W
WJL
Guest
What are your thoughts on this new claim against the Shroud of Turin?
National Geographic: "Shroud of Turin Not Jesus', Tomb Discovery Suggests"
- Status
D
DOShea
Guest
I think it is a stretch to say this discovery “adds evidence” that the Shroud of Turin is a fake. What they found had no bearing, really, on the shroud.
If a person died today and was buried inside a piano, would digging up a grave in Cincinnati 2000 years from now and finding a metal coffin have any bearing on whether someone in the US was buried in a piano? All it would prove conclusively is that particular fellow was buried in a metal coffin.
The premise of this argument is two graves with intact pieces of burial cloth have been found from the first century, and neither is similar to the Shroud. Therefore, the Shroud could not have been used to wrap the body of Jesus.
Several questions arise: Just because the Shroud’s weave doesn’t match the only other two examples of burial cloth known to exist, one from a grave known to have been tampered with, what mandates that it has to match to be valid? What says the fabric of the Shroud had to come from (be made in) Palestine?
The article quotes Gibson as stating the weave of the Shroud wasn’t available in Palestine until the middle ages, but textile experts shot this notion of “no textile like that until the middle ages” full of holes 20 years ago.
What I see is an interesting discovery that stands on its own, but doesn’t impact the Shroud one way or the other.
If a person died today and was buried inside a piano, would digging up a grave in Cincinnati 2000 years from now and finding a metal coffin have any bearing on whether someone in the US was buried in a piano? All it would prove conclusively is that particular fellow was buried in a metal coffin.
The premise of this argument is two graves with intact pieces of burial cloth have been found from the first century, and neither is similar to the Shroud. Therefore, the Shroud could not have been used to wrap the body of Jesus.
Several questions arise: Just because the Shroud’s weave doesn’t match the only other two examples of burial cloth known to exist, one from a grave known to have been tampered with, what mandates that it has to match to be valid? What says the fabric of the Shroud had to come from (be made in) Palestine?
The article quotes Gibson as stating the weave of the Shroud wasn’t available in Palestine until the middle ages, but textile experts shot this notion of “no textile like that until the middle ages” full of holes 20 years ago.
What I see is an interesting discovery that stands on its own, but doesn’t impact the Shroud one way or the other.
J
JRKH
Guest
My thoughts are this.
The shroud of Turin is a very interesting piece.
I personally have no idea if it’s origin but I do not believe it is a deliberate forgery (though I could be wrong).
I know the Church has authorized veneration of the object.
Such authorization (if that is the right word) merely means that those who have a personal devotion to the shroud are not acting wrongly.
Bottom line is this. My faith does not depend upon whether the shroud is really Christs or not. Prove that it is (virtually impossible) and my faith in Christ is certainly reiforced, but proving that it is not has no effect on my faith whatsoever.
Peace
James
F
feargalmac
Guest
From the same web-page:
“In 2005 another study asserted that the 1980s test had been based on a patch added in the Middle Ages and that the shroud is actually 1,300 to 3,000 years old.”
Even National Geographic acknowledges that tests on the Shroud of Turin may be wrong.
It’s funny really, stating that on the one hand the material in the Shroud was from the Middle Ages and then acknowledging the above. I think they don’t want people to read past the headline.
“In 2005 another study asserted that the 1980s test had been based on a patch added in the Middle Ages and that the shroud is actually 1,300 to 3,000 years old.”
Even National Geographic acknowledges that tests on the Shroud of Turin may be wrong.
It’s funny really, stating that on the one hand the material in the Shroud was from the Middle Ages and then acknowledging the above. I think they don’t want people to read past the headline.
G
gardienbleu
Guest
Secular humanists labor to tear down the divine in order to make their ivory towers of Babel appear more appealing. The biased “expert opinions” of pagan and atheist contributors to National Geographic which I have read over the years have had no bearing on what I have thought and how I have lived, beyond eliciting an occasional sad sigh, a wag of the head and an “Ave” for those stumbling through the darkness.
B
buffalo
Guest
The weave and the pollen found on the Shroud are unique to the Middle East area circa first century AD.
J
jongenaro
Guest
Nobody will ever know if this was Christ’s or not. We just have to deal with it. We either have FAITH or we don’t!
M
Matthew_Kane
Guest
I agree with jongenaro, it is all up to faith. I know of a number of priests who believe the shroud of turin to bear the image of Christ (for example: Fr. Jonathan Morris who has appeared on Fox News Channel.) I guess it’s one of those things where you have the choice of believing it or not. I personally think it does not matter. No matter what, I still have faith. 
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Hey Guys we already made a stab at this also in this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=407199&highlight=shroud+of+turin
J
jdnation
Guest
This is pretty much a ping pong game at this point. Nothing more than back and forth arguments. Frankly I personally believe that the evidence is in favor of the cloth being the actual shroud. At least I personally believe that it may have had something to do with Christ’s death. Maybe it was on him in the tomb, maybe like Veronica’s veil it was placed on him temporarily before he was places in the tomb, or simply placed under his body on the spot where he lay.
- Status