www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Shroud of Turin and Orthodoxy

Wow!

Amazing stuff, knew just a small amount on this matter of the shroud. So this is an interesting thread.

Mor one thing I did know about the shroud and many Eucharistic miracles, was that they all supposedly were of AB blood type, more precisely AB- I believe? It stuck out in my mind because I'm AB+ Of course I have little connection with Christ though

Dear Maximus,

I don't know about positives or negatives, but I do know that tests show the Shroud, Sudarium, and Eucharistic miracles to all be AB...a hard feat to duplicate over the centuries in which they didn't know about blood types, wouldn't you say?

P.S. You may have no connection to Christ, but he's my uncle. :p

Just kidding...

Dear Catholicos and Maximos,

But the fact remains that the scientific community is divided on the Shroud, even though those who are "agin'" it cannot definitely prove their negative views on it.

All we can really say with objectivity is that there is nothing absolutely preventing us from believing this is the true Shroud of Christ - much like when miracles are "cleared" for approval in a beatification or canonization case.

Does anyone know where cloth copies can be obtained?

Alex

Dear Alex,

The Society of the Holy Face, an RC group, has medals, literature, etc. of the Holy Face, as it is on the Shroud. I think I remember seeing their items list once and seeing a cloth replica. You might look into them.

I was looking at a website about the Sudarium. It said that it has been kept in an oak "ark" which also holds several other relics, including "relics of Our Lady." Could someone tell me more about this and what the other relics are?

love in Christ,
Marshall

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One God. Amen.

Amado,

You raise many interesting points, I will respond to a few of them.

The radiocarbon dating of the shroud was done with extreme care and unusual supervision (such that would not be the case if it was for dating something else). A textile expert supervised the removal of the samples (three postage stamp sized samples) in order to ensure that they were removed from the shroud itself and not patches added later to cover holes burned by the fire of 1532. The whole process was videotaped from the removal of the samples to the delivery of each of the three labs. Each of the labs dated three additional artifacts (each of a known age) to test the accuracy of the testing overall. They each tested the following:

Artifact: Cloth tape, Egyptian Mummy wraps, Nubian Tomb linen, and the Shroud of Turin. The known dates (from written records): were AD 1290 to 1310, 60 BC, AD 1000 to 1300, and “not known” (the Shroud) respectively. In the same order the radiocarbon dates (average of three labs) were: AD 1273, AD 35, AD 1093, and AD 1325 respectively.

THREE SEPARATE LABS ARRIVED AT THE SAME RESULTS INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. So you see the accuracy of the methods were tested on materials of know age to see if the radiocarbon labs would acquire C14 dates that matched the actual ages. They acquired dates that matched the historical record not once or twice but THREE times. The Shroud was then tested and consistently gave ages of the fourteenth century from all the labs involved. This radiocarbon date does not of course match the historical record for the Crucifixion but it does match another record—the record of the first appearance of the Shroud in historical record and the Vatican's investigation of claims surrounding it along with Pope Clement VII's verdict. If it is easy for us to accept the findings when it is a Nubian tomb cloth or the mummy wrap of some Egyptian Pharaoh why do we have engage in intellectual gymnastics when the method is applied to a Shroud in Turin? This jumped from the realm of faith to the realm of science when supporters of the Shroud started framing the discussion of it as: “If this is not the burial cloth of the Lord, then how do you explain this” types of discourse. Just as with the “Bermuda Triangle”, science can always find a simpler answer to the question; it does not matter if the simpler answer is correct only that it is plausible. Then the Occam's razor principle is then applied and the simpler answer is deemed to be the most likely. That is the scientific method, it is not the method of faith. The supporters of the Shroud made the Shroud the object of a scientific hypothesis instead of simply a Relic of the Faith. That was a mistake.

I don't read much into the Russian simulations. Even if the fire would have caused a dating difference of 1,000 years, that is still puts it to around 325 A.D. and is more closer to the Council of Nicea than to the Crucifixion of Christ (almost 300 years too late).

Remember that science is not religion, we do not appeal to "authorities' in science as we do in religion. “Dr. so and so feels that this might be the case” is an appeal to authority and not an appeal to evidence. I would not trust the stated opinion of three Nobel Laureates if they contradicted the tested results and hard evidence as presented by a graduate student. Evidence always overrides “authority” in science, if it doesn't it ceases to be science and becomes dogma.

But you do not have to convince me about some of the problems with radiocarbon dates; I personally got some C14 dates that I am suspicious of from an excavation just last summer!

When we are in the field excavating we try to collect as much organic material as we can from each stratigraphic layer, just to be safe and have MANY radiocarbon dates incase a few of them are inaccurate for some reason.

What ever becomes of the Shroud, Christ is with us and will be with us until the end of time.

Aklie Semaet

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Aklie Semaet ]

In the Name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. One God. Amen.

Mor Ephrem,

The Discovery Channel can not debunk the Bible. Science is not concerned with the validation or the negation of God but with the investigation of the natural course of the universe. In fact I have noticed that the Discovery Channel tends to actually support more of the claims in the Bible than not. It just coaches them up with new “secular” and “scientific” arguments. So now, the parting of the water by Mosses is explained by a violent volcano eruption in the Mediterranean during the time, it becomes “scientifically plausible” for a virgin birth. On and on. That might be soothing for an agnostic but it is of little value to the meaning behind scripture. Science can not investigate that or throw any light on it.

