What forum did they use? – a YouTube video – on the Internet. I recently saw someone who didn’t believe the Shroud is authentic warn that one has to be careful about information about it put forth on the Internet. One can certainly find legitimate information on YouTube, but one also must be willing to separate the wheat from the chaff. It should be noted that YouTube videos should not be a researchers’ primary source of information, on the Shroud or any other topic for that matter. But one will also be supplied: *shroud of turin debunked. If one searches on YouTube for videos about the Shroud of Turin, the reputed burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth and just put in “shroud of turin” in the search box, YouTube will supply other search choices, such as: *shroud of turin Jesus *shroud of turin latest *shroud of turin documentary etc. The claims will be followed by comments and a list of “Additional Reading.” This article will be updated as needed. This article will look at the most common claims made against the Shroud’s authenticity (meaning that it was Jesus’ as opposed to another actual crucifixion victim). And there is no doubt that each side will continue to try to prove their case. The Shroud has become the most-intensely-studied artifact (not just relic) in history. On the pro-authenticity side, numerous researchers have spent decades, some as many four to five, studying the cloth. While some skeptics have done considerable research into the Shroud, most have done little or none before making their pronouncements Many of the arguments are simplistic, without nuance, and made from ignorance. The debate has raged on into the 21st century. More will be said about that in one of the entries found below. And if it originated no later than the 4th century, could there be evidence that could take it back to the 1st century? Indeed, serious problems have been noted about that C-14 dating test. ![]() Crucifixion was outlawed in the 4th century, so it’s unlikely that the Shroud dates later than that. It has real blood on it and was not produced by an artist. ![]() They concluded that the image was that a real form of a scourged, crucified man. Impressively, they published their findings in twenty-four peer-reviewed scientific journals. These claims conflict with the findings in 1978 of the scientific team called the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), which performed a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary testing of the cloth. That claim, along with the supposedly “95% confidence” factor of the 1988 C-14 dating of the Shroud to 1260-1390, makes skeptics feel confident that the Shroud is simply a medieval forgery. That’s not unreasonable, given that it was over 1,300 years since Jesus’ death, and if it were authentic, there was no clear record of its whereabouts back to the 1st century AD. Ever since the Shroud of Turin, believed by many over the centuries to be the actual burial cloth in which Jesus was buried, officially entered history in France in the mid-1350s, there were skeptics who claimed it was a forgery.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |