoaxer) was clearly demonstrated. This process also produces the negative affect that we get with the Shroud when photographed.
As for testing the linen, all tests to date show it is no older than the middle ages. Whether Rome will allow further testing I don’t know but the cloth is not dated to 2000 years ago.
Also there is no documentary or tradition evidence prior to the middle ages.
BTW, did you know about how the the blood and serum stains were formed first, with the image - which is actually superficial, caused by a discoloration of the carbohydrate layer, which in turn was caused by a chemical change, that coats the topmost fibers of the threads - being second? We know this because in areas where there was blood, no traces of images were found: they acted to inhibit the image formation.It can be done using a camera obscura which was not only known in medieval times but long before that. In the latest documentary on the Shroud (I’ll try to dig up the name) how the image was produced using only technology, chemicals and other materials of the time of Da Vinci (who is the likely hoaxer) was clearly demonstrated. This process also produces the negative affect that we get with the Shroud when photographed.
As for testing the linen, all tests to date show it is no older than the middle ages. Whether Rome will allow further testing I don’t know but the cloth is not dated to 2000 years ago.
Also there is no documentary or tradition evidence prior to the middle ages.