The Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: New Evidence

[Berserk]

I always assumed that the Shroud of Turin was one of many fake Medieval relics. New evidence has persuaded me that the Shroud's authenticity (though unproven) is now a genuine possibility. I begin this my first thread here with two YouTube videos that blow my mind and fire my imagination. I hope some of you will watch them both and express your opinion. I'll wait to see if anyone reports a reaction. If no one does, I guess I'll just have to watch them again and try to summarize their evidence,

(1) This excellent BBC program effectively lays out the evidence for the Shroud of Turin's authenticity, apart from the problematic Carbon-14 Medieval dating that was thought to refute this. The scientists who performed the dating techniques recognize that more tests must be done that take all the evidence into account:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bbc+...&FORM=VIRE

(2) The next video takes this one step further: Ray Rogers was a chemist who, along with others, performed the C--14 tests on the shroud and thought they proved the Shroud to be a Medieval fake. He initially ridicules the "religions loons" who dispute the rigorous scientific methods applied to the Shroud. But 2 challengers later persuade him that the sections cut for testing were the result of a very late reweaving of cotton strands into the original linen. Roger eats humble pie and confesses his inclination to now believe that the Shroud is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. His reasons are compelling. This video lasts about 45 minutes.


http://newgeology.us/presentation24.html

 

[Berserk]

I always assumed that the Shroud of Turin was one of many fake Medieval relics. New evidence has persuaded me that the Shroud's authenticity (though unproven) is now a genuine possibility. I begin this my first thread here with two YouTube videos that blow my mind and fire my imagination. I hope some of you will watch them both and express your opinion. I'll wait to see if anyone reports a reaction. If no one does, I guess I'll just have to watch them again and try to summarize their evidence,

(1) This excellent BBC program effectively lays out the evidence for the Shroud of Turin's authenticity, apart from the problematic Carbon-14 Medieval dating that was thought to refute this. The scientists who performed the dating techniques recognize that more tests must be done that take all the evidence into account:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bbc+...&FORM=VIRE

(2) The next video takes this one step further: Ray Rogers was a chemist who, along with others, performed the C--14 tests on the shroud and thought they proved the Shroud to be a Medieval fake. He initially ridicules the "religions loons" who dispute the rigorous scientific methods applied to the Shroud. But 2 challengers later persuade him that the sections cut for testing were the result of a very late reweaving of cotton strands into the original linen. Roger eats humble pie and confesses his inclination to now believe that the Shroud is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. His reasons are compelling. This video lasts about 45 minutes.


http://newgeology.us/presentation24.html

 

[Berserk]

Sorry, the Ray Rogers refutation of the C-14 tests is presented on this YouTube video, not the 2nd one I posted:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...ECBB5E35FC35BE730F5CECBB5E35FC35BE7&FORM=VIRE

 

[George-ananda]

It seems odd if the C-14 tests were not done on a section clearly believed to be original? I haven't watched the video yet. But still there is something inexplicable about the image per scientific investigation. No one can explain how this image was formed on this shroud. Nor could we recreate the shroud now with all the qualities of the original. So, I'm not sure yet what to think but it would be more interesting if the C-14 test were done on a restored section and the shroud could be dated to the first century..

 

[Sapiens]

43 seconds of information stretched to 43 minutes used to manufacture an argument from ignorance. Run the chared samples and we'll know.

It seems odd if the C-14 tests were not done on a section clearly believed to be original? I haven't watched the video yet. But still there is something inexplicable about the image per scientific investigation. No one can explain how this image was formed on this shroud. Nor could we recreate the shroud now with all the qualities of the original. So, I'm not sure yet what to think but it would be more interesting if the C-14 test were done on a restored section and the shroud could be dated to the first century..

The "Chariots of the Gods " style script and narration does nothing to add to its credibility

 

[Berserk]

The BBC program posted draws attention to an intriguing connection between the Shroud and the face cloth (Sudarium) in a Spanish chapel at Oviedo that allegedly once wrapped the face of Jesus. (1) Both cloths contain real blood of the same relatively rare blood type, AB. (2) The blood spatter patterns on the facial area are strikingly similar, indicating that the Sudarium once covered the same face as the Shroud! But the Sudarium was already preserved in a monastery near Jerusalem in 570 AD, and so, it presumably had a long prior history there. If this is true, then the C-14 dating of the Shroud is already refuted on this count alone. C-14 t ests dated the Sudarium was dated over a century later, but the scientists admit that there many have been contamination from later oils. For this and mahy other reasons, the Shroud presents perhaps the most puzzling and elegant scientific mystery ever for scientific studies of religious aritfacts. .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No one can explain how this image was formed on this shroud.

