The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheOldColonel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I regard the Shroud of Turin as the physical manifestation of a Miracle.

You can find two books with the same title:

“Eucharistic Miracles”.

One book is by Joan Carroll Cruz.

https://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-...-2&keywords=amazon+books+eucharistic+miracles

The other books is by a committee, but excellent, nonetheless.

https://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Miracles-Catalogue-International-Exhibition/dp/1931101027

There is also:

Relics: What They Are and Why They Matter Paperback – August 31, 2015
by Joan Carroll Cruz (Author)
4.2 out of 5 stars 31 customer reviews

Relics: What They Are and Why They Matter: Cruz, Joan Carroll: 9780895558596: Amazon.com: Books?
 
Last edited:
Many thanks, MonteRCMS.

I have looked at the availability of these books, and the Catalogue of the Vatican International Exhibition is too expensive, but I have ordered Joan Carrol Cruz’s Relics book. I’ll tell you what I think when I’ve read it.
 
Jury’s out. Need more testing to determine exactly what it is.
 
Last edited:
Right; I’ve read Joan Carroll Cruz’s Relics book, which appears more authoritative than it is. For some relics there has clearly been considerable research, but much less for others, and evidence for authenticity is in most cases lacking. Carroll Cruz does not shy away from this, but presents all her selected relics with equal sincerity, from Jesus’s swaddling clothes to various miraculous images of the Virgin Mary.

The Holy Shroud is included among other relics of the Passion, such as the cross, nails, sponge, lance and so on. Details of it seem to have been taken from the three books that appear in the bibliography, with no reference to primary sources. Curiously, there is no reference to radiocarbon dating of anything anywhere in the book. There are little or no scientific sources.
 
Last edited:
Three days I will be silent
Not that I embrace silence for no reason
Not for the sanctity of its doorways
and halls
no
not at all

Three days I will not talk to you
Because I live in the shanties of my own nothingness
Because I thrive on the food of solitude
For those that do not have mouths that speak
For hearts whose doors are shut
In the narrow corridors of oblivion
 
I cannot imagine that Father Spitzer would lie or stretch the truth… why?
 
petra22 said:
I cannot imagine that Father Spitzer would lie or stretch the truth… why?
Click to expand...
Most people have some intense interests they research deeply into, and others less important that they don’t. If I were to enter a discussion, say, about the alloys that make up a chrome fender, I would look it up on wikipedia, or maybe buy a book. I probably wouldn’t check the references. I may think I have got the essentials, and be content with that. I don’t think Fr Spitzer is lying, but I do think his research is poor. It is taken from secondary sources whose data has been selectively chosen to support the authenticity of the Shroud. And I do think that he has simply misremembered quite a lot of what he may not have looked at for ten years or so.
 
A bit more than a ‘Kodak moment’ surely? It is a photographic moment, sure, but it is a ‘photographic’ moment that contains unique qualities and ‘records’ the most important event in history, ever, for humankind. It is a great shame that so many folk are either ignorant of it’s existence, or reject it as in any way special - even after nearly 2,000 years.
 
Quoted from “TEST THE SHROUD,” Antonacci, 2010, pg 304, 309, 316, 317, 320

"Eliminating STURP was the Primary Focus"
“. … no scientific or credible reasons are apparent for any of Grove’s unprofessional and deceitful actions. The only constant displayed was Grove’s selfish and egotistical desire to not only make radiocarbon dating the center of testing, but the only testing to be done on the Shroud. Equally apparent was his jealous and egotistical desire to eliminate the most knowledgeable group of scientists [STURP] from any involvement in future testing of the Shroud.”

"Sadly, part of the reason why no deliberation or meeting with any Italian analyzing institutions ever took place to review the laboratories’ raw dating data was because the labs’ erroneous results were also leaked several times before the official announcement. These leaks not only offended common decency, they were totally inconsistent with all three protocol procedures. The ultimate source of these leaks appeared to be Harry Grove . . .
"These inconsiderate acts are consistent with all of the labs’, their coordinator’s, and Grove’s actions over the entire nine year process of cavalierly carbon dating the Shroud. … . They even eliminated the most knowledgeable group of scientists in the world regarding the Shroud … . It’s as if their primary goal was to occupy center stage and have all the focus be upon themselves.
“Having acquired center stage at last, . . .its [the Shroud’s] date was smugly provided by Edward Hall, the director of Oxfords’s radiocarbon dating laboratory, and Michael Tite with an exclamation point [1260-1390!]. . .
On the same date Edward Hall dismissed the Shroud as ‘a load of rubbish.’”

