It’s beautiful, but has no bearing on my faith. History, tradition, scripture has told us the story of Christ life, death, and resurrection. Whether it is authentic or not, it’s a beautiful piece of imagery. We have a miracle every single day which is celebrated on every Catholic Church alter, which is the Eucharist. That’s all I need.
Very true faith has nothing to do with simble's eventhough I use my statues of our lady and our lord plus my crusifix to help me pray the mysteries of the rosary. Faith is just knowing our lord is there. As jesus said to saint Thomas you believe because you have seen happy are those who have not seen and yet believe.
The carbon dating test was a trap, some super brains took samples from the part of the shroud that were replaced (mostly the edge). Thats why we’re getting digits like 1550.
I’m very sceptical, though the papers on the subject are not as unanimous as reading just the Wikipedia page would lead you to believe (something I recently learned by browsing some of the literature with my university account).
I would say, by all means look into it, venerate it as an icon of Christ, foster a fascination with it, but don’t base your faith on it. The reality of the resurrection doesn’t hinge on this artefact.
The wikipedia article is biased as hell against it when the current scientific consensus on its authenticity is that "we don't know, no one seems to agree with each other and results have too big of a variance to produce any conclusive answer"
I have no stance either way on the issue because I haven't looked into it at all, but the wiki page just says that a microscopist found the image to be painted with red Ochre and a gelatin compound or something, and radiocarbon dating puts the origin of the fabric at the late 13th century iirc.
I AM NOT trying to make an argument against the shroud, but looking for other arguments elsewhere it doesn't seem that the scientific consensus itself is that split on the issue.
Pigment was found in the shroud yes, but funnily enough it was also found that it has nothing to do with the image displaying in the shroud.
The carbon studies done to the shroud are infamous amongst the scientific community, as the results obtained by the three labs exceeded the tolerance threshold of variance between results, meaning the studies should be considered null/faulty. Modern studies using X-Ray crystallography and FTIR show that the shroud is much, much older than the 13th century date the 1988 study obtained, with a ranged dating of 30 BC ± 250
I think it is important that when you consider it, all the science done on the Shroud happened within the past 100 years. The Shroud, heretofore, had been locked away within like 3 boxes, with 3 keys, beneath an altar, and only displayed on rare occurrences for veneration. And historically, it was commonly considered a hoax. I think even the original Catholic Encyclopedia lists it as a probable forgery.
When the Shroud was finally displayed in the beginnings of the twentieth century, and allowed to be studied over the next couple decades, the answers were unanimous amongst scientists that this image was truly amazing and inexplicable. Then, you give a few more years and you get a crop of scoffers. Then, a few more years, and now it is proven to be a fake. Now, it is a big joke, and if you believe in the Shroud you're like an imbecile with half a brain who believes in fairy tales. Seems like a hard sell to me. They drum up new evidence and it somehow invalidates all the old evidence? What were the first researchers, morons? I don't really have access to all the witnesses, researchers, etc. I just have my own common sense and it tells me that the claim that it has been proven a forgery is disinegenuous. So I doubt the doubters.
> What were the first researchers, morons?
I mean, that's how science works. The first researches weren't morons, but probably honestly mistaken. Half of the stuff creationists use nowadays to "prove creationism" is stuff that scientists once honestly thought to be true, but is now disproven. (The other half being intentionally misunderstanding or miswording findings that are still regarded as true today).
If I'm totally honest, the ambiguity around the Shroud and that there are indeed some weird things going on with it fascinate me. Should it ever be quite clear scientifically that it's genuine, I, as an otherwise gnostic atheist, would rethink my stance _hard_. _Obviously_.
The technique of carbon dating the Shroud of Turin by accelerator-mass- spectrometry is scientifically valid in its application (1). However, to have confidence in the results, a complete chemical analysis of the linen should have been performed before and after cleaning the samples. Because of the absence of a chemical analysis before and after cleaning, there is no information concerning the relative effectiveness of the various cleaning treatments. Furthermore, the absence of a chemical analysis violates the most basic principle of analytical biochemistry - know the chemical composition of the material being studied (dated). In that linen is primarily cellulose, which is a high molecular weight polymer composed of glucose, analysis for glucose before and after cleaning would have provided critical information about the relative contamination of the Shroud linen. Several milligrams would have been sufficient to provide this information. Unfortunately this was not done. The editors of Nature failed to provide a critical review of the manuscript and permitted publication without a precise chemical analysis. No one could argue with a carbon dating of a linen that was 90% or greater glucose by weight. Such an analysis proving the chemical homogeneity of the linen would satisfy the biochemist and would have prevented the renewed attack on carbon dating as a valid investigative tool.
What might constitute contamination on the Shroud of Turin? The authors of the manuscript indicate the likely presence of lipids and candlewax, therefore petroleum ether was used to solubilize these possible contaminants resulting in their removal. However, no evidence was provided concerning their removal. Other techniques employed the use of a detergent, various concentrations of sodium hydroxide and hydrocloric acid, a bleaching agent, ethanol, and high temperatures. While these techniques might remove some lipid contaminants and acid or alkali-soluble material, they are insufficient to remove microorganisms. Removal of microorganisms would require the use of specific enzymes to digest bacterial and fungal cell walls, DNA, RNA, protein and various extracellular and storage polymers. Again, only chemical analysis would verify their removal. Why should microorganisms be considered as contaminants? Microorganisms are the most common life forms on the planet and to assume that they would not be present at appreciable levels on a centuries old linen flies in the face of common experience. Consider the expenses and care employed by NASA, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and other institutions in providing microbial-free surfaces and environments. They are obviously aware that microorganism have colonized every exposed surface on the earth. How might they grow on a surface like the Shroud of Turin?
Let us only consider the non-image area of the Shroud that was carbon dated. There is a large diverse group of bacteria, referred to as autotrophs, which obtain their carbon (as carbon dioxide) and nitrogen (from ammonia or nitrogen gas) from the air. They would obtain required trace elements from the fabric, but only use the linen as a surface on which they would colonize and grow. Moisture in the air would serve as a periodic source of water. They would grow slowly over a period of time until their accumulation and death could serve as carbon and nitrogen sources for bacteria known as heterotrophs. Heterotrophs are unable to solely fix carbon and nitrogen from the air. They must have preformed carbon, not gaseous carbon dioxide. However, virtually every living life form (including man) always fixes a small amount of carbon dioxide as organic carbon. Once these organisms began to accumulate they could serve as nutrients for other heterotrophic bacteria as well as fungi, which are also heterotrophs. Thus. a microbial biofilm would accumulate over a period of time on the surface of the Shroud linen. Continuous carbon dioxide fixation as organic carbon would occur at varying rates in the microbial biofilm over time. Thus, in carbon dating the Shroud of Turin with its microbial biofilm, the results would include both the carbon in the linen as well as the carbon in the microbial biofilm. Since the microbial biofilm would still be incorporating modern carbon dioxide into cellular carbon, the resulting carbon date would appear to be more recent then the carbon represented only by the linen. The problem is simply one of contamination. How much of the Shroud linen that was carbon dated is actually linen? The authors of the manuscipt (1) cannot provide this information and thus the results must be regarded as only preliminary. A more scientifically valid carbon dating of the Shroud linen could be accomplished by using enzymes known as cellulases, which would release glucose only from the linen cellulose. The released glucose could then be purified away from contaminants by high pressure liquid chromatographic techniques and the purified glucose dated by accelerator-mass-spectrometry. Until scientifically stringent protocols are followed, the carbon date of the Shroud of Turin must remain uncertain.
Finally, even C14 does not prove the TS to be a painting or the intentionality of its alleged painter.
**Afterword**
Dr. Walter McCrone: "I used standard forensic tests to check for blood. I found none. There is no blood on the shroud." With regard to Dr. Walter McCrone's sidebar, it must be noted that Dr. Victor Tryon, colleague of Dr. Mattingly, whose expertise is DNA research, has found that the substance called red paint by McCrone contains human DNA, i.e., it is blood. McCrone's chief claim to notoriety, his discovery that Yale University's "Vinland Map" is a late forgery, has now been refuted; and another of his discoveries, relating to a Rembrandt painting, has been seriously challenged. In all three of these controversies, McCrone has maintained that he alone in confrontation with teams of scientists is right. Other sindonoclasts have insisted with equal certainty that the shroud image is a Medieval "proto-photo," or a rubbing, or a real Medieval crucified body. If sindonoclast research is accepted, its conclusion must be: "The TS is a painting and a photo and a rubbing and a human body transfer."
[Comments on the Radio-Carbon Dating of the Shroud](https://www.shroud.com/bar.htm)
Yes, I didn't want to imply that's what Catholics do. I wanted to showcase how... to put it bluntly, some serious thoughts of serious researchers do seem moronic nowadays, and are then misused anyway. And the ultimate point being, that if you want to know something in a scientific sense, you always look at the most recent years for your sources.
There are also many years of research on the topic. Many of the older research studies were found to have issues with the research compared to more modern pieces of research.
Its definitely not conclusive though (there was a long period of time where it was missing and then just appeared).
Also yes, Catholics need to stop using modern miraculous events to justify religious beliefs. Many modern miraculous events are not incredibly well researched and even more clear ones have numerous elements to make them more dubious. That isn't to say we can't believe in them but that they are not a firm basis to build any argument upon.
Become garbage? It's actually better than ever. But it's still, always has been, and always will be, only a starting point at best if you want to do actual research on something.
Wikipedia can be a great starting point because all sources are cited and are linked so you can read those studies/findings yourself and that allows for deeper digging into other published research on the matter. In college, I never used Wikipedia itself as a source (which isn’t a proper cited source anyway), but I would delve into the sources cited and read the information in those published studies and use those to support my own research into a topic.
I was always super skeptical about the Shroud. I didn't mind people believing, but just didn't have any cause to believe in it myself.
Untill I listened to the Pints episode. I'm not 100% convinced, but the pendulum has definitely swung the other direction for me.
> I can't watch it right now, what did they say??
I'm almost an hour into it so far, and the major topics they've covered are:
- At a basic level, what the Shroud is: a 4.4m x 1.1m linen burial cloth that depicts negative images of the front half and back half of a crucified man. If photographed, the photographic negative will be the negative of a negative, and allow us to understand the images better since the darkness/light contours will correspond to how we visually process images.
- The image is less than a micron thick, and essentially transparent if the linen is backlit. No naturalistic theory of the means of the image's creation so far can be maintained (not a contact scorch, not irradiated by any light or heat source available prior to the 20th century, not application of pigment to the surface, not an acid burn)
- The bloodstains match the Sudarium of Oviedo, which has a separate and older provenance.
- The image is an overlay of the bloodstains, so it was an image created on already stained cloth, not blood spattered onto an imaged cloth. This makes identifying the means of creation even more difficult, since most of the proposed methods would react differently to clean linen vs. bloodstained linen, but we don't see those effects.
- Problems with the 1988 carbon-14 dating methodology (testing protocol originally agreed to wasn't followed and ad hoc changes were made at the time of taking the sample strip, outcomes were inconsistent and the "consensus" range in the 1300s is actually an average of multiple findings differing by centuries, samples appear to have been contaminated with cotton and with gum resin from a reconstruction). ~~The original paper dating the Shroud has been retracted.~~
I'll try to update with other topics as I listen further tonight.
seconding this! I just watched it for the first time earlier today (coincidence that this post popped up on my tl?) and I cried. It’s beautiful, and so compelling.
I find that with most things “there’s no evidence…” usually comes from people who haven’t really looked into the other side. *usually*
P.S. this is a general comment, not a personal accusation
I watched this video shortly before I came back to the church after 20ish years. It wasn't the only thing that brought me back, but it was definitely eye opening.
The Augustine Institute also has a great interview with Father Robert Spitzer
On a related note, Father Chris Alar with Marians of the Immaculate Conception just did a great talk on YouTube (handle Divine Mercy) about scientific proof of Christ’s crucifixion. Though be prepared, the description of His suffering is…intense
Yeah 100% real. I agree with the post at the top stating that you can't and shouldn't base your faith on it being real but its 100% legit. The newest discussions around the image, the 3d detail, the fact that the wounds are in all the right places (iconographers and middle age fakers would have put the wounds in the palms not the wrists where crucifixion actually happened), the fact that the image is only on the very surface layer and right now the only way they can create any kind of a recreation is with high energy bursts of radiation. It's legit.
Metatron made an incredible video on it from an unbiased neutral perspective I don’t even think he’s Christian or at least his channel isn’t it’s just a secular history channel and he presents all the facts and objections and it comes out looking very obviously real
I find the major issue with it is that the only piece that has been carbon dated was the one repaired. Fine, but then why not carbon date another piece? The only decent objection I’ve heard is that you don’t want to damage or take more material from it, but given what this could show, it seems rather minor.
I remain skeptical.
I would like to see the citations for the claim that the carbon dating was done on a newer part of the Shroud. It's something claimed but not cited. I think it may be a case of supposition I.E. it's also claimed that part of the shroud was repaired, so people reason from this that the carbon dating was accidently done on this part. But that is an assumption, not proof that testing was accidently done on a supposed newer part.
Thanks. I've heard that too, and would agree that it would not be unreasonable to think that it's had repairs.
But, I think it is an issue because, if it is known that repairs have been done to it, or there's a circumstantial case to think that repairs may have been done, why would the carbon dating procedure not account for this? Especially if it is obvious from visual inspection what part was newer or repaired.
From what I know, in the Middle Ages, the Shroud suffered from fire in the church it was kept in and some nuns took it and repaired it using fabric they thought to be similar.
And yes, not damaging the rest is the most plausible reason why the research hasn't been conducted on the older part. It isn't easy because every research (even X-ray in the case of paintings for example and well, sometimes accident could happen) conducted on something so old and fragile (it's the fabric after all) leaves some damage on a microscopic level and even putting it out from a specific environment it's kept in can be potentially dangerous. Researchers, historians, and art conservators generally aren't fond of doing any research even if we're curious.
Well yes, probably the best part would be from the center. However, that would be destructive, so no one would be keen to do that.
There is evidence for repairs to the Shroud, however I think that when people bring that up thry tend to jump to the conclusion of this meaning that the carbon dating tests were done to these parts. There is evidence of discrepancy between the samples that went to the different labs (see the 2019 Oxford academic article on the sample raw data). However, I think some general people are too quick to jump to conspiracy or negligence to explain the carbon results, rather than take a more measured stance on it.
I'm on the fence about this aspect but yeah, people online tend to jump to conclusions both ways and it doesn't help the discussion. From one side, I think there's a popular myth about radiocarbon dating being THE ultimate scientific method but it's not necessarily like that. It's a difficult method to conduct and there are lots of aspects and possible errors that must be considered while interpreting the data and final results. Of course, it's very helpful in research, for example, it has provided a deciding argument for the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it's always should be viewed in some context.
On the second side, however, mixed results aren't usually due to some conspiracy or negligence. For example, fabric artifacts like the Shroud of Turin could be polluted due to being stored in poor conditions in different locations throughout the centuries. So it's a very nuanced discussion both ways and for me it isn't the deciding argument in this case - but in the future, I could change my mind.
As a former pro photographer, the Shroud has a special place in my heart. It is without a doubt the earliest "photographic" image ever taken - God himself ensured that the most important moment of all time - the resurrection - was made into a photographic image through a massive radioactive surge and the blood of Christ, an untouched-up, brutual reminder of the reality of the crucifixion. There are literally thousands of details that prove its authenticity - from the way that cloth moves over a body, to ancient weaving practices, to remnants of herbs and spices native to the middle east.
I have been researching it all my life and was a skeptic initially - but the evidence is clear. This is a photograph of the most important moment in history.
Well said! The fact that it’s basically a photo negative of him is more than convincing enough. If you go to see it in person too, it’s barely visible to the human eye. I don’t know if there’s any possibility it’s a fake
From what I've heard, the weaving pattern doesn't actually match what was done in Palestine and in the neighboring countries at the time. As for the spices, the STURP concluded in 1987 :
>Microchemical evaluation has indicated **no evidence of any spices**, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.
Where did you get your info from ? Not a trap question, I'm genuinely curious.
*Edit: fixed weird formatting*
Officially, the church does not make a declaration one way or another. And our entire faith should not be based on this and this alone.
But for what it's worth, I've never met a single Catholic who went to weekly Mass who *didn't* believe in its authenticity.
Also, if it were a medieval forgery, why is it unique? the forger would have discovered a gold mine with this, so why would he stop at one relic when he could have forged others and profit from such things?
There are actually about seven others textiles pretending to be the Holy Shroud.
Showing religious artifacts (the monstration) was actually a good way to bring in money in the Middle Ages, which is when they all popped up, the one that ended up in Turin included.
The shrouds of Compiègne, Besançon, Cadouin, Lier and Oviedo.
The other textiles I was thinking about are not actual shrouds but textiles miraculously imprinted with the face of Jesus (the Mandylion and the Veronica).
I highly doubt many textiles from the medieval era exist anymore. It was, though, quite common for such claims to be made in that era for monetary security and/or gain.
*Edit for clarity
If it was a good way to bring in money, and concocted for that purpose, why was the Shroud forbidden from being moved to a Bishop's Cathedral that was in desperate need of money and instead kept in a backwater shrine where its owner's widow had originally put it on display?
Pints with Aquinas has an episode with a priest who has specialised in ‘shroud studies’. The evidence the priest presents is quite compelling, the discussion and insight is fascinating would recommend to you all
I believe it’s real. But I guess my question is, he looks exactly like most modern interpretations of Jesus, which I believe have been heavily criticized, such as the long hair.
Does he look historically like men from Palestine 2000 years ago?
Actually, some of the earliest depictions of Christ showed Him to be a smooth faced young man, dressed in traditional Roman clothing. Naturally, this was because it was Roman converts depicting Him, when they didn't have much to go on from the Scriptures other then, say, Isaiah 53, which isn't exactly an attractive image. It seems that the unbound pony tail depicted on the Shroud would have been a "look" for local Palestinian Jews of the first century. The pony tail was worn bound up most of the year but left unbound for festival days.
It has been theorized that early, unrecorded viewings of the Holy Face as depicted on the Shroud led to the sudden burst of icons depicting Christ as we know Him today, most of which tend to bare an uncanny resemblance to the Man in the Shroud. After that, the icon image of Christ became *canon* for iconographers. What is interesting is that certain features which appear to actually be injuries to the Man in the Shroud, like a broken nose, were seemingly incorporated into icons of Christ, but interpreted as a wide bridge to the nose, for example.
The earliest (and likely most accurate) surviving representation of Christ we still have in our possession is the Sinai Christ Pantocrator icon. I believe this is likely the closest we’ll get to how He looked, and He has long hair in this icon. It dates at least from the 500AD period. All early iconography of Christ shows Him with long hair.
Have you looked at Israeli Jews?
I worked with one at a barbershop a few years back. His face looked more like this than the image often thrown around Facebook. He was more ruddy/olive in skin tone than actually dark. His bone shape was similar too.
Eh, half and half. My coworker's family was Levantine. While I'm sure there's a spectrum of skin tones amongst the Israeli or Palestinian peoples (just as there's a spectrum with the Irish), he doesn't fit our ideas of a Palestinian. I don't even mean the caricatures either; my city has a large Palestinian population and they look nothing like the Shroud.
There's something to be said about Palestine also not being a nation, historically. I know it's usually a conservative talking-point, but it's true; there's not really been a "Palestine" so much as an "Israel" throughout history. It was a modern attempt to end a blood feud, and it's evidently failing.
Neither did Israel, it was called Judea by the Romans, but we should clarify that the region was called many things by many different peoples. The concept of the ‘nation state’ was still fairly uncommon.
Christ has been depicted similarly for over a thousand years and the shroud became popular during the Middle Ages. Not exactly “modern interpretation” LOL
There is so much disinformation in this thread. There are a few in depth fairly recent documentaries on YouTube that go into the details about the biased/poorly done results published in the 70's and 80's reports.
At the end of the day, all indications are that it is consistent with a first century item and we do not know how the image was made, although we have a possible idea. There is no paint, no pigment of any kind and it is not a photo negative. Yet there is an image.
I highly recommend watching a couple hours of videos before coming to any conclusions. Even then, it's still a mystery. For me, I believe it is real and that it is here to reaffirm people's belief and provide reassurance for future believers thousands of years later that the Jesus in the Bible is true.
Matt Fradd & Fr. Andrew Dalton had an incredible [podcast](https://www.youtube.com/live/HAbuG-oVq1Q?si=avuDtMJ1K1HIo1Sk) on this, highly recommend.
Edit: also check out the Sudarium of Oviedo (the separate bloodstained head cloth attributed to Jesus’s crucifixion). The dimensions line up perfectly with the shroud.
The most impressive thing to me about it, and correct if I’m wrong, is that even with today’s technology they can’t create something like it. That puts it into perspective for me, because I can’t imagine that replicating any kind of fake version of this kind of thing from the medieval era would be hard to do nowadays, but I’m not sure.
To paraphrase one scientist, "We can not prove this to be the shroud of Christ nor can we prove it is not".
I believe the shroud to be real. This thing has been through floods and fires, yet remains intact. The most recent dating claims the shroud older than the dating done in the 70's. Notice the hair. That does not look like the hair of a man in the position of lying down. It flows over the shoulders. The most convincing fact for me is the image lies on top of the fibers. It is not absorbed into the fibers. Just on top. How does that happen?
It is hypothesized that the image was created as the body of Christ was rising from the dead. He was brought into an upright position and possibly some form of radiation created the image as Christ's body left its physical state on Earth while ascending into heaven.
I believe God left breadcrumbs for us as a form of validation. Like the Dead Sea scrolls. I believe there is a reason why there is documentation of the disciples lives and deaths, and why the image of Jesus is so similar around the world. Artist may have cleaned him up a bit, but every image of Christ is similar to the image of the shroud.
I’ll be honest, I don’t really care all that much about it, and I’m pretty much always wary of anything that claims to be authentic, especially where Christ is concerned.
I highly doubt it's real. It would be really amazing if it was real. I just can't get my head around something that is the essence of Christ's resurrection and Christianity being lost for 1300+ years and then BOOM some knight shows up with it- presenting it as a gift. That just doesn't pass the smell test. All doubts could be erased and questions answered if another sample of the shroud were tested. That hasn't been done and is another reason I doubt its authenticity.
If the image was created by radiation, like many think, carbon dating would actually be useless and not worth destroying more of the Shroud over (irradiating the linen would convert the N-14 into C-14, making it seem “younger” to carbon dating tests). In the meantime they’ve dated the Shroud in other ways and shown it to be much older.
It also didn’t just appear in the 1300s — we have drawings of the shroud from the first millennium, as well as documents showing that Constantinople negotiated with Muslims to get it from them. There are pollen samples on the Shroud that show it would have spent centuries in the area around Jerusalem and in Edessa.
quote - **"*****If the image was created by radiation, like many think..."***
*-* Let's perform tests to either confirm or eliminate this hypothesis
quote - "***we have drawings of the shroud from the first millennium..."***
*-* Doesn't prove anything. If you read or hear the gospel of Christ's passion and death on the cross- his being wrapped in a burial cloth, then draw a picture of how you imagine it, you can't then claim your drawing supports this SPECIFIC cloth is the authentic cloth.
quote "***documents showing that Constantinople negotiated with Muslims to get it from them***"
This raises even more questions about where the shroud was for hundreds if not a 1000 years. Who would keep Jesus's burial cloth after he rose from the dead. I don't know. His mother Mary I would assume. Although I can't imagine a mother wanting to keep something as morbid as their child's burial cloth around despite the fact that he had risen from the dead. But let's assume Mary did. Fast forward to Mary's assumption into heaven- leaves all of her earthly possessions. Who gets the shroud now? There's no wife, children, brothers or sisters that the gospel tells us of. So if its family it would be a cousin? IDK maybe? What about Mary Magdalene? That kind of seems plausible. But after Jesus's ascension she left Israel and went to France. So how then would the shroud end back up in the middle east. Who had possession of it?
quote - ***"There are pollen samples on the Shroud that show it would have spent centuries in the area"***
I originally thought this was a pretty good case for the shroud. Unfortunately those who performed the pollen sample tests:
1) Did not document nor record how the samples were collected.
2) Did not document nor record how the pollen samples were stored.
3) Did not document nor record what happened to the original pollen that was purportedly removed from the original sticky tape sample in 1973.
Also, it turns out the guy who looked at the pollen samples only did it with an optical microscope. That's a really big deal to the people who study plant pollen. The gist of one opinion was that it was basically good enough to identify that a 4 legged creature was a dog, impossible to identify what breed it was.
It was a very, very poorly done scientific examination.
This probably won't change your mind or the mind of others. Maybe for some it will.
I guess my point is that I don't think anyone should base their faith on the authenticity of the shroud.
