The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?


#664

All the “technology” required is a simple box camera that initially reveals a negative photo. The “big reveal” happened in 1898 and no subsequent test has refuted it. The 1978 STURP examination was the most intensive investigation of a religious relic ever undertaken. If the Image on the Shroud had been the work of a human artist, STURP would have found that out.
The 1988 C-14 results are properly interpreted as the signature of an event. The 250 year variance in the raw data proves that the results do not indicate a date at all. C-14 testing is very accurate, and a 250 year variance is way too large for a sample supposedly only about 700 years old. As detailed by the Antonacci/Rucker team, the C-14 Labs combined, eliminated, and “statistically analyzed” the data in order to achieve something that the Museum could present to the public as a legitimate dating result. That presentation was really the crime of the century, and it was uncovered by the dogged persistence of a former prosecuting attorney.

For reasons previously stated an apologist for the Bahai’ Faith is desperate to hide the fact that the scientific data on the Shroud proves the miracle of the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse into another dimension.
Bahai’ theology for gaining converts is built around the postulation that this event did not really happen.
Bahai’ Faith has as one of its tenets the respect of science, and if it is proved that Jesus resurrection happened as described in the Gospels, then Bahai theology falls apart.

That is why we are so condescendingly told that we can believe that the Shroud is miraculous as long as we don’t say that this miracle is scientifically proven. What a crock!

(And we are told that we are “irrational” if we attempt to expose this insidious agenda or that our posts are “incoherent jibberish.”)


#665

I think you are confusing nooooby with undead_rat. Nooooby has been quite a fair umpire recently, between Undead_rat and myself. It is Undead_rat who appears increasingly irrational (see his latest post), and unwilling to answer difficult points such as those I have now put three times regarding the Image of Edessa.


#666

If the Catholic Church was the ‘commissioning body’ for the radiocarbon dating, then no doubt it received a full report from the British Museum, which has never been published. That may be significant. In addition, various reports may have been received from the restorers, including Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. So, yes, there may well be some unpublished information, which may or may not be more conclusive as to the authenticity or not of the Shroud.


#667

I thank you Lord for preserving this poor sinner from that most deadly of sins.


#668

If this was the case, which is the reason why I asked the question, it would raise some disturbing questions over the Vatican itself. Namely (either way) that of concealing the truth, which would be a scandal if it was the case. I hope therefore that it is not the case!


#669

I actually agree with you on this point, but…

Essentially you are saying that the C14 results have been interpreted/presented in completely the opposite way from what they should be. Although I would like to believe this, and even if it turns out to be true, the fact remains that the 1988 C14 test was allowed (by God if you will) to be announced to the world as proof the Shroud is a fake. This is the point I was making, that is the de-facto position for most people in the world (and most scientists) rightly or wrongly. I think this is significant.

I respectfully disagree with your point here. Mr Farey (whom I assume you mean) has stated he is a Catholic. This needs to be respected as I have no reason to disbelieve him. If at some future point evidence is provided that he is not a Catholic, his credibility (as he has already accepted) would be utterly destroyed. I doubt he would put himself in that position.


#670

We have had 666 posts on this thread, and the hidden Bahai’ agenda has made itself obvious. The Bahai’ Faith is a legitimate religion and has some very important mandates for our world, not the least of which is the necessity for a bonafide world government. Unfortunately that Faith was corrupted by some spurious ideas made by its secondary founder, Abdul’baha. I see no reason to respect anyone who comes to CAF with any hidden agenda, and I do not believe the denials.

I have already addressed issue of why our Creator has presented proof of His existence in a hidden way. Adding to the hidden (but correct) interpretation of the C-14 data, would be the Shroud’s apparent lack of a history prior to 1357 and the C-14 dating of the Sudarium to about 700 AD. We should properly take these facts as a warning from our Creator that He is willing to trap us, and, even more, that this trap is about ready to be sprung.
Luke 21:34-35
that day will be sprung on you suddenly, like a trap. For it will come down on every living man on the face of the earth.


#671

Sir, if you have evidence that Mr Farey or anybody else is lying about their faith, background or motives, then please present it. If you have not, I would ask you, with the utmost respect, to consider the eighth commandment.