HUMANITY’S RIGHT
“What raw data the radiocarbon scientists did acquire was not shared with other analyzing institutions, as had been agreed. Instead, they masked its significant underlying differences by combining and eliminating the youngest two ages from the reported data. Then they ignored the remaining data indicating that each contigious sample had noticeably different amounts of C-14 content, which correlated with their distances from the edge of the cloth. Worse yet, they attributed a date to the cloth based on very limited information that was not only erroneous, but was misleading. This inadvertently caused people all over the world to disregard, or never even be aware of, the unprecedented and incomparable evidence on this cloth.”

From “THE SHROUD”, Wilson, 2010, pg 89
“Not long after this, Hall’s Oxford AMS laboratory received funding of a million pounds, bringing into being a permanent professorship post that was immediately filled by the British Museum’s Dr. Michael Tite. . .”
 
Last edited:
From THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010

The big problem with the Shroud dating, and one that virtually never happens with any other [C-14] datings, was that there was no one equivalent to an archaeologist to act as interpreter of the results. … The British Museum’s Dr. Michael Tite declined to see himself in this role, quite rightly, because he was simply another radiocarbon dating scientist, not an archaeologist.
This left that role to be filled by the three radiocarbon dating laboratories–primarily, because with characteristic forcefulness he made himself their chief spokesman, by Oxford’s Professor Edward Hall.
Unabashedly atheist, …Hall positively relished the opportunity to be judge, jury, and executioner of the Shroud. He lectured on the subject to the British Museum Society. His laboratory’s role in “proving” it to be a “fake” was proudly displayed at his offices as among his finest achievements. There was no way he was going to modify the conclusiveness of the laboratories’ findings with any cautionary proviso of the kind his Zurich counterpart Professor Wolfi had volunteered.
 
Last edited:
THE SIGN OF JONAH

Two thousand years ago a certain Rabbi who forcefully criticized the religious authorities while, at the same time, endearing the Jewish populace with miraculous healings and wonderful teachings, was railroaded into a brutal execution by those authorities. But He prevailed in the end by fulfilling His prediction that He would conquer death. And in that conquering of death, He left us the Sign that He had promised: the Sign of Jonah which is His miraculous Image and holy blood on His burial cloth. As promised, this Sign is for an entire generation of people, a feat accomplished by no other miracle.

How ironic that, two thousand years later, that wonderful Sign has been railroaded into obscurity and defamation in much the same way as Jesus was framed, by prejudice and false testimony. And even more ironic that this wonderful sign is now being brought back to respectability by the very test that was used to defame it, the C-14 dating which, rather that indicating a date, is really an in indication that our Lord’s corpse vanished into another dimension.

While that vanishing is not the same as the resurrection, it so stongly implies the same that it must necessarily by taken as conclusive proof that it happened.
 
Last edited:
I definitely believe it. I’m convinced the church’s most famous icons came from it too (Pantokrator/Christ the Teacher).
 
undead_rat said:
How ironic that, two thousand years later, that wonderful Sign has been railroaded into obscurity and defamation in much the same way as Jesus was framed, by prejudice and false testimony.
Click to expand...
This part makes me cry! :cry:
 
The Shroud is still cherished by the Church and by those who believe it to be Christ’s burial cloth. Even if should turn out not to be Christ’s (I think it is), I will still cherish it as an example of how much Christ suffered for fallen humanity.

(I’m out of likes)
 
Last edited:
Fascinating and loooong discussion.
The carbon 14 data is interesting… but is this in itself the definitive “nope, can’t be the shroud of Christ” answer? I don’t think so. But it is what it is. If we accept - as Catholics and unbelievers alike - that IF this Jesus rose from the dead, that by definition that was something entirely outside of the natural order, then it is hardly a leap to think that some of the resulting physical manifestations left behind could have qualities that now fall outside what our learned observations of our natural world would typically tell us. I am NOT a scientist, so I can’t speak to how carbon 14 dating might be thrown off by the possible energy emitted by a resurrection event - but it wouldn’t surprise me if it did. And I don’t think to say this is the equivalent wishfully hoping that magically 1+2 no longer equals 3. Carbon 14 describes a physical process of the natural world. God can - and does - work in miracles that defy the laws of nature - even as we recognize that mathematical truth IS truth, and God - as Truth - can’t contradict those truths. I’m also not a philosopher, so I may not have worded that perfectly, put hopefully well enough to convey my point. IF IF IF this IS the shroud of one who miraculously rose from the dead 2000 years ago, we have to be extra diligent and rigorous in our testing, as it seems quite likely that there could very well be differences from the shroud of any other crucified guy who died (and stayed dead) 2000 years ago.

