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

[McCall1981]

According to this article, even the Archbishop of Turin wasn’t convinced by the new evidence.

From the article:

*As a professional skeptic, Nickell can be expected to voice doubt about the book. But criticism also came from Archbishop Nosiglia.

Because there’s “no degree of security” as to the authenticity of the fiber samples, the shroud’s custodians “cannot recognize any serious value to the results of these alleged experiments,” Nosiglia said in a statement quoted by La Stampa’s Vatican Insider. The archbishop’s comments “put stakes into Fanti’s work,” Vatican Insider reported.*

To be fair, no one from the Church can EVER say “well now we know it’s real” or say anything too definitive in case it someday turns out to be not genuine. They could say they personally believe it, but they have to maintain a sort of distance, and its only right that they do so, given that the Shroud is not part of Church doctrine.

 

[is_it_possible]

If the shroud is real, shouldn’t science be able to clone Jesus? Larry King discusses the possibilities with a priest here…

youtube.com/watch?v=0y6LUDNbcoc

 

[cornbread_r2]

Some folks work diligently to maintain their neutrality or skepticism toward the Holy Shroud’s authenticity. Note that the archbishop fails to address Abyssinia’s ten points, nor does he counter scores of other putative authenticating facts that investigators have unearthed. At this moment, there simply is no rational reason to disbelieve, IMO. Blessings, Rob mysteries

I’m pretty sure that the archbishop was just commenting on Dr. Fanti’s recent work and claim of proof. I assume – as the Archbishop of Turin – he accepts the Shroud’s authenticity for other reasons.

 

[Chopper_Read]

Great explanation of Shroud of Turin: That’s all a lot of hooey. Clearly some 14th century con artist simply obtained 1,400 year old flower spores that only grown in Jerusalem, 1,400 year old linen of a style only used around Jerusalem, then embarked upon the world’s most-detailed understanding of internal human physiology - particularly bone/tendon relationships - 300 years before medicine did it, then created the concept of the photonegative inverse image 600 years before photography, then invented a way for himself to see in photonegative, in order to make the first and only manually created 3-Dimensional image out of some unknown but nonetheless easily doable material, which then radioactively fluoresced the 3D image of the body, twounds, bones, teeth, tendons, etc inside of the linen fibers (rather than atop them as an ink or paint would have done), well - plus invented the radiocyclotron for refining radioactive materials 350 years before science did it, then invented radioactive fission. From there, all you need is to invent the science of cytogenetics 680 years before science did it so you can create DNA chromosomes with half their normal centromere/telemere sets so it appears as though the subject “didn’t have a human father” (rolls eyes) … and Bingo, Et Voila. So utterly transparent to all we smart people that it’s a forgery.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Great explanation of Shroud of Turin: That’s all a lot of hooey. Clearly some 14th century con artist simply obtained 1,400 year old flower spores that only grown in Jerusalem, 1,400 year old linen of a style only used around Jerusalem, then embarked upon the world’s most-detailed understanding of internal human physiology - particularly bone/tendon relationships - 300 years before medicine did it, then created the concept of the photonegative inverse image 600 years before photography, then invented a way for himself to see in photonegative, in order to make the first and only manually created 3-Dimensional image out of some unknown but nonetheless easily doable material, which then radioactively fluoresced the 3D image of the body, twounds, bones, teeth, tendons, etc inside of the linen fibers (rather than atop them as an ink or paint would have done), well - plus invented the radiocyclotron for refining radioactive materials 350 years before science did it, then invented radioactive fission. From there, all you need is to invent the science of cytogenetics 680 years before science did it so you can create DNA chromosomes with half their normal centromere/telemere sets so it appears as though the subject “didn’t have a human father” (rolls eyes) … and Bingo, Et Voila. So utterly transparent to all we smart people that it’s a forgery.

And they call me a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

Why isn’t the shroud bloodier?

