The Shroud of Turin: Is it Authentic?

[Steve53]

I understand that some people have increased their seeking by studying this shroud. I understand that some people believe in Jesus because of this Shroud. However, by this continued fascination with something not of Christ, something not wholesome, they are opening doors to demons. They are allowing themselves to be influenced by things other than God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

The open door can very quickly become a head-long slide into the occult.

I see your point within the context of the above.
My earlier point way back in the thread - was that people have come to Christ and now worship Christ as a result. They are not caught up in idol worship.
The ones who would worship the cloth and or image have been deceived and they are the ones we need to reach with the truth.

[Biblenuggetlady]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3624753.stm






The discovery of a second face on the Turin Shroud has again divided opinion. Does this mean it is real after all? Or does it mean it's an even better hoax than was previously thought? Some people, and not just the faithful, never stopped believing in the first place.
Easter could not have been better timed this year for publicity purposes.

First, it coincided conveniently with The Passion of the Christ which attracted audiences several million times bigger than the original crucifixion. And now the Turin shroud - the supposed burial cloth of Jesus, ever-wrapped in controversy - has been showing its contentious face again.


For many, these latest developments only confirm what they have believed all along. There is a vast international Turin shroud culture and industry. It has its own ology - sindonology, the study of the shroud. Shroud.com lists 29 centres of sindonological research and information in the US alone. There are international conferences, journals and newsletters in several languages, and you can buy CDs and CD ROMs, books and videos, and framed prints up to life size. The Catholic church has prayers and liturgy for shroud-related worship, and it even has its own feast day, 4 May.

That is the point behind this...$$$$ "Blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe."

[Biblenuggetlady]

I see your point within the context of the above.
My earlier point way back in the thread - was that people have come to Christ and now worship Christ as a result. They are not caught up in idol worship.
The ones who would worship the cloth and or image have been deceived and they are the ones we need to reach with the truth.

Would Jesus be ok with that trade? Would Jesus say, Oh well... X number of people came to faith in the shroud, even though X number worship it, committing idolatry, and X number make money off it...it's a fair trade, so I am going to allow my shroud to be found?? What are the first two commandments? :candle

[Steve53]

From way back in the thread --

BTW - Most of the information linked to below can be read in under an hour if anyone is so inclined.......


For those posters who have inquiring minds - -

Here are just a few resources available for a broader understanding of the mystery of the shroud.


Shroud of Turin Apologetics –

http://www.shroudstory.com/

http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm

http://www.sindone.org/en/welcome.htm

http://www.shroudforum.com/

http://www.historicaljesusquest.com/


Biased Shroud of Turin Skeptics –

http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

http://www.mcri.org/home/section/63-...hroud-of-turin

http://www.creationtips.com/shroud.html

http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2005/20050210.htm


Mostly Unbiased Skeptic/neutral Overviews and news articles–

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3624753.stm

http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/0...oud-turin.html

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/c...rin/index.html

[Steve53]

Would Jesus be ok with that trade? Would Jesus say, Oh well... X number of people came to faith in the shroud, even though X number worship it, committing idolatry, and X number make money off it...it's a fair trade, so I am going to allow my shroud to be found?? What are the first two commandments? :candle

The saved don't need our witness. :hat


The ones who would worship the cloth and or image have been deceived and they are the ones we need to reach with the truth.

[Biblenuggetlady]

From way back in the thread --

BTW - Most of the information linked to below can be read in under an hour if anyone is so inclined.......


For those posters who have inquiring minds - -

Here are just a few resources available for a broader understanding of the mystery of the shroud.


Shroud of Turin Apologetics –

http://www.shroudstory.com/

http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm

http://www.sindone.org/en/welcome.htm

http://www.shroudforum.com/

http://www.historicaljesusquest.com/


Biased Shroud of Turin Skeptics –

http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

http://www.mcri.org/home/section/63-...hroud-of-turin

http://www.creationtips.com/shroud.html

http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2005/20050210.htm


Mostly Unbiased Skeptic/neutral Overviews and news articles–

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3624753.stm

http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/0...oud-turin.html

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/c...rin/index.html


You make the point of my above post...Shroudology, $$$$

[BlessedAssurance]

I see your point within the context of the above.
My earlier point way back in the thread - was that people have come to Christ and now worship Christ as a result. They are not caught up in idol worship.
The ones who would worship the cloth and or image have been deceived and they are the ones we need to reach with the truth.

Yes, I know Steve. I am not putting those people down, honest. My true concern stands, however. Idol worship is easy to do, and not easy to see in oneself. I know people who wear crosses around their necks, thinking that the cross will ward off evil. NO! I'm NOT referring to Catholics.

