WHAT?!? The Shroud of Turin is not the actual cloth then?!?


#1

Guys,

I got an e-mail from someone who quoted this exact quote:

“I don’t believe it is the cloth that covered Jesus. And here’s the main reason why.
*
Mark 15:44-46 Pilate marveled that He was already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him if He had been dead for some time. And when he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. Then he bought fine linen, took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen. And he laid Him in the tomb which had been hewn out of rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.
*
THAT sounds like it could have been only one large clothe covering the body of Jesus, but when we look further into scripture we find thatwas not the case. Jesus was buried in the typical Jewish fashion, with strips of clothe and a face napkin, and about 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes. All that before the stone was rolled in front ofthe tomb (and before the ‘spices were prepared’ by the women).
*
John 19:28-42 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took the body of Jesus. And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ Preparation Day, for the tomb was nearby.
*
And…
*
John 20:3-7 Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. So they both ran together and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen clothslying there; yet he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb, and he saw the linen clothslying there, and the handkerchief (face cloth) that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together ina place by itself.
*
Jesus was wrapped in
the same way Lazarus was wrapped, when Jesus called him from the tomb. John 11:43-44 Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth!” And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Loose him, and let him go.” Wrapping strips of cloth around the body was the Jewish custom for burial, and the wording of scripture firmly states that Jesus’ body was prepared in the customary way. It was not done with one large cloth, but was done with strips of cloth/linen, and a separate cloth to cover the face/head.
*
Another point. If you look at the picture of the shroud, the man has a full beard. Jesus did not have much of a beard left after the Roman soldiers plucked it out (Isaiah 56:6 I gave My back tothose who struckMe, and my cheeks to those whoplucked out the beard; I did not hideMy face from shame and spitting.)*
*
And if you check a little deeper into the history of the shroud, you’ll find that it did not turn up until around the 11th or 12th century. And there are documents from a Cardinal or Pope (I forget*just who he was)that tell of the “artist” that made the shroud. The documents don’t tell how it was made, but it does name theman who created it.”

Oh my! What’s the deal here and how do we keep up our hope and faith?
*

:frowning:


#2

The Church has not taken a stand on this. It has never infallibly commented on this.

We are free to believe or disbelieve.

If this is something that can shake your faith then there is something more wrong here.


#3

Oh my! What’s the deal here and how do we keep up our hope and faith?
*

:frowning:

Well, first off, our faith and hope are not based on the Shroud. Jesus died on the Cross and rose from the dead regardless of whether the Shroud is authentic. I don’t think the Church has definitively ruled on whether it is real or not–and they definitely have not done so infallibly. If it’s real, awesome! If not, no big deal.:slight_smile:


#4

I was under the impression that the Shroud was determined to be a fake a long time ago… never shook my faith at all.

I think someone did carbon dating on the shroud and determined it was not as old as would be required for Jesus to be buried in it (I think it was shown to be about 700 years old which would place it back in the 1300s AD, well after Christ’s death and resurrection)


#5

Nicole,

You wrote: “Oh my! What’s the deal here and how do we keep up our hope and faith?”

Nicole, your faith should not be based on items such as apparitions (even if the Church approves them), private revelations, or items such as the Shroud of Turin. You need a firm anchor, and should not be blown around so easily.

Having said all that, let me point out a few things: what your correspondent says is based on conjecture. Not surprisingly, the conjecture is slanted towards his/her personal bias. For starters, if soldiers plucked Jesus’s beard, why does it follow that they had to pick ALL of it? Good heavens, why would they bother spending that kind of time? And how does your correspondent know how wide a “strip” of linen is, and thus how it would be wrapped? Does wrapping a body in small strips preclude the use of a large, single strip for the body underneath? It seems to me that your correspondent is putting certainty where none exists.


#6

RichSpidizzy,

Actually, I think that the carbon dating was shown to have come from a medieval repair on the cloth.

