Shroud of Turin a Fake, After All?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is contamination due to later repairs, carbon and other human artefacts.

Hope they cannot have done tests on the shroud itself. They thought they would try to simulate its inception

You also won’t find anything concrete about that hoax claim.

Have you been to see the Tilma
 
Last edited:
It was hearsay, and unless proven otherwise, it remains hearsay.

Anybody can claim anything. We need evidence, not a rumor that the Shroud was faked.
 
I would tend to agree with your statement “Science is not about opinion, nor is religion.” With this clarification…the tools of science, in general, are independent of opinion however the data gleaned from those tools are often and necessarily inculcated by myriad opinions as to their applicability, meaning, and accuracy. Science often stumbles along in what we may consider to be “progress” often despite the scientists performing the science - in the form of accident or beneficial coincidence. Paradigm shifts happen despite stubborn opinions to the contrary. Religion…well, just witness the state of the world. Religion is born in opinion, it breaths opinion ( this is a necessity of free will), and it breeds opinion, and the best one can hope for is to be led by God in some manner to having a true opinion.
What is science or religion divorced from those practicing it? Being fallen, finite and fallible human beings our opinions, even in the light of solid data, follow us like ubiquitous shadows sowing seeds of doubt despite having a true opinion and are forces of solidarity in our holding onto false opinion.
I am claiming that like all God given tools for our survival and advancement while living in his creation Satan can use those tools to further his own agendas. Isn’t it written in scripture that even he can quote from it for his own nefarious means?
IF the shroud cannot be definitely proven to be the actual burial shroud of the savior, reinforcing at least in some manner the Christian claims about Jesus’s life then we may have been better off if such a thing had not existed at all to debate over. Those who claim its inauthenticity will not be swayed otherwise in the absence of definitive proof of the accuracy of the claims made by those who believe in its authenticity. Satan can use the shroud vicariously to promote this shadow realm of doubt by using the solid existence of the shroud as a example of how the church promotes falsehood to further its own agendas despite evidence of its inauthenticity or lack of evidence of its authenticity. The shroud in essence serves no purpose in bridging this gap between the believer and the nonbeliever in order to further Gods will of saving everyone. It does however seemingly serve Satan’s will in sowing discord.
 
Last edited:
JerryZ said:
So far science is stumped as to how was the image created.
Click to expand...
One plausible explanation was given in the book I mentioned earlier…“The Sign…”.
According to it, scientifically speaking the image could have been made by a process similar to…I don’t have the book with me, but I think it was called a Maillard reaction. Somewhat like the browning of bread.
Also there is a depiction in the book of a similar reaction which developed on the linen sheets of a deceased person which hospital personnel found after the body was removed which shows similar visual characteristics as the staining on the shroud. The image shows the partial outline of the deceased’s arm, hand, and corresponding side of body. This shows (if similar to the shroud) that the image on the shroud could have been made through known natural processes. This actually could be good for those who believe in its authenticity since if true this would show scientifically that there was actually a real human body enveloped by the shroud at some point.
 
I have seen many images of the shrouds face area developed using various media, not sure if I’ve seen what your referring to. Why?
 
Yes, and then we are subject to potential exploitation. Are we then better off with or without these things?
 
Hope1960 said:
I always thought the Shroud was authentic but it seems as though it’s a fake, unless posters here have newer information.
Click to expand...
This is precisely why i don’t usually rest my faith on contingent claims. By that i mean any claim that could in principle be proven false by the scientific method. It’s a disaster waiting to happen. In my opinion, real evidence of God is not contingent upon any phenomena that can in principle have a physical explanation. If it’s possible that something can be fake or possibly have a physical explanation then you are dealing in probabilities, and if there is a possibility that an apparent experience can be explained some other way other than God did it, i assume that it’s probably the other way.

People say “look there is a miracle there, and over here, or by the sea”. It could be the case that it’s true, but i won’t build my faith on that claim only to discover that it was false all along.

I accept the authority of the Catholic Church on matters of faith, because of Jesus and his message, and that’s as far as i go. It was the meaning i found in scripture that compelled me to have faith more than any claim of a miracle.

Having said that, i must say that you are free to take miracle claims seriously; there is nothing wrong with that. I just approach the matter with scepticism because i don’t perceive such claims as “proof”.
 
IWantGod said:
This is precisely why i don’t usually rest my faith on contingent claims. By that i mean any claim that could in principle be proven false by the scientific method
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, the Shroud is not part of the Catholic deposit of faith.
Catholics are not required to believe in it.
One shouldn’t have one’s faith be dependent on an optional matter.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Just to be clear, the Shroud is not part of the Catholic deposit of faith.
Click to expand...
I know. The reason i said what i said is because i think it’s dangerous to build ones faith on claims such as the Shroud. It’s like somebody claiming they found a hat that was reportedly worn by Jesus. I mean no disrespect, but i think that Catholics should ground their faith more fundamentally in the word of God, and also reason if they have the capacity. I think they should shy away from grounding the truth of their faith in the possibility of a miracle because it opens one up to the possibility of deception which could seriously harm somebodies soul.
 
Last edited:
I’m in complete agreement with you on all of those points.

Approved miracles and apparitions are meant to enhance our faith and maybe give other people a motivation to look more deeply. They cannot be the basis of the faith. If you believe 100 percent in the Shroud but don’t follow Jesus’ teachings from Scripture, then that’s a house built on sand.

Edited to add, to take it a step further:
This is why I don’t worry too much if the Shroud is real, or if somebody’s Relic of the True Cross is really from Jesus’ cross or some other guy’s cross or a fabrication from several centuries later. When people focus on these things, they’re not focusing on the object. The Shroud and the relic aren’t magic talismans. When people venerate a True Cross relic or show reverence towards the Shroud, they’re really doing homage to Jesus. Not to a chip of wood or a piece of cloth. God in turn could easily reward such faith. Sure, it’s fine to try to find out scientifically if maybe the Shroud is “for real”, but if it’s just a way to connect us to Jesus, it would work in that manner whether it was real or not, if we have enough faith.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
This is precisely why i don’t usually rest my faith on contingent claims. By that i mean any claim that could in principle be proven false by the scientific method. It’s a disaster waiting to happen. In my opinion, real evidence of God is not contingent upon any phenomena that can in principle have a physical explanation. If it’s possible that something can be fake or possibly have a physical explanation then you are dealing in probabilities, and if there is a possibility that an apparent experience can be explained some other way other than God did it, i assume that it’s probably the other way.
Click to expand...
Are there any Scriptures that would support that view?
 
Hope1960 said:
Are there any Scriptures that would support that view?
Click to expand...
It’s depends on what you mean by support and what you think i mean.

A reliable miracle, in my opinion, is an event that cannot logically or in principle be reduced to physical explanations as a sufficient cause. it cannot be mistaken for anything else. That is the criteria i go by in-order to avoid being hoodwinked; and as such i tend to avoid criteria that involves probabilities.

There is no scriptural support as such for my position, but there is nothing against what i am saying either. I think my point was that some Christians are looking for signs in the wrong place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top