What is the latest on the Shroud of Turin

  • Thread starter Thread starter WilT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WilT

Guest
In the 70’s there was a time that scientist mistakenly carbon dated the shroud to about the 1300’s. Were any other scientific studies done since then? 2005 was the last attempt of righting those wrong results. Do you believe it to be the true burial shroud of Our Lord. I think so.
 
WilT said:
In the 70’s there was a time that scientist mistakenly carbon dated the shroud to about the 1300’s. Were any other scientific studies done since then? 2005 was the last attempt of righting those wrong results. Do you believe it to be the true burial shroud of Our Lord. I think so.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, no further carbon tests were done.

There is no percentage in further destructive testing (carbon tests require burning a tiny portion of the cloth). The Shroud can never be proven to have been around our LORD.

Nor, given its handling over the generations and such events as the 1532 fire, is it likely to ever be accurately dated.

I for one believe it to be true.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Nelka said:
Don’t listen to scientists!

Listen to your Faith!
Click to expand...
Catholics are not required to believe that the shroud of Turin is the actual shroud of Christ.
Personally, I think it is probably Christ’s shroud but I am not going to argue about it.
Nor, will I accept the concept that I am a fool for thinking that way.

I find no argument between faith and reason. Those who make this a fight (either those who discount scientific thought or those who discount faith) are like birds with one broken wing. Faith and reason are the wings that give humanity the ability to soar. One without the other cripple the human spirit.
 
It’s like the robe of Christ, can never be proven, but I would say probably yes, but don’t quote me on that 🙂
 
Somebody better informed than me should answer this, but you’ll hear something along these lines - a patch was added in the middle ages, and it was this patch that was carbon-dated, not the original cloth of the shroud.
 
A few years ago on a local L.A. Christian radio program, a guest was being interviewed about the shroud. He mentioned that Protestants have taken interest in the shroud. That many non-Catholics no longer see it as simply a Catholic relic nowadays.
 
Zapfenstreich said:
Somebody better informed than me should answer this, but you’ll hear something along these lines - a patch was added in the middle ages, and it was this patch that was carbon-dated, not the original cloth of the shroud.
Click to expand...
Roughly true.

After the fire in 1532, which left gaping holes in the cloth, new material was rewoven into the fabric. The material for testing was taken from this already damaged area.

ICXC NIKA
 
One of the things that really bothers me about the shroud is the either/or argument which goes like this: Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist?

There could be a third or more answers. It could be an artist’s attempt to create something to show what Christ’s shroud would like. He or she may not have meant this to be a fraud or forgery.

It could be a miraculous event that took place in the 13th century.

We simply do not know. My hope is that it is the Shroud of Christ but if it is not, I am not going to assume out of hand that it’s existence is fraud and forgery. It is to interesting and to mysterious an object for that.
 
GEddie said:
Roughly true.

After the fire in 1532, which left gaping holes in the cloth, new material was rewoven into the fabric. The material for testing was taken from this already damaged area.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
The patches added after the fire are very conspicuous. They’re whopping big hunks of cloth of a type that is obviously different than the shroud. Anyone can see them to this day with unaided eyesight.

When the CA14 samples were taken, the experts, including those employed by the church, chose an area along one edge – away from any of those obvious earlier patches, for obvious reasons.

After the labs delivered their report indicating a 13th/14th century date, some people claimed that the sample had to have been taken from a area that had been repaired – despite the fact that none of the experts had seen a patch at that location when the samples were taken. Authenticity supporters then claimed that the patch was some types of invisible repair-- even though so-called rewoven repairs – are still discernible to the trained eyes of experts – such as those present during the sampling procedure.

If authenticity supporters are correct about the so-called invisible patch then, for starters, I think they need to explain why the shroud curators of the past used such obvious patches in the important main body of the shroud, but then took the time and expense to “invisibly” reweave an edge of the shroud that had no real significance. There are other questions and problems with the notion of the invisible patch idea as well.
 