There are some interesting aspects to the Shroud, and I incline to believe it’s real. That may be because I am an artist, and I see no reason to believe that there was the level of artistic ability in the Middle Ages to account for the image. Also, the image is not painted in any way—the image is, if anything, almost “scorched” onto the very top surface of the linen fibers and does not penetrate them. Also, the image has been tested and blood is there—type AB, the same as that of the heart muscle of the Eucharistic miracle in Lanciano.

But if it turned out to be a fake, big deal—my faith isn’t dependent on it.


#7

[quote=Sherlock]Nicole,

You wrote: “Oh my! What’s the deal here and how do we keep up our hope and faith?”

Nicole, your faith should not be based on items such as apparitions (even if the Church approves them), private revelations, or items such as the Shroud of Turin. You need a firm anchor, and should not be blown around so easily.

Having said all that, let me point out a few things: what your correspondent says is based on conjecture. Not surprisingly, the conjecture is slanted towards his/her personal bias. For starters, if soldiers plucked Jesus’s beard, why does it follow that they had to pick ALL of it? Good heavens, why would they bother spending that kind of time? And how does your correspondent know how wide a “strip” of linen is, and thus how it would be wrapped? Does wrapping a body in small strips preclude the use of a large, single strip for the body underneath? It seems to me that your correspondent is putting certainty where none exists.
[/quote]

You’re right, you’re right…I shouldn’t have said anything about faith…why I had faith even before I read about the Shroud! So what’s my problem? :tsktsk: You see, my mind was thinking about how someone once said something like, “oh, the Shroud of Turin keeps up my faith and strengthens it…” so that’s probably why I wrote that. I’m sorry. Yes, we should walk by faith, not by sight! :thumbsup:

True, what you pointed up there in your quote helps me to understand better. See, I don’t know much about the Shroud (and I should!) so I am too quick at reacting to certain things! :eek: I need to work on that bad! :stuck_out_tongue:

But yes, my faith will continue to stregthen, whether or not the Shroud is fake or authentic!

Sorry about that!


#8

[quote=RichSpidizzy]I was under the impression that the Shroud was determined to be a fake a long time ago… never shook my faith at all.

I think someone did carbon dating on the shroud and determined it was not as old as would be required for Jesus to be buried in it (I think it was shown to be about 700 years old which would place it back in the 1300s AD, well after Christ’s death and resurrection)
[/quote]

Just recently it was confirmed that the carbon 14 dating was flawed, [size=2]o[/size]
[size=2]amightywind.com/whatsnew/050120shroud.htm[/size]


#9

[quote=RichSpidizzy]I was under the impression that the Shroud was determined to be a fake a long time ago… never shook my faith at all.

I think someone did carbon dating on the shroud and determined it was not as old as would be required for Jesus to be buried in it (I think it was shown to be about 700 years old which would place it back in the 1300s AD, well after Christ’s death and resurrection)
[/quote]

They did do so but that test was later brought into question.

They did do carbon dating but they were limited on where they could get samples because carbon dating is destructive. I believe that they took samples from the patches and from areas that were damaged already.

Another test was done, that also says it was not old enough, but that test is in question again becuase it is destructive so they were limited where they could get samples from and those samples were not uniform. That is they did not match the over all make up of the shroud.

Other tests have since been done, in the past 10 years (or even sooner) and they have shown that the shroud could actually be old enough to be the burial cloth of Jesus.


#10

[quote=Sherlock]RichSpidizzy,

Actually, I think that the carbon dating was shown to have come from a medieval repair on the cloth.

There are some interesting aspects to the Shroud, and I incline to believe it’s real. That may be because I am an artist, and I see no reason to believe that there was the level of artistic ability in the Middle Ages to account for the image. Also, the image is not painted in any way—the image is, if anything, almost “scorched” onto the very top surface of the linen fibers and does not penetrate them. Also, the image has been tested and blood is there—type AB, the same as that of the heart muscle of the Eucharistic miracle in Lanciano.

