Shroud Of Turin Authenticated - Or Is It?

[Katholikos]

The Associated Press has reported that a new book on the Shroud of Turin provides startling evidence for its authenticity -- that is, if the findings are true.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_italy_shroud_of_turin

This YouTube URL has several Shroud reports, one of the most fascinating (IMO) is captioned "Shroud of Christ is confirmed to be 2000 years old."

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=shroud+of+turin+documentary&search_type=&aq=1&oq=shroud+of+tur

[KnightofChrist]

Neat thanks man!

[JimR-OCDS]

I believe it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, but that's a matter of faith and no way provable.


Jim

[Fidei Defensor]

That's horrible evidence.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

Gosh, and here I remember some other guy had "proven" it false just a month or two ago. Now it's confirmed true. I just can't keep up with all these startling findings.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='21 November 2009 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1258829950' post='2006938']
That's horrible evidence.
[/quote]

Do you mean the Associated Press report or the seamstress who observed the first-century stitching techniques unique to the Masada and the Shroud?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Katholikos' date='22 November 2009 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1258918380' post='2007340']
Do you mean the Associated Press report or the seamstress who observed the first-century stitching techniques unique to the Masada and the Shroud?
[/quote]
I'm referring to this:

"She asserts that the words include the name "(J)esu(s) Nazarene" — or Jesus of Nazareth — in Greek. That, she said, proves the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have mentioned Jesus without referring to his divinity. Failing to do so would risk being branded a heretic."

[mortify]

There are many peculiar aspects to the shroud. As one poster mentioned, its stitch is identical to that of cloth found in Masada. It also contained pollens in bedded from plants found in Judea. How the image appeared on the shroud, especially since it can only clearly be seen when a negative image is made of it (something way beyond the understanding of a medieval forger), has also been hotly debated and remains unknown. Now a piece of the shroud was carbon dated to the 13th century, but we know the shroud has a long history, that it survived a fire, and that nuns had stitched new portions of cloth to repair it. There was a study done by a group of people who discovered that the sample taken by the scientists for carbon dating did not match the stitch contained in the remaining shroud, which means the sample was from the portions added later. Whatever it may be, it's worthy of veneration.

[Nihil Obstat]

If there's so much doubt from a single carbon date, why don't they just test a new piece? Except allow a person who believes the shroud to be authentic pick the sample.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 November 2009 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1258921850' post='2007376']
If there's so much doubt from a single carbon date, why don't they just test a new piece? Except allow a person who believes the shroud to be authentic pick the sample.
[/quote]
I've always wondered that.

[Ziggamafu]

If I recall correctly, they took 4 separate samples from different areas of the cloth, taking great care in the selection so as to achieve the most accurate results. They all dated to the same period. Unless carbon dating is a sham (and I don't think it is), the shroud has been proven to be a forgery. I saw an interesting documentary that suggested Leonardo Divinci as the man behind the shroud. There seems to be quite a bit of circumstantial / corroborating evidence to support the theory that Divinci did it. He actually designed the first "camera" and they replicated how he could have made the shroud using his invention (probably not knowing about the double-negative effect that would be discovered later). If true, he would have chosen a very old piece of cloth that had been imported from the area of Christ's burial to add to the appearance of authenticity (hence the findings of little fibers of native flowers and what-not). From what I've read, this new info regarding an alleged "death certificate" is psychological - seeing what you want to see. This seems entirely logical when you think of the ridiculous amount of imaging and photo-enhancing that she had to go through to find the alleged writing.

All that said, I would love to be wrong in my leanings against the Shroud's authenticity. But carbon dating is supposed to be one of the most accurate scientific dating methods known to Man (unless you're a young earth creationist, in which case there are vast networks of complex conspiracies at work). I used to think that only one sample of the Shroud was taken, and that it had been smoke-damaged (thus affecting the carbon dating). Once I found out the efforts that the scientists had gone through to avoid such obvious blunders and that several samples from different areas were taken, I ceased my private devotion in regards to the Shroud's authenticity. I still carry an image of the face on the Shroud as a powerful devotional icon, but regard it as nothing more. I'm not sold on the Davinci theory, but it seems plausible. He certainly had the genius and anatomical know-how to get the job done.

[Mark of the Cross]

I watched a documentary which claimed that there was a period when there was keen eagerness by the faithful to provide 'proof' that Biblical stories were true. A kind of competition ensued to see who could prove who's religion was the most truthful. The end result is we have museums full of forgeries which has ironically resulted in just the opposite to their intention. This has left us back where we were with only faith to go on. And maybe this is what God wanted!

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 November 2009 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1258921850' post='2007376']
If there's so much doubt from a single carbon date, why don't they just test a new piece? Except allow a person who believes the shroud to be authentic pick the sample.
[/quote]


From what I've heard by a couple experts on EWTN, they can't cut in toward the center of the Shroud, without risking that they'd ruin it.

Also, one of the experts, who is a Jewish convert and archaeologist stated, that she believes the shroud is actually the table cloth used at the last supper. Its not a traditional burial cloth, being its 12ft long. She also pointed out the food stains at the center, which are in an arch, as the Seder foods would've been placed.

Interesting, but again, no proof that is authentic from their information.

Jim

Edited November 24, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[dominicansoul]

i wonder about the authenticity, only because Scripture clearly states that our Lord was not buried in one sheet, but had a seperate linen that covered His head...how is it that this one piece of cloth has his entire image?

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='24 November 2009 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1259113870' post='2008918']
i wonder about the authenticity, only because Scripture clearly states that our Lord was not buried in one sheet, but had a seperate linen that covered His head...how is it that this one piece of cloth has his entire image?
[/quote]


maybe an extra cloth was on the outside of the full body linen over His head.