snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 24 August 2008, 07:26 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,614
Icon215 Shroud of Turin stirs new controversy

A Colorado couple researching the shroud dispute radiocarbon dating of the alleged burial cloth of Jesus, and Oxford has agreed to help them reexamine the findings.

http://www.latimes.com/features/reli...,4950965.story
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 24 August 2008, 07:48 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

So first it sounds a lot like this fella will never really admit defeat on this one, so whats the point? Its like the people who want to debate creationism but you know there is zero chance that they are gonna ever admit defeat no matter what arguments are levied against them because they are starting from a position that isn't applicable to science.

Now, I don't know the background of this guy, but from the article thats the sound.


Secondly, as a snopes poster once said (I shall quote the best I can), "Even if we can prove beyond a doubt that the shroud really does show an image of a Jewish man from that region from roughly 2000 years ago, how does this prove that man was Jesus? And How does it prove anything else?"

-MB
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 25 August 2008, 12:28 AM
JFB
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
"Even if we can prove beyond a doubt that the shroud really does show an image of a Jewish man from that region from roughly 2000 years ago, how does this prove that man was Jesus? And How does it prove anything else?"
It doesn't. But it reopens the possibility of the shroud being authentic (whatever "authentic" would be).

Ain't hope grand?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25 August 2008, 10:12 AM
Skeptic's Avatar
Skeptic Skeptic is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2005
Location: Logan, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,735
Default

Quote:
" (The radiocarbon date) ...is like a square peg in a round hole. It's not fitting properly, and the question is why."
What doesn't it fit. It doesn't fit their predetermined outcome, and the reason is that their outcome is incorrect. If I think that 3 + 3 = 7 then the scientific view of the question will not fit my expected outcome.

I'm also intrigued that he thinks it is "1300 years out of date". Why not 500 years, or 2300, or 345. Again, a predetermined outcome.

But I just remembered, we're arguing with fundamentalists. And to think we expected them to talk sense.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 25 August 2008, 10:25 AM
Floater's Avatar
Floater Floater is offline
 
Join Date: 24 February 2000
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 6,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
I'm also intrigued that he thinks it is "1300 years out of date". Why not 500 years, or 2300, or 345. Again, a predetermined outcome.
Probably because it was painted in the 14th century. IIRC there is a letter about it from a priest to his bishop where the writer says something about having met the artist.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 25 August 2008, 11:06 AM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,472
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floater View Post
Probably because it was painted in the 14th century. IIRC there is a letter about it from a priest to his bishop where the writer says something about having met the artist.
Like dinosaur bones, God put that letter there. It's all part of His plan, and who are you to question it?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07 November 2008, 03:32 PM
pob14's Avatar
pob14 pob14 is offline
 
Join Date: 31 December 2002
Location: Springfield, IL
Posts: 974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floater View Post
Probably because it was painted in the 14th century. IIRC there is a letter about it from a priest to his bishop where the writer says something about having met the artist.

Not to put words in Skeptic's mouth, but what I think he meant by his question was, the assumption that it's 1300 years out of date is the same as the assumption that it's genuine. In other words, the neutral position would be "the date could be wrong, let's check to see what the right date is", not "the date is wrong, here's the right one."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07 November 2008, 03:43 PM
Admiraldinty's Avatar
Admiraldinty Admiraldinty is offline
 
Join Date: 31 July 2004
Location: Lowell, MA
Posts: 4,774
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floater View Post
Probably because it was painted in the 14th century. IIRC there is a letter about it from a priest to his bishop where the writer says something about having met the artist.
I've never heard that. Do you have a cite? [not being combative, just honestly curious.]
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07 November 2008, 03:56 PM
Wintermute's Avatar
Wintermute Wintermute is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 6,535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
Now, I don't know the background of this guy, but from the article thats the sound.

-MB
I do not get that from the article at all. I get from the article that he is trying to determine what there is differences in the carbon dating, and trying to determine what is the age of the shroud.
He has some science education to back him up, and I would wait for his research before making the decision that he has a biased agenda based on the article.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07 November 2008, 03:59 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 22,858
Icon102

Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiraldinty View Post
I've never heard that. Do you have a cite? [not being combative, just honestly curious.]
You could start here and follow the linkies:
http://www.skeptic.ws/shroud/
(At the bottom are links to those who deny that it is a forgery as well.)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07 November 2008, 04:12 PM
Mama Duck's Avatar
Mama Duck Mama Duck is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2001
Location: South Texas
Posts: 12,151
Default

Wiki link Not terribly exhaustive but does cover the theory that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. In fact, I thought it was pretty much settled that the Shroud was in fact a medieval forgery. Why is this coming up again?

