Shroud of Turin

  • Thread starter Thread starter martino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is some significant evidence in regards to the shroud…it should be made known.
  1. Most scientists conclude Carbon testing will prove inconclusive on this particular garment…due to the smoke…and various elements fused into the garment…from the fire, etc. Also…interesting to note…gum arabic was found next to the place where the original samples were taken…it was common practice to use gum arabic to hold threads during weaving repairs. Blood type AB was found on the Shroud of Turin…the same blood type found on Veronica’s Veil. The image on Veronica’s Veil matches the face on the Shroud of Turin. The only difference is that on Veronica’s Veil…the eyes are open.
  2. The blood on the Shroud of Turin matches the blood on the Sudarium. What is the Sudarium? Jewish beliefs were that the essence of a person was contained within the blood. After a crucifixion a sudarium would have been pinned around the head …to soak up bodily fluids. The “Sudarium of Oviedo,” which has a written record going back to Jerusalem (1st century)…contains the same blood type and composition found on the Shroud of Turin.
  3. The weave of the Shroud of Turin holds a great deal of information. All textile experts agree…the weave that was used was not used during medieval times…this particular weave…known as the masada…was used during the 1st century. The cloth is made of Gossypium herbaceum a Middle Eastern species of cotton not found in Europe.
  4. An early Christian manuscript (1192 Pray Manuscipt) showed a series of holes on Jesus’s burial cloth…the same holes found on the Shroud of Turin…this manuscript dates way before the Carbon testing date.
 
I’M A BELIEVER! Yes, I believe that it’s the authentic burial shroud of Jesus. Absolutely.
 
I personally believe that it is the burial cloth of Jesus, but I have never herd the “not made by human hands” part…

In the large picture, I feel that this is one of those things if it were proved to not be true… what and who did it harm… I don’t think it is at all problematic to believe…

I choose to believe because I see no credible reason not too… 👍
 
Agname mentioned that the blood type on the shroud is AB. Interestingly, that is the same blood type of the tissue and blood from the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano that occurred in the 8th century and is still present today.
 
JimO, you mentioned that the blood type on the shroud is AB.

It is also the same blood type that appears on the sudarium, a cloth currently in Spain in a church in (I believe) Oviedo. The sudarium is reportedly a cloth which was placed over Christ’s head in the tomb. There are other associations between the sudarium and the shroud, I believe having to do with the patterns of stains on the two cloths. What is interesting is that the sudarium’s history is much more thoroughly documented than the shroud’s and its documented history reportedly goes back to the first century. If in fact the sudarium is associated with the shroud, it adds credibility to the shroud’s authenticity. I got this information (I hope I’m remembering it correctly) from the following book, a good, easy read, lots of information: The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence, by John C. Iannone.
 
Another really good book on the subject is “Unlocking the Secrets of the Shroud” by Gilbert LaVoie – it reads like a great mystery! There are too many “coincidences” for me not to believe it is the burial cloth of Our Lord. As the author LaVoie said when asked by a rabbi why he studied the shroud, he replied “I study the shroud because it leads me to study scripture and have a better understanding of our Lord,” to which the rabbi replied “Then you should study the shroud!” 👍
 
Didi, that book, “Unlocking the Secrets of the Shroud” is what got me hooked! It really is a great book, suspenseful even! I believe it is out of print, which is a shame because I would by a dozen copies and hand them out to people.

I am reading another one now titled,.“The Shroud of Turin-A Case for Authenticity”. I guess I should have known that most of the people on this website would be more likely to believe in its authenticity.
 
After all the books I’ve read, and after having earlier seen the info on the sites mentioned, I have come to the belief that it IS real.

JMHO
 
I too don’t really know what to believe about its authenticity and agree with those who don’t need this to stregthen their faith. I am very intrigued by all the evidence presented here in favor of its authenticity.
I am a forensic scientist and have attended some classes at the McCrone Institute in Chicago. At one class Walter McCrone (highly regarded as the world’s greatest microscopist, although he died last year) gave us a presentation on his work on the Shroud. I must say it was a very convincing presentation seeing the microscopic red ochre pigment granules. I have copied and pasted the McCrone stance on the subject so this thread could have some evidence on the other side to chew on as well.
I am not interested in getting in an argument over it. Like I said I really don’t know what to believe.
By the way McCrone has a book as well entitled, “Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin.”
THE SHROUD OF TURIN

RESEARCH AT McCRONE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The Shroud of Turin

According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues at McCrone Associates, the 3+ by 14+ foot cloth depicting Christ’s crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356. The faint sepia image is made up of billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium. Dr. McCrone determined this by polarized light microscopy in 1979. This included careful inspection of thousands of linen fibers from 32 different areas (Shroud and sample points), characterization of the only colored image-forming particles by color, refractive indices, polarized light microscopy, size, shape, and microchemical tests for iron, mercury, and body fluids. The paint pigments were dispersed in a collagen tempera (produced in medieval times, perhaps, from parchment). It is chemically distinctly different in composition from blood but readily detected and identified microscopically by microchemical staining reactions. Forensic tests for blood were uniformly negative on fibers from the blood-image tapes.

There is no blood in any image area, only red ochre and vermilion in a collagen tempera medium. The red ochre is present on 20 of both body- and blood-image tapes; the vermilion only on 11 blood-image tapes. Both pigments are absent on the 12 non-image tape fibers.

The Electron Optics Group at McCrone Associates (John Gavrilovic, Anna Teetsov, Mark Andersen, Ralph Hinsch, Howard Humecki, Betty Majewski, and Deborah Piper) in 1980 used electron and x-ray diffraction and found red ochre (iron oxide, hematite) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide); their electron microprobe analyzer found iron, mercury, and sulfur on a dozen of the blood-image area samples. The results fully confirmed Dr. McCrone’s results and further proved the image was painted twice-once with red ochre, followed by vermilion to enhance the blood-image areas.

The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.

Experimental details on the tests carried out at McCrone Associates or the McCrone Research Institute are available in five papers published in three different peer-reviewed journal articles: Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19; Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.

Conclusion:

The “Shroud” is a beautiful painting created about 1355 for a new church in need of a pilgrim-attracting relic.
 
I find it amazing (but not a coincidence) that the painting Jesus told St. Faustina to have made matches the Shroud of Turin exactly. The dimensions of the facial features are exactly proportional when comparing the two images. This amazing phenomenon was discovered only a few years ago while a small group of Catholics were discussing and praying before these two images. One of the people in this group decided to place the Jesus of Mercy painting behind The Shroud of Turin, and illuminate the images from behind.

This was the result:
http://members.cox.net/mce20/Divine Mercy Painting Illuminating Through The Shrowd of Turin.bmp

And here is the negative of The Shroud of Turin along side the Jesus of Mercy painting:
http://members.cox.net/mce20/Shroud of Turin and Jesus of Mercy.jpg

I believe the Shroud is authentic from the evidence I have seen.
 
I agree with traditionMike that science has shown it to be from the 14th century, not a truly ancient artifact. Until I bought several books on the subject (both pro-authentic) I wasn’t swayed either way, but I of course hoped that it might be real. The books don’t do much damage to the scientific studies.

I am a complete believer in the supernatural bodily resurrection of Jesus, though, and thus I have faith that he truly is the Son of God. I also believe that Christian faith is compatible with the theory of evolution (natural selection) and in fact with virtually all science. To me, the Big Bang is a true manifestation of our Lord that cannot be disputed by science (science says that something cannot come from nothing). I’m generally persuaded that God does not act overtly in our world (not counting the miracles of Jesus, especially his resurrection). But He does seem to act in countless ways at a personal level – generally very subtlely.

I believe in a personal, supernatural God who wants me to be good.

– Jed Smith
 
traditionMike said:
**
**

I am a forensic scientist and have attended some classes at the McCrone Institute in Chicago. At one class Walter McCrone (highly regarded as the world’s greatest microscopist, although he died last year) gave us a presentation on his work on the Shroud. I must say it was a very convincing presentation seeing the microscopic red ochre pigment granules. I have copied and pasted the McCrone stance on the subject so this thread could have some evidence on the other side to chew on as well.

I am not interested in getting in an argument over it. Like I said I really don’t know what to believe.

By the way McCrone has a book as well entitled, "Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin."

THE SHROUD OF TURIN

RESEARCH AT McCRONE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

The Shroud of Turin

According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues at McCrone Associates, the 3+ by 14+ foot cloth depicting Christ’s crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356. The faint sepia image is made up of billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium. Dr. McCrone determined this by polarized light microscopy in 1979. This included careful inspection of thousands of linen fibers from 32 different areas (Shroud and sample points), characterization of the only colored image-forming particles by color, refractive indices, polarized light microscopy, size, shape, and microchemical tests for iron, mercury, and body fluids. The paint pigments were dispersed in a collagen tempera (produced in medieval times, perhaps, from parchment). It is chemically distinctly different in composition from blood but readily detected and identified microscopically by microchemical staining reactions. Forensic tests for blood were uniformly negative on fibers from the blood-image tapes.

There is no blood in any image area, only red ochre and vermilion in a collagen tempera medium. The red ochre is present on 20 of both body- and blood-image tapes; the vermilion only on 11 blood-image tapes. Both pigments are absent on the 12 non-image tape fibers.

The Electron Optics Group at McCrone Associates (John Gavrilovic, Anna Teetsov, Mark Andersen, Ralph Hinsch, Howard Humecki, Betty Majewski, and Deborah Piper) in 1980 used electron and x-ray diffraction and found red ochre (iron oxide, hematite) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide); their electron microprobe analyzer found iron, mercury, and sulfur on a dozen of the blood-image area samples. The results fully confirmed Dr. McCrone’s results and further proved the image was painted twice-once with red ochre, followed by vermilion to enhance the blood-image areas.

Conclusion:

The “Shroud” is a beautiful painting created about 1355 for a new church in need of a pilgrim-attracting relic.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that McCrone is highly respected in the scientific community. Although he was not part of the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) that examined the Shroud in Italy, they did provided him with some sticky tape samples that were taken from the surface of the Shroud during its examination in 1978. He discovered a small quantity of iron oxide. Since this was found only on the blood areas of the Shroud, McCrone concluded that it was a red pigment used by an artist.

The STURP team did not accept McCrone’s conclusions, because he did not take their findings into consideration, for example, that iron oxide is bassically rust, which can be found in many forms of dust. It is not surprising to find iron oxide in the blood areas of the Shroud because iron is a component of blood.

During a 1981 STURP meeting, a presentation was given by Dr. Adler, and he was asked to comment on McCrone’s claim that there was no blood on the Shroud. Adler referred to a chart of the blood tests that had been performed and remarked; “That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but BLOOD!” McCrone’s theory was dismissed by the use of X-ray flourescence and visible light examination of the Shroud as well as microchemcial tests. These studies showed that there was not a sufficeient amount of iron oxide on the cloth to account for the least enhancement of the image. The STURP team concluded that the iron oxide evidence was “irrelevant to the image formation process.”

McCrone later remarked, “I believe the Shroud is a fake, but I cannot prove it.”

With all the remarkabel advances in forensic science, we still have absolutely no idea how that image was created, and to say that a 14 century artist could have pulled of such a hoax is just not reasonable.
 
Where exactly was the shroud for the first 1300 years after Christ’s death?

I put no faith into this cloth. Although the method of its creation hasn’t (or may never, if it is indeed a miraculous imprint), I find it pretty convincing that a bishop attests to its lack of authenticity. Although this bishop does call the image a “painting” (and it is easily recognizable that it is not), I would probably say the same thing if I heard the confession of an artist who claimed that his work wasn’t really an artifact. I can barely tell the difference between water colors and crayons. If I were that bishop, I might have described it inaccurately, too.

All I ask is that people let science run its course. I am well aware that while there may be scientists out there trying to find evidence to support their conclusions instead of the other way around, the same can be said of the skeptics. A 1st century cloth of Jesus’ would be hard for them to swallow.

There are undoubtedly biases on both sides. In such situations, the truth gets swept aside in the ideological war.

I am pretty skeptical of the shroud’s authenticity based on what I have read tonight around the internet. However, I am not going to completely rule out the possibility of authencity because there are too many unanwerable questions surrounding the shroud, such as the negative image, the nails marks on the wrists of the image, et cetera.

My point is this: don’t count your eggs before they’ve hatched. If proof comes along to show that the carbon dating was way off, or that the history surrounding the shroud in the 13th century was wrong, that’s fine. However, the thing that annoys me more than anything is the atheist/skeptic hooting and hollering at their latest victory over us “stupid” Christians. Many atheists take disproven miracle-workers as proof that there is no God, or that their is no such thing as the miraculous. Although both of those conclusions are absurd, we should do as little as possible to harden the atheist’s heart. Let’s not fall on our faces by supporting something when too many questions remain unanswered.

Since I find the Shroud of Turin nowhere in my Catechism or in the Nicene Creed, I’ll take a stance of “its authenticity is irrelevant to my faith”. I voted “other”.
 
If you want to read some convincing evidence that the Shroud of Turin is authentic, read up on this site lifeandmercy.com/ (NOTE - you need to click on the “one true image” link in the upper left hand corner of this site to take you to the Shroud link).

There are pictures that compare the Shroud to The Divine Mercy Image as well.

Let me know what your thoughts are on the information provided on the Shroud at the site I listed above.
 
traditionMike said:
**
I too don’t really know what to believe about its authenticity and agree with those who don’t need this to stregthen their faith. I am very intrigued by all the evidence presented here in favor of its authenticity. **
I am a forensic scientist and have attended some classes at the McCrone Institute in Chicago. At one class Walter McCrone (highly regarded as the world’s greatest microscopist, although he died last year) gave us a presentation on his work on the Shroud. I must say it was a very convincing presentation seeing the microscopic red ochre pigment granules. I have copied and pasted the McCrone stance on the subject so this thread could have some evidence on the other side to chew on as well.
I am not interested in getting in an argument over it. Like I said I really don’t know what to believe.
By the way McCrone has a book as well entitled, “Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin.”
THE SHROUD OF TURIN