But if it turned out to be a fake, big deal—my faith isn’t dependent on it.
[/quote]

After a quick Google search, it looks like you have more recent facts than I do:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=453201&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
nature.com/news/2005/050124/full/050124-17.html

I’m with you though, if it is a fake, still no big deal.


#11

[quote=RichSpidizzy]I was under the impression that the Shroud was determined to be a fake a long time ago… never shook my faith at all.

I think someone did carbon dating on the shroud and determined it was not as old as would be required for Jesus to be buried in it (I think it was shown to be about 700 years old which would place it back in the 1300s AD, well after Christ’s death and resurrection)
[/quote]

Actually, it was found that the piece that they tested from the Shroud was a piece that had been a repair.

“As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud. Pyrolysis-mass spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the Shroud.”

Please go to shroud.com/latebrak.htm for more information.

God Bless,
Donna


#12

The Shroud of Turin has never been accepted as authentic by the Catholic Church.

There was a History Channel program that called it “The Holiest Relic of the Catholic Church” and said “they take it out and worship it once a year.” Both of those statements are of course false – the Church hasn’t accepted it and even if it had, we wouldn’t “worship” it.

The Church has said the Shroud is an object “suitable for comtemplation.” You can believe in it or not. You can think about what it means. But that’s your choice.

If tests DID prove it was authentic, we still wouldn’t have provinence – a genuine First Century shroud of a crucified man wouldn’t necessarily be the shroud of Christ.


#13

The carbon dating done back in the '80’s was later shown to be unreliable for several reasons. First, the shroud had been exposed to high heat when it was “rescued” from a fire. That has since been shown to affect the dating. Also, the pieces taken for the testing came from areas where the shroud had been handle over the years when exposed to the public. Oils on the hands did damage.

There was a special on the PBS station here in town. Alot of this was covered. There was a face cloth that the proven history back to the time of Jesus. This was made of the same material as the shroud. Also, there is the issue of how the imprint was made on the cloth. One man tried to say that it was made from being left in the sun for days with the body inside. But, if this IS the burial shroud of Christ, that wouldn’t be practical.

I’ve gone back and forth on this issue. To me, if it ISN’T the burial shroud of Christ, then what IS it?


#14

I used to be the world’s biggest fan of the Shroud. I had multiple volumes on it in my library.

At this juncture, I beliweve it is fake.

(1) A few years ago, two researchers were able to imitate a shroud-like image by mixing human urine and egg whites – not exactly hard-to-find chemicals – and sray the mix onto linen, in the dark, and suspend it in front of a simple giant homemade box camera and generate a shroud-like image.

(2) The faked image looks like the shroud image at the microscopic level – burn marks into the fiibers on the surface of the Shroud.

(3) The fake image had a circle burned into itself directly opposite the box camera’s eye; the shroud has a circle burned into the bridge of the nose of the “Jesus” figure.

(4) The fake image elongates as the image is distant from the circle opposite the eye, which would have made feet in such an image enormously long, because of the great distance, implying that if the circle on the shroud’s nose is the burn on a fake egg/urine image opposite a box camera eye, either (a) the feet on the shroud will be ridiculously long, or (b) the body would be photographed separately from the head, making the feet only slightly too long. Lo and behold, no neck shows on the shroud, and there is a burn circle on the solar plexus, both of which indicate a separate body exposure in a box camera; and, the feet in the shroud are slightly elongated.

(5) A giant box camera, a camera obscura, dating from the Renaissance, can be found in Italy.

Why would somebody have faked the shroud?

To steal the real one from the House of Savoy.

Sorry, but much as I love the shroud, there is too much evidence that it is fake.


#15

BibleReader,

I’m afraid your theory (or rather, the theory of the researchers) doesn’t account for the presence of pollen from the Middle East or the presence of blood. Also, it seems quite an extravagant and complicated bit of deception: it seems unlikely that someone would go through all of the steps you mention (which would have taken quite a bit of experimentation to figure out), without it being known or mentioned in history, possibly in connection with other fakes (I would think that the producer could have done a brisk business in the saints line—“git yer gen-yoo-wine burial cloth of St. Augustine right here!! And, for a few florins more, I’ll throw in a piece of the burial cloth of St. Peter as well. Step right on up…”). I would think that there would be a lot of these fakes around.


