Shroud of Turin

[ffg]

Look at the short clip taken from the shroud documentary.It certainly looks authentic . It is clear evidence that the sample taken for carbon dating was representative of the whole cloth. There were even special photographs taken at the original study period by STURP and examined to insure the sample was adequate.

I don’t doubt researchers did their homework. Certainly, they were only going to get 1 shot.

I would share confidence the video taken by researchers during the research process, is probably not doctored. I don’t see a motivation.

We have a few items to consider -

~ It’s purpose
- As I mentioned at first, it’s purpose is most important, and should not be overlooked as a puzzle piece to authenticity. Has it brought at least 1 non-Christian to their knees? If so, just as you and I know we can be changed by the graces freely given by God in the Eucharist, a relic is a thing that can have a similar effect for someone not receiving sacraments, yet.

If it is not a relic, I don’t think it has the ability to have the same effect. I think a Non-Christian isn’t moved to change to Christian by art. There is a lot of great art.

We know people change when God touches the heart, and He does this in and through our nature.

~History
- Where exactly was this cloth through the years?
- I think I read at one point it was in a convent that burned down and it got out fairly unharmed. If this is true, why / how did it get out? Why was it revered to the point of ensuring it’s safety?

~ Regular decomposition for the material.
- Regardless of ~2000 years old, or ~500 years old, would someone be able to point us to aged material that has held similar condition? As you pointed out, the video you saw showed no anomaly, seems crazy, if real.

~ Tools and materials available to create image at whatever time period one wants to declare for the cloth
- I think it’s been well argued here that if ‘only art’ that master craftsman would be known for his centuries ahead techniques.

~Probability of error in the testing process
- How new was the testing process at the time? Has the testing process been refined / perfected since? What is the variance of testing error for this process over time?
- Could be sourced from human error
- Could be sourced from mechanical error
- Could be sourced from a perfect test of a material not in lockstep with the whole subject

It is interesting to ponder this stuff.

 

[Reuben_J]

I believe in miracle but I am a skeptical on purported miracles. God have mercy on me. That may include healings and apparitions. The hoaxes that we often ended up with today does not help and one tends to be untrusting generally.

As for the shroud, admittedly I do not have that much information on it except for its report. That unfortunately contributes against my belief.

Bottom line is we are not required to believe in it. But if it is really real, it eclipses the Indiana Jones movies in its historical value and unique piece of religious relic. It simply would be the biggest artifact remain conserved in the world. We can have the absolute degree of certainty of the appearance of Jesus, his face, size and height. It would be like being coming face to face with the Savior himself as we view the shroud.

Just imagine how awesome it must be. But even if it is just a sacramental material, one day I must include it in my travel itinerary. I want to pay homage to it and pray that the Lord bless me with an increase in faith.

Reuben.

 

[cjforJesus]

I remain slightly more inclined to authenticity.

GKC

3 separate labs all carbon dated the artifact and had similar results.The results coincidentally coincide with the historical record when the shroud first appeared.

I don’t care how many more tests are done because no one is ever going to be able to prove Jesus was buried in it.

I suppose the only way I would change my opinion would be if Jesus returned and said the shroud covered Him in the grave…

G,you should check out that SOT blog.There are quite a few intellectuals there.

 

[GKC]

3 separate labs all carbon dated the artifact and had similar results.The results coincidentally coincide with the historical record when the shroud first appeared.

I don’t care how many more tests are done because no one is ever going to be able to prove Jesus was buried in it.

I suppose the only way I would change my opinion would be if Jesus returned and said the shroud covered Him in the grave…

G,you should check out that SOT blog.There are quite a few intellectuals there.

It is strongly suggested by Rogers’ work that the labs tested a contaminated sample. Hence, an invalid date.

I don’t know if Jesus was buried in it or not. I know the problems with determining how the image was generated and what the likelihood of it being identifiably of the correct period and locale is. Hence it remains a subject of (moderate) interest to me and I remain (cautiously) on the side of authenticity. But as to proving it was actually the burial cloth of Jesus by such tests as are suggesting its age and provenance, I have no idea how such a thing could be done.

