L
Lucky7
Guest
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”
- Status
A
ajecphotos
Guest
To imagine that one is looking at the face of Our Lord! What joy that would be. I for one have an open mind on the subject but all the evidence so far is pointing in the right direction.
I know one doesn’t need ‘proof’ and sometimes faith alone is enough but I remember what is said about being careful of jumping in with both feet and saying something is what it ain’t could be devastating to ones beliefs.
Oh Lord God, please let the world see your face. Please let the world believe in you Our Dear Saviour. Please help the church with the shroud.
I know one doesn’t need ‘proof’ and sometimes faith alone is enough but I remember what is said about being careful of jumping in with both feet and saying something is what it ain’t could be devastating to ones beliefs.
Oh Lord God, please let the world see your face. Please let the world believe in you Our Dear Saviour. Please help the church with the shroud.
K
KEP1983
Guest
You’re confusing having the same appearance with being the same.
For instance, let’s assume I were copying a Rembrandt painting. I could trace out the image and then paint the whole painting in a single layer, on cotton canvas, with acrylic gesso.
But the original would have been painted in dozens upon dozens of layers, with linen or hemp, and rabbit skin glue.
The untrained eye would assume they’re the same, but they’re not. The materials and chemical make-up would be completely different.
Again, artists from the 14th century had no knowledge of photography, let alone photographic negatives. They also didn’t have knowledge of anatomy, perspective, and form, so this image couldn’t have been drawn or painted in the 14th century.
Saying a 14th century artist created this is like coming across an Italian baroque painting from the 17th century, and claiming it was painted by Native Americans before Columbus arrived. The technique and knowledge is completely anachronistic.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I watched this recently on EWTN, fascinating research and history which Biblically aligns well. Amazing
S
simplequest
Guest
This isn’t really much of an argument. Basically your argument comes down to this: we don’t know how someone could have done this, therefore, Jesus. Not really convincing.
C
Crescentinus
Guest
Wrong. The Shroud of Turin had been tested.
T
Tampa_Dave
Guest
While not critical to my faith, I believe the Shroud is authentic.
B
brumano
Guest
Maybe you’ve actually hit at the secret. Let’s say an artistic genius like DaVinci produced the shroud and keep that shroud seperate in your mind, it won’t account for the shroud that would be missing which is the actual shroud that we know existed because of the gospel information in John. Peter and John ran to the tomb John outran Peter and went into the tomb first, then Peter went in they took some time taking in what they saw and what they did not see; they were not completely sure in the belief that Jesus had risen from seeing that the tomb was empty it was not until they see the burial cloth folded in one place and the the other cloth rolled up and set in it’s own place. Then and only then are they convinced. They are convinced by seeing these two objects where they are, not by an image that they see on the burial cloth. The two parts of the burial garment had to be placed where they were by the ressurected Jesus, robbers would never remove the body from the shroud, but if for any reason they did they would most likely not put them in two seperate places or fold them up nice and neatly, they would most likely peel back the front of the shroud remove the body and go. If John and Peter see anything else in the tomb they will still retain some doubt at that point in time. So the possible DaVinci artwork won’t work because it would become a fake of something, the image that is, that was never known to the world to exist.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
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.
M
maryj
Guest
youtube.com/watch?v=FcKTkjWkqEU
Dr. J. Wayne Phillips, he was on women of grace on EWTN last year and also last week speaking on the Shroud of Turin…well worth the time to listen.
Dr. J. Wayne Phillips, he was on women of grace on EWTN last year and also last week speaking on the Shroud of Turin…well worth the time to listen.
P
patrick457
Guest
For me, for a copy to be ‘successful’ it needs first to replicate the known properties of the cloth. As I mentioned earlier, we know that the ‘blood’ (and apparently what looks like serum) stains were formed first on the cloth before the image because there is no image under the stains (which had seeped through), these inhibiting the image formation mechanism. Also, the topmost fibers are coated with a very thin, clear polysaccharide residue, which in placed had changed into a caramel-like substance via the Maillard reaction, which forms the image we see. Unlike the stains, the image resides on sections of fibers that are at the surface or within a couple of fibers deep from the surface, making it very fragile and superficial. Same goes for the ghostly face image found on the back of the cloth.
Incidentally, here are some comments regarding the Garlaschelli experiment.
H
HansTrappist
Guest
I think the convergence of evidence - the cumulative evidence - is clear: the Shroud of Turin is authentic.
The Carbon 14 dating of the Shroud to the Middle Ages was demonstrated to be inaccurate due to a contaminated sample of the Shroud being tested. Raymond Rogers, who served as Director of Chemical Research for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) in 1978, debunked the myth that the Shroud of Turin was a Middle Ages forgery:
Rogers’ continual study of the Shroud resulted from a 2000 study by Joseph Marino and Sue Benford, based on x-ray analysis of the sample sites, shows a probable seam from a repair attempt running diagonally through the area from which the sample was taken. These researchers conclude that the samples tested by the three labs were more or less contaminated by this repair attempt. They further note that the results of the three labs show an angular skewing corresponding to the diagonal seam: the first sample in Arizona dated to 1238, the second to 1430, with the Oxford and Swiss results falling in between. They add that the variance of the C-14 results of the three labs falls outside the bounds of the Pearson’s chi-square test, so that some additional explanation should be sought for the discrepancy.[3] The claims by Marino and Benford on the lack of statistical consistency of the results of the 1988 radiocarbon test were in contrast with the conclusions of J.A. Christen, who, in 1994, claimed to have applied a “robust approach” (Bayesian) to the radiocarbon data and concluded that the given age for the Shroud was correct, from a statistical point of view.[4]
When Rogers saw the paper by Marino and Benford, his reaction was that they were not scientists,[5] their theory was ridiculous, and that he still had fiber samples he had taken from the Shroud that could disprove their theory. Upon examining the fibers under a microscope, however, he concluded that, as they had hypothesized, a cotton patch had been woven into the linen fibers and then dyed to match the color of the linen. This was possible because linen is strongly resistant to dyes but cotton is not. Rogers claimed that the repair had gone undetected because it was expertly done, there was no record of it, none of the STURP team were textile experts, and the area had not previously been a major focus of any major Shroud researchers’ attention because it was outside the image area.
