2006-08-03 02:36:12 · 15 answers · asked by Axel ∇ 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Nothing proves that the shroud is authentic (I assume that is what your grammatically vague question is asking).
However, to claim it is a fake is also going too far.
There is pretty compelling evidence of the existence of the shroud as far back as 944 (it is believed to have been in Constantinople). Around 1350 it then turned up in France. The cloth in 1350 is known to be the same as the Turin cloth. There is a chance that the Constantinople cloth is not the same as the Turin cloth. . .for what that's worth.
Some of the scientists who performed the radio-carbon dating admit that the process may have been flawed by the use of a questionable sample of the cloth (the sample may have been part of a repair done in the 1500s). The three independent radiocarbon datings of the shroud (all working from the same controversial sample) date the cloth between 1260 and 1390. But it is clear that these results mean little. There are many examples of ancient textiles that have been grossly misdated, especially in the earliest days of radiocarbon testing, but it is unreasonable to believe that three very qualified labs produced similar erroneous results. So it would seem that the only credible explanation for the date of the sample, if you wanted to claim the shroud were authentic, is that the fabric sampled does not accurately represent the the rest of the shroud. There are good reasons to believe that this may be so.
Interestingly, in the 14th century the shroud was considered a fake because of the locations of the piercing wounds in the wrists on the shroud.
The Roman Catholic Church has made no pronouncements claiming it is Christ's burial shroud, or that it is a forgery.
2006-08-03 05:28:26 · answer #1 · answered by Moose C 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The shroud is a fake, according to the Bible.
When Lazarus was raised from the dead, Jesus called for people to unbind him, and set him free (John 11:44). Ancient Jewish burials consisted of cloth wrapped around a person, not just laid under him and flipped over him.
Also, there was a separate piece of cloth covering the head (called a napkin in John 11:44).
The markings of the shroud look very much like a person; it may have even come from a person (naturally and without fraud), but there is no evidence that it was Jesus, and much evidence against.
2006-08-03 02:54:09 · answer #2 · answered by flyersbiblepreacher 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the place is this "documents" you talk of that shows homosexuality in not genetic? i'm exceptionally advantageous you made that up. be at liberty to instruct me incorrect by using offering a hyperlink. certainly, i does not settle for them. very such as i don't settle for somebody who targets a team of human beings in hate. If it grew to become into proved the KKK grew to become into genetic, i does not settle for them the two. i'm totally accepting of a existence type that a) is composed of adults that are totally able to grant counseled consent, and b) does not harm different residing beings. in simple terms so which you comprehend, while you at the instant are not conscious, being against homosexuality does not make a guy or woman homophobic. There are people who state their opinion with admire and circulate away it at that. those everybody is already usual by using the "loving/tolerant gay community." we are all entitled to our very own opinion. it quite is the those that come on right here and say hurtful, crude, propose lively, hateful issues that at the instant are not usual. yet, quite, are you able to blame them for drawing near right here? What might desire to probable be greater exciting than drawing near YA, hiding in the back of your video demonstrate, and harassing the gays? truthfully, are you able to overcome that for a stable time? Ooooohhhh, i comprehend what i will do next, circulate on the being pregnant section and attack youthful mothers. What exciting!! What exciting!!!
2016-12-11 05:54:10 · answer #3 · answered by casimir 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Prove what? That it exists? Just look at it for yourself. That it's a painting? That's already been proven. That it's a 14th century artifact - one of hundreds of shrouds at the time - that's been proven too.
2006-08-03 02:45:22 · answer #4 · answered by lenny 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Theoritically, we'd have to shred the thing and have it be done by buddists who don't know what their working on to accurately "prove" or "disprove" the shroud.
The last study suggested it was a fake. and since then no one can get close enough to test it any other way. so... if it was really holy wouldn't it be in the bible having someone grabbed it?
2006-08-03 02:46:22 · answer #5 · answered by Tom 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I never based my faith on it.
Whether it's real or not, the thought is very interesting to imagine if that was what Jesus really looked like. It would be nice if someone found an old painting out of mud dated back around the time of Christ.
2006-08-03 02:55:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
carbon dating is terrible, it probably would date myself back to the 18th century. there was a fire in the church the shroud was kept and carbon is a big part of fire-so put 2 and 2 together.
2006-08-03 03:53:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It has been dated and found not to be of the time of Jesus.
Further even if it was, what am I supposed to do?
Bow myself down to it?
I don't think so!
There are so many relics in the Catholic Church that you can see.
If that is what you want to do.
2006-08-03 03:03:54 · answer #8 · answered by chris p 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was carbon dated to to fifteenth century...the Vatican sanctioned the study: that is the unavoidable truth for everyone except the dullards that wish to avoid it....
Its' a fraud, everyone should move along now
2006-08-03 02:41:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
except that the area of the shroud that they carbon-dated was highly contaminated and the vatican refuse to let it be re-tested.
2006-08-03 02:43:02 · answer #10 · answered by Zeitgei5t 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