This patched site was a repair job done to it about the time of the carbon dating. This patched area is well hidden containing woven cotton blend which was intertwined with the linen cloth. It was further dyed so by the naked eye it couldn’t be seen but the scientist should have caught it with the other test done to it. The figure was looked at by NASA scientist and it couldn’t be explained then nor now. One of the original scientist said it is one of a kind object that can’t be duplicated back then nor now. Our Science can’t find what created this image on the cloth. Facinating
 
If anyone’s interested why many people reject the authenticity of the shroud, here’s a link to a lengthy, wide-ranging, well-sourced debate/discussion on the subject.
 
WilT said:
This patched site was a repair job done to it about the time of the carbon dating. This patched area is well hidden containing woven cotton blend which was intertwined with the linen cloth. It was further dyed so by the naked eye it couldn’t be seen but the scientist should have caught it with the other test done to it. The figure was looked at by NASA scientist and it couldn’t be explained then nor now. One of the original scientist said it is one of a kind object that can’t be duplicated back then nor now. Our Science can’t find what created this image on the cloth. Facinating
Click to expand...
Barrie Schwartz discusses this at length and with facts to back up what he has to say about it. He was a member of the team that examined the Shroud and at first was quite skeptical. But, through further research and over many years of tests and study he is firmly convinced the Shroud is authentic. He’s a disinterested witness since he’s a practicing Jew not a Christian. All the answers to all the questions can be found in the link I gave to the website in my first post. However, here is a link to his blog: shroudstory.com/2009/01/30/barrie-schwartz-on-the-shroud-of-turin/.
 
The reality is that the Shroud has not and will never be PROVEN to be the burial cloth of Christ no matter how much some people want it to be.
The Church also has not and will never declare it to be genuine.

Catholics are free to believe either way and neither side should try to impose their belief on the other.
 
I think everyone should just accept a medieval date for the shroud and say “Great, it was made in the 13th century. By whom? How? With what knowledge of anatomy?”

That would require as much of a miracle to accept as the alternative.
 
TankGirl said:
I think everyone should just accept a medieval date for the shroud and say “Great, it was made in the 13th century. By whom? How? With what knowledge of anatomy?”

That would require as much of a miracle to accept as the alternative.
Click to expand...
I can’t agree because truth matters. 🙂 There is plenty of real evidence to show that it wasn’t created during medieval times. If there weren’t I would agree, but there just plain is.

There is plenty of material on this online from reliable sources, which I have provided. Everyone interested should read it for themselves.

If it’s authentic it’s a great witness to our faith, but it certainly doesn’t “prove” our beliefs or disprove them.

The Shroud is an object of veneration like any other relic. If it were a fake it’d be like a painting or statue, but it’s not “fake” it’s simply mysterious. These days people don’t like to believe in mysteries–they want facts, as if facts tell us everything we knew to know about everything.

As for me, I believe it is the burial cloth of Jesus, but if it isn’t I’ll venerate like any other sacramental. But if it is, as I believe after attending one of Barrie Schwartz’s lectures and read the material, it deserves to be venerated as a first class relic.
 
I think the alleged Shroud is a distraction, plain and simple.

The Mass is a renewal and remembrance of the new covenant. To be saved, I don’t think one has to see the shroud or go to the holy land (a term that is in the Bible) or have water from Lourdes, etc. You can’t get closer to God in this life than with a pure spiritual life including reception of the Eucharist.

I, for one, am more than thankful and amazed about the miracles of everyday life, that many take for granted.

I don’t have to search for the “holy grail.” I see it every time I go to Mass.
 
sirach2v4 said:
I think the alleged Shroud is a distraction, plain and simple.

The Mass is a renewal and remembrance of the new covenant. To be saved, I don’t think one has to see the shroud or go to the holy land (a term that is in the Bible) or have water from Lourdes, etc. You can’t get closer to God in this life than with a pure spiritual life including reception of the Eucharist.

I, for one, am more than thankful and amazed about the miracles of everyday life, that many take for granted.

I don’t have to search for the “holy grail.” I see it every time I go to Mass.
Click to expand...
Very well put. 👍
 
thistle said:
The reality is that the Shroud has not and will never be PROVEN to be the burial cloth of Christ no matter how much some people want it to be.
The Church also has not and will never declare it to be genuine.

Catholics are free to believe either way and neither side should try to impose their belief on the other.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top