Content

crow
A multi-author blog with a range of opinions on news, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and life


Greg Krehbiel

Evidence against evidence against the shroud

by Greg Krehbiel on 21 January 2005

New Chemical Testing Points to Ancient Origin for Burial Shroud of Jesus; Los Alamos Scientist Proves 1988 Carbon-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Used Invalid Rewoven Sample

2005-01-21  »  Greg Krehbiel

Talkback x 6

  1. Robert
    21 January 2005 @ 9:08 am

    While I don’t believe the Shroud of Turin is authentic, it still seems like the sort of parable-like evidence God would leave for the world to ponder.

  2. GregK
    21 January 2005 @ 9:15 am

    God is certainly irritating in the way He leaves “evidence.” It’s like He’s toying with us or something.

    But I’m curious why you don’t believe the shroud is genuine?

  3. David T.
    21 January 2005 @ 1:01 pm

    I wonder if Time and Newsweek will do cover stories on this new evidence ?

    Almost everyone I’ve ever talked to about the Shroud quickly brings up some article they read from Time or some some such magazine (re: the 1988 dating) that said the Shroud was a medieval forgery due to “conclusive” Carbon 14 dating .

    Why do I suspect that this new evidence won’t be trumpeted by the Main Stream Media ?

  4. Robert
    21 January 2005 @ 4:08 pm

    1. I do not believe the relic tradition tends towards the truth. I would need substantive, positive evidence to distinguish this relic from the common finger bones and splinters and Virgin Mary milk.

    2. I have read of several burial clothes and other clothes surrounding the passion of our Lord. So this cloth did not appear in the 13th century–there was plenty of myth already generating interest in a cloth like it. Now I have the motive to fake the cloth. This further disposes me towards the negative.

    I’m certainly willing to be convinced. But the Shroud has an uphill battle ahead of it, not even conting the various evidences for and against. I suppose I’ll just wait until later and see if it fits my Lord.

  5. cparks
    21 January 2005 @ 5:55 pm

    Problem is, all this article says is that the Shroud is “much older.” How much older? I’m inclined toward thinking the Shroud is genuine, but all this article says is that the previous test was bad.

    There’s still a large gap between the 1st and 13th centuries and “much older” could fall anywhere between. They didn’t say that chemical properties dated it to the first century.

  6. DMcNeil
    24 January 2005 @ 7:24 pm

    I’m astonished that people are still defending the Shroud. Do pilgrims still visit Mary’s house in Loreto, Italy as well?

Home  |  RSS Feed  |  Print  |  Search  |  Top