Shroud of Turin confirmed to date to the 1st century AD

  • Thread starter Thread starter McCall1981
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EmperorNapoleon said:
Well, someone was able to reproduce the shroud using medieval methods. Whether it is authentic is still a matter of scientific and historical debate. There is no historical record of this shroud prior to the mid-14th century and scientific testing did reveal the presence of red ochre. So, there are still three possibilities. It could be real, it could be a medieval fake, or it could be real with medieval embellishment.
Click to expand...
This addresses the Shroud prior to the mid-14th century:

biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/03/14/The-Shroud-of-Turins-Earlier-History-Part-One-To-Edessa.aspx
 
lax16 said:
This addresses the Shroud prior to the mid-14th century:

biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/03/14/The-Shroud-of-Turins-Earlier-History-Part-One-To-Edessa.aspx
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it doesn’t. The article tries to make the case that the Shroud of Turin is the Image of Edessa; a big mistake. The legends of the Image of Edessa are sketchy and inconsistent at best. They don’t even describe the same item, if such an item ever existed, and they certainly don’t agree on its origins.
 
InJesusItrust said:
When the man asks, the friend admits that there are strange things happening in the house. “But,” he says, “I don’t think there is a ghost. Just because I can’t explain what is going on does not mean that there is a ghost.” And he is right, there is no absolute proof there is a ghost, but that is besides the point.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that the shroud is some sort of poltergeist?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Unfortunately, it doesn’t. The article tries to make the case that the Shroud of Turin is the Image of Edessa; a big mistake. The legends of the Image of Edessa are sketchy and inconsistent at best. They don’t even describe the same item, if such an item ever existed, and they certainly don’t agree on its origins.
Click to expand...
Care to show us why and how?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Unfortunately, it doesn’t. The article tries to make the case that the Shroud of Turin is the Image of Edessa; a big mistake. The legends of the Image of Edessa are sketchy and inconsistent at best. They don’t even describe the same item, if such an item ever existed, and they certainly don’t agree on its origins.
Click to expand...
How convenient for you, to toss out all historical records and declare that the Image of Edessa is a mere legend. It makes the declaration that the Shroud is a medieval forgery soooo much easier.

BTW, historical records include both written and pictorial accounts. I’m waiting for your explanation of how all religious art depictions of the face of Jesus suddenly became standardized everywhere when the “legendary” Image of Edessa made its appearance, and how all those images have so many points of convergence with the Shroud face.

And have you ever heard of another cloth which is called the Sudarium of Oviedo, which has bloodstains that match the Shroud in 120 places? The known, dated history of the Sudarium extends well beyond the historical gap between the appearance of the Shroud and the disappearence of the Image of Edessa.

Another legend? No. Merely another kink in your claims of “big mistakes.” Gee.
 
I just don’t see how people can be skeptical of the evidence pointing toward the Shroud of Turin being authentic. There are many, MANY pieces of evidence that make me a believer in the authenticity of the Shroud but I have to say the three most compelling pieces of evidence are as follows:
  1. The pollen found on the Shroud. 3 types of pollen that were found to be on the Shroud are native only to Jerusalem. Another 14 types of pollen are native only to Israel. All 17 of these begin to bloom in the months of March and April - right around the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. What’s more…after examining the area of the image’s head where the crown of thorns would have been, scientists discovered traces of pollen from a thorn plant called Gundelia Tournefortli. This is a species of thorn plant native to the desert of Israel and Palestine. There are also pollen types native only to Turkey, Istanbul, and France found on the Shroud. This backs up the tentative history of the Shroud and its travels through Edessa and Constantinople before it finally arrived in France.
  2. The blood found on the Shroud. Firstly, scientists know from their study of the Shroud that the blood was there before the image was created. Also…forensic scientists, when they first saw the blood on the Shroud, believed it to be a forgery because the blood was red. After a couple of weeks the blood should turn black but upon further analysis these scientists figured out just why the blood was still red. When they took the blood samples back to their lab, they found high concentrations of a substance called Bilirubin. What is this? It’s a breakdown product of broken red blood cells. If you’re scourged, beaten up, or tortured, the red blood cells inside your circulatory system are breaking up from the tremendous trauma being inflicted upon your body. And the product these blood cells are producing as they are breaking up is Bilirubin. This stuff gets sucked up by the remaining red blood cells and adds the red color to the blood.
  3. The blood stains on the wrist. Church tradition has long held that the nails went through the palm of Christ’s hands at the crucifixion. This is how Christ was believed to have died in the Middle Ages and this was the line of thinking all the way until fairly recently when scientists found that the nails couldn’t support the weight of the body from the palms of the hand. The nails would have had to have gone through Christ’s wrists. The Shroud shows the nails doing just that despite every other image, painting, carving, crucifix, etc. from that era showing the nails going through the palms of his hands. Now…such a wound through the wrist would have severed the Median Nerve - the nerve that controls the motor muscle of the thumb. With that nerve severed, the muscles would have gone kapoot and the thumb would have gone limp. Note the Shroud of Turin. There are only four fingers on each hand as the thumbs are missing.
So…if this thing was indeed produced by some artist in the 13th or 14th Century he would have to go down as a man ahead of his time, both artistically and scientifically speaking. To this day scientists are still baffled as how he created the image. While someone was able to demonstrate several years ago that one could create an exact replica of the Shroud of Turin using materials available to artists in the 13th Century, what they failed to realize is that the image on the Shroud contains no pigments, oils, or man-made materials found on the periodic table of any kind. So while they proved that it was possible to make an accurate replica of the image using medieval techniques, they still fail to prove exactly how the original image was created.

