Shroud is fake: British journalist
CWN - December 21, 2011
Tom Chivers of the Daily Telegraph insists that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery. Chivers lightly dismisses the latest finding that there is no plausible scientific explanation for the image on the cloth, and bases his own skepticism mainly on Carbon-14 testing results, which have been called into question by subsequent research.
Chivers does, however, make the accurate observation that the truth of Christianity does not stand or fall on the evidence of the Shroud.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our March expenses ($25,829 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Chelle,SFO-MI -
Dec. 21, 2011 8:00 PM ET USA
Christianity doesn't stand or fall on the scientific evidence of the Shroud's authenticity...but what is sad is the failure of human beings to recognize a gift of love when they see it...that's what is truely shameful about the skeptics and all their years of arguing about one stupid FAILED "scientific" test.
Posted by: Chestertonian -
Dec. 21, 2011 5:36 PM ET USA
And, what is Chivers' expertise? Is he perhaps a scholar and expert on ancient textiles, or an expert on historical forensics, or is he merely a journalist who writes about scientific topics? I believe the latter is correct, so unless he has some new, accurate, evidence to the contrary, he should keep his opinions to himself. Concur also with AgnesDay, and add that the Shroud is further evidence of the Cross and Resurrection. A blessing, like the tilma image of OL of Guadalupe.
Posted by: AgnesDay -
Dec. 21, 2011 1:18 PM ET USA
Actually, the article isn't quite as ignorant as it appears on first reading. Where it falls apart is that the author asserts that an authentic Shroud is meaningless and signifies nothing. Untrue. An authentic Shroud reveals a God Who leaves the mark of His Lordship where He wills. Who is Mr. Chivers to suggest that He should not do so?