Mr Sampson, I have listened to an hour of the Father Dalton interview. I am truly sorry. I did not realize how far off I was. I sincerely apologize. I was a numbskull. It was fun to hear two enthusiastic Catholics discussing things.
I appreciate your presence on the Forum and your thoughtful comments.
2 Likes
- Allâs good; no harm done. I hope you find the lengthy video, in bits, as informative and interesting as a few of us others have.
2 Likes
Itâs a nice summary; thank you! Yes, the 2 are very bright and the interview was fascinating. I like their sense of humor. I finished the entire video while working last night. I like Fr Daltonâs reminder that itâs not a salvation issue, at all. He uses it for meditation, it seems. I certainly learned a lot.
Thanks.
4 Likes
A demonstrable reference to it. Not a shoulda coulda woulda maybe possibly could be. An actual reference that we know refers to our shroud. If you cannot provide that you cannot provide any compelling historical evidence.
Sources, dates, reliability of the families claim. From Wiki:
The period until 1390 is subject to debate and controversy among historians. Prior to the 14th century there are some allegedly congruent but controversial references such as the Pray Codex.[2][4] Although there are numerous reports of Jesusâ burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the 14th century, there is no reliable historical evidence that these refer to the shroud currently at Turin Cathedral.[5] A burial cloth, which some historians maintain was the Shroud, was owned by the Byzantine emperors but disappeared during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204.[6] Barbara Fralehas cited that the Order of Knights Templar were in the possession of a relic showing a red, monochromatic image of a bearded man on linen or cotton.
The shroud was identified as a forgery in 1390 by a Bishop. It largely appears when forgeries were big business. Anyone can claim anything. How do we know what is true?
Please list all the depictions of Jesus in the entire Christian world (spread over a huge geographical location) up to the sixth century and then list all the ones that just âvery rapidlyâ turned into an image that looks like what we find on the Shroud? Please also explain how the shroud somehow, unknown for 500 years, changes all art, then goes unrecorded for another 800 years. This is not good historical thinking.
You, like many Christian apologists and Shroud proponents, are confused as to how history actually works. If the shroud doesnât show up until 1300 years after Jesus , 500 generations later, there is no historical reason to accept it. Your comment seems to stem from presumption as if it is the burden of proof of someone to disprove the shroudâs authenticity. That burden lies on any and every truth claim made.
Archaeological discoveries have to be dated. Th portion of the Shroud that was dated was shown to very late indeed. Maybe I am being uncharitable but I saw people who still want to believe in it decide they must have dated a portion that was repaired much later â or insert 10 other excuses here. Maybe one is legitimate. I am skeptical though. People donât like to let go of beliefs and some people have just committed to authenticity and will do what needs to de done to harmonize things in their mind smoothly.
Even if the shroud was mentioned in the 6th century (something not even REMOTELY established) thatâs still 500 years later (20 generations). Apologists try hard to establish that the gospels are based on eyewitnesses and certainly dismiss the dozens of second century gospels as accurate, yet we are to credulously and blindly believe later legends about the Shroud.
The appropriate historical judgment on anything when there is a lack of evidence is non-liquet and that is being pinch charitable since the actual dated portion of the shroud was shown to be late along with its first historical referenceâwhich occurs in a time of rampant forgeries and was actually pronounced a forgery at the time. What I never understand is how some Christians (apparently in a haphazard fashion) choose to accept some âtraditionâ over others. Why reject the pronouncements that it was a forgery 600 years ago?
From a quora response ( I bolded some things):
- Documentary evidence: The first reference to the âShroudâ dates to 1390, when the Bishop of Troyes, Bishop Pierre dâArcis, wrote a letter to the Pope in Avignon, Clement VII, telling him that a noble family in his diocese was displaying a relic for veneration that was in fact a fake. He informed Clement that this supposed âShroudâ had also been displayed by the De Charny family about 35 years earlier and that it had been investigated by the then Bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, who had been suspicious of how such a major relic could suddenly appear in the hands of French family and sceptical that there would be no mention of a miraculous image on the burial cloths of Jesus in the gospels or any other Christian writing of the previous millennium. DâArcis informed the Pope that Bishop Henri inquired as to the origin of this remarkable artefact and quickly discovered it was a fake:
Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.
As it happens, Pope Clement VII (who was actually an Antipope set up in opposition to Pope Urban VI in Rome) was a relative of the De Charny family and so would be inclined to defend them against this charge of faking the âShroudâ if it had no basis. Clearly it did have a basis, however, so Clement instead ordered the De Charnys to stop declaring the âShroudâ to be the genuine article and to display it as as a ârepresentationâ of the shroud of Jesus only. But he also granted indulgences to any pilgrims who went to see this ârepresentationâ, so his cash-strapped relatives still got the pilgrims and money they were seeking via their scam in the first place.