#672

You are correct. I was too quick to post. Apologies to Nooooby. My comments were indeed meant for undead_rat.


#673

i stand by my comments in this regard


#674

Fine. Now what about this? If you are not willing to respond to the query, are you willing to explain why not, or shall we draw our own conclusions? In an earlier post, you claimed that “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.


#675

I don’t feel any need to respond to drivel. I give the participants on this thread credit for their ability to draw their own conclusions w/o being held by the hand by the Bahai’ apologist.


#676

Dear Colleagues reading this thread,

Undead_rat has said that eleventh century paintings of the Mandylion are the “spitting image” of the face on the Shroud. I said that I didn’t think they were, and gave the following reasons why:

  1. The Shroud is famously a pseudo-negative image. Its nose and forehead are dark and its eye-sockets are light. Pictures of the Mandylion do not show this.

  2. The Shroud image is entirely monochrome. Pictures of the Mandylion are not.

  3. The Shroud has prominent trickles of ‘blood’ on the forehead and down the sides of the hair. Pictures of the Mandylion do not show any blood at all.

  4. The Shroud has no ears. The eleventh century painting referenced by Undead_rat has distinct ears.

  5. The Shroud has a bushy, rather than a narrow, moustache. Pictures of the Mandylion invariably show the opposite.

  6. The Shroud does not have ringlets of hair flowing outwards from the cheeks on both sides. The eleventh century painting referenced by Undead_rat does.

  7. The overall shape of the Shroud face is rectangular, not oval. The faces in Mandylion pictures are invariably oval, not rectangular.

Colleagues, Undead_rat thinks that these comparisons are “drivel”. I don’t think they are. Undead_rat suggests that other participants on this thread will obviously agree with him, without having to be “held by the hand” by him. I have the temerity to think that my comparisons clearly demonstrate that the Shroud image and the Mandylion are not “spitting images” of each other.

One of us is not only wrong, but extraordinarily unobservant, or obstinately insisting on something which is clearly untrue. Would anyone care to say who?


#677

LOL That’s a good one. . . . .


#678

Any thread that goes on for long enough will pass “666” posts, so this means nothing. No one here is antichrist, or a satanist, or is that the next thing you’ll start to imply about us?

The obvious thing is that you’re off your rocker.

Have you considered that its because your posts are sounding increasingly paranoid, and you basically have no evidence to justify your belief? We’re not out to get you undead_rat. We’re not here for some ‘insiduous agenda’. I am just a person who isn’t convinced by the arguments by the authenticists and I’ve added my two-cents.

Why is that evidence of a nefarious agenda?

I am not against claims of the miraculous, even though I might admittedly be more skeptical of them than many Catholics are.

Neither you nor I will be judged better or worse for what opinions we held. What matters will be the contents of our character.


#679

Actually I don’t understand… why is this such a strong piece of evidence? Its true that details are more apparent in a photonegative, than otherwise, but the details are still there in the original image. They’re just more apparent to human eye in a photonegative.

Why does this “prove” authenticity?


#680

Sir, I am disappointed with this response. Given that I am on record as on the authenticist side, I do feel that this type of response makes it look as if you are in a fifth column yourself.

Can I suggest we all stick to discussing the Shroud and its associated topics rather than engaging in any ad-hominin attacks.


#681

Every one already knows that. With a user name like “undead_rat” how could it be otherwise?


#682

THE IMAGE OF EDESSA, Guscin ,2009, pg 215:

“Once again, it should be stressed that there are no artistic representations of the Image of Edessa as a full-body image or with bloodstains, and the majority of the texts make no reference to either characteristic; but at the same time it is undeniable that at some point in the history of the Image of Edessa, some writers were convinced, for whatever reason, that it was indeed a full-body image on a large cloth that had been folded over (possibly in such a way that only the face was visible) and that it did contain bloodstains.”


#683

Perhaps they were, although I don’t think the evidence makes it undeniable. However, this does not address your contention that paintings of the Mandylion are “spitting images” of the face on the Shroud, does it?


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.