Just do another carbon dating on the Shroud already! What do you think?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RealisticCatholic

Guest
The last carbon dating showed that the piece of cloth originated from the Middle Ages.

But there have been other dating methods that show a much older date, indeed all of which are compatible with the burial cloth of Christ in the first century. And there have been many problems pointed out with the carbon dating, such as the sample was actually from a repair patch to the Shroud after a fire had damaged part of it.

Anyway, how can another dating be done? Who can request it? If there is much confidence of the Shroud’s authenticity, why can’t they just do another carbon dating test?
 
Last edited:
I watched an amazing doccumentary where they were talking about the shrouds many extensive repairs and I have come to the conclusion that… Beacuse the shroud has been repaired there may be some contamination from the repairs which could stuff up the dating.
 
My belief is that if God wanted to miraculously preserve a shroud he would do so in a way that it was apparent that it was a miracle. Of what use is a miracle that requires faith? For the matter, of what use is faith that depends on miracles?
 
Yes, they definitely should prove all the middle-ages forgery fans wrong. Based on current research and informations, we can safely assume that the Shroud is older than ~ 700 AD .

EDIT: We must not forget that items such as the Shroud, the Sudarium of Oviedo, Tunic, etc., dated with C14 can show different results due to many circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Whatever the Shroud is, it’s not reproduceable by known methods…
 
Carbon dating requires destroying part of the shroud. If it is indeed the burial cloth of Christ, endless testing is kind of a bad idea!

I find the theory that they tested a repair patch suspect; wouldn’t a repair be fairly obvious under close inspection by an expert? I tend to think the shroud was a medieval artwork hopefully mistakenly or perhaps fraudulently portrayed as authentic. My best evidence is the skepticism of the bishop of Torin when the shroud was first introduced.
 
Last edited:
But the fact remains there is no known technique for creating such an object.

I tend to think it’s tje burial cloth of Christ, although that’s just my opinion and my faith doesn’t live or die on it.

Or it might just be a mysterious object like the tilma of Guadalupe.
 
Actually a month ago (in March 2019) they reproduced the face from The Shroud using:

Femtosecond pulse laser processing concentrates a huge quantity of light energy in extremely short pulses of a few tens to hundreds of femtoseconds

This means that the source of the image is probably an extremely huge source of light energy (probably resurrection). If this will be proven true, forgery theories will bite the dust.

source: 20 March 2019 / Applied Optics
 
(1) Preserving the shroud does not depend on a miracle, but perhaps providence, at least.

(2) The Shroud itself is not technically a miracle, anyway, HOWEVER, the image on the Shroud may in fact suggest the miracle of Christ’s Resurrection, since the only known way of reproducing such an image is an extremely short burst of light energy.

(3) Whether the shroud is a miracle, or whether it depicts a miracle (the Resurrection), is not the point. The point is that it could very well be the historical Jesus’ burial shroud. Hence why not do another carbon dating?
 
Last edited:
I find the theory that they tested a repair patch suspect; wouldn’t a repair be fairly obvious under close inspection by an expert? I tend to think the shroud was a medieval artwork hopefully mistakenly or perhaps fraudulently portrayed as authentic. My best evidence is the skepticism of the bishop of Torin when the shroud was first introduced.
Click to expand...
Then I encourage you to do a bit more research 🙂 See the link I provided in the OP. There has been subsequent research that in fact shows the piece of the shroud selected for the carbon dating is very different from other parts of the Shroud, with explicit indications of later dyeing. The original carbon dating didn’t follow good protocol, and the scientists didn’t even do chemical tests on the sample prior to.
 
Exactly. The only known way of producing the image – which is different from the blood stains – is through a method that was certainly not available in the Middle Ages.
 
Pollen grain research shows that the Shroud has been to Palestine/Middle East, Edessa, Constantinople, and Europe. Pollen has been found on the shroud that is only indigenous to Israel. Very peculiar if the Shroud was a medieval forgery.

The proposed path of the shroud is in fact Jerusalem —> Edessa —> Constantinople —>France/Europe/Italy. Part of the reason for thinking this is the change in iconography in Edessa and Constantinople after the 6th century, with features that match that of the Shroud (whereas prior and different cultures had depicted a Roman Christ with no beard, for example). Additionally, there is earlier record of the Holy Image of Edessa which seems to have been the Shroud folded to show just the face.

All of this at least suggests that the Carbon dating applied to the Shroud itself was wrong (which said about 14th century), and that the Shroud goes back centuries beforehand.

And don’t forget the discovery of two Roman leptons on the eyes of the figure – coins that were known to be minted by Pontius Pilate in AD 29.
 
Last edited:
It’s been a while since I researched 1st century burial customs, but I remember they did not wrap someone in a single cloth, just in case the person was still alive. Their hands were wrapped separately so they could free themselves, and I think the head was also wrapped separately.
 
I have no doubt of its authenticity. There is just so much tangible proof that the odds against it being a forgery produced by middle ages technology are astronomical. Technologies that barely exist today, for that matter. Unless time travel somehow played a part, I have no other explanation than it is truly the burial shroud of Christ.
 
If the Shroud image was produced by a burst of radiation from Christ’s body at the instant of resurrection, then it may be that such radiation may have had an effect on the carbon-14 content of the cloth. In that case, a re-test might not prove anything.
 
Here is the peer-reviewed work that debunks the C14:

http://www.sindone.info/ROGERS-3.PDF

Until now, nobody debunked Rogers.

And there is a new webpage, you can see there in UV that the area from C14 dating was completely different:

https://www.shroudphotos.com/

Btw. I think (like everyone with knowledge about the Shroud) that the C14 sample was chosen intentionally…
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think it is a forgery done by a conspiracy of the Vatican, space aliens and the New World Order. After all, they are the ones Responsible for all the other problems in the world.🤣:crazy_face:

Patrick
AMDG
 
RealisticCatholic said:
Hence why not do another carbon dating?
Click to expand...
Specifically because it might be the burial shroud of Christ.

It’s the same issue we run into when people want to perform tests on Eucharistic miracles. Doing so requires us to destroy part of the artifact, and a lot of us simply don’t want to see that happen.

Scientific conformation is great and all, but I don’t need it for faith, and I don’t like the idea of them continually pecking away at our relics performing this or that test on them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top