Shroud of Turin

[itullian]

since it was brought up in another thread, i'd thought it should have it's own.

so what do you think about? real, acccident, fraud?

it seems rather amazing,no?

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by itullian

since it was brought up in another thread, i'd thought it should have it's own.

so what do you think about? real, acccident, fraud?

it seems rather amazing,no?

Yes, yes, it is. Now let's see how this particular thread will pan out in comparison to the other Shroud threads.

[stephe1987]

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion either way.

[Holly3278]

I believe it is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus and I believe there is evidence to support this claim too.

[Perplexity]

I've seen the Shroud used as evidence for two different claims, which sometimes get conflated. First, some folks use it as evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really did exist. It's proposed as corroboration of some of the details in the Passion narratives. Second, some folks use it as evidence that Jesus of Nazareth resurrected.

While I have reservations about several issues here, I'd have no problem at all conceding that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, so it's not that big of a deal to me one way or another. But, I don't think it's evidence that Jesus resurrected.

[Candide West]

Originally Posted by itullian

since it was brought up in another thread, i'd thought it should have it's own.

so what do you think about? real, acccident, fraud?

it seems rather amazing,no?

The thing which is so amazing about the Shroud of Turin is that it continues to capture people attention even though it's been well and truly debunked. I guess this is just a case of wishful thinking and spin (it does make an exciting story).

I'll briefly summarise the available information about the shroud that I know of.*

- there is not one explicit mention of it in any literature for well over a thousand years after the events of the bible.

- in 1988 three laboratories carried out carbon dating on samples from the cloth and all gave dates of manufacture in the 13th or 14th century.

-*Pierre d'Arcis, wrote about the shroud towards the end of the 14th century after it was first displayed. He said that the matter had been investigated by a Bishop at the time - one Henri de Poitiers - and that he

"after diligent inquiry and examination, discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."

So it seems pretty conclusive all things considered.*

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Candide West

The thing which is so amazing about the Shroud of Turin is that it continues to capture people attention even though it's been well and truly debunked. I guess this is just a case of wishful thinking and spin (it does make an exciting story).

I'll briefly summarise the available information about the shroud that I know of.*

- there is not one explicit mention of it in any literature for well over a thousand years after the events of the bible.

- in 1988 three laboratories carried out carbon dating on samples from the cloth and all gave dates of manufacture in the 13th or 14th century.

-*Pierre d'Arcis, wrote about the shroud towards the end of the 14th century after it was first displayed. He said that the matter had been investigated by a Bishop at the time - one Henri de Poitiers - and that he

"after diligent inquiry and examination, discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."

So it seems pretty conclusive all things considered.*

Alright, you've got me curious. Can you tell us in detail anything about (1) the d'Arcis memorandum and (2) the proceedings of the Carbon-14 tests?

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Originally Posted by Perplexity

While I have reservations about several issues here, I'd have no problem at all conceding that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, so it's not that big of a deal to me one way or another. But, I don't think it's evidence that Jesus resurrected.

As far as I know, traditionally speaking, one does not remove the burial cloths from the deceased; they remain with the body in the tomb or casket. I think the fact that it was removed from the body indicates that He was indeed resurrected.

I am a believer that the Shroud is the true burial cloth of Jesus.

[buffalo]

34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce




http://opac.bologna.enea.it:8991/RT/...11_14_ENEA.pdf

[Perplexity]

Originally Posted by Alberti_Devoveo

As far as I know, traditionally speaking, one does not remove the burial cloths from the deceased; they remain with the body in the tomb or casket. I think the fact that it was removed from the body indicates that He was indeed resurrected.

I am a believer that the Shroud is the true burial cloth of Jesus.

Why do you think the fact that the shroud was removed from the body indicates that the body was resurrected, rather than that it was removed for some other reason? Surely, we'd sooner believe the shroud was removed for some other reason than resurrection if for no other reason than that miracles are by definition extraordinarily rare events.

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Originally Posted by Perplexity

Why do you think the fact that the shroud was removed from the body indicates that the body was resurrected, rather than that it was removed for some other reason? Surely, we'd sooner believe the shroud was removed for some other reason than resurrection if for no other reason than that miracles are by definition extraordinarily rare events.

If the body was still there, then the burial shroud would still be there. The Jews would not touch His body because of it being covered in blood & not cleansed before burial, not to mention the fact that they wanted to quell the early Christians. The Romans would not touch His body because the Romans also wanted to quell the early Christians, not give them more reason to spread. The early Christians may have wanted to do so, but Peter Kreeft gives compelling evidence to reject this idea of a conspiracy.

[Bezant]

I haven't read enough evidence (if there is enough evidence) that would tell us that the shroud was a fraud or someone else's shroud was passed around innocently and without much scrutiny. But I don't believe it's genuine.

[Perplexity]

Originally Posted by Alberti_Devoveo

If the body was still there, then the burial shroud would still be there. The Jews would not touch His body because of it being covered in blood & not cleansed before burial, not to mention the fact that they wanted to quell the early Christians. The Romans would not touch His body because the Romans also wanted to quell the early Christians, not give them more reason to spread. The early Christians may have wanted to do so, but Peter Kreeft gives compelling evidence to reject this idea of a conspiracy.

Hm, Kreeft is discussing the resurrection there, not the shroud. There are a host of other options you haven't mentioned yet, but let's just suppose they're all pretty implausible. Why would we infer that the resurrection is therefore likely? It'd still be a miracle, no less implausible then they. It seems to me the rational thing to do would say we don't know.

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Originally Posted by Perplexity

Hm, Kreeft is discussing the resurrection there, not the shroud.

Correct. I included the link mostly because Kreeft goes through an analysis of why the early Christians would not remove the body and keep the Shroud.

Originally Posted by Perplexity

There are a host of other options you haven't mentioned yet, but let's just suppose they're all pretty implausible. Why would we infer that the resurrection is therefore likely? It'd still be a miracle, no less implausible then they. It seems to me the rational thing to do would say we don't know.

What other reasons could you think of? I spent a few minutes and only came up with the three: either the Jews took the body, the Romans took the body, or the Christians took the body. I suppose you could propose that aliens did it, the Egyptians did it, or what have you, but, as you state, they would be considered implausible.

Resurrection is likely because of the reasons Kreeft gives, hence the secondary reason of including the link. And, on the contrary, the rational thing to do is accept the resurrection as a fact because it is logical, as Kreeft rightly points out.

[Perplexity]

Originally Posted by Alberti_Devoveo

What other reasons could you think of? I spent a few minutes and only came up with the three: either the Jews took the body, the Romans took the body, or the Christians took the body. I suppose you could propose that aliens did it, the Egyptians did it, or what have you, but, as you state, they would be considered implausible.

Resurrection is likely because of the reasons Kreeft gives, hence the secondary reason of including the link. And, on the contrary, the rational thing to do is accept the resurrection as a fact because it is logical, as Kreeft rightly points out.

I disagree with nearly all of Kreeft's claims, but we needn't get into any of them because he's provided no reason to think his disjunction is true. He just assumes that if 2-5 are false, 1 is true, when in reality all 1-5 can be false. So, without even getting into my more serious objections, I don't think his argument gets off the ground.