The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?


#644

I think you and I are using different dictionaries. Would you care to say what you think ‘dumbfounded’ means?


#645

This just made me remember the prayer on the back of a picture of the crucifixion…also, it’s psalm 22… "they have pierced my hands and my feet, they have NUMBERED all my bones… " OMGosh!!!


#646

A recent article by Rod Dreher, which of course will not settle anything either way.


#647

I believe this refers to a video by Giuseppe Maria Catalano, of the entirely spurious International Institute for Advanced Studies of Space Representation Sciences, who has spotted straps for lowering the body from the cross (trimmed from the Shroud and subsequently resewn as the ‘side strip’), a pharaonic shenti skirt and snakeskin belt (with buckle), an elaborate head-dress of the leaves, flowers, fruit and thorns of Sarcopoterium spinosum, a large clasp like a safety-pin, several small chains (some bearing pendants), nails, and more phylacteries. Catalano thinks that he can see all these images reproduced several times, a bit like a multiple exposure of a moving object, showing that either the Shroud, or its occupant, did indeed move during the formation of the images. He also thinks that Christ was lain, in his Shroud configuration, face downwards on the sheet. I don’t believe any of his findings, and neither do any authenticists to my knowledge, This is fringe Sindonology at its weirdest.


#648

CONDESCENSION

Has anyone else noticed an overwhelming level of condescension on this thread? First were are told that our opinions are not valid because (oh my!) we don’t take the trouble to access “primary data.”
Then we hear that we don’t understand how radiocarbon fourteen dating works because we don’t know about "statistical analysis (never mind that the Shroud’s C-14 data doesn’t indicate a date at all.)
Then we find that we don’t know our Scripture because Jesus’ walking on water was an illusion that He was able to perform because His disciples were fishing close to the shore.

If one notices a contradiction and points it out, one becomes a “blatant liar.”
And if one makes a postulation as to the source the obvious agenda being promoted on this thread, one is just spouting “incoherent gibberish.”

Now we see that medical specialists who notice X-ray features on the Shroud are guilty of having “bizarre” ideas and don’t understand how x-ray technology works at all.
And,if different scientists have different opinions about how Jesus’ corpse lay or was wrapped, that’s evidence that they all must be wrong.

It’s just too much; it really is.


#649

I can remember thinking how neat it would be if someone found Noah’s Ark - we would have proof that it existed. On the other hand, God could have left physical proof of everything mentioned in Scripture, but would that diminish our acceptance by faith? Does He want us to have physical proof (in the scientific sense)??? Just a thought.


#650

The Jewish leaders asked Jesus for a “sign,” meaning for Him to work a miracle for them to witness. They were not satisfied with second hand accounts. Jesus took this opportunity to make a promise of a sign (or miracle) that would be available for an entire “generation” to witness. That, of course was the “Sign of Jonah” which, as He explained, would be a testament to His death, burial, and resurrection. That miraculous record is the holy Shroud of Turin whose blood and Image prove that Jesus lived, was crucified, died, was buried, and that His corpse vanished into another dimension.

Thus the Shroud is the Sign of Jonah and is the seal of the Gospels, proving the authenticity of those writings in this age of skepticism and “rationality.” The reason that the Church never incorporated this theology into its teachings is that the understanding of the Sign of Jonah as the Shroud of Turin is quite new. The Shroud was originally known as the Image of Edessa, and it was not presented to the public as a bloody burial cloth. The sacred cloth was folded several times, and only its facial image was visible. Various legends arose to explain the Image’s creation, none of which involved Jesus execution and burial. Therefore the Church fathers had no basis for understanding the theology of the Image of Edessa as the Sign of Jonah.

In 2018 we now know that the Image of Edessa was really Jesus’ burial cloth containing the miraculous Image of His whole crucified body. That fact enables us to make the connection between it and our Lord’s ancient prediction of the Sign of Jonah. It has been preserved for this present age of unbelief.


#651

It must seem like that, for which I’m sorry. The best thing for true authenticists to do is to have faith in their belief, without pretending that there is any Science to support it. If the Shroud is a miracle, as many believe, then any apparent contradiction is irrelevant. God can do what he likes with his creation. As you have read, those who have expressed a simple belief have my sincerest good wishes. For all I know they may be correct.

