Shroud of Turin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aslan10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
Yep.

And, more to the point, folks can have different interpretations of what they are seeing.
Click to expand...
Exactly Gk. I first viewed photographs of the shroud and the purported negative image probably in late 70s early 80s.

Scrutinizing the picture left me puzzled because I could not see this image as the actual picture of a man.It looked sort of fake as the face seemed bizarrely elongated and also the arms and legs.

I realize many believe it is authentic and I understand one of the earlier popes allowed the propagation of medals bearing the shroud image as a means to venerate the holy face of Jesus.

What I find a bit unsettling is those who superimpose the shroud negative image over various pictures such as the divine mercy,Akianes Jesus,and even Prince William,trying to prove what Jesus looked like(the prince Willian rubbish was some bizarre cloning claims LOL).

Perhaps there is a good reason physical descriptions of Jesus are not included in the bible.
 
cjforJesus said:
Exactly Gk. I first viewed photographs of the shroud and the purported negative image probably in late 70s early 80s.

Scrutinizing the picture left me puzzled because I could not see this image as the actual picture of a man.It looked sort of fake as the face seemed bizarrely elongated and also the arms and legs.

I realize many believe it is authentic and I understand one of the earlier popes allowed the propagation of medals bearing the shroud image as a means to venerate the holy face of Jesus.

What I find a bit unsettling is those who superimpose the shroud negative image over various pictures such as the divine mercy,Akianes Jesus,and even Prince William,trying to prove what Jesus looked like(the prince Willian rubbish was some bizarre cloning claims LOL).

Perhaps there is a good reason physical descriptions of Jesus are not included in the bible.
Click to expand...
As noted, folk can see what they see, or think they see. And others can differ. And that includes folk who are specialists/experts in relevant fields.

I have never had a great interest about what Christ looked like. Only what He was.

GKC
 
cjforJesus said:
Exactly Gk. I first viewed photographs of the shroud and the purported negative image probably in late 70s early 80s.

Scrutinizing the picture left me puzzled because I could not see this image as the actual picture of a man.It looked sort of fake as the face seemed bizarrely elongated and also the arms and legs.

I realize many believe it is authentic and I understand one of the earlier popes allowed the propagation of medals bearing the shroud image as a means to venerate the holy face of Jesus.

What I find a bit unsettling is those who superimpose the shroud negative image over various pictures such as the divine mercy,Akianes Jesus,and even Prince William,trying to prove what Jesus looked like(the prince Willian rubbish was some bizarre cloning claims LOL).

Perhaps there is a good reason physical descriptions of Jesus are not included in the bible.
Click to expand...
Regarding the image portraying elongated arms, well they had been dislocated and then pulled by the weight of Jesus’ body and movement. This can cause elongation without tearing of up to around 6in…

As regards the facial imaging, I leave explanations of that to the experts and their cutting edge expertise and equipment. That Jewish photographer who was part of the STURP team seems convinced of its authenticity.
 
Mount_Carmel said:
Regarding the image portraying elongated arms, well they had been dislocated and then pulled by the weight of Jesus’ body and movement. This can cause elongation without tearing of up to around 6in…

As regards the facial imaging, I leave explanations of that to the experts and their cutting edge expertise and equipment. '"That Jewish photographer who was part of the STURP team seems convinced of its authenticity.
Click to expand...
"

You must be referring to Barry Shwortz. Yes I understand he believes it to be the image of Jesus of Nazareth and His burial cloth. I find that rather interesting because Jews generally do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus or that He was divine. Others have noted that too and why he has not been compelled to convert to Christianity.

Perhaps people convinced the shroud is real are attempting to obtain proof of a metaphysical occurrence, or possibly something in the field of quantum physics. Who knows,but I still believe the carbon dating was accurate and it is an amazing work of art to aid in the contemplation of Jesus passion.
 
cjforJesus said:
"

You must be referring to Barry Shwortz. Yes I understand he believes it to be the image of Jesus of Nazareth and His burial cloth. I find that rather interesting because Jews generally do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus or that He was divine. Others have noted that too and why he has not been compelled to convert to Christianity.

Perhaps people convinced the shroud is real are attempting to obtain proof of a metaphysical occurrence, or possibly something in the field of quantum physics. Who knows,but I still believe the carbon dating was accurate and it is an amazing work of art to aid in the contemplation of Jesus passion.
Click to expand...
Or, perhaps folk who are curious about what the shroud is, and how it got that way, are attempting to find out. And their work indicates it is something that is highly unusual, at the least, and highly suggestive that it might be just what the story of it has held, at the extreme. Opinions differ.

