Shroud of Turin: Old as Jesus?

THE NEW YORK TIMES ^ | January 27, 2005 | NA

[neverdem]

The Shroud of Turin is much older than the medieval date that modern science has affixed to it and could be old enough to have been the burial wrapping of Jesus, a new analysis concludes.

Since 1988, most scientists have confidently concluded that it was the work of a medieval artist, because carbon dating had placed the production of the fabric between 1260 and 1390.

In an article this month in the journal Thermochimica Acta, Dr. Raymond N. Rogers, a chemist retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, said the carbon dating test was valid but that the piece tested was about the size of a postage stamp and came from a portion that had been patched.

"We're darned sure that part of the cloth was not original Shroud of Turin cloth," he said, adding that threads from the main part of the shroud were pure linen, which is spun from flax.

The threads in the patched portion contained cotton as well and had been dyed to match.

From other tests, he estimated that the shroud was between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.

[Conservative til I die]

Itis tantamount to idle worship. That is why I care.

First of all, it's 'idol' worship, and second of all, looking at it or even revering it is not worship. Third of all, idol worship applies to the worship of a false god or ascribing some sort of divinity to an object. AFAIK, Jesus Christ is not a false god. Your opinion may vary. And no one is worshipping the Shroud as if it *IS* Christ.

[Conservative til I die]

I'm sorry, I think the Church already has provided you folks that opportunity to refute doubters

YOu cannot refute doubters if it hasn't been proven as authentic. No one is saying that the Shroud has been scientifically proven to be the burial wrap of Christ. I don't even think you *can* prove it scientifically. All you can do is provide a preponderance of evidence and let other people make up their minds.

and unfortunately for your little theory, the Shroud was carbon-dated far after Christ's death.

The evidence that the carbon dating was flawed has been known for years. I'm not even really sure many scientists even deny that the carbon dating was flawed anymore. The Shroud is an object that has been through fires, handled by thosuands of people throughout the centuries, had newer patches sewn on to it. Its not some fossil bone sitting undisturbed in the dirt for 3,000,000 years.

Let's face it, my friend. The scientific evidence on hand comes closer to proving the Shroud's authenticity than it does disprove it. All you have is flawed carbon dating. That's ALL you have to refute the idea that the Shroud *could* be real.

We have a Shroud that is increasingly looking like it came from the 1st Century Middle East (the new carbon dating, materials found on the Shroud, , the material of the Shroud itself, and the style of stitching), the fact that no one can explain how it was made, and the fact that two other relics of the Catholic Church associated with Christ (one of which we know dates to the 1st Century) have a matching AB blood type on them, just like the Shroud. And this is centuries before anyone began typing blood.

I have a crackpot theory, so PRESTO!, now the Earth is flat again in the face of all scientific evidence! Wrongo. You simply cannot refute the evidence that the Earth is round. The sole evidence used against the Shroud has been found to at least be flawed. You seem awfully trusting in science to go on flawed data. If you respect science, then I would expect you'd call for sound testing to be used. BTW, what's with your disrespect towards others by calling the Shroud a wipey or a hanky? Millions of people cherish the Shroud and think it very important. Why crap on them?

[Conservative til I die]

and OJ might buy that there is no conclusive evidence that the shroud is a fake--but carbon dating IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE.

No one is debating that carbon dating works. What's being (and has been for over a decade, BTW) debated is that the carbon dating used on the Shroud was flawed.

It's the equivalent of weighing yourself on a scale that has been set forward 20 lbs.

Let the Shroud be carbon dated again, using proper methods and using an authentic piece of it, and if the thing comes up as dating to the year 1,300 or even 400, you'll be able to shut a lot of people up. But the other evidence points to this Shroud being a lot older than even 400.

[Conservative til I die]

"Shroud of Turin" does associate the Shroud with one town--was that just so people would know where to go pilgrimage, or to differentiate it from other shrouds?

The Shroud has not always been in Turin. It only started being called the Shroud of Turin because, well, eventually it made it's home in Turin.

If you look at paintings dating wa back, you see the Shroud turning up.

[Conservative til I die]

Is it me, or is this dude hate-filled?

[Conservative til I die]

I think he was being sarcastic. Because when you think about it, that always seems to be the reasoning of the skeptics (that and the carbon dating) that there was some sort of super-forger who anticipated every possible question that might come up about the Shroud 700 years later on places like FR.

[Conservative til I die]

The only proof that the skeptics have that the Shroud is fake is flawed carbon dating. A preponderance of other evidence points to at least be contemporary with Christ and originating from the Middle East and interestingly shares the same AB blood type with other relics associated with Christ. Does that prove it's real? No. It may be the greatest hoax ever, but on a "scale of evidence" the evidence is much more in favor of the Shroudies than the skeptics.

[Conservative til I die]

So we know Jesus had Type AB blood, right?

Oy vey. The skeptics just keep missing the point. No one is saying that Jesus had AB blood, just like almost no one is saying that bad carbon testing proves the Shroud is somehow authentic.

The importance of the AB blood is that at least two other well known relics associated with Christ also have AB blood on them, and at least one of them is known to have existed for centuries before the Shroud's carbon-dated alleged origin.

It doesn't prove the Shroud is legit but that a preponderance of evidence exists that makes this item quite remarkable.

[Conservative til I die]

Actually, we do know, because of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, another miracle that is impossible to explain.

But as any good skeptic knows, that miracle had to be of someone else's blood. /sarcasm

[Conservative til I die]

Just because people should not base their faith on the Shroud (though I think if a non-Christian can overcome his doubt through the Shroud and take the first step through the door because of it, that is not a bad thing) that does not make the Shroud un-important.

[Conservative til I die]

I'd recommend to any of our friends interested in relics the book "Relics" by Joan Carroll Cruz. Covers a whole of different types of relics.

[Conservative til I die]

Doesn't make it right. It is something that is unnecessary, and frankly can lead to worship of the object, versus worship of God and Christ.

So all you've done is reiterate the usual lame talking point against Catholicism. First off, if the Shroud is real, it is a relic of CHRIST, not some sort of pagan deity. Second, hardly anyone worships the object. It's just the same lame cliche dressed up.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

bookmark

[Xcoastie]

According to scripture: John 20:6-7, the shroud of turin could not possibly be authentic. It is clear from the record the real shroud was in two pieces. A smaller piece about the head and a larger piece about the body.
The shroud of turin is one complete piece approximately 14 feet in length not matching the discription in scripture.

The shroud only presents a controversy for those who don't pay attention to the scriptural record.

[spitlana]

I am part of the Christian community that says, "Who cares?" What part does a piece of clothe play in my salvation?

None whatsoever--in yours

Have you not heard of anyone whose faith may have been sparked by the possibility the Shroud being Jesus'? and that the image created may have been from the light of the resurrection? A blast of light very much like a camera when taking a picture? Are you not curious about such a unique phenomenon in this universe? As unique as God Himself stepping into history and time? I find it absolutely exciting! Christians don't have to be so very blase, do we?

[Aquinasfan]

Thanks for the book recommendation. I'm particularly interested in the incorrupt bodies of the saints. It's sad that current catechesis ignores all of the miracles associated with the Church. Sure, this is "gravy" for people formed in their faith, but these miracles offer a simple and direct "proof" of God's existence that is very accessible to children.

[Conservative til I die]

The shroud only presents a controversy for those who don't pay attention to the scriptural record.

Or presumptious people not paying attention to the thread. Look up the "Sudarium of Oviedo".

[Xcoastie]

If the Sudarium of Oviedo was used for cleaning and wrapping the head of Jesus and is the second part of the two linens described in the book of St. John. One for the head and one for the body. How then can the face of Christ be found on the Shroud of Turin?

To accept the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin one must either discount the Shroud with the face of Christ or the scriptural account that two linens wrapped separate parts of Christ, not two linens wrapped his head.

[grey_whiskers]

But as any good skeptic knows, that miracle had to be of someone else's blood. /sarcasm

Remember...
"A skeptic is someone who denies the existence of anything (s)he cannot explain away."

Cheers!

[LibertarianInExile]

Yes, to a PHENOMENAL insult. /sarcasm