It’s just not scientific to say “All relics are fake.” *There have been numerous scholarly challenges to the C-14 dating results. *Each relic needs to be looked at on an individual basis. There are plenty of references in history to Jesus’ burial clothes-obviously not all of them would refer to what is now known as the Shroud of Turin, but some of them certainly could be. *The cloth would have been considered an impure object by the Jews so it’s probable that they intentionally, if you pardon the pun, kept it under wraps. And to address the skeptics’ points above: *It’s possible that it took many decades for the image to form. How can this be? For one thing, the Shroud is probably the most intensely-studied artifact in human history, and it is still not known how the image was formed on the cloth. Yet many researchers, including many scientists, medical people, historians and biblical exegetes believe the evidence is actually very strong that the Shroud is probably authentic. *The Shroud was carbon-dated in 1988 to AD 1260-1390, which matches to the 1350s appearance in history. *That period in history was notorious for many fake relics. *There is no documented history before the Shroud appears in the historical records in about the mid-1350s. At first glance, the case against authenticity seems fairly strong: *The gospels do not mention an image when mentioning the burial cloths. There are some people who aren’t sure, and certainly, by the very nature of their stance, their passion does not come close to the other two camps. Extreme passion can often be found from those who believe it is a forgery and from those who believe it is authentic. Debate continues to rage regarding whether the Shroud of Turin, the reputed burial cloth of Jesus, is authentic or not.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |