Burial cloth found in Jerusalem cave casts doubt on authenticity of Turin Shroud

Archaeologists have discovered the first known burial shroud in Jerusalem from the time of Christ’s crucifixion - and say it casts serious doubt on the claimed authenticity of the Turin Shroud.

Ancient shrouds from the period have been found before in the Holy Land, but never in Jerusalem.

Researchers say the weave and design of the shroud discovered in a burial cave near Jerusalem’s Old City are completely different to the Turin Shroud.

Radiocarbon tests and artefacts found in the cave prove almost beyond doubt that it was from the same time of Christ’s death.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1236161/First-burial-shroud-carbon-dated-time-Christs-crucifixion-caves-near-Jerusalem.html#ixzz0ZsyhooUK

Honestly, your profile reads Catholic. A number of your threads speak otherwise. I am wondering what your agenda is? :confused:

I guess I’ve got to wonder what makes you so angry with the church? But I will say a prayer that the Holy Spirit helps you with your needs.

Excuse me??? :confused::confused:

I got stuck on the line “Radiocarbon tests and artefacts found in the cave prove almost beyond doubt that it was from the same time of Christ’s death.” Last I heard, radiocarbon dating is far from an exact science. :shrug:

There is no proof the shroud of Turin was not the norm, and the one found now is the exception or visa versa…It is still just a theory

Guess what?

It doesn’t matter to me whether or not the Shroud of Turin is or is not the burial cloth of Christ.

My faith does not rest upon it.

As far as other shrouds and burial cloths from the first century being found, it doesn’t surprise me that their weaves differ from the 3 to 1 twill of the Shroud of Turin. Who said that all shrouds had to have the same weave?

I bet he thinks you’re posting news articles with an agenda… not just posting interesting news. I know a lot of people comment after news articles, but you don’t need to.

And basil’s right, our faith isn’t based on the shroud.

No, that’s not it at all. It’s the nature of the threads that have me puzzled. Just wondering why - is all.
A few days ago Lemonbean posted a thread regarding the Pope and the source was a YouTube video. Like Lemonbeam is interested in promoting dubious information or stirring the pot among fellow Catholics.
Seems like a passive aggressive agenda for someone who says he is a Catholic. :shrug:

I could be wrong, and I apologize if I am. Gut says different.


Please discuss the isses, not each other

The Daily Mail, while not a preferred choice, is never the less, a valid news source.

YouTube.com unless it is a video of a full TV news report, is not a valid news source.

If you have any questions, send me a PM

My apologies! I stand corrected. Thank you.

Here’s another source for you:

All I can say is…I can tell we are approaching another Christian holy day.

i know that a lot of people are hoping to prove that the Shroud of Turin is not authentic.

i still am NOT convinced that it is NOT the Shroud which covered Jesus.

with the Pope making a visit to the Shroud next year and it being put on display again, i think many people are quickly trying to find ways to disprove the theory that the Shroud of Turin is authentic.

Based on the information cited, it seems to me the cave shroud discovery proves nothing except, perhaps, that they found a shroud made around the time of Christ, in a cave.

I’m sure that if one went to any cemetery in the U.S. and dug up, at random, two graves of people buried around the same time, and if still preserved, one would find differences in the weave of cloth on the bodies.

I’m also sure that if one found a blanket in an Indian grave that had been sealed for, say, 200 years, and another one of equal age that had been in somebody’s living room for decades, narrowly escaping a fire with some damage and having been patched a bit, there could easily be differences in the carbon-dating results of the two.

It’s my understanding that the fabric of the Shroud has long been acknowledged to be of a finer, more uncommon weave than was normally available in that part of the world in that time period, but that fabrics made with such weaves were available in nearby Egypt. So I am not sure why this is considered some big news.

The Daily Mail article asserts: “But the Jerusalem shroud confirmed another local practice which casts even more doubt on the Turin artefact.
‘It wasn’t one continuous sheet,’ said Gibson, pointing out the Turin Shroud is a single rectangular sheet measuring about 14ft by 3ft.
'What our shroud shows is that the practice of having a separate shroud or wrapping for the body and for the head was common practice.
‘There was a separate wrapping for the head itself, which was very important because when they brought someone to burial they would place the head wrapping separately on the face in case the person wasn’t actually dead and woke up again, they would be able to blow off the face wrapping and shout for help,’ said Gibson.”

But that isn’t a knock against the Shroud! Shroud scholars have always known of the concurrent existence of separate wrapping for Christ’s head Himself. It is called the Sudarium and is found in Oviedo, Spain. Apparently, unofficial blood tests showed it to be the same as the blood on the Shroud. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo

In any event, the Catholic Faith does not fall or rise with what is ultimately revealed about the Shroud.

I’d have to same thing as what was said above about any news source ending in .co.uk

They haven’t proven yet that this artifact isn’t a fake. They almost always are.

how interesting. i had never heard of this Sudarium of Oviedo. i believe that shrouds were made from different weaves and different fabrics depending on where they were made, so this doesn’t really disprove anything to me.

As someone said, theres a Christian holy day coming up, so its time to bash the Christians again. Anyone remember the ossuary containing “*Jesus’ *” bones that was found a few years back, that one too, was intended to bring the Church crumbling down to its foundations.:shrug:

I find this VERY interesting. The archaeologist that discovered this, Shimon Gibson, was ALSO part of the team that discovered the “Jesus Family Ossuaries”. Remember that? Kind of fishy to me…


Indeed! That is very fishy. I wonder what the statistical odds are on something like that? :hmmm:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.