Shroud of Turin
I assume many on here have seen the recent dust up regarding the shroud. Like many, personally, I had just shelved the notion of any claims towards authenticity (and I still definitely lean that way) but recent claims afforded us by developments in technology has my interest piqued.
Pardon my query if this has already been hashed & rehashed ad nauseum on here but are there any recent studies offered by Logos that interact with the Shroud (I realize it’s still a bit early but just wanted to check anyway)?
*(Oh, and I may get tagged for this, but is it true that the figure on the Shroud seemed to have had a broken nose😳?)
Thank you in advance.
Comments
-
Puddin’ said:
I assume many on here have seen the recent dust up regarding the shroud. Like many, personally, I had just shelved the notion of any claims towards authenticity (and I still definitely lean that way) but recent claims afforded us by developments in technology has my interest piqued.
Pardon my query if this has already been hashed & rehashed ad nauseum on here but are there any recent studies offered by Logos that interact with the Shroud (I realize it’s still a bit early but just wanted to check anyway)?
*(Oh, and I may get tagged for this, but is it true that the figure on the Shroud seemed to have had a broken nose😳?)
Thank you in advance.
I haven't heard of any very recent news, so would be interested in any links.
I enjoyed this book last year:
The only book I previously noted in Faithlife is
I haven't yet purchased this though.
0 -
Paul Caneparo said:
I haven't heard of any very recent news, so would be interested in any links.
Doing a Google search and clicking on the “news” tab, the most recent articles look like the perennial debate about the age of the image. As I understand it, the sides are:
1) “Carbon dating proves it’s medieval.”
2) “These tests overlook contamination (fires, repairs etc.) through history and the details that can only be detected by modern instruments.”
I don’t have the scientific knowledge to say whether one of those positions are false. But given the fact that the testing samples are destroyed in the process, it’s understandable why there is reluctance to do further testing. So, I don’t expect a final resolution.
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
David Wanat said:Paul Caneparo said:
I haven't heard of any very recent news, so would be interested in any links.
Doing a Google search and clicking on the “news” tab, the most recent articles look like the perennial debate about the age of the image. As I understand it, the sides are:
1) “Carbon dating proves it’s medieval.”
2) “These tests overlook contamination (fires, repairs etc.) through history and the details that can only be detected by modern instruments.”
I don’t have the scientific knowledge to say whether one of those positions are false. But given the fact that the testing samples are destroyed in the process, it’s understandable why there is reluctance to do further testing. So, I don’t expect a final resolution.
The book on Amazon I suggested is very good on the age issues.
0 -
More religious phony baloneyism
0 -
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Whyndell Grizzard said:
More religious phony baloneyism
Obviously not critical to faith, but I actually find the "evidence" quite convincing. And I am otherwise very sceptical about so called relics.
0 -
Puddin’ said:
I assume many on here have seen the recent dust up regarding the shroud.
I haven't heard anything, but the topic reminded me that I at first thought that Mandylion rhymed with Dandylion [:D]
0 -
Ask and ye shall receive (Note: Apologies for slow responses but I got hung up yesterday & I actually have church tonight. However, I have read each reply & definitely intend to check the info. already provided above. Again, as always, very helpful and much appreciated.) Links:
0 -
Whyndell Grizzard said:
More religious phony baloneyism
I have to be brief but I wanted to at least say that, at this time, I don’t accept the Shroud as Christ’s burial cloth for at least 3 reasons:
1. If the nose bone is genuinely broken—and I’ve heard an accepted authority on the Shroud say it was (can’t recall where or who right this moment)—then all bets are off for me inasmuch as “not a bone of Him was broken.” Indeed, I find it astonishing that virtually no one is commenting on this, which makes me wonder if I’m not simply misunderstanding something here.
2. I don’t believe that Jesus had long hair based upon the I Corinthians 11 text and its appeal to “nature.”
3. I think that it would require a lot of jumping through hoops to identify this one garment as the specific cloth used for the Messiah. Not saying it isn’t possible but I think the odds of that happening would be pretty low.
**That said, equally, my ears are also opened to the possibility that my current position may be one of ignorance…but I don’t want to digress into a violation of forum policies by delving into theological topics so I will endeavor to keep the conversation focused on resources.
0 -
Puddin’ said:Whyndell Grizzard said:
More religious phony baloneyism
I have to be brief but I wanted to at least say that, at this time, I don’t accept the Shroud as Christ’s burial cloth for at least 3 reasons:
1. If the nose bone is genuinely broken—and I’ve heard an accepted authority on the Shroud say it was (can’t recall where or who right this moment)—then all bets are off for me inasmuch as “not a bone of Him was broken.” Indeed, I find it astonishing that virtually no one is commenting on this, which makes me wonder if I’m not simply misunderstanding something here.