So why do we believe the family with the shroud but not Bishop Pierre dâArcis and Bishop Henri?
Vinnie
Welcome to the Shroud of Turin Website
Late Breaking Website News!
Updated January 21 2023
Check here for important announcements and other Shroud of Turin Website news. This page will be updated whenever new page additions, articles and other resources are added to the site. Each item carries a posting date indicating when it first went online. The most recent update appears at the top of the page. As you scroll down through the page, you can review the items that were added this year in chronological order. You should find this an excellent way to sample the evolving content of this website. And you can also view every previous yearâs Website News pages at the links below:
Archived Website News pages: 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996
27th Anniversary Update! January 2023
2 Likes
The Shroud is a fascinating artifact but I find its (in)authenticity totally irrelevant to my personal faith in Christ.
- Thatâs a remarkably sane opinion, and one I personally share. As I wrote above:
- Personally I compare the Shroud to the American Flag: Knowing âOlâ Betsyâ is on display in Washington D.C. doesnât make me any more American than waving one on the 4th of July, but knowing there is one helps to remind me that I donât live in Mexico.
- Oddly enough, there are people who object to waving flags.
1 Like
People use symbols to make a connection with many things. The flag is a nice comparison.
1 Like
Used to; failed to exercise the ability and lost it. I read quite a bit of theology in French for my Masterâs thesis (along with quite a bit of German), but I canât even understand an old Jacques Cousteau TV show these days.
Why do you ask?
Iâm wondering what word(s) they used. The reason is that I remember instances of one or more early Fathers referring to the Word of God as inerrant, but they meant it the way an archer would use it, that the Word always flies straight to its target.
Also, thinking of Jews⊠a rabbi I used to bump into now and then at St. Louis University down in the rare books room made the intriguing mark one day about the first Genesis Creation account that of course the days are meant as literal days, itâs just that the story isnât meant as literal. He didnât expand on that, but years later at a seminar on ancient near eastern literature I found myself getting a handle on it when a presenter was describing a certain kind of ANE literature and suddenly it clicked in my mind that his description fit the first Genesis Creation account â and he described how for the purpose of expounding on the main point of this kind of literature the details could be treated as literal, in fact were meant to be, but that the account as written was not meant literally and so the details couldnât be carried outside a piece of this kind of literature; they were only literal for âinternal purposesâ.
3 Likes
- Beats answering the question: âWhere are you from?â with âFrom Earthâ.
1 Like
It canât be a forgery: there is no paint, no added pigments, in fact no added material except the blood and some stains. It also contains 3D information that no one back then could have even conceived of let alone managed. Further there were no art techniques back then capable of producing a change in the coloring of the fabric that is a change in the fabric material itself.
I take it you didnât bother with the video.
The assertion that the Shroud was âunknown for 500 yearsâ is projection: youâre saying that because there is no data that convinces you then no one back then knew about it, either.
As for those other â800 yearsâ, if everyone knew where it was, one wouldnât expect to find mention of it.
The Gospels are written as eye-witness accounts. The second century gospels were recognized back then as spurious.
Thatâs all bogus because it wasnât painted and because there were no art techniques back then that could produce the kind of image it is plus no one back then knew what a photographic negative was â and the image on the Shroud is not merely a photographic negative, itâs one that contains 3D information.
So we donât believe the two bishops because their statements are contradicted by reality.
2 Likes
- An email to a kinsman, married to a French-born woman, explains:
- Iâm a fan of âThe Shroud of Turinâ.
- If you donât know what that is, https://www.shroud.com/ will tell you more in year of reading than youâd ever expect to know.
- Basically, the Shroud is a 14+ foot of linen believed by many to have been used to bury Jesus in after his crucifixion.
- Thereâs plenty of debate over itâs authenticity, but itâs important to remember, believing that itâs authentic wonât get you into heaven.
- Given my interest in the Shroud, I was very interested in a 3-hour Youtube video: [0:00 / 3:07:39] New Evidence for the Shroud of Turin w/ Fr. Andrew Dalton 5 A really long Youtube video interview with a Catholic Priest.
- Early in the interview, Father Dalton mentioned that he was first âturned ontoâ the Shroud by a lecture which he attended at the Pontifical University in Rome, given by Emanuela Marinelli. It so happens that Emanuela has written a book: Suaire de Turin - TĂ©moignage dâune prĂ©sence.
- As you can see, itâs in French (there is no English Translation). I bought the cheapest copy available. And itâs now on its way from France.
- Iâm hoping to find a French-literate Carmelite nun to translate it into English for me. If I do, Iâm going to suggest the nun (and her convent) publish the translation into English and âmake a little money off it.â Iâll get my translation, and the nuns can have the monetary proceeds. LOL! Win-win. Plus, in English, the book may attract more interest in the Shroud. Win-win-win.
2 Likes
Ah, well, this isnât the first time Iâve had to pass up a great read because Iâve lost my language ability! And probably wonât be the last.