What is the meaning of life, what does it mean to be human, what is love, what is the relationship of man to the divine, what is a proper moral code? These are questions that science can not answer and does not attempt to do so. This is the domain of faith. A the laboratory results of microbiology can only tell you that it is possible to clone a human being and how this might be accomplished. It can in no way on its own answer the moral question if it is morally right to clone a human, that is why they have bioethics which has no scientific evidence whatsoever as the basis of its enterprise.

“I am not of the opinion that some of my colleagues are…that science and faith are so very diametrically opposed.”

I agree with you, they are not diametrically opposite. But they are irreconcilably different.

The world renowned paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould in his book Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life advanced the concept of NOMA (for non-overlapping magisteria). That is for the mutual non-interference of science into the magisterium of religion and religion into the magisterium of science. I will let Gould speak for himself: “We assume that one of two extreme solutions must apply: either science and religion must battle to the death, with one victorious and the other defeated; or else they must represent the same quest and can therefore be fully and smoothly integrated into one grand synthesis…why not opt instead for a "golden mean' that grants dignity and distinction to each subject.”.
A view similar to Gould was advanced more than 30 years earlier by Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. He said, “Both Science and Religion can grow together in harmony. Of course their respective worlds are different and their methods dissimilar. Science investigates, religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, Religion makes man wise. Science deals mainly with facts, religion mainly with values. The two are not rivals, they are complementary.” So far so good but then the Protestant principle of “adapting to the implications of the Enlightenment” take their toll on Dr. King also. He ends up continuing: “Science keeps Religion from seeking into crippling irrationalism, Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of materialism and moral nihilism.” But science does NOT keep religious people from falling into a “crippling irrationalism” like putting poisonous snakes under their clothes. No, the example of Jesus Christ who refused to jump off the cliff after being asked to by Satan is a good enough example.

One of the most important points of writing the Gospels (for the early church survived for years without them and was content with scores of epistles and oral traditions) was to record the details of the life of Christ. It was also to demonstrate his divinity, hence the attention paid to prophesy fulfillment and miracles associated with Jesus. It is strange that the same John who quoted Jesus as saying “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe (John, 4:49)” would not mention any cloth scorched by the rays of energy emitting from the Savior. If something of that magnitude was found, it would have been front page Gospel news immediately following the news of the Resurrection. But there is no mention of any miraculous shroud.

If it were the intention of Christ that we subject the Faith to scientific testing then he would have revealed all the secrets of science to us then. That or he would have waited now for the Incarnation. But maybe not—the actual time of the Incarnation makes sense. He seems to have had better chances surviving the blood bath of Palestinian children by King Herod than he would have doing the same by King Arial Sharon, but that is another subject.

God Be with you, Pray for me.

Aklie Semaet

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Aklie Semaet ]

Dear Brother Aklie,

It is strange that the same John who quoted Jesus as saying �Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe (John, 4:49)� would not mention any cloth scorched by the rays of energy emitting for the Savior. If something of that magnitude was found, it would have been front page Gospel news immediately following the news of the Resurrection. But there is not mention of any miraculous shroud.

But the purpose of saying what He said was that one shouldn't need miracles to have faith, or so I thought.

Plus, "the physics of the Resurrection" were not known or hypothesised back then, they could've thought any image on the cloth was from blood, and the image is very faint when looked at close...it only becomes as defined as it does with the naked eye from a distance. In no way am I saying the Shroud is definitely one way or another...but I am trying to get across is that everything I've read and researched leads me to believe that there is at this time insufficient data to conclude definitively one way or another. Who knows? Maybe it is a fake...at this point, it doesn't make a difference for me either way.

With the exception of the above, and I'm not even that sure it's a difference of opinion between you and me, I am in complete agreement with you in what you have said.

Oh, Aklie, how could I forget? I will certainly pray for you...pray for me also. God be with you also.

Dear Catholicos and Aklie,

Are we seeing the beginnings of an "Oriental Orthodox Mafia" here?

God bless y'a, Guys, God bless y'a, as Dr. John would say!

Alex

[ 05-10-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Alex, of course this is the beginning of the Oriental Orthodox Mafia. Currently, we are trying to decide if we should make you DON and Chief Executioner so be ready when we reach a decision.

God Bless y'a 2

Aklie Semaet

Hey Aklie, he's got no problems with Saint Severios, and he's pretty Ethiopian for a Ukrainian and Chalcedonian...I say we let him be Don.

Now if we could only get some Armenians...they're cool!

Even though I am an archaelogist, I'm not going to bore every one with technological terms to prove the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.
But most Eastern Churches (Orthodox/ Eastern Catholic) have on the ceiling a painting of Christ. There are several points consistent with the Shroud. The lock of hair, the fold on the throat, the large eyes, etc. According to many police departments, the number of matches would be sufficient to arrest as person. We have had this painting in our churces since the 6th cent. So how is the Shroud of Turin a 13th century forgery?

Mike,

I am trying to follow your argument. Is it your position that because some Europeans painted what they imagined Christ to look like on the ceilings of their Churches since the 6th Century and since this imagined portrait looks similar to the image on the 14th Century Shroud that some how this means the Shroud is authentic? Is that you argument? Non sequitur, please "bore' us with the "technological terms' because so far your argument is not very convincing.


What anatomical knowledge did they not have at that time? Are you saying they did not know what a body or a skeleton looked like? What anatomical knowledge are you claiming was lacking then?

p.s. I agree with you about Alex, as of Monday he is a "made man.'

God Bless You All

Aklie Semaet

YES, YES, YES!

My thoughts exactly Mike C.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE bore us!

Rose