K
KevinK
Guest
Why doesn’t the Pope make an infallible declaration and end all the speculation?
- Status
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
I was blessed to view the Shroud during when it was put on public display in 2010. Since then, I have been following the scientific studies into the Shroud. The only arguments against the Shroud with any semblance of legitimacy are the carbon dating test, the burning of the image into the cloth, and the fact that there is no evidence of the Shroud before 1300. While these may have been seemed somewhat legitimate back in the 1980s when they were first put forth, they have all been disproven through new evidence. A new analysis of the samples used to carbon date the shroud have now been revealed to be from 300BC-400AD and it was most likely a combination of the smoke damage from the fire which burned the horizontal holes in the Shroud and the many hands which have held the shroud over the years, as the Shroud was originally displayed publicly by being held by its corners over a balcony. New scans of the shroud have shown that it was not possible for any radiant heat source to create the image on the shroud. Apparently, the only way they could reproduce a somewhat similar image was using intense light being shone through matter, somewhat like an x-ray image. This technology was not, of course, available at the point when the Shroud appears in history. Finally, the last argument said that the shroud simply appeared in the 1300s. New evidence has since been found in opposition to this view. A Hungarian manuscript from the 11th century not only shows the L-Shaped burns but also the herringbone weave pattern which the Shroud of Turin possesses. The Shroud of Edessa disappeared during the Crusades in the Siege of Constantinople in 1204 and it was the family of a Crusader knight who survived the siege which first displayed the Shroud in the 1350s.
Last edited:
R
redbaron162
Guest
The Pope and Church as a matter of point avoid making a declaration of the authenticity of any relic. Theoretically they could but a relic’s authenticity is not essential to the deposit of the faith and is a matter of historical record, not faith or morals.
B
brian_custer
Guest
the shroud is as real as rain
what more proof of the resurrection could 've been provided?
atheistic skeptics; wake up & smell the coffee
what more proof of the resurrection could 've been provided?
atheistic skeptics; wake up & smell the coffee
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
100% REAL…
B
buffalo
Guest
The carbon dating was from a patch that was woven in after a fire.
B
buffalo
Guest
I really recommend watching this video on the strobed image as well as the details of what was on his body and the nails were still in when He was buried. One can see for themselves… SImply awesome.
U
undead_rat
Guest
The 1988 C-14 dating actually showed no such thing even though it was done on a valid sample. The truth is that the smug professors who presented the dates of “1260 to 1390” deliberately misrepresented the C-14 dating results. The actual dates obtained from the three labs were 1195 to 1448.** The British Museum (which was to announce the results) didn’t like that 253 year range because they had an agenda which was to prove that the Shroud was a fake and that much variance cast doubt on their desired conclusion. So the Museum asked the labs to “average in” the extreme dates resulting in the commonly known dates of 1260 to 1390. A 130 year variance was something that they could live with.
The remarkable thing about the actual dates of 1195 to 1448 is that the oldest date of 1195 comes from the part of the Shroud sample that was closest to the edge while the youngest date of 1448 comes form the part that was closest to the image. In other words there is a linear progression with the dates getting younger as the part of the Shroud tested gets closer to the image.
The 1978 STURP investigation found that the image on the Shroud differed from a photograph in that it had no “directionality” meaning that there was no light source. The corpse itself seemed to be the source of the image. If the body of our Lord was in fact the source of the image, then it could also have been the source of a radiation that resulted in an enhanced C-14 content of the linen cloth.
The Historically Consistent Hypothesis** postulates that, when our Lord’s corpse vanished into another dimension, a very small portion of His body remained as elemental particles. That would mean a proton and neutron radiation was present when the linen cloth collapsed into the vacuum where the body had been. The protons caused a degradation of the surfaces of the linen fibers resulting in the miraculous image that we are so familiar with. The neutron radiation caused some of the nitrogen in the linen to convert to C-14, and that radiation would have been greatest in the place where the body had been. That is why the C-14 dates become younger as the sample tested gets closer to the image.
So the 1988 C-14 dates, when viewed in their entirety, are actually more of an indication that Jesus’ corpse vanished from a sealed and guarded tomb than they are of the Shroud being only 700 years old.
**TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015
Last edited:
E
edtaylor51
Guest
I don’t think we have enough evidence either way to know for sure. I find it highly unprobable that it’s the real deal, but how else would that image have been imprinted on the cloth? 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.
Makes for a good debate!
Makes for a good debate!
H
Hope1960
Guest
I think (or hope) it’s the real thing! I mean thus far, no scientist has been able to explain it any other way.
