Shroud of Turin a Fake, After All?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sirach2 said:
There was a presentation on EWTN demonstrating the Shroud and its authenticity that you folks who are interested in truth, not fiction, can listen to HERE . It is rather long, but full of important details that others who have done poor research omit. I watched all five segments as this scientist had appeared on Woman of Grace. It is the most comprehensive and reliable source for those of you who may be skeptical.
Click to expand...
I have the DVD, I also have had the pleasure of talking to Dr. Phillips in email. He knows his stuff.
 
I was watching EWTN a few weeks ago and Fr. Spitzer was on talking about the Shroud of Turin. I think he believes without question that the Shroud of Turin is Jesus’ burial cloth and so do I. They have a whole section on the Shroud of Turin at the MagisCenter which Fr. Spitzer is affiliated with. It’s very interesting. New evidence has come to light and they have a section on four new tests which give a date of 50 A.D along with other evidence.

https://www.magiscenter.com/5-key-pieces-of-evidence-on-the-shroud-of-turin/
 
Last edited:
As some have said I’m not concerned whether the shroud is genuine or not. God is a God of the living not pieces of material.
 
Building your faith on things like the shroud is like building a house on sinking sand…
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Building your faith on things like the shroud is like building a house on sinking sand…
Click to expand...
I don’t see value in building one’s faith on this, but it is a good relic upon which to build one’s devotion. The Shroud reveals intimate details that help us to understand the depth of Jesus’ suffering that one might not obtain by just looking at the crucifix. The sheer volume of scourge wounds alone and the wounds from the thorns on His sacred head is enough to cause us to shudder in empathy.
 
Sirach2 said:
40.png
mrsdizzyd:
Building your faith on things like the shroud is like building a house on sinking sand…
Click to expand...
I don’t see value in building one’s faith on this, but it is a good relic upon which to build one’s devotion. The Shroud reveals intimate details that help us to understand the depth of Jesus’ suffering that one might not obtain by just looking at the crucifix. The sheer volume of scourge wounds alone and the wounds from the thorns on His sacred head is enough to cause us to shudder in empathy.
Click to expand...
I agree with you entirely with regards to devotional value.
 
I’m not usually impressed by the supposed significance and/or supernatural claims surrounding relics but I have to say, concerning the Shroud of Turin, one book I found most erudite and contemplative was “The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection” by Thomas de Wesselow.
Absolutely fascinating. The man covers most of the skeptical history concerning the Shroud from a scientific, historical, and artistic perspective with -for me anyway- impressive plausibility.
Catholics and most other Christians I’m sure will reject his final conclusions concerning the Shrouds influences and shaping of earlier Christian belief however this rejection in no way diminishes his convincing earlier conclusions about the Shroud being an absolutely unique 1st century artifact depicting an actual first century crucifixion victim. Absolutely fascinating stuff. The kind of stuff that keeps me interested and up late into the night reading.
 
Hope all my posts were flagged and removed.

It is not inappropriate to state that scientists don’t have the answer and cannot have the answer. It is not inappropriate to say that the testing on the shroud is likely to throw up error and inaccuracies due to its repairs over the centuries, the way it has been stored before arriving at the Vatican holdings,
And the contamination this would have introduced to the fabric.

I am speaking as a scientist here. If anyone has an issue with this, speak up.
 
What is your specialty? Or you speaking about the categorical framework from which you are issuing your opinion?
 
It’s not a matter of competing scientists, it’s a matter of what parts of the shroud are tested, what tests are done, what era the tests were done in and what the protocols were in the methodology. It’s also a given that a shroud this old, whether it is 2000 years old or less, would have been stored in conditions introducing contamination such that errors would be easy to reach
 
That is the only truth Hope, the one in our heart.

Scientists are believers too. Just as doctors, lawyers, tradies, bus drivers, checkout chicks, firefighters, farmers, etc, there are believers and non believers in every profession.

Science and religion are two seperate areas. They do not attempt to explain each other. We scientists must thank the Vatican for many of its scientific institutes. I was just watching a doco on the Vatican space observatory in Tucson Arizona.
 
I have done enough analytical chemistry to know what I am on about. 😇

Using some very expensive equipment.
 
Last edited:
Ah but isn’t modern science amazing. Advancing in its endeavors by leaps and bounds. Don’t you think that knowing that errors and contamination may have been introduced that science is, if not better equipped to factor these things into its assumptions than faith, at least as capable of having a true opinion on the physical artifact as faith? And, all that being equal in its approach and recognition of the truth -that is to say one cannot tell which side has it, those for authenticity or those against -, would you say that mankind in general would be better off if such a thing did not exist? It serves no purpose to advancement of the will of God, that is a belief in his son and his message of salvation since In the absence of absolute proof of authenticity or inauthenticity -which we seem to have here- those that believe were already believers and those that disbelieve will never believe in the absence of absolute, irrefutable evidence of authenticity. It would seem the shroud strengthens the barrier between those saved and those who need saving rather than weakening it. What a tool for Satan to use to cause rifts in human charity for one another and exploitation of the human weakness of pride in holding a true opinion. This is why I try to steer clear of opinionating about such relics. What do you think?
 
Jesus confirmed to Maria Valtorta the authenticity of the shroud of turin.
It also match some miraculous images PERFECTLY. Unfortunately I can’t put the link…
 
Such articles focus only on one small spot, like this blood stain and ignore everything else, like the pollen from ancient Middle East on the Shroud or the consistency of the hand wounds on Destot’s space or the 3D information on the image, etc. In the end, for the believer no proof is necessary while for the unbeliever no proof is enough.
 
Science is not about opinion, nor is religion.
Science and religion are not about assumptions either.
There are no sides, God created everything, including the natural laws of our work, including the knowledge and Wisdom we possess as a gift from God.

The mere fact you and I are conducting a discourse is the result of the scientific endeavour prompted by human enquiry and experimentation. ARPA and DARPA attest to how far social media has come and how it shaped/ is shaping our world.

Are you claiming science as a tool of satan? I am not understanding clearly what you mean.
 
Last edited:
I have read almost all the literature on the Shroud starting with the first discoveries made quite by accident.
Those who hate GOD will always find it to be a fake and no matter how much scientific evidence you provide they will simply disregards it.
Let me put it this way, there are people out there that still believe the Earth to be flat. Recently someone launched himself can’t remember if it was balloon or a rocket. Was almost killed. His goal he wanted to see for himself that the Earth was not flat.
The “Our Lady of Guadalupe Tilma” is another example of an artifact that defies scientific explanation. And again there are people out there that will claim to be a fake. Someone even tried to destroy it with an explosion.
The image in the shroud is not paint. Some people tried to duplicate the artifact by using guess what? paints, powders, etc.
There are no traces of any contamination by pigments on the shroud. The image or rather the discoloration of the fibers of the cloth (linen) occurs only where the body of our Lord came in contact with them. The microscopic strands on the opposite side are not affected by the event that created the image. So far science is stumped as to how was the image created. And one way or the other it is not something I need to hang my faith on. I have the testimony of witnesses and that is enough.
Hope this is of some help to you.
 
I think it’s obvious that the ones who most recently did “tests” on the Shroud are full of baloney, or at least their conclusions are, but does anyone have any explanation about Bishop D’Arcis’ claim in 1390 that the previous Bishop heard the hoaxter “admit” he faked the Shroud?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top