RESEARCH AT McCRONE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The Shroud of Turin

According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues at McCrone Associates, the 3+ by 14+ foot cloth depicting Christ’s crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356. The faint sepia image is made up of billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium. Dr. McCrone determined this by polarized light microscopy in 1979. This included careful inspection of thousands of linen fibers from 32 different areas (Shroud and sample points), characterization of the only colored image-forming particles by color, refractive indices, polarized light microscopy, size, shape, and microchemical tests for iron, mercury, and body fluids. The paint pigments were dispersed in a collagen tempera (produced in medieval times, perhaps, from parchment). It is chemically distinctly different in composition from blood but readily detected and identified microscopically by microchemical staining reactions. Forensic tests for blood were uniformly negative on fibers from the blood-image tapes.

There is no blood in any image area, only red ochre and vermilion in a collagen tempera medium. The red ochre is present on 20 of both body- and blood-image tapes; the vermilion only on 11 blood-image tapes. Both pigments are absent on the 12 non-image tape fibers.

The Electron Optics Group at McCrone Associates (John Gavrilovic, Anna Teetsov, Mark Andersen, Ralph Hinsch, Howard Humecki, Betty Majewski, and Deborah Piper) in 1980 used electron and x-ray diffraction and found red ochre (iron oxide, hematite) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide); their electron microprobe analyzer found iron, mercury, and sulfur on a dozen of the blood-image area samples. The results fully confirmed Dr. McCrone’s results and further proved the image was painted twice-once with red ochre, followed by vermilion to enhance the blood-image areas.

The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.

Experimental details on the tests carried out at McCrone Associates or the McCrone Research Institute are available in five papers published in three different peer-reviewed journal articles: Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19; Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.

Conclusion:

The “Shroud” is a beautiful painting created about 1355 for a new church in need of a pilgrim-attracting relic.
Click to expand...

He has flaws within his research.

I recommend…reading the following…

historian.net/shroud.htm

shroudstory.com/
 
Here’s the latest news about the “Shroud of Turin.”

Scientists Find New Face on Back of Turin Shroud
By Dominique Vidalon, Reuters

4/15/04 06:30 ET

Excerpts:

"MILAN (April 15) - Italian scientists have found a matching image of a man’s face and possibly his hands on the back of the Turin shroud, believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, one of the researchers said on Thursday.

The discovery that the ghostly image on the back of the linen cloth matches the face that adorns the front is likely to reignite debate over whether the shroud is genuine or a skillful medieval fraud.

“The fact that the image is two-sided makes any forgery difficult,” Professor Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua told Reuters.

The findings of Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo, both from the university’s department of mechanical engineering, were published this week by a journal of the Institute of Physics in London.

Fanti said the discovery would support those who maintain the cloth is genuine."

and…

"That protective layer was removed in 2002 for restoration and the back of the cloth was photographed.

The two scientists said they studied these photographs and used mathematical and optical techniques to process the images.

They found that the face that can be seen on the reverse of the shroud matches that of the front.

“We can detect the presence of a nose, eyes, hair, beard and moustache on the back surface that correspond in place, form, position and scale to those of the front,” Fanti said."
 
Also…the “Sudarium of Oviedo”…which can be easily traced back to the first century…the fluid stains (length…position, etc)…are an exact match…to the bone structure on the “Shroud of Turin.”
 
For info on the Sudarium.

shroud.com/guscin.htm

Excerpt:

"The sudarium alone has revealed sufficient information to suggest that it was in contact with the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. However, the really fascinating evidence comes to light when this cloth is compared to the Shroud of Turin.

The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.

The length of the nose through which the pleural oedema fluid came onto the sudarium has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches. This is exactly the same length as the nose on the image of the Shroud.

If the face of the image on the Shroud is placed over the stains on the sudarium, perhaps the most obvious coincidence is the exact fit of the stains with the beard on the face. As the sudarium was used to clean the man’s face, it appears that it was simply placed on the face to absorb all the blood, but not used in any kind of wiping movement.

A small stain is also visible proceeding from the right hand side of the man’s mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the Shroud, but Dr. John Jackson, using the VP-8 and photo enhancements has confirmed its presence.

The thorn wounds on the nape of the neck also coincide perfectly with the bloodstains on the Shroud.

Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud."
 
I believe the Shroud to be authentic. The Shroud has been tested in ways that an artist in the 13th century could not have possibly fathomed. Scientists have discovered attributes about the Shroud that simply were not common knowledge (if there were known at all even) back then.

That said, I also believe that no one will ever be able to definitively prove the Shroud true or false. Think about it, if we have tangilbe evidence of Christ’s Resurrection, what happens to free will? What I mean is, we will no longer have the choice to believe because it will be in front of our faces.

C.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top