Shroud of Turin confirmed to date to the 1st century AD

[EmperorNapoleon]

Here is another link regarding the possible early history of the Shroud

Which is entirely based on the false premise that the Image of Edessa and the Shroud of Turin are the same object. If people want to believe that the Shroud of Turin is authentic then they should do so on its own merits. Its incredible to me that people want to frankenstein historical records to make a square peg fit through a round hole. Especially considering that fabricating such a link leaves a trail of destruction in its wake by rendering numerous other icons as fakes. You’re looking in the wrong place.

 

[RollTide1987]

Hello abucs -

Last year I attended a talk given by Dr. John and Mrs. Rebecca Jackson. The question was asked regarding the pollen presence.

Dr. Jackson said that the test on the pollen has not been reproduced and that he did not find it to be a credible finding. I am quite certain that Dr. Max Frei is deceased.

But Dr. Frei was not the only botanist to do work on the Shroud of Turin. Here are excerpts from an article, originally published in 1999, concerning pollen presence on the Shroud. The research was done by Dr. Avinoam Danin - a Professor of Botany at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem:

*Analysis of the floral images by Danin and an analysis of the pollen grains by Uri Baruch identify a combination of certain species that could be found only in the months of March and April in the region of Jerusalem during that time. *

*The analysis positively identifies a high density of pollen of the thistle Gundelia tournefortii which has bloomed in Israel between March and May for millennia. An image of the plant can be seen near the image of the man’s shoulder. It has been hypothesized by the Whangers, who have researched the Shroud for decades, that this is the plant used for the “crown of thorns” on Jesus’ head. *

*Two pollen grains of this species were also found on the Sudarium of Oviedo, widely accepted as the burial face cloth of Jesus. The location of the Sudarium has been documented from the 1st Century and it has resided in the Cathedral of Oviedo in Spain since the 8th Century. Both cloths also carry type AB blood stains, although some argue that ancient blood types are hard to interpret. What is clear is that the blood stains on both cloths are in a similar pattern. *

sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990803073154.htm

 

[lax16]

But Dr. Frei was not the only botanist to do work on the Shroud of Turin. Here are excerpts from an article, originally published in 1999, concerning pollen presence on the Shroud. The research was done by Dr. Avinoam Danin - a Professor of Botany at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem:

*Analysis of the floral images by Danin and an analysis of the pollen grains by Uri Baruch identify a combination of certain species that could be found only in the months of March and April in the region of Jerusalem during that time. *

*The analysis positively identifies a high density of pollen of the thistle Gundelia tournefortii which has bloomed in Israel between March and May for millennia. An image of the plant can be seen near the image of the man’s shoulder. It has been hypothesized by the Whangers, who have researched the Shroud for decades, that this is the plant used for the “crown of thorns” on Jesus’ head. *

*Two pollen grains of this species were also found on the Sudarium of Oviedo, widely accepted as the burial face cloth of Jesus. The location of the Sudarium has been documented from the 1st Century and it has resided in the Cathedral of Oviedo in Spain since the 8th Century. Both cloths also carry type AB blood stains, although some argue that ancient blood types are hard to interpret. What is clear is that the blood stains on both cloths are in a similar pattern. *

sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990803073154.htm

Thank you for the information. Actually, it was the work of Dr. Danin that was referred to by Dr. Jackson, not the other, my apologies.

I hear what you are saying about other studies being done and agree they sound very intriguing.
I am only repeating what Dr. Jackson said less than a year ago on the topic and he was quite adamant about it - he didn’t seem to think there was anything to report on the matter of pollens.
Of course, he is only one of the scientists involved, albeit a very important one.

 

[lax16]

Which is entirely based on the false premise that the Image of Edessa and the Shroud of Turin are the same object. If people want to believe that the Shroud of Turin is authentic then they should do so on its own merits. Its incredible to me that people want to frankenstein historical records to make a square peg fit through a round hole. Especially considering that fabricating such a link leaves a trail of destruction in its wake by rendering numerous other icons as fakes. You’re looking in the wrong place.

Hi Emperor Napoleon - I do not necessarily believe that the Edessa Image is the same one as the Shroud. I only provided some research to respond to your comment that there is no info prior to the Middle Ages.

One can reject the work of others in this area. I think it makes for a very healthy debate on the subject.

I am not looking in the wrong place. I have been reading about the Shroud and the Cloth of Oviedo for years. I love hearing new ideas even if they oppose the views of others or myself.
But just as I will not say* for sure *the Edessa Image and the Shroud are the same, I am not sure how you can say for sure they are not.