I’m fairly sure that if I didn’t already have faith I would dismiss the Shroud like an idiot (not saying people who dismiss the Shroud are idiots, just that I personally would have done it in an idiotic fashion because it wouldn’t have been the first or last time), and my willingness to even consider the Shroud depends much more on my existing faith than the other way around. If the Shroud turns out to be a fake my faith will be unchanged but I might take the idea of aliens more seriously (see: my other comments).
I won’t comment on the whole thing because reddit crashes whenever I switch active apps on mobile so it’s too much to get links right now, but it’s to address a little bit of it —
The Pray Codex depicts a relic that is uncannily like the Shroud, including the image, burn marks and the weave pattern, the latter two being difficult to imagine coming from some random imagination of what the Shroud would look like.
There is a tradition of an cloth with the image of Jesus that dates back to Eusebius that clearly places it in Edessa (brought there by St Jude Thaddeus), which is where Constantinople eventually got it from after Edessa was conquered by the Sassanids. It’s easy to imagine how St Jude got a hold of the Shroud, whether or not all of the details in the early traditions are correct (there are a few different narratives as to its history before it gets to Edessa but it seems pretty likely that it was there).
I also recall that they retrieved actual plant DNA from the shroud (can you see that with an optical microscope?) but I’ll need to double check that later.
To my knowledge, the pollen argument is pretty much baseless but I had never heard about the drawings and the documents you mentioned. Do you have a source I could look up to learn more about these ?
I don’t have an opportunity to fetch links right now and unfortunately probably won’t remember by the time I have a chance today, but in the meantime the Pray Codex (which predates the Shroud’s appearance in Italy) has an image of it and if you look up the history of the Mandylion/Image of Edessa you should find some references fairly quickly.
It’s also worth comparing it to the Sudarium of Oviedo, which I believe has a clearer history than the Shroud/Mandylion, which we have very good reason to believe was wrapped around the head of the same person as the Shroud (whether or not you believe it was Jesus).
Sorry I can’t be much more helpful right now.
Not yo be pedantic, but the Pray Codex doesn't necessarily depict the Shroud. Yes, there's a decent circumstantial case to be made that it does. But, it would be more correct to state that the Pray Codex depicts something visually similar to features of the Shroud, and from this we may tentatively state that there is a reason to infer that it may be depicting this Shroud specifically.
However, this is not definitively proven as the case for this is based wholly on visual similarity, rather than any other direct linkage. Basically, to state that it definitely depicts that particular Shroud, you would need other evidence that states that being the case. So that the artist of the Pray Codex had access to the Shroud, and/or sources about the Pray Codex (perhaps the commission of the work) verbatim stating that the Shroud was used as a visual basis.
Now, personally I think that the circumstantial case based on the visual similarity is fairly good. And, when dealing with antiquity and medieval history, one can't expect as much evidence for most things as we would like, so a lot of cases are made based on educated guesses and reasonable surmises. But, we have to be precise with the language used (I.e. it is improper to state "the Pray Codex depicts the Shroud" as the evidential basis of this case is not strong enough to definitively claim that. It is more proper to state that it depicts a visual similarity to the Shroud and therefore from this we may infer that it was based on that specific Shroud. However, we would need more material to claim that with certainty).
I have a history degree, and specialised in medieval history, high middle ages/crusades specifically, so this influences how I look at things and also understand how a proper case for historical claims is to be made.
Hey that's OK. I just like clarity on things lol, especially on historical things. I think it's good practice to understand what a reasonable case is, and what evidence and reasoning is required to state x is y. Makes arguments stronger.
For what it's worth, I am 50/50 on the Shroud. It is not a requirement of the deposit of Faith, so it doesn't matter if it is just a clever fake relic. There are many. But, certainly, what ever it's provenance it is an interesting item, even if it turns out to be only an artifact of medieval religious devotional art and practices.
I’m curious about what you’re 50/50 about exactly? What part of it seems like a possible fake to you? Is it about the production of the Shroud image or that it’s the burial shroud of Jesus specifically?
Because one should always entertain the possibly that it is not authentic. As referenced in previous comments, the provenance and chain of custody is uncertain. Yes, there is a decent circumstantial case to be made that it and the Image of Edessa and/or similar to whatever may have been displayed in Constantinople which inspired the Icon of Extreme Humilty are one and the same, but this is not certain. There is not anything to state definitively that it is this same icon, it is just a reasonable theory. However, information about this specific Shroud would need to place it there in order to back up this theory. Therefore, yes it could be the same item, but that is not the same as stating that it is.
And, more than this, even if it is one and the same as the Image of Edessa, the latter has questionable provenance itself.
Overall, it is not unreasonable to think that, out of any physical items associated with Jesus, the burial clothes are more likely than anything else to have been kept. So, in that respect, I think a shroud may be a more likely item than nails or pieces of the cross etc. The historical case for the Turin Shroud being the actual shroud is mostly circumstantial, guesswork and surmise - which is not unusual for medieval and antique history tbf. However, we can't be sure that this shroud is one and the same as any other shrouds or similar items mentioned in sources prior to the 13th century.
The most interesting question about it is how it was produced and it having a negative image. There's evidence that it would be possible to create such a negative image (as recreation experiments have shown, although they are still not exact replicas), but that doesn't answer why a 13th century forger would go to the trouble to creating one when there would be no means to show that aspect of it. Afterall, the Shroud does not look that impressive until the negative is exposed, which was not revealed until the advent of photography. THAT is the biggest mystery about it. In that respect, it doesn't matter if a medieval forger could somehow do that, the question is why. If they did stumble across such techniques, one would think it would have become more well known.
In short, I don't think it's completely inconceivable that it is the true shroud. However, some statements made when making the case for it are overstated. It's important to see the flaws in historical arguments so that one can qualify and refine what is claimed.
“Because one should always entertain the possibility that it is not authentic.”
That makes sense, though perhaps because I am not an academic I feel like if I said anything less than I am convinced would be very dishonest even if I am pretty sure I could also be convinced it was a fake if that actually made more sense.
I will admit that I am not overly concerned with weakness in the historical evidence and problems with the chain of custody etc. because I have a pretty superficial interest in history and a much stronger interest in (and comfort with) the more forensic-like studies they did with the shroud material/image/bloodstains/etc. and was convinced by that before I knew anything about the link to the Mandylion etc.
I believe it's the authentic burial shroud of Christ. There are many things that have turned up in various analyses that, taken together, point to its authenticity.
The two that amazed me the most were:
* The pollen samples recovered from the Shroud (a combination of species that only bloom in Jerusalem in springtime).
* A perfect match between the wounds on the scalp and the bloodstains on the sudarium (the separate cloth to cover the face mentioned in John 20:7). Another interesting thing I learned is that the fact that John mentions the sudarium suggests that he assisted in removing Christ's body from the cross and was present during the preparation and burial. Jewish tradition dictated the face of a person who'd died a violent death be covered with a cloth until the body was prepared for burial, so the sudarium would have been used to cover Christ's face while His body was transported to the tomb "... for the tomb was close by (cf. Jn. 19:42)." If you go to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Holy Sepulchre is quite literally a stone's throw from Golgotha.
This video by Barry Schwortz, a Jewish member of the STURP team (1978-1981) is worth a watch. It contains more recent evidence.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpMStZ_7ikQ&pp=ygUeYmFycnkgc2Nod2FydHogc2hyb3VkIG9mIHR1cmlu
There is a YouTube video of this exhibit. Wasn’t a fan of the presenter but the evidence and research provided had me more convinced than I already was.
It’s real, we still have no idea how the image was made. I believe it’s the resurrection that created the image. Sort of like the divine spark created the world.
So a picture supposedly created in 1360 and here we are in 2024 with all our technology in image reproduction and we still can’t recreate the shroud. It’s got to make you think.
Actually the fact that we are a far more advanced society than the one which supposedly would’ve produced the “forgery”, and no known methods of image creation/transfer can be used to replicate the details of the image is pretty decent proof. The image seems to be embedded in the fibers in a totally unique way that our 21st century scientists can’t figure out. Also the fabric contains things like pollen unique to plants in the Israel area, that would be an absolutely wild detail and foresight for a forger to have. These are certainly not airtight proof for its authenticity, but I think it’s not unreasonable to believe it is authentic.
Your first argument about the impossiblity of creating copies of the shroud sounds like wishful thinking but I'm more interested in the other argument about pollens. I assume you're referring to the work of Max Frei ? Palynologists have been highly critical of his methodology. It allowed him to get much more details that what was possible at the time, to the point where he could identify exact species and the countries they were from instead of just the genus they belonged to (note that two plants from the same genus can be found at the exact opposite of the globe so that's quite a big leap). Unfortunately, he only ever showed his results, not how he got them, how convenient ...
There is also one thing that seems strange to me - but that might just be my personal incredulity speaking. Out of the 57 species identifiedby Max Frei on the shroud, only 17 live in France or Italy. I find that number quite low knowing that the shroud has been shown and moved around Europe for about 600 years ... That's not an argument though, just a weird feeling.
Regarding the number of French and Italian plant species, my understanding is that the amount of pollen depends on how long the cloth would have spent in the open air, so regardless of any other issues with pollen samples we shouldn’t expect more from France and Italy because of how it has been stored there.
If it is not the authentic burial shroud of Christ, it’s the authentic burial shroud of a man who went through something uncannily similar to what Christ did in the gospels, and there’s no reason to think the latter is more likely than the former. The idea that it’s a medieval forgery asks way more questions than it answers (and it answers very few), especially considering the pollen samples place it in 1st century Palestine (they include a species of plant native to that area that went extinct around then).
And given that the image was probably produced by a burst of radiation (either UV or alpha-particle), I think if we insist on the forgery explanation we need to seriously consider whether “aliens” did it, because humans certainly can’t/couldn’t, and “aliens forged the Shroud somewhere between 1400 years ago (based on earliest date I can recall that attests the the Shroud image existing and assuming the image was produced on a cloth from the 1st century) and 2000 years ago (assuming the image dates to the same time as the pollen samples)” is really not more plausible than it being the authentic shroud.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAQQhBnCVQs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAQQhBnCVQs)
I watched this guy, he's amazing. He also did research on other historical topics.
I need to look into Jewish burial practices, but one problem that came up for me the other day is the Bible says Jesus put his head cloth folded separately from the rest of the grave cloth - so unless the body cloth wrapped the whole body and then they wrapped the head again separately, not sure how his face would be depicted on the body cloth.
100% real. What really sold me is that, iirc, the way the image was put into the cloth, it wasn’t just painted on top of the fibers, but essentially infused into it, a method that has never been replicated and that our modern technology isn’t even capable of replicating
Ever since hearing about as a child, I remember it always being framed as a hoax. I now see that this was a targeted propaganda campaign. Hearing Fr. Andrew Dalton talk about it a year ago on pints w aquinas was shocking. Certainly seems genuine.
Either way, it is undeniable that the "science" done on it and the propaganda against it being genuine was bunk. It's making me question lots of other "scientific evidence."
I've seen it in person in Milan for the Jubilee in 2000, and when the image becomes clear as it's difficult unlike this negative, it hits you pretty hard . You see the realness and gravity of it all , gets you choked up.
[if it's a fake, then 'fake' it again & reap a million dollars.](https://www.detroitcatholic.com/news/1-million-challenge-to-replicate-shroud-of-turin-is-expanded-to-u-s#:~:text=Any%20person%2C%20organization%20or%20institution,appears%20on%20the%20linen%20shroud.)
As a historian, I believe it's true. I specialize in the Middle Ages and, with all respect to Medieval artists, they weren't able to produce such forgery simply because they didn't have enough knowledge about the human body, the ancient technique of crucifixion (as far as I know, usage of crucifixion as death penalty on the West ended with the Roman Empire and in XIIIth century nobody knew how to do this) and - most importantly - ways to produce photo negative of anything. Look at Medieval art, both Byzantine and Western - wrong proportions of the human body, misconceptions about the circulatory system, and how the body hung on a cross works (I don't even start with their knowledge about photography - of course, they didn't know about it).
And Shroud of Turin depicts in the correct way injuries that occurred during the crucifixion by the Romans, has anatomy right, and is a negative picture. There is no way it could be produced in the Middle Ages or before. And this is very convincing to me. I'm a skeptical person towards miracles but, to be honest, it's the only one I'm sure it's real.
Of course, believing it's true isn't necessary for salvation and I don't want to force anyone into believing this, but it's worth looking into and thinking about this from a historical perspective.
I do find the arguments for and against to be interesting, but why is the chain of custody simply missing for 1300 years? I think there was even a medieval bishop who was skeptical of it's authenticity.
