|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 10, 2016 12:21:35 GMT
Interested to know what contributors think of the possible authenticity of the shroud. I had read about it in some detail, and was convinced of its authenticity, but more recently I am somewhat less sure and even inclining to the opposite view. This page, though obviously written with an agenda and clueless about some other elements of Catholic teaching, makes some powerful points: www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.htmlIt refers to the Catholic Encyclopedia article which it describes as sceptical, and I checked it out for myself and saw that indeed it is: www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htmThe Encyclopedia article ends with this powerful point: "Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect." On the other hand, there is something downright spooky about the Shroud, especially its negative image, which gives me pause for thought.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 10, 2016 20:01:39 GMT
Interested to know what contributors think of the possible authenticity of the shroud. I had read about it in some detail, and was convinced of its authenticity, but more recently I am somewhat less sure and even inclining to the opposite view. This page, though obviously written with an agenda and clueless about some other elements of Catholic teaching, makes some powerful points: www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.htmlIt refers to the Catholic Encyclopedia article which it describes as sceptical, and I checked it out for myself and saw that indeed it is: www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htmThe Encyclopedia article ends with this powerful point: "Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect." On the other hand, there is something downright spooky about the Shroud, especially its negative image, which gives me pause for thought. Personally, I'm kind of on the fence as regards the Shroud. It might be authentic, it might not, I'm just not that sure.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 10, 2016 22:14:47 GMT
I'm on the fence as well - the Shroud is certainly a very odd phenomenon (not least its appearance as a near-perfect photographic negative) but there are real questions over its origins (Fr HErbert Thurston, who probably wrote the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPAEDIA article, came up with a mediaeval document dating some decades before the shroud's first recorded appearance in the same region, in which a bishop says he arrested someone who was exhibiting an alleged image of Christ and the painter confessed/explained how it had been produced - though the bishop does not describe the method). My own view is that if you want to regard the shroud as an aid to devotion, go ahead, but it is necessary to keep an open mind about its origins and not to place too much reliance on it. Our faith is in the Gospel, not the shroud.
|
|
|
Post by totustuus on Mar 11, 2016 3:49:57 GMT
I've had some interest in this for quite a while and believe it is authentic. There are depictions of of it in religious art long before its alleged creation date. It has been linked forensically to the Sudarium in Oviedo which has a recorded history going back to the 5th century if I recollect correctly. Both have pollen traces leading them back, by different routes, to 1st century Jerusalem. For me, its beyond reasonable doubt that its from a man crucified in 1st century Jerusalem. The only question being was that man Jesus. If it related to any other historical figure I believe it would be accepted as authentic. There's lots of other little details which reinforce this in my mind. The fact it can't be replicated after decades of scrutiny and research and modern techniques i think puts well beyond the means of medieval artists. Just my thoughts on the subject.
|
|
jaykay
Junior Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by jaykay on Mar 15, 2016 17:09:09 GMT
A great deal of solid research work has been done on it over the years, as well as the famous 1978 and 1988 official examinations. This website is pretty good, in terms of reliable information: www.shroud.com/latebrak.htmIf you Google the name "Barrie Schwortz" you'll come up with an Orthodox Jewish guy who's done much work on it over the years. I do tend to think it's a genuine 1st-century artifact. But as hibernicus says above...
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 29, 2017 15:26:21 GMT
This thought occurred to me today-- perhaps the Shroud is not the actual shroud of Jesus, but a miraculous image of him nonetheless?
This idea has doubtless been expressed before, but I've never heard it.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 4, 2017 11:58:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 14:03:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 12, 2022 21:25:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 18, 2022 15:05:10 GMT
|
|