Shroud of Turin

  • Thread starter Thread starter martino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I dont really care.
That sounds bad,but its true.Veronica is my saint,and regardless of if we have her cloth or nor,she wiped his face.He was crucified.He rose again.Its kinda like having the cross.Itd be nice to have it,but its not necessary.We know what happened.
Besides, I find that I dont believe in those tests much.We learned in school how things can alter something just a bit and throw the testing for a loop.
 
40.png
JimO:
The reference you quoted stated:

There are multiple lines of evidence that refute that the shroud was a 14th Century work. They include:
  1. anatomic and medical implications of the image, especially when one considers the limited knowledge of anatomy and medicine in the 14th Century;
Prior to the shroud’s photography, all painted images of Christ on the cross had him pierced in the palms which is impossible as the weight of the body hanging on the cross will tear the nails through the palms. The shroud shows the correct nail position - through the wrists, this way the body will not rip off the cross.
40.png
JimO:
  1. data from the image that support that the “victim” was actually crucified;
The wounds on the image supported the types of whips used by the Romans at that period - straps with barbell-like metal knobs at the ends.
Also the angle of the whip lashes to the body.
The blood flows on the arms and body corresponds to what gravity would do to the blood of a crucified man hanging on the cross.
The wound on the side shows two different fluid types (blood and water?)
40.png
JimO:
  1. the presence of 3-D data in the image that has not been replicated by any method used to create an image on cloth;
3-D images have shown what is not visible on a 2-D image - the presence of Roman coins placed over the eyelids.
40.png
JimO:
  1. the condition of the fibers that comprise the image - the surface has actually been “damaged” by an oxidative process that only affects the surface of the uppermost fibers that would have faced the “body”. Any medium added to the cloth to form the image would have penetrated to at least the back side of the innermost fibers.
  2. the chemistry of the bloodstains and the position/location of bloodstains with respect to the image itself. The oxidative effects on the fibers is absent where there are blood stains, indicating that the blood stains were present before the image was created -this creates a problem in lining up the image and blood stains properly.
  3. pollen data indicating the presence of species only found in the area around Jerusalem.
  4. residue of limestone imbedded in the area of the knee and nose that, through X-ray diffraction and chemical analysis, is comparable to the limestone prevalent in Jerusalem (used for building materials and road beds in ancient times).
Continued…
It would take an extremly good artist cum physician cum scientist, etc to forge an image of that anatomical, historical and scientific accuracy long before such knowledge was available to the world.

The only spanner in the works is the Carbon-14 dating.

:yup:
 
In the deepest sense, it does not matter if the shroud is authentic or not. We have the teaching about Christ’s suffering and resurrection from the Church and Scriptures to fall back on.
As to authenticity, the argument rages on. I think the jury is still out on that one. I do not know if it is authentic or not–it might be.
 
so in order to validate belief in the authenticity of the Shroud it is necessary to appeal to belief in various Eucharistic miracles involving bleeding hosts. So, how many of those have been affirmed by the local bishop and approved by the Vatican? If you want to convince a skeptic about the reality of something supernatural, I would not suggest using another supernatural phenomenon to make your case.
 
I have never placed much faith in the carbon 14 tests.

There seem to be way too many assumptions made.

First, we assume that there has always been a constant amount of carbon 14 around.
Then we assume that what is being tested is in fact what is being tested. For instance, a portion of the shroud was carbon dated. Was it? Or did they simply date pollen on that portion of the shroud, or carbon deposited by a fire from some other time. How would they know?

I was always taught that carbon 14 could only tell the amount of carbon 14 in an organism, and that C14 stopped being absorbed at death. So at what point does this cloth stop absorbing C14?
Then ask how long is the cloth around and in use before it is made into a burial cloth? Years? Decades?

No matter how accurately the C14 dates the cloth, no matter what date is given, is it going to convince anyone?
I doubt it.
 
No, I don’t believe the Shroud is authentic. I also don’t believe in the relics of the true cross or the nails or anything else that has turned up. The one thing I am thankful to the Shroud for though is that now I can buy a crucifix with nails correctly placed. That always drove me insane, but now there are Shroud of Turin crucifixes with the corpus nailed through the wrists instead of the palms.

I have to say I’m sceptical about many miracles, but I don’t need them for my faith and I don’t feel inclined to convince anyone else that they are crazy for believing they are real.

And on a completely shallow note, I just don’t find the face in the Shroud to be aesthetically pleasing. I find it to be an almost horrific and unattractive image and I turn my face from it whenever I see it in someone’s house. I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Reading the posts, it hasn’t been stated the reason why the carbon dating may be wrong.

