Shroud of Turin

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Seems to be a lot of info here... http://www.shroudstory.com/

But I can't vouch for it... I haven't even read all of it.

Forgive me...

 

[Meshavrischika]

but how do you know it is for real if you're just going off what someone told you and it's not in other places too?

 

[Meshavrischika]

I'll have to look at it. I wish there was more info on the author (I like to know the leaning of the person/organization putting something together)

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

but how do you know it is for real if you're just going off what someone told you and it's not in other places too?

I can only say that it dates at least to the 500's... the rest is just faith.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-Image-Edessa.htm

Forgive me...

 

[Meshavrischika]

It says that, but where's the link to the study itself?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I said 700, I was wrong. It's 170 points.

Using a Polarized Image Overlay Technique that they developed Whanger and Whanger (1998:20) discovered 170 points of congruence between the St. Catherine's Pantocrator icon and the Shroud face. In a court of law the forensic standard for fingerprints is 14 points of congruence, for faces 45-60.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1577360796/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

Forgive me...

 

[Rhamiel]

some people think that as the shroud was damaged, people sowed on more cloth to repair it, this makes taking a sample for carbon dating problematic

 

[Meshavrischika]

well, it was repaired (because it burned in a fire). you can see that by looking at it. (being that i know fabric, you can really tell it's been repaired)

carbon dating though has always been problematic IMO... I have always questioned whether it's valid because it's so iffy in its results

 

[Rhamiel]

It is a sign that God was made man.
I do not know its history, I think it is the real deal, but even if it is not it is still a good sign of the Incarnation of our Lord

 

[Meshavrischika]

I don't get "even if it is not it is still a good sign"... ??? that makes so sense Rham... If it is not real, then it is not of Christ, which automatically makes it anti-christ doesn't it... something that appears christlike (like someone else we're supposed to watch for if I'm not mistaken)

I have no decision one way or another on it's (the shroud itself's) validity at this point but the statement you made bugs me

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I don't get "even if it is not it is still a good sign"... ??? that makes so sense Rham... If it is not real, then it is not of Christ, which automatically makes it anti-christ doesn't it... something that appears christlike (like someone else we're supposed to watch for if I'm not mistaken)

I have no decision one way or another on it's (the shroud itself's) validity at this point but the statement you made bugs me

What an excellent understanding of Anti-Christ. Anti means "other than".

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I think Rhamiel is saying that even if it's only "Iconic", it's still marvelous.

Forgive me...

 

[Rhamiel]

it reminds people that Christ is real, if it is the cloth that was around Jesus, well then it is a holy thing by its nature, if it was made by evil men who used it to get worldy tressure or fame for their city, then they will be judged, but God has used the evil actions of these men to remind the world of His son. God can use the mistakes of men to bring glory to His holy name.

 

[Meshavrischika]

I appreciate that God can use bad things for good... but in reality, those who hear His voice should know better, should they not? I mean, in reality we should be able to tell just simply from relationship what is and is not "of God" when it is important for us to know.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I appreciate that God can use bad things for good... but in reality, those who hear His voice should know better, should they not? I mean, in reality we should be able to tell just simply from relationship what is and is not "of God" when it is important for us to know.

We (Orthodox) are taught that demons love to pose as "the voice of God", and that our own thoughts will also attempt to create these impressions. We are taught to be very skeptical of anything that comes to us indivually, and to examine them very closely, to the point of ignoring them until proven to be of God. This is a difficult concept for many of us who have been guided to The Church by the external force (or guidance) of The Holy Spirit. I too have been one who only arrived where I am through the effect of that guidance. I count it as a blessing, but at the same time I am very aware of the demons and their influence as they attempted to deceive me the closer I came to The Church. In the end it was my failures that proved to me that Orthodoxy was the correct way.

Now I embrace Orthodoxy, but at the same time I am very careful to examine that what I am being taught is orthodox.

For instance... There are things, such as "The shroud" that The Orthodox Church has never made a comment on. It is not an Orthodox teaching. Accepting it or rejecting it will not affect our salvation and therefore has no place being elevated to a status of Dogma. Thus, The Church will probably never comment on it. It is wonderful to those who find faith through it, however it is of no concequence to ones salvation.

If you ask me for my personal opinion, I would say that it should be returned to The Holy Sepulcher.

Forgive me...

 

[Meshavrischika]

it's nice for a denom to not take a stance on something that really is inconsequential in the long run

as for the teaching (who decided that was the way it should be done because that seems strange to me) that may very well be for Orthodox, but I don't embrace denomination but Christ (and you may say your denom does that, it's neither here nor there, I just don't cling to denoms) and don't see "church" the same way as you do, so on that note we probably won't agree.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I just finished the flash movie at the top of this page. http://www.shroudstory.com/

Way too much info to dismiss. It can't be a fake.

Forgive me...

 

[Meshavrischika]

eh, I'm not so impressed. if you look up each point as they go into it and research the pros/cons you'll see it's not as cut and dry as they make it out to be

it's not disproved, but it's also not proven as anything relating to christ either.

 

[katholikos]

So... since it didn't pop up until the 1300's... whatcha think of this "cloth that was the burial shroud of christ"?

Do you think it's real? Sham? Somewhere in between?

I think its real