B
buffalo
Guest
Another amazing find. Mary, Gudalupe, dates, Risen face and more
U
undead_rat
Guest
Yes, it goes against all rational thinking to believe that we have in our hands a real miracle from 2000 years ago that proves the existence of Jesus. It is just too good to be true. But it also goes against the same thinking to believe that we have a Divine Teacher who has shown us the way to salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven. That’s also, really , too good to be true. And that’s the amazing thing about the Shroud: it is true as is the reality of our Sacred Teacher.
As far as “evidence” goes I must disagree with the idea that we don’t have enough. The 1978 investigation brought 8000 lbs of testing equipment and two dozen of the USA’s best researchers to Turin. If the image on the Shroud was any kind of painting or primitive photograph, they would have found that out. The only reason that they did not sign off on the fact that the image on the Shroud is that of Jesus was because, as scientists, they did not have a test to determine the identity of the person who was buried in the Shroud.*
The reason that the facial image on the Shroud resembles paintings and icons of Jesus is that depictions of Jesus have historically been taken from the Image of Edessa which is what the Shroud was known as in ancient times. So icons and paintings depend on the Image on the Shroud, and not the other way around.
*Report on the Shroud of Turin, Heller, 1980
E
edtaylor51
Guest
I hope it’s real too, but the burden of proof goes the other way. Believers in the shroud need to show that it’s probable. i.e. that the carbon dating fits in the correct range (and there’s honest disagreement there), that the image could have been that of Jesus, that the image was placed on the shroud via a method not common during 14th century Europe, etc.
I lean towards its not genuine, but think there’s enough evidence that there’s a slight possibility of it being genuine. Again, I hope it’s true! But true or not, it doesn’t affect my faith in any way.
N
NuclearReceptor
Guest
I believe Jesus walked the earth as true human…but to actually see the imprint of what might be His real face is just…I don’t have words for it.
Is there any reliable account about St. Veronica’s miraculous image?
Is there any reliable account about St. Veronica’s miraculous image?
Last edited:
E
edtaylor51
Guest
Just pulling this out for now - that would make sense if true. I’ve not researched it, but I also concede I had erroneously not even considered this.
As for the pounds of equipment, back then a giant computer which weighed thousands of pounds had CPU, RAM and Storage much less that we all carry in our pockets now
Again, I hope it’s true and at minimum its a great discussion topic.
B
buffalo
Guest
Watch the movie I posted a few minutes ago. The short answer is YES.
U
undead_rat
Guest
The burden of proof has already been met in 1978. The Image on the Shroud is not the work of any human artist. The true C-14 dating results of 1195 to 1448 are not evidence that the linen in the Shroud was grown in the middle ages. Carbon dating is very accurate. A 250 year variance in the results for a sample supposedly only 700 years old proves that something unusual happened here. If you are waiting for a C-14 test that shows an age of 2000 years, you are waiting in vain. No part of the Shroud will date to any more that 800 years, but, as samples tested get closer to the body image, their C-14 dates will get younger. So much younger, in fact, that even impossible future dates may be obtained! **
**TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
Why? Please explain.
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
My understanding is that the proportions are off. Once I read about this, it destroyed my belief in the authenticity of the shroud. So be careful if you like believing in the shroud! 
U
undead_rat
Guest
Yes, but it may not be what you are expecting. They legend of Veronica only began at about 1100 AD. At that time the Image of Edessa was in Constantinople and was referred to as the Mandylion. The Eastern Church preferred to make icons rather than statues. The icon painter would have to be a priest who would pray and meditate before painting. A very special kind of icon was a “true” icon, and the painter would have to actually see his subject and then touch his finished icon to that subject. This would have been impossible for icons of ancient holy scenes, but for the Mandylion it was possible.
The Greek word for icon is “iconica,” and the Greed word for true is “vera.” When the Byzantines made a true icon of the Mandylion and sent it to Rome, they endorsed it as a “vera iconica.” It didn’t take much for the uneducated populace at that time to take “vera iconica” as a woman’s name of Veronica.
The actual legend of the creation of the Image of Edessa by Jesus meeting a woman on the road to calvary may have originated in the East as one of the several explanations for His image on that cloth. I have a copy of an old Orthodox icon of the Mandylion that shows a sub-scene similar to Station VI as a story of its creation.
I refer you to Wilson’s book, HOLY FACES, SECRET PLACES, for more detailed information. Apparently, more that one “Vera Iconica” made its way to cities in the west, and the Vatican had to intervene to determine which one would be considered “real.”
Last edited:
- Status