Once you plunge into Science, however, then you must not be upset if you find yourself out of your depth. You may report what secondary sources conclude, but you are not in a position to defend those sources against attack unless you understand the observations upon which those conclusions are based. Nor is it wise to attempt a battle of “my scientist is better than your scientist” simply on authority alone. After all, the radiocarbon dating results were authored by a group of people some of whom are not only still alive and working, but are giants in their field.

Now, to specifics.

The assumptions behind the statistics in the Nature paper were clearly set out, and justified the conclusions published. I have explained them in considerable detail, and I thought you understood them, but I will be happy to explain them again if you would like.

It is perfectly true that I confused two biblical events on the sea of Galilee, and thought that the walking-on-water occurred during a fishing trip, when in fact it was a simple crossing. I acknowledged this mistake and apologised for it in post #247. I said: “They weren’t fishing! I’m so sorry I confused the walking on water incident with the 153 fish incident.” If you missed it I am happy to apologise again. I was wrong and I’m sorry.

The question of the possibility of neutron radiation, together with other radiation, was examined in depth by one of STuRP’s most qualified and experienced scientists, Ray Rogers, and rejected in a profusely illustrated paper using photomicrographs of Shroud fibres. Nevertheless, as I say above, if the Shroud is a miracle, then God could rearrange the evidence in whichever way he wanted. A radiocarbon test of the kind suggested by Mark Antonacci would support this miracle. At no point have I suggested that anything has been “proved” about the Shroud (quite the reverse, as I frequently point out that Science is not in the business of “proof”), and at no point have I said that I think Antonacci’s hypothesis is at all probable.


#652

Have you read what I wrote? Which bit do you disagree with? If there is a bit, say what it is; if there isn’t, stop whinging.

Now I know how tetchy you get about being called a blatant liar, but is that what I actually wrote?


#653

In an earlier post, Undead_rat said that he thought “Eleventh century Icons of the Mandylion are spitting images of the Shroud’s face.” I challenged this, with seven precise reasons why I did not agree. It would be good to read a response to this, which has not as yet been forthcoming.


#654

Yes, it does seem to be what Mr. farey said. I’m not “testy” about that comment, I rather enjoyed it.


#655

The idea that the prestigious British Museum was not capable of ever making a mistake is not correct. As is detailed by Mark Antonacci in collaboration with nuclear physicist Robert Rucker, a better way of interpreting the raw C-14 data is available. The Museum failed to consider that possibility because it allowed the analysis of the C-14 data to be controlled by an atheist who was all too happy to declare the Shroud a “load of rubbish.”


#656

If the British Museum had not allowed the STURP scientists to be shut out of the C-14 dating process, the interpretation of that data might have been different.


#657

This statement is blatantly arrogant. Our Creator has given us scientific evidence that Jesus’ corpse vanished from this world into another dimension. This evidence does not deserve to be dismissed on the postulation that supporters are “pretending” that it is there.

it seems that someone around here is truly desperate to cover up this evidence and pretend that the Museum’s way of interpreting the raw C-14 data is the only legitimate analysis. That’s just not true.


#658

At this point it seems proper to again mention the possible motivation for the ongoing attack on the legitimacy of the Shroud of Turin. Although it is denied, i still do not believe that denial.


#659

Oh, dear. Well, here we go.

  1. “The idea that the prestigious British Museum was not capable of ever making a mistake is not correct.”
    Fair enough. No one has ever said it was.
    “As is detailed by Mark Antonacci in collaboration with nuclear physicist Robert Rucker, a better way of interpreting the raw C-14 data is available.”
    A different way, not a better one. Explaining disagreeable science by proposing a miracle is always an option, but rarely, in my opinion, a better one. Bob Rucker’s adherence to the authenticity of the Shroud is no greater than that of the late Ray Rogers, who denied the possibility of radiation of any kind forming the image. One of them must be wrong.
    “The Museum failed to consider that possibility because it allowed the analysis of the C-14 data to be controlled by an atheist”
    Completely wrong. The possibility of a miracle was indeed considered, albeit briefly, but as miracles are not susceptible to scientific inquiry, it could not be part of a scientific study.

  2. “If the British Museum had not allowed the STURP scientists to be shut out of the C-14 dating process, the interpretation of that data might have been different.”
    The British Museum was not in a position to do any such thing. The protocol eventually followed by the radiocarbon team was in accordance with the will of the ecclesiastical authorities. However, even if STuRP had been involved, the result would, of course, have been the same.

  3. “Our Creator has given us scientific evidence that Jesus’ corpse vanished from this world into another dimension.”
    So you say. I disagree.
    “This evidence does not deserve to be dismissed on the postulation that supporters are “pretending” that it is there.”
    The evidence to which you refer is that the centre of the Shroud would date to several thousand years into the future, yet you do not feel it necessary to test it. Such is your faith in miraculous authenticity that you do not need scientific evidence. That’s fine, however, I do not think such evidence exists, and think that you are indeed pretending it is there.
    “It seems that someone around here is truly desperate to cover up this evidence”
    Well, no, obviously. I’d like the centre of the Shroud dated in order to uncover this evidence. It is you who does not want any further testing carried out.
    " … pretend that the Museum’s way of interpreting the raw C-14 data is the only legitimate analysis. That’s just not true."
    I do not pretend any such thing. The ‘Nature’ report itself notices anomalies in the raw data, and explains why it analysed the data as it did. I have already explained this in an earlier post.


#660

Dear me, I 100% agree with you Mr Farey, if the Shroud was proved to be a fake (again) there would be no change in the status quo. The world will shrug its shoulders and carry on as before, a small contingent of Catholics would be bitterly disappointed (my self included) but manage to get over this as we all did in 1988.

Without wishing to reopen old battles, it is this point exactly that made me express my point that your motivation for proving the Shroud was a fake was evangelisation for Catholicism seems to me illogical.

I respectfully disagree, I think that scientific proof it is authentic would elicit the response I postulated, a global media sensation. Not that it would not be criticised, but I very much doubt it would be ignored.

Dear me, I 100% agree with you undead_rat, but not for the reasons you state. Plain old politics can be the boring reason; the current situation is ambiguous and this surely must suit the Vatican. Authenticists can dream on, and 99% of the world thinks it is a fake and therefore nobody pays any attention to it. A very small number of active sceptics, Mr Farey being one, are only kept busy due to the genuine doubt over the C14 dating and it being a fake. Otherwise why do they bother at all?

I put a hypothesis to you and as always appreciate your response:

As a Catholic I am bound to consider the Almighty in this matter. Given our age of unbelief and accompanying technology, is it no accident that the C14 dating was “allowed” to “prove” in 1988 that it was a fake. Essentially this has given the Shroud a major protection against damage/destruction by hostile actors, precisely because 99% of the world believes it is a fake. God can arrange the big reveal at a point of his choosing when technology has reached a level that can prove it is authentic. The Sign of the Son of Man.


#661

I don’t think anyone really knows what “the world” thinks of the Shroud. My own view is that most of the population of the world have never heard of it, and of those who have, most of them do not have an opinion. As for those who do have an opinion, I really cannot guess the proportions of “authenticists” and “non-authenticists”. It may be 1:99 as you suggest, or 99:1, or anything in between. What I do think is that 99% of the holders of both views do not really know enough about it to be able to support their opinion in a debate.

I am not so pessimistic as to think that no further testing will ever be carried out on the Shroud. As a unique, culturally very important artefact, I think a proper study of it is inevitable, and within the next half-dozen years or so, I expect.


#662

Using reason we can make a good guesstimate; Muslims, Chinese, Indians, secular west, Japanese, all will not have heard of it or if they have would dismiss it as a fake. That leaves Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians who will have heard of it, most of them will not pay that much notice to it and mostly accept the C14 dating.

which is pretty much what I said!

This is an interesting point you make. I will return to this next week.

We will see! As we have already discussed, I think the only way to prove beyond reasonable doubt it is authentic or a fake is to undertake a massive new analysis of the Shroud itself. I am more doubtful of any imminent study for the political reasons I have just stated.

I do have a follow-up question for you though - do you think that the Vatican/Church has already or would in the future, conduct its own secret tests?


#663

I am a devout Catholic but I believe the Shroud is NOT authentic and nor do I have to believe that. The fanatical supporters of the authenticity of the Shroud try to make Catholics like me who think its a fake as lesser Catholics. This of course would be contradictory to what the Church teaches on relics, apparitions etc.
None of these, and that includes the Shroud, is necessary for our faith and salvation.
My personal opinion is that these fanatics must be insecure in their faith and are looking for something to clutch onto to boost it. That’s okay with me but do not try to push down my throat that the Shroud has been proven to be the authentic burial cloth of Christ. IT HAS NOT!

By the way, in my opinion, the analysis and comments by Hugh Farey are simply pounding the so-called analysis by Nooooby!


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.