I actually and accidentally found one of my last acquired Shroud books last night. Of no use at all in this discussion.

GKC

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I believe it’s a real burial cloth used to wrap the corpse of someone who likely passed away some time in the 12th or 13th century.

What little bit I know about the shroud, there seem to be two observations that are indisputable: (1) there is real blood on the shroud and it’s very unlikely that it came from contamination, (2) the cloth has been radiometrically dated to the 12th-13th century and there is zero evidence that the samples tested came from anything but original cloth (not matter how badly the apologists want to argue for “invisible” mending).

Until new evidence comes to light that re-dates the shroud to the first century I have no choice but to believe that its nothing more than pious legend.

 

[Memaw]

It is strongly suggested by Rogers’ work that the labs tested a contaminated sample. Hence, an invalid date.

I don’t know if Jesus was buried in it or not. I know the problems with determining how the image was generated and what the likelihood of it being identifiably of the correct period and locale is. Hence it remains a subject of (moderate) interest to me and I remain (cautiously) on the side of authenticity. But as to proving it was actually the burial cloth of Jesus by such tests as are suggesting its age and provenance, I have no idea how such a thing could be done.

I actually and accidentally found one of my last acquired Shroud books last night. Of no use at all in this discussion.

GKC

The Shroud traveled, possibly not covered in a protective manner, and handled, for centuries so chances are the Carbon dating would not be accurate on any of it. If its not a fake painting and they knew nothing of photography then, who possible could have done it, if it isn’t the TRUE Shroud?? And even put pollen from that area on it. The wounds match Our Lord’s Crucifixion. Whose would it be if not HIS? God Bless, Memaw

 

[GKC]

The Shroud traveled, possibly not covered in a protective manner, and handled, for centuries so chances are the Carbon dating would not be accurate on any of it. If its not a fake painting and they knew nothing of photography then, who possible could have done it, if it isn’t the TRUE Shroud?? And even put pollen from that area on it. The wounds match Our Lord’s Crucifixion. Whose would it be if not HIS? God Bless, Memaw

From what I have read of it, none of that would necessarily affect the carbon dating. Rogers never claimed it was inaccurate, for the sample tested. His hypothesis was that it was a sample not of the original shroud, but of a repaired area. The other points are separate issues.

GKC

 

[Karen107]

[

And Lori, Jesus said when he finally returns would he find any faith at all. ]( )

Curious is that a question or a statement?

 

[adawgj]

So far the historical and carbon dating say it was created in the Medieval period.
As a student of history I cannot argue against the evidence until more evidence goes against the previous. As a Catholic, I do not put my faith in objects hoping they are the real thing, I put my faith in God himself.

 

[GKC]

So far the historical and carbon dating say it was created in the Medieval period.
As a student of history I cannot argue against the evidence until more evidence goes against the previous. As a Catholic, I do not put my faith in objects hoping they are the real thing, I put my faith in God himself.

Good idea.

On this point, the contention is that the carbon dating tests were made on a portion of the shroud that dated from the later period, as part of a repair to damage.

Could be. Or might not.

GKC

 

[SuperDarkMan12]

No, it’s probably a fake so I voted that it was (If CNN’s “Finding Jesus” did the right research on that show". Carbon dating revealed that at least the out part of the shroud could not have come from Jesus’ time. However, it is possible (however very slim) that the inner part could be older. I doubt it.

 

[GKC]

No, it’s probably a fake so I voted that it was (If CNN’s “Finding Jesus” did the right research on that show". Carbon dating revealed that at least the out part of the shroud could not have come from Jesus’ time. However, it is possible (however very slim) that the inner part could be older. I doubt it.

And how to judge Roger’s paper on the question? On the reweaving, cotton, not linen, and the detected dye, from the site tested in 1988?