People are lazy thinkers. It is easy to conjure up the image of the face on the shroud while praying. Suddenly the person is praying to an image. That is the definition of an idol.

I have seen many with strong faith wander into idolatry, sorcery, ghost hunting, etc. without ever realizing what they're doing. A person watches one of those "Most Haunted" shows because nothing else is on. Then they start joking around about the 'ghost' in the hall. Pretty soon they lie awake at night wondering if there could be a ghost in the hall. Then the door is open, and they see shadows and lights and hear noises.

Now, while all this is going on, are they focused on God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit? If they're consumed with interest in this fake (now demonstrated fake, thanks BNL) are they focused on God?

This is just a concern. Of course it doesn't apply to everyone. :hat


The saved don't need our witness. :hat

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. I have certainly matured as a Christian while here. I don't want to mention names, but some of our mods and legendary posters have taught me more about walking with Christ.

Lately more and more baby believers are showing up here. Imagine if they see the first few pages and think those here believe in this shroud. It could injure their walk with Christ.

[Steve53]

You make the point of my above post...Shroudology, $$$$


Yeah - I thought I recalled that link from somewhere! :pound


I'm not sure I agree with that statement. I have certainly matured as a Christian while here. I don't want to mention names, but some of our mods and legendary posters have taught me more about walking with Christ.

Lately more and more baby believers are showing up here. Imagine if they see the first few pages and think those here believe in this shroud. It could injure their walk with Christ.

Again - All the more reason to carry forth this debate in a wise manner.

[Steve53]

From one of the aforementioned reference sites - Since very few people seem to have read any of the stuff that's out there ....??

http://www.shroudstory.com/

Carbon dating in 1988 showed that the shroud was medieval.

Misleading. New, rigorously peer-reviewed scientific findings, demonstrate that the single sample shared by three laboratories was not part of the shroud’s cloth. Conclusion: the carbon dating is not valid.

Scientific References

Journal: Chemistry Today (Vol 26, Num 4, Jul/Aug 2008), “Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud”, Benford M.S., Marino J.G.

Peer-reviewed conference paper (Aug 2008), “Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” Robert Villarreal (Paper and video presentation awaiting publication, see Ohio State University Shroud of Turin Conference Press Release)

Journal: Thermochimica Acta (Vol 425, Jan 2005) “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin”, Rogers, R.N.

Usable Quote

[T]he age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.

--Robert Villarreal, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist who headed a team of nine scientists at LANL which examined material from the carbon 14 sampling region. (Aug 2008)

All three radiocarbon dating laboratories obtained similar/same/identical results.

However, misleading. Only one sample was cut from the cloth. Each of the three labs received pieces from the same sample. While it is true that they concurred on the range of dates, 1260 to 1390 CE, the results failed to meet basic statistical criteria (chi squared) for valid homogeneity. This failure gives credence to the repair theory mentioned above.

Colorado Springs professor/physicist, John Jackson (and his wife Rebecca), have shown that carbon monoxide contamination might have led to an inaccurate carbon dating date.

Problematic as science. No known published findings or supporting test results. Jackson's hypothesis is that carbon monoxide contaminated the cloth making it seem newer than it really is. The following quote is frequently and inappropriately used to give credence to Jackson's work:

There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information.

--Christopher Ramsey, head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit which participated in the 1988 Carbon 14 Dating of the Shroud. (Mar 2008)

The Problem with the above quote: (See Oxford University site for full context). It pertains to all evidence that challenges the carbon dating. More to the point, it is preceded by the following words that specifically apply to Jackson's contamination hypothesis:

However there are also a number of reasons to think that carbon monoxide contamination is not likely to have had a significant effect. . . . So far the linen samples have been subjected to normal conditions (but with very high concentrations of carbon monoxide). These initial tests show no significant reaction - even though the sensitivity of the measurements is sufficient to detect contamination that would offset the age by less than a single year. This is to be expected and essentially confirms why this sort of contamination has not been considered a serious issue before.

--Op. cit. (Ramsey)


Scientists found paint on the Shroud of Turin.

Inaccurate, dubious claim: The correct statement should be that one scientist, Walter McCrone, visually identified, through microscopy, paint particles on some fibers removed from the surface of the shroud. McCrone was the only scientist, among many, to examine the shroud and/or fibers taken from the shroud, to claim finding paint.

Mark Anderson, who worked for McCrone, examined the fibers using laser microprobe Raman spectrometry and found that what McCrone thought was (inorganic) paint was in fact an organic substance.

Previously, the shroud (and not just fibers) had been observed with visible light spectrometry, ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and thermography. No paint was found.

Later, pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry tests on individual image-bearing fibers, conducted at the Mass Spectrometry Center of Excellence at the University of Nebraska, were unable to detect any paint particles or painting medium.


