T
torch621
Guest
Good. What that scientist did was not scientific.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
Pope John Paul II on the shroud:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_24051998_sindone_en.html
Peace,
Ed
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_24051998_sindone_en.html
Peace,
Ed
C
celluloid
Guest
They probably used a low-relief mask which is essentially flattened yet 3 dimensional, much like a portrait on a coin. Even if they didn’t, low-relief would solve the facial distortion problem.
D
DawnInTexas
Guest
D
DChacon
Guest
The shroud is real, i saw the documentary on ewtn and it convinced the Jewish scientist that did the investigation and the the fake shroud doesn’t look anything like the real one,
J
JReducation
Guest
Wait a minute. The Holy Father does not make any pronouncement on the legitimacy of the shroud. In fact, his opening paragraph says the following.
**“Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions.” **
He said that the Church does not have the authority to pronounce of the questions of veracity of the shroud. He goes on to point out that the shroud speaks of horrible torture endured by the Lord. But he does not say that this is the shroud of Jesus Christ. It reminds us of the sufferings of Christ. It does not necessarily belong to Christ. That matter the Holy Father left up to scientists to decide.
She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet, which, according to tradition, wrapped the body of our Redeemer after he had been taken down from the cross. The Church urges that the Shroud be studied without pre-established positions that take for granted results that are not such; she invites them to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers.
All of us would love nothing more than proof positive. But we should be careful to pay very close attention to the words of the Church. The Church says that tradition says that this is the shroud of Jesus. She also says that the shroud is not a matter of faith.
We have to keep the same open mind on this question as does the Holy See.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
K
k0bklJohn
Guest
xxxx
J
JReducation
Guest
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Official website of the Holy Shroud: sindone.org/welcome.htm
As I have said before, I do not believe in the Shroud’s authenticity. However, I know that many have attempted to replicate the Shroud, and this new replication is nothing new at all. I doubt the scientist succeeded, and a few experts, I have heard, feel the same way.
As I have said before, I do not believe in the Shroud’s authenticity. However, I know that many have attempted to replicate the Shroud, and this new replication is nothing new at all. I doubt the scientist succeeded, and a few experts, I have heard, feel the same way.
R
RobbyS
Guest
The greatest mystery to me is why an artisan would produce an image that could not be appreciated until after the invention of photopgraphy.
J
JReducation
Guest
B
Benadam
Guest
What is irksome is the way these folks introduce their project as something momentous and definitive. Scientist present their findings with a more balanced approach. Confidence in their results is evident when they let the results speak for themselves. In this case I would expect at least a couple of statements dignifying the sheer genius of the artist that produced the shroud for unparalleled knowledge of anatomy and the flawless study of it’s impression on linen wrapping. To claim to have produced an imitation is comparable to sculpting an imitation of a Michaelangelo without the courtesy to acknowledge the genius of the artist and deflect any preconcieved notions of possessing such genius.
Real science doesn’t make claims like this before a full presentation of the evidence of such a claim. I still see a disingenuous attempt at appearing to be credible science but all the hallmarks of a deceptive show purely meant to create negative perceptions with little regard for what is true.
Real science doesn’t make claims like this before a full presentation of the evidence of such a claim. I still see a disingenuous attempt at appearing to be credible science but all the hallmarks of a deceptive show purely meant to create negative perceptions with little regard for what is true.
B
BornAgainBrat
Guest
If you can get 3 Chinese lawyers to certify it, I could get on board. A friend of mine took a photo of some french toast he made. It looked like mother Mary. I kid you not. I can’t say it wasn’t.