#16

It’s worth pointing out that the Church’s initial reaction to the Shroud when it was first “discovered” was that it was a fake. Later the Church simply said “maybe it’s not a fake, maybe it is”, and that it’s worthy of contemplation. It’s not a holy artifact on the same level as, say, one of the Incorruptibles.


#17

The Shroud Website

In the Bible (John 19:38-42), it says that Jesus was wrapped in linen cloths (plural). There was also another cloth that was wrapped around his head. The Shroud is only one piece of cloth. I was wondering if there was any explanation.****[font=TIMES]Q: ****


#18

Thought I might post some intriguing rebuttles to your questions, Paris Blues:

[quote=Paris Blues]Mark 15:44-46 Pilate marveled that He was already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him if He had been dead for some time. And when he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. Then he bought fine linen, took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen. And he laid Him in the tomb which had been hewn out of rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.
*
THAT sounds like it could have been only one large clothe covering the body of Jesus, but when we look further into scripture we find thatwas not the case. Jesus was buried in the typical Jewish fashion, with strips of clothe and a face napkin, and about 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes. All that before the stone was rolled in front ofthe tomb (and before the ‘spices were prepared’ by the women).
*
John 19:28-42 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took the body of Jesus. And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ Preparation Day, for the tomb was nearby.
*
And…
*
John 20:3-7 Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. So they both ran together and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen clothslying there; yet he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb, and he saw the linen clothslying there, and the handkerchief (face cloth) that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in*a place by itself.
[/quote]

“The alleged inconsistency between the Shroud and John’s descriptions arose because some translators (e.g., New English Bible, New International Version) incorrectly translated the word othonia, found in John 19:40 and 20:5-7, to mean ‘narrow bands’ or strips of linen.’ In fact, othonia can refer to cloths of all sizes and shapes…The ancient Greek writer Dioskorides not only used othonia to mean a sheet but also coupled it with the verb *eneilein *(envelop in a sheet, eneilesas othonio), which is the verb that Mark chose to describe the burial of Jesus in a shroud (eneilesente sindoni).”
-Mark Antonacci, The Resurrection of the Shroud

Also, the head cloth can be explained. You see, a Jewish law is that any blood from the body to be buried that hits the ground is to be swept up by the burier. So, when Jesus died, what happened? His head fell forward. Thus, the blood from the wounds inflicted by the crown of thorns would fall. So, a cloth, identified as a Sudarium, was placed over the head so that Joseph of Arimathea wouldn’t have to sweep any blood into the tomb, which I’m sure was quite a distance from the crucifixion site. The Sudarium of Oviedo has identical blood marks on it as those from the Shroud. But, since there is no facial print, we know that the Sudarium was not on His face when he Resurrected, but since all blood must be present in the tomb, the Sudarium was placed in there as well.

[quote=Paris Blues]Another point. If you look at the picture of the shroud, the man has a full beard. Jesus did not have much of a beard left after the Roman soldiers plucked it out (Isaiah 56:6 I gave My back tothose who struckMe, and my cheeks to those whoplucked out the beard; I did not hideMy face from shame and spitting.)*
[/quote]

One thing that must be understood is that, because he was an experienced writer, Isaiah must not be taken entirely literally. He probably used hyperboles and such just like modern writers. Really, do you think EVERY bone in Jesus’ body could be seen at the time of His crucifixon? Though Isaiah does say that “I can number all my bones.” Thus so, we cannot believe that the soldiers actually plucked out His entire beard. Hope that helps! :slight_smile:


#19

In response to the carbon dating test conflict, we can again turn to Mr. Antonacci’s book. In The Resurrection of the Shroud, Chapter Eight: Scientific Challenges to the Carbon Dating of the Shroud, we are introduced to the theory of the reason for the Shroud’s image. According to recent studies, the image contained traces of radiation, a radiation which may have been the result of the Resurrection. The radiation threw out neutrons, and the cloth was bombarded with them. As the book states, “…if the body of the man in the Shroud gave off radiation during the image-encoding process it could have radiated neutrons, ‘which would have irradiated the Shroud and changed some of the nuclei to different isotopes by neutron capture. In particular, some C-14 could have been generated from C-13.’” In short, the newly created C-14 would make the Shroud appear younger than it actually is in the carbon dating.