In the book The Blood and the Shroud by Ian Wilson, he states of one mistake that carbon dating has made. It had to do with an Mayan artifact. It was said to be a fake. The man who owned the artefact was told by two New York art connoisseurs that a purportedly ancient Mayan carving he owned, the ‘Itzamna Tun’, was a worthless modern fake, obvious to them from its shiny, varnish like coating. The connoisseurs even offered to buy the ‘Itzamna’, and another similar item for a special collection of such ‘fakes’ that they were assembling.

Fortunately Garza-Veldes declined their offer and decided to make a careful analysis of the coating, discovering to his satisfaction that it was not composed of any type pf man-made varnish, whatever period the ‘Itzamna’ might have been made. Instead it was a completely natural bioplastic material that had accumulated from the symbiotic activity of millions of bluey green bacteria and pink-pigmented fungi building up into a hard casing somewhat in the manner of a coral reef.

As Garza-Valdez was aware, if the ‘Itzamna’ were genuine it would have been used in a special ritual in which the Mayan king anointed it with his own blood and, on noting patches of brownish detritus in the ‘Itzamna’s’ crevices, he took scraping of these and for human DNA. When he sent samples to Arizona’s radiocarboning-dating labaratory, he learned that they dated to c. AD400, thereby conclusively overturning the dismissal of the carving as a modern fake by the tow New York ‘connoisseurs’.

And as Dr Garza-Valdez further discovered, such a bioplastic coating was not just peculiar to this one artefact. Something similar had been found on other antiquities which he was able to study for comparison purposes, including a Mayan chert drill from Guatemala; a late Mayan chest ornament made of jasper, also from Guatemala; an ancient Mexican carved bone used for blood-letting; even a gold pendant from Columbia.

to be continued…
 
The key question, therefore, was whether the Shroud’s linen has such a coating. In April 1993 Dr Garza-Valdez travelled with his own portable microscope to Turin, where Giovanni Riggi allowed him to study some of the pieces of the Shroud that he trimmed off from the smaple provided for the carbon-dating labaratories. He has described his reactins on his first studying them: 'As soon as I looked at a segment in the microscope, I knew it was heavily contaminated. I knew that what had been radiocarbon dated was a mixture of linen and bacteria and fungi and bioplastic coating that had grown on the fibres for centuries.

I move on here from this information to a later part of the chapter…

To this Dr Garza-Valdez has totally clamly and reasonedly responded that unless you knew the coating was there, you simply would not see it, or be aware of its presence. Since it resembles clear plastic, you would look through it without seeing it, very much in the manner of a pane of glass. In his own words: ‘This is why many people have looked with the microscope and have missed the deposit and said the fibres are clean. A few years ago they could not have understood how the Mayans gave that beautiful polish to the ancient jades. But the Mayans didn’t do it. It was the vacteria that deposited this acrylic on the ancient surfaces.’

Blessings,
Shoshana
 
40.png
jennstall:
And on a completely shallow note, I just don’t find the face in the Shroud to be aesthetically pleasing. I find it to be an almost horrific and unattractive image and I turn my face from it whenever I see it in someone’s house. I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.
Code:
I am curious here. The awful-looking face would match Scripture verses describing Jesus suffering for our sins. He ended up not looking human, he looked like a worm, etc.

You turn your face? There is nothing beautiful about somebody tortured to an inch of his death. What is so physically beautiful about that? What is beautiful, He did that for you and for me.

Is there another reason why you turn your head?//:hmmm:

Blessings,
Shoshana
 
The Shroud of Turin is interesting and I tune into those shows that update the investigation. There are sure some interesting results.

I’m going to come back and read some of the posts in this thread next time.

The shroud does not affect my faith one way or the other. The whole idea that some energy from the corpse – presumably Jesus being resurrected – caused the image is beyond our natural senses and experience.

Of all the artifacts of Jesus that could have preserved, we have little ( some alleged pieces of the cross and the shroud, unless I’m leaving anything out).

does somebody say: Oh, NOW I believe in Jesus. Well, I suppose if it leads you to Jesus it’s OK. But, why would anybody withhold their credibility until they had something like this?

It is the faith, the WORD, and the gospel that has been preserved and that is enough for my imagination. This world and everything in, including the shroud, will pass away, or so I’m led to believe from scripture.
 
Just speculating, but if the resurrection were accompanied by a burst of radiant energy, it could change the C-14 content of the cloth.
 
I’m not really sure wether I thinks it’s authentic or not. I guess it isn’t all that important to me becuase I believe in the Resurrection with or without it.
 
Hi

Richard Feynman tells a story of how the biologists, for years, claimed there were 48 human chromosomes. One days someone reported there were only 46. So everybody went back and looked at the old photos and could only find 46! Scientists don’t like to go too far out on a limb or they could loose their reputation.

