New study on Shroud of Turin concludes image could not have been painted, points to ‘a violent death’

  • Thread starter Thread starter pepipop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pepipop

Guest
aleteia.org/blogs/deacon-greg-kandra/new-study-on-shroud-of-turin-concludes-image-could-not-have-been-painted-points-to-a-violent-death/

…According to Professor Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua, the analyses show how “the peculiar structure, size and distribution of the nanoparticles cannot be artifacts made over the centuries on the fabric of the Shroud.” Many fanciful reconstructions of the Turin Shroud being a painted object are once again denied.” Additionally, Fanti says, “the wide presence of creatinine particles bound to ferrihydrite particles is not a situation typical of the blood serum of a healthy human organism. Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering of strong polytrauma like torture. Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments point a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.”

Full scientific report: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180487
 
I love The Shroud of Turin also.
Always enjoy what new studies reveal.
 
It’s always nice when yet another piece of evidence supports the shroud being legitimate.
 
This is going to sound weird on the face of it, but hear me out: I really hope that the scientists doing this research are not Catholic. I actually hope they are Jewish, or Muslim, or (even!) Scientologists, or ideally atheist, just anyone but Catholics.

The reason is, if it comes out that the chief researchers are Catholic, the media will explode in the usual chorus of “confirmation bias! Junk science! They’re cherry-picking results to justify the existence of their imaginary friend in the sky!” I want the results to not be “tainted” by that sort of baggage. I want the Shroud to be a real relic of Christ, and don’t want to give the anti-Catholic media any wiggle room for derision.
 
DaddyGirl said:
What do you mean “legitimate”?
That it’s actually a burial cloth from that time? Or that it was actually in contact with Jesus of Nazareth?

Fanti’s research has been repeatedly questioned and disputed by three successive Archbishops of Turin and custodians of the shroud for over two decades–Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini (1989-1999) who made a statement in 1995…Cardinal Severino Poletto (1999-2010) who made a statement in 2009…and most recently, Monsignor Cesare Nosiglia (2010 to current)…whose most recent official statement was in 2013, when Fanti’s book came out.

He wrote:

“as it is not possible to be certain that the analysed material was taken from the fabric of the shroud no serious value can be recognized to the results of such experiments.”

So…I think they are saying…they don’t think the material he’s analyzing is from the actual shroud?

shroud.com/pdfs/ENNosiglia_Custode%20su%20Fanti-Gaeta.pdf

.
Click to expand...
Just a small point of fact, questioning the origin of the cloth is not actually disputing the findings. To dispute it would be to claim that the finding are factually untrue, or that the sample did not come from the shroud. It would be an active assertion, rather than the passive clarification being given by the Bishops.

By legitimate, I mean that it is not a forgery, it’s actually a burial cloth. Many people dismiss it by claiming its a forgery. I agree that we will probably never be able to prove that it was Jesus’ burial cloth, but for those who do believe it is (myself included), any bit of evidence rejecting the notion that its a medieval forgery is nice.

Also, the fact that it can’t be proven to have come to the shroud does not mean that it didn’t. If, in the future, it is determined that the cloth came from elsewhere, then so be it. My faith is not dependent on the shroud being legitimate, I simply enjoy the prospect as a point of interest. I have seen no reason to doubt Fanti’s statement that the cloth came from the shroud, so to assume he’s lying would be baseless.
DaddyGirl said:
Didn’t we already know it wasn’t painted and that the person died a “violent” death?
Click to expand...
We knew it wasn’t painted, even though people still make the argument that it was from time to time. As for the violent death, we knew that the man on the shroud had died violently based on the wounds visible on the body. This study deals specifically with the structure of the blood on the cloth, and only confirms what is directly visible.
 
[You realize that the burial cloth may possibly be the table cloth from the Last Supper.]

