Shroud of Turin

  • Thread starter Thread starter martino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reply to Shroudie:

Dear Dan:

Thanks for the “heads up” to the Turin Shroud’s apparent Carbon 14 dating
problem. The site you linked me to does indeed compromise the credibility
of the De Molay theory, proposed by C. Knight & R. Lomas in their book,
The Second Messiah: Templers, The Turin Shroud and the great secret of
Freemasonry. However, the chemical process that may have created the
image on the Shoud, as proposed by Knight & Lomas (via the work done
by Dr. Alan Mills and reported in ‘Image formation on the Shroud of Turin’,
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1995, vol. 20 No. 4, pp 319-26) is still
quite plausible. As for the second facial image reportedly found on the back
of the Shroud, that DOES complicate things, even if it IS the burial cloth
of Jesus.

By the way, the site you linked me to is NOT a 5-minute read, if you’re as
interested in this mystery as I am!

Thanks again,
Frank
 
Reply to Shroudie:

Dan:

There is also the mystery of why the Shroud was never seen publicly, until
it was put on display (in the year 1357) by the Charney family who were the
descendants of the man who was arrested with De Molay and later burned
alive alongside of him on March 19, 1314.

Frank
 
I do not know if the shroud is the real burial cloth of Jesus.

What I would like to know is it 6 or 7 hundred years? What is your significant digest? What were the conditions of it’s storage before discovery, did those conditions effect the amount of C-14 or rate at which C-14 changed? Is C-14 dating a definitive or is it just a tool that needs other evidence to support it?

I am no more convinced that the shroud is that of Elvis than I am convinced on C-14 alone is it not that of Christ.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Hannibal:
and you read ‘somewhere’… .

The truth is that multiple independent datings of the cloth show it to be about 6-7 hundred years old.

When you combine this with the multiple provenance problems that the ‘shroud’ has, combined with the fact that the shroud was already debunked as a fraud during the middle ages, and you basically have no evidence supporting the shroud and a good deal of refuting evidence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Shroud

from the site:

The known provenance of the cloth now stored in Turin dates back to 1357, when the widow of French knight Geoffroy de Charny had it displayed in a church in Lirey, France nearby Troyes (Knights Templar). Both coats of arms are to be seen in a pilgrim medallion in the Museum Cluny in Paris, which shows accurately the Shroud of Turin.

During these years, the Shroud was publicly exposed, even if not continuously because the bishop of Troyes had prohibited this cult practice. But after 32 years the cult started again. Its propriety was contested by King Charles VI of France, who vainly ordered his sheriffs to obtain it and bring it to Troyes. In 1389, the then bishop of Troyes dismissed the relic as a fake, and reported the confession of the artist who had “cunningly painted” the image. But he had never seen it himself. In the following month, antipope Clement VII prescribed indulgences for those who celebrated the Shroud, and the cult continued.
Click to expand...
I do not know if the shroud is the real burial cloth of Jesus.

What I would like to know is it 6 or 7 hundred years? What is your significant digest? What were the conditions of it’s storage before discovery, did those conditions effect the amount or rate at which C-14 changed? Is C-14 dating a definitive or is it just a tool that needs other evidence to support it?

I am no more convinced that the shroud is that of Elvis than I am convinced on C-14 alone is it not that of Christ.
 
40.png
martino:
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.
Click to expand...
Dear Martino and All,

Now this is not any evidence at all - none! However, a number of years ago we were on a train from Paris to Rome. If you get a train and a sleeping cabin you leave Paris about 6 or so and you awaken in time for coffee and rolls in the sleeper then you get a cab to your hotel and have a full day in Rome. Just a handy tip and you save $$ on a hotel for that night. Anyway, you usually board the train with some wine, cheese, bread and a chocolate something and go to sleep fairly early.

You stop along the way all night but you sleep very soundly. The first time we made the trip I heard a strange sound in the middle of the night. It was almost the absence of sound. I knew it was the train stopping, as it always does, but I felt very aware of something that was almost too quiet. It was actually too silent, and deep in my heart I knew something was happening. I had no idea what it was but I got up from my bed, went to the window, opened the curtain and there it was - the sign at the station - TURIN. Ahhhhhh may I tell you it was too quiet. There was such a feeling of awe that I just stood and thought, “It is here, isn’t it Lord? It is here.” Later, of course, I watchd everything I could about the Shroud. I loved hearing the people, often not Christians, and their comments about the Shroud. They are always so moved and they don’t even want to believe. Scientists who studied the Shroud in Santa Barbara were amazed. 20/20 did a great show on that way back in the 80s. Remember that? So, none of you will believe because of my testimony but I thought it worth a comment - or two. If for nothing else, if you go to Europe be certain to take the night train to Rome from Paris and stay awake long enough to see the sign that says, “TURIN” and then let me know what you think. Terry Fenwick
 
Authentic burial cloth of Christ, not made by human hands.
I have read much about this suject and have viewed many documentaries…I have to conclude that I truly believe that it is the Holy Shroud…Burial Cloth of Jesus…
 
Whether or not it’s the burial cloth of Christ is totally irrelevant. We put our faith in God, not material objects.
 
