The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?

[undead_rat]

The veracity of our Holy Gospels is something that I don’t wish to debate. Those who deny that truth have no common ground with myself, and that common ground is somethjing that I find essential for a meaningful discussion.
Futhermore, the authenticity of the Shroud was proven by Pia’s photo negative in 1898. Those who can’t understand that simple fact are, in my opinion, in the same category as those who are members of flatearth.org.

https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/

 

[Hugh_Farey]

That’s perfectly OK, Undead Rat; I do not begrudge you your beliefs. I myself do not think that the Shroud was proven authentic by Pia’s photography, nor that the Gospel of Matthew is literally true in every respect. I know a lot about the Shroud, but less about the accuracy of the gospels, and would be very willing to learn how that of Matthew fits in with the others, with which it seems in contradiction in places. If, on the other hand, you choose to leave this thread, then that’s also fine by me.

 

[undead_rat]

Every written work on the Shroud has its own special insights that may be only touched on in subsequent books. From the SHROUD OF CHRIST, Vignon, 1902, Chapter III:

“The Charny family merely said that the Holy Shroud had been obtained as spoils of war or had been received by the Count as a reward of valour . . .”

That fits in with the 1204 sack of Constantinople, the arrest and disbandment of the Knights Templar, and Geoffroy de Charny’s reputation for chivalry and bravery. Since all Templar property had been forfeited to the King of France, the Charnys could say no more without having to hand the Shroud over to that King.

“Indeed, had the authorities of the Abby of Lirey, together with the Charny family, been guilty of the attempt to foist upon the religious world a manufactured relic, they would have well deserving of censure, if not of excommunication, but the Holy Father Clement VII decides mildly that the relic shall be regarded with veneration as “a copy” of the original.”

(As a consolation to his bishop who so strenuously opposed it for taking away revenue that he needed for his cathedral completion.)

 

[edtaylor51]

Yeah, no. Try again, buddy. I can be skeptical of the Shroud based on the facial features of the image in question. That’s not racist.

 

[leonhardprintz]

nigio74:

Not only that, the Shroud survived a fire and had portions of it replaced which both affected the carbon dating of it. On other side of the matter, they have discovered pollen fragmentation on the Shroud that are only found were the Shroud is supposedly from which is the Middle East.

Both are myths.

As was discussed multiple times in the reports from those who did the radio-carbon dating, there wasn’t much of a film of material on the fibres, and subsequent cleaning using ordinary and well understood laboratory tests got it off. The fibres do not absorb carbon like a sponge, and in order for carbon absorbed from the 15th century to move a 1st century date to the 14th century, then the fabric would have to added so much carbon that it would have five-doubled its weight.

Furthermore following the restoration in 2002, the ‘invisible repair’ hypothesis, was shown to be very unlikely. ‘Invisible repairs’ (which aren’t actually invisible), are very obvious when looking at it from behind, but after the backing of the Shroud was removed no signs of stitches of any kind could be found.

As for the pollen only one of the researchers advanced this claim, but no one has been able to verify the species identification, and its been largely descredited. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n79part8.pdf

 

[Hugh_Farey]

While begrudging nobody their beliefs, I do begrudge their right to “facts” for which there is insufficient support to be regarded as such.

1. Neither Geoffrey (I) de Charny, nor his wife Jeanne de Vergy, nor the records of the church at Lirey, are recorded as giving any provenance for the Shroud. Geoffrey (II) de Charny merely said it was a gift, and his daughter Marguerite that it was “conquis par feu messire Geoffroy de Charny”. This is explained by Dorothy Crispino, founder and editor of Shroud Spectrum International:

"The fragment ‘conquis par feu’ has often been wrenched from context and totally misinterpreted to read “conquered by fire”, ergo in battle. ‘par feu messire’ not only means “by the late sire” but ‘conquis’, in medieval parlance, had not the value of “conquered” but signified merely “acquired” or “gained”.

1. The Church at Lirey was never an Abbey.
2. The idea that Pope Clement decided “mildly” that the relic shall be regarded with veneration as “a copy” of the original” should be put in context. These are this words:

“As long as an ostentation lasts, no capes, surplices, albs, copes or any other kind of ecclesiastical garments or accoutrements are to be worn, nor any of the solemnities usual to the ostentation of relics performed. Torches, candles and tapers must be kept to a minimum, and no other kind of illumination used instead. And throughout the display of the said image, whenever a large crowd of people has gathered, it is to be formally announced to them, in a loud, clear voice, with no obfuscation, that the image or representation before them is not the true Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, but a painting or canvas made in the form of or as a representation of the said Shroud, of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Mild indeed!