Everyone thinks the carbon dating is accurate. Folks with far better credentials in the subject areas than you or I possess, disagree on what was tested/dated.

That Barrie Schwortz is Jewish, or has or has not converted to Christianity, says nothing about what he thinks the shroud is, or why. He has done a nice paper on the over-all history of the carbon dating done on the shroud, with lots of nice pictures, as of the testing sites, and what was taken, when, and what was done with the bits and pieces.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Or, perhaps folk who are curious about what the shroud is, and how it got that way, are attempting to find out. And their work indicates it is something that is highly unusual, at the least, and highly suggestive that it might be just what the story of it has held, at the extreme. Opinions differ.

Everyone thinks the carbon dating is accurate. Folks with far better credentials in the subject areas than you or I possess, disagree on what was tested/dated.

That Barrie Schwortz is Jewish, or has or has not converted to Christianity, says nothing about what he thinks the shroud is, or why. He has done a nice paper on the over-all history of the carbon dating done on the shroud, with lots of nice pictures, as of the testing sites, and what was taken, when, and what was done with the bits and pieces.

GKC
Click to expand...
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the BBC documentary shows a VERY good closeup of the ACTUAL cut,the piece that was carbon dated. It seems I recollect that after Rogers paper the reserve piece was analyzed and it showed NO evidence of any reweaving.

Regarding the cotton in the Raes samples,I think many believe the contamination occurred during the spinning of the thread itself.

Yes,I know Barry has a nice little non profit org and a great facebook page all dedicated to the Shroud of Turin.He has dozens of papers written by great intellectuals,such as yourself,explaining in minute and scientific detail why the Shroud is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus.
 
cjforJesus said:
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the BBC documentary shows a VERY good closeup of the ACTUAL cut,the piece that was carbon dated. It seems I recollect that after Rogers paper the reserve piece was analyzed and it showed NO evidence of any reweaving.

Regarding the cotton in the Raes samples,I think many believe the contamination occurred during the spinning of the thread itself.

Yes,I know Barry has a nice little non profit org and a great facebook page all dedicated to the Shroud of Turin.He has dozens of papers written by great intellectuals,such as yourself,explaining in minute and scientific detail why the Shroud is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus.
Click to expand...
I have a very strong belief that it is the genuine article! It has so much going for it. It has to be!! 👍
 
ajecphotos said:
I have a very strong belief that it is the genuine article! It has so much going for it. It has to be!! 👍
Click to expand...
Most Catholics that I know sincerely believe it to be authentic.You are in the majority,ajec.

Not long ago there was a presentation at a local parish regarding the shroud. The Shroud image was compared to the Vilnius Divine mercy painting and overlayed on it attempting to prove they are the same individual.Of course someone did this with Prince William too claiming he was cloned from the shroud blood :rolleyes:
 
cjforJesus said:
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the BBC documentary shows a VERY good closeup of the ACTUAL cut,the piece that was carbon dated. It seems I recollect that after Rogers paper the reserve piece was analyzed and it showed NO evidence of any reweaving.

Regarding the cotton in the Raes samples,I think many believe the contamination occurred during the spinning of the thread itself.

Yes,I know Barry has a nice little non profit org and a great facebook page all dedicated to the Shroud of Turin.He has dozens of papers written by great intellectuals,such as yourself,explaining in minute and scientific detail why the Shroud is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus.
Click to expand...
No, part of what Rogers analyzed was a sample from the 1988 reserve. Which, IIRC, you had an inaccurate idea about, as to when it was sampled. And you still seem to think that you can tell something about the reweaving theory, by looking at the video. Sort of like thinking you can tell something about the contents of a book, by looking at the cover.

No, not many believe that, re: the Rae’s samples. Who do you have in mind?

Barrie (you keep having trouble with his name) had all sorts of stuff on that page. Reading is your friend.

GKC
 
GKC said:
No, part of what Rogers analyzed was a sample fro the 1988 reserve. Which, IIRC, you had an inaccurate idea about, as to when it was sampled. And you still seem to think that you can tell something about the reweaving theory, by looking at the video. Sort of like thinking you can tell something about the contents of a book, by looking at the cover.

No, not many believe that, re: the Rae’s samples. Who do you have in mind?

Barrie (you keep having trouble with his name) had all sorts of stuff on that page. Reading is your friend.

GKC
Click to expand...
Part of what Rogers examined was supposedly warp and weft threads taken by Gonella from the carbon dated sample before it was distributed. As far as I know the Vatican still has the reserve.

