Shroud of Turin

  • Thread starter Thread starter martino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

martino

Guest
I have recently began studying the Shroud of Turin and have become absolutely fascinated by it. I wanted to start a new thread that would discuss the various argement for and against the Shroud as being the authentic burial cloth of Christ. I am certainly no expert on the topic but based on the information I have gathered so far I am now convinced that the Shroud is authentic. The Church of course makes no claims to authenticity and wisely so, however we are free to study and decide for ourselves what we believe in regards to this mysterious cloth.

This being my first new thread am not sure what I am doing and am going to attempt to include a poll to accompany the thread. As I see it, there are only 3 conclusions one could draw as to the origins of the Shroud. Either it is the authentic burial cloth of Christ and the image was miraculously created, the image on the cloth is the product of a 13th century artist, or the image is of an unidentifiable man that was buried in the cloth and the image is the result of contact between body and cloth.
 
I think it is authentic simply because it is a perfect negative created when there was not photography…
 
Sorry for the typos folks, I cant figure out how to edit my post!!!
 
I voted for Authentic…I assume when you say “not made by human hands”, you’re referring to the image, not the cloth itself? It was kinda confusing for a second.
 
Yes, I think it’s likely the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, with the image not made by human hands. The findings of the Shroud of Turin Research Project some years ago further convinced me. Plus I’m skeptical of the results of the C-14 dating.

JimG
 
I voted against authentic but that is because I have not felt that enough evidence has proven it to be other than a man made artwork. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Occham’s Razor… I am not saying that it couldn’t be the shroud of Christ.

“We have no idea how it is made and no one can replicate it even with today’s technology…”
The same can be said about Stradivarius Violins.

In Henri Poitiers’ 1355 investigation brought forth a confession of the artist who created the Shroud. Now that man could have been lying but this is something that people often do not know happened.

Pollen Samples
The fact that Frei had identified the pollen to species, rather than type, raised suspicion. It is nearly impossible to identify to species because pollen of related species is often identical. Stephen Schafersman was the first person to document, and publicly state, that Frei’s pollen information was too good to be true.

In the end I don’t think that it matters too much, whether it is a fraud or legitimate it will not affect my belief in Jesus.
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
In the end I don’t think that it matters too much, whether it is a fraud or legitimate it will not affect my belief in Jesus.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. A priest once told me about an associate of his who was totally absorbed in the Shroud of Turin study, firmly believing it to be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. After one discussion, he said to him, “OK, so what if you’re right. Then, so what?”

JimG
 
The survey is incorrect, the Shroud was made by human hands. The imprint of Christ on the cloth was a supernatural occurance.
 
I was a faithful Catholic long before I ever read a single word about the Shroud of Turin. I dont think that the Shroud holds very much importance to the believer, however, I think that it could have great importance for the non-believer. There are many doubting Thomas’ out there, who do not believe unless they see physical proof. Thomas touched the wounds of Christ and believed. Well the original Thomas got the proof he was looking for and maybe the Shroud could be that physical proof for all the modern day Thomas’.

The apostle John also saw something when he entered the empty tomb that caused him to “believe”. Consider the following passage:

John 20:3 Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. 4 They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; 5 and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, 7 and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; …"

What exactly did John see and what was it that he came to believe? Is it possible that he saw the shroud with Christ’s image on it?

In any case, my point is that if God made the image Himself and preserved it for us, then of course it is important!
 
Without a doubt in my mind…the authentic burial cloth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus of Nazareth…and like so many other great miracles such as those of the Eucharist, the shroud was given to us to enliven and strengthen our faith. 👍
 
I would like to suggest that any doubters as to the Shroud of Turin being the actual burial cloth of the Lord, take a look at this really cool site:
shroud.com/
Needless to say, I voted authentic.
 
Question for skeptics: How could a 14th century artist produce a negative image on a cloth 500 years before photography was even invented?
 
I didn’t vote, though if I did I would probably say “other”. The truth is, however, that I just don’t know.

I am also skeptical of the Carbon-14 dating. There seem to be reasonably credible descriptions of the Shroud from before the date given by C-14. I also seem to recall that the C-14 dates it to a period when it was damaged by fire? If so the material may have been impregnated with carbon from that period.

I’m not prepared to accept it 100% and probably never will be. However, I certainly accept it as being worthy of veneration, regardless of how it came to be.
 
What an interesting poll/thread! My heart and head agreed to vote “authentic,” without hesitation.

For more of a wonderful thing, by the way, Joe Gloor’s recommended website is great.
 
There is an excellant book entitled, “The Resurrection of the Shroud” published in 2000 that exhaustively goes over all the evidence and objections. There are so many independent lines of evidence suggesting that it is not a forgery that it’s hard to imagine that it’s not genuine.

But, I agree with others who say that it wouldn’t affect my faith either way. However, there have been many people whose spiritual journey to the Faith started with the shroud.
 
I believe the** cloth ** was made by human hands, but that the image was not.
 
OK, I should have been more clear with my wording. I concede that the cloth was made by human hands, its the image that I am concerned with. Sorry for the confusion!!!🙂
 
I believe that it is, although it would not lessen my faith if it was not. If you are interested in the scientific evidence, here’s another great site:

shroudforum.com/
 
As an artist, I find the suggestion that the image was the creation of a 14th-century human artist to be ludicrous. If you look at the art of that period, you will not see anything like the realism that one sees in the shroud. The artists of that period were not masters of chiaroscuro and proper proportion, perspective, and foreshortening were lacking. The STURP investigation produced data showing the image being only on the surface of the fibers—not soaking through, as would be the case with paint. I remember watching some TV show some time ago wherein a skeptic tried to show how such an image could be done using a transferred image (I can’t remember the exact process she used). It was not an effective argument for her position: WHY would an artist try so hard to produce that specific effect? Wouldn’t this process, then, show up at some other time in the art of that time? The image is “scorched” onto the surface (think Resurrection). How do skeptics account for that?

I think it’s authentic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top