The Catholic 10 on X

In response to a Muslim’s skepticism of the Shroud of Turin, I have prepared some information as to why I strongly believe it to be the true burial cloth of Jesus. Nobody’s faith should depend on the Shroud’s authenticity or lack thereof, but if everything about it points to this cloth as being the real deal, it should be studied and reflected upon. I’ll start with the main reason Shroud skeptics laugh off this cloth as a medieval work of art, which is the 1988 carbon dating test. There are 4 reasons why I feel the test results, which placed the Shroud’s origin as somewhere between 1260 and 1390 AD, are not reliable: 1. The samples taken for the test were from one corner of the Shroud that was not reflective of the Shroud as a whole, and which violated earlier plans for testing. 2. There are possible issues of bias with those involved in overseeing the carbon dating tests. 3. A response to a 2017 British Freedom of Information Act request revealed information that destroys the “95% probability” of the test results and indicates possible further treachery at play. 4. It has been proven that the samples used for carbon dating the Shroud were different from the rest of the Shroud. In September 1986, a group of scientists and Church authorities agreed that a carbon dating test would include seven samples from multiple locations on the Shroud; would be sent to seven different labs; five labs would use Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS); two labs would use the proportional counter method. Each lab would receive true samples from the Shroud, as well as similar looking samples that were not from the Shroud (blind sampling). In October 1987, the Vatican made significant changes before the tests were done. Only three samples were taken from one corner of the Shroud rather than seven samples from multiple areas. Only three labs would be involved, which were Oxford University, the University of Zurich and the University of Arizona. The four labs that were no longer a part of the testing were Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, NY; Atomic Energy Research Establishment in Oxfordshire, England; University of Rochester; and the Laboratoire des Faibles Radioactivites in France. There would not be any blind samples (the samples that were not actually part of the Shroud). And only the AMS method was used, as they did not use the proportional counter method. Harry Cove, the inventor of the AMS method, said that it would be impossible to statistically identify an outlier result if one lab made a mistake. He felt that it was a bad move to cut the number of labs/samples involved. There may have been bias involved. The British Museum was selected as a kind of referee to oversee the testing by the three labs. Michael Tite of the British Museum was appointed as head of this project who oversaw the samples taken from a single corner of the Shroud, placed in stainless steel containers, and given to the three labs. Tite would then be involved in receiving the data from the labs and performing statistical analysis. On October 13, 1988, when the results of the carbon tests were announced, we didn’t have to wait for anybody to address the press. A chalkboard was set up with “1260-1390!” That message was written by Edward Hall, the head of Oxford University’s radiocarbon lab, who was in charge of the testing done on the Shroud there. In announcing the results, Hall arrogantly stated, “Someone just got a piece of linen, reproduced it and flogged it”, in reference to the scourge marks on the body of the Man of the Shroud that run from the top of His back to His feet. It was also announced that these results could be relied on with 95% confidence. With these being men of science, it was assumed that they would operate without bias. But the exclamation point and what seemed like a taunt from Edward Hall made it seem more like a referee in an American football game spiking the ball when one of the teams scores a touchdown. Something seemed off. Within a year, Edward Hall established a new position at Oxford known as the Edward Hall hair of Archaeological Science with donations from 45 businessmen totaling 1 million pounds. Michael Tite was given this position, which he held from 1989 until his retirement in 2004. In other words, Edward Hall, who managed the Shroud carbon dating test at Oxford and who bragged about the results as debunking the Shroud’s authenticity, took care of the man who oversaw the entire project for the rest of his professional life. Does it prove that they rigged the testing? No. Does it seem a odd? Absolutely, especially considering how the entire process was undertaken in a very different manner tha serien had previously been agreed to by scientists and Church authorities. These changes were signed off on by somebody within the Vatican, so there would have been inside collaboration if anything shady did take place. For many years after the tests, the three labs involved in the testing refused to answer all requests for their raw measurement data. French researcher Tristan Casabianca made a successful Freedom of Information Request in 2017 to the British Museum to release this information. It was immediately apparent as to why the three labs had refused 29 years’ worth of requests up to that point. The samples were taken from one corner of the Shroud. The sample closest to the corner was given to the University of Arizona and came back with a date range of 1287 to 1448. The sample that was second in distance from the corner went to the University of Zurich and yielded a date range of 1255 to 1353. The sample that was furthest from the corner went to Oxford and came back with a date range of 1193 to 1258. The dates became an average of 36 years earlier for every centimeter going away from the corner and closer to the main body of the Shroud. It is a fact that the samples used for carbon dating the Shroud are not the same as the rest of the cloth. The Shroud is a completely linen cloth except for the corner from which the samples were taken. In 1997, researchers Susan Benford and Joseph Marino (who later married each other) noticed a difference in the samples based on what they saw in high-resolution photos. They brought it to the attention of Ray Rogers, a chemist who was part of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) that studied the Shroud in 1978. He was initially skeptical, but ran some tests on a tiny sample that he was given (which was adjacent to the samples sent to the labs). Rogers found: - Cotton fibers interwoven with the linen - A dye coating that was used in the Middle Ages to color newer threads to match older threads - Vanillin, which is a byproduct of lignin degradation found in medieval linens. The main body of the Shroud does not have vanillin. - Under UV light, the main body of the Shroud luminesces uniformly, but this is not the case with the sample. This indicates that there is a different chemical composition or the presence of quenching agents from the dyeing process. - There is end-to-end splicing of the threads in the sample area, indicating an invisible reweaving. In 1532, when the Shroud was kept in a silver casket in France, a fire nearly destroyed it. A drop of molten silver fell through the folded Shroud and left a symmetrical burn holes and scorch marks. The Poor Clare Nuns repaired the hole, which affected the corner from which the samples for testing were taken. The question is whether the labs knew this beforehand and whether the switch to use samples from one corner rather than from all over the Shroud was made because of this. Next, I will provide what I believe is solid evidence of the Shroud being in existence well before the carbon dating test results.