Last edited by Mama Duck; 07 November 2008 at 04:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07 November 2008, 05:33 PM
Hero_Mike's Avatar
Hero_Mike Hero_Mike is offline
 
 
Join Date: 06 April 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ & Hamilton, ON
Posts: 7,265
Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama Duck View Post
Wiki link Not terribly exhaustive but does cover the theory that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. In fact, I thought it was pretty much settled that the Shroud was in fact a medieval forgery. Why is this coming up again?
IIRC, there was a claim of possible errors in the carbon dating due to saturation of the shroud, with pollen and smoke from the medieval era. Not only that, but as time passes, the methods of carbon dating are more accurate and the "give or take" disclaimer tacked on to any analysis of age, is much narrower.

I'm all for more testing - let there be as little doubt as possible. At least the claim for errors seems plausible, and isn't based upon anything "mystical".
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07 November 2008, 07:41 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

I've always wondered how the shroud, of all the fake relics floating around medieval Europe, the shroud managed to persist.

I'm thoroughly convinced it's a medieval fake. I read Joe Nickell's book, which is quite compelling, especially for his refutation of the idea that medieval artistic techniques didn't include anything that would create the shroud. Before I read the book, I, as a Jew, didn't think there was anything miraculous about the shroud, or that it was used on the one and only Jesus, but I was willing to entertain ideas that it could have been older than medieval, or could have been "accidentally" created in some way-- ie, that it could have at one point been someone's burial shroud. But since reading Nickell's book, I don't think it's anything but a forged medieval relic made for the express purpose of wringing money from the peasantry.

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that people who study the shoud have immense knowledge of the shroud itself, but very little in general about the middle ages, or about art and fabrication.

Just as a small example, they seem never to know that making monument rubbings with cloth or cloth paper and charcol or rose madder was a popular medieval past-time, and one of the few economical ways of having a copy of a work of art before photography.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06 October 2009, 04:42 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,614
Icon204 Shroud of Turin 'is a medieval fake', say Italian scientists

The Shroud of Turin has been reproduced, according to Italian scientists, who claimed their experiment proved that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus's burial cloth is a medieval fake.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...cientists.html
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06 October 2009, 08:23 AM
Andrew of Ware's Avatar
Andrew of Ware Andrew of Ware is offline
 
Join Date: 22 April 2003
Location: Ware, Hertfordshire, England
Posts: 8,013
Default

Reproducing an image like the Turin Shroud does not prove that the shroud is a fake - it just shows that the shroud could have been created in mediaeval times. That said, the experiment appears to show how the image might have been created.

I like the quote from Mr. Garlaschelli in the BBC article on the experiment ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8291948.stm ).

Quote:
If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories they certainly won't believe me.
He may well be correct.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06 October 2009, 09:21 AM
llewtrah's Avatar
llewtrah llewtrah is offline
 
Join Date: 13 December 2001
Location: Chelmsford, UK
Posts: 16,363
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware View Post
Reproducing an image like the Turin Shroud does not prove that the shroud is a fake - it just shows that the shroud could have been created in mediaeval times. That said, the experiment appears to show how the image might have been created.
The combination of radiocarbon dating of the original and the ability to reproduce it indicates the shroud's image wasn't created by wrapping up a body nearly 2000 years ago. Relic-making was big business in mediaeval times with saints' bones and saints' blood and bits of wood from the cross in circulation. The fact someone created such a stunning (and controversial)piece is interesting in itself and one can only hope it was an act of faith rather than an eye to a profit (no prophet pun intended).
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06 October 2009, 10:21 AM
jw's Avatar
jw jw is offline
 
Join Date: 06 March 2006
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 5,056
Default

Quote:
One of Christianity's most disputed relics, it is locked away at Turin Cathedral in Italy and rarely exhibited. It was last on display in 2000 and is due to be shown again next year.
I wonder if the Catholic Church will let the cathedral in Turin put it out on display given all the recent relevations? Perhaps it'll be an even bigger draw as the believers will come to silence the doubters and the doubters will come to view its unauthenticity.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06 October 2009, 10:47 AM
Andrew of Ware's Avatar
Andrew of Ware Andrew of Ware is offline
 
Join Date: 22 April 2003
Location: Ware, Hertfordshire, England
Posts: 8,013
Default

I believe that Turin Cathedral are putting the shroud on display next year. It was last seen in public in 2000. Are they planning a ten yearly showing? I believe that the Roman Catholic church regard the shroud as being an icon, an image of Christ, but not a genuine relic.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06 October 2009, 03:54 PM
Singing in the Drizzle Singing in the Drizzle is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 4,745
Default

I was watching a TV show some years ago. That least one of the historians has very sceptical about any of the old religious findings. For him it was the fact that when ever a religious leader or king took a strong interest in finding a religious location or at least physical evidence of the something from the bible. I was found quit quickly especially if powerful leader showed up in person to over see things.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06 October 2009, 05:40 PM
Tarquin Farquart's Avatar
Tarquin Farquart Tarquin Farquart is offline
 
Join Date: 20 November 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 16,354
Default

I have to say, fake or not (and I'm sure it's the former) it's a good relic.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.