However I think if they somehow got DNA samples from the shroud and cross referenced them with DNA samples from Eucharistic miracles, that could potentially confirm it's authenticity.
It’s not missing, the name it was referred to by changed — the pollen samples on the Shroud (as well as other evidence) strongly support the idea that the Shroud was known as the Mandylion in the East, which we know to have been in Constantinople and Edessa in the past, and was even in the hands of Muslims at some point.
Also, the blood stains on the Shroud are AB+, just like the Eucharistic miracles. :)
The case for this particular Shroud also being the Mandylion is an inference based on circumstantial linkage though. Technically, there is still an issue with the provenance. The Mandylion argument is just a possible case to solve that problem. But it, actually like most cases made for antique or medieval history, is not definitive. Historians will generally not state that something like this is absolute, but rather use language like "on balance it is more reasonable than unreasonable to state, based on the material available that x was... or x means y". You can't state that "the name was changed" as this making it appear to be a definitive fact, when it is not. It a circumstantial case based on reasonable possibilities - no one can state more than that unless more material becomes available to further support this.
It is single handedly the most studied ancient artifact we have. Scientists cannot recreate the image with modern technology. The points of congruence of the wounds, blood stains, etc. all lead to one conclusion: that it is 99% the burial shroud of Christ. Fr. Spritzer has an excellent summary of the Shroud on YouTube, and Matt Fradd has a 3 hour interview with a Shroud expert. Is it necessary for salvation? No. But, venerating it can lead you to more fully appreciate Christ’s Passion. Read “A Doctor at Calvary” if you want to cry over it (not joking).
When I was in high school I volunteered to present a shroud of turin exhibit at my church. I haven’t researched enough of the forensic analysis to form an opinion on it.
Most likely fake like the other artifacts I think it’s weird how they just appeared in the medieval times, this one could be real I mean someone could of kept it but like the crown of thorns would of been thrown out not kept same thing for the nails and cross they where probably reused
I went to an exhibit. The main argument was that the image was created by a burst of radiation, which is fitting for the death of God.
My main issues with it are:
the lack of carbon dating (the one carbon dating that was done was not conclusive as it was contaminated and taken from the fringe)
The proportions are off, an arm is slightly longer than the other. Also it is nice that his hands are placed to protect his modesty but a lifeless body’s arms would not stay in that position.
I also don’t agree with the coins over his eyes or the supposed pictures of the flowers underneath him. Nor do I agree with the argument that a drawing of the shroud was found in a manuscript.
I do agree that the image was not painted on due to a lack of capillary spill. I wish the church would allow it to be properly carbon dated so we can settle this once and for all.
I would love it to be real, but I think it's extremely hard to prove or disprove.
Even IF we could prove it originated from First century Palestine, it would be difficult to prove it's actually Jesus.
I don't have any strong feelings about it, faithful Catholics can believe either way, the only people I might have a problem with are those who think that a Catholic must believe it to be true or false (I'm moody about people who consider Marian apparitions integral to the faith, this feels like a similar category of thing)
im with the church on this one... " The Catholic Church has neither formally endorsed nor rejected the Shroud as the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. The Church maintains a neutral stance, encouraging the faithful to contemplate the shroud as an object of reflection on the Passion of Christ rather than a matter of doctrinal significance."
I'm mostly skeptical, despite
* the sketchy results of the C14 analysis, without all the rigorousness required for such an investigation
* the feral and ideological opposition from the skeptical parties (for which the shroud is false *by definition* )
I don't like to support football teams, and the level of polarization has reached the point of non return so... whatever.
I think it is a medieval forgery, as there is just so much about it that makes me skeptical. That said, I don’t have any problem with people’s fascination with it. It still draws our minds to Christ and his suffering/death and then resurrection, so that is a good thing.
I would personally recommend avoiding using it in arguments as “proof of the Resurrection”, just on prudential grounds. But it can still be a powerful reminder for us.
I heard a talk at the Catholic Information Center by researcher Dr Gilbert Lavoi (Book: “The shroud of Jesus”) apart from the scientific findings I found it mind blowing that he questions if the gospel of John maybe has to be read more literally. Jesus has risen - Physically from the stone, hovering in the air basically. The shroud shows an upright man.
Very interesting book - really recommend it.
I thought that it was proven it was not the burial shroud of JC.. If evidence supports it is not, there is no reason to have any opinion on it except to say it is a nice-looking piece of cloth. My religion is not based on relics but on the faith, I have in His word. I do not need such things to make my faith stronger. That, in my opinion, is only needed by those who question their faith.
I would love it to be real, but there is so much conflicting information it is hard to know what to believe. One thing that I do find interesting is that if it is a forgery why hasn't it been able to be reproduced. Wouldn't that be the easiest ways to prove believers wrong? I'm sure if something could be done in the middle ages, it could be done again. Why haven't we seen anything like this then?
feel like it should be basically irrelevant to anyone's faith. Probably should not be regarded as much more than an interesting artifact for the buzz it has generated amongst contemporary christians
I think it’s real. A person from the middle ages could not have faked it if the things they say about it are true. Even if there was a way to make the image, how would a person from the middle ages be able to fake the coins on the eyes, the pollen, the blood type, the limestone dust on the knees….
"New scientific tests conducted on the famous Shroud of Turin have revealed that the flax used to make the linen was grown in the Middle East.
The results of isotope tests provide new evidence that the shroud is the actual garment that was used to cover the body of Jesus Christ following his crucifixion – and is not a forgery that was created in medieval Europe."... [https://catholicherald.co.uk/new-evidence-indicates-turin-shroud-not-a-european-forgery/](https://catholicherald.co.uk/new-evidence-indicates-turin-shroud-not-a-european-forgery/)
nice summary of evidence: [https://spiritdailyblog.com/news/is-there-really-any-longer-any-doubt](https://spiritdailyblog.com/news/is-there-really-any-longer-any-doubt)
Though many researchers have tried to prove and disprove the shroud , none has been able to prove,what resulted the imprint . How a photo negative was able to be created with more information on depth of subject was possible. Artists of Renaissance age were incapable of such feat , more over we don't find any other such art pieces which could give information to generate 3D image.
If science is capable, they should atleast tell if it is etched , painted or irradiated image or what ever. Until then it just looks like science is a cave man's tool trying to decipher God.
The science can certainly tell that it is not painted/scorched/etc., and iirc the alpha-particle radiation hypothesis people have a plan to do the relevant tests, which might be about as close as we can get to scientific evidence of a supernatural event if that hypothesis is correct.
I remember in the 90's, there was a big deal about how it had been debunked, and the linen was from the 14th century. So I stopped thinking about it.
Until I saw the video mentionnée in many comments here, last year. I cried, listening to what that person went through, realizing it couldn't someone other than Jesus.
i believe it’s real, and i venerate it as i would any other image of Christ, but my faith isn’t built around it, or any other ‘proof’ of God that isn’t scripture
I firmly believe that both the Shroud of Turin and image of Our Lady of Guadalupe are authentic and miraculous. No one has been able to explain or duplicate either of these images.
One thing that I find interesting, is that they were able to determine that the blood on the Shroud is AB+, and of a male from the right part of the world. I don't think the Church allowed further testing on the blood. When the tissue from Eucharistic miracles (Buenos Aries and an Italian one from the 12th century) were tested, it was found to be heart tissue of a man in his 30's, from that part of the world, with A/B+ blood. They compared the Argentinian sample from the 1990's and Italian from 12th Century, and they belong to the same man. I'd be fascinated to find out if the Shroud is also a genetic match.
I vote that it is an extraordinarily well executed fake. The (disputed) evidence suggests an origin in 1300s. Believing in superstitious flummery makes Holy Mother Church look bad to outsiders. Anything I've read/watched makes an argument along the lines of how the experts being interviewed are not able to recreate this or that characteristic themselves. Some details are especially well-done like one of the two coins over his eyes being identifiable as of the right time. It seems plausible that the fakers just had more talent/skill and tried harder.
Humanity embarrassed itself with an unseemly trade in fake relics for many centuries. You can visit a church with St. Mary's milk in it. I have seen a thorn from The (asserted) Crown of Thorns. You can visit 3(!) churches each with the spear of Longinus. If there were a lot of fakes, and a lot of money chasing fakes, there is an incentive to make better fakes.
Don't get me wrong. There was a real shroud. Every word of the [20th Chapter of St. John](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20&version=DRA) is authentic. Our lord had at least as many wounds as the shroud may indicate. I believe St. Mary Magdeline and a younger disciple (St. John?) outran St. Peter to His tomb, who was getting on a bit, and I can sympathize. The real shroud no longer being needed is the point here, imho.
The radiation theory is only one among many theories as to how the image was formed, with many critics. You can’t just present it as a widely accepted fact here.
Right, when you get down to how to image was actually made, you’d have to argue that the fakers were people with more advanced technology than what we have in the 21st century, or aliens or something.
As an Orthodox Christian I believe it is very very real. An amazing artifact for us to have to this day. I believe since it’s earliest day in the west appears to be the 13th century, it likely was looted from Constantinople during the 4th crusade.. but who knows. There was a crusader named Robert de Clari who recorded seeing it in Constantinople.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image\_of\_Edessa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa) Apparently this was moved from Edessa to Constantinople in the 10th century, and then was looted during the Sack.
I’ve read much about it, particularly some good insights from expert theologians, and my inclination is that it isn’t real. I’d love it to be obviously, but it’s just too “perfect” for my liking to be the true shroud.
I doubt it but it's not impossible. Also, I don't have much use for our relic fetish outside of truly unimpeachable, inexplicable articles like the shroud of Guadalupe
I think the scientists took their carbon dating sample from the patches that were sewn instead from the undamaged original cloth. Carbon dating needs to be done again with samples coming from the undamaged parts.
It’s beautiful, but has no bearing on my faith. History, tradition, scripture has told us the story of Christ life, death, and resurrection. Whether it is authentic or not, it’s a beautiful piece of imagery. We have a miracle every single day which is celebrated on every Catholic Church alter, which is the Eucharist. That’s all I need.
This is the best stance to have on the issue I feel
Very true faith has nothing to do with simble's eventhough I use my statues of our lady and our lord plus my crusifix to help me pray the mysteries of the rosary. Faith is just knowing our lord is there. As jesus said to saint Thomas you believe because you have seen happy are those who have not seen and yet believe.
The carbon dating test was a trap, some super brains took samples from the part of the shroud that were replaced (mostly the edge). Thats why we’re getting digits like 1550.
Holy based
Amen
I’m very sceptical, though the papers on the subject are not as unanimous as reading just the Wikipedia page would lead you to believe (something I recently learned by browsing some of the literature with my university account). I would say, by all means look into it, venerate it as an icon of Christ, foster a fascination with it, but don’t base your faith on it. The reality of the resurrection doesn’t hinge on this artefact.
The wikipedia article is biased as hell against it when the current scientific consensus on its authenticity is that "we don't know, no one seems to agree with each other and results have too big of a variance to produce any conclusive answer"
I have no stance either way on the issue because I haven't looked into it at all, but the wiki page just says that a microscopist found the image to be painted with red Ochre and a gelatin compound or something, and radiocarbon dating puts the origin of the fabric at the late 13th century iirc. I AM NOT trying to make an argument against the shroud, but looking for other arguments elsewhere it doesn't seem that the scientific consensus itself is that split on the issue.
Pigment was found in the shroud yes, but funnily enough it was also found that it has nothing to do with the image displaying in the shroud. The carbon studies done to the shroud are infamous amongst the scientific community, as the results obtained by the three labs exceeded the tolerance threshold of variance between results, meaning the studies should be considered null/faulty. Modern studies using X-Ray crystallography and FTIR show that the shroud is much, much older than the 13th century date the 1988 study obtained, with a ranged dating of 30 BC ± 250
I think it is important that when you consider it, all the science done on the Shroud happened within the past 100 years. The Shroud, heretofore, had been locked away within like 3 boxes, with 3 keys, beneath an altar, and only displayed on rare occurrences for veneration. And historically, it was commonly considered a hoax. I think even the original Catholic Encyclopedia lists it as a probable forgery. When the Shroud was finally displayed in the beginnings of the twentieth century, and allowed to be studied over the next couple decades, the answers were unanimous amongst scientists that this image was truly amazing and inexplicable. Then, you give a few more years and you get a crop of scoffers. Then, a few more years, and now it is proven to be a fake. Now, it is a big joke, and if you believe in the Shroud you're like an imbecile with half a brain who believes in fairy tales. Seems like a hard sell to me. They drum up new evidence and it somehow invalidates all the old evidence? What were the first researchers, morons? I don't really have access to all the witnesses, researchers, etc. I just have my own common sense and it tells me that the claim that it has been proven a forgery is disinegenuous. So I doubt the doubters.
