The Shroud of Turin Again


#21

A must see - details never seen before - nails still in hands, strobic image, sash, chains and more - high resolution scanning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LZRfUkw2VU&t=1743s


#22

I did my Senior Term Paper on the Shroud and even though my Faith doesn’t rely on it being real I DO believe it is real. The carbon dating results were in error because they were not collected from the middle of the shroud (The original part) but from the edges that had been repaired after a fire messed up the edges of it at much later dates. It still has NOT been proven how it was done. The heat it would take to generate that image and not destroy it has not been explained. The actual blood flow matches up with what would have happened had it been Jesus. All of the wounds match up. AND the face cloth that is supposedly part of the burial linens match up EXACTLY with the Shroud. Like I said it doesn’t change my Faith at all but I do 100% believe it is the burial cloth of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


#23

What else if anything did you learn about the carbon dating? Is there any new news that says scientists have found the original carbon dating results were right after all?


#24

I don’t see, nor have I read anything saying any of that.


#25

Actually there is a photograph of them cutting a small piece from the corner. The actual corner piece was already missing so they cut right next to it. I couldn’t find the photograph online, but it is in one of the videos I have on it. I think the video is “The Shroud of Turin”, a BBC documentary.


#26

Whether it’s real or not doesn’t take away or add anything to my Catholic Faith. I happen to think it’s real but it really doesn’t change anything for me.


#27

Me too. Or you might say that’s the mirror image of my position. I tend not to believe it, though I would be perfectly willing to change my mind if the evidence pointed that way. At the same time, I simply don’t have the basic knowledge of physics and chemistry that would enable me to evaluate the scientists’ arguments for and against. In either case, authentic or not, it doesn’t make the slightest difference to my Catholic faith.


#28

Hooray!! I’m going to try to find it…

Thank you! On several occasions I tried to find out. Apparently, I should never take a job as a detective. My skills at online research are…less than impressive.


#29

I saw it too and think it’s in one of the videos (possibly the really long video) I posted in the thread about What Jesus Looks Like.


#30

I love (and share) that perspective—whether you believe it is genuine or not, it doesn’t change anything.

I really love the mystery of it, and the science. But if someone were to conclusively prove it to be a fake, it would change nothing substantial. I would be disappointed, for sure! But that is about it.


#31

I found pictures! I am ashamed to say, almost instantly, because the other day when I made that argument, I tried to find out where the sample came from on the Shroud and found nothing. And that isn’t the first time I tried!

(I changed the post in which I made that ludicrous argument so people know not to listen to it. I left my claim, though, so the thread still is cohesive, and as a reminder to myself that I am capable of great stupidity and that I should be more careful.)

One photo is from this website that I highly recommend. It is from one of the 1978 examiners of the Shroud.

This next link is the same site, but has all of the FAQ’s about the Shroud research. Good stuff!

https://shroudstory.wordpress.com/category/science/ray-rogers-faq/


#32

I agree 100% with your opinion.


#33

It’s been awhile since I read it, but I found Ian Wilson’s original book on the Shroud particularly interesting.

The Shroud


#34

The only thing I know that would have made radiation then would be fire. It was the only source of light apart from the sun, moon, stars.

Surely, smoke would have been involved if fire was involved. No smoke?

What you say carbon dating is inaccurate? Carbon dating was standardized based on some object that supposedly had a known age and which was ancient.

does carbon really deteriorate at a constant rate? I’ve studied enough science to know that science makes a lot of assumptions to explain how things work.

Was the carbon dating based on something that was alien to the shroud but happened to be on the shroud?


#35

There were two types of radiation then apart from sun, moon, stars… Heat and light. Both came from fire.


#36

At the risk of starting an enormous hullabaloo…(please be gentle!)…

First, I found this to be tremendously interesting. I don’t know if I believe it. It has enough facts and many details that should be verifiable or refutable—but I haven’t done the work to find out. So I can’t present it as a claim to truth, only as an intriguing account.

I debated about sharing this, because it describes a conspiracy. There is such a thing as a real conspiracy, and there are also ones that are legendary leaps (more like convolutions or contortions) of logic and/or rational thinking. I tend to go instantly skeptical on claims that fit that description (conspiracy). So don’t take this too seriously, please. If this isn’t true, it is a fun fictional work to fill in holes and present an alternative reason for the C-14 testing. If it IS true, whoa. Just: woah!

I’d love to see what people think about the test results from the individual labs! That must be verifiable!

In your responses, please remember that I am simply presenting this for consideration. If you can refute or confirm the claims scientifically or historically, I would LOVE to hear it!

(But I would prefer not to hear accusations about my intelligence for posting this, or adjectives towards anyone who believes this, etc. Think of it as a thought experiment or an investigation…it’s not personal!)

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/STURP.TXT


#37

Despite the doubters, naysayers, atheists, trolls and those who apparently suffer from Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Fr. Robert Spitzer, whose scientific credentials rather exceed those of any known members here, makes a very convincing case for its authenticity. Several YouTube vids here:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spitzer+shroud

Haters gonna hate and doubters gonna doubt.


#38

I posted about this on the thread Do We Know What Jesus Actually Looks Like? and want the opinions of the posters here.
I’ve always believed that the Shroud was probably that of Jesus Christ but now Ive learned that the man on the Shroud is around 6’1 and First Century Palestinian men were around 5’ tall. How can we reconcile this?


#39

Parallax error? Or, our Lord was tall. Just watch a couple of Fr. Spitzer’s videos and you will feel a little more comfortable regarding the shroud - which we are not bound to believe in.


#40

What’s a parallax error ? I watched part of one of Fr. Spitzers videos and will watch more tomorrow. Does he discuss the height discrepancy?

Also, if our Lord was that tall compared to all the other men in town, don’t you think it would’ve been mentioned in the Gospels?


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.