The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheOldColonel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am indifferent to the shroud other than it is an interesting piece of history. Since there is no way to be absolutely certain of its origin I don’t get excited. Thousands of people were crucified in the Roman Empire. If the shroud dates from the first century it could still be anyone.
 
I believe it’s real. When science is baffled for so long, it’s typically a good sign of a miracle.
 
Kodak momentS - the shroud records what we see when we take a photograph of a bouncing ball with a strobe light.
 
When one looks at the detail unnoticed before our modern analysis it is hard not to believe.
 
CelticWarlord said:
Thousands of people were crucified in the Roman Empire. If the Shroud dates from the first century it could still be anyone.
Click to expand...
No , it could not be just anyone. The type of wounds on the corpse that the Shroud enclosed are specific to one person. Furthermore, we have only one such image. There is no such image for any other historical person, and that points to somebody unique, somebody with a reputation for woking miracles. And that is because the photo-like image on the Shroud has be proven to be of a miraculous origin. No human technique, ancient or modern, is able to reproduce it.

The Holy Image on the Shroud of Turin is a gift made for us here in the 21st century. It was paid for in blood and pain, and it is the most precious material thing that we have in this world. And it is available to everyone. To refuse to accept this gift that was purchased at such a terrible price is about the same a insulting our Lord and Savior.
 
Last edited:
There is IB 33 written on the shroud. It is Jesus.

No one else could record a strobic image taking a billion watts of power.
 
buffalo said:
There is IB 33 written on the shroud. It is Jesus.

No one else could record a strobic image taking a billion watts of power
Click to expand...
I found the video done by Waldemar Kurek-Mosakowski very interesting. Thank you for sharing.
 
I pointed out to a disbelieving friend that the energy level would be equivalent to firing a nuclear weapon … so that convinced them that the image was man-made … with a nuclear weapon … but of course an actual nuke would have vaporized the cloth and everything for a mile around.

Sigh.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, but it changes nothing for me personally. Faith need never be dependent on such things. The Church requires nothing of the laity in regard to this item, according to Dr. David Anders. The same holds true of the Marian apparitions of Lourdes and Fatima. If you take comfort and feel a sense of awe at the shroud then I support and applaud the stance you take. But I cannot pretend to feel the same way. Authentic or not, it just isn’t important to me.
 
Last edited:
Ah, the good ol’ Shroud comes round again. I’m still going for medieval, myself.

No doubt much old ground will be covered, but there are one or two interesting nuances which have developed recently. Firstly, in the authenticist camp, there seems to have been a shift against attempts to find a purely natural explanation for the images. Explorations of possible chemical methods have been abandoned, and the scientists trying to demonstrate some kind of radiation effect have, as mentioned above, freely admitted that they can’t think of any natural way by which whatever they propose could have occurred. It’s a miracle or bust.

Secondly, there has been a shift away from the USA towards Italy as the focus of investigation, and much of the STuRP work has been re-evaluated. Italian work on whole thread has shed new light on Heller and Adler’s investigations of tiny fibres. Pigment has been found in the bloodstains, for instance, and even as I write there is discussion as to whether the Shroud shows evidence of being covered in myrrh and aloes.

On the other hand there’s not a lot going on in the medievalist camp either, although recent investigations have suggested various other reasons why it may have been manufactured other than the ‘forged relic’ it is often assumed to be, and objections to the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating continue to be soundly refuted.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Ah, the good ol’ Shroud comes round again. I’m still going for medieval, myself.
. . . objections to the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating continue to be soundly refuted.
Click to expand...
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 to results of the C-14 dating results in order to produce a variance that they could live with. Mr. Antonacci determined that the actual C-14 dates obtained by the three labs ranged from 1195 to 1448 and not 1260 to 1390 as reported. So the variance was really 253 years instead of just 130 years, and that indicates that something very strange must have affected that linen cloth.
 
I believe the Shroud of Turin is authentic.

The fact that science, even in this day and age cannot disprove the veracity of the Shroud supports my belief.

On a seperate note, Pope Benedict visited Mannopello(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) to venerate Veronica’s veil. I would not discount the authenticity of the original veil based only on the fact that copies were made.
 
Last edited:
Antonacci was quite incorrect, as so often in both his books, but I think he was misled rather than deliberately misleading. He lists sixteen results from the three labs, and then claims that the two extreme results were rejected as outliers. (Test The Shroud, p 311). This is completely untrue. The oldest (795) was from Oxford, and is quoted in the Nature paper, unrejected, while the youngest (540), was not an independent measurement, but one of two measurements taken of a single sample. Those two measurements were averaged (giving 606), as were the other three pairs from the other three samples. The youngest age from the twelve independent samples was 591. I hope this helps.

Far from fudging their report, the British Museum noticed and pointed out that the Shroud measurements from the three laboratories were slightly anomalous, and then explained what they did to reconcile them. The paper published in Nature is easily readable, and may be found at shroud.com.
 
Last edited:
I’m convinced The Shroud of Turin is real. I think the Holy Face medal is based on the Shroud of Turin.
To all who actively doubt its authenticity, how do you explain the incredible amount of energy needed to produce the image?
 
1988 minus 795 equals 1193. But it was 1260 that was reported to the public. Something is not adding up here.

Mr. Antonacci explains in detail how the British Museum asked the Arizona lab to “average in” the youngest dates. Why couldn’t that museum just report the full C-14 results instead of playing these games?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Far from fudging their report, the British Museum noticed and pointed out that the Shroud measurements from the three laboratories were slightly anomalous, and then explained what they did to reconcile them.
Click to expand...
“…explained what they did to reconcile them.” In other words, the Museum made the unwarrented conclusion that the Shroud was a 14th century creation and then “reconciled” the C-14 results fit that belief. Incredible.
 
No, the British Museum did nothing with the Arizona results that was not done with the results from the other laboratories. Each of the twelve samples (four at Tucson, five at Zurich and three at Oxford) was tested several times as part of the process, in order to derive a measurement for error as much as anything else, and standard practice is to produce a single average result for each sample. Even today, publications of radiocarbon results do not list every single measurement. It is usually not necessary, although in this case, in view of the subsequent furore, perhaps it would be a good idea. The fact that the the other two labs did all their tests of each sample in one go meant that their results had already been averaged, while because the Tucson lab took their series of measurements of each sample in two batches, they had to be averaged into one measurement for each sample to conform with the others.

As for the actual calendar date, the dates measured by the AMS machines are directly related to the proportion of C14 to C12 in the sample, and do not take into account fluctuations in the atmospheric concentration of C14. To turn them into calendar dates they have to be calibrated against a curve derived from dendrochronological studies. This can be done by anybody, as not only the calibration curve, but even an app to help you work out the error-bars, is available online.

[edited to take account of your latest]
No, that’s not true either. The British Museum made no assumption about the age of the cloth. They did assume that all the samples came from the same piece of cloth, and that was all.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top