The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?

[Rob2]

What do you believe about the Shroud of Turin?

I was slightly interested in the Shroud of Turin in my younger years . I recall my parents showing me a CTS pamphlet about the Shroud which had a photograph on the front .

Then in 1988 we had the carbon dating which showed that the Shroud originated somewhere between 1260 and1390 AD. So it was not authentic .

I left it at that . It was a fake . I had no further interest in it .

Then round about the beginning of Lent this year I came across a talk about the Shroud on YouTube , a talk given by Father Spitzer S.J. I was amazed at some of the things he was saying , and this led me to seek out further videos on YouTube about the Shroud .

I became hooked . I was fascinated by the findings of recent researh into the Shread , especially research into the 1988 carbon dating .

I am now on my 11th book about the Shroud and have purchased this framed photograph for my living-room…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

At present I would say that I am 99% certain that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus .

 

[MountCarmel]

Lost4words - YES, it has all the hallmarks of being in effect a ‘photo’ of Our Lord, at the moment of His resurrection - additionally it has unique ‘depth’ qualities that are not shared by any other photographs/images.
It is a real time representation of the very moment of ‘our salvation’, should we allow God to let it be so. AWESOME is not a word that can fully cover the meaning, and that moment, no mere word can.

p.s. It made an entire squad of hard boiled Roman legionaries, ‘poop themselves’ and in quick time go AWOL! It appears that the glory of God and the 1.5-2 ton stone being shot away was too much for them, and they were ‘prepared’ to bug out and risk the wrath and punishment of their commanding officer, and indeed Pontius Pilate, who was a guy not known in the day for his mercy or forgiveness.

 

[Rob2]

Below is a link to The Shroud of Turin Website .

It is edited by Barrie M. Schwortz .

Barrie M. Schwortz was the photographer for the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) which was allowed to examine the Shroud for five days in 1978 . The team worked non-stop , night and day , during those five days .

Barrie M. Schwortz was a sceptic . He is Jewish , and remaining a Jew now believes that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ .

http://www.shroud.com/

 

[petra22]

He convinced me!

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Barrie M. Schwortz was a sceptic. He is Jewish, and remaining a Jew now believes that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ .

Indeed so. He does not, however, believe that the Shroud images have a miraculous origin, or that Jesus rose from the dead. The Ahmadi Muslims also believe that the Shroud is authentic. They do believe that Jesus left the tomb alive, but not that he was dead while he was in the Shroud. They do not believe in a miraculous origin of the images either. There are many rooms in Our Father’s house…

 

[undead_rat]

I find it strange that one who claims to be a “card-carrying Catholic” does not believe the Gospel of Matthew account of the disappearance of Jesus’ corpse from His tomb and purports that Jesus (if He was resurrected) simply “woke up.” This sounds very much like the Baha’i theology that denies that Jesus worked real miracles.

As I have mentioned, the reality of the miraculous Image on the Shroud undermines the core values of Baha’i Faith and is therefor very threatening to them. Therefore it doesn’t surprise me much that we might find a closet Baha’i on this forum trying to discredit the Shroud.

Are miracles worthless? Philosophy

“. . . then he just woke up from the dead. . .”

 

[leonhardprintz]

I have to admit, reading this forum it seems Hugh is making the stronger case. On the other hand undead_rat’s snide asides, and his veiled accusations of heresy and lack of faith on Hugh Farey’s part is really uncharitable and unbecoming of a Catholic.

In fact it is this strange hostility and attack on the few Catholics who are having skeptical inquiry into the Shroud, that first got me suspicious about it.

There is no sin, no even venial, in arguing that the Torino shroud is in fact an artefact created by humans for one of several reasons.

Shame on you undead_rat.

 

[leonhardprintz]

Also thank you Hugh for being a breath of fresh air. When it comes to the Shroud most of those who poured energy into reading the actual documents, and not just merely hyped up books and documentaries by enthusiasts, rarely set aside the time to make websites about it.

And if someone does post some informative posts, such as your posts about the ‘invisible repair’ hypothesis being all but debunked following the 2002 repair, or the problems with hypothesis that the Image of Edessa and the Shroud of Turin are the same, they’re quickly drowned out.

Thank you for being informative. I wish the shroud believers here weren’t so hostile towards you.

