The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?

[undead_rat]

The best thing for true authenticists to do is to have faith in their belief, without pretending that there is any Science to support it.

This statement is blatantly arrogant. Our Creator has given us scientific evidence that Jesus’ corpse vanished from this world into another dimension. This evidence does not deserve to be dismissed on the postulation that supporters are “pretending” that it is there.

it seems that someone around here is truly desperate to cover up this evidence and pretend that the Museum’s way of interpreting the raw C-14 data is the only legitimate analysis. That’s just not true.

 

[undead_rat]

At this point it seems proper to again mention the possible motivation for the ongoing attack on the legitimacy of the Shroud of Turin. Although it is denied, i still do not believe that denial.

The Hidden Agenda of the Baha’i Faith

What, you may ask, does the Baha’i Faith have to do with the Shroud of Turin? The answer to that question is to be found in two insidious essays written by that Faith’s secondary founder, Abdul’Baha.
He wrote that Jesus was not resurrected in a physical body at all, and that the Gospel accounts of that event were just spiritual allegories. He also demeaned the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ miracles, writing that any prophet could perform them, that in the end these had no value, and that Jesus did not really perform those miracles anyway.**

These writings were an attempt to “cut Jesus down to size” so that the primary founder of the Baha’i Faith, Baha’u’llah, could be elevated above Him. Thereby the Baha’i Faith could be represented as supplanting Christianity.

The miraculous Image on the Shroud contradicts Abdul’Baha’s erroneous statements and, thereby, cuts at the core of the Baha’i attempt to supplant Christianity. Certain well-read, intellectual Baha’is have a very strong agenda to discredit the Shroud of Turin and will go to great lengths to do so. We have seen on this very thread an attempt to discredit Jesus’ miracle of walking on water. Posters have made such silly statements as “The boat that He walked to could have been close to shore,” implying that this miracle was some kind of cheap magician’s trick.

So I would advise the legitimate participants on this thread to beware of those posters who seem to have an agenda that the Shroud of Turin’s Image is not miraculous. You can tell them by their obvious prejudice against the idea that Jesus actually worked bonafide miracles.

** http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-23.html

**http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-22.html

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Oh, dear. Well, here we go.

1. “The idea that the prestigious British Museum was not capable of ever making a mistake is not correct.”
   Fair enough. No one has ever said it was.
   “As is detailed by Mark Antonacci in collaboration with nuclear physicist Robert Rucker, a better way of interpreting the raw C-14 data is available.”
   A different way, not a better one. Explaining disagreeable science by proposing a miracle is always an option, but rarely, in my opinion, a better one. Bob Rucker’s adherence to the authenticity of the Shroud is no greater than that of the late Ray Rogers, who denied the possibility of radiation of any kind forming the image. One of them must be wrong.
   “The Museum failed to consider that possibility because it allowed the analysis of the C-14 data to be controlled by an atheist”
   Completely wrong. The possibility of a miracle was indeed considered, albeit briefly, but as miracles are not susceptible to scientific inquiry, it could not be part of a scientific study.
2. “If the British Museum had not allowed the STURP scientists to be shut out of the C-14 dating process, the interpretation of that data might have been different.”
   The British Museum was not in a position to do any such thing. The protocol eventually followed by the radiocarbon team was in accordance with the will of the ecclesiastical authorities. However, even if STuRP had been involved, the result would, of course, have been the same.
3. “Our Creator has given us scientific evidence that Jesus’ corpse vanished from this world into another dimension.”
   So you say. I disagree.
   “This evidence does not deserve to be dismissed on the postulation that supporters are “pretending” that it is there.”
   The evidence to which you refer is that the centre of the Shroud would date to several thousand years into the future, yet you do not feel it necessary to test it. Such is your faith in miraculous authenticity that you do not need scientific evidence. That’s fine, however, I do not think such evidence exists, and think that you are indeed pretending it is there.
   “It seems that someone around here is truly desperate to cover up this evidence”
   Well, no, obviously. I’d like the centre of the Shroud dated in order to uncover this evidence. It is you who does not want any further testing carried out.
   " … pretend that the Museum’s way of interpreting the raw C-14 data is the only legitimate analysis. That’s just not true."
   I do not pretend any such thing. The ‘Nature’ report itself notices anomalies in the raw data, and explains why it analysed the data as it did. I have already explained this in an earlier post.

 

[nooooby]

But it will all turn out to be a damp squib. It wouldn’t reach the front pages of national newspapers. Headlines such as “Turin Shroud a fake - again” will be typical

Dear me, I 100% agree with you Mr Farey, if the Shroud was proved to be a fake (again) there would be no change in the status quo. The world will shrug its shoulders and carry on as before, a small contingent of Catholics would be bitterly disappointed (my self included) but manage to get over this as we all did in 1988.

Without wishing to reopen old battles, it is this point exactly that made me express my point that your motivation for proving the Shroud was a fake was evangelisation for Catholicism seems to me illogical.

There have been a few other proven miracles that the media stays silent on and that people just do not pay attention to.

I respectfully disagree, I think that scientific proof it is authentic would elicit the response I postulated, a global media sensation. Not that it would not be criticised, but I very much doubt it would be ignored.

