Shroud of Turin 2025 - International Conference & Symposium (St. Louis, Mo

Faith & Science Conversation
1
  • For anyone interested and able to attend:

Screenshot 2025-02-01 at 12-58-10 Events - National Shroud Of Turin Exhibit
Screenshot 2025-02-01 at 12-58-10 Events - National Shroud Of Turin Exhibit752×439 344 KB

Introducing the National Shroud of Turin Exhibit
[See “Events”].

1 Like
2

Oh, if only that had happened when I lived in St. Louis!

If gas prices remained at $3.29 or less I could afford to get there and attend, but not to pay for lodging. If I drove the van to have something to sleep in . . . probable budget breaker.
Too bad it’s not in San Francisco; that I could afford!

4 Likes
3

It really ought to be in Turin.

4

I imagined myself going and thinking how cool it would be… only then to realise I would need to take 3 flights (or 2 if I travelled to London, which is surprisingly expensive). Of course we’re talking long haul :neutral_face: and then there’s 6 hour time difference to deal with :face_with_spiral_eyes:. I felt anxious just imagining that :pleading_face:
(I won’t even mention things like hotels or worry about getting through the border :sob:)

Indeed! I could probably attend it if it was, but a lot more difficult for anyone in US to go.

3 Likes
5

The mission statement from the organization supporting the meeting:

Seems risky to pin “evidence for God” on an artifact that is largely accepted as being made after 1,000 AD.

1 Like
6
  • What some consider a “Sign from God” is recognized as a variety of things by those who know about it’s existence.
  • What does the Church say about the Shroud of Turin?
    • “Question: Does the holy Church have an official position on the legitimacy of the Shroud of Turin? — John F., Encino, California
      Answer: The Church permits the faithful to come to their own conclusions on the shroud. The faithful are permitted to venerate the shroud, study its details and view it when it is displayed. However, the shroud is not part of the deposit of faith in which Catholics must give full assent of the mind and will. Our faith in the Resurrection does not depend on the authenticity of the shroud but on the testimony of the apostles.”
1 Like
7
  • I think I’m too fragile to make a trip and get through the whole conference, otherwise I would have booked travel and hotel already.
  • Here’s a tidbit, I’ve shared with Marta. Perhaps you have thoughts.
    • As you know, a negative of a photograph of the Shroud turns out to be a positive image. A VP8 analysis of the black and white images has been used to make a realistic 3D sculpture of 'The Man in the Shroud". The flow of the blood from the wrists, to wit:
      09jesushands
    • Others have pointed out the blood did not flow from the wrists in the same manner, giving rise to “The Sindonic Crucifix” Sindonic Crucifix for the Shroud Exhibit of St Thomas the Apostle Parish

Screenshot 2025-02-03 at 10-14-38 Support the Shroud Exhibit – St. Thomas the Apostle Church

  • I can understand “why”, but I have a hard time believing that’s the way The Man’s blood flowed in two different ways. IMO, nailing one hand near the head and the other hand farther away from the head seems very odd to me.
  • I readily accept the possibility that The Man was not cucified in a “crossed-t” position, but in a more likely Y position, which would normally–I suspect–have resulted in similar flows from both wrists.
  • However, I read it proposed that The Man’s right arm was dislocated at the shoulder which suggests to me that the upper torso shifted to the right hand side, stretching the left arm but causing or allowing the right forearm to straighten vertically as shown in the following drawin [See the lower of these two drawings:

Screenshot 2025-01-31 at 19-42-32 The Holyoaks in the Holy Land Notre Dame Hotel The Shroud of Turin Exhibition copy

2 Likes
8

Carbon dating put the shroud somewhere between 1250 and 1400, if memory serves. This also happens to coincide with the first reports of the shroud. For many people, the shroud is understood to be a somewhat modern fraud.

9

*Odd that an atheist cares, but I suppose that’s no reason to question your choice of sources. Unfortunately,You haven’t cited any.

