Skip to comments.What factors point to the Turin Shroud being a fake?
Posted on 03/15/2020 1:20:58 PM PDT by annalex
click here to read article
This is a scholarly and massive response written by Jenny Hawkins on Quora. I only posted the CONCLUSIONS. Read the entire post here: What factors point to the Turin Shroud being a fake?
Carbon 14 picked up the soot from a previous fire and/or the sample allowed by the Vatican around the edge was from a very old repair where materials were added.
If you want on or off the Shroud of Turin Ping List, Freepmail me.
Ive studied this extensively. I agree with Hawkins debunking if the debunking. A few other points in favor of authenticity: 1. I think that the shroud, including the herringbone pattern,is plainly depicted in the Pray Codex, circa 1200, before the earliest C14 date. 2. The studies of pollen grains showing pollen from plants along the believed route of the shroud over the centuries: Israel, Asia Minor, Constantinople, Greece, France, Italy. Prevailing winds in the Mediterranean basin are westerly so there is no way that pollen from Israel could have migrated to Europe to deposit on the cloth. 3. Even beyond the other visual phenomena, in the photos I can see what is interpreted as a coin in the anatomical right eye. Its identical to a certain type of coin issued by Pontius Pilate, and in fact there exist examples of a subset of the coin that has a misspelling. The image on the shroud is one of these. That level of detail by a forger is literally impossible to contemplate
Very common to fake stuff about Jesus starting around 100 AD or so. If you had an artifact, (fake or real) then it brought more parishioners to your church which always meant more money.
The same holds true with the Shroud of Turin. I don't know if it's real. I choose to believe that it is. So many of the debunking arguments have been debunked. Does that make me right? Perish the thought. I wasn't there when it was weaved.
It's always so easy to tell people, in matters of faith, that they are dolts and rubes. I find the faithless to be a tedious lot.
Thank you. The analysis you point to is detailed and credible.
That image is "burnt" not painted and was photographed twenty feet away.
One other detail anti-Shroud people fail to notice or just blow off: There are nail prints in the wrist not the palm as ALL paintings and statues show.
No, the C14 test has been falsified in several peer-reviewed scientific and statistical mathematical journal articles which demonstrate the test sampling was flawed from the beginning. The test samples failed the Chi-square statistical test which is a standard C14 test used to demonstrate that the sample is homogenous with the item being sampled. The sub-samples cut from a single master sample cut from the edge of the Shroud failed in comparison with themselves, failing to show they were homogenous with each other! This was a huge red flag that something was contaminating them.
The soot had nothing to do with it, that is cleaned off, but a patch with more modern threads/material invisibly rewoven into original material could skew the dating if there were enough more modern C14 in the newer material to outweigh the older, depleted C14.
Those who dispute the chemically tested findings that alizarin, madder root dyed cotton threads with which had been retted with a more modern method using Alum were found on one side of that area as opposed to un-dyed, older raw, flax based linen on the other, base their disagreement on just claiming those scientists are merely lying, despite the clear evidence presented in their peer-reviewed published papers. Essentially, they wish the evidence away, refusing to see it, claiming it just doesn't exist.
Your flat denial is foolishness until you can duplicate the evidence using 12th or 13th century technology.
Please remove me from any pings of blasphemous and anti-Christ threads.
Signed....a Christian rejecting your false conclusion.
A very detailed rebuttal. Thank you!
Before I give my comment, I will be very upfront that I am Jewish.
Heres my comment: if you need a material object to verify your faith then your faith is not terribly strong. This applies whether you are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or any other faith. You either believe, or you dont. That said, every single person is going to have some doubts, that is part of our nature and has been purposely woven into that nature by God - because if there was no doubt then there would be no free will.
I do not know whether or not the shroud of Turin is what it is purported to be, or not. Speaking as a person of (most definitely imperfect) faith, I dont think that it should matter one way or the other.
Call me a doubting Thomas if you want. Fakery was rampant in that period.
I lean towards the shroud being authentic if for no other reason than it is unique. The same cannot be said for pieces of the true cross or nails from the crucifixion.
The shroud cannot be reproduced. Again, unique.
Does my faith depend on it as others sneer? No. Why would it?
NON believers are the ones who should wonder if their beliefs are wrong.
I’ll tell what was a fake, the Carbon test that’s what.
You couldnt be more right. Lots of fakery. But that doesnt mean this is fake. At its simplest: an image of a person consistent with Gospel discussion of Christ crucified. Scorched, not painted, into the top few fibrils, that is the fibers that make up thread. Not reproducible by any technology we have, let alone that available in the Middle Ages. And on and on and on. My point being look into it and draw your own conclusions, but just slapping the fakery label on it is not supported by the evidence or the scholarship
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.