 

[RACJ]

Great explanation of Shroud of Turin: That’s all a lot of hooey. Clearly some 14th century con artist simply obtained 1,400 year old flower spores that only grown in Jerusalem, 1,400 year old linen of a style only used around Jerusalem, then embarked upon the world’s most-detailed understanding of internal human physiology - particularly bone/tendon relationships - 300 years before medicine did it, then created the concept of the photonegative inverse image 600 years before photography, then invented a way for himself to see in photonegative, in order to make the first and only manually created 3-Dimensional image out of some unknown but nonetheless easily doable material, which then radioactively fluoresced the 3D image of the body, twounds, bones, teeth, tendons, etc inside of the linen fibers (rather than atop them as an ink or paint would have done), well - plus invented the radiocyclotron for refining radioactive materials 350 years before science did it, then invented radioactive fission. From there, all you need is to invent the science of cytogenetics 680 years before science did it so you can create DNA chromosomes with half their normal centromere/telemere sets so it appears as though the subject “didn’t have a human father” (rolls eyes) … and Bingo, Et Voila. So utterly transparent to all we smart people that it’s a forgery.

The forgery was masterminded by the same guy who whitewashed women from the Last Supper! Thought you’d like to know! Rob

 

[tafan]

Why isn’t the shroud bloodier?

It is likely that Jesus had lost much of his blood by the time he was placed in the tomb. A dead body does not bleed like one that is alive, since there is no blood pressure. The blood left in the body will go to the lowest point possible, and drain out an open wound. All of this process was likely done by the time of the burial (likely a couple of hours at least after His death.

 

[RACJ]

Yes, by the time our Lord was laid in the Holy Shroud, the blood flow would have slowed to a trickle. Blessings, Rob

 

[Boulder257]

Cool story. I can’t help but think that no matter how much evidence is presented some people are just going to refuse to believe anyway. While I think this is a great story and confirms what I already believe, I’m not sure it’s going to change the mind of any skeptics.

 

[Elizium23]

Much of Jesus’ blood was washed away in the ritual of Jewish burial. The blood that was required to stay was the life blood, that is, blood that had been shed that same day. If you look at the shroud, you will see for example that His scourging, which happened early in His Passion, was washed away, while the blood that came from His pierced side was left alone. Life blood.

 

[humble_catholic]

I’m pretty sure that the archbishop was just commenting on Dr. Fanti’s recent work and claim of proof. I assume – as the Archbishop of Turin – he accepts the Shroud’s authenticity for other reasons.

Fantis work all hinges on whether those fibers that were tested we from Riggi or not. Fanti says he can prove the trail of evidence that proves that the fibers tested are from the shroud and he says he has witnesses that attest to this. He also says he has a photo of the samples with the seal of the then archbishop of turin Ballestero who was in charge of the turin shroud at that time. If this can be shown (and I feel Fanti will be able to show it, or else he wouldn’t have released the results of these tests), then shroud skeptics will be painted in a corner that will be very hard to get out of.

Fanti has allready submitted his tests to peer review in a specialist journal but it will take months to know if they pass peer review.

This is a fantastic article here by Stephen Jones on his shroud blog

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-tests-by-prof-giulio-fanti-show.html

Things are gonna get exciting in the next 6 months.

But we allready have Ray Rogers peer reviewed paper in thermochimica acta which not only showed that the pieces taken from that one corner for the 88 c14 tests were from a repair, and were very different chemically then any other area of the shroud .

His vanillin tests on the 88 c14 fibers show it to test positive for vanillin, making it much younger then the rest of the shroud which tested negative for vanillin the fire making the shroud much much older then the 88 c14 corner piece. In fact Rogers dated the rest of the shroud to be between 1300 and 3000 years old.

shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

Fantis tests , if they pass peer review pit the shroud smack dab in the time of Christ with a much more narrow time frame then Ray Rogers vanillin tests.
Towards the end of his life Rogers started to believe that the shroud could be from the time of Christ but because he is an agnostic tried to find a naturalistic explanation for the shroud image called the Maillard reaction , which also failed to explain the image.
So far every naturalistic explanation has failed to explain how the image got there.