2 Likes
Sounds like a bad, anti-scientific argument from incredulity. Many people disagree as the following author wrote:
I am not a fan of bad arguments from incredulity.
Donât deflect. Present the evidence for your assertion. I reiterate what I wrote:
âPlease list all the depictions of Jesus in the entire Christian world (spread over a huge geographical location) up to the sixth century and then list all the ones that just âvery rapidlyâ turned into an image that looks like what we find on the Shroud? Please also explain how the shroud somehow, unknown for 500 years, changes all art, then goes unrecorded for another 800 years. This is not good historical thinking.â
It was your claim. Substantiate it. I am okay if you want to read âunknown for 500 yearsâ as âunmentioned.â I think the silence is damning but I understand the distinction.
The vast majority of all trained experts disagree with the former. Even the author of Luke disagrees with you. He nowhere claims to be an eyewitness and neither do any of the Gospels. John may have some stuff about a beloved disciple that is complicated as it went through a major redaction/second version.
And all the communities that used the second century gospels did not recognize them as spurious. What it means is that the fourfold gospel was not so obvious to all Christians at the time. They were not yet scripture. So what you mean to say is the Christians you agree with recognize them as spurious. Yes, that tautology is true. Christians you agree with agree with you. You have said nothing more. We donât get to make the early Church monolithic. The presence of tons of gospels and forgeries indicates it was not.
See the quote above.
There is nothing necessarily miraculous about the shroud unless you want it to be. If you ever watched the X-Files, Fox Mulder has a picture of a UFO on his wall with the words âI want to believe.â That pretty much sums up the shroud. The only hard evidence has shown it to date late. I see a lot of desire masquerading as history.
Vinnie
- Iâm inclined to disbelieve âthe two bishopsâ because my review of âthe Lirey Controversyâ leaves me dizzy from an effort to unravel the tangled pile of yarn that the Controversy became.
- At https://www.shroud.com I find Dr. Daniel Scavoneâs English version of Rev. Luigi Fossatiâs pamphlet, Le Vicende Polemiche di Lirey, The Lirey Controversy.
- Any chance that you or you, I, and maybe @marta can clarify it and set me straight between us?
1 Like
- Nevermind! Ignore my invitation to help me clarify âThe Lirey Controversyâ. Dr. Scavone et al. did a reasonable job in their 1999 âDeconstructing the âDebunkingâ of the Shroudâ found at: Debunking The Shroud Made by Human Hands by Gary Vikan.
1 Like
Wow â Iâve seen the controversy mentioned, but never set out that clearly. There certainly doesnât seem to be enough time in the one gap when it could have been fabricated to devise such a thing in secret. But this read reminded me of something I read before, that those who gave testimony it was fake had a vested interest ion it not being genuine â but the tangled mess what documents we have present makes my head ache with trying to figure out if thatâs true!
3 Likes
That sent me off on a long web search marathon (almost two entire hours) reading material about the Shroud. Something I hadnât seen before, or at least donât recall doing so, is that there are images of flowers on the shroud that could only be produced by a discharge of static electricity resulting in electron surrender by actual flowers to the linen of the Shroud, thus leaving a record of their presence. Botanists have identified a number of flower species, and three of them are only found in the area of ancient Palestine, and all three share only one locality where their ranges intersect â and thatâs the area around Jerusalem and over towards the Dead Sea. Interestingly, independent of this research was the collection of material from the surface of the linen which discovered pollen grains that could be identified by species, and when the locations on the cloth from which the various kinds of pollen were extracted match the species that were later identified as having been in contact with the Shroud.
Something I searched for but couldnât find was whether any of the flower images were found in matching pairs, one image on the frontal portion of the image and one on the reverse, which would be expected on those areas where front and back were in contact.
Given the presence of the flowers, thereâs part of the burial story that went untold, that someone placed (lots of) flowers on and around the body before the cloth was drawn over the top of the body. That to me suggests women involved doing at least that little bit when they couldnât properly prepare the corpse for burial with the customary spices. And of course it brings up the question as to whether such a placement of flowers was a normal custom in first-century Palestine.
2 Likes
- Debunking âDebunkersâ of The Shroudâs authenticity almost gets to be amusing, even kind of fun, if one has patience enough to work through each isolated portion of the first debunking. Iâm reminded of Julian Bagginiâs comment in "The Edge of Reason: A Rational Skeptic in an Irrational World [2016], 12.
- âWhen ⊠an atheist comes across a clever new version of an argument for the existence of God which she cannot refute, she does not say 'Ah! So now I must believe in God!â Rather she says, 'Thatâs clever. There must be something wrong with it. Give me time and Iâll find what it is." Similarly, a theist will not lose her belief just because she cannot refute an argument for atheism. Rather that argument will simply become a challenge to be met in due course."
2 Likes