If it is a hoax made up by “artists” many centuries after the ressurection. I still have questions. How could the people of those times have even thought of creating an image like this? It resembles something more like a photo and the Shroud was discovered long before picture photography. Why aren’t there other “works of art” similar to it from this time era.

I have seen programs where they have people who have tried to duplicate the process by which they think it was created but they are not convincing.

I find it a fascinating relic. But, it has no baring on my faith. It would make no difference to me in my beliefs if it was found to be a hoax.
 
Annunciata said:
Authentic burial cloth of Christ, not made by human hands.
I have read much about this suject and have viewed many documentaries…I have to conclude that I truly believe that it is the Holy Shroud…Burial Cloth of Jesus…
Click to expand...
Code:
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_32_5.gifExactly my thoughts also Annunciata…
You go girlfriend…

Blessings,
Shoshana
I could type the whole book from Ian Wilson on all of this…but if people are unconvinced…well, they are unconvinced…
 
There is a ‘Shroud of Turin Expert’ here in America. Judge for yourself. He led the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) back in 1978. Perhaps you read about it in National Geographic Magazine in 1979. He directed a team of 40 scientists, considered world leaders in their various disciplines, to thoroughly investigate the authenticity of the Shroud.

Dr.John Jackson, USAF physicist was that expert. He has made a 13-part series explaining fascinating details of the Shroud, which aired on EWTN. He and his wife operate the Turin Shroud Center in Colorado Springs CO. I have had the pleasure of hosting Dr. Jackson and his wife to give a presentation here in our Diocese of Lincoln Nebraska. Check out their website at shroudofturin.com.
Or call them at 719-593-2375.

There were volumes of information which support the authenticity of the shroud. And then came the Carbon 14 dating test about 15 years ago and some doubted. A truly objective person must ask, should we drop all this supporting evidence and bow to the one piece of info that doesn’t fit? Or should we investigate why the C-14 test didn’t line up with the expected dates?

Three scientists from Italy, Russia, and the US have tested why the C-14 tests appeared as they did and here is their unanimous summary. The fire of 1532 caused C-14 to adhere to the old fibers in the shroud, ‘rejuvinating’ and profoundly affecting the C-12 to C-14 ratio / thus, making it appear to be many centuries ‘younger’ than it really was. (See the March 1995 issue of *Inside the Vatican *magazine).
To confirm this, they sent an ancient Hebrew cloth to three laboratories (the same 3 labs that said the shroud was from the 14th century by the way). All three labs claimed it came from roughly the 1st century. Then these three pieces of cloth were exposed to the heat of a fire, much like the shroud was exposed to heat. The same three pieces were sent back to the labs and all three of them claimed the cloths were roughly 15th century in origin.

As can well be seen, heat is a variable that affects the ‘age’ of a given specimen. And no C-14 procedure with detergent can remove this extraneous C-14. Carbon dating tests can give reliable “ratios” of C-12 to C-14, but this does not necessarily confirm its authentic age. So the carbon-14 test has been explained. But the secular press didn’t find this as fascinating to report on as the C-14 test of 15 years ago that supposedly showed the Shroud to be a ‘hoax’.

There is so much more to tell, but I think I should stop in the interest of giving readers a break. And one final note. Forgive me for ‘boasting’ here, but I have been teaching high school biology for 24 years and it is my humble opinion that the image on the Shroud of Turin was not made by human hands.

As we Irish say - God Love Ya!
Jim B.
 
Well, the fabric was definitely made by human hands about 20 centuries ago.

But the aspect about it I heard very little about is that it may have been the same cloth used in the upper room for the Last Supper. It seems that it’s the size of the typical tables then (as in Da Vinci’s Last Supper) and it seems to have marks of dishes and cups, thriteen of each.
 
40.png
JimG:
Just speculating, but if the resurrection were accompanied by a burst of radiant energy, it could change the C-14 content of the cloth.
Click to expand...
It’s not even necessary to recourse to such an argument: the building fire which burned a good portion of it could have impregnated it with carbon from when it took place (around the 15th century) through smoke.
 
A new, peer reviewed scientific paper by Raymond N. Rogers, retired Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, was published on January 20, 2005, in the latest issue of the journal Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425, Issues 1-2, Pages 189-194. Titled “Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin,” the paper concludes: “As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud. Pyrolysis-mass spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the Shroud.”