When will they understand that this image can’t be explained naturalistically

 

[humble_catholic]

You’re assuming that this quality couldn’t possibly be accidental. An assumption proved wrong by the reproduction of this shroud.

If I could trouble you to read, in the link I posted, how the shroud was successfully reproduced with medieval materials and methods you would find that painting the image on the shroud is not how it would have been done. A medieval forger would not have been foolish enough to paint a two-dimensional image as it would have been an obvious fake.

You are probably talking about the 2009 replication attempt of the shroud which was a total fail. That’s not even talked about by shroud skeptics anymore. It didnt even come close to replicating many of the shroud’s unique characteristics, plus in the 2009 replication, the image was put on the cloth first, while on the shroud sturp proved that the blood on the shroud came before the image was formed.

No one who has done serious shroud research considers the 2009 replica valid anymore whether they are pro or anti authenticity in their stance. I had never heard of the shroud of turin until 2009 when I was lurking on this forum and a few atheists came in saying the shroud was replicated and its now been proven to be a forgery. That peaked my curiousity and I started researching the shroud and its been 4 years of research since then. How ironic that it was a group of loud atheists that lead me into first knowing about and then researching the shroud.

A little research shows that Luigi Garlaschelli’s replica was nothing like the shroud and was nothing more then a cheap carbon copy.

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2012/07/my-critique-of-charles-freemans-turin_10.html

Third, there are no true “duplicates” of the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud’s image is that of a full-sized man, front and back, head to head, filling most of the cloth’s ~4.4 metres length; it is extremely faint and cannot be seen up close; it is a type of photographic negative; it is extremely superficial, being only 0.0002 mm thick; it has three-dimensional information encoded in it; the cloth has no artist’s outline, it has no directionality; there is no paint, pigment or dye on it which forms its image; the bloodstains are real blood, and there is no image under the bloodstains, i.e. the blood was on the cloth before the image.

And all attempts to produce a duplicate of the Shroud with all these major features have failed. The latest such failed duplication, that of Luigi Garlaschelli, who only produced a face, not a full length image on

[Above: Duplicate' of the Shroud’ by Prof. Luigi Garlaschelli: Sindonology.org, October 11, 2009. “More information about the tentative reproduction of the Shroud of Turin, made by an Italian researcher, came out in the last few days. Luigi Garlaschelli made public a few digital images of the result of his reproduction on the Web. The result is clearly not like the Shroud. Here are the major differences of this reproduction compared to the Shroud of Turin: *The anatomical details of the face and body do not have the precision of the Shroud. *The 3D effect does not have the precision found on the Shroud. On the tentative reproduction there are many locations where no image appears whereas one is perceivable on the Shroud of Turin. This is due to the technique used: an image made by contact. *The color of images of the reproduction has a red hue (images after washing red ocre) whereas on the Shroud of Turin it has a yellow-straw hue. *No microphotographies of the reproduction are provided. They should show that the images are superficial like the Shroud of Turin. Based on the technique used to create these images, we can infer that the images are not superficial. *In summary, the tentative reproduction of Luigi Garlaschelli is very far from being a reproduction of the Shroud of Turin.”]

a ~4.4 x 1.1 metre sheet of linen. And as one commentator pointed out, “… the modern [Garlaschelli’s] copy is garish, lacking any gradations of tone” and is “completely inferior”:

“As recently as October 2009 came yet another claim to have reproduced' how the Shroud was faked. Luigi Garlaschelli ... Professor of Organic Chemistry at the University of Pavia in Italy, has made something of a speciality of debunking claims of religious paranormal phenomena. ... In the case of the Shroud, Garlaschelli's method was to place a linen sheet flat over a volunteer model, then rub this with a pigment containing acid. The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven, then the cloth was washed. This process removed the pigment from the surface but left an image reputedly similar to that of the Shroud. Garlaschelli's claim, presented at a conference in northern Italy for atheists and agnostics, prompted a flurry of news headlines around the world. Yet even the most cursory comparison between his 'negative' ... and that on the Shroud reveals the former as hardly the 'definitive proof' of the Shroud's fraudulence that he has claimed for it. As remarked by one 'general public' commentator on the Reuters news story, Why isn’t anyone saying the obvious? Compare these two images … the modern copy is garish, lacking any gradations of tone … it’s completely inferior, especially when one contrasts the faces and the chest areas.’”." (Wilson, 2010, p.29).
Moreover, Garlaschelli’s Shroud duplicate' is disqualified, because he applied the blood’ after he made the image, whereas on the Shroud of Turin, the blood was on the cloth before the image (which would be the case if the image was caused by Jesus’ resurrection):