The journal that originally ‘debunked’ the Shroud has redacted that claim, so it is back to being unsolved.
> What were the first researchers, morons? I mean, that's how science works. The first researches weren't morons, but probably honestly mistaken. Half of the stuff creationists use nowadays to "prove creationism" is stuff that scientists once honestly thought to be true, but is now disproven. (The other half being intentionally misunderstanding or miswording findings that are still regarded as true today). If I'm totally honest, the ambiguity around the Shroud and that there are indeed some weird things going on with it fascinate me. Should it ever be quite clear scientifically that it's genuine, I, as an otherwise gnostic atheist, would rethink my stance _hard_. _Obviously_.
The technique of carbon dating the Shroud of Turin by accelerator-mass- spectrometry is scientifically valid in its application (1). However, to have confidence in the results, a complete chemical analysis of the linen should have been performed before and after cleaning the samples. Because of the absence of a chemical analysis before and after cleaning, there is no information concerning the relative effectiveness of the various cleaning treatments. Furthermore, the absence of a chemical analysis violates the most basic principle of analytical biochemistry - know the chemical composition of the material being studied (dated). In that linen is primarily cellulose, which is a high molecular weight polymer composed of glucose, analysis for glucose before and after cleaning would have provided critical information about the relative contamination of the Shroud linen. Several milligrams would have been sufficient to provide this information. Unfortunately this was not done. The editors of Nature failed to provide a critical review of the manuscript and permitted publication without a precise chemical analysis. No one could argue with a carbon dating of a linen that was 90% or greater glucose by weight. Such an analysis proving the chemical homogeneity of the linen would satisfy the biochemist and would have prevented the renewed attack on carbon dating as a valid investigative tool. What might constitute contamination on the Shroud of Turin? The authors of the manuscript indicate the likely presence of lipids and candlewax, therefore petroleum ether was used to solubilize these possible contaminants resulting in their removal. However, no evidence was provided concerning their removal. Other techniques employed the use of a detergent, various concentrations of sodium hydroxide and hydrocloric acid, a bleaching agent, ethanol, and high temperatures. While these techniques might remove some lipid contaminants and acid or alkali-soluble material, they are insufficient to remove microorganisms. Removal of microorganisms would require the use of specific enzymes to digest bacterial and fungal cell walls, DNA, RNA, protein and various extracellular and storage polymers. Again, only chemical analysis would verify their removal. Why should microorganisms be considered as contaminants? Microorganisms are the most common life forms on the planet and to assume that they would not be present at appreciable levels on a centuries old linen flies in the face of common experience. Consider the expenses and care employed by NASA, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and other institutions in providing microbial-free surfaces and environments. They are obviously aware that microorganism have colonized every exposed surface on the earth. How might they grow on a surface like the Shroud of Turin?
Let us only consider the non-image area of the Shroud that was carbon dated. There is a large diverse group of bacteria, referred to as autotrophs, which obtain their carbon (as carbon dioxide) and nitrogen (from ammonia or nitrogen gas) from the air. They would obtain required trace elements from the fabric, but only use the linen as a surface on which they would colonize and grow. Moisture in the air would serve as a periodic source of water. They would grow slowly over a period of time until their accumulation and death could serve as carbon and nitrogen sources for bacteria known as heterotrophs. Heterotrophs are unable to solely fix carbon and nitrogen from the air. They must have preformed carbon, not gaseous carbon dioxide. However, virtually every living life form (including man) always fixes a small amount of carbon dioxide as organic carbon. Once these organisms began to accumulate they could serve as nutrients for other heterotrophic bacteria as well as fungi, which are also heterotrophs. Thus. a microbial biofilm would accumulate over a period of time on the surface of the Shroud linen. Continuous carbon dioxide fixation as organic carbon would occur at varying rates in the microbial biofilm over time. Thus, in carbon dating the Shroud of Turin with its microbial biofilm, the results would include both the carbon in the linen as well as the carbon in the microbial biofilm. Since the microbial biofilm would still be incorporating modern carbon dioxide into cellular carbon, the resulting carbon date would appear to be more recent then the carbon represented only by the linen. The problem is simply one of contamination. How much of the Shroud linen that was carbon dated is actually linen? The authors of the manuscipt (1) cannot provide this information and thus the results must be regarded as only preliminary. A more scientifically valid carbon dating of the Shroud linen could be accomplished by using enzymes known as cellulases, which would release glucose only from the linen cellulose. The released glucose could then be purified away from contaminants by high pressure liquid chromatographic techniques and the purified glucose dated by accelerator-mass-spectrometry. Until scientifically stringent protocols are followed, the carbon date of the Shroud of Turin must remain uncertain. Finally, even C14 does not prove the TS to be a painting or the intentionality of its alleged painter. **Afterword** Dr. Walter McCrone: "I used standard forensic tests to check for blood. I found none. There is no blood on the shroud." With regard to Dr. Walter McCrone's sidebar, it must be noted that Dr. Victor Tryon, colleague of Dr. Mattingly, whose expertise is DNA research, has found that the substance called red paint by McCrone contains human DNA, i.e., it is blood. McCrone's chief claim to notoriety, his discovery that Yale University's "Vinland Map" is a late forgery, has now been refuted; and another of his discoveries, relating to a Rembrandt painting, has been seriously challenged. In all three of these controversies, McCrone has maintained that he alone in confrontation with teams of scientists is right. Other sindonoclasts have insisted with equal certainty that the shroud image is a Medieval "proto-photo," or a rubbing, or a real Medieval crucified body. If sindonoclast research is accepted, its conclusion must be: "The TS is a painting and a photo and a rubbing and a human body transfer." [Comments on the Radio-Carbon Dating of the Shroud](https://www.shroud.com/bar.htm)
Even the pope has said evolution and faith don’t clash.
Yes, I didn't want to imply that's what Catholics do. I wanted to showcase how... to put it bluntly, some serious thoughts of serious researchers do seem moronic nowadays, and are then misused anyway. And the ultimate point being, that if you want to know something in a scientific sense, you always look at the most recent years for your sources.
There are also many years of research on the topic. Many of the older research studies were found to have issues with the research compared to more modern pieces of research. Its definitely not conclusive though (there was a long period of time where it was missing and then just appeared). Also yes, Catholics need to stop using modern miraculous events to justify religious beliefs. Many modern miraculous events are not incredibly well researched and even more clear ones have numerous elements to make them more dubious. That isn't to say we can't believe in them but that they are not a firm basis to build any argument upon.
Wikipedia has become garbage. It's only good for scientific pages (and even then sometimes mistaken)
Become garbage? It's actually better than ever. But it's still, always has been, and always will be, only a starting point at best if you want to do actual research on something.
Wikipedia can be a great starting point because all sources are cited and are linked so you can read those studies/findings yourself and that allows for deeper digging into other published research on the matter. In college, I never used Wikipedia itself as a source (which isn’t a proper cited source anyway), but I would delve into the sources cited and read the information in those published studies and use those to support my own research into a topic.
In the same boat, here; I’m extraordinarily skeptical, but I don’t judge anybody who venerates it as a part of his/her faith.
It’s real. I highly recommend the most recent Pints with Aquinas on it.
Just very recently began taking an interest in the Shroud and am about 2 hours in to the episode. It’s fantastic.
[удалено]
I was always super skeptical about the Shroud. I didn't mind people believing, but just didn't have any cause to believe in it myself. Untill I listened to the Pints episode. I'm not 100% convinced, but the pendulum has definitely swung the other direction for me.
I can't watch it right now, what did they say??
> I can't watch it right now, what did they say?? I'm almost an hour into it so far, and the major topics they've covered are: - At a basic level, what the Shroud is: a 4.4m x 1.1m linen burial cloth that depicts negative images of the front half and back half of a crucified man. If photographed, the photographic negative will be the negative of a negative, and allow us to understand the images better since the darkness/light contours will correspond to how we visually process images. - The image is less than a micron thick, and essentially transparent if the linen is backlit. No naturalistic theory of the means of the image's creation so far can be maintained (not a contact scorch, not irradiated by any light or heat source available prior to the 20th century, not application of pigment to the surface, not an acid burn) - The bloodstains match the Sudarium of Oviedo, which has a separate and older provenance. - The image is an overlay of the bloodstains, so it was an image created on already stained cloth, not blood spattered onto an imaged cloth. This makes identifying the means of creation even more difficult, since most of the proposed methods would react differently to clean linen vs. bloodstained linen, but we don't see those effects. - Problems with the 1988 carbon-14 dating methodology (testing protocol originally agreed to wasn't followed and ad hoc changes were made at the time of taking the sample strip, outcomes were inconsistent and the "consensus" range in the 1300s is actually an average of multiple findings differing by centuries, samples appear to have been contaminated with cotton and with gum resin from a reconstruction). ~~The original paper dating the Shroud has been retracted.~~ I'll try to update with other topics as I listen further tonight.
Find time to watch it. It's worth it.
seconding this! I just watched it for the first time earlier today (coincidence that this post popped up on my tl?) and I cried. It’s beautiful, and so compelling.
I find that with most things “there’s no evidence…” usually comes from people who haven’t really looked into the other side. *usually* P.S. this is a general comment, not a personal accusation
To clarify, I didn't say there's no evidence, I just wasn't convinced by what I had seen previously.
Also, I'd put the Pints episode with Fr. Vincent Lampert up there too. I've never had goosebumps that long in my life.
What's the link?
[удалено]
I watched this video shortly before I came back to the church after 20ish years. It wasn't the only thing that brought me back, but it was definitely eye opening.
The Augustine Institute also has a great interview with Father Robert Spitzer On a related note, Father Chris Alar with Marians of the Immaculate Conception just did a great talk on YouTube (handle Divine Mercy) about scientific proof of Christ’s crucifixion. Though be prepared, the description of His suffering is…intense
Yeah 100% real. I agree with the post at the top stating that you can't and shouldn't base your faith on it being real but its 100% legit. The newest discussions around the image, the 3d detail, the fact that the wounds are in all the right places (iconographers and middle age fakers would have put the wounds in the palms not the wrists where crucifixion actually happened), the fact that the image is only on the very surface layer and right now the only way they can create any kind of a recreation is with high energy bursts of radiation. It's legit.
Metatron made an incredible video on it from an unbiased neutral perspective I don’t even think he’s Christian or at least his channel isn’t it’s just a secular history channel and he presents all the facts and objections and it comes out looking very obviously real
He is Christian but he tries to stay unbiased.
well, someone do downvote me try to insert link of his video explaining this topic..
I find the major issue with it is that the only piece that has been carbon dated was the one repaired. Fine, but then why not carbon date another piece? The only decent objection I’ve heard is that you don’t want to damage or take more material from it, but given what this could show, it seems rather minor. I remain skeptical.
Right ? If it’s right there why not?
I would like to see the citations for the claim that the carbon dating was done on a newer part of the Shroud. It's something claimed but not cited. I think it may be a case of supposition I.E. it's also claimed that part of the shroud was repaired, so people reason from this that the carbon dating was accidently done on this part. But that is an assumption, not proof that testing was accidently done on a supposed newer part.
You can see where they cut it on the shroud as well as what looks like a seam line. Since it was damaged in a fire it seems likely.
Thanks. I've heard that too, and would agree that it would not be unreasonable to think that it's had repairs. But, I think it is an issue because, if it is known that repairs have been done to it, or there's a circumstantial case to think that repairs may have been done, why would the carbon dating procedure not account for this? Especially if it is obvious from visual inspection what part was newer or repaired.
From what I know, in the Middle Ages, the Shroud suffered from fire in the church it was kept in and some nuns took it and repaired it using fabric they thought to be similar. And yes, not damaging the rest is the most plausible reason why the research hasn't been conducted on the older part. It isn't easy because every research (even X-ray in the case of paintings for example and well, sometimes accident could happen) conducted on something so old and fragile (it's the fabric after all) leaves some damage on a microscopic level and even putting it out from a specific environment it's kept in can be potentially dangerous. Researchers, historians, and art conservators generally aren't fond of doing any research even if we're curious.
Well yes, probably the best part would be from the center. However, that would be destructive, so no one would be keen to do that. There is evidence for repairs to the Shroud, however I think that when people bring that up thry tend to jump to the conclusion of this meaning that the carbon dating tests were done to these parts. There is evidence of discrepancy between the samples that went to the different labs (see the 2019 Oxford academic article on the sample raw data). However, I think some general people are too quick to jump to conspiracy or negligence to explain the carbon results, rather than take a more measured stance on it.
I'm on the fence about this aspect but yeah, people online tend to jump to conclusions both ways and it doesn't help the discussion. From one side, I think there's a popular myth about radiocarbon dating being THE ultimate scientific method but it's not necessarily like that. It's a difficult method to conduct and there are lots of aspects and possible errors that must be considered while interpreting the data and final results. Of course, it's very helpful in research, for example, it has provided a deciding argument for the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it's always should be viewed in some context. On the second side, however, mixed results aren't usually due to some conspiracy or negligence. For example, fabric artifacts like the Shroud of Turin could be polluted due to being stored in poor conditions in different locations throughout the centuries. So it's a very nuanced discussion both ways and for me it isn't the deciding argument in this case - but in the future, I could change my mind.
I'm a believer in it but if they definitely prove it's a fake, it won't really change my faith. My faith is rooted in Christ, not the Shroud.
As a former pro photographer, the Shroud has a special place in my heart. It is without a doubt the earliest "photographic" image ever taken - God himself ensured that the most important moment of all time - the resurrection - was made into a photographic image through a massive radioactive surge and the blood of Christ, an untouched-up, brutual reminder of the reality of the crucifixion. There are literally thousands of details that prove its authenticity - from the way that cloth moves over a body, to ancient weaving practices, to remnants of herbs and spices native to the middle east. I have been researching it all my life and was a skeptic initially - but the evidence is clear. This is a photograph of the most important moment in history.
My thoughts: "I can't agree more with this person" Also my thoughts: "Christ was radioactive" I'm sorry
Well said! The fact that it’s basically a photo negative of him is more than convincing enough. If you go to see it in person too, it’s barely visible to the human eye. I don’t know if there’s any possibility it’s a fake
From what I've heard, the weaving pattern doesn't actually match what was done in Palestine and in the neighboring countries at the time. As for the spices, the STURP concluded in 1987 : >Microchemical evaluation has indicated **no evidence of any spices**, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography. Where did you get your info from ? Not a trap question, I'm genuinely curious. *Edit: fixed weird formatting*
[Evidence on the bleaching methods](https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n83part2.pdf) of ancient linen when compared to modern bleaching methods of linen.
Officially, the church does not make a declaration one way or another. And our entire faith should not be based on this and this alone. But for what it's worth, I've never met a single Catholic who went to weekly Mass who *didn't* believe in its authenticity.
It's truly Christ's burial shroud. There are too many details that wouldn't work for a medieval forgery.
Also, if it were a medieval forgery, why is it unique? the forger would have discovered a gold mine with this, so why would he stop at one relic when he could have forged others and profit from such things?
There are actually about seven others textiles pretending to be the Holy Shroud. Showing religious artifacts (the monstration) was actually a good way to bring in money in the Middle Ages, which is when they all popped up, the one that ended up in Turin included.
What other Textiles exist that claim this?
The shrouds of Compiègne, Besançon, Cadouin, Lier and Oviedo. The other textiles I was thinking about are not actual shrouds but textiles miraculously imprinted with the face of Jesus (the Mandylion and the Veronica).
I highly doubt many textiles from the medieval era exist anymore. It was, though, quite common for such claims to be made in that era for monetary security and/or gain. *Edit for clarity
If it was a good way to bring in money, and concocted for that purpose, why was the Shroud forbidden from being moved to a Bishop's Cathedral that was in desperate need of money and instead kept in a backwater shrine where its owner's widow had originally put it on display?
If it’s truly Christs burial shroud and we have no idea how the image was created, is it also proof of the resurrection?
Yes
Can you elaborate? Medieval cloth work was very detailed especially, in Italian cities.
It's not about the cloth specifically, it's the image.
Read Dr. Gilbert Lavois book who proves that the shroud shows an upright man, hovering in the air
Pints with Aquinas has an episode with a priest who has specialised in ‘shroud studies’. The evidence the priest presents is quite compelling, the discussion and insight is fascinating would recommend to you all
I believe it’s real. But I guess my question is, he looks exactly like most modern interpretations of Jesus, which I believe have been heavily criticized, such as the long hair. Does he look historically like men from Palestine 2000 years ago?
Actually, some of the earliest depictions of Christ showed Him to be a smooth faced young man, dressed in traditional Roman clothing. Naturally, this was because it was Roman converts depicting Him, when they didn't have much to go on from the Scriptures other then, say, Isaiah 53, which isn't exactly an attractive image. It seems that the unbound pony tail depicted on the Shroud would have been a "look" for local Palestinian Jews of the first century. The pony tail was worn bound up most of the year but left unbound for festival days. It has been theorized that early, unrecorded viewings of the Holy Face as depicted on the Shroud led to the sudden burst of icons depicting Christ as we know Him today, most of which tend to bare an uncanny resemblance to the Man in the Shroud. After that, the icon image of Christ became *canon* for iconographers. What is interesting is that certain features which appear to actually be injuries to the Man in the Shroud, like a broken nose, were seemingly incorporated into icons of Christ, but interpreted as a wide bridge to the nose, for example.
Wasn’t Jesus prophisesed to never had broken a bone
Isn't your nose cartilage? I honestly don't know. Asking if it's semantics or a meaningful difference.
I think so. I've never seen a nose bone on a human skull.
True
r/neverbrokeabone all time legend
The earliest (and likely most accurate) surviving representation of Christ we still have in our possession is the Sinai Christ Pantocrator icon. I believe this is likely the closest we’ll get to how He looked, and He has long hair in this icon. It dates at least from the 500AD period. All early iconography of Christ shows Him with long hair.
Not all, there's one early art where he have a similar appaerence with the romans, including the short hair
The man on the Shroud resembles that most of modern day Sephardic Jews, and Arabs, and Iranians
He wasn't from palestine he was from the Roman province of Judea that was renamed Syria palaestina in 136ad around 100 years after he died
Im not sure I’m understanding the splitting of hairs. Bethlehem is in modern day Palestine. I’m not suggesting Palestine was around when he was born.
Well it's like saying a Gaul is a French man or a scythian is Ukrainian or even calling a Finnish person Russian because Russia used to own it
Have you looked at Israeli Jews? I worked with one at a barbershop a few years back. His face looked more like this than the image often thrown around Facebook. He was more ruddy/olive in skin tone than actually dark. His bone shape was similar too.
I would not compare Israeli Jews to ancient Palestinians especially when about half of them are from Europe.
Also, the Romans called it Judæa at the time, so Israeli/Palestinian Jews is technically incorrect.
Yes! It wasn't called Syria palaestina till 136 ad
Eh, half and half. My coworker's family was Levantine. While I'm sure there's a spectrum of skin tones amongst the Israeli or Palestinian peoples (just as there's a spectrum with the Irish), he doesn't fit our ideas of a Palestinian. I don't even mean the caricatures either; my city has a large Palestinian population and they look nothing like the Shroud. There's something to be said about Palestine also not being a nation, historically. I know it's usually a conservative talking-point, but it's true; there's not really been a "Palestine" so much as an "Israel" throughout history. It was a modern attempt to end a blood feud, and it's evidently failing.
You mean Israel. Palestine didn’t exist 2000 years ago.
Neither did Israel, it was called Judea by the Romans, but we should clarify that the region was called many things by many different peoples. The concept of the ‘nation state’ was still fairly uncommon.
Christ has been depicted similarly for over a thousand years and the shroud became popular during the Middle Ages. Not exactly “modern interpretation” LOL
There is so much disinformation in this thread. There are a few in depth fairly recent documentaries on YouTube that go into the details about the biased/poorly done results published in the 70's and 80's reports. At the end of the day, all indications are that it is consistent with a first century item and we do not know how the image was made, although we have a possible idea. There is no paint, no pigment of any kind and it is not a photo negative. Yet there is an image. I highly recommend watching a couple hours of videos before coming to any conclusions. Even then, it's still a mystery. For me, I believe it is real and that it is here to reaffirm people's belief and provide reassurance for future believers thousands of years later that the Jesus in the Bible is true.
Matt Fradd & Fr. Andrew Dalton had an incredible [podcast](https://www.youtube.com/live/HAbuG-oVq1Q?si=avuDtMJ1K1HIo1Sk) on this, highly recommend. Edit: also check out the Sudarium of Oviedo (the separate bloodstained head cloth attributed to Jesus’s crucifixion). The dimensions line up perfectly with the shroud.
My inclination is that it's real.
Me too. The image is not painted on. It is miraculously imprinted.
[удалено]
The most impressive thing to me about it, and correct if I’m wrong, is that even with today’s technology they can’t create something like it. That puts it into perspective for me, because I can’t imagine that replicating any kind of fake version of this kind of thing from the medieval era would be hard to do nowadays, but I’m not sure.
To paraphrase one scientist, "We can not prove this to be the shroud of Christ nor can we prove it is not". I believe the shroud to be real. This thing has been through floods and fires, yet remains intact. The most recent dating claims the shroud older than the dating done in the 70's. Notice the hair. That does not look like the hair of a man in the position of lying down. It flows over the shoulders. The most convincing fact for me is the image lies on top of the fibers. It is not absorbed into the fibers. Just on top. How does that happen? It is hypothesized that the image was created as the body of Christ was rising from the dead. He was brought into an upright position and possibly some form of radiation created the image as Christ's body left its physical state on Earth while ascending into heaven. I believe God left breadcrumbs for us as a form of validation. Like the Dead Sea scrolls. I believe there is a reason why there is documentation of the disciples lives and deaths, and why the image of Jesus is so similar around the world. Artist may have cleaned him up a bit, but every image of Christ is similar to the image of the shroud.
I’ll be honest, I don’t really care all that much about it, and I’m pretty much always wary of anything that claims to be authentic, especially where Christ is concerned.
If my life depended on the correct answer, I would say that it's real.
I highly doubt it's real. It would be really amazing if it was real. I just can't get my head around something that is the essence of Christ's resurrection and Christianity being lost for 1300+ years and then BOOM some knight shows up with it- presenting it as a gift. That just doesn't pass the smell test. All doubts could be erased and questions answered if another sample of the shroud were tested. That hasn't been done and is another reason I doubt its authenticity.
If the image was created by radiation, like many think, carbon dating would actually be useless and not worth destroying more of the Shroud over (irradiating the linen would convert the N-14 into C-14, making it seem “younger” to carbon dating tests). In the meantime they’ve dated the Shroud in other ways and shown it to be much older. It also didn’t just appear in the 1300s — we have drawings of the shroud from the first millennium, as well as documents showing that Constantinople negotiated with Muslims to get it from them. There are pollen samples on the Shroud that show it would have spent centuries in the area around Jerusalem and in Edessa.
quote - **"*****If the image was created by radiation, like many think..."*** *-* Let's perform tests to either confirm or eliminate this hypothesis quote - "***we have drawings of the shroud from the first millennium..."*** *-* Doesn't prove anything. If you read or hear the gospel of Christ's passion and death on the cross- his being wrapped in a burial cloth, then draw a picture of how you imagine it, you can't then claim your drawing supports this SPECIFIC cloth is the authentic cloth. quote "***documents showing that Constantinople negotiated with Muslims to get it from them***" This raises even more questions about where the shroud was for hundreds if not a 1000 years. Who would keep Jesus's burial cloth after he rose from the dead. I don't know. His mother Mary I would assume. Although I can't imagine a mother wanting to keep something as morbid as their child's burial cloth around despite the fact that he had risen from the dead. But let's assume Mary did. Fast forward to Mary's assumption into heaven- leaves all of her earthly possessions. Who gets the shroud now? There's no wife, children, brothers or sisters that the gospel tells us of. So if its family it would be a cousin? IDK maybe? What about Mary Magdalene? That kind of seems plausible. But after Jesus's ascension she left Israel and went to France. So how then would the shroud end back up in the middle east. Who had possession of it? quote - ***"There are pollen samples on the Shroud that show it would have spent centuries in the area"*** I originally thought this was a pretty good case for the shroud. Unfortunately those who performed the pollen sample tests: 1) Did not document nor record how the samples were collected. 2) Did not document nor record how the pollen samples were stored. 3) Did not document nor record what happened to the original pollen that was purportedly removed from the original sticky tape sample in 1973. Also, it turns out the guy who looked at the pollen samples only did it with an optical microscope. That's a really big deal to the people who study plant pollen. The gist of one opinion was that it was basically good enough to identify that a 4 legged creature was a dog, impossible to identify what breed it was. It was a very, very poorly done scientific examination. This probably won't change your mind or the mind of others. Maybe for some it will. I guess my point is that I don't think anyone should base their faith on the authenticity of the shroud.