Okay, those are just my background musings after reading this thread. One thing that I would like to see discussed more, is the blood. So a quick search lead me to a paper that indicated the blood appears to be type AB (which I read is about 4% of the population, positive plus negative frequencies combined). I also have read that a couple of different Eucharistic miracles both were found to have the same DNA as each other, AND also had AB blood. Of course this is nothing definitive proving the authenticity of the shroud, but just something else that makes you say “hmmmm…” I really wish they could get good DNA from the shroud to see if it matches that from these Eucharistic miracles. But it sounds like that might not be possible.

Let’s face it - the shroud is astounding. If it is the shroud of Christ - wow! An amazing gift to the world only to be surpassed by, well, the gift of Himself given every day in the most humble form of the Eucharist. But if the work of an artist? The genius to have produced something that has perplexed so many brilliant minds… who could this artist have been? Surely, a man (or woman) of great learning and otherwordly sublime talent (I think to not see it this way would be vastly underselling the accomplishment - and quite frankly a bit cynical, “hey, anyone could have done it.” Nope.).

And finally, peace to all who read and participate in this thread. We all can get worked up some times, especially about something we firmly believe (yea or nay). Thanks for taking the time to engage in this discussion on the fascinating Shroud of Turin - and leading many of us to want to learn more about it.
 
Yes indeed, blood groups matching, genius artists who never did anything else etc etc.

https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

Here is an article on how the blood stains on the sudarium match the stains on the Shroud in the correct area.

If all of the evidence over the years is collected together and scored as a probability of it being a man made forgery, would a reasonable person conclude it was authentic or a forgery?

It seems to me the worlds scientists accept far far lower levels of evidence to make conclusions on that are later revised. E.g. AGW

Strangely the Shroud seems to require 100% proof of authenticity. Just like belief in Jesus himself then…
 
nooooby said:
Strangely the Shroud seems to require 100% proof of authenticity. Just like belief in Jesus himself then…
Click to expand...
100% proof is not enough for those who have an agenda. See the flatearthsociety.org which is absolutely serious about its beliefs.
Our Lord’s sacred Image on the Shroud has always had the reputation of being “not made by human hand.” This ancient belief was confirmed by the controversial negative photo made by Secundo Pia in 1898. That was really all of the scientific evidence that anyone should have needed, and I refer you to “THE SHROUD OF CHRIST,” Vignon, 1902 for a treatise in this regard.

The 1978 STRUP investigation confirmed beyond any doubt what we already knew: that the Shroud is real. Its missing history and its C-14 dating are no more than corollaries to that fact. Of course we would like to know the Shroud’s history prior to 1357, and, if there were no records of any kind of miraculous image of Jesus on a cloth prior to that date, we would be disappointed. But that is not so because we notice a very strong history of just such an Image going back all the way to 33 AD.

Our Sacred Shroud’s C-14 dates must be interpreted in the light of what we already know: that the Shroud is real. Observing that the raw data of 1195 to 1448 has a variance of over 250 years, we can immediately conclude that this data must indicate something other that a date. C-14 dating is very accurate, and that variance is way too much for an artifact supposedly of a young age. Next we observe that these C-14 dates become younger as the part of the sample tested becomes closer to the Sacred Image. The obvious conclusion is that what ever miraculous process formed that Image must also have enhanced the C-14 content of the Cloth’s linen fibers.

I mentioned the word “agenda.” Atheists obviously have that, because, if God does not exist, then the Shroud’s image cannot be miraculous.
Some religions hold the belief that Jesus’ corpse could not have vanished, Judaism and Islam for example.
But one does not find their adherents on this thread going to great lengths trying to discredit the Shroud.
Its miraculous Image is not threatening to these established religions.
However, there exists a new religion that has built its proselytizing philosophy around the idea that Jesus was only one of a long line of prophets and that His teachings have been superseded by those of subsequent manifestations such as Mohammed and Baha’Ullah. That religion is, of course, the Bahai’ Faith which holds that Jesus did not work any physical miracles and that His corpse is still remains in some unknown Jerusalem tomb. So proof that Jesus’ corpse disappeared from His tomb would undermine the whole “house of cards” that the Bahai’ proselytizing is built on. We have seen Bahai’s on CAF going to great lengths to argue that Jesus’ appearances after His death did not occur in the flesh and were strictly “spiritual” in nature. I wonder if we have not experienced the arguments and agendas of some “closet” Bahai’s on this thread.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top