I don’t know.
Regarding the dating of the Shroud, we have seen in this conversation that there are two reasons, intrinsic to the 1988 radiocarbon study, to doubt the medieval dating (see my post at 79).
But even if we didn’t have these two intrinsic reasons, there are others good reasons that would allow us to confidently reject the medieval dating. Among them, the fact that if the Shroud was medieval, then a “super forger” would have had to forge it. But given all that we know about the Shroud, the hypothesis of a “super forger” is the most improbable that one can imagine, to the point that adhering to it would be like abandoning reason itself.
Judge that.
Dr Robert Schneider who has studied the Shroud extensively, examines below some of the requirement of a medieval “super forger”:
*a) Against all Christian art tradition, the super forger created an image with a helmet of thorns as opposed to a circlet, nails through the wrists, and a myriad of scourge marks matching a Roman instrument unused for almost a thousand years. *
*b) The super forger put serum rings around the blood stains using real blood. *
*c) The super forger added rare limestone from Jerusalem on the nose, knee, and heel. *
*d) The super forger stitched a side strip onto the cloth with a sewing technique from the 1st century. *
*e) The super forger added discolorations to the cloth, representing a device used to display the shroud over a hundred years before in Constantinople (as described by a chronicler of the 4th crusade just before the sack of Constantinople). *
*In addition, this super forger developed a technique for creating an image that cannot be reproduced using all the technology available in the 21st century. *
Conclusion: Super forger is really Super!
1 Like
You’re only looking at selected words, Bill, not evidence. Why are you telling others to look at evidence when you don’t?
I have looked at the video read a few articles and read Fazil’s post. I don’t think T has done this based on his assertions.
What do you know about this case?
Please share if you have a source for that.
It’s mainly Vatican politics that prevents a new carbon dating.The shroud has a caretaker bishop, and neither he nor the pope is in any rush to change the current situation.
It’s initiatives like the Shroud of Turin conference of 2017 that can help change minds.
1 Like
The “current situation” being one in which the scientific evidence demonstrates that the “shroud” is a forgery. Interesting that they have no interest in changing that. Maybe they see no reasonable chance that it can be changed?
1 Like
So how was it forged?
A super forger is still more believable than the images on the shroud coming from the heavenly emanations of a resurrected incarnate.
1 Like
Because you are an atheist, I find your position regarding the super forger hypothesis quite coherent for you have probably no other choice. But what I don’t understand is why some Christians choose to believe such an incredibly implausible idea when at the same time they profess the resurrection of Christ. It certainly doesn’t seem logical to me.
1 Like
@Giltil, surely you must agree there is far more evidence for the Resurrection than for the shroud of Turin. Perhaps we just feel the evidence for the Resurrection met our threshold, but the shroud did not.
2 Likes
Can you make a case for why a supernatural origin for the image on the cloth is more believable than forgery?
Your implausible idea is based on a lot of assumptions. That would be the first hurdle. For example, why wouldn’t a forger know about the actual process of crucifixion? Why wouldn’t the forger know about serum rings, or use real blood? You also assume that the limestone is from Jerusalem, that it is rare, or that the forger wouldn’t have access to it. For all we know, the forger created it in Jerusalem. It is assumed that the sewing technique was only used in the 1st century, or that the forger wouldn’t know about it. Adding discoloration to fake an age is one of the oldest tricks in the book for a forger.
Also, there were tons of forgeries of different relics circulating at the time. Even if there was a real relic out there, the chances of having the real one is much lower than having a fake one.
2 Likes
I haven’t been following this long discussion at all, and I know little about the Shroud of Turin. Why isn’t it possible that the cloth (or parts of it) originated from the 1st century, but then a medieval forger tampered with it to make it more realistic? Secondly, why isn’t it possible that some natural processes over the centuries have acted on the cloth’s features, making it difficult to instantaneously (relatively speaking) reproduce in the 21st century, but not necessarily as difficult if you made it in the 14th century and waited a few hundred years?
1 Like
As far as I can see, that’s the only interesting question about the shroud.
2 Likes
I doubt it would be so interesting if they actually allowed someone competent to examine it.
1 Like
Like, what else do you need?
You’ve got the…
Better yet show me a modern method of analysis that hasn’t been done on the Shroud
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228991514_List_of_Evidences_of_the_Turin_Shroud
I thought I might get some feedback from Christians on this reply. Shroud authenticity promoters aren’t likely to like it, though, I suppose.
1 Like
Well, on the face of it, there’s nothing controversial about God coming to Earth, interacting with humans, and then leaving behind artefacts to reinforce our faith in Him. The ark of the covenant was proof positive for Moses’s interaction with God, and it had served that purpose for ~1k years.
1 Like
I don’t see them as analogous. If there were scriptural support that gave any reason to think the shroud remained extant it would be different. But there’s not. Artifacts are not what we are to be venerating, nor are they what should be promoting God’s agenda.
Venerating is what Catholics do. It’s kind of like the empty tomb. It’s there, it is empty now and we have reason to believe that it held the body of Christ at some point. If anything, the shroud should do the same to us as it did to John
https://biblehub.com/john/20-8.htm
Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.