Shroud of Turin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aslan10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jinglebelle said:
If He left clues there would be no point of faith
Click to expand...
Well when Jesus appeared a second time to the disciples (after his resurrection), he showed (doubting) Thomas the wounds on his body to bolster his faith. I think that our risen Lord has left the shroud for our ‘modern society’ which is no less sceptical than Thomas, to bolster our faith in this skeptical age! In the shroud we can also see his wounds, and signs of his resurrection!
 
I think the shroud isn’t the burial cloth of Jesus, but I also think it isn’t a fake either. As detailed in this article in History Today, it’s entirely possible that the shroud is exactly what it was intended to be – a sort of liturgical prop used in Medieval Easter ceremonies.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
I think the shroud isn’t the burial cloth of Jesus, but I also think it isn’t a fake either. As detailed in this article in History Today, it’s entirely possible that the shroud is exactly what it was intended to be – a sort of liturgical prop used in Medieval Easter ceremonies.
Click to expand...
And nobody can explain what has gone on with the shroud!! How it was ‘made’ etc! How can you say it was a sort of liturgical prop when nobody can say how the image was ‘made’?

For me, it points directly at being the shroud of Jesus! The image is miraculous! It is divine!
 
Karen107 said:
This reminds me of the shroud. The image of the Odessa is not a painting and not some creation from mid-evil times.

Mark 10:27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

All evidence aside I believe it is in Gods providence that we see this miracle of Jesus if only to increase our faith. What are miracles? From basic catechism… Miracles are a sign of Gods presence in the world. As the Eucharist is perpetually present to us, so is this shroud as a remembrance of the most important event in the life of Jesus and to every Christian, the Resurrection of Our Dear Lord. . It lifts up our hearts to Him.

I find it quite interesting that our altars are clothed with linen perhaps not by chance but because Jesus was clothed in linen and I think of how carefully those table linens are taken care of. I believe the shroud is where this tradition began. Wow I never even thought about that before~! And someone questioned how such a cloth could be perserved so well. Well great care would have been taken to preserve this special burial cloth of Jesus.

Two interesting links, the first about the scriptural references to the burial shroud as a table covering and some of the understood history of shroud before the middle ages, the second about linen as used as a altar cloth…
…
Jews and Christians have both historically relished their relics… Someone else said they don’t care about relics. Well Jesus always used something of the earth and things created by human hands (as in linen) in his miracles, including the miracle of the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of our Lord.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the very beautiful post. 🙂

I have a soft spot for the Eucharist and it is very profound for me. I cannot remember the many deep moments as I encountered the Lord there that would always bring tears to my eyes, overwhelmed by the mystery of his presence. Thus when people speak of the Eucharist it would never fail to arouse that particular passion, moved by God’s grace.

I have a priest friend who designed the altar in his chapel, resembling the shape of a tomb, a coffin. He said the altar is basically a tomb where we celebrate the sacrifice of the Lord. He was quite adamant of this idea and was able to push through with the design of the altar of his choice. It was a permanent immovable structure in the sanctuary.

Indeed, the white altar clothe can signify the burial shroud of Jesus. I am one who would not believe in the manifestation of miracles easily, perhaps due to the influence of modern thinking and science but I do believe in miracles. You can say I am more like Thomas, confronted with one, I would fall on my knees and cried in deep repentance for the doubt. It is always that kind of a hide and seek relationship with the Lord. But I am nevertheless grateful for the gift of faith which otherwise makes me absolutely a faithless person.

That’s one reason I am looking forwards to pray in front of the Turin’s shroud and I know when I do, the Lord would do something for me. Yes, certainly a desire for the increase of faith.

God bless you.

Reuben.
 
ajecphotos said:
And nobody can explain what has gone on with the shroud!! How it was ‘made’ etc! How can you say it was a sort of liturgical prop when nobody can say how the image was ‘made’?

For me, it points directly at being the shroud of Jesus! The image is miraculous! It is divine!
Click to expand...
As the article I cited noted, the image we see today is very likely far different than it appeared in the 13th century. The author speculates that what we see today may be a kind of after-image of what remains after most of the pigment of a poorly preserved and roughly treated painting has worn away. In that regard then, when it is insisted that skeptics duplicate the image, what really needs to be duplicated is the way the shroud appeared in the 13th century.