Sharing an occasional meal with an elderly neighbor who lives alone might make a big difference in raising their spirits, but also for their overall health. studyfinds.org/eating-alone-…

Creeping towards socialism/communism. Are the “errors of Russia” spoken of by Our Lady of Fatima being spread like wildfire among our young? bizpacreview.com/2025/11/28/…

A Muslim wrote that Jesus was a Muslim because He prostrated Himself as Muslims do and because He "had a beard". My response: Wrong on both of your claims: 1. When you say Jesus prostrated Himself as Muslims do, you are taking it from Matthew 26 - Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” In that same verse, Jesus calls God "Father". Right there it disqualifies Him from being a Muslim. 2. Jesus may have had a beard, but nothing in the Bible tells us that He did. Almost every image of Jesus shows Him with a beard, but the earliest depictions showed Him as a young man, much like a Roman. But when the Shroud of Turin, which had been hidden in one of the city walls in Edessa (modern-day Turkey) for safekeeping after most of its inhabitants turned pagan, was became more widely known in the early 6th century, there was an explosion of pictures made with Jesus as we see Him in most images. And He did indeed have a beard. But He also had wounds in His feet and side, and an analysis of the heart wound shows that the blood flow was post-mortem, meaning He died. A crucified Jesus who died is not compatible with Islam.

Good news, but it would be even better if our bishops would allow the Latin Mass and more traditional aspects of the Catholic faith to thrive rather than put the clamps on it. Many of the young men who are finding meaning with our Orthodox brethren would be attending our Masses if the bishops would get out of the way and let the Holy Spirit work: nytimes.com/2025/11/19/us/or…

A Muslim asked why I would be Catholic/Christian. My response (just realizing now, I missed one of the most important ones - the Eucharist/Mass, but Eucharistic miracles would be included in #1). These are in no particular order: 1. Miracles verified by science & history 2. Manuscript evidence that blows away anything in Islam and that stands the test of any secular historical documents (the many errors noted by Muslims are copy errors that do not change doctrine) 3. Unbroken chain back to St. Peter, who was made the "Rock" upon which the Church was built by Jesus 4. Early Church Fathers quoting the Gospels by the end of the first century; calling Jesus "God". 5. Judaism was rendered obsolete with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. This had been prophesied by Daniel about 500 yrs earlier to the exact timing of Jesus being born, dying and the temple's destruction. Per Jewish sources, signs were given for the last 40 yrs of the temple's existence - coinciding with Jesus' death/resurrection 6. Many, many Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Jesus, so much so that Jews changed their own translations/interpretations and even avoid certain prophecies so as to avoid the obvious. 7. The Shroud of Turin, which cannot be made with the technology we have today; which provides evidence for the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus; and for which there is plenty of proof existed centuries before the carbon test (which took samples from an area they were told to avoid because it had been repaired due to fire damage). 8. The many saints of the early Church who accepted torture and violent deaths rather than deny Jesus. Look at Eusebius' "Martyrs of Palestine" for very detailed descriptions of the sufferings of these early Christians at the beginning of the 4th century (right before Constantine allowed the practice of Christianity). Their stories are amazing. As well as the stories of those killed under Nero (including Peter & Paul). 9. The early dating of the Gospels - It's almost a guarantee that Acts of the Apostles was completed before Paul's death in the 60's, which means that Luke's Gospel as well as Matthew and Mark's were written earlier. The only reason the "experts" put the Gospels after 70 AD is because of Jesus' very specific remarks about the coming destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. If they admit these were written before these events happened, it's game over for those who deny miracles. 10. Exorcisms - Catholic clergy are able to deal with those possessed (or attacked by) demons. They have dealt with people displaying super-human strength; who are able to speak languages they never knew; and who go bananas when the Eucharist is brought in (even when concealed) or when the name of the Virgin Mary is mentioned. Even Protestant clergy often call upon Catholic priests to clean things up when they are unable to help the possessed.

