The Shroud of Turin: Jesus or not?
- Thread starter bill5
- Start date
? "with the exception of the carbon dating?" There is almost no scientific evidence otherwise. That's kind of like saying "with the exception of their teeth, sharks aren't much of a threat to inflict a serious wound."
That was the claim of one guy and widely disputed/dismissed. ie it is far from proven, at the very least.
No argument there. But all that means is it's not a painting and there's blood on the cloth.
It appears that way, but this is also far from certain.
The odds of this being the only burial cloth that "survived the grave" is basically zero, and even if so, it hardly proves anything.
That all said, the whole thing is IMO highly debatable both ways. The problem is that many theists seem convinced it's authentic regardless of evidence presented and pretty much all atheists are convinced it's not regardless of evidence presented, with both sides spin doctoring like madmen.
Upvote
0
Saverio
Member
- Aug 5, 2015
- 19
- 16
- 57
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
There is almost no scientific evidence otherwise!!?? Are you kidding me? That statement makes absolutely no sense and displays an alarming ignorance regarding the study of this cloth
There is VOLUMINOUS scientific evidence regarding the Shroud and it is everywhere if one is inclined to actually look. In fact, the Shroud of Turin is the most scientifically studied artifact in existence, and your sharks/teeth analogy is totally wrong.
You make the claim that the article in Thermochimica Acta is widely disputed/dismissed. Widely disputed/dismissed by who? Can you name a single reputable scientist who does?
And it does not just "appear" that the cloth covered a dead body that had been beaten and crucified. This is supported by the scientific evidence. Scientific evidence that is published everywhere, but that you don't seem to want to acknowledge.
It's one thing to not believe the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial shroud of Christ for whatever reasons, but to ignore and dismiss the abundant science that has been applied to this artifact is intellectually lazy and dishonest.
Upvote
0
Lazy_Proverb
"You did not choose me but I chose you"Jn.15:16
I was skeptical for years. Then during a movie night my wife and I attended at a friends house I changed my mind. One of the features was a documentary about the shroud and included the mutual research a team undertook to prove the authenticity of the shroud. And using modern technology. John Jackson of Colorado's Turin Shroud Center was one of the participants.
Since then, yes, I do believe it is the shroud that covered Christ.
Since then, yes, I do believe it is the shroud that covered Christ.
Upvote
0
Saverio
Member
- Aug 5, 2015
- 19
- 16
- 57
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
"The odds of this being the only burial cloth that "survived the grave" is basically zero, and even if so, it hardly proves anything."
If that's true then you should have no trouble finding examples of ancient burial cloths that survived the grave intact. I won't hold my breath though.
One of the things that makes the Shroud of Turin so compelling is its uniqueness. There is nothing remotely similar in all of history, so there is nothing to compare it to.
If that's true then you should have no trouble finding examples of ancient burial cloths that survived the grave intact. I won't hold my breath though.
One of the things that makes the Shroud of Turin so compelling is its uniqueness. There is nothing remotely similar in all of history, so there is nothing to compare it to.
Upvote
0
Lazy_Proverb
"You did not choose me but I chose you"Jn.15:16
Agreed. The argument that this shroud couldn't have survived the grave makes all else the skeptic avows against the shroud authenticity invalid. Because they don't know anything about the history of the shroud when they envision it having laid in a grave for an extended period of time.
Also, why would Christians hope to persuade atheists toward belief in this artifacts authenticity? Atheists don't accept that God is real. Therefore, any artifacts related to God's son is irrelevant.
I sought out the DVD we had watched concerning the most current research on the shroud to see if it was on the net.
It is. I think its worth a Christians time to watch this. It's fascinating material that certainly persuaded this skeptic that it is very possible the shroud is authentic.
Upvote
0
This always raised several questions for me that force me to suspend my disbelief. First of all it took a lot of inconveniencing to get the Church to allow a sample to be taken. I find it hard to believe that the guys who just grabbed the first piece that they came across. You'd think that they would have taken a good look and considered their options very carefully. Second, why was this important, scared holy relic "repaired" in the first place ?
It seems a little off to me.
Actually this isn't entirely all true. First of all has been shown a way to make the marks on cloth like the shroud. You need to paint a body with a staining agent and wrap it in the cloth previously stained with blood. It's pretty much that easy. [/QUOTE]
Yeah the thing about the shroud that's a little disheartening is that it probably cost someone their life or was made by abusing a dead body.