 

[undead_rat]

And if someone does post some informative posts, such as your [Mr. Farey’s] posts about the ‘invisible repair’ hypothesis being all but debunked following the 2002 repair,

FYI, it was myself and not Mr. Farey who posted the info on the 2002 examination of the underside of the Shroud by textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. Post # 75

The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion? Spirituality

In “TEST THE SHROUD” the objection is not to the accuracy of the C-14 dating procedures or to the validity of the sample that was tested. Antonacci relates how in the 2002 restoration textile experts carefully examined the corner of he Shroud were the sample was cut and could find absolutely no evidence of any kind of repair darning. Mr. Antonacci takes apart Prof. Rogers’ theory on the so-called “reweaving” convincingly. No, the object is rather to the fact that the British Museum fudged t…

 

[Hugh_Farey]

That’s very kind of you, Leonhard. I do believe I am one of rather few current Shroud researchers who have actually done any research, rather than obtained all my information from secondary sources alone. However, I have been grateful to Undead Rat; it is in being challenged that one revisits one’s data, and occasionally refines it. However I do think he is becoming slightly unhinged about the Baha’i thing; I really know nothing about them.

Undead Rat’s recent mention of biblical literalness is relevant. Much of the discussion on the philosophy threads revolves around it, and there are many views. I begrudge none of them. However, I do object to the intolerance some people show towards those with different views, and more so to if they attempt to falsify others’ views dishonestly.

I’m not sure what Undead Rat’s point is about the Gospel of Matthew. It does not give any indication that Jesus resurrected by dematerialising in an explosion of neutrons. It is in slight conflict with the other gospels in that he has two Marys actually witness the rolling back of the stone, while the others seem to say that it was already rolled back when they arrived. Certainly it is not in keeping with the other gospel resurrections that a dead body needed to dematerialise as it rose, and anyway there was no point in doing anything spectacular when there was nobody about to witness it. Of all the miracles attributed to Jesus, only the transfiguration seems to have anything supra-normal about its appearance (if not its substance, of course). The water is not recorded as having exploded as it turned into wine, nor the fish and loaves become small nuclear reactors as they multiplied. All the sick people just got better, and all the dead people just woke up.

In the end, it may be that a new radiocarbon date from the centre of the image will indeed demonstrate huge nuclear enrichment, and Mark Antonacci , and Undead Rat, will be shown to be correct. However, until that happens, I think overconfidence in that particular hypothesis is unjustified. Undead Rat’s moving the idea from a hypothesis to a fact before such a finding (“the reality of the miraculous Image”) is not advisable.

 

[undead_rat]

1. The dirt on the Shroud. A single speck of limestone was identified microscopically by Joseph Kohlbeck as aragonite, of which about a quarter of all limestone is constituted. Parts of Jerusalem are built on aragonite limestone, as are parts of France, particularly, funnily enough, the Aube Valley near Troyes.

Mr. Farey’s idea of “original research” is to make the observation that there is a source of travertine aragonite near to where the Shroud was first publicly displayed in Europe and to think that this, somehow, is funny.
Has Mr. Farey even seen the actual Shroud of Turin? What types of instruments did he use to examine it? Perhaps he will provide us with a link to the paper that he published.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

FYI, it was myself and not Mr. Farey who posted the info on the 2002 examination of the underside of the Shroud by textile expert Methchild Flury-Lemberg.

Indeed it was. Although Meth Child is a strange distortion of her Christian name. As you will know there are several sincere authenticists who still believe that the radiocarbon date was connected to the ‘invisible’ mending of the Shroud. There was much mention of French Invisible Weaving, which was considered to be completely undetectable, and even of Michael Erhlich, of Withoutatrace.com, who was alleged to be able to perform it. Rather to my surprise, I could not find any sinologists who had actually put this to the test (probably because it is staggeringly expensive), so a few years ago I sent a bit of cloth with a hole in it to be repaired as invisibly as humanly possible, and of course the mend, although extremely hard to detect on the front, is obvious from the back. Detailed photos of it are published in a BSTS Newsletter.