In a press release earlier this week, Rogers stated, “The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the Shroud relic. The sample tested was dyed using technology that began to appear in Italy about the time the Crusaders’ last bastion fell to the Turks in AD 1291. The radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about AD 1290, agreeing with the age determined (for the sample) in 1988. However, the Shroud itself is actually much older.”

As a result of his own research and chemical tests, Rogers concluded that the radiocarbon sample is totally different in composition from the main part of the Shroud of Turin and was cut from a medieval reweaving of the cloth. Rogers was also the leader of the chemistry group for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), the scientific team that performed the first in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978.

www.shroud.com
Barrie Schwortz
Editor and Publisher** **
 
40.png
Pinklady:
Whether or not it’s the burial cloth of Christ is totally irrelevant. We put our faith in God, not material objects.
Click to expand...
Our faith is defnitely bigger than the Shroud however I think your in error to think this is irrelvant we Catholics take our relics seriously as did the Jews and early christians if this is the shroud that was the burial cloth of our crucified Lord and is evidence for his resurrection it deserves to be treated seriously as possible material evidence for our faith. Catholics don’t throw away our relics we venerate and ponder the mysteries of our faith. What an awesome relic this is if it is the burial cloth.
 
I could ramble on and on for hours about the Shroud and its authenticity. But instead of wearing out my fingers typing an INCREDIBLY long post, I’ll reccomend any doubters, or believers wanting solid proof to present to the skeptics, to Mark Antonacci’s “The Resurrection of the Shroud.” Trust me, this book has THE MOST compelling evidence defending the Shroud’s authenticity, including several factors that made the C-14 tests inaccurate.

P.S.
Does anyone know of a website or book that shows a reconstruction of the Man on the Shroud? I’ve been dying trying to find a reconstruction that includes wounds and cap of thorns. Please help me!!!
 
I could ramble on and on for hours about the Shroud and its authenticity. But instead of wearing out my fingers typing an INCREDIBLY long post, I’ll reccomend any doubters, or believers wanting solid proof to present to the skeptics, to Mark Antonacci’s “The Resurrection of the Shroud.” Trust me, this book has THE MOST compelling evidence defending the Shroud’s authenticity, including several factors that made the C-14 tests inaccurate.

P.S.
Does anyone know of a website or book that shows a reconstruction of the Man on the Shroud? I’ve been dying trying to find a reconstruction that includes wounds and cap of thorns. Please help me!!!
 
40.png
Pinklady:
Whether or not it’s the burial cloth of Christ is totally irrelevant. We put our faith in God, not material objects.
Click to expand...
It IS relevant because if it is the true burial cloth of Christ, we have solid and examinable proof that Jesus Christ actually existed, that He died, and that a phenomenon occured (that “phenomenon” being the Resurrection) which caused His image to be left for us! If it is real, it is God’s proof to believers and nonbelievers in Him alike that He sent His Son to die and save us, and that He rose that same Son to life on the Third Day!
 
I don’t deny the possibility that this Shroud is the genuine relic of Christ crucified and resurrected, and should be treated as such until definitely proven otherwise. What I do deny is that one’s faith in that Christ and his resurrection is dependant on such physical material proof. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet have believed. Anyone who refuses to believe based on the testimony of the Gosple, yet will believe based on a relic, has a shaky faith indeed. If that relic is the vehicle to bring them to real faith, that is indeed a wonderful thing, but if it is the only basis for the faith, it is a foundation of sand.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
I don’t deny the possibility that this Shroud is the genuine relic of Christ crucified and resurrected, and should be treated as such until definitely proven otherwise. What I do deny is that one’s faith in that Christ and his resurrection is dependant on such physical material proof. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet have believed. Anyone who refuses to believe based on the testimony of the Gosple, yet will believe based on a relic, has a shaky faith indeed. If that relic is the vehicle to bring them to real faith, that is indeed a wonderful thing, but if it is the only basis for the faith, it is a foundation of sand.
Click to expand...
My beliefs are based on the Gospel and always have been. But what about the atheists? There are so many signs out there that they are missing, including a Mass in which the hosts and wine became actually flesh and blood upon consecration. But the Shroud of Turin will (hopefully) always be there as an everpresent sign of God’s love for all of us. It’s not us Catholics that need proof, it’s those who are lost, who do not recognize the Savior in their lives, that need proof. And I am sure that in the coming years, it will become the proof that they need. Mark Antonacci, the author of “The Resurrection of the Shroud,” used to be an atheist until he found Christ in the Shroud of Turin. And that was in 2000! Think of the future, when we may see hundreds be converted by this holy relic.
 
I risk sounding like a doubting Thomas in order to remain objective; in my observation the face and dimensions of the figure on the Shroud is similar to that of a northern European, and not to a person born and raised in Palestine - but, according to the logical fallacy of post hoc propter hoc, just because it resembles the phenotype of a northern European doesn’t mean it is not the image of Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top