10. Muhammad and his closest family members likely died a cursed death because of a morbid challenge that he made to a group of Christians, known as the Mubahala. A group of Christians from Najran (SW region of Saudi Arabia) visited Muhammad to discuss the divinity of Jesus. Muhammad challenged the Christians saying that God should curse whomever was present with death if they were not telling the truth about Him. When they got together the following day, the Christians noticed that Muhammad brought along only members of his family, rather than fellow Muslim leaders or soldiers. The Christians withdrew from this challenge. The Muslims claim that they basically “chickened out”, feeling that Muhammad must really be a prophet of God if he was willing to risk a curse upon his family. Other more rational people feel that the Christians would not want to possibly call down a curse from God on those present, which included Fatima (Muhammad’s daughter), Ali (son-in-law), Hasan and Husayn (grandsons). The Christians agreed to pay the jizya (Islamic street tax) instead. But let’s see what happened to Muhammad and all who were present at this challenge: - Muhammad died about a year later. As mentioned in #9 above, he was already in bad shape from the effects of the poison that he ate. - Fatima and her unborn child died shortly after Muhammad. Some believe she was assaulted by a faction of Muslims who opposed her husband Ali and raided their home. Others say she died of grief over her father’s death. - Ali was killed by a poison-laced sword as he entered a mosque at Kufa (not far from Baghdad) for prayer by a Muslim from an opposing faction. - Hasan died of poisoning, with many believing it was his own wife who did it. - Husayn died in the Battle of Karbala when he was decapitated. None of those in Muhammad’s crew that was present at the Mubahalah died a natural death. 5 out of 5 died what one might see as cursed deaths after Muhammad had boldly challenged the Christians from Najran to a “curse duel”. In summary, it could easily be assumed that Muhammad was a tool for the devil in his life.

9. A Jewish woman whose husband, father and uncle had been killed by Muhammad’s men in the Battle of Khaybar poisoned him with a roasted lamb. One of Muhammad’s companions died from the poison, while Muhammad was left with lingering effects for the remaining few years of his life. After initially forgiving the woman, she was executed when his companion finally died after a year of being paralyzed by the poison. When Muhammad was near death, he said “I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison”. That’s interesting because in Surah 69 Allah warned Muhammad that he would cut off his aorta if he falsified any of the revelations. It shows that Muhammad may have died a cursed death.

8. Aisha told the story of how an occult Jewish man Labid ibn al-A’asam put Muhammad under a spell. It left Muhammad thinking that he had sex with his wives when he actually had not slept with them. It paints a picture of Muhammad as one who was prone to being overtaken by the demonic.

7. Realizing his message of monotheism would be cooked, Muhammad later reneged on the allowance of worship of the pagan goddesses. He said that the “angel” told him that it was the devil who tricked him into allowing this. Then, revelation was given to Muhammad (Surah 22:52) in which Satan always confused messengers of Allah. See if Jesus was ever confused and taught error. This reminds one of Aisha’s statement that Allah was always dropping revelation that was to Muhammad’s personal advantage. Aisha’s statement was mainly about Allah satisfying his physical passions (unlimited wives, ability to take any woman he wanted), but would apply here as well to get Muhammad out of a bind when he clearly taught error.

6. When the people of Mecca were reluctant to accept the new monotheistic religion that Muhammad was preaching, he added a line to Quranic Surah 53 allowing prayers to three pagan goddesses. This pleased the Meccans, who prostrated themselves and became open to Muhammad’s teachings.

5. When the “angel” took a break from delivering revelation to Muhammad, he became so discouraged that he seriously thought about throwing himself off a mountain several times to end his life.

4. When receiving revelation from the “angel”, Muhammad displayed behavior/symptoms that could be interpreted as demonic possession. He would shake/tremble. He would sweat terribly even when cold. He would snort like a baby camel. His face would turn red or dark blue. His body became so heavy that a camel on which he was riding had his belly almost touch the ground. Ask an exorcist. These are signs of potential demonic activity.

3. Muhammad’s wife Khadijah and a misinformed Christian Waraqah convinced him that it was an angel rather than a demon. Khadija was a sly businesswoman who took care of Muhammad. She already won her father’s approval for her to marry Muhammad after she got him drunk. She was slick and probably recognized this as an opportunity.

2. When the “angel” appeared to Muhammad in a cave, he physically assaulted him when he told Jibril that he couldn’t read when commanded to. Muhammad went home terrified and shaking. In 2 Corinthians 11, we are warned to beware of the devil masquerading as an angel of light, and this appears to have happened here. We are also warned in Galatian 1 to not accept a different Gospel, even if delivered by an angel. Compare Muhammad’s experience to how Gabriel of the Bible told the Blessed Virgin Mary to “be not afraid”.