Shroud of Turin

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

I have heard that there is some evidence supporting the hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin was not only the burial cloth of Jesus, but also the cloth used on the table of the Last Supper.

What an amazing thing that would be if it was so. Just think about it.

 

[debi]

I have not seen the original shroud, however there is a “traveling” shroud and a history and information program that goes with it. Currently it is on display at the Shrine of Our Lady of the Snows in Belleville, IL and any doubts I had about the Shroud of Turin were dispelled after seeing this wonderful exibit.

Blessings

 

[DenRat]

jed_smith:

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.

The recent scientific explanations about the 14th century dating have been that the shroud was exhibited to crowds and handled by people during that time. It was held by the corners - the place where the sample was taken to get a carbon dating. The evidence suggests that the dating comes from the exposure to such handling at the time.

Other evidence used to prove its authenticity is from a woman who studies textiles. The weave of the cloth is authentic from the time of Christ.

I don’t know for sure if the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ but the recent evidence pushes me more in that direction.

Denise

 

[DenRat]

T.A.Stobie:

I have heard that there is some evidence supporting the hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin was not only the burial cloth of Jesus, but also the cloth used on the table of the Last Supper.

What an amazing thing that would be if it was so. Just think about it.

Yes, it was. That explains the gravy stain!

Actually, if you think about it, if the cloth has blood stains, it would be equivalent to one of the apostles spilling the “wine”. I figure it was St. John because he was the youngest.

OK, I’ve had my fun. Seriously, I agree - it would be amazing.

Denise

 

[Hannibal]

DenRat:

The recent scientific explanations about the 14th century dating have been that the shroud was exhibited to crowds and handled by people during that time. It was held by the corners - the place where the sample was taken to get a carbon dating. The evidence suggests that the dating comes from the exposure to such handling at the time.

Hi.

Actually, the researchers state the exact opposite.There is no concern about what you have related - i.e. about pieces handled by others. This would be inconsequential

The concern was whether the researches might attempt to date areas of the cloth that were repairs - re-threadings. The researchers independently tested 3 pieces of the cloth from areas that were not recent 'repairs" and found that they date to the time the shroud was ‘discovered’ - around the 14th century.

The shroud has numerous provenance problems as well. These two facts invalidate the shroud as being a shroud used by "jesus’

 

[tmak]

Hannibal:

Hi.

The concern was whether the researches might attempt to date areas of the cloth that were repairs - re-threadings. The researchers independently tested 3 pieces of the cloth from areas that were not recent 'repairs" and found that they date to the time the shroud was ‘discovered’ - around the 14th century.

I read someplace that the carbon dating conducted to date has been faulty and have given false dating.

Tom

 

[ArisSlatr]

I’d have to reluctantly agree with Hannibal.

Also, all the resources on most of the links for the Shroud are very biased. It seems to me that this shroud could have been made with blood, the blood was scorched and used as a writing tool.

This would explain why it is only on the surface, and why the blood is oxidized.

Im just saying there are ways to manipulate the cloth.

Also carbon dating is almost always called faulty when it doesn’t work in favor of the expected results from beleif.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

Also carbon dating is almost always called faulty when it doesn’t work in favor of the expected results from beleif.

That could certainly be the case here. However, the explanation of why the Carbon 14 dating isn’t accurate makes sense. The shroud was in a fire, and the smoke deposited large amounts of carbon on the cloth. I believe that I read somewhere that they were able to get a section elsewhere on the cloth where the testing wouldn’t be corrupted, and the carbon dating placed it in the first century.

 

[Hannibal]

tmak:

I read someplace that the carbon dating conducted to date has been faulty and have given false dating.

Tom

You read “someplace”? That’s a bit vague.

The dating was done by 3 independent labs, the odds that they would all agree are remote. They all agree on the same basic age. 14th century.

shroud.com/nature.htm

from the website:
Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As Controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

 

[Hannibal]

Dr. Colossus:

That could certainly be the case here. However, the explanation of why the Carbon 14 dating isn’t accurate makes sense. The shroud was in a fire, and the smoke deposited large amounts of carbon on the cloth. I believe that I read somewhere that they were able to get a section elsewhere on the cloth where the testing wouldn’t be corrupted, and the carbon dating placed it in the first century.

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.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

My apologies for the vague reference. Here’s the source:

catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=6&art_id=22992

However, several scientists objected to the “infallible” pronouncements made by the laboratories. For instance, Dr. Rosalie David of the Manchester Museum has performed autopsies on Egyptians mummies, and has used carbon dating to corroborate the age of them; however, sometimes carbon dating indicates a date a thousand years younger than the actual date of the mummy known through other archeological evidence. Such a discrepancy would be caused by some source of contamination.
Contamination to the shroud could alter the accuracy of the carbon dating. Exposure to years of candle soot in the cathedral and Turin pollution, the drenching with water during the fire, and the accumulation of minuscule fragments of deteriorating ceiling frescos would give the shroud a coating which could in turn skew the carbon-dating results. Moreover, a corner sample which over the years had been handled by many individuals would probably be contaminated. Such items enrich the carbon content and would make the shroud appear substantially younger than its true age when carbon-dated.

Dr. Leoncio Garza-Valdes of the University of Texas, working with microbiologist Dr. Stephen Mattingly of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, provided another argument against the carbon-dating results. They argued that the shroud could have a bioplastic varnish or coating caused by bacteria and fungi. Dr. Garza-Valdes discovered such coatings in research with Mayan artifacts, which he knew belonged to a certain age, but when carbon-dated were declared much younger and thereby fakes. This bioplastic coating is almost like plaque on teeth, and would have grown especially at the corner of the shroud where it was handled so much.