“Actually, the technique describes by Garlaschelli to reproduce the Shroud demonstrates that he did not reproduce it. For example, he added blood stains after he created the image. On the real Shroud of Turin, there is no image underneath the bloodstains. A basic fact known since 1978.” Sindonology.org, October 9, 2009).

 

[StillCatholic]

Much of Jesus’ blood was washed away in the ritual of Jewish burial. The blood that was required to stay was the life blood, that is, blood that had been shed that same day. If you look at the shroud, you will see for example that His scourging, which happened early in His Passion, was washed away, while the blood that came from His pierced side was left alone. Life blood.

Good point!

 

[RACJ]

You are probably talking about the 2009 replication attempt of the shroud which was a total fail. That’s not even talked about by shroud skeptics anymore. It didnt even come close to replicating many of the shroud’s unique characteristics, plus in the 2009 replication, the image was put on the cloth first, while on the shroud sturp proved that the blood on the shroud came before the image was formed.

No one who has done serious shroud research considers the 2009 replica valid anymore whether they are pro or anti authenticity in their stance. I had never heard of the shroud of turin until 2009 when I was lurking on this forum and a few atheists came in saying the shroud was replicated and its now been proven to be a forgery. That peaked my curiousity and I started researching the shroud and its been 4 years of research since then. How ironic that it was a group of loud atheists that lead me into first knowing about and then researching the shroud.

A little research shows that Luigi Garlaschelli’s replica was nothing like the shroud and was nothing more then a cheap carbon copy.

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2012/07/my-critique-of-charles-freemans-turin_10.html

Third, there are no true “duplicates” of the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud’s image is that of a full-sized man, front and back, head to head, filling most of the cloth’s ~4.4 metres length; it is extremely faint and cannot be seen up close; it is a type of photographic negative; it is extremely superficial, being only 0.0002 mm thick; it has three-dimensional information encoded in it; the cloth has no artist’s outline, it has no directionality; there is no paint, pigment or dye on it which forms its image; the bloodstains are real blood, and there is no image under the bloodstains, i.e. the blood was on the cloth before the image.

And all attempts to produce a duplicate of the Shroud with all these major features have failed. The latest such failed duplication, that of Luigi Garlaschelli, who only produced a face, not a full length image on

[Above: Duplicate' of the Shroud’ by Prof. Luigi Garlaschelli: Sindonology.org, October 11, 2009. “More information about the tentative reproduction of the Shroud of Turin, made by an Italian researcher, came out in the last few days. Luigi Garlaschelli made public a few digital images of the result of his reproduction on the Web. The result is clearly not like the Shroud. Here are the major differences of this reproduction compared to the Shroud of Turin: *The anatomical details of the face and body do not have the precision of the Shroud. *The 3D effect does not have the precision found on the Shroud. On the tentative reproduction there are many locations where no image appears whereas one is perceivable on the Shroud of Turin. This is due to the technique used: an image made by contact. *The color of images of the reproduction has a red hue (images after washing red ocre) whereas on the Shroud of Turin it has a yellow-straw hue. *No microphotographies of the reproduction are provided. They should show that the images are superficial like the Shroud of Turin. Based on the technique used to create these images, we can infer that the images are not superficial. *In summary, the tentative reproduction of Luigi Garlaschelli is very far from being a reproduction of the Shroud of Turin.”]

