Posted on 01/20/2005 3:16:23 PM PST by swilhelm73
The title's kind of misleading. Proving that the patch was medieval doesn't prove that the Shroud is "ancient". It just leaves the question open.
Unless the shroud gets up and walks on water, no matter what the date, it still doesn't prove that the image is Jesus. To carry it a little further, doesn't anyone think it's funny that it's a common "conceptual image" of Jesus?
What if it is and what if it isn't? Is ones faith so dependent upon the authenticity of such relics? What if it is proven fake? Should that diminish the depth of ones faith? If proved authentic, would it deepen ones faith? I should hope not in either case.
In the very least, the radiocarbon dating of the re-weave repair work sets the very LATEST possible date for the shroud itself; in other words, the shroud would already have to exist, and be old, at the date of the fringe re-weave. If the re-weave was performed in the 1290s, that means that the shroud is significantly older. It doesn't tell us how old it is, but it sets the "latest possible date." And that, in and of itself, is significant.
Is it the burial shroud? I don't think we can say. IF they ever let a test be performed on a portion of the shroud that wasn't subjected to re-weave work, and if that material dates to the 1st century AD, we still couldn't say -- for certain fact -- that it is the burial shroud of Jesus. However, it would make such an identification not only possible but, indeed, rather more likely than not; It would pre-date the relic-mania period of Christianity by almost 300 years.
Not really. Since the shroud was an object of veneration, if the public believed that it truly represented the image of Christ, then the shroud would affect how artists of that time would portray Jesus. So the question becomes which came first: the veneration and popular acceptance of the shroud as the image of Christ or the image of Christ in the artwork of the time?
ping
The thing is... even if the Shroud were precisely dated to 28AD and shown to be the product of no known technology, it would still be more parsimonious in terms of scientific materialism to suppose that 'believers' somewhere in our future had invented time travel and planted the evidence than it would be to suppose that a non-materialistic miracle had occurred.
Faith should always be supported by at least some evidence -- evidence stands behind the "confidence" portion of one's belief. If the relic is not the shroud of Jesus, then it's a lovely work of art. If it is, then it points to the historical truth of his death and resurrection. Such evidence would not convince those who are hard-core against the existence of Jesus, or the essential message of his passion, but it would provide further evidence for many's faith.
In short, one's faith doesn't stand or fall on a single relic, like the Shroud -- Faith is built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as contained in Scripture and proclaimed by the Church -- however, it is never "bad" to have other physical evidences for one's faith than the written word.
Holy Sheet!!!
Doesn't look Jewish to me. Thought it was Di Vinci's handiwork...
A sample of the sample proves seems to back up the C-14 dating for that sample. That proves nothing about the rest of the cloth. The whole story strikes me as spin.
Faith and evidence, by definition, are mutually exclusive. Evidence proves fact, not faith. Faith depends upon belief alone. The certainty of that which is unseen, unproven. It is the depth of ones faith that is important, not the evidence.
I have no problem with those who have their faith reinforced by relics, as long as there is understanding that relics can be fashioned by man to deceive the faithful as well.
Whether the Shroud of Turin is authentic or fake, the knowledge of either condition should not increase or diminish the depth of the faithful.
I think the whole concept of religious relics is creepy. At the Cathedral of St. Anthony of Padua in Italy, for example, his tongue and larynx are on display. Lovely.
If so, then one's faith would have been shallow. You are confusing the concepts of fact with faith. The instant an article of faith is proven by a fact, it is no longer an article of faith, but becomes a fact. It's only words, but the words are important. The Constitution is fact, the Gospels are faith. If you transpose their positions, you weaken them both.
As for the "Shroud", are we not cautioned about asking for "signs"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.