We need an expert opinion.
We're doing research and we can't figure out what happened to the 3,000 Shroud documents and paintings that were placed in the Castle of Racconigi after 1930.

According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_of_Racconigi

Here the last King of Italy, Umberto II, was born in 1904. Having received the castle as a wedding present in 1930, he proceeded to install in it the family gallery of some 3,000 paintings and historical documents regarding the Shroud of Turin.

Can you shed light on where these paintings and documents went to, or are they still there?

Regards,

TheSenate (John)

Weren't they willed to the Vatican

Hello,

Many theories have come and gone as to how the image was formed. Most scientists agree that the latest findings have shown that the whole image was produced from the same cause, perhaps from some process that “scorched” it.
This scientific conclusion presents some problems, for it indicates that the impression on the shroud should be basically one color, simply varying in intensity. Yet 16th-century viewers indicated that it was made up of two different colors. Not only did artistic reproductions of the time show it multicolored, but one observer, Chifflet, said:
“The figure of Turin shows hardly anything but dark crimson stains, . . . the marks of the wounds seem to be painted in over the impression of the body, which is in a thin pale yellow.”
One could wonder if today’s shroud is the same as the one displayed back in the 14th century and labeled a fraud by the then Roman Catholic bishop Henry de Troyes (France) and said to have been “cunningly painted.” Joseph Hanlon, writing in New Scientist, raises an interesting possibility:
“But could there have been a double fake, one in the 14th century and another in the last century? The shroud was widely shown in the 15th and 16th centuries, but not later. Could it be that the first fraud became too obvious? . . . Might the shroud’s owners have done a better job in that time, using modern technology and medical knowledge, including tests such as Barbet’s, and using ancient linen from the middle east? Might a statue have been created solely for this purpose, heated to give an impression on the cloth, and then destroyed? . . . Nevertheless, there have been a number of sophisticated Victorian archaeological frauds, so we cannot ignore this possibility.”
Others have suggested the use of a mixture of myrrh and aloes rubbed over a bas-relief (a picture with three-dimensional features) to produce a similar image. However, Adam Otterbein, president of the Holy Shroud Guild, concluded: “How the image was formed may be a mystery to the end of time. . . . It’s doubtful whether science will ever be able to prove how this was done.”
From time to time publicity is given to the “Shroud of Turin,” a cloth the full length of a body, supposedly showing the image of Jesus. Roman Catholics believe that the likeness came from its contact with the body of Jesus. Others doubt the claim.
However, was Jesus buried in a one-piece shroud? No, he was not. God’s inspired Word, the Holy Scriptures, states at John chapter 20, verses 6 and 7, that in the empty tomb after Jesus was resurrected the apostle Peter “observed the wrappings on the ground and saw the piece of cloth which had covered the head not lying with the wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.”—Catholic “New American Bible.”
So there were several cloths, with a separate one around Jesus’ head. Thus the “Shroud of Turin” could not have been any part of the actual cloths used in Jesus’ burial, since it is in one piece and Jesus was “bound . . . in wrappings of cloth,” with a separate one being used for his head. John 19:40, “NAB.”
Recent scientific tests have confirmed that the Shroud of Turin is a 14th-century fake. Yet, “Catholics were encouraged to continue their veneration of the shroud as a pictorial image of Christ, still capable of performing miracles,” reports The New York Times. Anastasio Ballestrero, the archbishop of Turin, stated: “The exceptional evocative power of the image of Jesus Christ should be preserved.”
What does this mean? It means that although the church has admitted that the stained image of a man’s body on the shroud is not that of Jesus Christ, faithful Catholics should nevertheless continue to view it as if it were the Christ and thus as something holy. Why? According to Adam Otterbein, a Roman Catholic priest in charge of the Holy Shroud Guild, relics like the shroud can assist believers to render honor to the one the image represents.
It is not surprising that, despite its lack of authenticity, the shroud would remain a powerful symbol of faith for the Catholic Church. “Statues, paintings and icons . . . are given a revered place in Catholic practice,” notes The New York Times.

Does the Bible support the use of such images in worship? No! God’s Word clearly says: “Flee from idolatry.” 1 Corinthians 10:14; Exodus 20:4-6.

Christians are admonished to worship God “with spirit and truth,” not with the help of some image or relic. John 4:24

Appropriately, Paul wrote that true Christians “are walking by faith, not by sight.” 2 Corinthians 5:7.

I personally do not really feel these Documents exist in that even if they do to a person who believes what the Gospel teaches, can not truly believe in such nonsense. Notice

The Gospel writers say that the body of Jesus, after being taken from the stake by Joseph of Arimathea, was wrapped “in clean fine linen.”
Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56

The apostle John adds: “Nicodemus also . . . came bringing a roll of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds of it. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it up with bandages with the spices, just the way the Jews have the custom of preparing for burial.” John 19:39-42.

The Jews customarily washed the dead and then used oils and spices to anoint the body. Matthew 26:12; Acts 9:37

On the morning following the Sabbath, women friends of Jesus intended to complete the preparation of his body, which had already been laid in a tomb. However, when they arrived with their ‘spices to grease him,’ the body of Jesus was not in the tomb!
Mark 16:1-6; Luke 24:1-3.

What did Peter find when he came shortly afterward and entered the tomb? The eyewitness John reported: “He viewed the bandages lying, also the cloth that had been upon his head not lying with the bandages but separately rolled up in one place.” John 20:6, 7

Notice that there is no mention of the fine linen, only of bandages and the head cloth. Since John specifies the bandages and the head cloth, would it not seem likely that he would have mentioned the fine linen, or shroud, if it had been there?

In addition, consider this: If the grave clothes of Jesus had his image upon them, does it not seem that it would have been noticed and would have become a subject for discussion? Yet, beyond what is in the Gospels, there is complete silence in the Bible about the grave clothes.

Even the professed Christian writers of the third and fourth centuries, many of whom wrote about a host of so-called miracles in connection with numerous relics, did not mention the existence of a shroud containing the image of Jesus.

This is hard to understand, since 15th- and 16th-century viewers, according to Jesuit scholar Herbert Thurston, “describe the impressions on the shroud as so vivid in detail and coloring that they might have been quite freshly made.”

I guess it really does not matter seeing that there are no Historical proof or Scientific proof of a Shroud being mentioned in the Bible nor by any who visited Jesus’ tomb. To some, belief comes from visual help, other’s believe due to their faith. Jesus said, Faith can move mountains, even if their faith is the size of a mustard seed. I would rather have faith then a visual relic that can not even be proven to exist by God’s own word the Bible. What difference would a cloth make in what one believes? Does one need a piece of cloth and documents and painting to believe? If they do, then they truly do not know the true God of the Universe or His Son, Jesus Christ.

Take care,
Hope12

Just my understanding of the scriptures.

Yes, many viewpoints. Of course he was wrapped in a shroud that was an ancient jewish burial method. I would rather approach it at an archeological angle rather then religious. It is more interesting and easier to get your mind around.

The shroud is in the vatican and has been carbon dated, it didn't hold up for the time of christ unfortunately.

It was carried around Europe during he crusades and some think it is just a lovely painting on a piece of cloth. I can go with that. We are never really really going to know the true story of the shroud or the paintings, so it is a mute point.

Well first all must realise although many use it, even myself, the Wikipedia
Is not a reliable souce for any research. The info in it is submitted by individuals or groups and may contain incorrect or view points that are not fully accepted.

As for the carbon dating, the issue was the supect of the small amount for sampling, plus the cloth it was attached to, and the vacatin will not supply a large enough sample at this time. Plus the real issue in the mistakes and errors known in carbon dating.