Forum Discussion: Shroud of Turin
Wednesday October 7, 2009
The Shroud of Turin is probably the most famous Christian relic in existence. Believers insist that the Shroud not only proves that Jesus existed, was crucified, and was buried in a tomb, but in fact that the Shroud actually shows evidence of a miraculous resurrection. An entire apologetics industry has arisen around studying, explaining, and defending the Shroud of Turin, but has any of it produced anything reliable or worthwhile?
As it happens often with rabid believers, no amount of contrary evidence will suffice, and they must go on believing and looking for evidence that the Shroud is really the burial cloth of Christ. I just finished seeing a Channel 4 (UK) programme advocating the validity theory. There was no effort to counter the arguments against authenticity, and only one person was interviewed, that with the most outrageous claim: that the Shroud is the world's first photograph. ...
The worst part of the entire show was the presentation of a self-proclaimed "expert", who went on to claim that he had no doubt that this was the cloth of Christ, and that nobody could prove that "this was not the Shroud of Christ". I was shouting at my screen!
There's no rational basis for thinking that the Shroud of Turin isn't a fake. Even the Roman Catholic Church basically accepts that it is a medieval forgery. So why do people continue to believe? Is their religious faith so weak that it can't survive without physical relics like this? Add your thoughts to the comments here or join the ongoing discussion in the forum.
ive always wanted to become a preacher and start up my own church to make a whole hell alot of money off ignorant people
its the ultimate snake oil sales man
just to think i used to be one of those people hhaaa i kill me
The funniest thing to me is that the Catholic Church has never said that the relic is authentic, but I bet if you ask most Catholics, they would have a very different opinion. I wonder if some people, obviously not all, would change their mind at all if they new the Catholic Church’s actual stance on the shroud.
Not that this will convince most folks (I mean who believes carbon dating), but I just saw a news item yesterday to the effect that an Italian scientist had reproduced a shroud very similar to the shroud of turin using techniques and technology known to have been in use in 13th century Italy. I’m sure a quick google search or search of any of the major news sites would turn it up for anyone interested.
The Italian group think that they may have been able to recreate the Shroud of Turin. Maybe they have? But, I’d love for them to try and recreate the coffee stained image of the Virgin Mary I personally have. A few photos of the image can be found here on Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/7690119@N03/sets/72157617453203072/detail/
Funny how the image of the virgin Mary draped in her robes always seems to look like the pattern left by flowing liquid…
Scientists reproduce the shroud of turin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8291948.stm
I wonder how long the coffee was sitting in the glass before doing the dishes…
We as Catholics do not need this relic to truly believe that Christ died and rose. Our faith is stong enough. However, nobody and I mean nobody will ever be able to prove that this is NOT the actual burial cloth of Christ because Jesus Himself wanted it that way. Let agnostics and skeptics battle scientists over what is true versus what is not true. Nothing has changed since the day He walked among us. “Happy are those who have not seen, but yet believe.”
Mark,
The fact that nobody has proven the Shroud to be fake (yet) does not prove that it is genuine.
Yours is a classic example of an Argument from Ignorance, and it is a logical fallacy.
Dan post 4. 1.How can anyone say the these stains look like the virgin Mary? Does anyone know what the virgin Mary looked like? 2. Plus if Mary bore a child, then she most certainly is not a virgin.
No one could know what either Christ nor Mary looks like. There are no images, whatsoever of either, except for those extant in the minds and imagination of the artists who painted them. As imaginary as the cherubs and demons who populated those same “representations” of the non existent persona of all mythologies.
Mark,
In addition to what naked ape pointed out about your comment, you should also realize the inefficacy of the phrase you quoted about happiness. It may certainly be true that those with faith are happy, that provides no evidence for the truth of it or the truth of anything else.
Many people find solace and happiness in delusions. The quote you have there is essentially a re-phrasing of the adage “ignorance is bliss.”
I happened across an authentic post on a very Christian site, written by one of these “happy” Christian types. It was heartbreaking. So much so that I saved it for discussions like this one.
I have not changed or edited one letter or punctuation, this is as it actually was posted:
“I feel exactly the same way. I try not to sin though even though I do. Sometimes I just want to kill myself because I sin so much and I’m constanstly failing God. At times I even cry out to God to kill me. I hate it with a burning passion. Knowing that I’m cheating on my Heavenly Father with sin and finding pleasure in other things is the most shameful, hypocritical, embarassing thing I could ever do.”
So much for religion making you happy while atheism makes you miserable.
Ron brings up a good point. We do not know what Mary looked like or Jesus either for that matter. All the paintings and statues I have seen show Mary as white faced and slim a desired European figure. How do we know she wasn’t dark olive skinned short and fat. Jesus is the same depicted as a slim 6 footer. How do we know he wasn’t dark short and bandy legged? The figures are more allied to myth than reality.
(4) Dan, this is a classic example of a well known phenomenon known as pareidolia. This is basically where people recognize patterns within something with randomness. It may very well explain a lot of religious illusions, such as the illusion of design in nature. Regardless of whether or not this think looks exactly the way Mary did is irrelevant. Although this looks similar to the artists’ rendition of Mary, a few key points may stand out upon a second look. Notice how distorted anything looking close to facial features are. And what is that coming from “her” neck? Is that a “dreadlock” over “her eye?” A closer look will uncover a whole slew of imperfections typical of a randomness. If enough coffee mugs get stained, chances are they will look like something, maybe even holy… However this is to be expected every once in a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
Wasn’t a carbon dating done on the shroud and didn’t it find that the shroud is from the late 1200s to the middle 1300s? Much too late for a first century Jesus! Wasn’t the shroud in the care of a Templar family? Could it be the shroud of a Templar (leader)? I believe in blind faith, but I don’t believe in ignorant faith!
The shroud was first “discovered” in 1354. Pilgrims paid a lot of money at the time to touch it. A local bishop investigated and denounced the shroud as a fraud.
In 1389 the shroud found its way back on public display in its role of lightening pilgrim’s purses.
Another Bishop Pierre d’Arcis, the local bishop of Troyes, again denounced it as a fraud because “after diligent inquiry and examination” he had found that the shroud “was cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it”.
It’s a fake.