Also…this artist would have to know things about human anatomy and botany that would not be discovered for centuries. How did the artist know to use tortured red blood cells when, at least to the people of the Middle Ages, blood was blood? How did the artist know that a nail through the wrist would have caused a loss of motor function to the thumb? How did the artist know to use different pollen types when the process of cross pollination and the differences between pollens in general were still centuries away from being discovered?

These are questions that aren’t easily answered.
 
patrick457 said:
Care to show us why and how?
Click to expand...
Lets start at the very beginning and I’ll try to summarize with bullet points.
  • The origin, and first mention, of the Image of Edessa was documented in an account of its history in 400 C.E. This account describes it as a portrait of the face of Jesus painted on a small square cloth by the artist Hannan while serving as an envoy of King Abgarus V of Edessa to Jesus himself. Many years after the death of King Abgarus V, the cloth was hidden behind a wall tile by the Bishop of Edessa. The story goes that the image left an impression on the tile (this tile is alleged to be the origin of the Ancha Icon of the Savior) and exhibited other miraculous properties. Namely, the Bishop allegedly wielded the cloth, from which hot oil was pouring, to defeat a Persian army attacking Edessa.
  • The next mention of the Image of Edessa comes in the year 593 C.E. Except, the story of its origin has changed. Evagrius Scholasticus records that the Image of Edessa miraculously helped recapture Edessa from the Persians (Not to be confused with the above. This city frequently changed hands). This time, the face on the cloth is alleged to have been divinely created after Saint Veronica used it to wipe the blood and sweat off the face Jesus. This is now referred to as the Veil of Veronica.
  • Perhaps the most bizarre is a 10th century codex quoting an 8th century man as having said that the Image of Edessa, as presented to King Abgarus V by Hannan, was a canvas depicting the entire body of Jesus.
Only one thing is certain about the Image of Edessa; that there has never been any consensus as to what it actually is or how it was created, and none of the descriptions match the Shroud of Turin, assuming that you believe that the Shroud of Turin is more than artistry.
 
RollTide1987 said:
I just don’t see how people can be skeptical of the evidence pointing toward the Shroud of Turin being authentic. There are many, MANY pieces of evidence that make me a believer in the authenticity of the Shroud but I have to say the three most compelling pieces of evidence are as follows:
…
Click to expand...
Excellent arguments. Thankyou.
 
Nan_S said:
How convenient for you, to toss out all historical records and declare that the Image of Edessa is a mere legend.
Click to expand...
I’m not tossing out historical records. I am merely pointing out the fact that these records significantly differ in their descriptions of the Image of Edessa and its origin; as I noted in my last post.
Nan_S said:
BTW, historical records include both written and pictorial accounts. I’m waiting for your explanation of how all religious art depictions of the face of Jesus suddenly became standardized everywhere when the “legendary” Image of Edessa made its appearance…
Click to expand...
“Pictorial accounts” of the Image of Edessa depict it as a small square cloth with an artist’s portrait of Jesus’ face; as described in the first written account. When are you alleging that the Image of Edessa was publicly displayed? There are no historical records of that. Also, when are you alleging religious art depictions of Jesus became globally standardized? There are standardized depictions of Jesus in every post-crucifixtion era of artistry, they all differ, and become increasingly more European as time goes on. 🤷
Nan_S said:
…and how all those images have so many points of convergence with the Shroud face.
Click to expand...
It shouldn’t be surprising if you’re painting a human face, though I believe claims of these convergences are greatly exaggerated.
Nan_S said:
And have you ever heard of another cloth which is called the Sudarium of Oviedo, which has bloodstains that match the Shroud in 120 places?
Click to expand...
STURP never confirmed that finding; as subsequent analysis of the samples was inconclusive. Even if the discoloration on the Shroud really is blood, and it is still a matter of debate, it has not been shown that it is a genetic match to the Sudarium of Oviedo. The samples are too degraded. There are ALOT more dots to connect between the two if you are alleging they are directly related to one another.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I’m not tossing out historical records. I am merely pointing out the fact that these records significantly differ in their descriptions of the Image of Edessa and its origin; as I noted in my last post.

