Hello All, Just curious what everyone else thinks about the news the carbon dating test on the Shroud of Turin has been redone and they now believe it occurred around the time if Christ. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/ I always found the shroud interesting as even when scientists where claiming it was a fake, no-one could work out How it was faked , now with the Carbon Dating being re-done, i wonder what new hypothesis they will develop to explain this wonder. Luke.
"The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ." It still falls short by 300 or 400 years.
John 20:5 And the disciple stooping down, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Unless the Lord miraculously fused the head-covering into the corporal shroud - or the Apostles sewed them together in such a way as to make the seam undetectable - there is no reason to believe this Shroud of Turin is the wrapping of our dear Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ. Some Christians make far too much of this. Remember what the blessed Conqueror says to Thomas this very evening: 27 Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Christ died for our sins & is risen for our justification. Let us lay hold of this by faith, and not superstition or vain relics.
I am dubious about the science involved in this re-dating, as scientists weren't given access to the shroud. Also there are major problems intrinsic to the image, such that it couldn't possibly be an image that covered him, since it is not distorted by curvature of the cloth, as a proper shroud would be, a problem that is totally aside from the dating aspect. If they 'misdated' the earlier fragment due to a medieval patch on the shroud, why couldn't this new finding be misdated as an ancient shroud, upon which the medievals painted a totally medieval image of Christ? I mean the image itself looks like a medieval icon and resembles in little the paintings of Christ in the Ancient era. The whole entanglement, and worship of, imagery, seems to be such a part and parcel of Roman vision of worship; they couldn't possibly conceive how Bishop Epiphanius of the Ancient Church ripped down a painting of Christ on a cloth that people had displayed, or how Augustine argued against images, and how the Ancient Church in general rejected the topic of imagery.
maybe you overlooked the detail , but it was 300BC to 400 AD. With my background ( as a atheist ) .i only discovered this ICON a few years ago when i was trying to convince myself that maybe science did not have all the answers , at the time i was looking at Creation within Genesis, the existence of dinosaurs within the bible when i found a National geographic episode about the mysteries of the shroud . Since then it has fascinated me as no one can explain how it was made. Although not the original doco i watched, here is yet another "Interesting" link about the shrouds 3d information, as someone who is learning 3d modelling for work ( and personal hobby at home) , i am really surprised at the statement these scientists are making about the information contained within the image. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2N9NPuxCjXg Yes, from the little information i have been able to find , i am unsure How they managed to do these new test since the Catholic church keeps it locked up most of the time, i guess i will either need to wait and buy the book in English or wait for one of the shroud websites to do the work for me. Stalwart , that link also looks at the distortion effect of a head under the cloth. Personally , i have not done any research on Ancient Jewish customs to know if they would of wrapped a dead body with a cloth like this or not, i am still trying to get my head around Anglicism in general but mysteries like this fascinate me, thankyou to everyone for sharing there beliefs without grabbing the Pitchforks as some other sites would of done
I did the exact same thing when i first read the date ALso i am so glad i have google to help me understand you guys "Mea Culpa"
Mea culpa is Latin for "my fault," in the nominative, or "through my fault," in the ablative. It comes from the Latin penitential rite but the expression is used in common parlance as well.
Again, even if this was the very shroud & cloth in which the Lord was buried, what does it matter to faith? Remember the words to Thomas. God Himself says it is more blessed to believe without having seen, than to believe that which is obvious before our eyes. "A wicked & adulterous generation asks for a sign", is a hard saying for us. Why would the Lord bother to perform the miracle of fusing the head-cloth to the shroud at all? He does not work such petty & insignificant things. Most importantly, what would've been the point of putting a burial cloth on His head in the first place if the head was already wrapped in the same shroud as the body?
The shroud of turin is a fascinating artefact in its own right, regardless whether it really id the shroud of Christ or not. It's mysterious and mystery is attractive (its why the loch ness monster is so popular ) It's a good point about the separate head covering mentioned in John. However I shall play devil's advocate here. Some would argue that the sudarium of Oviedo was the head covering mentioned in John. According to this theory, this was a cloth wrapped round the head while the body was being taken to the tomb, When there it was removed, presumably the boy was cleaned up a little and then dressed in the shroud while the face covering was discarded. which fits the description in John of it being placed separately from the linen cloths that covered the body. In Matthew and Luke Joseph wraps Jesus in a linen shroud (singular) but its plural when the witnesses see the linen cloths in the empty tomb. Evidence used to support the claim the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin were used on the same dead man is that on analysis both had blood stains of the same blood type (AB) Source and more info: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=sudarium+of+oviedo+blood+turin&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp= And measurments of the nose and swelling deduced from the image and blood stains are very close when the two are compared. Source and more info : http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=+shroud+of+turin+sudarium+comparison&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
I watched an interesting interview with Barrie Shwartz, the official photographer on the STURP project back in 1978 who later became convinced of the Shroud's authenticity. He started the website www.shroud.com which is also extremely interesting. Something new I learned: While I've examined photos of the Shroud many times; I've never paid much attention to the back. Turns out there are 120 scourge marks on the back of the shroud showing the body had been scourged with a Roman Flagrum from head to foot.