I seem to remember that they said it wasn't real blood, but the paint they used back then had animal protein in it and the carbon dating put it in the 13th century but then they may have changed that.
2006-12-04 10:22:03 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
To Joe K - No, Joe, I don't worship a cloth. I'm not even catholic. I'm just asking a question here. No need to get insulting.
2006-12-04 10:32:40 · update #1
Ditto its a fake. Why? The Bible says that a napkin that was wrapped around Jesus' head was laid in a place by itself.
2006-12-04 10:24:54 · answer #1 · answered by bbjones9 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
i do not imagine this is in any respect genuine. i in my opinion believe it replaced right into a "adverse" image created with the help of publicity or some type of organic compounds to three fabric wrapped round a useless body or statue set up to resemble Jesus after crucifixion. first of all, the tests on proving the stains are blood were inconclusive. The very last specialist to attempt it examined the blood stains and placed them to be vermillion and iron oxide or some such concoction. no matter if it were genuine blood... how troublesome ought to it were for someone attempting to fake this component to prick his finger, or stay away from dropping blood from the hen he slaughtered for dinner? Blood proves not some thing. Secondly, no matter if carbon portray is punctiliously incorrect, why does a twin of Jesus look like the european creative depections of Jesus from the middle a even as? Why ought to a center Easter Jew from the first century have the hair and constructive factors of a Western eu guy? And if the Bible is an precise recording of Jesus' crucifixion & resurrection, and the shroud replaced into there, why wasn't it suggested as component to the miracle? intricate-- confident. It meant vast money to create a pretend relic. imagine of the mass pilgrimages it ought to have meant. also, sheer human stress and interest to be creative and invent some thing ought to were adequate to inspire the attempt.
2016-11-30 03:36:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Carbon dating has been ruled invalid for dating due to current science challenges. They have never used allowed to use enough of the shroud to do a proper analysis. The area tested was the edges which were repaired in the 13th century...so it is left to one`s conscience...and faith...on a related topic how is it that noone has challenged the authenticity of the veronique(image of Christ`s face on the cloth St Veronica used to wipe Jesus`s face on the road to His crucifixion)?
2006-12-04 10:30:44 · answer #3 · answered by Therapist King 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Science has proved with carbon dating that the shroud of Turin is not the real image of Jesus.
2006-12-04 10:29:12 · answer #4 · answered by Mary W 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I read the book. Ultimately, the more they research it, the more questions they come up with than answers. Personally, I think it is authentic because the blood type is the same as the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano. But I will go by what the scientists say if they ever reach a conclusion. That is what the Church does.
2006-12-04 10:28:06 · answer #5 · answered by Br. Dymphna S.F.O 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to the evidence, 13th century.
2006-12-04 10:25:00 · answer #6 · answered by The Resurrectionist 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The Shroud is a hoax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
2006-12-04 10:26:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Jesus is the truth, the way and the life!
I do not need an object to confirm my beliefs.
2006-12-04 10:25:42 · answer #8 · answered by St. Mike 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's been proven over and over to be hundreds of years older than christ. The Vatican has most recently declared it will no longer allow any testing on it.
Wonder why...
2006-12-04 10:29:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The jury is still out. There are believers and non-believers. I am on the side of medieval forgery, personally.
2006-12-04 10:23:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