“Pictorial accounts” of the Image of Edessa depict it as a small square cloth with an artist’s portrait of Jesus’ face; as described in the first written account. When are you alleging that the Image of Edessa was publicly displayed? There are no historical records of that.
Click to expand...
The historical records exist. Dismissing them as “legend” like you dismiss the Image of Edessa itself is a problem.

I’ll just address one example for you: your “small square cloth” claim. One of the terms used to describe the Image of Edessa was “the tetradiplon” which means “doubled in four.” That’s a pretty funny way to describe a “small square cloth.” By the way, it wasn’t square, something which the paintings of the Image of Edessa readily show.

However, some artistic copies of the Image face WERE painted on square canvas. The so-called Veronica’s veil was probably one such copy. Saint Veronica never existed. The word “Veronica” comes from the latin words “vera icon” meaning “true image.”

The marks on the Shroud show that it was folded and placed in a frame with a circular opening around the face, marks which are readily visible on the cloth today to anyone who bothers to look.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)


(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I think on balance the evidence does point to the shroud being of the first century with exciting implications.

That being said we have to always be open to the possibility that it is not.

As far as i am aware the evidence against the authenticity is as follows.

Walter McCrone of STURP claiming that he found paint on the shroud and making the conclusion the shroud was painted (rebutted by other multiple scientists).

A letter reported to be from the 14th century Bishop Pierre d’Arcis of Troyes that the shroud was found after an enquiry by his predecessor to be painted by a local artist (i think this can be dismissed because there is no evidence of this previous investigation and modern scientists have shown the shroud was not painted).

A carbon dating in 1988 which put the origins of the shroud in the 13th or 14th centuries (since found to be unreliable because of the significant statistical disparity of the results and the subsequent finding that the piece tested was unrepresentative of the shroud with regards to cotton and madder root dye presence).

Claims that the shrouds anatomical features are unrealistic (yet to find sufficient acceptance amongst scientists).

Repeated claims that the shroud has been reproduced using medieval technology (i think all of these can so far be dismissed as they do not fully reproduce significant aspects of the Turin Shroud characteristics).
 
cerad2 said:
So are you saying that the shroud is some sort of poltergeist?
Click to expand...
If you can’t understand what I am saying now, we best give up. The point is pretty clear about the folly involved.
 
I would appreciate any comments from fellow travellers on the following questions :

Has Max Frei’s work on pollen presence been reproduced and is he a credible source of scientific finding?

Was there an unofficial radio carbon dating performed in 1984 and did those results show a wide disparity of results including that of a first century origin?

Can anyone explain the science behind the present testing that places the shroud at roughly around the time of Christ ? How does this new testing (using light) work ?

Many thanks.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Unfortunately, it doesn’t. The article tries to make the case that the Shroud of Turin is the Image of Edessa; a big mistake. The legends of the Image of Edessa are sketchy and inconsistent at best. They don’t even describe the same item, if such an item ever existed, and they certainly don’t agree on its origins.
Click to expand...
Well, at least you are willing to admit that there are legends about the Image that date back before the Middle Ages. 😉
 
abucs said:
I would appreciate any comments from fellow travellers on the following questions :

Has Max Frei’s work on pollen presence been reproduced and is he a credible source of scientific finding?
Click to expand...
Hello abucs -

Last year I attended a talk given by Dr. John and Mrs. Rebecca Jackson. The question was asked regarding the pollen presence.

Dr. Jackson said that the test on the pollen has not been reproduced and that he did not find it to be a credible finding. I am quite certain that Dr. Max Frei is deceased.
 
Nan_S said:
I’ll just address one example for you: your “small square cloth” claim. One of the terms used to describe the Image of Edessa was “the tetradiplon” which means “doubled in four.” That’s a pretty funny way to describe a “small square cloth.” By the way, it wasn’t square, something which the paintings of the Image of Edessa readily show…The marks on the Shroud show that it was folded and placed in a frame with a circular opening around the face, marks which are readily visible on the cloth today to anyone who bothers to look.
Click to expand...
Professor Andrea Nicolotti soundly debunked that theory. Besides, you certainly can’t cherrypick the Acts of Thaddeus. This 7th century account states that Jesus washed his face with a “tetradiplon”, miraculously transferring an image of his face (and only his face) onto it, and gave it to an envoy of King Abgarus. In no account is the Image of Edessa described as the burial shroud of Jesus.
lax16 said:
Well, at least you are willing to admit that there are legends about the Image that date back before the Middle Ages. 😉
Click to expand...
Only of the Image of Edessa which is not the same as the Shroud of Turin.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Unfortunately, it doesn’t. The article tries to make the case that the Shroud of Turin is the Image of Edessa; a big mistake. The legends of the Image of Edessa are sketchy and inconsistent at best. They don’t even describe the same item, if such an item ever existed, and they certainly don’t agree on its origins.
Click to expand...
Here is another link regarding the possible early history of the Shroud:

shroud.com/pdfs/markward.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top