At the start of the video, it was explained that current carbon dating did not date the shroud to be old enough to be the one in which the body of Jesus Christ once laid. Regardless of the evidence pointing towards its authenticity, I found the science of carbon dating to be far more convincing. Further, I know that Jesus was only one of many to have been crucified and so I assumed that because of the carbon dating, it simply belonged to someone else who had been crucified much later.
Near the close of the video, they offered a reasonable explanation as to why the carbon dating did not correspond to the other evidence and I found it to be reasonable enough to prove its authenticity. I validated my change in opinion by considering that during the rise of Christianity, neither Mary Magdalene or any of Jesus' followers would have allowed the shroud that once covered his body to by merely throw away. I was surprised however, after it was explained that the dating of the cloth could have been altered by the many people who have handled it over the centuries, that they have not tried to date another section of the cloth. The solution seems simple enough to settle the debate between the contrasting evidence and yet it has apparently not been done yet.
Good points Kate. The carbon dating often gives more doubts than clearity. If you would study archeology and archeological finds you'll be surprised at how many time what seemed to resolutive was, actually, not. The problem with making analyses with the Shroud is that it is not only a remarkable archeological object, the fact is that this is also probably the most remarkable between Christian's relics, and it is considered a 'holy' object. To touch it, to cut it, to handle it, is seen as a religious problem and many conservative person don't want to dissacre it by 'untrusting' actions on it.
RispondiElimina