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

[undead_rat]

However, if it’s authentic, then the Shroud is wonderful testimony to, at the very least, the crucifixion of Jesus and potentially even the Resurrection (considering theories to formation of the image)… …
Many research initiatives suggest so. But even on here, many others are saying it’s fake. Why isn’t there a clear answer?

In my opinion the Shroud was proved authentic in 1898 by Pia’s astounding photo-negative. But this proof landed smack-dab into the middle of the age of reason in which such things were discounted completely and regarded as foolish. Pia was accused of doctoring his negatives and worse. Prominent Catholic theologians Develair and Thurston contested Vignon’s conclusions, as did the British Museum’s “NATURE.”
Enrie’s second generation photos in 1931 vindicated Vignon’s work, and Pope Pius XI made strong statements regarding the Shroud’s authenticity.
The controversy is detailed in an excellent book by Walsh:
THE SHROUD, 1963.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Ok, but the 2005 tests quoted above refer to the sample as being very different in nature from the rest of the Shroud.

Does your link explain why the dye was found in one part and not the other, as well as why the sample area had dark marks on UV photographs?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

In my opinion the Shroud was proved authentic in 1898 by Pia’s astounding photo-negative.

Why do you think a photo-negative proofs the authenticity?

 

[undead_rat]

In 1902 Frenchman Paul Vignon published his book, THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, in which he based his conclusions on the astounding reality of the Shroud’s negative photographic plate. He concluded that no 14th century artist would have been able to accurately paint in such a way as to produce this plate.
He also noticed that the Shroud had been folded in several different ways, and he concluded that this folding would have disturbed a paint medium.
Catholic theologians Chevalier and Thurston contested Vignon’s conclusions basing their theories on the opinion of the photographer, Chopin, “who asserted that the negative aspect was the result of technical accident.”** Giuseppe Enrie’s second generation photos in 1931 vindicated Pia and Vignon, and his close-up photo indicated that no paint medium was present on the Shroud.

**THE SHROUD, Walsh, 1963

 

[Kaye_Leidy]

It’s my understanding that the snippets of the material that were tested came up as cotton, whereas it is well know that the Shroud is woven of linen. And that medieval repair had been done to mimic not only the herringbone weave of the linen, but to dye the repair to match the rest of the fabric. I remember as a child seeing ads in the back of magazines like Good Housekeeping for re-weaving kits to mend clothing with an invisible repair. A skilled tailor could easily, and apparently did, use this technique to keep the appearance as pristine as possible. The mid-14th century carbon date doesn’t square with paintings of the shroud dated to the late 12th century that show it with the burn holes already present. Do I believe the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of my Lord? You bet I do. None of the “artists” who claim to have reproduced the image have produced anything close to the original, despite all their technology.

 

[Finn]

The one possibility that remains for explaining why the Shroud shows a greater C-14 content than would be expected for a 2000-year-old relic is that. at some point in its life, it was subjected to neutron radiation

From your reading, where is the radiation exposure theory best detailed?

 

[undead_rat]

TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015

also see Rucker’s papers:

http://www.shroudresearch.net/hproxy.php/Image-Formation-on-the-Shroud-of-Turin.pdf?lbisphpreq=1

http://www.shroudresearch.net/hproxy.php/Testing-the-Neutron-Absorption-Hypothesis.pdf?lbisphpreq=1

 

[jack63]

So I found a helpful link that gives for and against arguments to the shroud’s authenticity. I was most impressed by the Nasa scientist’s research (I’ve read about it before on CAF) that could use Nasa’s technology to reproduce the 3d image and coin imprints in his eyes.

https://www.abroadintheyard.com/shroud-of-turin-1st-century-relic-or-medieval-forgery/

If there is much confidence of the Shroud’s authenticity, why can’t they just do another carbon dating test?

Here is my concern. Let’s assume the shroud is the real thing. If this is the case, I think it also a fair assumption to make that it has been altered many times over the last 2000 years. Could an artist have traced over some faint (yet very real lines) around 1400 or before. Could they have added pieces of cloth. Yes to both. People may have just been trying to preserve the shroud. It would seem very likely that not only did they do this, but the did many other things to preserve the shroud.

How long is piece of cloth going to last if it is regularly handled for 2000 years? There would have had to have been several efforts to restore the shroud and its characteristics, and we haven’t heard about most of them. The point is I don’t think the Carbon dating is going to tell people much of anything.

 

[Finn]

Thank you.

 

[undead_rat]

https://www.abroadintheyard.com/shroud-of-turin-1st-century-relic-or-medieval-forgery/

The point is I don’t think the Carbon dating is going to tell people much of anything.

Thanks for the link. Every “against” point has been refuted. For instance Omit Shamir’s study of ancient Jewish burial cloths proves that the Shroud was not manufactured in Israel. So what? Joseph of Arithmathea is believed to have been wealthy, and, since he provided his own tomb, he may also have provided his own costly imported linen cloth for Jesus’ burial. Shamir’s study actually tends to confirm the Shroud’s authenticity because it indicates that the Shroud must have been an expensive import. Also to be noted is the fact that the Shroud is just a little too short for the corpse it contained. It was made to order for a different (and very wealthy) person !

The Shroud has more carbon fourteen than would be expected of linen that is 2000 years old. Various theories have been advanced, and all have been disproved except one. At some point in its life the Shroud must have been exposed to neutron radiation. That is a very important fact which is consistent with the fact that the Shroud’s image exhibits skeletal features.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Yesterday on a road trip, my adult son and I listened to this show about the Shroud of Turin. I learned things I’d never known!

There is some language, for those who are sensitive to such.

(Don’t let the title fool you, this is about Religion, not men being jerks to women )

 

[lilypadrees]

There comes a time when you have to stop the carbon dating, stop the questioning and decide whether you believe that it is His real Shroud or not.

 

[undead_rat]

The problem is that, in addition to atheists, there are many religions which are philosophically opposed to the idea that the Shroud is real. Those religions that do not accept the fact that Jesus’ corpse vanished from the inside of a sealed tomb fall into that category. Islam, Judaism, and Bahai’ Faith are prime examples.
The end result is that we have many people, perhaps even a majority of the population, who will seize upon any spurious theory which discredits the Shroud. Even good Catholics, swayed by the force of the “Age of Rationality,” have fallen into this error. At the turn of the century theologians Develier and Thurston wrote article after article opposing the truth of the Shroud. They based their skepticism on the theories that Pia’s negative Shroud plate was a “photographic accident” and that the Shroud’s image was a 14th century painting.
In 1931 Enrie’s improved photography proved them wrong, and the 1978 Shroud research project found absolutely nothing against the Shroud as the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. It was for sure not a painting.

But the opposition, based on contrary philosophies rather than science, continued. In 1989 the false interpretation of the Shroud’s carbon fourteen evidence was seized upon as a vindication. We know better, of course, but the world does not.

The hard work of Italian scientists Fanti and Malfi has now proven that the linen cloth is indeed 2000 years old, but their book* costs about $70.00 and is not widely read. In addition the Vatican has refused to endorse their findings on the very questionable grounds that their Shroud fibers had not been properly certified.

*THE SHROUD OF TURIN, FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST !, 2015

 

[goout]

What do I think?
Leave it alone. If it edifies your faith, fine. If not, fine. Don’t make an idol out of it.
Let the shroud alone.

 

[JimG]

Here you have the testimony of a Jew about the authenticity of the shroud: He was one of the experts who worked on it in the early years.

Thanks. An interesting presentation by a member of the Shroud of Turn Research Project.

 

[goout]

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?

Good insight.
The Lord inspires faith that does not demand signs as proof.

(He then goes on to refer to his resurrection, but that is not a sign it is the reality of the thing. )

Good topic for further discussion: what is the difference between those kinds of signs, sacraments, and “ontological” realities?