I was checking out some of the videos and stories related to the opening of the exhibition.
In one video, Archbishop Nosiglia said the church is not against new testing.
It would have been nice if some of that time, energy and money could have been put in another multi-disciplinary study.
We now have Barberis saying another C-14 test should be done. Louis conference, there is a lot of debate among researchers whether it should be done.
Popes have come to gaze on the Shroud; Benedict XVI said when he visited in 2010 that “we see, as in a mirror, our suffering in the suffering of Christ”. They refer to the 1987 Carbon-14 dating and say, “It’s medieval. That settles it.” But the believers bounce back, and year by year, as modern technology advances, more and more evidence accumulates which causes anyone who reads the research to be sceptical of the sceptics.
If new testing did not disprove the authenticity, it could bring a lot more people to Christianity.
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.
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.
In referring to Barberis, Joe is, I think, referring to SHROUD: TRACES OF BLOOD FROM THE "CARBON-14": WHAT DOES SCIENCE SAY, a Google Translation of an article, SINDONE, DALLE TRACCE EMATICHE AL "CARBONIO-14": COSA DICE LA SCIENZA in I favor retesting.