The error in the C14 testing was that the samples (3 from 3 separate sources) were provided to the test labs in envelopes marked with what they came from and the probable date [not a generic A B and C label]. A major blunder in asking for good science, the tests should have been done blind!

If you test something from the 8th century and it says 15th century, you retest, re-examine your numbers, reconsider your proceedure, look for errors, etc, just to verify your numbers. But if you get 8th century, you’re done!

The C14 was a brand new kind of test, micro dating with microscopic amounts of linen. SO it should have been done blindly, and it was not. Small errors in micro dating, lead to large errors in results.

Just something to consider.

Take care
 
In response to TraditionMike:

According to Ray Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education.

The primary goal of STURP was to test the hypothesis that the Shroud’s image was painted, as claimed by Bishop d’Arcis in 1389. If it had been painted, some colored material had to be added to the cloth, but the colored material would have gone through the fire of 1532. The pigments and vehicles would have suffered changes in response to the heating, the pyrolysis products, and the water used to put the fire out. No changes in image color could be observed at scorch margins.

We tested all pigments and media that were known to have been used before 1532 by heating them on linen up to the temperature of char formation. All of the materials were changed by heat and/or the chemically reducing and reactive pyrolysis products. Some Medieval painting materials become water soluble, and they would have moved with the water that diffused through parts of the cloth as the fire was being extinguished. Observations of the Shroud in 1978 showed that nothing in the image moved with the water.

http://shroudstory.com/faq/Image1.jpgThe Shroud was observed by visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and thermography. Later observations were made by pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, lasermicroprobe Raman analyses, and microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments or media was found.

Your eye sees colors when the surface absorbs some wavelengths of light and reflects others. A red surface absorbs all visible wavelengths other than red. Each chemical compound absorbs wavelengths that are characteristic of its chemical structure. The best way to determine the properties of a color is by measuring its spectrum. Reflectance spectrometry was one of the most important contributions of the STURP observations.

The reflectance spectra in the visible range for the image, blood, and hematite are shown in the figure. The image could not have been painted with hematite or any of the other known pigments. The spectrum of the image color does not show any specific features: it gradually changes through the spectrum. This proves that it is composed of many different light-absorbing chemical structures. It has the properties of a dehydrated carbohydrate.

There is no evidence for significant amounts of any of the many pigments and/or dyes that could have been used to paint or touch up the blood stains. We had considered and studied Tyrian purple (6,6’-dibromoindigo) and Madder root dye on an aluminum and/or chromium mordant as well as cinnabar (mercuric sulfide) and ferric oxide pigments.

During and before the 14th Century, gold metal was the most important yellow. That would easily be detected by x-ray fluorescence. Other pigments in common use were yellow ocher (hydrated Fe2O3), burnt ocher (hematite Fe2O3) and other ochers, orpiment (As2S3), realgar (***), Naples Yellow (Pb3[SbO4]), massicot (PbO), and mosaic gold (SnS2). Organic dyes included saffron, bile yellow, buckthorn, and weld. Madder root began appearing in Europe from the Near East about that time. Many of the dyes required mordants, which are hydrated oxides of several metals (e.g., aluminum, iron, and chromium). In order to produce the shadings observed in the Shroud’s image, the concentrations of pigments would have to vary across the image. No variations in any pigment were observed by x-ray fluorescence spectrometry. The image was not painted with any inorganic pigment of an appropriate color.
 
A useful explanation of the image characteristics is to be found a tshroudforum.com. Additional material including detail scientific FAQs may be found at shroudstory.com.

We keep mentioning McCrone. We fail to mention that many scientists examined the same material as McCrone and no one agreed with him. Yes he was a famous microscopist. But this does not exempt him from peer review or scientific repeatability. He refused peer review and no one has been able to repeat his observations.

Actually, and this has been demonstrated repeatedly:

http://www.shroudforum.com/discyellow2.jpg







The substance is a dried carbohydrate mixture of starch fractions and various saccharides (sugars). It is as thin (180 to 600 nanometers) as the wall of a soap bubble. It is thinner than the invisible glare proof coating on modern eyeglasses.

The coating is only found on the outermost fibers of the thread. In fact, it is only found where the fibers are close to the surface of the Shroud’s cloth. In other words, the fibers inside the thread, deep in the cloth, do not have this filmy substance.

Another important fact is that the carbohydrate coating can be removed by scraping or by pulling it away with adhesive tape. Over the years, as the Shroud of Turin was folded and unfolded, rolled up and unrolled and spread out across rough surfaces, microscopic bits of the filmy substance certainly flaked away. In fact, when the Shroud was examined in 1978, pieces of the substance – pieces of the pictures – were pulled away when adhesive tape was rubbed on the Shroud to collect particulate samples for research. Today, countless tiny bits of these pictures of Jesus, even whole fibers of the Shroud’s cloth, are stuck to microscope slides and sampling tapes in laboratories in the United States.

Scientist have a pretty good idea about how the the coating got there. It wasn’t brushed on or wiped on as one might apply sizing to a canvas before painting. Had that been the case, the starch and sugar mixture would have soaked at least part of the way through the Shroud. Fibers inside the thread would have been coated. Capillary action would have pulled the mixture into the middle of the threads.

So how did the coating get onto the fibers? It turns out that the distribution of the carbohydrate substance fits an evaporation-deposit model. Interestingly, this model dovetails exactly with the way linen was made during Jesus’ era as described by Pliny the Elder (23 to 77 AD).

If the cloth was rinsed in a solution that contained dissolved starch and saccharides, and if the cloth was then dried in the air, the coating we find on the Shroud of Turin would have formed just as it is. We know from Pliny that during weaving, threads on the loom were lubricated with crude starch to make weaving easier and to prevent fraying. The starch was then washed out by rinsing it in suds from the Soapwort plant. But the starch wouldn’t have been washed out completely. Trace amounts of both starch and the numerous saccharides found in the natural soap would have remained in the wet cloth. As the cloth dried, moisture wicked its way to the surface carrying with it starch and saccharide molecules. The dissolved material would have concentrated at the surface and remained on the fibers as the moisture evaporated into the air. This is certainly how the coating formed on only the outermost fibers.

It is not paint.
 
this thread is so long I can’t find some of the prior postings. Some have pointed out that icons in the early Eastern church, some still extant, portray an image of Christ identical to the Shroud in many points. They ask then how the Shroud could be a forgery. Obviously, if it was forged, it almost certainly was copied from those earlier images, so we would have expected correlation. As for scientific tests including carbon 14 dating, I would not rely on evidence either way without definite assurance of accuracy and oversight of the sampling and lab procedures, which seems to be lacking in most reports of such tests. For the fallibility of forensic science, see transcripts of the OJ Simpson trial

Someone else pointed out discrepancy between nail positioning in the Shroud and on traditional crucifixes. There are examples of medieval crucifixes placing the nails through the wrists, and also bending the knees. If the Shroud had been genuine and venerated throughout the early middle ages, we would have expected all crucifixes to correspond with its image, which they do not. You cannot argue that evidence on both sides of the case.

someone else purports to see similarities betweent the Shroud and the Divine Mercy image, and claims that if one is supernatural in origin both must be. I do not discern any such correlation in the images, and if you want to convince a skeptic about supernatural phenomenon, don’t use another “revealed” image, it won’t cut any ice with him.

I for one would like to see all “scientific” and historical investigation of the Shroud, holy grail, true cross or any other so-called relic cease and desist. Our faith in the incarnation, birth, life, death, resurrection and ascencion of Christ-the Paschal Mystery–does not depend on science or history, which are human disciplines, it depends on the Truth revealed by God in the Person of his Son, Jesus Christ.
 
There’s an extremely interesting book by Christopher Knight &
Robert Lomas, entitled “The Second Messiah”, which I feel is a
MUST READ for anyone seriously interested in the nature and
origin of the Turin Shoud. The authors of this book have been
able to identify precisely where and when the shroud came into
existence and also to name the people involved. Using the latest
scientific techniques they explain the wierd molecular chemistry
that created this unique artifact. The new evidence they uncover
proves that it is NOT a fake … yet neither is the image of Jesus.
They show very convincingly that the image on the Turin shroud
is really that of Jacques De Molay, the Last Grand Master of the
Knights of Templar, who was violently tortured by the French
Inquisition (on Friday, Oct. 13th, 1307) in a bizzare parody of
the crucifixtion of Jesus.

*:-*
 
The full title of the book is: “The Second Messiah: Templars, the Turin Shroud and the Great Secret of Freemasonry.”

The writers write well. And they offer an interesting perspective on the history of Christianity. But they are not good historians. This is obvious as they discuss the Shroud of Turin. They offer up speculative ideas and if you are not careful you find that a few pages later what they had speculated on, and not supported, is suddenly a fact. They are illusionists and they are good at it.

The recent discovery of the second face on the back of the Shroud, which is documented in peer-reviewed secular scientific journals turns the DeMoley hypothesis into junk history. So does the new evidence discussed by National Geographic News, PBS and other scientific papers that, among other facts, discuss the significance of Lignon Decomposition Kinetics which argues powerfully that the Shroud is at least 1300 years old. I suggest the following website:

A Forensic Science CSI to Explain the Pictures of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin

The page will only take five minutes to read.

Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top