Researcher says text proves Shroud of Turin real

[santodomingo]

I’ve heard that often and it simply isn’t true. Not all art and iconography depicted the nails in the palms. For example, The Crucifixion by Duccio di Buoninsegna circa 1308 depicts the nails at the base of the hand/anatomical wrist.

Two points to make.

1. You cannot deny that the huge majority of pictoral representations of Christ on the Cross show that the nails punctured his palms. There may be a few exceptions, I´m not an art expert, but my argument is an easy one to grasp.
2. You have chosen to completely ignore all the other facts that point inevitably to the authenticity of the shroud. There are a lot more than those I mentioned. How about the 3-D image that even today would be difficult to reproduce?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

1. You cannot deny that the huge majority of pictoral representations of Christ on the Cross show that the nails punctured his palms. There may be a few exceptions, I´m not an art expert, but my argument is an easy one to grasp.

Nails through the palms was certainly a popular artistic interpretation but, again, it wasn’t the only one. It’s the same with the depiction of the feet. Some artists chose to paint a nail through each foot while others chose to depict a single nail driven through both feet.

1. You have chosen to completely ignore all the other facts that point inevitably to the authenticity of the shroud.

All of which are refutable.

There are a lot more than those I mentioned. How about the 3-D image that even today would be difficult to reproduce?

It’s actually very easy to reproduce as Dr. Garlaschelli demonstrated all with methods and materials readily available to any medieval forger.

 

[livnlern]

"

It might be possible to reproduce an image, but a believable image is another story. The image that Dr. Garleschelli came up with looks cartoonish compared to what is on the actual shroud. He gave it a good effort but his picture seems to lack the subtlety of the original.

 

[grace_singh]

something i have always wondered about the Shroud…

Biblically, Jesus’ burial cloths were in two parts, one cloth for His head, with strips of linen for His body (John 20:6-7).

when Peter saw the empty tomb, he saw the cloth for Jesus’ head, folded seperately from the linen strips used to wrap His body.

so where does this single large cloth taken to be the burial shroud of Jesus come from?

Matthew does mention a linen cloth, and John mentions the linen as strips of cloth packed with spices. as there would have been no determiner (e.g. “a” or “an”) in the original Greek, is it likely that the “linen cloth” of Matthew and the strips of cloth of John are refering to the same cloth?

when Jesus raised Lazarus, the cloth over his face and the strips of cloth for the body are also mentioned (John 11:43-44), with no mention made of a third large cloth. if the Shroud of Turin is real, is there a reason why it is not composed of a single cloth and many linen strips? was Jesus also buried in a single cloth wrapped around his other burial wrappings?

 

[redrosetea]

I think thee was a sweat cloth placed over the face called the Sudarium…I heard a Catholic author suggest that Peter wore it sort of as a Mitre when praying for the sick

I don’t know what he based his theory on…There is also a cloth known as the mandelion that is reputed to be the Sudarium

There is a field of study just devoted to the shroud…and they take it very serious , perhaps you could find answers to your question on the website of the Shroud of Turin

 

[grace_singh]

well, i’m just asking in light of how Scripture describes the burial cloths of Jesus. according to the Gospels Jesus was wrapped in cloth for His head, and in strips of linen around His body, and no mention is made of a larger cloth in the empty tomb.

should we find the burial clothes of Jesus, it would make more sense for us to find a single cloth for His head, and wrappings for His body, all bearing the imprints of His body, and suffering.

 

[redrosetea]

this link might be of some interest to you

frtommylane.com/homilies/pilgrimage/sudarium.htm

 

[grace_singh]

thank you Red, i’d like to look into that.

but my main question is simply where does this cloth come from, or how does it feature into the burial clothes of Jesus? the Shroud of Turin is a single cloth said to bear the imprints of Jesus’ crucified body, yet Scripture tells us there was one face cloth and linen wrappings for the body.

so unless there was a third, large cloth bearing Jesus’ wrapped body not mentioned in Scripture, we do have to wonder where the Shroud comes from, and how it came to bear His likeness. i’m not saying it’s a forgery, but question how it can bear the image of the crucified Christ in light of what the Bible tells us about how Jesus was buried.

 

[redrosetea]

thank you Red, i’d like to look into that.

but my main question is simply where does this cloth come from, or how does it feature into the burial clothes of Jesus? the Shroud of Turin is a single cloth said to bear the imprints of Jesus’ crucified body, yet Scripture tells us there was one face cloth and linen wrappings for the body.

so unless there was a third, large cloth bearing Jesus’ wrapped body not mentioned in Scripture, we do have to wonder where the Shroud comes from, and how it came to bear His likeness. i’m not saying it’s a forgery, but question how it can bear the image of the crucified Christ in light of what the Bible tells us about how Jesus was buried.