F
This is sort of the point of faking a relic isn't it ? Hey it must be real because if it wasn't it would actually exist (winky, winky). It exists therefore it must be a real relic.
There really isn't a large amount of objective, direct scientific evidence about the shroud, the Church has kept the shroud away from scientific testing (for good reasons - it requires the possible harming of the shroud), except for the carbon dating which you seem to what to ignore.
Upvote
0
Lazy_Proverb
"You did not choose me but I chose you"Jn.15:16
The “Other” Shroud of Christ
The Sudarium of Oviedo is by most accounts the best validation of the Shroud of Turin as the true burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth
April 01, 2015
The Sudarium of Oviedo is by most accounts the best validation of the Shroud of Turin as the true burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth
April 01, 2015
Upvote
0
Please, do point us to some. Yknow, liked you asked me to do below and then accused me of being "intellectually lazy and dishonest" because I didn't. Pot, meet kettle.
I'll do better than that, I'll name three:
Dr. Emily Craig (forensic anthropologist)
Professor Christopher Ramsey (Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit)
Steven D. Schafersman, PhD
There are of course more, just as I'm sure there are those who agree with Rogers. Sadly, you don't seem to grasp that we could play that game all day long "("Expert X said this is true!") and it proves nothing in either direction in itself. You have to actually look at what's being said and how it's being backed up. Or not. Offhand I'd say this topic remains controversial partly because there is reason for doubt from both "sides." Although really, and as I mentioned earlier, objective opinions about this in either direction appear about as common as winning lottery tickets.
And once again, you fail to produce something which you claim is "everywhere." There is evidence to show it MIGHT be true, but is hardly proven. And really, in itself it's lightweight evidence at most anyway. All it might prove is someone was beaten and/or crucified...something which was hardly unique to Jesus.
Excuse you, but you are the one with the claim; the burden of proof lies with you, not me. There is nothing "lazy" or "dishonest" in that. But worse, not only have you provided no evidence (just one claim by one guy), but then apparently you found it necessary to make such snotty insults about how I didn't. ie acting the same way you berate me for allegedly acting. If I was the hissy fit whiny type like some are on this site (not saying you, btw), I would have reported you for that, but I prefer to not waste everyone's time w/that and simply stick to discussing the topic at hand. If you decline to do similar ie your posts continue down a path of getting snippy vs actually addressing the topic and my responses about them, I won't bother responding to you further.
Upvote
0
Sorry, wrong: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Christs-crucifixion-caves-near-Jerusalem.html
You're right, that wasn't any trouble at all. And THIS one actually is dated but to Christ's time. Maybe this one is His! hmmm
But even before this was found, it was well-known that ancient burial cloths were used. That you didn't is telling.
Further, as with the "this person was crucified" thing, it in itself doesn't prove anything beyond that one simple fact.
I guess that's what gets me most of all about this (besides the lack of objectivity): even if it was somehow proven to be about 2000 yrs old, even if it was proven he was crucified, even if we somehow "knew" it was the only known burial cloth ever used, it only proves someone was crucified and buried in a burial cloth about 2000 years ago. It says nothing either way about Jesus, let alone His divinity. I think people just want some kind of physical, hard-core proof of Christ so they have something concrete to latch onto about it all. They're believing something is true because they want so badly for it to be true. And who knows? It might be. But key word there: "might."
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Apr 11, 2005
- 72,831
- 9,365
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
It's the Lord's image as it is unknown how it is a negative of a photo but they had no such tech back in the day.
Dont follow the old carbon test - it came from clothe added when it burned on the edge in a fire back in some generation i cant recall.
When i was small - a child - when i first saw it on tv - i didnt even think twice - i knew it was His image.
Also - the 'coins' over the eyes show an inscription of Cesar on them - which was at the time of the Lord.
Upvote
0
Goatee
Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.
- Aug 16, 2015
- 7,585
- 3,621
- 59
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Divorced
Only God knows who the image is. It would be nice to believe 100% that it is indeed Jesus. We dont have to believe that though. To believe that Jesus is he True Son of the Living God is more than enough!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
um - what? No it isn't. It has that appearance/effect however. And even if it was, it hardly "proves" that it's Christ.
Pls do some research and you'll find the fallacies in this claim.
Upvote
0
- Nov 29, 2005
- 58,194
- 16,493
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
Hmmm
I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that we worship the Shroud , but that we are giving it reverence
I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that we worship the Shroud , but that we are giving it reverence
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
