[Christians] Do You Believe The Shroud Of Turin Is The Burial Cloth Of Jesus?

I used to believe it was, but now think it came from -- The age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence. The Bible describes Jesus burial linen, but not as a shroud.

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin

"Arguing against the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is the Bible’s complete lack of evidence for such a burial shroud. As mentioned earlier, the Bible mentions a whole piece of linen that was used to take Jesus’ body from the cross. This linen was probably also used to transport the body to Joseph of Arimathea’s nearby tomb. At the tomb hasty preparations for burial were made; these would have included washing the body and rewrapping it. Luke 24:12 mentions “the strips of linen.” These same strips (plural) are mentioned twice in John 20:5–6. And John 20:7 says there was a “cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head.” This description of the actual burial clothes—“strips” of linen, rather than one large piece; and a separate cloth to cover the head—seems to negate the claim that the Shroud of Turin is the burial shroud of Christ."

Is the Shroud of Turin authentic?

From 2015: Pope Francis Prays In Front Of The Shroud Of Turin, Calls It An ‘Icon’ Of Christ’s Love
Pope Francis Prays In Front Of The Shroud Of Turin, Calls It An 'Icon' Of Christ's Love | HuffPost

Here's what I heard from those of the Jewish faith in red below. The following is similar to what they said.

"So, what are we to make of the Shroud of Turin? It might have been the burial shroud for some crucified man, but it is not likely to have any association with the death of Christ. Even if it were the authentic burial cloth of Christ, the Shroud of Turin is not to be worshipped or adored. Because of the doubtful nature of the Shroud of Turin, it cannot be used as proof for the resurrection of Christ. Our faith does not rely on the Shroud of Turin but on the written Word of God."

Is the Shroud of Turin authentic?

Those who believe counter with:

"John Iannone, a Catholic expert on the Shroud, told Vatican Radio he doesn’t believe the 1988 tests can be trusted, claiming the fibers the researchers analyzed were contaminated by medieval cotton. He says analysis conducted on the blood on the shroud seemed to show it belonged to a human male from the Middle East who died under duress.

“The thing I would like to see is that people understand that what we know today of the blood stains on the shroud, the anatomy of the crucifixion as forensic pathologists explain it ... all of this points to the fact that this is the authentic burial cloth of the historic Jesus,” Iannone said.

He called Pope Francis’ visit a “wonderful” sign.

“It raises public awareness of the fact that the church does consider this a very powerful icon as they call it now, reminding us of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus,” Iannone continued. “It just calls attention and hopefully raises more questions.”"

Pope Francis Prays In Front Of The Shroud Of Turin, Calls It An 'Icon' Of Christ's Love | HuffPost

This is just one facet of a much greater argument, which is: what is the Roman Catholic obsession with relics and reliquaries? Peter's followers were the first to recognize the wisdom of establishing the church and spreading the faith. In my opinion, they fell into a quagmire that only Lord Jesus was capable of saving them from, which is the ability to prove divinity's existence through demonstration of miracles.

Miracles are rare, because they are not necessary to faith. Where such affirmation of faith is missing, Catholics often sought to find it through physical items. These include the True Cross (whose alleged collected pieces could constitute an entire forest of wood), the bones of saints (raided from ossuaries), Saint Januarius's magic blood (a circus parlor trick) and the Holy Prepuce (disgusting). And of course, the Shroud of Turin. The assemblage of such items almost certainly contains some legitimately obtained items: a saint's hands or decapitated head can be reasonably trusted, given the reputation of the church. Others are forgeries, modern-day inventions that were only ever intended to deceive.

The Roman Catholic Church is careful not to place absolute trust in such objects and demand their worship, but certainly deems them important and that they must be venerated. Not testing such ancient items for scientific authenticity, yet dispatching whole teams of skeptical bishops to evaluate an observed miracle happening today, would seem to be a dangerous double standard. The Shroud falls firmly into this category, sadly.


Garb of Viking berzerkers is also preserved, but not venerated.