2. I don’t believe that Jesus had long hair based upon the I Corinthians 11 text and its appeal to “nature.”
3. I think that it would require a lot of jumping through hoops to identify this one garment as the specific cloth used for the Messiah. Not saying it isn’t possible but I think the odds of that happening would be pretty low.
**That said, equally, my ears are also opened to the possibility that my current position may be one of ignorance…but I don’t want to digress into a violation of forum policies by delving into theological topics so I will endeavor to keep the conversation focused on resources.
I'd certainly encourage reading "The Shroud: Fresh Light on the 2000 Year Old Mystery" by Ian Wilson. He writes as a historian. I don't believe he's a Christian and some of his other books would suggest otherwise.
I have a slight interest in this in that I became a Christian following watching the documentary in 1979 based on his first book, when minutes later I heard God say to me "Come, Follow Me". I don't necessarily connect the two together though and wouldn't base my faith on the shroud being Jesus's.
0 -
Paul Caneparo said:Puddin’ said:Whyndell Grizzard said:
More religious phony baloneyism
I have to be brief but I wanted to at least say that, at this time, I don’t accept the Shroud as Christ’s burial cloth for at least 3 reasons:
1. If the nose bone is genuinely broken—and I’ve heard an accepted authority on the Shroud say it was (can’t recall where or who right this moment)—then all bets are off for me inasmuch as “not a bone of Him was broken.” Indeed, I find it astonishing that virtually no one is commenting on this, which makes me wonder if I’m not simply misunderstanding something here.
2. I don’t believe that Jesus had long hair based upon the I Corinthians 11 text and its appeal to “nature.”
3. I think that it would require a lot of jumping through hoops to identify this one garment as the specific cloth used for the Messiah. Not saying it isn’t possible but I think the odds of that happening would be pretty low.
**That said, equally, my ears are also opened to the possibility that my current position may be one of ignorance…but I don’t want to digress into a violation of forum policies by delving into theological topics so I will endeavor to keep the conversation focused on resources.
I'd certainly encourage reading "The Shroud: Fresh Light on the 2000 Year Old Mystery" by Ian Wilson. He writes as a historian. I don't believe he's a Christian and some of his other books would suggest otherwise.
I have a slight interest in this in that I became a Christian following watching the documentary in 1979 based on his first book, when minutes later I heard God say to me "Come, Follow Me". I don't necessarily connect the two together though and wouldn't base my faith on the shroud being Jesus's.
Yes, Paul, I do find that book intriguing & have it saved to dive into.
There’s just been so much quackery regarding these alleged “discoveries” (e.g., Ron Wyatt, etc.) that if we’re not careful I think it’s possible to throw the baby out with the bath water.In a similar vein, I would suggest the archaeological presentations of investigative journalist & filmmaker Timothy Mahoney who runs the Patterns of Evidence blog (also on Prime Video).
I have found his works to be engaging, meticulous & exhaustive.
0 -
Puddin’ said:
1. If the nose bone is genuinely broken—and I’ve heard an accepted authority on the Shroud say it was (can’t recall where or who right this moment)—then all bets are off for me inasmuch as “not a bone of Him was broken.” Indeed, I find it astonishing that virtually no one is commenting on this, which makes me wonder if I’m not simply misunderstanding something here.
The portion of the nose that protrudes from the cheeks is cartilage... prove it for yourself by grasping your own nose (or the nearest handy nose) between your thumb and index finger and wiggle it gently from side to side, now slide your fingers a little closer to the brow ridge and do it again. Until you get very close to the eyes, you will not encounter bone. A "broken nose" usually consists of broken cartilage vs broken bone.
I'm not advocating for a declaration of authenticity for the shroud, just being a bone policeman.
"I read dead people..."
0 -
Brother Mark said:Puddin’ said:
1. If the nose bone is genuinely broken—and I’ve heard an accepted authority on the Shroud say it was (can’t recall where or who right this moment)—then all bets are off for me inasmuch as “not a bone of Him was broken.” Indeed, I find it astonishing that virtually no one is commenting on this, which makes me wonder if I’m not simply misunderstanding something here.
The portion of the nose that protrudes from the cheeks is cartilage... prove it for yourself by grasping your own nose (or the nearest handy nose) between your thumb and index finger and wiggle it gently from side to side, now slide your fingers a little closer to the brow ridge and do it again. Until you get very close to the eyes, you will not encounter bone. A "broken nose" usually consists of broken cartilage vs broken bone.
I'm not advocating for a declaration of authenticity for the shroud, just being a bone policeman.
I wondered about that also but didn’t take the time to hunt it down—and I figured someone on here would know the answer anyway (🥴).
I do think that these authorities on the shroud should make that more clear than just saying “The nose is broken…” with no further details. Just my two cents.
Much appreciated Mark👍.
0
https://youtu.be/0bxBDb5BWCA