Scientists have failed to identify blood on the Shroud of Turin.

Not True. Immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens, reveal that the stains are human blood. Many of the bloodstains have the distinctive forensic signature of clotting with red corpuscles about the edge of a clot with a clear yellowish halo of serum. The heme was converted into its parent porphyrin, and the spectra examined. This too, revealed the fact that bloodstains are blood. Microchemical tests for proteins were positive in blood areas. Much of this work is published in peer reviewed scientific journals including Archeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic, and Biochemical Analysis (American Chemical Society), Applied Optics and the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal.

There is no record of the Shroud of Turin before 1349/1355/1356.

Misleading. The correct statement is that there is no known record of the shroud in western Europe before 1349. Keep in mind that many artifacts from antiquity lack records that go back to their original provenance. Moreover, as is often the case with ancient written records, there are gaps.

It is a common task for historians and archeologists to find other evidence that bridge gaps in documentation. In the case of the shroud, much is emerging. There is, for instance, a drawing of a shroud from 1192 (nearly a century earlier than the earliest carbon 14 date) that is clearly identifiable from particular features as the current Shroud of Turin.

It is well established that a cloth with a purported image of Jesus existed in Edessa (now Urfa, Turkey) prior to 5th century CE. This was documented by Eusebius of Caesarea in the early 4th century. According to Eusebius (and this part of the record should be treated as legend for it has many such qualities) the cloth was brought to Edessa by the apostle Thomas or the disciple Thadeus (of the biblical 70).

What is reliable history is that in 544, a cloth with an image thought to be of Jesus was found concealed above a gate in the city walls of Edessa. That cloth was transferred to Constantinople on August 14, 944. At that time, it was described by Gregory Referendarius as a full-length burial cloth with an image of Jesus (purportedly) and bloodstains in the vicinity of a side wound.

Following the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, that cloth became the property of Othon de la Roche, the French Lord of Athens and Thebes (Athens was in French hands). He sent it to his castle home in the town of Besançon, France, likely in 1207. At Eastertide, it was removed from castle and displayed in the Besançon Cathedral. We don’t know when that practice started but it ended when the cathedral was destroyed by fire in March of 1349.

Any records that might have existed may have been burned in that fire as all church records were destroyed. In that same year, Geoffroy de Charny, a French knight married Jeanne de Vergy, a grand-niece of Othon de la Roche, and delivered the shroud (or a shroud) to the canons of Lirey, thereby creating the earliest extant record in Western Europe.

Enthusiasts/believers/proponents of authenticity believe the image was caused by the resurrection of Jesus.

Misleading, unsubstantiated. Some indeed do. But there is no working scientific hypothesis in support of this idea. Others believe that the image may have been formed naturally. In fact, a survey of the published papers suggests strong support for a natural image and little support for a supernatural image.

See: The Biggest Carbon 14 Dating Mistake

Adapted from The Shroud of Turin Blog


The Shroud of Turin images may not be the direct result of a miracle, at least not in a traditional sense of the word. But they are not manmade either. These seem to be the contradictory conclusions from an article in the peer-reviewed, scientific Journal of Optics (April 14, 2004) of the Institute of Physics in London. Using mathematical image enhancement technology, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo, researchers at the University of Padua in Italy, discovered a faint image of a second face on the back of the Shroud of Turin. This has since been confirmed with other software. The implications are explosive and exciting.

Frank Tribbe writes: "The scientific, historical, and other technical data that I refer to as supporting authenticity do unequivocally support the probability of a first-century or very early date for this Shroud and its enigmatic images, and as having originated in the Near East (likely Palestine). Science has not proven (and in my opinion will never categorically prove) this to be specifically the Shroud of Jesus of Galilee. Believers will always need a small leap of faith from the pedestal of knowledge Shroud research has provided. But that research has established that the Shroud image cannot have been man-made by any technique of art or science recorded throughout history, nor by any natural process ever observed or deduced. And all alternative theoretical or suspected methods of image-creation suggested by critics have been carefully and totally demolished by Shroud scientists as not possible. As to 'authenticity,' we know this Shroud with its images is not a phony, a fake, a fraud, an imitation, a copy, to any degree or in any respect; it was not made in the past thousand years; a fourteenth-century origin is virtually impossible. Science still does not know how the images were 'imprinted' on the Shroud."

More at link above -

[Theresa]

I wonder - the people who have read website after website and tome after tome about the shroud or any other religious artifact - how many of them have sat down and read the Bible?

I am certainly not casting stones at those who have and are curious (although there is the old saying about curiosity). I would be willing to bet that most of the people who are so "taken" by these objects have read little or none of the Bible, but are willing to spend oodles of their time and money "studying" these objects.

Just a thought of mine.