Replies

The results of the carbon-dating are the strongest suggestion that the shroud isn't genuine, IMHO, and ironically the one most casually dismissd by many people. I by no means completely accept the results for a variety of reasons but they are compelling enough for serious consideration. I would tend to say a 2nd round of dating should be conducted, but with the deification of science I wonder if any institution capable of sound carbon-dating would be willing to present results indicating authenticity. Also, I think I've read about Egyptian mummies being carbon-dated and the results being wildly wrong, in the range of 1000 years, from when that mummy/person is positively known from historical record to have lived? People often believe science to be infallible ("PROVEN SCIENCE! GLOBAL WARMING!") but it isn't. That said I'm not a scientist and cannot question the technical aspects, generally speaking.

There are many aspects of the shroud, ranging from the imprint itself to fibers that are from plants from the area of Israel, that lend credence to it's authenticity and don't add up with the results of the carbon-dating. It would have to be a darn good hoax, both technically and historically, even by modern standards, let alone medieval. Also remember, the shroud was documented as early as 500 AD, and throughout the early-mid medieval period by multiple sources. Different shrouds being conflated with the one in Turin? Maybe. Maybe not.

Much of this article isn't especially persuasive. Hinging your argument on the plural "wrappings" -- well, who is to say that one large piece that is wrapped around repeatedly isn't "wrappingS"? More so, who says that the Shroud of Turin was the only wrapping? It is slightly short (again, a very clever detail for a hoax circa 1350), and there could just as easily have been many other pieces of linen that were not preserved . The Shroud of Turin may have been just the first layer of wrapping. What I'm driving at, is most of the article is a bunch of conjecture and "says you".

Either way, the Shroud of Turin is not an article of faith, so it ultimately doesn't matter.

It's well attested that there are at least two cloths, the shroud and the sudarium. I think that would satisfy the author's obsession with "wrappings".

As for Jesus' body not being wrapped the same was Lazarus' body was, this Catholic -- who does read the Scriptures, BTW -- seems to recall that Jesus was buried in great haste because of the approaching Passover. The women were coming to the tomb on Sunday morning to finish the task.

The results of the carbon-dating are the strongest suggestion that the shroud isn't genuine, IMHO, and ironically the one most casually dismissd by many people. I by no means completely accept the results for a variety of reasons but they are compelling enough for serious consideration. I would tend to say a 2nd round of dating should be conducted, but with the deification of science I wonder if any institution capable of sound carbon-dating would be willing to present results indicating authenticity. Also, I think I've read about Egyptian mummies being carbon-dated and the results being wildly wrong, in the range of 1000 years, from when that mummy/person is positively known from historical record to have lived? People often believe science to be infallible ("PROVEN SCIENCE! GLOBAL WARMING!") but it isn't. That said I'm not a scientist and cannot question the technical aspects, generally speaking.

Actually, the C-14 tests done in 1988 have been completely invalidated due to the original sample being taken from the worst possible location on the Shroud, an area the STURP scientists were all in agreement was not similar to the main body of the Shroud either chemically or physically. I refer you to my explanation of the science done after the 1988 tests which falsified them, published in multiple peer-reviewed journals. These scientists approached the falsification from multiple disciplines and all came to the same conclusions:

The C-14 Shroud Results have been completes falsified by multiple peer-reviewed proofs.

Yep!