More to follow (the quote’s too long for one post)

 

[Dr.Colossus]

Here’s the rest:

Receiving a small sample of threads, Garza-Valdes determined the presence of a bioplastic coating on the shroud which has “coccal-shapped bacteria and filiamentous mold-like organisms,” sometimes increasing the diameter of the fibers as much as 60%. Such a bioplastic coating could skew the carbon dating 1300 years. Also such a coating cannot be removed by the conventional cleaning methods of most carbon-dating labs. If Dr. Garza-Valdes is correct, the shroud easily would be placed at the time of our%between% Lord.

Another defender of the shroud is Dr. Thomas J. Phillips of Harvard University High Energy Physics Laboratory, who published in Nature (February 16, 1989): "If the Shroud of Turin is in fact the burial-cloth of Christ…then according to the Bible it was present at a unique physical event: the resurrection of a dead body. Unfortunately, this event is not accessible to direct scientific scrutiny, but…the body…may have radiated neutrons, which would have irradiated the shroud and changed some of the nuclei to different isotopes by neutron capture. In particular some Carbon-14 would have been generated from Carbon-13. If we assume that the shroud is 1950 years old and that the neutrons were emitted thermally,… enough Carbon-13 [would have been converted] to Carbon-14 to give an apparent carbon-dated age of 670 years ."

 

[Catholicguy]

While I reject the positions/heresies of the CCR XXTH Century, I think their research on the Shroud Controversy is revealtory. And, it appears they have uncovered a hoax about substitutes samples of the cut cloth (s) submitted for testing.crc-internet.org/shroud.htm

 

[Hannibal]

To be honest, I don’t see much value to any source that begins with a statement like this:

However, several scientists objected to the “infallible” pronouncements made by the laboratories

No scientist claims infallibility. Science is tentative by definition.

You’ve just given me a site with an axe to grind, not an unbiased source. Their methods are ad hoc… whatever works to get the shroud to be 2000 years old are accepted.

Science does not work that way. You don’t begin with an answer, and do whatever it takes to get to that answer!

The original tests were conducted in three independent labs. This is the best way to examine the matter. Without any axe to grind, or heresy to avoid, found that the shroud was roughly 600 years old. Claims against the parts of the shroud they tested are spurious.

In addition, the shroud has enormous provenance problems.

Finally, the shroud was debunked during its own time… the 14th century.

I understand that there are responses to the dating methods used, but none of them are “damning”. Thank you for providing research to back up your claim.

 

[Catholicguy]

The original tests were conducted in three independent labs. This is the best way to examine the matter. Without any axe to grind, or heresy to avoid, found that the shroud was roughly 600 years old. Claims against the parts of the shroud they tested are spurious

Check out the link I provided earleir. Using the atomic weight of the “samples” supplied for the tests, the author appears to prove the tests were a hoax.

---

That is, samples from the Cope of St. Louis were substituted for the samples taken from the Shroud. Using the published materials, the authors of this study prove a hoax.

---

It appears you were among the many duped by this fraud.

 

[Catholicguy]

crc-internet.org/shroud3.htm#proof

here is the link proving the hoax of the Shroud Tests. The atomic weights of the cloths tested were different than the atomic weights of the cloth samples cut from the Shroud.

Because the hoax was uncovered and proof of the haox was published by a doctrinally nutball association (catholic Counter-Reformation in the xxth century), it hasn’t been publicised widely.

 

[Oscar]

I am a 100% believer in Jesus and His Church, however, I do not regard the Shroud of Turin to be the burial cloth of our Savior.

The reason should be obvious to all. The figure in the cloth is clearly of a man of European descent. Jesus was of Semitic descend who would not have resembled the man in the cloth.

Oscar

 

[Hannibal]

The original tests were conducted in three independent labs. This is the best way to examine the matter. Without any axe to grind, or heresy to avoid, found that the shroud was roughly 600 years old. Claims against the parts of the shroud they tested are spurious

Check out the link I provided earleir. Using the atomic weight of the “samples” supplied for the tests, the author appears to prove the tests were a hoax.

That is, samples from the Cope of St. Louis were substituted for the samples taken from the Shroud. Using the published materials, the authors of this study prove a hoax.

It appears you were among the many duped by this fraud.

The authors do not prove any such thing. The tests stand, and have not been refuted by any legitimate source.

Also, the provenance matters go ignored here as well.

Finally, the shroud was debunked as a fraud 600 years ago. That pretty much ends that.

 

[Hannibal]

Oscar:

I am a 100% believer in Jesus and His Church, however, I do not regard the Shroud of Turin to be the burial cloth of our Savior.

The reason should be obvious to all. The figure in the cloth is clearly of a man of European descent. Jesus was of Semitic descend who would not have resembled the man in the cloth.

Oscar

excellent point. The shroud is of european orgin, as you state.

 

[Hannibal]

crc-internet.org/shroud3.htm#proof

here is the link proving the hoax of the Shroud Tests. The atomic weights of the cloths tested were different than the atomic weights of the cloth samples cut from the Shroud.

Because the hoax was uncovered and proof of the haox was published by a doctrinally nutball association (catholic Counter-Reformation in the xxth century), it hasn’t been publicised widely.

it’s not been “publicized widely” because it’s untrue. The tests stand and no legitimate source has refuted these claims.