It was used just to cover Christ face when taking him to the tomb…To protect his mother from seeing him with rigor mortise

The winding cloth was what actually covered him not the sweat cloth…Remember it was passover and his body was not fully prepared for burial they came back to do it

I suspect the face cloth was left there too because of the laws of uncleaness the Jews observed

The face cloth didn’t cover his body in the tomb only the shroud…There was no image on the face cloth because at resurrection it didn’t get whatever thing caused the image to appear

I am far from an expert on any of this, it is just what my understanding of the situation is

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

It might be possible to reproduce an image, but a believable image is another story. The image that Dr. Garleschelli came up with looks cartoonish compared to what is on the actual shroud.

Dr. Garleschelli used a human volunteer and it looks extraordinarily similar and not “cartoonish” in the least. Of course it’s not going to look EXACTLY the same down to the most minute detail; they’re two different people.

He gave it a good effort but his picture seems to lack the subtlety of the original.

His hasn’t gone through 700 years of wear, tear, fire, and water.

 

[livnlern]

Dr. Garleschelli used a human volunteer and it looks extraordinarily similar and not “cartoonish” in the least. Of course it’s not going to look EXACTLY the same down to the most minute detail; they’re two different people.

His hasn’t gone through 700 years of wear, tear, fire, and water.

What I mean is that when you look at the photos of the two images side by side, allowing for the fact that they are of two different people and that one of them is very old (possibley 2 thousand years old!), the reproduction looks like it’s been painted on whereas the original looks like the image of a real human face.
In a book titled “The Blood and the Shroud” by Ian Wilson he makes many convincing arguments for the authenticity of the shroud. One of which is the direction of the blood flows on the man’s image. In speaking of the wound from the piercing of the man’s chest pgs.38-39:
“This wound measures some one and three quarters inches wide, and a copious quantity of ‘blood’ can be seen to have flowed from it,the angle of flow indicating that this must have occured while the body was upright. The elliptical shape suggests it to have been inflicted by a bladed weapon such as a lance or spear and, according to surgeon Pierre Barbet’s generally agreed anatomical calculations, this would have been driven between the fifth and sixth ribs…Among this flow’s many convincing features is that its undulations, just like those on the forehead, do not merely follow the flow of gravity downwards, but indicate even the projection of the middle ribs and other body features…Mid-fourteenth century scultured Christ figures in Germany such as a Man of Sorrows in the Frauenkirche, Munich, give this wound particular attention, as does the painted Grande Pieta Ronde of c.1390 in the Louvre, Paris. But again there is all the difference in the world between the medical convincingness of these and the wound visible on the shroud.”
Also on page 38: “Worth comparison with this bloodflow are those on an extremely graphic fifteenth century medical illustration of wounds from a manuscript of Galen’s writings…Despite this illustration having been painted a century and a half after the theoretical forging of the shroud, the wide variety of injuries depicted on this so-called ‘Wounds of Man’ can only be described, by comparison , as hopelessly crude and childish.”

 

[tm30]

It’s actually very easy to reproduce as Dr. Garlaschelli demonstrated all with methods and materials readily available to any medieval forger.

That doesn’t answer the most basic question that usually goes completely ignored, which is why anyone would create a forgery of the burial cloth that would appear completely illogical to its audience?

You’re making the incredible assumption that the supposed “forger” understood negative phenomenon. If such a forger knew of such phenomena, he would not be sitting in some art den etching out an image of Christ that would appear to be nothing BUT an artistic rendering. If he had that kind of knowledge, he would be inventing Europe’s first camera, not playing with sackcloth.

Despite all of the back and forth findings and experimentations, it still comes back to Occam’s Razor. There’s no motive. No logical inspiration. No consideration of its audience. No indication anywhere, whatsoever, that this was a treasured artwork available to the highest bidder. It certainly would not have been just given to the Church unless its owner believed its value went far beyond anything material.

Without any of those factors, the chance that the shroud is a fake, is incredibly slim.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

That doesn’t answer the most basic question that usually goes completely ignored, which is why anyone would create a forgery of the burial cloth that would appear completely illogical to its audience?

Why would it appear illogical?

You’re making the incredible assumption that the supposed “forger” understood negative phenomenon.

I’m not making any such assumption. Do you think N.C. Wyeth painted “Family Portrait” in the knowledge that people would be able x-ray it and reveal the work he had painted over?

Despite all of the back and forth findings and experimentations, it still comes back to Occam’s Razor.

Occam’s Razor would have us believe that it is, in fact, a forgery.

There’s no motive.

Are you kidding? Selling “relics” was big business in the Middle Ages. There are numerous shrouds in cathedrals in Europe and the Mediterranean all of which are purported to be the burial shroud of Jesus.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Or, better still, do you believe that Leonardo Da Vinci painted “The Virgin of the Rocks” in the knowledge that infrared reflectography could be used to reveal the image he had painted over?

 

[Stylites]

Occam’s Razor would have us believe that it is, in fact, a forgery.

One has to believe in something, eh? I would venture a guess that you haven’t even seen the shroud, much less know for a fact when it was manufactured. Even if you claim to have ‘seen’ the shroud in person, yet you hadn’t really at all, since all you would have ‘seen’ is physical light reflecting off of it rather than it itself. In either case you are taking on faith things unseen. You are now free to carry on, O fellow believer.