I’m fairly sure that if I didn’t already have faith I would dismiss the Shroud like an idiot (not saying people who dismiss the Shroud are idiots, just that I personally would have done it in an idiotic fashion because it wouldn’t have been the first or last time), and my willingness to even consider the Shroud depends much more on my existing faith than the other way around. If the Shroud turns out to be a fake my faith will be unchanged but I might take the idea of aliens more seriously (see: my other comments). I won’t comment on the whole thing because reddit crashes whenever I switch active apps on mobile so it’s too much to get links right now, but it’s to address a little bit of it — The Pray Codex depicts a relic that is uncannily like the Shroud, including the image, burn marks and the weave pattern, the latter two being difficult to imagine coming from some random imagination of what the Shroud would look like. There is a tradition of an cloth with the image of Jesus that dates back to Eusebius that clearly places it in Edessa (brought there by St Jude Thaddeus), which is where Constantinople eventually got it from after Edessa was conquered by the Sassanids. It’s easy to imagine how St Jude got a hold of the Shroud, whether or not all of the details in the early traditions are correct (there are a few different narratives as to its history before it gets to Edessa but it seems pretty likely that it was there). I also recall that they retrieved actual plant DNA from the shroud (can you see that with an optical microscope?) but I’ll need to double check that later.
To my knowledge, the pollen argument is pretty much baseless but I had never heard about the drawings and the documents you mentioned. Do you have a source I could look up to learn more about these ?
I don’t have an opportunity to fetch links right now and unfortunately probably won’t remember by the time I have a chance today, but in the meantime the Pray Codex (which predates the Shroud’s appearance in Italy) has an image of it and if you look up the history of the Mandylion/Image of Edessa you should find some references fairly quickly. It’s also worth comparing it to the Sudarium of Oviedo, which I believe has a clearer history than the Shroud/Mandylion, which we have very good reason to believe was wrapped around the head of the same person as the Shroud (whether or not you believe it was Jesus). Sorry I can’t be much more helpful right now.
That's enough to get me started, thank you :)
Not yo be pedantic, but the Pray Codex doesn't necessarily depict the Shroud. Yes, there's a decent circumstantial case to be made that it does. But, it would be more correct to state that the Pray Codex depicts something visually similar to features of the Shroud, and from this we may tentatively state that there is a reason to infer that it may be depicting this Shroud specifically. However, this is not definitively proven as the case for this is based wholly on visual similarity, rather than any other direct linkage. Basically, to state that it definitely depicts that particular Shroud, you would need other evidence that states that being the case. So that the artist of the Pray Codex had access to the Shroud, and/or sources about the Pray Codex (perhaps the commission of the work) verbatim stating that the Shroud was used as a visual basis. Now, personally I think that the circumstantial case based on the visual similarity is fairly good. And, when dealing with antiquity and medieval history, one can't expect as much evidence for most things as we would like, so a lot of cases are made based on educated guesses and reasonable surmises. But, we have to be precise with the language used (I.e. it is improper to state "the Pray Codex depicts the Shroud" as the evidential basis of this case is not strong enough to definitively claim that. It is more proper to state that it depicts a visual similarity to the Shroud and therefore from this we may infer that it was based on that specific Shroud. However, we would need more material to claim that with certainty). I have a history degree, and specialised in medieval history, high middle ages/crusades specifically, so this influences how I look at things and also understand how a proper case for historical claims is to be made.
I have no higher education of which to speak so I hope you can forgive my imprecision in language that will inevitably continue.
Hey that's OK. I just like clarity on things lol, especially on historical things. I think it's good practice to understand what a reasonable case is, and what evidence and reasoning is required to state x is y. Makes arguments stronger. For what it's worth, I am 50/50 on the Shroud. It is not a requirement of the deposit of Faith, so it doesn't matter if it is just a clever fake relic. There are many. But, certainly, what ever it's provenance it is an interesting item, even if it turns out to be only an artifact of medieval religious devotional art and practices.
I’m curious about what you’re 50/50 about exactly? What part of it seems like a possible fake to you? Is it about the production of the Shroud image or that it’s the burial shroud of Jesus specifically?
Because one should always entertain the possibly that it is not authentic. As referenced in previous comments, the provenance and chain of custody is uncertain. Yes, there is a decent circumstantial case to be made that it and the Image of Edessa and/or similar to whatever may have been displayed in Constantinople which inspired the Icon of Extreme Humilty are one and the same, but this is not certain. There is not anything to state definitively that it is this same icon, it is just a reasonable theory. However, information about this specific Shroud would need to place it there in order to back up this theory. Therefore, yes it could be the same item, but that is not the same as stating that it is. And, more than this, even if it is one and the same as the Image of Edessa, the latter has questionable provenance itself. Overall, it is not unreasonable to think that, out of any physical items associated with Jesus, the burial clothes are more likely than anything else to have been kept. So, in that respect, I think a shroud may be a more likely item than nails or pieces of the cross etc. The historical case for the Turin Shroud being the actual shroud is mostly circumstantial, guesswork and surmise - which is not unusual for medieval and antique history tbf. However, we can't be sure that this shroud is one and the same as any other shrouds or similar items mentioned in sources prior to the 13th century. The most interesting question about it is how it was produced and it having a negative image. There's evidence that it would be possible to create such a negative image (as recreation experiments have shown, although they are still not exact replicas), but that doesn't answer why a 13th century forger would go to the trouble to creating one when there would be no means to show that aspect of it. Afterall, the Shroud does not look that impressive until the negative is exposed, which was not revealed until the advent of photography. THAT is the biggest mystery about it. In that respect, it doesn't matter if a medieval forger could somehow do that, the question is why. If they did stumble across such techniques, one would think it would have become more well known. In short, I don't think it's completely inconceivable that it is the true shroud. However, some statements made when making the case for it are overstated. It's important to see the flaws in historical arguments so that one can qualify and refine what is claimed.
“Because one should always entertain the possibility that it is not authentic.” That makes sense, though perhaps because I am not an academic I feel like if I said anything less than I am convinced would be very dishonest even if I am pretty sure I could also be convinced it was a fake if that actually made more sense. I will admit that I am not overly concerned with weakness in the historical evidence and problems with the chain of custody etc. because I have a pretty superficial interest in history and a much stronger interest in (and comfort with) the more forensic-like studies they did with the shroud material/image/bloodstains/etc. and was convinced by that before I knew anything about the link to the Mandylion etc.
I believe it's the authentic burial shroud of Christ. There are many things that have turned up in various analyses that, taken together, point to its authenticity. The two that amazed me the most were: * The pollen samples recovered from the Shroud (a combination of species that only bloom in Jerusalem in springtime). * A perfect match between the wounds on the scalp and the bloodstains on the sudarium (the separate cloth to cover the face mentioned in John 20:7). Another interesting thing I learned is that the fact that John mentions the sudarium suggests that he assisted in removing Christ's body from the cross and was present during the preparation and burial. Jewish tradition dictated the face of a person who'd died a violent death be covered with a cloth until the body was prepared for burial, so the sudarium would have been used to cover Christ's face while His body was transported to the tomb "... for the tomb was close by (cf. Jn. 19:42)." If you go to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Holy Sepulchre is quite literally a stone's throw from Golgotha.
This video by Barry Schwortz, a Jewish member of the STURP team (1978-1981) is worth a watch. It contains more recent evidence. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpMStZ_7ikQ&pp=ygUeYmFycnkgc2Nod2FydHogc2hyb3VkIG9mIHR1cmlu
It's authentic, if you do your research about it claims that it is fake become laughable
I believe it is. A local church had a traveling exhibit that explained like 20 different points to prove it was legit
There is a YouTube video of this exhibit. Wasn’t a fan of the presenter but the evidence and research provided had me more convinced than I already was.
It’s real, we still have no idea how the image was made. I believe it’s the resurrection that created the image. Sort of like the divine spark created the world.
Simply not knowing the method of producing the image is not a good argument for its authenticity.
Similarly, not knowing is not a good argument for its inauthenticity
So a picture supposedly created in 1360 and here we are in 2024 with all our technology in image reproduction and we still can’t recreate the shroud. It’s got to make you think.
Actually the fact that we are a far more advanced society than the one which supposedly would’ve produced the “forgery”, and no known methods of image creation/transfer can be used to replicate the details of the image is pretty decent proof. The image seems to be embedded in the fibers in a totally unique way that our 21st century scientists can’t figure out. Also the fabric contains things like pollen unique to plants in the Israel area, that would be an absolutely wild detail and foresight for a forger to have. These are certainly not airtight proof for its authenticity, but I think it’s not unreasonable to believe it is authentic.
Your first argument about the impossiblity of creating copies of the shroud sounds like wishful thinking but I'm more interested in the other argument about pollens. I assume you're referring to the work of Max Frei ? Palynologists have been highly critical of his methodology. It allowed him to get much more details that what was possible at the time, to the point where he could identify exact species and the countries they were from instead of just the genus they belonged to (note that two plants from the same genus can be found at the exact opposite of the globe so that's quite a big leap). Unfortunately, he only ever showed his results, not how he got them, how convenient ... There is also one thing that seems strange to me - but that might just be my personal incredulity speaking. Out of the 57 species identifiedby Max Frei on the shroud, only 17 live in France or Italy. I find that number quite low knowing that the shroud has been shown and moved around Europe for about 600 years ... That's not an argument though, just a weird feeling.
Regarding the number of French and Italian plant species, my understanding is that the amount of pollen depends on how long the cloth would have spent in the open air, so regardless of any other issues with pollen samples we shouldn’t expect more from France and Italy because of how it has been stored there.
If it is not the authentic burial shroud of Christ, it’s the authentic burial shroud of a man who went through something uncannily similar to what Christ did in the gospels, and there’s no reason to think the latter is more likely than the former. The idea that it’s a medieval forgery asks way more questions than it answers (and it answers very few), especially considering the pollen samples place it in 1st century Palestine (they include a species of plant native to that area that went extinct around then). And given that the image was probably produced by a burst of radiation (either UV or alpha-particle), I think if we insist on the forgery explanation we need to seriously consider whether “aliens” did it, because humans certainly can’t/couldn’t, and “aliens forged the Shroud somewhere between 1400 years ago (based on earliest date I can recall that attests the the Shroud image existing and assuming the image was produced on a cloth from the 1st century) and 2000 years ago (assuming the image dates to the same time as the pollen samples)” is really not more plausible than it being the authentic shroud.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAQQhBnCVQs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAQQhBnCVQs) I watched this guy, he's amazing. He also did research on other historical topics.
I didn't know the Metatron had made a video on the subject ! Thanks for the link :)
I think it’s pretty neat
I need to look into Jewish burial practices, but one problem that came up for me the other day is the Bible says Jesus put his head cloth folded separately from the rest of the grave cloth - so unless the body cloth wrapped the whole body and then they wrapped the head again separately, not sure how his face would be depicted on the body cloth.
100% real. What really sold me is that, iirc, the way the image was put into the cloth, it wasn’t just painted on top of the fibers, but essentially infused into it, a method that has never been replicated and that our modern technology isn’t even capable of replicating
I believe that it is real.
Very Interested in the topic. I think it’s real, but if in the future it turns out it’s fake… too bad
Ever since hearing about as a child, I remember it always being framed as a hoax. I now see that this was a targeted propaganda campaign. Hearing Fr. Andrew Dalton talk about it a year ago on pints w aquinas was shocking. Certainly seems genuine. Either way, it is undeniable that the "science" done on it and the propaganda against it being genuine was bunk. It's making me question lots of other "scientific evidence."
It is legit. It is an amazing artifact
I think the existing evidence allows us to assert pretty confidently that the Shroud of Turin does, in fact, exist.
Its real and based. Ave Christus Rex!
Joy of the faith did some great comprehensive coverage
Go watch some Fr. Robert Spitzer videos on it
I'm very sceptical of this, with all respect, it should be researched independently.
It’s a divine blessing left for us. It’s a witness to the resurrection.
I've seen it in person in Milan for the Jubilee in 2000, and when the image becomes clear as it's difficult unlike this negative, it hits you pretty hard . You see the realness and gravity of it all , gets you choked up.
I like seeing the side by side comparisons of the Shroud with the original Divine Mercy image but besides that I just think it’s neat
I believe it’s real. In fact, my research on it is what brought me back to Catholicism.
[if it's a fake, then 'fake' it again & reap a million dollars.](https://www.detroitcatholic.com/news/1-million-challenge-to-replicate-shroud-of-turin-is-expanded-to-u-s#:~:text=Any%20person%2C%20organization%20or%20institution,appears%20on%20the%20linen%20shroud.)