However, I will note your opposition to the idea of the images being the same and remember it in further discussions.

 

[Brendan]

You can’t. The blood is very old to yield correct and definitive results. (So no, you can’t clone a Jesus into existence. )

And if you did, all you would get was a Semitic male. Genetics only describe the human accidents. There is no gene for ‘Divinity’

 

[RollTide1987]

Thank you for the information. Actually, it was the work of Dr. Danin that was referred to by Dr. Jackson, not the other, my apologies.

I hear what you are saying about other studies being done and agree they sound very intriguing.
I am only repeating what Dr. Jackson said less than a year ago on the topic and he was quite adamant about it - he didn’t seem to think there was anything to report on the matter of pollens.
Of course, he is only one of the scientists involved, albeit a very important one.

And I would never presume to know more than Dr. Jackson. I just think it’s very difficult to completely dismiss the “pollen evidence” when you have three professors of botany (Dr. Frei, as well as Dr. Danin and his colleague, Dr. Uri Baruch) saying the same thing.

 

[dshix]

I am always very amused when I see skeptics faced with overwhelming evidence, but they refuse to believe it simply because of their personal convictions. The agnostics on this thread have, as yet, failed to provide an inkling of solid proof against the legitimacy of the shroud, and have been faced with incredible proof for it.

However, (typical agnostics they are) they refuse to acknowledge the proven evidence of many scientists.

I suggest, to the posters proving the legitimacy of the shroud on this thread, that the exercise of “convincing” a close-minded person is a fruitless exercise.

 

[lax16]

And I would never presume to know more than Dr. Jackson. I just think it’s very difficult to completely dismiss the “pollen evidence” when you have three professors of botany (Dr. Frei, as well as Dr. Danin and his colleague, Dr. Uri Baruch) saying the same thing.

RollTide - It was unfortunate that the pollen question came up at the very end of Dr. Jackson’s presentation because he was hurrying to try to wrap things up. (The talk went much longer than expected).

I have a feeling, if there had been more time, the person asking the question regarding the pollen would have liked to ask more detailed questions on the matter.

Your observations are excellent and I agree it is very difficult to dismiss the pollen evidence when there are several sources reporting the same thing.

If there is a next time, I certainly will ask these questions!

 

[lax16]

I am always very amused when I see skeptics faced with overwhelming evidence, but they refuse to believe it simply because of their personal convictions. The agnostics on this thread have, as yet, failed to provide an inkling of solid proof against the legitimacy of the shroud, and have been faced with incredible proof for it.

However, (typical agnostics they are) they refuse to acknowledge the proven evidence of many scientists.

I suggest, to the posters proving the legitimacy of the shroud on this thread, that the exercise of “convincing” a close-minded person is a fruitless exercise.

It is funny, my spouse is a non-Christian with a blend of of atheist and agnostic beliefs (he covers all bases! ) and he is very interested in the Shroud.

He has suggested (several times) that we drive to Colorado to the Shroud Center and has commented that it would be great to go Italy someday to see the original.

While I can see why some people would be skeptical and would have good arguments for their position, I definitely think it is necessary to keep an open mind. There is no way anyone can think their position on the Shroud is a slam dunk - especially the skeptics.

You are right. For those who are close-minded, the conversation goes nowhere fast.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Of course it’s authenticity has been proven previously.

Whether it is actually Christ’s shroud is another matter.

Although my Baptist mate informed me that it is Christ’s shroud and the Vatican has control of it so that they can use the blood to create the ultimate anti-christ which they may have already done and it was either Prince William or Prince Charles. She’s not sure yet. Honest. She’s an entertaining friend.

 

[RACJ]

I’m one Baptist who believes 100% that the Holy Shroud is authentic. Happy Easter everyone!!! Blessings, Rob

 

[RACJ]

I am always very amused when I see skeptics faced with overwhelming evidence, but they refuse to believe it simply because of their personal convictions. The agnostics on this thread have, as yet, failed to provide an inkling of solid proof against the legitimacy of the shroud, and have been faced with incredible proof for it.
However, (typical agnostics they are) they refuse to acknowledge the proven evidence of many scientists.
I suggest, to the posters proving the legitimacy of the shroud on this thread, that the exercise of “convincing” a close-minded person is a fruitless exercise.