It's been thoroughly studied and debunked. The body is anatomically incorrect and disproportionate, the material is not consistent with the type of cloth or the method used to wrap bodies during that period, the blood trickles from the scalp - aside from defying physics - did not contain any actual blood and consisted instead of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint, the lack of wrap around distortion, carbon dating places it around thirteenth century AD, etc.

I think it's as real as the Catholic Church, put it in a nice frame and people will surely believe it's legit.

Grumpuss said:

This is just one facet of a much greater argument, which is: what is the Roman Catholic obsession with relics and reliquaries? Peter's followers were the first to recognize the wisdom of establishing the church and spreading the faith. In my opinion, they fell into a quagmire that only Lord Jesus was capable of saving them from, which is the ability to prove divinity's existence through demonstration of miracles.

Miracles are rare, because they are not necessary to faith. Where such affirmation of faith is missing, Catholics often sought to find it through physical items. These include the True Cross (whose alleged collected pieces could constitute an entire forest of wood), the bones of saints (raided from ossuaries), Saint Januarius's magic blood (a circus parlor trick) and the Holy Prepuce (disgusting). And of course, the Shroud of Turin. The assemblage of such items almost certainly contains some legitimately obtained items: a saint's hands or decapitated head can be reasonably trusted, given the reputation of the church. Others are forgeries, modern-day inventions that were only ever intended to deceive.

The Roman Catholic Church is careful not to place absolute trust in such objects and demand their worship, but certainly deems them important and that they must be venerated. Not testing such ancient items for scientific authenticity, yet dispatching whole teams of skeptical bishops to evaluate an observed miracle happening today, would seem to be a dangerous double standard. The Shroud falls firmly into this category, sadly.

Garb of Viking berzerkers is also preserved, but not venerated.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your enlightening response. I think the Roman Catholic Church has the most "artifacts" through its purchase or donations. I used Pope Francis who is the last Pope to pray before the shroud. This is a pope who believes in evolution! However, I think there have been others and not all the popes believed in the shroud. I think Pope Benedict believed in the shroud, but former Pope and now Saint John Paul II may have not. He said, "The Shroud is a challenge to our intelligence. It first of all requires of every person, particularly the researcher, that he humbly grasp the profound message it sends to his reason and his life. The mysterious fascination of the Shroud forces questions to be raised about the sacred Linen and the historical life of Jesus. Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet, which, according to tradition, wrapped the body of our Redeemer after he had been taken down from the cross. The Church urges that the Shroud be studied without pre-established positions that take for granted results that are not such; she invites them to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers."

Saint John Paul II and the Shroud of Turin

Pope Benedict
Pope Benedict says Shroud of Turin authentic burial robe of Jesus

I mean this shroud has been studied to death. I do not think it will be proved one way or another and this is fine with the RCC.

Do You Believe The Shroud Of Turin Is The Burial Cloth Of Jesus?

NO

I'm somewhat agnostic on the subject, as it doesn't really impact on my life or that of anybody I come into contact with, but just to address 'this is a Pope who accepts evolution' - the RCC's leadership have long accepted evolution, it does not strike them as being in any way contradictory or challenging to a relationship with God. They hold this in common with a myriad other Christian organisations.

In the 1300s two bishops of Troyes, when the Shroud of Turin was being exhibited for the first time in their diocese, insisted that this was not the burial garment of Jesus. Clement VII allowed public exhibition of the Shroud only as a 'representation' of Jesus burial garment.
Scientists seem to agree that the body-image was not produced by contact between the Shroud and the body enveloped in it. However, the face and the hands of the image stand out with particular emphasis-a fact not totally explicable by the height of those parts of a reclining body, for the chest seems to have lesser delineation even though that should have been as elevated as the hands which lie over the genital area. On the other hand, in the back image, the buttocks are only faintly outlined. It has been noted that the navel of the Shroud image is either absent or almost invisible. Is this a element of modesty or of theology? It may be remembered that frequently Adam is pictured without a navel (an intelligible absence because of the biblical story of his creation), and some may have thought that such an anatomical peculiarity might befit the new Adam. Another problem is the attention given to the covering of the genitals. In the Shroud, the man's hands are crossed on the genital area with the right hand completely covering any nudity. The body imaged in the Shroud is portrayed as relaxed in death, but in a relaxed position a man's joined hands will not cover his genitals if he lies on his back. Either the body has to be tilted forward and the arms stretched downward, or the elbows have to be propped up on the side and the wrists drawn together to hold the hands in place over the genital area.
The clear distinctness of the body-image as lying flat, and the lack of smudging of the blood stains make it almost inconceivable that the crumpled body was deposited on the Shroud as it came off a cross.
reference; Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, Notes on the Shroud of Turin.

