The Shroud of Turin and the Druze

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw a documentary, I think it was BBC, and they asserted that the image has “multiple images” kind of like quick snap shots.

This documentary claimed things like detecting what appeared to be a couple Tefillin on him.

I wonder, if those wouldnt be removed when preparing him for burial. Just as the blood stains. Wouldnt they be wiped, and blood would not be coming out?

Though, maybe the burial was rather “rough” until the women came with oils later.
 
Last edited:
I think you are thinking of a YouTube video by Giuseppe Maria Catalano, which is so riddled with inconsistenciesthnat it is astonishing how widely disseminated it has become. I commented on it last year:

"Its ideas are wholly based on blurring Enrie’s photo to the extent that almost anything can be seen in the resulting smudges - a technique which Giuseppe Maria Catalano has the chutzpah to call “very high resolution scans’”. Among his more controversial ‘discoveries’ is that Jesus was placed face down on the cloth, clothed in a skirt. Needless to say not a single authority on the Shroud, for or against authenticity, concurs.

“The International Institute for Advanced Studies of Spacial Representation Sciences” does not exist and never has, being entirely the invention of Catalano, and is not doing any studies. A Youtube video of the same name appears to be nothing more than drone footage of Catalano’s family house.”
 
Hugh_Farey said:
It was probably imprinted by laying the cloth onto a damp bas relief. It is not clear if the bas relief was damp with something like paint or something more like wine or an organic stain
Click to expand...
I see you think the cloth may have been used for liturgical purposes. Do we have evidence of liturgy involving a process like that you describe, using a cloth and bas relief?
 
PickyPicky said:
Do we have evidence of liturgy involving a process like that you describe, using a cloth and bas relief?
Click to expand...
We do indeed. The “Quem Quaeritis” liturgy is known from all over Europe from the tenth to the sixteenth century, a sort of play in which clerics dressed as ‘holy women’ processed to an ‘Easter Sepulchre’ in the north transept of their church, and met another cleric dressed as an angel, who told them Jesus was risen, and to go back to the high altar to announce the good news to all the people. Many versions of this rite begin on Maundy Thursday or Good Friday with the placing of a statue of Jesus, wrapped in a cloth, in the sepulchre, and in many versions the ‘angel’ tells the ‘holy women’ to take the cloth back to the altar and display it.
Full references for this can be found at https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n85part4.pdf.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
It was probably imprinted by laying the cloth onto a damp bas relief. It is not clear if the bas relief was damp with something like paint or something more like wine or an organic stain. If the first, then the pigment was presumably washed off, leaving only a stain, while if the second, the stain itself was, and still is, the principal chromophore.
Click to expand...
This theory was disproven a long time ago. The image on the Shroud is not composed of a “stain” of any kind. It has been made by a premature surface aging of the linen fibers. This was proven by the STURP of 1978 which used four tons of state-of-the art of analytical equipment. If the Shroud’s image was composed of a stain of any kind, STURP would have detected it.
Furthermore, the image is that of a human corpse in a state of advanced rigor mortis and is not that of a “bas relief” or any other kind of statue.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
We do indeed. The “Quem Quaeritis” liturgy is known from all over Europe from the tenth to the sixteenth century, a sort of play in which clerics dressed as ‘holy women’ processed to an ‘Easter Sepulchre’ in the north transept of their church, and met another cleric dressed as an angel, who told them Jesus was risen, and to go back to the high altar to announce the good news to all the people. Many versions of this rite begin on Maundy Thursday or Good Friday with the placing of a statue of Jesus, wrapped in a cloth, in the sepulchre, and in many versions the ‘angel’ tells the ‘holy women’ to take the cloth back to the altar and display it.
Full references for this can be found at https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n85part4.pdf.
Click to expand...
And that, of course, is why we have so many burial shrouds of Jesus with such similar characteristics.
 
Last edited:
undead_rat said:
This theory was disproven a long time ago.
Click to expand...
No. It is true that that John Heller and Alan Adler, the STuRP team’s principle investigators, found minimal pigment on the Shroud fibres, but only after they had thoroughly and carefully washed them. However their concluding statement that they also excluded ‘stains’ and ‘dyes’ was not really justified by the results of their experiments. Ray Rogers, who was probably the most respected of the STuRP team, later became convinced that the chromophore was not the “premature surface aging of the linen fibers”, but the degradation of a surface covering of some kind of starch.