#20

[quote=BibleReader]I used to be the world’s biggest fan of the Shroud. I had multiple volumes on it in my library.

At this juncture, I beliweve it is fake.

(1) A few years ago, two researchers were able to imitate a shroud-like image by mixing human urine and egg whites – not exactly hard-to-find chemicals – and sray the mix onto linen, in the dark, and suspend it in front of a simple giant homemade box camera and generate a shroud-like image.

(2) The faked image looks like the shroud image at the microscopic level – burn marks into the fiibers on the surface of the Shroud.

(3) The fake image had a circle burned into itself directly opposite the box camera’s eye; the shroud has a circle burned into the bridge of the nose of the “Jesus” figure.

(4) The fake image elongates as the image is distant from the circle opposite the eye, which would have made feet in such an image enormously long, because of the great distance, implying that if the circle on the shroud’s nose is the burn on a fake egg/urine image opposite a box camera eye, either (a) the feet on the shroud will be ridiculously long, or (b) the body would be photographed separately from the head, making the feet only slightly too long. Lo and behold, no neck shows on the shroud, and there is a burn circle on the solar plexus, both of which indicate a separate body exposure in a box camera; and, the feet in the shroud are slightly elongated.

(5) A giant box camera, a camera obscura, dating from the Renaissance, can be found in Italy.

Why would somebody have faked the shroud?

To steal the real one from the House of Savoy.

Sorry, but much as I love the shroud, there is too much evidence that it is fake.
[/quote]

Hello, Biblereader…don’t give up your previous hobby so easily!
Doesn’t it at least spark your interest to see Rogers’ detailed study finally published?(debunking the Nature Magazine C14 test)

Someone else answered you well, but are some other considerations not mentioned:

  1. As near as I can find, the camera obscuras of early history were not yet used to capture images, only to display them.
    Urine and egg whites may work to capture an image. But what your guys need to show is that the technique was used somehwere back then. Otherwise, it’s just hanging there as a “possible”, but extremely unlikely, explanation. Your current pet theory is asking everyone to believe that real photography was invented at that time, but failed tos “catch on”! That’s pretty hard to swallow, isn’t it?

  2. But, of course as you know, the Shroud exhibits **many **unique qualities which cannot be explained by your theory.

a. The skeletal images, where they occur, are anatomically perfect. You know that, as you used to study it. I think the “ancient photography” theory will have trouble explaining that one.
(In fact, the only guy running right now that has a chance of explaining this is Dr. August Acetta, in my humble opinion)

b. There is no image underneath the blood stains, as you are well aware. This means the blood was on the cloth before the image was laid down. For a faker, it would have been much easier to place the blood on the image after the image was captured. He would have had to really been thinking ahead to place blood before making the image.

c. The nail wounds are found in the wrists, rather than the palms. A faker would not have thought of this… up to that time, I believe all Christian artwork displayed nails in the palms. Unless someone had recovered lost knowledge from centuries old Roman crucifixion techniques, why would he think to use the wrists (and be the first one in the world to display them that way?)
If you are going to fake something, you need to keep it believable to the people you plan on fooling. You use what they expect (nails in the palms), not something brand new (nails in the wrists)! Granted, this is not proof for authenticity, as much as it is common sense proof against a forgery.

We could go on and on and on (I am a shroudie from days past too, but the “photography” theory never pulled me away!) Got to run…
Wow, is this interesting or what?
GOD BLESS US ALL!


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.