Posted on 03/21/2008 8:11:40 PM PDT by fishhound
There are very few Christian relics as important and as controversial as the Shroud of Turin.
This linen cloth, measuring about 4.4m by 1.1m (14.4x3.6 feet) holds the concealed image of a man bearing all the signs of crucifixion.
Scientific tests have proved that there are blood stains around the marks consistent with a crown of thorns and a puncture from a lance to the side.
In a new documentary, we have been given intimate access that no other broadcaster has had before.
Until the 1980s, millions of Christians around the world believed the Shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ.
Put simply, it meant that for millions of people the Shroud was, in effect, a Polaroid of Jesus' death - a snapshot of the defining moment in Christianity. It put the Shroud in a league of its own in the realm of the most important Christian relics.
But in 1989, the significance of the Shroud seemed to evaporate after a radiocarbon dating test pronounced a stunning verdict - the Shroud of Turin was indisputably a medieval fake.
Long search
With that judgement the extraordinary story of the Shroud of Turin fell out of the public imagination.
After all, how could any other kind of evidence about the shroud compare to the verdict of science?
But the amazing story of the Shroud of Turin has simply refused to fade into obscurity and die, for the simple reason that a conflict of evidence has emerged which is about the re-ignite the debate around this compelling religious artefact
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
I am not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But I have always wondered, is it possible smoke or fire that damaged the shroud could have introduced some “fresh” materials onto the surface or into the weave of the shroud?
I heard it explained in an earlier documentary on the original documentary that it is probable that the “bio plastic layer” of fungi, mold, etc that is present in the cloth, and the fire it was subjected to would skew the carbon dating.
I’m not a sciencer so no clue myself. Don’t really much care what carbon dating says. The resemblance of the face on the shroud and the face found on coins in early Christian kingdoms in the mid east area would be sufficient proof, if it was any other person from history.
I believe the scientific debate regarding the shroud is probably pointless.
The shroud is likely so contaminated that getting a carbon-14 dating that everyone would find reliable is impossible, even if you could convince everyone that corbon-14 dating is always accurate, which will never be accomplished.
And even if you could confirm the age of the shroud, and could confirm that it was an image of a crucified man, you still could not prove it was the burial cloth of Jesus.
Basically, this is an issue of faith, on both sides, and matters of faith are rarely resolved through any sort of scientific analysis.
The Shroud is a TRUE RELIC of Jesus, yet some will refuse to believe.....sad.
Last I heard was that they disputed the section that had been tested. What I heard was that the piece that was tested was from a larger peice that had been sew in in the middle ages.
So that the testing was not on original fabric.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
|
How do you know that?
Quote from the article: “But in 1989, the significance of the Shroud seemed to evaporate after a radiocarbon dating test pronounced a stunning verdict - the Shroud of Turin was indisputably a medieval fake.”
Indisputably? Not hardly. Clearly this guy has no idea of what he’s talking about.
How is it violated?
:)
This is from the Catholic Bible.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john20.htm
I don’t know about the head cloth or napkin as it is called in some Bibles.
But I don’t think it has been duplicated in the exact way that it appears though many have tried to make them up to test out theories.
John 20:7
When Simon Peter arrived after him, he went into the tomb and saw the burial cloths (6...footnote) there,
7
and the cloth that had covered his head, not with the burial cloths but rolled up in a separate place.
8 Then the other disciple also went in, the one who had arrived at the tomb first, and he saw and believed.
6 [6-8] Some special feature about the state of the burial cloths caused the beloved disciple to believe. Perhaps the details emphasized that the grave had not been robbed.
I just like the idea that Mohammed doesn’t have one. :)
I find that hard to believe.
"and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’[a] head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself."
Ummm, the shroud is not the face cloth--I really don't see any conflict with there being another face cloth--used in conjunction with the shroud. I know there are at lest 3 or 4 contenders amidst Roman Catholic relics.
As a matter of fact, the shroud need not conflict with yet another cloth being wrapped around the body with spices, as John 19 records. Recall, they were in a hurry to bury the body, as the Sabbath approached. The burial cloth need not have been tightly bound like that of a mummy....
Which?
At service ( no Consecraton tonight) the reading is that it was 100lbs of spices. That would have been deep on top of the body.
“As a matter of fact, the shroud need not conflict with yet another cloth being wrapped around the body with spices, as John 19 records. Recall, they were in a hurry to bury the body, as the Sabbath approached. The burial cloth need not have been tightly bound like that of a mummy...”
So I see your point, I meant to say.
But did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
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.