  • One of mine: Learn about Shroud of Turin
    • "1988: STURP’s conclusions led to an interest in the date of the cloth and the Vatican-authorized testing. A small corner of the Shroud was cut and radiocarbon dated (C-14) by three laboratories in Oxford, Zurich, and Arizona. The labs determined a date range from between 1260 to 1390. This earth-shattering news contradicted STURP’s conclusions that supported the Shroud’s possible authenticity.
      Additionally, the C-14 test results shocked the global Shroud scientific community which, in general, from day one, was highly suspicious of the medieval date due to the test’s questionable protocols. It is these extremely controversial 1260 to 1390 dates that birthed the phrase; the “Shroud is medieval hoax,” which negatively impacted and denigrated the Shroud for decades. (Keep reading for important 2005 and 2019 updates about the raw data used in the 1988 test.)

  • Press conference British Museum, Oct. 13, 1988 - announcing the 1260 -1390 Shroud dating, that shocked the world and Shroud scientific community.
  • 2005: Raymond Rogers was Director of Chemical Research for STURP. He was a renowned American thermal chemist who, for over three decades, worked at the prestigious Los Alamos National Laboratory. Rogers obtained thread samples from the same outer corner of the Shroud that in 1988 was C-14 tested — along with thread samples from the interior of the Shroud. After conducting additional micro-chemical and spectroscopic tests, he proved that the samples were not the same.
    The key to Roger’s finding was that the area cut for C-14 dating appears to be from a medieval reweave instead of the original Shroud. Rogers study concluded: "The radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.”
    Rogers’s results, published in a peer-reviewed journal, confirmed the concerns of the Shroud’s scientific community, and in 2004 he answered the most frequently asked questions about his study. Rogers’ breakthrough study provided the answers as to why the 1988 C-14 test results were so suspect. It turned out that the C-14 test labs violated the original sampling protocol established in 1985. Three different samples were to be cut; instead, only one sample was used. Ignoring caution from archaeologists, the test administrators cut the test sample from the most handled area of the cloth — the outside corner edge. That area is exactly where, for centuries, the Shroud had been held and handled by royalty and Church authorities for public celebrations and exhibitions. Therefore, the Shroud cloth sample tested was cut from the area with the most potential for contamination, damage, and, as Rogers believes, may have been repaired.
  • 2019: The 1988 radiocarbon test (C-14) concluding that the Shroud dated between 1260 -1390 is subjected to new scrutiny. The controversial results of the C-14 tests published in the prestigious scientific journal “Nature” in 1989, did not publish all the data because it was not provided by the British Museum. And, for 30 years, Shroud scientists had accused the museum of hiding the raw data."
3 Likes
10

I am aware of the numerous ad hoc rationalizations for the results of carbon dating. So why hasn’t anyone taken a sample from the shroud that everyone agrees is capable of accurately dating it and settle the question once and for all?

11
  • I am equally aware of the numerous ad hoc rationalizations for why the Shroud must be a man-made artifact, but since its authenticity is a matter of personal faith, making everyone happy doesn’t seem to be on the owner’s list of priorities, … yet, beyond concessions that have already been made…
3 Likes
12

A carbon date of 1250-1400 isn’t ad hoc, and it’s not a matter of personal faith. If someone wants to claim after the fact that the tested piece was a later patch then fine. Take a piece that everyone agrees is original and carbon date it. The fact that this hasn’t happened raises a lot of red flags, at least for me.

13
  • Guess you won’t be going to the National Shroud of Turin Exhibition. Looks like you’re going to have to take your red flags to the grave with you.
14

I’ve seen conferences in the U.S. scheduled in St. Louis before as though that makes it easy for everyone in the U.S., almost as if people are thinking of the U.S. being the size of France. For me to get to St. Louis is like driving from Stockholm to Florence, or Glasgow to Vienna via Zurich.
So it’s hard enough for many folks in the U.S. to get to St. Louis! This is the sort of thing that should do as IIRC the King Tut displays did, appearing in I think eight major U.S. cities to make it easier for anyone to reach.

1 Like
15

That carbon dating didn’t even follow the protocols set down by the team, let alone full protocols for normal dating – and failure to follow protocols makes the results meaningless.

And yet with not the least suggestion of how it could be reproduced today, let alone eight centuries ago.

3 Likes
16

Protests were made at the time that the sampling was done improperly and that the results could not be trusted, before any results were announced. It was the equivalent of analyzing the DNA of a particular bacterium by taking all the DNA from a sample of water known to contain individuals of that species – but also harboring at least three other species yet not filtering them out.