So you consider the people who are saying that it was formed by being in contact with the body of Jesus to be making an unsubstantiated claim, then?

 

[First Baseman]

I couldn't care less if the shroud is genuine or not. It is just a piece of cloth. Why such a big deal about it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I couldn't care less if the shroud is genuine or not. It is just a piece of cloth. Why such a big deal about it?

If it was genuine, it would be evidence of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus. It would also likely qualify as a holy relic.

 

[Berserk]

I couldn't care less if the shroud is genuine or not. It is just a piece of cloth. Why such a big deal about it?

If it is genuine, it verifies the report in John 20 about the apostles' discovery of the empty tomb, complete with lthe abandoned shroud and face cloth. More importantly, no scientist can explain how the image was made. It can't be explained by either a painted or sculpted forgery or even by a wrapped corpse. Rather, the image seems to have been created through radiation. So if the Shroud is genuine, it may well bear witness to the divine energy that raised Jesus bodily from the dead. That's why it is of the upmost importance for Christian apologetics.

 

[George-ananda]

So you consider the people who are saying that it was formed by being in contact with the body of Jesus to be making an unsubstantiated claim, then?

No, I would say it is a theory for consideration. When something is unknown, we create theories.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I would say it is a theory for consideration. When something is unknown, we create theories.

Do you mean hypotheses? A theory has support and predictive value.

Do you think the "it's genuine" hypothesis has more support than the "it's a fake" hypothesis?

Also, you said that we couldn't recreate the shroud with all the qualities of the original. Can I infer from this that it couldn't be recreated by wrapping similar shrouds around actual dead bodies?

 

[George-ananda]

Do you mean hypotheses? A theory has support and predictive value.

Per Webster's
Simple Definition of theory

• : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
  
  
• : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
  

I am OK with calling it a 'theory'.

Do you think the "it's genuine" hypothesis has more support than the "it's a fake" hypothesis?

Is that a way of asking if I support the theory? I'm undecided at this point and may never have enough information to forge a strong conclusion.

Also, you said that we couldn't recreate the shroud with all the qualities of the original. Can I infer from this that it couldn't be recreated by wrapping similar shrouds around actual dead bodies?

Yes. If you research the scientific investigations there are several issues that make any know method inadequate to explain all the features of the shroud.. They look at scorching, pigments, etc.. or any method that could produce all the qualities of the original.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh good grief ...

 

[First Baseman]

If it was genuine, it would be evidence of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus. It would also likely qualify as a holy relic.

Oh. Well, I don't need such evidence. The eye witness testimony in the NT is proof enough for me.

And even if Jesus was buried in this shroud it proves only that he died and was buried on/in it. Most scholars accept the fact that Jesus died. What they don't believe is that He rose from the dead.

 

[Berserk]

Some claim that, if genuine, the Shroud attests the actual moment of resurrection because of the radiation energy needed to produce the otherwise inexplicable image.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some claim that, if genuine, the Shroud attests the actual moment of resurrection because of the radiation energy needed to produce the otherwise inexplicable image.

If "dead body plus magic" is on the table as an option, what about "forgery plus magic"?

 

[Berserk]

The radiation theory is of course a mere possibility born of science's failure to explain how the Shroud was made. But it can be persuasive to some. For example, I recently told a retired Boeing engineer about the YouTube videos I posted on this thread. He had formerly dismissed the Shroud as a fake, but these videos convinced him that the new research supports its authenticity, pending new C-14 dating of unaltered parts of the cloth; and today at a bridge and hearts club we both attend he was recruiting players to watch both videos!

Of course, the line between the supernatural and magic is beyond the scope of this thread. In the context of academic studies of religions, magic generally refers to something more specific--sympathetic or contagious magic. Columbia University professor Morton' Smith's book, "Jesus the Magician" documents Jesus' use of magic techniques to heal that were used in ancient folk magic; and in the little known Jewish anti-Gospel that Smith carefully documents and discusses, the standard view of Jewish skeptics in the first 2 centuries was that Jesus was crucified not only for sedition, but also for the practice of magic. I'll be discussing the value of that anti-Gospel in my new eyewitness connections thread.

 

[First Baseman]

The radiation theory cannot be proved so it will just remain a theory regardless of what happens with the shroud. Even if it could be proved it does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Berserk]

The radiation theory cannot be proved so it will just remain a theory regardless of what happens with the shroud. Even if it could be proved it does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus rose from the dead.

Who ever said this theory was proof? It is merely an OPINION of SOME scientific researchers and experts on the Shroud.