Rogers claimed that under the microscope he could see the undyed linen fibers, the cotton fibers and the dye on the cotton fibers. Because he knew he had terminal cancer he contacted his friend and fellow STURP researcher Barrie Schwortz to record interviews, etc.[6] He also sent some of the fibers to a research lab for independent examination. When they were preparing samples, in one case they accidentally pulled apart the cotton and linen sections of one fiber. Schwortz reexamined false-color x-ray fluorescent photographs of the Shroud taken by STURP and pointed out that the sample for radiocarbon dating was taken from the only section that showed up green, indicating it had different chemical properties from the rest of the Shroud, but no one had previously paid attention to the color difference because the green portion is from a section that does not contain part of the image. In December 2008 the Discovery Channel in the United States presented a documentary titled Unwrapping the Shroud: New Evidence containing a detailed explanation of the repair and footage of Schwortz and of Rogers discussing their new findings.[7] Few month before his death Rogers submitted an article describing his findings to a peer-reviewed journal and it was published less than two months before Raymond Rogers died.[8] The essential conclusion of the article is that the radiocarbon datings were accurate, but because the samples were from cloth that was not part of the original Shroud, they are irrelevant regarding the age of the image area. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Rogers
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Considering the source, it doesn’t surprise me. STURP was never really intended to be a true scientific inquiry. They flatly rejected any evidence, collected and discovered by their own team members, suggesting that the shroud is not authentic.
P
patrick457
Guest
Your source for that?Considering the source, it doesn’t surprise me. STURP was never really intended to be a true scientific inquiry. They flatly rejected any evidence, collected and discovered by their own team members, suggesting that the shroud is not authentic.
J
JimG
Guest
Thanks for posting the link to that pdf document. The person who claims to have “reproduced” the Shroud seems to have very little knowledge of the Shroud.
J
JimG
Guest
Good grief. If anyone thinks the scientists working on the Shroud of Turin Research Project were biased, I would suggest reading the Stevens and Habermans book about the study, along with all the other material available.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
I read Patrick’s link too, and had a similar thought. I couldn’t understand how anyone could claim that anything of significance had been achieved (other than, to perhaps, highlight again how extraordinary the shroud is).
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
A man tells his friend that his house his haunted. His friend laughs and tells him that there is no such thing. The man insists that he really saw a ghost, and his books were flung across the room from his bookshelf in front of his eyes. His friend decides to come to the man’s house so he can explain it and prove that there are no ghosts.
Now the friend is sleeping in the guest room, then wakes up at four in the morning. There is a terrifying moan coming from the living room. He slowly tiptoes to the room, where it gets louder and louder. Once he’s there he looks around for hidden speakers, and unable to find them he says, as if to the man, “Very funny, I am onto you!” Then a sudden invisible force lifts him up and throws him against a wall.
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.
T
Tampa_Dave
Guest
I think Shroud skeptics are deluding themselves in light of all the research findings following the flawed carbon dating tests. Hey, but that’s just my opinion.
T
tafan
Guest
I believe the Shroud to be authentic.
As to the earlier history of it, before the 14th century, there is more than most people acknowledge. Certainly nothing that can be historically verified, but the record is not bare. The Image of Ephesus is likely the Shround folded, IMO.
I have read details of the carbon dating from 1988, and it is certainly inconclusive.
The link posted as the the reproduction made using middle age technology is not really convincing, and obviously done with as much bias against the shroud than the scientific studies favoring the shroud. You will note that any study that seems to “support the Shroud” does nothing more than give their specific findings (ie, it is a possible from the 1st century) and makes not claims about it being authentic. OTOH, the person who did the reproduction states categorically that just because he was able to reproduce it, it proves the shroud is not authentic. An obvious sign of bias.
Having said all of that, the shroud is not, and has never been an important part of my Catholic faith. In the late 80s, when everyone stated it was from the medieval times, I thought that was conclusive and it did not shake my faith one bit.
Now, as more and more evidence suggests it is authentic, one does wonder about God’s ways. Perhaps, Jesus knew there would come a time when society as a whole would need a greater level of concrete evidence of His passion. Just idle speculation.
As to the earlier history of it, before the 14th century, there is more than most people acknowledge. Certainly nothing that can be historically verified, but the record is not bare. The Image of Ephesus is likely the Shround folded, IMO.
I have read details of the carbon dating from 1988, and it is certainly inconclusive.
The link posted as the the reproduction made using middle age technology is not really convincing, and obviously done with as much bias against the shroud than the scientific studies favoring the shroud. You will note that any study that seems to “support the Shroud” does nothing more than give their specific findings (ie, it is a possible from the 1st century) and makes not claims about it being authentic. OTOH, the person who did the reproduction states categorically that just because he was able to reproduce it, it proves the shroud is not authentic. An obvious sign of bias.
Having said all of that, the shroud is not, and has never been an important part of my Catholic faith. In the late 80s, when everyone stated it was from the medieval times, I thought that was conclusive and it did not shake my faith one bit.
Now, as more and more evidence suggests it is authentic, one does wonder about God’s ways. Perhaps, Jesus knew there would come a time when society as a whole would need a greater level of concrete evidence of His passion. Just idle speculation.
- Status