The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?


My faith does not rely on a piece of cloth. Even if it is the burial shroud of Jesus, so what? He also must have sat on something like a chair and there might have been other artifacts of his hidden life but so what? This world and everything in it will pass away.

In the Mass I receive the Eucharist and I don’t need or want any idols. I don’t have to go to Rome or Turin or Jerusalem (or Fatima, for that matter) to do that. Shrines and shrouds and the like are for affluent people, which I’m not. Best wishes and love.


Okay undead_rat now you’re drawing equality between belief in the shroud being genuine and a pious faith in God, that’s exactly the kind of hyperbole that’s off putting to me.


Hi abucs,

There’s a lot to discuss here. But here goes about the ‘blood’.

The blood has caused a great deal of confusion even among authenticists, and been the cause of many disputed invented pathologies. The simplest answer is to admit it doesn’t make any sense and was probably dribbled on to the cloth with a pipette. However, obviously, this is unacceptable to authenticists, so here is a résumé of what they have attempted.

  1. Is it blood? If a forensic scientist sees some suspicious looking red stains on the carpet, he first carries out a test to find out if the stain is blood or not, and then tries to characterise its blood-group, DNA, etc. Unfortunately, although there has been some tentative identification of actual red blood cells, it has been difficult if not impossible to identify whole blood. This has led to a number of more or less unlikely, and more or less contradictory hypotheses. Pierre Barbet thought that almost all Jesus’s blood had dried, but then ‘remoistened’ in order to leave its precise prints on the cloth. Fred Zugibe showed that at least some blood could ooze from a dead body. Some people have said that a body scourged as badly as that would have been so drenched with blood that it must have been washed before he was buried, and others that the bloodflows down the arms must have been present before he was buried, and so the body must not have been washed. Alan Adler claimed that a mixture of yellow bilirubin and brown methemoglobin would somehow produce pink stains on the cloth, while Ray Rogers claimed that a coating of Saponaria (soap-wort) saponin would keep red hemoglobin intact, and recently Giulio Fanti has decided that the blood was either mixed or augmented with red pigment. Pierluigi Baima Bollone has identified the blood as AB, but without carrying out a presumptive test for blood in the first place, some scientists have claimed that other organic materials also produce false positve AB results. All in all, it would be wholly untrue to suggest that there is any authenticist consensus about the constitution of the blood.

  1. Is it above or below the image? This rests on a single observation by Alan Adler and John Heller that the cell walls of ‘image-bearing’ fibres looked ‘corroded’, while the cell walls of ‘non-image-bearing’ fibres, and the cell-walls of ‘blood fibres’ did not. This relates to their hypothesis that the image was formed by the decomposition of the cell walls. Ray Rogers came to the conclusion that the image had nothing to do with the cell walls, but was the result of a reaction with a coating on the threads. He did not address the alleged ‘corrosion’ at all. I suggest that a bas relief spread with a appropriate pigment could easily have had ‘blood’ dribbled onto it before the cloth was laid on top. Another possibility is that, since the blood soaked through the cloth but the image didn’t, there are vastly more blood fibres which could not have been affected by the image than blood fibres which could have been, so that it would be statisitically inevitable to disover that there was no ‘image’ on the vast majority of ‘blood’ fibres. All in all, it would be wholly untrue to suggest that there is any clear demonstration that the blood stains appeared on the cloth before the image.

  2. Are the blood flows realistic? A cut on the head does not result in delicate little tickles of blood over the ‘matted’ (?) tresses of a long haired man. It mats the hair into a gory mass. Pierre Lavoie has speculated that the blood flows were soaked into the cloth while it was wrapped closely around the body, and then the cloth was either re-arranged, or miraculously re-arranged itself, to a more loose drape, for the image to arrive. This would mean that the ‘hair-flows’ were actually down the cheeks, but became out of register as the cloth was re-arranged so that the image of the hair appeared on top of them. However this hypothesis does not address any of the rest of the body, such as the back of the body and sides of the legs, which should also appear to have blood marks from the scourges well outside the outline of rthe body. All the blood flows take the form of sigmoid or zigzag trickles, whether from the head, down the arms, from the side wound or across the ‘blood-belt’. Blood does not flow in this way. It streams. Garlaschelli showed that it could not flow down an arm unless it was almost vertical (leading to excited newspaper headlines that Jesus was crucified on a Y-shaped cross). They also showed that if the blood from the side wound emerged while the body was vertical it would have flowed straight down, but that if it oozed out as part of the deposition or entombment it would have flowed in a different direction. Other pathologists have said that since the head, arm and side wounds were all quite high on the body, there was very little chance that any blood would have flowed out after it was dead. Although, as Zugibe showed by experiment and observation, there is some oozing of blood after death, it is very well known that blood clots very fast, and that in general “dead men don’t bleed”. All in all, it would be wholly untrue to suggest that the blood flows are easily relatable to real traumatic sources.


