The shroud of turin?


Ok so ive heard alot about the shroud of turin,and i don’t really know what to think.

I mean,how would the face have imprinted itself into the cloth,surely the face woudn’t mark the cloth?

What would this mean for our faith it was proven,in a posivitve way i mean,this would cancel out all the accusations of of lord jesus christ never existing.

What are your opinions on this?


I look at it as less than private revelation … certainly not necessary for salvation. I am free to accept or reject a private revelation but the church say they are worthy of belief if that floats your boat. The church does not say even that much about the shroud. But it sure is neat sin’t it?


Have you come to believe because you have seen? Blessed are those who haven’t seen and still believe”!

Although I firmly believe in the Shroud of Turin, it is not the anchor of my faith. I think scientist will always be able to cast a shadow of doubt on the shroud. Someone should always have a little room for “blind faith” in their belief of Christ!


Now there’s an understatement. I find it fascinating!!!:cool:


I wonder what freud would say or is it frued?


The face that was imprinted in the Shroud was cause by the resurrected body of Jesus Christ. According to scientists who done the study, the imprint are similar to burn marks on a cloth.

The Shift of Time is a good DVD you can buy. I think that video is the best documentary that shows evidence tha the Shroud is authenitic.


What ever happened with the supposed date testing that said the Shroud was not old enough to be authentic? Was it disproven? I don’t know that much about it, any info would be appreciated.



oh goodie, we haven’t had a shroud thread for at least 48 hours, time for another one.
please do a search, all the evidence pro and con has been canvassed, with more links than you have time to explore, dozens of times on these forums. there is at least one or two current shroud threads ongoing even as we speak.


According to the video, the carbon dating took was invalided.

Another argument against the results of the radiocarbon tests was made in a study by Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan and Raymond Rogers, retired Fellow of the University of California Los Alamos National Laboratory. By ultraviolet photography and spectral analysis they determined that the area of the shroud chosen for the test samples differs chemically from the rest of the cloth. They cite the presence of Madder root dye and aluminium oxide mordant (a dye-fixing agent) specifically in that corner of the shroud and conclude that this part of the cloth was mended at some point in its history. Plainly, repairs would have utilized materials produced at or slightly before the time of repair, carrying a higher concentration of carbon than the original artefact.

A 2000 study by Joseph Marino and Sue Benford, based on x-ray analysis of the sample sites, shows a probable seam from a repair attempt running diagonally through the area from which the sample was taken. These researchers conclude that the samples tested by the three labs were more or less contaminated by this repair attempt. They further note that the results of the three labs show an angular skewing corresponding to the diagonal seam: the first sample in Arizona dated to 1238, the second to 1430, with the Oxford and Swiss results falling in between. They add that the variance of the C-14 results of the three labs falls outside the bounds of the Pearson’s chi-square test, so that some additional explanation should be sought for the discrepancy.

Microchemical tests also find traces of vanillin in the same area, unlike the rest of the cloth. Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a complex polymer and constituent of flax. This chemical is routinely found in medieval materials but not in older cloths, as it diminishes with time. The wrappings of the Dead Sea scrolls, for instance, do not test positive for vanillin.

Raymond Rogers’ January 20, 2005 paper[8] in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta provides apparently conclusive chemical evidence that the sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 was not valid. Also in the paper, his determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.

This aspect of the controversy can likely only be settled by more radiocarbon tests, which, as noted, the Holy See does not presently allow, citing sacrilegious damage to the relic. In his 2005 paper, Rogers suggests that elemental carbon in pieces of charred material removed during the restoration in 2002 could be used to date the shroud if cleansed using concentrated nitric acid.


Dr. Willi Wolfli, director of the Swiss laboratory that tested the shroud, stated, “The C-14 method is not immune to grossly inaccurate dating when non-apparent problems exist in samples from the field. The existence of significant indeterminate errors occurs frequently.”.


Hi Godsent,

There is an imprint of the whole body, front and back on the cloth. Nobody claims that this is miraculous. It results from a chemical reaction in the aromatic substances in which Jesus was buried and which produced a negative image, not reproduced as a positive until modern times.

Personally, I am convinced, not by any analysis of cloth, but by one detail, which is inexistent in art until modern times. The nail marks are in the wrists and not in the hands. Tests have been made with cadavers that prove the impossibility of crucifying someone by driving nails in the hands.

The Greek word for “hand” is “cheir”, which includes the wrist. Even in Latin, there is no specific word for “wrist”. All our bible speak of the hand, and this is correct because they are not there to defend the shroud. What is important is that the use of “hand” in the Bible, can include the wrist.

Another convincing factor is the fact that it would have been natural for any faker to give us a positive image. No one, until modern times, knew about “negatives” and “positives”. Yet the shroud is a negative.

I am not impressed by the results of recent modern tests. For example, they have found traces of paint and later medieval fibres… Well, the shroud has been through several fires. In some cases, lead melted unto the shroud. It was repaired several times with the fibres they had then. And possibly some retouching was done with paint.

Anyway, as said above, this does not affect our faith. It is a sort of curiosity, but a strong reminder of Jesus’ humanity and of his great sufferings for our sake.



if its fake would that stop you from believing in JESUS? Stop worrying about the shroud, focus on JESUS.


I wasn’t aware weren’t focused on Jesus. :confused:


what I mean is that so many people worry about if something they find now to question if the bible is true and if its questionable they start to doubt based on the findings.


How many posts here have said, “If it’s fake, I’m leaving”?

How many posts here have said, “If it’s fake, it’s not going to affect my faith”?


Hmmm. dont know,didn’t read all the post. Should I go back and read them?


so far so good, no one saying they would jump ship if its not true but I thought I saw one…no… not yet. sorry.
update you again soon.

how important is this shroud thingy?


Most believed in it… Here is the Poll


Hi Mannyfit75,
Believed in it, I believe its possible.


I don’t know. I usually read the posts before I judge the posters.

OK, sometimes I forget to!!! :wink:

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