As this article from the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia further notes:
Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.
Click to expand...
 
cornbread_r2 said:
As the article I cited noted, the image we see today is very likely far different than it appeared in the 13th century. The author speculates that what we see today may be a kind of after-image of what remains after most of the pigment of a poorly preserved and roughly treated painting has worn away. In that regard then, when it is insisted that skeptics duplicate the image, what really needs to be duplicated is the way the shroud appeared in the 13th century.

As this article from the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia further notes:
Click to expand...
Still, nobody, in this scientific era, can say how the image was produced!
 
cornbread_r2 said:
… most of the pigment of a poorly preserved and roughly treated painting has worn away… :
Click to expand...
The Shroud has been examined microscopically and has been chemically tested…there is no pigment of any kind on the image portion of the shroud. None. Anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken.
 
Two popes,Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have called the Shroud of Turin an “icon”. They will never say it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ or anyone else. The analyzing of artifacts has been left to science.

No one to date has been able to adequately refute the carbon dating of 1988. Apparently it will never be carbon dated again so we are left with a linen cloth that was produced sometime between 1260 and 1390.

ONe cannot say that because the method the image was created is currently not know the conclusion would be it is miraculous or supernatural.
.
 
cjforJesus said:
Two popes,Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have called the Shroud of Turin an “icon”. They will never say it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ or anyone else. The analyzing of artifacts has been left to science.

No one to date has been able to adequately refute the carbon dating of 1988. Apparently it will never be carbon dated again so we are left with a linen cloth that was produced sometime between 1260 and 1390.

ONe cannot say that because the method the image was created is currently not know the conclusion would be it is miraculous or supernatural.
.
Click to expand...
Tilma of Guadalupe. An icon is an image.

Rogers. Heimberger.

I have no idea whether that is the burial shroud of anyone.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Tilma of Guadalupe. An icon is an image.

Rogers. Heimberger.

I have no idea whether that is the burial shroud of anyone.

GKC
Click to expand...
Sorry,no,neither Heimberger nor Rogers proved that the carbon dating was incorrect.

And if you mention Fanti again the shrouds custodian as well as many other scientists have rejected his conclusions.

I believe all research and testing was based on samples taken in the 70s. I seriously doubt any more testing will be allowed though I did read that the reserve piece from the carbon dating is still kept by the vatican as well as the fragments from around the burn holes.
 
cjforJesus said:
Sorry,no,neither Heimberger nor Rogers proved that the carbon dating was incorrect.

And if you mention Fanti again the shrouds custodian as well as many other scientists have rejected his conclusions.

I believe all research and testing was based on samples taken in the 70s. I seriously doubt any more testing will be allowed though I did read that the reserve piece from the carbon dating is still kept by the vatican as well as the fragments from around the burn holes.
Click to expand...
Rogers specifically didn’t call the dating into doubt. He raised a doubt about what was tested. Cotton. Dye.

Your belief about when the samples taken were tested is incorrect.

GKC
 
Agnostic.
The only relic I trust blindly is Our Lady of Guadalupe´s Tilma.
 
It’s fun to think about these things but I don’t need relics to confirm my faith in God/Jesus. If relics cause you to doubt, pray and move on from them.
 
Peregrinans said:
The Shroud has been examined microscopically and has been chemically tested…there is no pigment of any kind on the image portion of the shroud. None. Anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken.
Click to expand...
Walter McCrone disagrees.
From the previously cited on-line Catholic Encyclopedia article:
Owing mainly to the researches of Canon Ulysse Chevalier a series of documents was discovered which clearly proved that in 1389 the Bishop of Troyes appealed to Clement VII, the Avignon Pope then recognized in France, to put a stop to the scandals connected to the Shroud preserved at Lirey. It was, the Bishop declared, the work of an artist who some years before had confessed to having painted it but it was then being exhibited by the Canons of Lirey in such a way that the populace believed that it was the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ. The pope, without absolutely prohibiting the exhibition of the Shroud, decided after full examination that in the future when it was shown to the people, the priest should declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ, but only a picture made to represent it.
Click to expand...
Apparently the shroud looked much more like a painting in the 14th century.
 
CalCatholic said:
No, science can never prove that the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ, and it doesn’t have to for me. I have been reading about and studying the shroud for about 10 years. I believe that it is in fact the burial cloth of our Lord! There is so much microscopic evidence that never gets reported in these specials on TV.
Click to expand...
That’s because they are not being honest in their reporting, Very biased. God Bless, Memaw
 
Goodness, when I started this thread I didn’t realize it would become this long. I have a toooon to catch up on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top