There’s simply no method known to medieval man or even to modern man to create an image with the amazing properties the Shroud has. No pigment, no chemicals, no brush strokes, no clumping of fibers or threads, no cracking of the image along fold lines are present, so the image is not created by any paint, stain, dye, or chemical treatment.This dating seemed to end the question of authenticity, but the accuracy of the testing has come into question for numerous scientific reasons, and today many scientists consider it flawed.įurther undermining the accuracy of the C 14 dating is the overwhelming body of evidence strongly pointing to the Shroud’s authenticity. Let’s acknowledge right from the beginning “the elephant in the room”-the 1988 Carbon 14 test that dated the Shroud to around 1300 AD. And the overwhelming majority of the evidence falls in favor of it being the authentic burial cloth of a crucified man who happened to experience the same tortures Jesus endured, as described in the Gospels. While many people claim it is a forgery, none of these skeptics seems to be able to explain how it was done. Hundreds of thousands of hours have been spent on scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin in an attempt to explain its enigmatic markings.
I hope you’ll read what I’ve discovered prayerfully and meditatively, and allow yourself, too, to be deeply moved. I must tell you, my research affected me profoundly, and I don’t think I’ll be able to look at a crucifix casually ever again. It seems to have just appeared.Having recently finished an article on the Eucharistic Miracles proven by science, I was curious to learn more about the scientific evidence regarding the Shroud of Turin, believed since ancient times to be the actual linens used in Jesus’ burial (John 19:39-40). Christ's burial cloth appears to have mysteriously taken up residence in Turin, Italy. If so, they should have shared the inconclusiveness. Perhaps the questions about when, where and why the shroud first appeared were not illuminating or interesting. Tracking the relic's recent appearances would probably have been much more revelatory. This part of the story takes about five seconds. We're told it appeared suddenly and reappeared later. A more interesting investigation of the shroud would be to track its historical appearances, through the years. Even if the relics are from the right era, how do we know they don't belong to Jo Schmo?. Since they match clues on the shroud, we are led to conclude the "Shroud of Turin" is real. Christ's final days are depicted as factual. Most of this episode's time is spent contrasting the shroud with events depicted in the Christian Bible. Also, the events of Christ's life from the New Testament are treated as fact. This widely known report could not have been left out of the story and, it is dismissed before the hour's end. A clip of NBC newsreader Tom Brokaw announcing the shroud's "carbon testing" proved it could not have existed during Jesus Christ's time is shown. The music, by Tom Howe, is hauntingly Biblical. On balance, the authenticity of the shroud is safe and sound on CNN. The title "Finding Jesus: Faith, Fact, Forgery" may suggest an informed investigation of the "Shroud of Turin". Another garment is discussed toward the end of the hour, a scarf used to wrap Jesus Christ's head. The unusual photographic "image" caught on the shroud is said to be evidence of Christ's resurrection. Many Christians believe this cloth wrapped the crucified body of Jesus Christ. The first episode of this CNN documentary mini-series focuses on the "Shroud of Turin".
0 kommentar(er)
