I used to think it might, but according to the last scientific investigations it has been proven that it belongs to the first century (the first carbon 14 dating was wrong because of an external layer on the linen which caused the first results to be incorrect), so it would be unwise not to recognize the possibility that it may be authenticate.
2006-11-21 02:34:28 · 15 answers · asked by sword 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Mythology & Folklore
Well all those tests they did in the 1980's that said it is a fake are now supposed to be wrong. Now they say it could be real
Sometimes I just think we need to have faith.
2006-11-21 02:36:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The accuracy of carbon 14 dating assumes that the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14 is constant over the ages. This is a highly speculative claim simply by referring to known samples from known years which have been submitted to carbon dating.
The second point is one I would like to ask with respect: what possible difference can the shroud of Turin make to anyone's life if it is either authentic or inauthentic? While it is scientifically interesting that it may have been Christ's burial shroud, it can make no difference in what someone believes or how he believes it. At worst, I fear that it becomes an object of reverence, something of which Christ would not approve.
2006-11-21 12:06:02 · answer #2 · answered by Bentley 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you read the description of Jesus' burial clothes, you will realize that the Shroud of Turin does not fit into the Biblical account of what they looked like. Also, Carbon 14 dating is not an accurate method of dating. When a live jelly fish was tested using Carbon 14, the results said it was several million years old, and it was still alive. Also, carbon 14 is used to determine how old something is, but to make sure carbon 14 is accurate, if it said something was 1 million years old, you would have to compare it to something that you knew was 1 million years old to determine if the test was accurate. The only way they can determine something is 1 million years old is to carbon date it. So, consequently you have carbon 14 dating certifying that carbon 14 dating is correct. That would be like me saying that I am the smartest man on earth and I know that because I am the smartest man on earth. You could disagree, but since you are not the smartest, you opinion is invalid. It's called circular reasoning.
2006-11-21 10:43:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The 'scientific' evidence regarding the Shroud keeps batting back and forth. The problem is that fire that took place back in the Middle Ages. That fire reset the carbon clock, making anything it says suspect. But that won't stop people from using it to 'prove' that it's a fake from now on. I think the pollen tells the story, myself. If the Shroud was never documented to be in Palestine, how did exclusively Palestinean pollen get onto it??? But unfortunately, even this is not 'proof' enough for some.
Oh, well...
BTW, Larry, a broken nose is cartilage, NOT bone. That don't count.
2006-11-21 10:46:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it could be a fake because if they wanted to really confirm its authenticity then they would take it to a lab and work with many scientists to prove it.
I think its authenticity need to be substantiated along with those statues of Mary that are supposed to be crying and the cow statues that leak milk.
This way people can make sure its real and then the shroud can be protected and enjoyed by everyone who believes in Jesus.
2006-11-21 10:51:58 · answer #5 · answered by dazedreamr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of a man from the days of Jesus. And it is of a man who was crucified. This much is true.
However, the shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus. One simple reason why. The man whose image is in the cloth had one bone of his body broken. And it was common for the soldiers to break the legs of those who were crucified in Roman days, to help speed up death. However, and this is the reason it is a fake, when Jesus was crucified, they did not break any bone in his body, for two reasons, one, when they came to him, he was already dead, so they just pierced his side instead of breaking his legs, and secondly, it was prophesied in the book of Psalms that not one of his bones would be broken.
So, yes, it is an authentic burial cloth of a real person who was crucified, but no, it is not the burial cloth of Jesus. Hope that helps.
Dr. L King, DBS., Professor of Religion, Emmanuel University.
2006-11-21 10:46:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is where each individual must believe in their heat what is right. years ago I did a paper on the Shroud and personally feel it is authentic. not because of any scientific proof one way or the other but because of the history of the Shroud and its connection with the Knights Templar.
2006-11-21 13:48:50 · answer #7 · answered by Marvin R 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's a "fake" in that it is NOT the shroud of Jesus. However, it is still a very valuable piece of religion-themed medieval art (1260-1390).
I'm not a Christian but if I ever had the chance, I'd go see it. I think it's pretty cool.
2006-11-21 15:06:31 · answer #8 · answered by Gevera Bert 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Studies have shown it is a fake. Whether it is or not, its not that important to me. What matters most to me is that Jesus is not a fake. lf the shroud is later proven to be true, l guess the number of non-believers will lessen.
2006-11-21 10:41:22 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Where's the citation for this updated scientific investigation?
I think it's a man-made artifact, the scientific and historical evidence says so.
2006-11-21 10:40:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