 

[puzzleannie]

we got off topic when we started discussing claims or counter-claims about the Shroud in general, rather than the specific text a researcher claims to have discovered, as referenced in OP. since this thread is nothing more than a re-hash of all previous discussions of all previous evidence or its refutation, and only one or two posters have actually referenced the topic in question, namely the “text message” then I see no value in continuing the discussion.

I said I have no opinion one way or the other on the authenticity of the Shroud itself. I have lots of opinions on the various claims and counter-claims about the Shroud and about the competence of people who make such claims.

 

[tm30]

Why would it appear illogical?

Because no one would expect a phenomenon that was, as yet, undiscovered. The equivalent would be Leonardo da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa with a cellphone at her ear. A forgery, by definition, has to be based on something real. You can’t forge something that doesn’t exist in physicality or concept.

I’m not making any such assumption. Do you think N.C. Wyeth painted “Family Portrait” in the knowledge that people would be able x-ray it and reveal the work he had painted over?

Of course not. Van Gogh used to paint over his existing painted canvases, too, for financial reasons. I’m not sure what this has to do with the Shroud and negative phenomenon, however.

Occam’s Razor would have us believe that it is, in fact, a forgery.

How do you reach that conclusion? There’s zero evidence that there’s a forgery. In fact, there’s zero evidence of an artist. Reason dictates that, to have human intervention, somewhere, a human must be evident. The notoriety of such a person, whose work ended up in castles and among the nobility would not have been lost to the ages.

Are you kidding? Selling “relics” was big business in the Middle Ages. There are numerous shrouds in cathedrals in Europe and the Mediterranean all of which are purported to be the burial shroud of Jesus.

And yet, the Church has not hesitated to debunk those, plus, there’s no evidence this relic was ever “sold” to anyone. What would be the motive of the Church to promote a hoax that has no material consequence to our salvation, while debunking others? Again, the motive is not there.

 

[tm30]

Or, better still, do you believe that Leonardo Da Vinci painted “The Virgin of the Rocks” in the knowledge that infrared reflectography could be used to reveal the image he had painted over?

Exactly my point. Why (and how) would the forger of a shroud painstakingly create a work that couldn’t be fully visible to anyone at the time it was supposedly created? You’re implying that the shroud artist went into all that intricate detail without intending anyone to see it until a phenomenon he had no inkling of would be discovered hundreds of years later. That doesn’t seem at all credible.

Are you implying that the negative image is something that was painted over? Because da Vinci painted over some of his paintings? I don’t follow your reasoning.

 

[puzzleannie]

I could carry on for a long time, but you get the idea. I suggest you research this relic, which I have no doubt is authentic. I do not believe this by faith, but by empirical evidence.

fine then start another thread or join one of dozens of old threads on the general topic of the Shroud

This thread is supposed to be about a specific event reported in the news, namely the alleged discovery by a researcher of writing on the Shroud. Is it too much to ask the discussion be limited to that specific topic?

as I have said so often I am tired of saying, I have no opinion one way or the other on the authenticity of the Shroud as the burial cloth of Christ. I have strong opinions however on the so-called evidence supporting and denying it’s authenticity, and those are based on professional experience and the science surrounding it. I also have strong opinions on the competence and agendae of the various people posing the claims and counter-claims. Don’t try to convince me on the Shroud or any artifact. That is pointless, my opinion and yours are equally worthless. The artifact can stand or fail on its own merits and qualities and requires no defense if authentic.

Rather spend time defending the Faith and proclaiming the Good News of Christ’s saving work, than in otherwise good Christians debating over what is still a created object, like shoppers haggling over sales items on black Friday.

This is the perfect place for you staunch defenders to talk about the text itself and the merits of the alleged discovery, yet you insist on going over old ground. Why? why don’t you take the opportunity which has presented itself to examine that new evidence?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Because no one would expect a phenomenon that was, as yet, undiscovered.

Why do you keep assuming that the forger would have known that the shroud could be x-rayed and the contrast adjusted to reveal a three dimensional image?

A forgery, by definition, has to be based on something real.

All the forger would have needed was a human body, some linen, iron oxide, fire, and water.

I’m not sure what this has to do with the Shroud and negative phenomenon, however.

It hast to do with your assertion that the forger had to have known about negative phenomenon.

How do you reach that conclusion?

The simplest explanation tends to be the right one. The simplest explanation is that the Shroud of Turin is the product of a Medieval forger.

And yet, the Church has not hesitated to debunk those…

When has the Church ever debunked those?

What would be the motive of the Church to promote a hoax that has no material consequence to our salvation…

The Shroud of Turin has been decried as a hoax since it emerged in the 14th century. The general consensus is that it doesn’t matter if a “relic” is genuine so long as it inspires faith. There are numerous “relics” in Cathedrals all over Europe and the Mediterranean which probably are not genuine.