GKC

 

[SuperDarkMan12]

And how to judge Roger’s paper on the question? On the reweaving, cotton, not linen, and the detected dye, from the site tested in 1988?

GKC

Haven’t read much about that. What posts in this thread explains these things?

 

[GKC]

Haven’t read about that. What posts in this thread explains these things?

Most of mine, early on, address the point. References would be to Rogers, Heimberger, and reweaving, similar terms.

GKC

 

[joe371]

Do you believe that the Shroud of Turin is the real burial shroud of Christ, a forgery, or are you agnostic on the matter?

I am personally agnostic about it. However, I am starting to take a great interest in it. I’ve known about it for a while but it has never interested me really till now for some reason.

I believe it to be authentic. Here is a really good site; very exhaustive: shroud.com/

 

[Karen107]

I believe it’s a real burial cloth used to wrap the corpse of someone who likely passed away some time in the 12th or 13th century.

What little bit I know about the shroud, there seem to be two observations that are indisputable: (1) there is real blood on the shroud and it’s very unlikely that it came from contamination, (2) the cloth has been radiometrically dated to the 12th-13th century and there is zero evidence that the samples tested came from anything but original cloth (not matter how badly the apologists want to argue for “invisible” mending).

Until new evidence comes to light that re-dates the shroud to the first century I have no choice but to believe that its nothing more than pious legend.

It seems that some points keep coming up that were addressed before.

But the material for the sample HAS been found out to be a different material from the rest of the shroud. The main body of the shroud is linen and the tested ‘patched in’ repair was made of cotton. brahmsmount.com/blog/cotton-vs-linen-whats-the-difference/

Here’s where we have to really think about this. There is so much evidence to show that the shroud is authentic.

The blood stains match up with the crucifixion.
The Pollen matches up to the pollen which would come from a particular plant known only to be found around Jerusalem, and the shroud was found in areas no where near Jerusalem.
It is believe it traveled with Paul and St. Thomas into these areas, EVEN though they don’t have historical documents, oral traditions tells us these were true… (well if that’s how we looked at the bible, the bible couldn’t have recorded any even earlier than the 3rd century because much of the info in there was passed down by oral tradition.) Should we dismiss every historical event because someone didn’t record something? Jesus didn’t write one word of the bible, yet we know many things Jesus said why? Because the early Christians passed things by ‘word of mouth’ or letter. This was 2,000 years ago when Christians were being persecuted. Where would the shrouds location be written down. .2 Thessalonians 2:15
Relics are important to Jews so the shroud covering Jesus would be VERY important to the Christians who were previously Jews…
St. Paul knew the value of relics… We see in scriptures that he used handkerchiefs and cloths as relics to heal those who he couldn’t reach in person. So it does make sense would use the Shroud in his evangelizing as he traveled spreading the news of Jesus resurrection.
Shroud reflects burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs.
Photography wasn’t advanced enough to create such a copy on cloth in the 1300s and it isn’t a picture used with artistic media, the image is proven to be made with blood. Blood which lines up to the fact that it is from a Roman Crucifixion.
The samples of the blood obtained on the cloth matched the sample of the blood in eucharistic miracles. spiritdaily.net/Lancianoblood.htm

A miracle of Jesus resurrection as he was being transformed and glorified being raised from the dead. youtube.com/watch?v=qBJ9MDvGL1Q
Scientists don’t even know how the image could have been made scientifically but by the miracle of the resurrection. The body of Jesus the source of intense light. It shows up near the end of the video.

youtube.com/watch?v=qBJ9MDvGL1Q

Have I missed anything?

It seems the more we find out about the Shroud, the more we realize how authentic it is.

 

[GKC]

It seems that some points keep coming up that were addressed before.

But the material for the sample HAS been found out to be a different material from the rest of the shroud. The main body of the shroud is linen and the tested ‘patched in’ repair was made of cotton. brahmsmount.com/blog/cotton-vs-linen-whats-the-difference/

Here’s where we have to really think about this. There is so much evidence to show that the shroud is authentic.