J
John_Pascendi
Guest
The smear against the Shroud is un-relenting: The thumbs turned in proves that Jesus was nailed by the wrist and thus no one back in the 1500s would have known that…when a nail or spike is nailed thru the wrist the thumbs turn in thats why only 4 fingers are shown. Also if one does some simple research into paintings,carvings etc of Jesus before the 1500s one can see the same curl of hair,the beard,etc so they must have copied from something. One leg is shorter then another ,because one was pulled over and nailed. The body shows tremendous bleeding from the whipping…this was never shown on any other painting of Jesus…only on the Shroud do we see the results of this terrible beating…in those days to be whipped by special made throngs with metal ball bearings on their tips was usually enough to satisfy the mob ie: jury and let the prisoner go…Pilate tried this but the trained mob had an agenda…kill Jesus…certain forces hate the Shroud for it proves that a man thus beaten,nailed,with a crown of thorns over his head,into a sealed air-tight tomb ,body pressed with 100lbs of spices…for three days…could not possible be…a star of ‘the passover plot’ nonsense etc which claimed Jesus fooled everyone…that plus a bodyguard appointed by Jesus’ worst enemies the pc clergy…etc etc…no I believe it is genuine and that rugged Man so depicted is the One…Pas
V
Veridical16
Guest
The fact that an atheist funded org would rush and write a biased article to be narrow minded and definitive about it says it all…
Case in point the shroud’s existence, or potential to be genuine, probably causes atheists to sweat a little more, than the reverse scenario of the shroud’s potential to be a fake. Our faith is not dependent on it in the first place, so these people are wasting their money…going out of their way to disprove it.
I’ve seen a recent documentary, however on the Shroud, and I think it’s very possible and neat that it could have been Jesus’ burial robes. Most people who’ve researched and read more into it-- outside of the basic arguments, that we hear from those who are only somewhat familiar with the medieval fakery, point-counterpoint stuff–are able to go into detail, on how the shroud being a fake makes less sense. ( For instance, there’s evidence of a second burial face cloth that matches up with the shroud, that dates back at least as early as the 5th century; and the person Roy Rogers who did the Carbon 14 D admitted there were discrepancies with the testing so it was unreliable with further examination of other parts of the cloth due to parts being rewoven after a fire, etc. )
Anyway…I don’t see how reproducing something in the 21st century, with all that time money, makes it “official”
, unless it’s exactly like how the Shroud is…which I doubt.
This news probably comes about after the hubbub of that recent special that came out earlier in the past year. Shroud of Turin: New Evidence…youtube.com/watch?v=5Bg9wxYpmv0
I used to be somewhat skeptical, for the most part about the Shroud whenever I’d see those documentaries in high school.
I remember a lot of logical, and rational proofs by that Jewish scientist (his name is Barrie Schwortz), debunking the forgery…in terms of nail placement, and popular assumptions through Medieval paintings of the crucifixion…
I personally, think the Shroud is legit from what I’ve seen and read about. There are a lot of coincidences for it to be just a simple forgery.
Why I think, it’s still ambiguous and easy for Atheist skeptics (and Catholic /Christian skeptics alike) to debate and keep arguing these things over a simple shroud is because God is in the details…and the coincidences of the Shroud affirm, to play off the Einstein quote, "God still uses coincidences in order to remain anonymous. "
Case in point the shroud’s existence, or potential to be genuine, probably causes atheists to sweat a little more, than the reverse scenario of the shroud’s potential to be a fake. Our faith is not dependent on it in the first place, so these people are wasting their money…going out of their way to disprove it.
I’ve seen a recent documentary, however on the Shroud, and I think it’s very possible and neat that it could have been Jesus’ burial robes. Most people who’ve researched and read more into it-- outside of the basic arguments, that we hear from those who are only somewhat familiar with the medieval fakery, point-counterpoint stuff–are able to go into detail, on how the shroud being a fake makes less sense. ( For instance, there’s evidence of a second burial face cloth that matches up with the shroud, that dates back at least as early as the 5th century; and the person Roy Rogers who did the Carbon 14 D admitted there were discrepancies with the testing so it was unreliable with further examination of other parts of the cloth due to parts being rewoven after a fire, etc. )
Anyway…I don’t see how reproducing something in the 21st century, with all that time money, makes it “official”
, unless it’s exactly like how the Shroud is…which I doubt.This news probably comes about after the hubbub of that recent special that came out earlier in the past year. Shroud of Turin: New Evidence…youtube.com/watch?v=5Bg9wxYpmv0
I agree.
I used to be somewhat skeptical, for the most part about the Shroud whenever I’d see those documentaries in high school.
I remember a lot of logical, and rational proofs by that Jewish scientist (his name is Barrie Schwortz), debunking the forgery…in terms of nail placement, and popular assumptions through Medieval paintings of the crucifixion…
I personally, think the Shroud is legit from what I’ve seen and read about. There are a lot of coincidences for it to be just a simple forgery.
Why I think, it’s still ambiguous and easy for Atheist skeptics (and Catholic /Christian skeptics alike) to debate and keep arguing these things over a simple shroud is because God is in the details…and the coincidences of the Shroud affirm, to play off the Einstein quote, "God still uses coincidences in order to remain anonymous. "
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
I wouldn’t be opposed to that.
Unfortunately, there have not been any more carbon dating tests because the Holy See refused to provide additional samples.
R
RACJ
Guest
Code:
Robby, until the advent of photographic imaging, the Shroud seemed a rather unimpressive piece of cloth. The "artist" of the time would have made the image much more defined to the naked eye, had he wished to scam people.
I believe that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Christ. There are many, many reasons. To the joker who claims to have "reproduced" it, go join the crowd looking for 'Nessie! YOU are the "hoax", Sir. Rob ;)
D
DawnInTexas
Guest
No, he didn’t actually come out and state, “It’s Christ’s Burial Cloth.”Wait a minute. The Holy Father does not make any pronouncement on the legitimacy of the shroud. In fact, his opening paragraph says the following.
"Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions."
He said that the Church does not have the authority to pronounce of the questions of veracity of the shroud. He goes on to point out that the shroud speaks of horrible torture endured by the Lord. But he does not say that this is the shroud of Jesus Christ. It reminds us of the sufferings of Christ. It does not necessarily belong to Christ. That matter the Holy Father left up to scientists to decide.
She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet, which, according to tradition, wrapped the body of our Redeemer after he had been taken down from the cross. The Church urges that the Shroud be studied without pre-established positions that take for granted results that are not such; she invites them to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers.
All of us would love nothing more than proof positive. But we should be careful to pay very close attention to the words of the Church. The Church says that tradition says that this is the shroud of Jesus. She also says that the shroud is not a matter of faith.
We have to keep the same open mind on this question as does the Holy See.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
He did, however write:
It’s a sign:
…one of the most unsettling signs of the Redeemer’s suffering love…
It’s a gift:
…I then stopped before the Shroud, the precious Linen that can help us better to understand the mystery of the love of God’s Son for us. Before the Shroud, the intense and agonizing image of an unspeakable torment, I wish to thank the Lord for this unique gift, which asks for the believer’s loving attention and complete willingness to follow the Lord…
It’s a challenge to our intelligence:
…requires of every person, particularly the researcher, that he humbly grasp the profound message it sends to his reason and his life. The mysterious fascination of the Shroud forces questions to be raised about the sacred Linen and the historical life of Jesus. Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions…
And, this is just the first 2 of 8 numbered points.
You’re correct. He didn’t come out and state the Shroud is Christ’s Burial Cloth. He did state it’s being left to one’s Faith.
+Peace in Christ.
J
JReducation
Guest
This I can agree with. We must always make sure that we tell people that the shroud in a “tool” to help us relfect on the sufferings of Christ’s passion. Even if it’s a work of art and not the original, it’s purpose remains the same, to help our contemplation of the passion.
I just object to saying that the Pope endorsed it. We have too much of that on CAF. Everyone wants to say that everything that popes of the past said is an unequivocal endorsement of something and is eternally binding, when in fact, there are very few things that popes have said that are eternally binding. The statements on the shroud are among those non binding statements. In fact, there have been no binding statements, other than a call to reflect and study.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
melekali
Guest
I’d point you to an editorial written by Barry Schwortz, the official photographer on the STURP team that examined the shroud in 1978 entitled Science by Press Release? An Editorial Response by Barrie Schwortz - shroud.com/latebrak.htm
- Status