EWTN Series on the Shroud of Turin
A reader writes:
According to Adam’s Ale, this week EWTN is running a series on the Shroud of Turin on the series "Women of Grace." Today’s program reviewed the history of the Shroud and how it got to Turin in 1578.
Some of the circumstantial evidence for its antiquity includes the fact that when the Shroud (which had been hidden for several hundred years) was re-discovered around 500 AD, art and mosaic images of Jesus dramatically changed from a youthful unbearded "Roman" face to the man with a beard that we universally now see.
The remaining 4 programs will be broadcast this week at 11:00 am and re-aired at 11:30 pm. The most up-to-date scientific information and theories will be explored."
Here are some of the video’s on the EWTN site that you can watch now:
- Revelation of the Road: The Shroud’s Journey SEPTEMBER 10, 2012: (Program 10350) Guests: Dr. J. Wayne Phillips, Father Edmund Sylvia One of the most fascinating and most investigated relics is the Sh…-377 View Video
- The Shroud of Turin Research Project, Pt 1 SEPTEMBER 11, 2012: (Program 10351) Guests: Dr. J. Wayne Phillips, Father Edmund Sylvia In May, 2010, Pope Benedict the XVII made pilgrimage to Turin, Ita…-378 View Video
- Carbon Dating and Image Formation: Science and the Shroud, Part 2 SEPTEMBER 12, 2012: (Program 10352) Guests: Dr. J. Wayne Phillips, Father Edmund Sylvia Occasionally in the pursuit of scientific investigation, contradic…-379 View Video
- New Discoveries, New Theories: Science and the Shroud, Part 3 SEPTEMBER 13, 2012: (Program 10353) Guests: Dr. J. Wayne Phillips, Father Edmund Sylvia Science and reason are not antithetical to belief and faith. In fa…-380 View Video
- Dynamic Duo: The Sudarium and the Shroud SEPTEMBER 14, 2012: (Program 10354) Guests: Dr. J. Wayne Phillips, Father Edmund Sylvia Conduct just about any kind of an investigation and nothing is mor…-381 View Video
Leave a Reply
Is the Shroud real? Probably.
The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.
My name is Dan Porter. Please email me at DanielRobertPorter@gmail.com
Wayne Philips in Part 2 of “Carbon dating….” says that NATURE is not peer-review and is “a regular magazine”. Certainly, he could not be more wrong…….
Wayne Philips in Part 3 “New discoveries…”:«2012 science says that some type of reaction formed the image». I think that he should make a clear distinction between his points of view and those of “2012 science”.
Wayne Phlips in “Dynamic duo…” announces some inminent contacts by Joe Marino and Barrie Schwprtz with the Archbishop of Turin with the aim to discuss new tests. Is this true? Can anyone provide any information?
BTW,Wayne, Oviedo is far away from the Pyrenees.
What I told Dr. Phillips is that Barrie was going to try and schedule a meeting with the archbishop on one of Barrie’s overseas trips.