I think that it’s time that the “skeptics” are unmasked as contrarians who refuse, kicking and screaming, to acknowledge Truth, even when it stares them in the face…literally in this instance. It’s time that they, along with all of us, get down on our hands and knees and thank God for the gift of the Holy Shroud, Jesus’ burial cloth. Rob

 

[_Abyssinia]

Ten Questions for Shroud Skeptics

The latest scientific tests show that the Shroud of Turin dates to the first century. Go here to read more. Still, Shroud skeptics say it’s a medieval forgery. So here are some questions for them:

1. If it’s a fake why hasn’t anyone–even with modern technology–been able to reproduce it?

1. How did the forger not only know about photography in the Middle Ages, but manage to produce what is, in effect, a photographic negative?

1. The image is not painted, but “singed” or burnt on to the fabric. How did they do that?
2. The “burned” image doesn’t penetrate more than the surface level of the cloth. Paint would soak in wouldn’t it?

1. When paintings are put into a 3-D replicator they don’t produce successful 3-D images. This does. How did the forger do that?

1. They found pollen and traces of soil from the area of Jerusalem. Did a medieval forger in Europe think of that and travel out there to get samples?

1. Are carbon 14 dating tests ever wrong? We’re assuming someone in the Middle Ages was a fraud. What if the modern scientists cheated? Its possible isn’t it?

1. The man in the shroud was nailed through the wrists. Medieval artists showed Christ’s nails through his hands. How did the medieval forger know that the Romans nailed through the wrist and not the hand as people thought back in the Middle Ages?

1. The forger even got the details of the wounds correct because the flagellation wounds correspond not only to Roman flagella, but to the direction from which the two men would have whipped the victim according to Roman torture techniques. How did the forger know that?

1. The pigtail at the back? It links up with the hair style of Jewish men who had taken the “Nazarite vow” in the time of Christ. This was some fantastic forger no?

 

[ajecphotos]

For it not to be Our Dear Lord, Jesus Christ it would have to be someone who has imprinted his image on the cloth with an unknown process for the day.

It all points to Jesus for me at the moment. Only Jesus could have his image on a cloth as the one called the Turin Shroud. How else can people explain its mysteries otherwise?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Hi Emperor Napoleon - I do not necessarily believe that the Edessa Image is the same one as the Shroud. I only provided some research to respond to your comment that there is no info prior to the Middle Ages. One can reject the work of others in this area. I think it makes for a very healthy debate on the subject. I am not looking in the wrong place. I have been reading about the Shroud and the Cloth of Oviedo for years. I love hearing new ideas even if they oppose the views of others or myself.
But just as I will not say* for sure *the Edessa Image and the Shroud are the same, I am not sure how you can say for sure they are not. However, I will note your opposition to the idea of the images being the same and remember it in further discussions.

I don’t begrudge you your belief that the Shroud is authentic. Personally, I tend to agree with the Church on this subject. Whether the Shroud is authentic or a Medieval fake is immaterial. Like many other icons, it inspires and nurtures faith; that whats icons are for whether real or not.

 

[tafan]

And if you did, all you would get was a Semitic male. Genetics only describe the human accidents. There is no gene for ‘Divinity’

Be careful here, Christ is fully human. In substance. His humanity is not an accident.

 

[RACJ]

Be careful here, Christ is fully human. In substance. His humanity is not an accident.

Of course not. I find it interesting that the skeptics on this site have become suspiciously quiet over the past two days. Maybe a few of them are taking the great mystery of our Holy Shroud to heart. One can wish that it has given them pause, anyway. Rob

 

[oldcelt]

I have always admired the Church’s cautious approach to subjects like this. Their referring to it as an icon is very appropriate, IMHO, since there will never be a way to positively confirm this as the burial cloth of any particular individual. There will always be an element of faith regarding the shroud…science can only take us so far.

 

[cornbread_r2]

According to this article, even the Archbishop of Turin wasn’t convinced by the new evidence.

From the article:

*As a professional skeptic, Nickell can be expected to voice doubt about the book. But criticism also came from Archbishop Nosiglia.

Because there’s “no degree of security” as to the authenticity of the fiber samples, the shroud’s custodians “cannot recognize any serious value to the results of these alleged experiments,” Nosiglia said in a statement quoted by La Stampa’s Vatican Insider. The archbishop’s comments “put stakes into Fanti’s work,” Vatican Insider reported.*

 

[RACJ]

Some folks work diligently to maintain their neutrality or skepticism toward the Holy Shroud’s authenticity. Note that the archbishop fails to address Abyssinia’s ten points, nor does he counter scores of other putative authenticating facts that investigators have unearthed. At this moment, there simply is no rational reason to disbelieve, IMO. Blessings, Rob mysteries