Don’t believe everything you read because a discerning mind is also your friend;)
 
cjforJesus said:
Part of what Rogers examined was supposedly warp and weft threads taken by Gonella from the carbon dated sample before it was distributed. As far as I know the Vatican still has the reserve.

Don’t believe everything you read because a discerning mind is also your friend;)
Click to expand...
Oh, absolutely. As Chesterton said, an open mind is like an open ditch, Can accumulate all kinds of junk.

What one needs is a discerning and inquiring and informed mind. In depth reading is essential. Which is why my personal library runs around 30,000 volumes. And I’m ordering another today.

Get on with that reading thing. You’re late.

Warp and weft samples from the Rae’s threads were part of what Rogers looked at. He had possession of them. Cotton, dye were found, the dye not coating the portion of the threads covered by the twists and reweaving. Same with the reserve sample, which was provided to Rogers by Thomas D’Muhala. The souce for that was Gonella, yes. A portion of that sample had earlier gone to Adler, for blood analysis. Rogers did what he specialized in: chemical analysis. Which had not been done in the 1988 carbon dating tests. He found and analyzed cotton and dye, as noted in his peer-reviewed paper. And others (Brown) did the same.

Reading is fundamental. So are the pretty pictures.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Oh, absolutely. As Chesterton said, an open mind is like an open ditch, Can accumulate all kinds of junk.

What one needs is a discerning and inquiring and informed mind. In depth reading is essential. Which is why my personal library runs around 30,000 volumes. And I’m ordering another today.

Get on with that reading thing. You’re late.

Warp and weft samples from the Rae’s threads were part of what Rogers looked at. He had possession of them. Cotton, dye were found, the dye not coating the portion of the threads covered by the twists and reweaving. Same with the reserve sample, which was provided to Rogers by Thomas D’Muhala. The souce for that was Gonella, yes. A portion of that sample had earlier gone to Adler, for blood analysis. Rogers did what he specialized in: chemical analysis. Which had not been done in the 1988 carbon dating tests. He found and analyzed cotton and dye, as noted in his peer-reviewed paper. And others (Brown) did the same.

Reading is fundamental. So are the pretty pictures.

GKC
Click to expand...
no no no . In Rogers paper he claims he received warp and weft threads from the carbon dated sample before it was distributed. This is the very same sample I gave a link to.In that link are nice pictures that actually move and talk!
 
ajecphotos said:
There is only one person who knows if the Shroud is real! 👍
Click to expand...
I should think the Angels and Saints in Heaven are also in on the ‘secret’.

ps. The original carbon dating used a wrong sample, so it seems.
 
cjforJesus said:
no no no . In Rogers paper he claims he received warp and weft threads from the carbon dated sample before it was distributed. This is the very same sample I gave a link to.In that link are nice pictures that actually move and talk!
Click to expand...
Nonono. He says he received his samples from the reserve (held by Gonella, after the1988 cut) on12 Dec 2003. Which was somewhat after the 3 samples from the other portion of the cut were tested. Like, 5+ years.

“On 12 December 2003, I received samples of both warp
and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from
the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating.
Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center
of the radiocarbon sample”. That is, it was at the edge of the reserve portion next to the portion divided and tested in 1988.

Moving and talking pictures are not the same as microscopy and micro-photography And chemical analysis. As looking at the cover of a book is not the same as reading it.

Reminds me. Leaving for the bookstore now.

Remember: reading is your friend. Careful reading is even friendlier.

GKC.
 
CalCatholic said:
Well when Jesus appeared a second time to the disciples (after his resurrection), he showed (doubting) Thomas the wounds on his body to bolster his faith. I think that our risen Lord has left the shroud for our ‘modern society’ which is no less sceptical than Thomas, to bolster our faith in this skeptical age! In the shroud we can also see his wounds, and signs of his resurrection!
Click to expand...
Well said. Our priest gave a homily this last Sunday about this very thing (St. Thomas seeing the wounds of our Lord, and having it bolster his faith). If I recall correctly, father said that seeing our Lord’s wounds caused St. Thomas to give one of the few professions of faith that we have in scripture, and that within a month of this event, St. Thomas was preaching all over Jerusalem.
 
cjforJesus said:
Part of what Rogers examined was supposedly warp and weft threads taken by Gonella from the carbon dated sample before it was distributed. As far as I know the Vatican still has the reserve.

Don’t believe everything you read because a discerning mind is also your friend;)
Click to expand...
That goes both ways. I go along with the Church, how She venerates it. I don’t need scientists arguing over it. God Bless, Memaw.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top