Hi Rose,
Your questions are a little incoherent, being more of the stream-of-consciousness type than a systematic inquiry, but I’ll do my best!

  1. “How do we know it was Jesus face etc number one and not someone else?” Whether the Shroud is real or fake, it is almost certainly a picture of Jesus. If 1st century in origin, Jesus is almost the only famous crucified Jew we know of, and there is no evidence to suggest that someone else’s shroud was adopted as Jesus’s after it was found to have an image on it. If medieval, although there have been suggestions that it could originally have been meant to be Jaques de Molay, the head of the Templars, after his execution, they have not gained general credence.

  2. “How do we know then also who’s blood is on the shroud?” We have no way of identifying Jesus’s blood. If it were ever possible to establish his DNA, that could be more indicative.

  3. “And what about the commandment, thou shall not, idolatry create an image?” It is not generally thought that leaving an image on a cloth ‘naturally’, constitutes breaking the commandment, but anyway, these were commandments from God to his people, not to himself. Christianity (unlike Islam) has never paid much heed to the literal commandment anyway, understanding it more to mean that we were to abstain from worshipping images, rather than simply using them as conduits to God.

  4. “Interesting also the face on the shroud identically matches man made images or pictures, paintings drawn of Jesus, years or generations later.” The idea that Jesus always looks the same has been widely accepted, but is patently untrue. Basically anybody with long hair and a beard is thought to look exactly like Jesus regardless of the hundreds of different people who could be described as such.

  5. “To say crucifixion would of been lost from of memory a generation or two later, would not be correct would it?” It is true that by the 14th century very few people in Western Europe would have seen a crucifixion. However continuing artistic tradition, coupled to the description in the bible, gave artists a good idea of what they thought it would look like. The Shroud does not show anything that could not have been thought of by a medieval artist.


I believe the Shroud of Turin is the genuine burial shroud of Jesus.

The tests that were done on it vary greatly in interpretation both for and against its authenticity.

But in my view the preponderance of evidence points to it being the genuine article


I respect your belief. Thousands of people of the major Abrahamic religions agree with you.


Wrapping clothes produce 3-D image, so this is a 2-D painting in deed. There were hundreds thousands crucified saints, so the odd for the image of Jesus is about 1/300,000 in general. It was not found inside Jesus’ tomb, so likely not image of Jesus.


What we now know as the Shroud of Turin was originally called the Image of Edessa. After the opening of Jesus’ tomb, the Image bearing Shroud was found and was immediately spirited out of Israel by the disciple Thaeddeus to the city of Edessa which was outside of both Jewish and Roman rule. There the Shroud was safe from destruction by the Jewish religious authorities. The Shroud was then hidden in that city’s west gate for about 500 years. After being recovered, replications of the Shroud’s facial image were carried throughout the Christian world by monks. The most famous of these is the 6th century icon of Christ in St. Catherine’s Monastery.


Respectfully opinion only, not to offend, topic titled about>>The Shroud of the Turin, whats your Opinion>>>> opinion given my Love, deep devotion to our Heavenly Father>>> does not depend on what is called a>> burial shroud of whom we do not know is or is not of Jesus, do we?
Rather depends on His Spoken Word given, >>>Happy are those who have not seen yet believe. Peace :slightly_smiling_face:


We most certainly do know that the miraculous Image on the Shroud is that of Jesus. In this century of atheism and skepticism our Lord’s miracle shines as a bright light to His followers and contradicts those who say that He never existed, that Christianity was made up out of pagan philosophies, or that the Romans invented it. We even have books trying to prove that God does not exist at all.

The Shroud of Turin–Holy Mandylion–Image of Edessa was given to us for a purpose. It is the Sign of Jonah that Jesus promised would be available for, not just a few, but for an entire generation of people, and it is living miraculous proof that Jesus lived, died by crucifixion, was laid in a tomb, and that His corpse vanished out of this world. That miraculous disappearance should rightly be taken as proof of His resurrection.

Of course our Lord’s holy teachings and his Church are the most important and most valuable things that we have, but as material objects go, nothing in this world is more important or more sacred that Jesus’ holy Image on His burial cloth.


How do you know where it was found?
It could have been found anywhere.
What matters is that for centuries Catholics believe this item is the burial shroud of Jesus Himself.
The scientific investigation on the object has gone all over the place with contradictory claims.
If you sift through this stuff, sufficient evidence emerges on the balance of probabilities that the Shroud is an authentic relic from the death of Jesus.


I recall a comment that a Redemptorist priest made one day long before the carbon-14 dating test. He had a priest friend who was obsessed with the Shroud and was convinced that it was authentic. He himself had a non-committal attitude. He told his friend, “What if it is real? So what? It will not affect our Faith one bit. What if it is not real? Our Faith will stay the same.”

I can understand that there are Catholics who are totally convinced of the authenticity of the Shroud, just like there are Catholics who are believers in a particular private revelation. What surprises me is that there are those who are equally obsessed in the other direction, with wanting to prove the shroud a fake. There are those who believe in the Medugorge apparations. I don’t, but I don’t become obsessed with trying to prove them wrong.


The theology of Jesus’ holy Image on the Shroud as the Sign of Jonah is a very recent development. Our Church fathers could not make that connection because the Shroud (Image of Edessa) was not publicly recognized as a burial cloth. Therefore it could not be thought of as the Sign of Jonah. As we know, several legends arose to explain His facial Image (not made by hands), and none of them were true.

In 1357 the Shroud was publicly presented as Jesus’ burial cloth. In 1898 Pia’s astounding negative plate proved that this postulation was correct, but did not prove a miraculous origin of Jesus’ Image. The approbation of “Not made by hands,” while suggesting a supernatural source, also allows for a natural event. Indeed, Vignon’s published research of 1902 dismisses a radiological mechanism for the Image formation by saying that no known way for a human corpse to emit the necessary radiation existed. Vignon postulated a “vapor” theory of Image formation, an idea that has now been shown to be false.

Not until the C-14 dating results of 1988 and their correct interpretation by the Antonacci/Rucker team in 2015 have we known for sure that a miracle was the mechanism by which our Lord’s sacred Image was imprinted onto His burial Shroud. And now that we are sure of that miracle we can make the connection to the ancient Sign of Jonah that Jesus predicted.

Luke 11:29-32 adds an additional element to this marvelous sign: the warning to repent or suffer the consequences of divine destruction. In my opinion, the Sign of Jonah is that warning to this present generation to give up its evil ways, and those evil was are nothing else that our development and deployment of massive instruments of destructive retaliation. Jesus warned us against the philosophy of retaliation, preaching the philosophy of returning good for evil. The Vatican has condemned our MAD protocol as a “negative peace.”

The fulfillments of Luke 12:49 and Luke 21:34-35 are just around the corner and will happen in the 21st century.


Can I put it this way?

Even if the shroud is a medieval forgery and as we now live in an age of the Catholic Church when the principle of non contradiction has been abandoned this all means that the shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus even though it is,nt.


That would surprise me too. I don’t know anyone else who even studies the research critically, let alone ‘wants’ to prove it a fake. I think probably Joe Nickell, who did lead a bit of a campaign, did want to demonstrate (scientists don’t do ‘proof’) that the Shroud was a fake, but he hasn’t got involved recently. There are a number of people who think the Shroud is medieval, but that’s not the same as wanting it to be.


Yes, they do, but not often, if ever, in the first century, and why would they be wearing a crown of thorns?


I don’t believe in the Medugorje apparitions, either, and I, too, have no desire to prove them fake. If they are genuine, I will learn the truth some day.

I tend to believe the Shroud is genuine, but I don’t have the scientific training like some of you to really debate the issue. I just do not see how it could be a product of the medieval art world. If it would have been, say, created by a camera obscura, as some contend, then where are all the other camera obscura creations? The Shroud is unique, and that uniqueness, to me, adds to the fact that I tend to believe in its authenticity.


I believe it’s genuine.


This is a common position, and one I have some sympathy with. I too find the various hypotheses involving photography inherently improbable, as I cannot believe that such an astonishing discovery would not have been used for other things. That is why I have been searching for an artistic context which does not seem unrealistic. It is not, I believe, that the Shroud is unique - after all, almost every artwork is unique - but that it seems to lack anything even remotely parallel. However, I think that that is largely due to looking in the wrong place, and lack of research. For many years, non-authenticists were too engaged in showing how the Shroud could not to be first century, at the expense of showing how it could be medieval. I have been attempting to redress that balance recently.

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