Because it isn’t up to the scientists, it’s up to several Pontifical commissions, ultimately the Pope – and that means that church politics are involved.

Meanwhile, the cellulose fibers in the main shroud have been dated to no younger than 1800 years – I don’t know how that works, though.

That was pointed out when the piece was taken, before there were any results.

If it was up to scientists, that would have happened forty years ago. Even the Pontifical science commission agrees new testing would be a good idea, but they’re not the final authority. The only red flag this shows is that church politics is not a good way to do science.

4 Likes
17

I guess the sample for radiocarbon dating was taken from a spot that was not considered to be ‘central’. It would be a scandal if someone would destroy even a small part of the original figure. The shroud has experienced hard times, even a fire if I remember correctly, and has been repaired with patches of new cloth during the years.

In addition to the radiocarbon analysis, at least some fibers and pollen have been studied. Some sources claim that these point to crudely correct area in the Middle East and crudely correct time period. Critical sources tell that the results were a mixture of different origins, reflecting the multitude of people that have been in contact with the shroud.

Personally, I have been very sceptic towards the myriads of relics. For example, if all the pieces of wood claimed to be from the original cross of Jesus would be genuine, the cross would have been the largest in the world.

Despite my attitude, this shroud is a fascinating case. There are no proof that the figure would be Jesus but it seems to contain a very exceptional outline of a crucified man that may have been crucified crudely during the same time period as Jesus (or not, if it is a medieval painting). The reaction that formed the picture is still an unsolved case, although there are suggestions of how it was made. I am sceptic but cannot exclude the possibility that this would be the shroud of Jesus.

Another interesting detail is that the figure does not look like any of the pictures that have been drawn about Jesus. That is something that rather increases than decreases the likelihood that the figure would be Jesus but could also be interpreted as counterevidence - the figure could easily be someone that looked very different than Jesus, although that person was crucified like Jesus.

Edit:
After reading more about the shroud, it seems more likely that the shroud is not original, assuming that the critical conclusions about the inspections hold in the future analyses. Anyhow, an interesting case.

2 Likes
18

I would never have taken you to be a Shroud advocate.

But since you are:

No it wasn’t. AFAIST the suggestion of the analysed material being from a repair or including other material was only made after the results came out. Unless you can provide a source from before then?

It doesn’t. The method doesn’t give a date, hasn’t been validated or calibrated, and relies on accounting for temperature, humidity and other factors which aren’t known. Nor does the result that was obtained show the shroud to be no younger than 1800 years old - it shows the shroud to be about 1800 years old, and from no earlier than 65AD (or would if it worked, which it doesn’t).

I can find nothing to confirm that. Please provide a citation.

Meanwhile, there are many other reasons to consider the shroud to not be genuine - reasons that meant the C14 dating was just confirmation of expectations.

These include:

  • the proportions of the facial features are unrealistic.
  • the facial features don’t match what would be expected for a cloth wrapped around a body.
  • the proportions of the limbs are unrealistic.
  • the cloth weave doesn’t match known 1st century material.
  • the hairstyle depicted matches mediaeval images of Jews, not 1st century ones.
  • chemical analysis of the ‘blood’ on the shroud matches paint pigments instead.
  • there is no historical record of the shroud earlier than the C14 dates.
  • the first historical document that does mention the shroud says it is a forgery by a known artist.

Meanwhile, shroud advocacy has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience, including but not limited to alse and/or contradictory claims, ignoring and/or concealing contrary evidence, absurd probability and statistical calculations, cherry-picked data, exagerration, credentialism, publishing in vanity journals and proposing untestable miracles.

1 Like
19

It does. See the images here, especially the 12th century “The Saviour Not Made by Hands”. The shroud matches[1] both contemporary pictures of Jesus and mediaeval stereotypes of Jews.

  1. Except for the shroud’s distortion of the facial proportions. ↩︎

1 Like
20

There are some similarities, like a beard. That is to be expected.
Otherwise, other pictures look a bit like the people in the culture of the artist. In my eyes, they do not look the same.

Turin_shroud_positive_and_negative_displaying_original_color_information_708_x_465_pixels_94_KB