[Based on thread count and rings from wine cup bases.]
 
pepipop said:
aleteia.org/blogs/deacon-greg-kandra/new-study-on-shroud-of-turin-concludes-image-could-not-have-been-painted-points-to-a-violent-death/

…According to Professor Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua, the analyses show how “the peculiar structure, size and distribution of the nanoparticles cannot be artifacts made over the centuries on the fabric of the Shroud.” Many fanciful reconstructions of the Turin Shroud being a painted object are once again denied.” Additionally, Fanti says, “the wide presence of creatinine particles bound to ferrihydrite particles is not a situation typical of the blood serum of a healthy human organism. Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering of strong polytrauma like torture. Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments point a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.”

Full scientific report: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180487
Click to expand...
Hello Pepipop! Haven’t seen you in quite awhile. If you have been gone, then welcome back. If you haven’t, then ignore this post. 🙂

I probably shouldn’t say this, and I’m not being unfriendly in saying it, but I have generally thought of you as a Russophile, at least more than many. With all this “Russia, Russia, Russia” stuff going on, it must seem odd to you, with the American left suggesting that all Russians have horns and cloven hooves, and the right suggesting that even if the Russians did some spying, it’s just the normal thing to do.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Hello Pepipop! Haven’t seen you in quite awhile. If you have been gone, then welcome back. If you haven’t, then ignore this post. 🙂

I probably shouldn’t say this, and I’m not being unfriendly in saying it, but I have generally thought of you as a Russophile, at least more than many. With all this “Russia, Russia, Russia” stuff going on, it must seem odd to you, with the American left suggesting that all Russians have horns and cloven hooves, and the right suggesting that even if the Russians did some spying, it’s just the normal thing to do.
Click to expand...
Hi Ridgerunner, currently a ‘lurker’. 🙂

Yes, I am a Russophile and commented on a few threads, re: Russia’s interference with the US election, etc… The whole Russia/Trump MSM situation was/is so far out there that there is really little comment to make about it. It’s all madness.

IMO, it would ‘seem’ that Trump and Putin actually do see eye to eye and there is a lot of smoke-screening going on, especially on Trump’s part. They both seemed to have a v good rapport and a longer than usual ‘first’ 😉 meeting, at the G20 summit.

Only time will tell.
 
pepipop said:
aleteia.org/blogs/deacon-greg-kandra/new-study-on-shroud-of-turin-concludes-image-could-not-have-been-painted-points-to-a-violent-death/

…Fanti says, “the wide presence of creatinine particles bound to ferrihydrite particles is not a situation typical of the blood serum of a healthy human organism. Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering of strong polytrauma like torture. Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments point a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.”

Full scientific report: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180487
Click to expand...
Poor Jesus - you suffer so much for our sins. We don’t deserve it. 😦
 
Pat_Payne said:
This is going to sound weird on the face of it, but hear me out: I really hope that the scientists doing this research are not Catholic. I actually hope they are Jewish, or Muslim, or (even!) Scientologists, or ideally atheist, just anyone but Catholics.

The reason is, if it comes out that the chief researchers are Catholic, the media will explode in the usual chorus of “confirmation bias! Junk science! They’re cherry-picking results to justify the existence of their imaginary friend in the sky!” I want the results to not be “tainted” by that sort of baggage. I want the Shroud to be a real relic of Christ, and don’t want to give the anti-Catholic media any wiggle room for derision.
Click to expand...
I think the scientists are a mixture of many faiths, including atheist.
 
I watched a special on it this past Easter, where some people tried to use the shroud to construct what they thought Jesus would look like, or something along those lines. While it was interesting, I thought the most sobering statement came at the end - “If you wanted to give a blueprint for how to construct what the man wrapped in this cloth would look like, there would be no better model than this.” (or something along those lines)

It is quite a thought that Our Lord would leave the image of His Son for the faithful to both see his face two millennia later, as well as to remind us of the sacrifice that was done for all of us. Obviously, not all believe this was the case, for those who do, it really is something to ponder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top