and is recognized by the Catholic church. So would it not be a second class relic? Its container a 3rd class?

isn't the focus here on the wrong thing?

Just like the blessed handkerchiefs that left Paul and healed others, as well as Jesus' garment that healed the hemmorraging woman, 1rst and 2nd class relics have always been held in high esteem by the Church. The shroud would be one of those relics that I would love to see and touch.

I REALLY, REALLY doubt the shroud of Turin is the cloth that covered Jesus

73, thats what I was thinking. Supposedly there are blood stains still on there.

There are indeed blood stains. No one else was also crucified with a crown of thorns on his head, which cause blood stains exactly as they are on this shroud. And it isn't paint on the image, and they sure didn't savvy photography back there, so how the negative image wound up on the cloth is a mystery...

It has been dated to the middle ages. Period.

I know about the fire theory and every other theory about why the ones who dated it got it wrong.

Why do we have to have tangible things to help us with our faith? It makes us look like fools.

John 20:29 "Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed.""

quote:

---

It has been dated to the middle ages. Period.

---

By carbon dating...a process that is not too precise.

I watched a program on this just this past Sunday and an anthropolgist was discussing the stitching of the shroud. She said that the stitching was a very rare and a specific type that has only been found in one other place in the world...Massad(sp? Mossad).

After I have seen all the evidence I have seen, I am not convinced, nor do I need to be.

As with all relics of this kind, the Church has made no pronouncements claiming it is Christ's burial shroud, or that it is a forgery. The matter has been left to the personal decision of the Faithful. In the Church's view, whether the cloth is authentic or not has no bearing whatever on the validity of what Christ taught.

Pope John Paul II stated in 1998, "Since we're not dealing with a matter of faith, the church can't pronounce itself on such questions. It entrusts to scientists the tasks of continuing to investigate, to reach adequate answers to the questions connected to this shroud."

quote:

---

After I have seen all the evidence I have seen, I am not convinced, nor do I need to be.

---

Ditto...but it is still intriguing.

quote:

---

It has been dated to the middle ages. Period.

---

Carbon dating doesn't take into account all factors.

It was later discovered that various micro-organisms contained in the Shroud have caused it to age more rapidly than carbon-dating can determine.

I'm not saying that Shroud is, or is not, authentic, I'm just saying that the statement "It has been dated to the middle ages. Period." is far too simplistic.

It doesn't appear in written records until the middle ages, which just happens to be the same time period to which the C14 dates from 3 independent labs place it. It doesn't match the description of burial shrouds at the time, nor that used for Jesus.
The shroud has been well-sampled and paints, not blood, are found on it. http://www.mcri.org/Shroud_full.html#anchor504897
The idea that the C14 dates are off by ~1300 years for something only ~2000 years old is ludicrous. Labs can check for contamination. You're suggesting that all three labs checks for contamination failed, and that all of their samples were equally contaminated. Why doesn't this seem to be a huge source of uncontrolled error for non-biblical textiles? http://www.mcri.org/Shroud_graph.html

The church is smart to distance itself from this fake.
http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html

[This message has been edited by flechenbones (edited 4/18/2006 12:19p).]

[This message has been edited by flechenbones (edited 4/18/2006 12:20p).]

flechenbones:

You seem to be arguing with me over the alleged authenticity of the Shroud, whereas I made it clear that I am not advocating a position either way.

Actually, most of my statement was there before I saw yours. After seeing your commetns I edited it to add in

"You're suggesting that all three labs checks for contamination failed, and that all of their samples were equally contaminated. Why doesn't this seem to be a huge source of uncontrolled error for non-biblical textiles?"

I understand that you are not making a definite claim.
I'm just pointing out that the contamination idea, which many shroud proponents like to believe in, is not a valid explanation of the C14 dates.

National Geographic had a show about the Shroud on Saturday. The conclusion of most of the scientists was that it was a fake.

They beleive photo-reactive chemicals were used to burn the image onto the cloth. And there are traces of paint on the cloth (the blood).