The Scientific Mysteries of the Shroud of Turin

CIC is honored to have Fr. Robert Spitzer provide a special and fascinating presentation on the scientific mysteries of the Shroud of Turin. This presentation will explain compelling scientific data behind the Shroud. It will highlight theological insights addressing how science intersects with faith and hope - shedding light on why millions of people believe the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
A life-sized Shroud of Turin replica is on display, sponsored by the National Shroud of Turin Exhibit, which plans to produce a permanent Shroud of Turin Exhibit in Washington, D.C. Complimentary posters of the Shroud will be distributed that explain the markings on the Shroud.
This event is co-sponsored with The National Shroud of Turin Exhibit.
*CIC will have books authored by Fr. Spitzer for sale before and after the event.

[@andrespiscione7603]

What about other images that were found on the cloth, such as flowers, religious items, sign to recognize the body, etc etc? Have those being finally verified?

[@andrespiscione7603]

Any of the oldest pollens from Judea comes from any extinct variety of plants that were available at that time?

[@drkarenhanson]

Thank you Fr Spitzer, what a blessing....

[@sabiduriavariaenespanol]

Thank you

[@maylingng4107]

The Shroud of Turin has been examined by three different laboratories. Having subjected the samples to carbon-14 dating, all three laboratories concluded that the cloth of the shroud had been made sometime between 1260 and 1390.

[@beverlyhurd8556]

Wrong. What planet have you been living on? It was like *18 years ago* that Dr. Ray Rogers, a scientist at Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories in New Mexico, *proved* that the carbon testing was done in error as the sample taken was from non-original part of the Shroud. The Shroud of Turin is 2000 years old.

[@les2997]

The hypothesis that medieval artists might have possessed technology to create the Shroud with such intricate detail and 3D information encoded on individual linen fibers has been proposed by some skeptics. However, this hypothesis faces several challenges: Lack of historical evidence: There is no historical evidence to suggest that medieval artists possessed such advanced technology. While medieval artists were skilled in various techniques, there is no record or indication that they had the capability to create an image with the level of detail and 3D information found on the Shroud. Complexity of the image: The image on the Shroud exhibits characteristics that are difficult to replicate using medieval techniques. For instance, the image contains precise anatomical details and 3D properties that would have been extremely challenging to produce manually, especially considering the limited tools and materials available at the time. Scientific analysis: Scientific studies conducted on the Shroud have revealed unique characteristics that are not easily explained by medieval art techniques. For example, researchers have found that the image on the Shroud is not painted or dyed onto the fabric's surface but is instead a result of a process that involves oxidation and dehydration of the linen fibers. Additionally, microscopic examination has shown that the image is present only on the topmost fibrils of the linen, indicating that it was not applied using conventional artistic methods. Replication attempts: Despite numerous attempts by scientists and researchers to replicate the image using medieval techniques, none have been successful in producing an image that matches the unique characteristics of the Shroud. This suggests that the technology required to create the image may have been beyond the capabilities of medieval artisans. Overall, while the origins of the Shroud of Turin remain a topic of debate, the hypothesis that medieval artists could have created it using advanced technology is not supported by historical evidence, scientific analysis, or replication attempts.

[@JCJNET]

Those results have now been falsified due to sampling error. It's a developing field and further dating using different techniques have put it at around the time of Jesus. To that you need to add all of the other evidence that points to it being an authentic image of Jesus. There is certainly no definite proof that it is a forgery.

[@renatabrand2881]

Fr. Spitzer gave 4 ways that it was debunked. Listen to the beginning