On a similar vein, you will probably recall the presentation by Ray Schneider at St Louis, where he boldly announced a 99.93% correlation between the intensity of the contamination found on the Shroud and the radiocarbon chronological gradient. The attendees at that presentation were among the most involved sindonologists of the 21st century, including Mark Antonacci, but not a single one commented on the fact that the correlation shows an inverse relationship - the more the contamination, the older the date, until I pointed it out on Shroudstory a few months later.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Mr. Farey’s idea of “original research” is to make the observation that there is a source of travertine aragonite near to where the Shroud was first publicly displayed in Europe and to think that this, somehow, is funny.
Has Mr. Farey even seen the actual Shroud of Turin? What types of instruments did he use to examine it? Perhaps he will provide us with a link to the paper that he published.

The tone of your posts is becoming increasingly unpleasant. Are you sure they represent your actual character? I have said many things on the internet regarding the Shroud, some of which constitute opinion, some observation and some, yes, original historical and scientific research. To pick on a single remark and declare that it is my idea of “original research” is absurd. It is also snide and mean-spirited.

When I said that “funnily enough” there is travertine aragonite in an area very close to where the Shroud was first exhibited, I used the word ‘funnily’ not its rib-ticklingly hilarious sense, but as a simple synonym for ‘curiously’. Perhaps it is not used in that sense in the USA, so I’ll forgive your misunderstanding. I agree that there is nothing humorous about a speck of limestone.

I have indeed seen the Shroud of Turin, but have not been able to examine it, with or without instruments. Fortunately research into the subject does not require such hands-on investigation. My several research articles have all been published in the BSTS Newsletter, and one at academia.edu.

 

[undead_rat]

I wish the shroud believers here weren’t so hostile towards you.

Anyone entering a Catholic forum contesting the Gospel accounts that Jesus walked for miles on the Sea of Galilee or that His corpse disappeared from the inside of a sealed tomb should not expect to be treated with kid-gloves.

 

[fmirenzi]

Then again, the image does look a little too much like European artists depictions of Jesus and not like a Jew from Palestine in that era.

Is the theme of your post casual racism? Also, if you have photos of Jews from the first century, feel free to pass them along so we can see them.

 

[leonhardprintz]

Nothing you say can justify slandering Hugh.

In no post have I seen him denying the Resurrection or displaying any kind of unorthodoxy. He is poking fun at the rather post-hoc hypothesis about proton/neutron radiation occurring at the Resurrection.

In Eastern Orthodox iconography the Resurrection of Christ itself is basically never depicted, because it is never described in the Bible. What actually took place, in what manner, remains a mystery. Treating that event with modern day physical science feels very out of place. The hypothesis about radiation occurring is, at any rate, a rather weak attempt at salvaging an ancient date for the cloth which has otherwise firmly been dated to the 14th Century, at which point we a bishop declared the Shroud a forgery. Its loaded with dubious assumptions, such as the radiation having to be of precisely the right type to cause the right kind of date shift.

It appears far simpler that the Shroud was correctly dated in the first go. Around the 14th Century.

This is from a time where so many forgeries were produced, from crumbs from the Last Supper, to splinters from the cross (different types of wood), no less than three different Holy Grails, bones galore, etc…

I don’t claim to know with any certainty that the Shroud is a forgery. Certainly the exact method of production hasn’t been established, though its clear that none of its features - surface level paint, highly detailed negative, ‘3D encoded information’, etc… - would be impossible to reproduce for a person at that time. The exact method remains something to be discovered.

The motive itself might not have been forgery. Its quite possible it was a new type of icon being made by an artist, and then later the paint was removed, leaving behind a weak image from the dehydrated fibres.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Anyone entering a Catholic forum contesting the Gospel accounts that Jesus walked for miles on the Sea of Galilee or that His corpse disappeared from the inside of a sealed tomb should not expect to be treated with kid-gloves.

Heaven forfend that I expect to be treated in any particular way. However I always feel that the tone of an aggressive opponent tells the independent reader more about the character of the opponent than it does about the thing he is attacking.

As for the sealed tomb, well, as I say, no-one was there to witness what exactly happened.

 

[Aulef]

The Shroud have been documented by many independent witnesses since the 6th century. This alone disproves the Medieval theory.

What you could dispute is the near 500 years period is had been hidden, between the 2nd and the 6th century. However, the theory that fills this gap is solid.

 

[leonhardprintz]

I doubt the hypothesis that the Image of Edessa, which is what you’re referring to, and which was lost when Constantinopel was invaded by the Saracen, was the Shroud of Turin. It appears to be a different relic.

 

[undead_rat]

FYI: French 4th Crusade. The church complex where the Shroud was kept was off-limits to looting.