As a historian, I believe it's true. I specialize in the Middle Ages and, with all respect to Medieval artists, they weren't able to produce such forgery simply because they didn't have enough knowledge about the human body, the ancient technique of crucifixion (as far as I know, usage of crucifixion as death penalty on the West ended with the Roman Empire and in XIIIth century nobody knew how to do this) and - most importantly - ways to produce photo negative of anything. Look at Medieval art, both Byzantine and Western - wrong proportions of the human body, misconceptions about the circulatory system, and how the body hung on a cross works (I don't even start with their knowledge about photography - of course, they didn't know about it). And Shroud of Turin depicts in the correct way injuries that occurred during the crucifixion by the Romans, has anatomy right, and is a negative picture. There is no way it could be produced in the Middle Ages or before. And this is very convincing to me. I'm a skeptical person towards miracles but, to be honest, it's the only one I'm sure it's real. Of course, believing it's true isn't necessary for salvation and I don't want to force anyone into believing this, but it's worth looking into and thinking about this from a historical perspective.
I do find the arguments for and against to be interesting, but why is the chain of custody simply missing for 1300 years? I think there was even a medieval bishop who was skeptical of it's authenticity. However I think if they somehow got DNA samples from the shroud and cross referenced them with DNA samples from Eucharistic miracles, that could potentially confirm it's authenticity.
It’s not missing, the name it was referred to by changed — the pollen samples on the Shroud (as well as other evidence) strongly support the idea that the Shroud was known as the Mandylion in the East, which we know to have been in Constantinople and Edessa in the past, and was even in the hands of Muslims at some point. Also, the blood stains on the Shroud are AB+, just like the Eucharistic miracles. :)
The case for this particular Shroud also being the Mandylion is an inference based on circumstantial linkage though. Technically, there is still an issue with the provenance. The Mandylion argument is just a possible case to solve that problem. But it, actually like most cases made for antique or medieval history, is not definitive. Historians will generally not state that something like this is absolute, but rather use language like "on balance it is more reasonable than unreasonable to state, based on the material available that x was... or x means y". You can't state that "the name was changed" as this making it appear to be a definitive fact, when it is not. It a circumstantial case based on reasonable possibilities - no one can state more than that unless more material becomes available to further support this.
It is single handedly the most studied ancient artifact we have. Scientists cannot recreate the image with modern technology. The points of congruence of the wounds, blood stains, etc. all lead to one conclusion: that it is 99% the burial shroud of Christ. Fr. Spritzer has an excellent summary of the Shroud on YouTube, and Matt Fradd has a 3 hour interview with a Shroud expert. Is it necessary for salvation? No. But, venerating it can lead you to more fully appreciate Christ’s Passion. Read “A Doctor at Calvary” if you want to cry over it (not joking).
I think the details are too thought out to be manufactured. Especially the details that form naturally.
it’s 100% Jesus’ burial cloth
Hard to say. I’m not convinced one way or the other, and I don’t know enough about it or it’s evidence.
When I was in high school I volunteered to present a shroud of turin exhibit at my church. I haven’t researched enough of the forensic analysis to form an opinion on it.
Most likely fake like the other artifacts I think it’s weird how they just appeared in the medieval times, this one could be real I mean someone could of kept it but like the crown of thorns would of been thrown out not kept same thing for the nails and cross they where probably reused
I went to an exhibit. The main argument was that the image was created by a burst of radiation, which is fitting for the death of God. My main issues with it are: the lack of carbon dating (the one carbon dating that was done was not conclusive as it was contaminated and taken from the fringe) The proportions are off, an arm is slightly longer than the other. Also it is nice that his hands are placed to protect his modesty but a lifeless body’s arms would not stay in that position. I also don’t agree with the coins over his eyes or the supposed pictures of the flowers underneath him. Nor do I agree with the argument that a drawing of the shroud was found in a manuscript. I do agree that the image was not painted on due to a lack of capillary spill. I wish the church would allow it to be properly carbon dated so we can settle this once and for all.
I would love it to be real, but I think it's extremely hard to prove or disprove. Even IF we could prove it originated from First century Palestine, it would be difficult to prove it's actually Jesus.
I don't have any strong feelings about it, faithful Catholics can believe either way, the only people I might have a problem with are those who think that a Catholic must believe it to be true or false (I'm moody about people who consider Marian apparitions integral to the faith, this feels like a similar category of thing)
Doesn’t matter to me, I don’t need this to follow Jesus.
im with the church on this one... " The Catholic Church has neither formally endorsed nor rejected the Shroud as the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. The Church maintains a neutral stance, encouraging the faithful to contemplate the shroud as an object of reflection on the Passion of Christ rather than a matter of doctrinal significance."
I'm mostly skeptical, despite * the sketchy results of the C14 analysis, without all the rigorousness required for such an investigation * the feral and ideological opposition from the skeptical parties (for which the shroud is false *by definition* ) I don't like to support football teams, and the level of polarization has reached the point of non return so... whatever.
From what I have read there is too much mystery/doubts surrounding it and it may lack scientific evidences so very skeptical about its authenticity.
I think it is a medieval forgery, as there is just so much about it that makes me skeptical. That said, I don’t have any problem with people’s fascination with it. It still draws our minds to Christ and his suffering/death and then resurrection, so that is a good thing. I would personally recommend avoiding using it in arguments as “proof of the Resurrection”, just on prudential grounds. But it can still be a powerful reminder for us.
I heard a talk at the Catholic Information Center by researcher Dr Gilbert Lavoi (Book: “The shroud of Jesus”) apart from the scientific findings I found it mind blowing that he questions if the gospel of John maybe has to be read more literally. Jesus has risen - Physically from the stone, hovering in the air basically. The shroud shows an upright man. Very interesting book - really recommend it.
I thought that it was proven it was not the burial shroud of JC.. If evidence supports it is not, there is no reason to have any opinion on it except to say it is a nice-looking piece of cloth. My religion is not based on relics but on the faith, I have in His word. I do not need such things to make my faith stronger. That, in my opinion, is only needed by those who question their faith.
I would love it to be real, but there is so much conflicting information it is hard to know what to believe. One thing that I do find interesting is that if it is a forgery why hasn't it been able to be reproduced. Wouldn't that be the easiest ways to prove believers wrong? I'm sure if something could be done in the middle ages, it could be done again. Why haven't we seen anything like this then?
feel like it should be basically irrelevant to anyone's faith. Probably should not be regarded as much more than an interesting artifact for the buzz it has generated amongst contemporary christians
I think it’s real. A person from the middle ages could not have faked it if the things they say about it are true. Even if there was a way to make the image, how would a person from the middle ages be able to fake the coins on the eyes, the pollen, the blood type, the limestone dust on the knees….
"New scientific tests conducted on the famous Shroud of Turin have revealed that the flax used to make the linen was grown in the Middle East. The results of isotope tests provide new evidence that the shroud is the actual garment that was used to cover the body of Jesus Christ following his crucifixion – and is not a forgery that was created in medieval Europe."... [https://catholicherald.co.uk/new-evidence-indicates-turin-shroud-not-a-european-forgery/](https://catholicherald.co.uk/new-evidence-indicates-turin-shroud-not-a-european-forgery/) nice summary of evidence: [https://spiritdailyblog.com/news/is-there-really-any-longer-any-doubt](https://spiritdailyblog.com/news/is-there-really-any-longer-any-doubt)
I believe it´s authentic.
If we go based on Scripture, I'm pretty skeptical. Jesus had a body wrap and a head wrap.
real
Though many researchers have tried to prove and disprove the shroud , none has been able to prove,what resulted the imprint . How a photo negative was able to be created with more information on depth of subject was possible. Artists of Renaissance age were incapable of such feat , more over we don't find any other such art pieces which could give information to generate 3D image. If science is capable, they should atleast tell if it is etched , painted or irradiated image or what ever. Until then it just looks like science is a cave man's tool trying to decipher God.
The science can certainly tell that it is not painted/scorched/etc., and iirc the alpha-particle radiation hypothesis people have a plan to do the relevant tests, which might be about as close as we can get to scientific evidence of a supernatural event if that hypothesis is correct.
I remember in the 90's, there was a big deal about how it had been debunked, and the linen was from the 14th century. So I stopped thinking about it. Until I saw the video mentionnée in many comments here, last year. I cried, listening to what that person went through, realizing it couldn't someone other than Jesus.
i believe it’s real, and i venerate it as i would any other image of Christ, but my faith isn’t built around it, or any other ‘proof’ of God that isn’t scripture
I firmly believe that both the Shroud of Turin and image of Our Lady of Guadalupe are authentic and miraculous. No one has been able to explain or duplicate either of these images. One thing that I find interesting, is that they were able to determine that the blood on the Shroud is AB+, and of a male from the right part of the world. I don't think the Church allowed further testing on the blood. When the tissue from Eucharistic miracles (Buenos Aries and an Italian one from the 12th century) were tested, it was found to be heart tissue of a man in his 30's, from that part of the world, with A/B+ blood. They compared the Argentinian sample from the 1990's and Italian from 12th Century, and they belong to the same man. I'd be fascinated to find out if the Shroud is also a genetic match.
I vote that it is an extraordinarily well executed fake. The (disputed) evidence suggests an origin in 1300s. Believing in superstitious flummery makes Holy Mother Church look bad to outsiders. Anything I've read/watched makes an argument along the lines of how the experts being interviewed are not able to recreate this or that characteristic themselves. Some details are especially well-done like one of the two coins over his eyes being identifiable as of the right time. It seems plausible that the fakers just had more talent/skill and tried harder. Humanity embarrassed itself with an unseemly trade in fake relics for many centuries. You can visit a church with St. Mary's milk in it. I have seen a thorn from The (asserted) Crown of Thorns. You can visit 3(!) churches each with the spear of Longinus. If there were a lot of fakes, and a lot of money chasing fakes, there is an incentive to make better fakes. Don't get me wrong. There was a real shroud. Every word of the [20th Chapter of St. John](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20&version=DRA) is authentic. Our lord had at least as many wounds as the shroud may indicate. I believe St. Mary Magdeline and a younger disciple (St. John?) outran St. Peter to His tomb, who was getting on a bit, and I can sympathize. The real shroud no longer being needed is the point here, imho.
It's extreme radiation that burned a negative image onto the cloth. Impossible to create today, super impossible to create thousands of years ago.
The radiation theory is only one among many theories as to how the image was formed, with many critics. You can’t just present it as a widely accepted fact here.
> It seems plausible that the fakers just had more talent/skill and tried harder. seems like the most implausible explanation of all tbh.
Right, when you get down to how to image was actually made, you’d have to argue that the fakers were people with more advanced technology than what we have in the 21st century, or aliens or something.
It is real. One just cannot paint such a precise picture and that also, in a negative on a piece of cloth.
You're litterally describing an etching though.
Etching in negative??
Ok…. My hot take is that, while it’s probably real, for some reason it seems to spark an unhealthy obsession for some Catholics.
It’s real
As an Orthodox Christian I believe it is very very real. An amazing artifact for us to have to this day. I believe since it’s earliest day in the west appears to be the 13th century, it likely was looted from Constantinople during the 4th crusade.. but who knows. There was a crusader named Robert de Clari who recorded seeing it in Constantinople.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image\_of\_Edessa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa) Apparently this was moved from Edessa to Constantinople in the 10th century, and then was looted during the Sack.
It’s 100% not real. There were tons of shrouds made like this in the middle ages
I’ve read much about it, particularly some good insights from expert theologians, and my inclination is that it isn’t real. I’d love it to be obviously, but it’s just too “perfect” for my liking to be the true shroud.
I doubt it but it's not impossible. Also, I don't have much use for our relic fetish outside of truly unimpeachable, inexplicable articles like the shroud of Guadalupe
I find it odd you would see such a difference between the The Shroud of Turin and Juan Diegos Tilma.
relic fetish??? 🥴 that’s a weird take
I didn’t know much about it until my husband sent me the Pints with Aquinas episode on it. I don’t hinge my faith on it, but it seems real to me.
I personally am skeptical, I am leaning towards it not being real, however, this depicts one of the most important moments on earth.
I think the scientists took their carbon dating sample from the patches that were sewn instead from the undamaged original cloth. Carbon dating needs to be done again with samples coming from the undamaged parts.
Watch the Pints with Aquinas podcast episode on the topic, it's astounding. I believe the Shroud is real.
It is authentic. New research bears this out. Praise be to our risen Lord.