As to the “advanced state of rigor mortis”, this kind of explanation has been adduced by believers in the authenticity of the Shroud to account for its anatomical anomalies, which are more easily explicable as artistic inexactitudes.
undead_rat said:
we have so many burial shrouds of Jesus with such similar characteristics.
Click to expand...
We have, of course, no other examples of such a ‘Quem Quaeritis’ shrouds at all, even though we know there must have been hundreds all over Europe. One might argue that since the Shroud is the only example we have, and that it bears an image, it is statistically more probable that the missing shrouds also bore an image than not, but that would be belied by the various accounts of the drapery accompanying the Easter Sepulchre, none of which describe an impression of Christ on them, let alone two.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
No. It is true that that John Heller and Alan Adler, the STuRP team’s principle investigators, found minimal pigment on the Shroud fibres, but only after they had thoroughly and carefully washed them. However their concluding statement that they also excluded ‘stains’ and ‘dyes’ was not really justified by the results of their experiments. Ray Rogers, who was probably the most respected of the STuRP team, later became convinced that the chromophore was not the “premature surface aging of the linen fibers”, but the degradation of a surface covering of some kind of starch.
Click to expand...
It is an established fact that the image found on the Shroud is composed of (and only of) a premature degradation of the surfaces of its linen fibers. Anyone insisting on an alternate explanation might as well join (as Prof. Teddy Hall put it) the Flat Earth Society.

 
Last edited:
undead_rat said:
Anyone insisting on an alternate explanation might as well join (as Prof Teddy Hall put it) the Flat Earth Society
Click to expand...
Ray Rogers, the most eminent of the STuRP team, did indeed insist on an alternative explanation. I’m sorry that you impugn his memory so facilely.
 
Prof. Rogers also bought into the “invisible reweaving” hypothesis which has been conclusively disproven.
 
undead_rat said:
Prof. Rogers also bought into the “invisible reweaving” hypothesis which has been conclusively disproven.
Click to expand...
He did indeed, but what makes you think the invisible weaving hypotheses has been ‘conclusively disproven’? In the latest BSTS Newsletter even Ian Wilson now agrees that there may be something in it. Really it would be better not to claim that anything about the shroud has been ‘proven’ or ‘disproven’, but to say, as I do, that in your opinion this or that conclusion is the most reasonable. Arbitrarily to announce that something is ‘conclusively proven’ or ‘disproven’, or that the senior scientist of the STuRP examination should join the flat earth society, or to despise anybody with a degree in science, or to sneer at primary sources is no way to convert anybody to your point of view, I fear.
 
Some of us are trying to keep an open mind. There are moments when it can be tough going. Bearing in mind that the Shroud of Turin is, after all, a material object in a material world, the authenticists who either mumble vaguely about “faith” and “piety” or respond with rude remarks about “flat earthers” arouse my suspicions that their belief is probably based on very slender evidence indeed.

@undead_rat, in your post #39 on this thread you said, “Get the new edition of Fanti’s book,” without providing any information about it. Did you find some fact or some argument in that book that you would single out as being particularly likely to lead me to change my mind? If so, would you care to summarize it in a few words, so that I can judge for myself whether reading the book is likely to repay the time and effort?
 
Hi Bartholomew,

Although Giulio Fanti’s conviction that the Shroud is authentic is primarily based on personal revelations from God, he is a reputable mechanical engineer with some thorough research under his belt. I rarely agree with his conclusions, but respect his science. Unfortunately, the second edition of his book is $64 even in its Kindle version, so it will be awhile before I take the plunge!
 
https://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Turin...YGNHGFE52G5&psc=1&refRID=ZZYEZF4B9YGNHGFE52G5

I bought three copies of the first edition. I have two copies of the second on order. Fanti’s book details the scientific and historical research that:
  1. Proves that the linen of the Shroud is ancient rather than medieval through two methods.
  2. Discredits the British Museum’s opinion that the Shroud’s C-14 evidence is indicative of a date.
  3. Establishes a date for the Shroud’s linen as 35 B.C.E. +/- 250 years with a 95% certainty.
 
Last edited:
More accurately…
undead_rat said:
Fanti’s book details the scientific and historical research that:
Click to expand...
  1. Optimistically compares fibres from the Shroud with this of other historic linens in the hope of correlating the mechanical degradation of the two.
  2. Confirms the British Museum’s radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to the late Middle Ages.
  3. Fails to establish a 1st century date for the Shroud which is acceptable to any archaeologist, any member of the STuRP team, or the Church authorities in Turin.
 
From the Amazon website, the new edition:
  1. expands “Chapter 7 to include the proof of the origin of the samples used in the recent scientific research and also address the provenance and the path of the original sample.”
  2. includes “a personal interview with the authors that is the result of the interesting and praiseworthy work of a Bavarian high school student.”
I’m afraid this does not include enough extra content to persuade me to shell out just yet!
 
Does anyone have any info/references on HRV1 and HRV2 information for the Mtdna H33 that was found on the Shroud of Turin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top