1. There is no evidence that either the fire, nor the subsequent repairs by the Poor Clare nuns, had any effect on the radiocarbon corner. Although Alan Adler, who should have known better, described the corner as “close” to the fire damage, it was actually as far away as it could be given the way the Shroud was folded (as described by Aldo Guerreschi), and protected by 27 layers of folded cloth above it.
2. Pollen on the Shroud has been examined by several palynologists, none of whom support Max Frei’s identifications. Although he ‘identified’ 58 different species of plant from it, he used a deeply flawed methodology which led him to completely unreliable conclusions.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Your knowledge is spectacularly defective on these points. I should go back to wherever you think you learned them and check.

However, you are very welcome to believe the shroud is authentic. You are in very good company.

 

[undead_rat]

Vignon reports how the Church authorities ordered a copy the Shroud to be destroyed and that the Pope imposed no punishment of any kind on the Charnys for (supposedly) misrepresenting the Shroud as the real thing. They could have been censured or even excommunicated.
Their Bishop, however, was ordered to forever remain silent concerning the Shroud and its public displays. Perhaps someone will provide us with the Pope’s exact words on that subject.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

You are just saying so, do you have a link to an article that backs up your information, I got my info from the Catholic Church.

Links: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n78part9.pdf and http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n79part8.pdf

You did not get your information from the Catholic Church.

 

[ColorMomma]

We are not required to believe. Have you looked at the evidence before you’ve judged them to be made-up? It is quite compelling.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

We are not required to believe. Have you looked at the evidence before you’ve judged them to be made-up? It is quite compelling.

It does appear compelling at first sight, and a great many people believe that the Shroud is authentic. I believe that on deeper investigation the evidence is not as compelling as it appears, and it doesn’t compel me, but I have no problem with those who draw different conclusions.

 

[AndrewAxland]

I believe that on deeper investigation the evidence is not as compelling as it appears, and it doesn’t compel me, but I have no problem with those who draw different conclusions.

That about sums my view up, too. Up to the point where they start telling me that I’m not a good Catholic if I don’t believe in it.

 

[Rob2]

Hugh_Farey:

I believe that on deeper investigation the evidence is not as compelling as it appears, and it doesn’t compel me, but I have no problem with those who draw different conclusions.

That about sums my view up, too. Up to the point where they start telling me that I’m not a good Catholic if I don’t believe in it.

From what I have listened to and read , and this only goes back to the beginning of this Lent when I became engrossed in the subject of the Shroud , I am 99% sure that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus . Much of the evidence I have come across points to its authenticity . But there is that 1% of doubt which I hope will always be there . It is not a matter of Doctrine but of opinion . No one should be looked down upon for not believing in its authenticity . From this side of the grave we will never know whether it is true or not , and the Magisterium is never going to say that it is something Catholics should or should not believe in .

The Shroud should not be another cause of division , but rather of enjoyment on all sides for providing us with a fascinating object to study , reflect upon , and for some to use as a means of coming closer to God .

 

[undead_rat]

Links: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n78part9.pdf

This article by Mr. Farey states that theory of neutron radiation as cause the Shroud’s enhanced C-14 content has been proven to be untrue. But on this very thread he has admitted that neutron radiation could have been that cause, and he has applauded the Antonacci’Rucker team for their publication of that theory that may be proven or disproven by further C-14 date testing.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

This article by Mr. Farey states that theory of neutron radiation as cause the Shroud’s enhanced C-14 content has been proven to be untrue. But on this very thread he has admitted that neutron radiation could have been that cause, and he has applauded the Antonacci’Rucker team for their publication of that theory that may be proven or disproven by further C-14 date testing.

You’re such a blatant liar, my dear fellow. Why do you do it?

What I said was that there have been: “…a series of determined attempts to discredit the dating. The dating procedure was deeply flawed, there was deliberate fraud by the Catholic Church, the British Museum, or the laboratories; or the samples were too small or contaminated by a bio-plastic film, or neutron radiation, or carbon monoxide, or anything that might make a product from the 1st century appear to be a thousand years younger. These were all examined carefully, not least by people earnestly hoping they were true, and all found wanting.”