a ~4.4 x 1.1 metre sheet of linen. And as one commentator pointed out, “… the modern [Garlaschelli’s] copy is garish, lacking any gradations of tone” and is “completely inferior”:

“As recently as October 2009 came yet another claim to have reproduced' how the Shroud was faked. Luigi Garlaschelli ... Professor of Organic Chemistry at the University of Pavia in Italy, has made something of a speciality of debunking claims of religious paranormal phenomena. ... In the case of the Shroud, Garlaschelli's method was to place a linen sheet flat over a volunteer model, then rub this with a pigment containing acid. The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven, then the cloth was washed. This process removed the pigment from the surface but left an image reputedly similar to that of the Shroud. Garlaschelli's claim, presented at a conference in northern Italy for atheists and agnostics, prompted a flurry of news headlines around the world. Yet even the most cursory comparison between his 'negative' ... and that on the Shroud reveals the former as hardly the 'definitive proof' of the Shroud's fraudulence that he has claimed for it. As remarked by one 'general public' commentator on the Reuters news story, Why isn’t anyone saying the obvious? Compare these two images … the modern copy is garish, lacking any gradations of tone … it’s completely inferior, especially when one contrasts the faces and the chest areas.’”." (Wilson, 2010, p.29).
Moreover, Garlaschelli’s Shroud duplicate' is disqualified, because he applied the blood’ after he made the image, whereas on the Shroud of Turin, the blood was on the cloth before the image (which would be the case if the image was caused by Jesus’ resurrection):

“Actually, the technique describes by Garlaschelli to reproduce the Shroud demonstrates that he did not reproduce it. For example, he added blood stains after he created the image. On the real Shroud of Turin, there is no image underneath the bloodstains. A basic fact known since 1978.” Sindonology.org, October 9, 2009).

Thank you for the fascinating update. Skeptics, where are you? Rob

 

[oldcelt]

Thank you for the fascinating update. Skeptics, where are you? Rob

It isn’t so much skepticism on my part as a realization that the range of dates 300BC to 400AD is fairly broad when trying to pin an item to a very specific event. The other major factor is that even with it being possible scientifically, the final issue regarding the shroud will always be a matter of faith.
There is not, and cannot be, any way to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the burial cloth of Christ. The new evidence merely shows that the shroud could have been created in an appropriate time frame…plus or minus a few hundred years.

 

[atheistgirl]

Skeptics, where are you? Rob

Here.

:curtsey:



Sarah x

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Here.

:curtsey:



Sarah x

It’s a photographic negative, though. No one would have even known what that meant for the 1st 1800 years (or so) of the Shroud’s existence.

 

[oldcelt]

It’s a photographic negative, though. No one would have even known what that meant for the 1st 1800 years (or so) of the Shroud’s existence.

After doing a little checking it would appear that some of the greatest skeptics come from the time when the shroud first appeared. This is a very good article:

newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm

The image upon the Shroud was therefore a natural negative and as such completely beyond the comprehension or the skill of any medieval forger.

Plausible as this contention appeared, a most serious historical difficulty had meanwhile been brought to light. Owing mainly to the researches of Canon Ulysse Chevalier a series of documents was discovered which clearly proved that in 1389 the Bishop of Troyes appealed to Clement VII, the Avignon Pope then recognized in France, to put a stop to the scandals connected to the Shroud preserved at Lirey. It was, the Bishop declared, the work of an artist who some years before had confessed to having painted it but it was then being exhibited by the Canons of Lirey in such a way that the populace believed that it was the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ. The pope, without absolutely prohibiting the exhibition of the Shroud, decided after full examination that in the future when it was shown to the people, the priest should declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ, but only a picture made to represent it. The authenticity of the documents connected with this appeal is not disputed. Moreover, the grave suspicion thus thrown upon the relic is immensely strengthened by the fact that no intelligible account, beyond wild conjecture, can be given of the previous history of the Shroud or its coming to Lirey.

 

[oldcelt]

Another snippet from the same article on New Advent:

Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.

newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm