The Shroud of Turin: Jesus or not?

[bill5]

What do you think? Despite carbon dating that dates it around 1300, some dispute the accuracy of the tests and of course the debate goes on. RCC hasn't gone as far as to say they think it is Jesus' burial cloth, but has accepted it if nothing else as symbolic of Jesus and have "approved" of it in that way.

I lean to thinking it is not, but it is a tantalizing thought......

 

[GNJ]

I really doubt it. It would be cool if it was, though.

 

[Ave Maria]

I believe that it is indeed Jesus' burial cloth.

 

[MikeK]

No opinion. It really isn't important to me either way and I don't care to become invested in tangential items that may or may not be authentic.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

No

 

[MoonlessNight]

My current thought is that if it was faked, the method used to fake it was a very unusual method. However, I cannot say for certain whether or not is a fake or genuine.

The main piece of evidence towards it definitively being a fake (as opposed to theories which guess how it could have been faked without showing it was definitely faked in that way, or facts which make it difficult to distinguish between a fake or genuine (such as unclear historical origins)) would be the carbon dating. But carbon dating is not a magical process which tells us when something was "made." Older articles can have newer material on them (such as through repairs or from other lifeforms (like fungi or bacteria)), and fakes can use older materials. So Carbon 14 dating is a valuable piece of evidence, but does not make the case on its own.

But when we look at the rest of what is known about the shroud, nothing seems certain, which makes it difficult to draw any exact conclusions. So I could see it being fake or genuine. Either way it is a fascinating image. If it is a fake, the hoaxer would be one of the great artists of human history.

 

[WisdomTree]

I'm going to go with a no, but if it is true it'll be cool.

 

[Chrystal-J]

Undecided. With technology always being "updated", there may be a change in the carbon-dating at some point.

 

[bill5]

Carbon dating is a reliable process. But as MM said, there are other potential factors.

Personally I think it's not, but it's not about what evidence there is or isn't...I think Jesus purposely did NOT leave any physical evidence of Himself, for the same reason he didn't want any statues etc of him either...He (God) wants people to believe in Him because of His actions and His message and not get wrapped up in physical objects, as that begins to lean towards idolatry.

 

[RileyG]

I believe that it is indeed Jesus' burial cloth.

I agree.

 

[bill5]

I'm curios re those who think it is........why?

 

[Saverio]

I'm curios re those who think it is........why?

I know this is old, but I wanted to chime in.

Virtually ALL of the scientific evidence regarding the Shroud of Turin (with the exception of the carbon dating) indicates it is authentic. In addition, it has been proven (as published in the peer reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta) that the section of the cloth used for carbon dating was from a medieval repair. Thus the reason for the medieval date.

Despite the myriad of tests done on the Shroud, no one has been able to figure out how the image got there. There are some definitive conclusions that can be drawn however.
First, the image is NOT a painting and this is firmly established.
Second, where there is blood (and it is real blood) there is no image, meaning that the blood had to be on the cloth before the image.
Third, the cloth covered a dead body that had been beaten and crucified.
Fourth (and what should be most obvious), burial cloths as a rule DO NOT SURVIVE THE GRAVE. This one is unique in all the world simply by virtue of its existence.

I could go on and on, but there are many good sources of information which detail all of the scientific evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud. The Shroud of Turin website is a good place to start.

 

[Colin]

I don't know and it's not important to me really .

 

[thecolorsblend]

I lean toward yes. The carbon dating that was done didn't test the relevant section of the Shroud. Nobody knows how the image was imprinted onto the Shroud. There are reasons to believe it's the genuine article. Your faith shouldn't hang on that but there is reason to believe it.

 

[Tallguy88]

Uncertain.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Yes

 

[classicalhero]

I don't believe it is because the existence of it has only been known for only the last few hundred years from about the time of the Renaissance. The likely hood of the early Christians wanting to keep it would be extremely slim.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I don't believe it is because the existence of it has only been known for only the last few hundred years from about the time of the Renaissance. The likely hood of the early Christians wanting to keep it would be extremely slim.

Here is an interesting article which attempts to reconstruct how the shroud may have ended up where it did, though it is mainly speculation (though not entirely baseless speculation since it does ask whether assorted historical references could be referring to the shroud).

 

[pdudgeon]

It's the real thing.
1. we know from scripture that the burial cloths were left behind and were folded up in the tomb.
2. they were seen to be left behind by more than one person who would have been familiar with them.
3. at the time they were discovered, no one knew where Jesus had been taken; not his disciples, not the Jews. All that anyone knew was that Jesus' body was not there.
4. and then we have scripture...John 7:33, John 13:31-32, John 19:40, John 3:18-21, and Matthew 24:17-18.

thus everything written indicates that Jesus would indeed have left the burial cloths behind when He ascended.
Subsequent testing of the Shroud indicated that the image that was left on the cloth was that of a crucified man, that the image is in 3 dimensions (as though the cloth was indeed wrapped around a body, showing both the back and frontal views) and that the method that the image was imprinted on the cloth was originated from within the body of Christ Himself, and then onto the cloth, and not painted on the surface of the cloth afterwards.

 

[sylverpiano]

I am skeptical