james bond said:

From 2015: Pope Francis Prays In Front Of The Shroud Of Turin, Calls It An ‘Icon’ Of Christ’s Love

Click to expand...

An icon is a graphic representation of something, a person or thing that is symbolic or is a noted figure.

Grumpuss said:

This is just one facet of a much greater argument, which is: what is the Roman Catholic obsession with relics and reliquaries? Peter's followers were the first to recognize the wisdom of establishing the church and spreading the faith. In my opinion, they fell into a quagmire that only Lord Jesus was capable of saving them from, which is the ability to prove divinity's existence through demonstration of miracles.

Miracles are rare, because they are not necessary to faith. Where such affirmation of faith is missing, Catholics often sought to find it through physical items. These include the True Cross (whose alleged collected pieces could constitute an entire forest of wood), the bones of saints (raided from ossuaries), Saint Januarius's magic blood (a circus parlor trick) and the Holy Prepuce (disgusting). And of course, the Shroud of Turin. The assemblage of such items almost certainly contains some legitimately obtained items: a saint's hands or decapitated head can be reasonably trusted, given the reputation of the church. Others are forgeries, modern-day inventions that were only ever intended to deceive.

The Roman Catholic Church is careful not to place absolute trust in such objects and demand their worship, but certainly deems them important and that they must be venerated. Not testing such ancient items for scientific authenticity, yet dispatching whole teams of skeptical bishops to evaluate an observed miracle happening today, would seem to be a dangerous double standard. The Shroud falls firmly into this category, sadly.

Garb of Viking berzerkers is also preserved, but not venerated.

Click to expand...

Great reply Grampuss! I agree with your ideas of icons and relics substituent for faith, and being exceedingly rare if they exist. I want to believe the shroud is real but my faith is not there, so I say its probably not the real burial cloth of Jesus.

; {>

MrMrdevincamus said:

Great reply Grampuss! I agree with your ideas of icons and relics substituent for faith, and being exceedingly rare if they exist. I want to believe the shroud is real but my faith is not there, so I say its probably not the real burial cloth of Jesus.

; {>

Click to expand...

Thank you.

If, like me, you feel the spiritual connection between yourself and Christ, then iconography should severely diminish for you in importance. I'm not sure that worship of relics are heretical, and it's not for me to judge. But if something is likely a fake and we know that fakes and forgeries exist, why chance it? Moses and Jesus both preached against idolatry and the danger of false gods.

Jesus undeniably existed, and almost certainly was prepared for death, as was the custom and culture of the civilization that his mortal body dwelt within. That probably includes a burial shroud, but we shouldn't be heartbroken if the actual item is never located.


John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"

Do You Believe The Shroud Of Turin Is The Burial Cloth Of Jesus?

I am not sure exactly what to believe about this but I definitely think the whole thing is an unsolved mystery. The carbon dating discussed in the OP some say came from a 13th century repair job after a fire. Other scientific tests I heard showed pollen from around 2,000 years ago and the right area of the Middle East and there are lengthy discussions of unsolved mysteries out there. If you read about all the science and debates about the shroud it never ends.

To me it is of no critical importance, but something very, very interesting nonetheless.

james bond said:

I used to believe it was, but now think it came from -- The age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence. The Bible describes Jesus burial linen, but not as a shroud.