The blood stains match up with the crucifixion.
The Pollen matches up to the pollen which would come from a particular plant known only to be found around Jerusalem, and the shroud was found in areas no where near Jerusalem.
It is believe it traveled with Paul and St. Thomas into these areas, EVEN though they don’t have historical documents, oral traditions tells us these were true… (well if that’s how we looked at the bible, the bible couldn’t have recorded any even earlier than the 3rd century because much of the info in there was passed down by oral tradition.) Should we dismiss every historical event because someone didn’t record something? Jesus didn’t write one word of the bible, yet we know many things Jesus said why? Because the early Christians passed things by ‘word of mouth’ or letter. This was 2,000 years ago when Christians were being persecuted. Where would the shrouds location be written down. .2 Thessalonians 2:15
Relics are important to Jews so the shroud covering Jesus would be VERY important to the Christians who were previously Jews…
St. Paul knew the value of relics… We see in scriptures that he used handkerchiefs and cloths as relics to heal those who he couldn’t reach in person. So it does make sense would use the Shroud in his evangelizing as he traveled spreading the news of Jesus resurrection.
Shroud reflects burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs.
Photography wasn’t advanced enough to create such a copy on cloth in the 1300s and it isn’t a picture used with artistic media, the image is proven to be made with blood. Blood which lines up to the fact that it is from a Roman Crucifixion.
The samples of the blood obtained on the cloth matched the sample of the blood in eucharistic miracles. spiritdaily.net/Lancianoblood.htm

A miracle of Jesus resurrection as he was being transformed and glorified being raised from the dead. youtube.com/watch?v=qBJ9MDvGL1Q
Scientists don’t even know how the image could have been made scientifically but by the miracle of the resurrection. The body of Jesus the source of intense light. It shows up near the end of the video.

youtube.com/watch?v=qBJ9MDvGL1Q

Have I missed anything?

It seems the more we find out about the Shroud, the more we realize how authentic it is.

It is the contention in Rogers’ 2004 paper that the 1988 samples were from a rewoven area, had cotton as the basis, had detectible dye, to match the linen, and other scientific type things. His findings on that surprised him, and caused him to reverse his position on the 1988 dating (Roger had long been associated with the STURP effort), as reflecting a test of a later portion of the shroud. Along with Heimberger’s 2014 paper, it makes a reasonable case, though it is not universally accepted.

GKC

 

[Faith1960]

The fact that image, as it exists on the Shroud, is not a painting, drawing, etc. It is, in fact, a photographic negative. That such a technique can be applied to a garment from any point in time prior to the modern era, is too far fetched to believe.

Assuming its the burial Shroud of Jesus, how do you all suppose the photograph negative got there and resulted in it being a negative?

 

[Telstar]

Assuming its the burial Shroud of Jesus, how do you all suppose the photograph negative got there and resulted in it being a negative?

It’s been hypothesized that the body of Jesus produced some type of energy radiation at the exact moment of His Resurrection, which had the effect of creating a negative photographic image of Him on the cloth. It’s as if the radiation acted like light does when it goes through a camera lens to the film, and takes a picture. The picture on the film is a negative until it’s developed, and the image is reversed. The cloth acted just like film does. How? No one really knows for sure.

 

[jlhargus]

Do you believe that the Shroud of Turin is the real burial shroud of Christ, a forgery, or are you agnostic on the matter?

I am personally agnostic about it. However, I am starting to take a great interest in it. I’ve known about it for a while but it has never interested me really till now for some reason.

I had the grace to pray before the Shroud, during the Great Jubilee, when it was on display. I spent about an hour in prayer before it. I was very moving and my sense of prayer was very deep and focused.

When I came out of he Church my eyes watered up, looking around I saw a man and wife come out and the man was crying. I believe it is the burial Shroud but my faith in Christ would not be changed if it were proved not to be.