And so they have been examined, and so they have been found wanting. That’s nothing like saying they have been “proven to be untrue”. It is a statement that they have not been successful attempts to discredit the radiocarbon dating, which is an entirely correct statement.

Now seriously, Ratty, you need to rethink how you approach this discussion. Stop obsessing about me and go back to the OP. “What do you believe about the Shroud of Turin? Scientific tests do not seem to agree with tradition on the topic. But I’ve yet to draw a conclusion.” Well, you believe the Shroud is genuine. Fine. If you want to explain why you think the Shroud is genuine, that’s fine too. Think about how you will help TheOldColonel make up his mind, and present your case. If you are honest in your opinion and honest in your evidence, maybe TheOldColonel will agree with you. Your current approach cannot but have the opposite effect.

 

[abucs]

Interesting talk on the validity of the shroud with Father Robert Spitzer.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Thank you, abuts. On March 18 I reviewed the first half hour or so of another talk by Fr Spitzer, which you can find above if you like. I will have a look at this one, but from a few random peeks, it seems to make many of the same mistakes. I had not realised that Fr Spitzer was considered a Shroud expert, but will endeavour to communicate with him directly to see if we can make his presentations more accurate.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

For instance, at about 14:45 minutes in, Fr Spitzer says:

"… the sample that was taken in 1988 was a sample that was derived from a place which was patched by sisters after the fire of [Chambéry]. They took a thread from that, a very controversial area, and that’s what was dated, not the actual herringbone weave linen […]. That wasn’t dated. A patch that was put onto the cloth, or a thread from patchwork that was put onto the cloth was dated.”

This is wholly untrue. What’s more, I do not know any source from which Fr Spitzer could have derived this untruth. As far as I know the idea that only a single thread was dated, which Fr Spitzer repeats in several presentations available on YouTube, is solely Fr Spitzer’s own. Of course he is a busy man, and the Shroud is the least of his preoccupations, so I do not blame him for misreading some other source and getting this fact wrong. However, it calls into question the accuracy of everything else he uses to justify his conviction that the Shroud is authentic. The paper published in Nature regarding the radiocarbon dating, which Fr Spitzer refers to several times, says:

“The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each ~50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip.”

it is not possible to read this as meaning that a single thread was extracted from the Shroud.

Even if the radiocarbon corner were a patch, it could not have been from the Poor Clare’s restoration after the 1532 fire, as then it would have dated to the middle of the 16th century, not the beginning of the 14th century. Fr Spitzer should know this. Again, I do not know any other serious source from which Fr Spitzer could have derived this error. It may be another example of simple misreading.

 

[nooooby]

I have been following this thread with great interest with its regular contributors leading the majority of the debate. Recently it has struck me that the debate here appears very like the west’s attitude to Jesus Christ himself.

We have Hugh, seemingly an agnostic on the Shroud but stating the scientific evidence is clearly indicating that it is not authentic and therefore that is his position. If science proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the Shroud is authentic, I would expect Hugh would accept that. He seems very reasonable, logical and not given over to ad hominem attacks, restricting himself to the facts. Hugh is clearly very knowledgeable both on the Shroud and it seems in general, in effect, an expert.

We have undead_rat, who is also very knowledgeable on the Shroud, but firmly of the view that it is authentic, therefore not an agnostic. It also seems to me that he sometimes slips into displaying a great deal of passion that can be construed as, er robust and challenging. In effect, a true believer, who appears to sometimes take a more fundamentalist view point on the Shroud.

Now, almost all ‘normal’ people and readers to this topic will not be experts and have no time in their daily lives to become experts on the Shroud. Like myself, they may have an interest, an opinion and read the odd book or article about it, but are really restricted to reading the summaries of experts who do have the time and knowledge to study the Shroud.

If an average person with no firm view point on the Shroud, but had an initial interest, were to read this thread then I suspect that they would be more likely to defer to the reasonable and strictly on the facts Hugh than the clearly bias undead_rat. I find that this mirrors almost exactly my experience of people in the west over Christianity. So in reality the interested person would conclude, its a fake, no relevance to my life, I will walk away and not pay the subject any more thought.

I don’t think that this is entirely coincidental…

 

[Aulef]

I suddenly feel like watching star wars II: attack of the clones.