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin

"Arguing against the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is the Bible’s complete lack of evidence for such a burial shroud. As mentioned earlier, the Bible mentions a whole piece of linen that was used to take Jesus’ body from the cross. This linen was probably also used to transport the body to Joseph of Arimathea’s nearby tomb. At the tomb hasty preparations for burial were made; these would have included washing the body and rewrapping it. Luke 24:12 mentions “the strips of linen.” These same strips (plural) are mentioned twice in John 20:5–6. And John 20:7 says there was a “cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head.” This description of the actual burial clothes—“strips” of linen, rather than one large piece; and a separate cloth to cover the head—seems to negate the claim that the Shroud of Turin is the burial shroud of Christ."

Is the Shroud of Turin authentic?

From 2015: Pope Francis Prays In Front Of The Shroud Of Turin, Calls It An ‘Icon’ Of Christ’s Love
Pope Francis Prays In Front Of The Shroud Of Turin, Calls It An 'Icon' Of Christ's Love | HuffPost

Click to expand...

There is good evidence for the shroud's authenticity in the Bible.

The radiocarbon dating samples were sullied with parts of the shroud that caught fire in recent centuries.

No scientist is yet able to duplicate the shroud image. The image is microscopic down to complete sections of thread dark and complete, light.

Quintessence said:

@james bond - you placed this under "Same Faith Debates" but do not state in your thread title or in the OP which groups you want to limit this debate to. Can you please clarify and then someone on staff can edit the thread title to make that transparent for our members?

Alternatively, if you don't want to limit the discussion to particular groups we will just move it to Religious Debates.

Click to expand...

Sorry. I didn't know this. This was meant for Christians only.

BilliardsBall said:

There is good evidence for the shroud's authenticity in the Bible.

The radiocarbon dating samples were sullied with parts of the shroud that caught fire in recent centuries.

No scientist is yet able to duplicate the shroud image. The image is microscopic down to complete sections of thread dark and complete, light.

Click to expand...

I seem to remember this was the claim of its proponents, but others were able to duplicate it through inks from fruits. However, the Shroud isn't let out just to have scientists be able to examine it. They've just been able to examine bits and pieces.

One of the strange occurrences was there were three groups to do the radiocarbon dating and after they made their findings, there was a great outcry and their dates were not published.

james bond said:

I used to believe it was, but now think it came from -- The age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence. The Bible describes Jesus burial linen, but not as a shroud.

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin

"Arguing against the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is the Bible’s complete lack of evidence for such a burial shroud. As mentioned earlier, the Bible mentions a whole piece of linen that was used to take Jesus’ body from the cross. This linen was probably also used to transport the body to Joseph of Arimathea’s nearby tomb. At the tomb hasty preparations for burial were made; these would have included washing the body and rewrapping it. Luke 24:12 mentions “the strips of linen.” These same strips (plural) are mentioned twice in John 20:5–6. And John 20:7 says there was a “cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head.” This description of the actual burial clothes—“strips” of linen, rather than one large piece; and a separate cloth to cover the head—seems to negate the claim that the Shroud of Turin is the burial shroud of Christ."

Is the Shroud of Turin authentic?

From 2015: Pope Francis Prays In Front Of The Shroud Of Turin, Calls It An ‘Icon’ Of Christ’s Love
Pope Francis Prays In Front Of The Shroud Of Turin, Calls It An 'Icon' Of Christ's Love | HuffPost

Click to expand...

James Bond,
You are right, it is very doubtful the the Shroud of Turin has anything to do with Jesus.
It is interesting that, every few years, with New or better technology, the Shroud is checked again, and new evidence is found, this time for and the next time against.
To Christians, of course, it makes no difference, but every time we get new information that confirms what the Bible says, it strengthens our faith a little more.
The main thing for all Christians is; we know that Jesus died for us and for all who follow in Jesus footsteps, 1Peter 2:21, John 3:15-18, Matthew 20:28, 1Timothy 2:1-6. Agape!!!

No

Probably not. Doesn't seem genuine to me.