It’s my belief that the Shroud will never again be scientifically tested.

Dear me, I 100% agree with you undead_rat, but not for the reasons you state. Plain old politics can be the boring reason; the current situation is ambiguous and this surely must suit the Vatican. Authenticists can dream on, and 99% of the world thinks it is a fake and therefore nobody pays any attention to it. A very small number of active sceptics, Mr Farey being one, are only kept busy due to the genuine doubt over the C14 dating and it being a fake. Otherwise why do they bother at all?

I put a hypothesis to you and as always appreciate your response:

As a Catholic I am bound to consider the Almighty in this matter. Given our age of unbelief and accompanying technology, is it no accident that the C14 dating was “allowed” to “prove” in 1988 that it was a fake. Essentially this has given the Shroud a major protection against damage/destruction by hostile actors, precisely because 99% of the world believes it is a fake. God can arrange the big reveal at a point of his choosing when technology has reached a level that can prove it is authentic. The Sign of the Son of Man.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Authenticists can dream on, and 99% of the world thinks it is a fake and therefore nobody pays any attention to it.

I don’t think anyone really knows what “the world” thinks of the Shroud. My own view is that most of the population of the world have never heard of it, and of those who have, most of them do not have an opinion. As for those who do have an opinion, I really cannot guess the proportions of “authenticists” and “non-authenticists”. It may be 1:99 as you suggest, or 99:1, or anything in between. What I do think is that 99% of the holders of both views do not really know enough about it to be able to support their opinion in a debate.

I am not so pessimistic as to think that no further testing will ever be carried out on the Shroud. As a unique, culturally very important artefact, I think a proper study of it is inevitable, and within the next half-dozen years or so, I expect.

 

[nooooby]

I don’t think anyone really knows what “the world” thinks of the Shroud.

Using reason we can make a good guesstimate; Muslims, Chinese, Indians, secular west, Japanese, all will not have heard of it or if they have would dismiss it as a fake. That leaves Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians who will have heard of it, most of them will not pay that much notice to it and mostly accept the C14 dating.

My own view is that most of the population of the world have never heard of it, and of those who have, most of them do not have an opinion.

which is pretty much what I said!

What I do think is that 99% of the holders of both views do not really know enough about it to be able to support their opinion in a debate.

This is an interesting point you make. I will return to this next week.

I am not so pessimistic as to think that no further testing will ever be carried out on the Shroud. As a unique, culturally very important artefact, I think a proper study of it is inevitable, and within the next half-dozen years or so, I expect.

We will see! As we have already discussed, I think the only way to prove beyond reasonable doubt it is authentic or a fake is to undertake a massive new analysis of the Shroud itself. I am more doubtful of any imminent study for the political reasons I have just stated.

I do have a follow-up question for you though - do you think that the Vatican/Church has already or would in the future, conduct its own secret tests?

 

[thistle]

I am a devout Catholic but I believe the Shroud is NOT authentic and nor do I have to believe that. The fanatical supporters of the authenticity of the Shroud try to make Catholics like me who think its a fake as lesser Catholics. This of course would be contradictory to what the Church teaches on relics, apparitions etc.
None of these, and that includes the Shroud, is necessary for our faith and salvation.
My personal opinion is that these fanatics must be insecure in their faith and are looking for something to clutch onto to boost it. That’s okay with me but do not try to push down my throat that the Shroud has been proven to be the authentic burial cloth of Christ. IT HAS NOT!

By the way, in my opinion, the analysis and comments by Hugh Farey are simply pounding the so-called analysis by Nooooby!

 

[undead_rat]

God can arrange the big reveal at a point of his choosing when technology has reached a level that can prove it is authentic.

All the “technology” required is a simple box camera that initially reveals a negative photo. The “big reveal” happened in 1898 and no subsequent test has refuted it. The 1978 STURP examination was the most intensive investigation of a religious relic ever undertaken. If the Image on the Shroud had been the work of a human artist, STURP would have found that out.
The 1988 C-14 results are properly interpreted as the signature of an event. The 250 year variance in the raw data proves that the results do not indicate a date at all. C-14 testing is very accurate, and a 250 year variance is way too large for a sample supposedly only about 700 years old. As detailed by the Antonacci/Rucker team, the C-14 Labs combined, eliminated, and “statistically analyzed” the data in order to achieve something that the Museum could present to the public as a legitimate dating result. That presentation was really the crime of the century, and it was uncovered by the dogged persistence of a former prosecuting attorney.

For reasons previously stated an apologist for the Bahai’ Faith is desperate to hide the fact that the scientific data on the Shroud proves the miracle of the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse into another dimension.
Bahai’ theology for gaining converts is built around the postulation that this event did not really happen.
Bahai’ Faith has as one of its tenets the respect of science, and if it is proved that Jesus resurrection happened as described in the Gospels, then Bahai theology falls apart.

That is why we are so condescendingly told that we can believe that the Shroud is miraculous as long as we don’t say that this miracle is scientifically proven. What a crock!

(And we are told that we are “irrational” if we attempt to expose this insidious agenda or that our posts are “incoherent jibberish.”)

 

[Hugh_Farey]

By the way, in my opinion, the analysis and comments by Hugh Farey are simply pounding the so-called analysis by Nooooby!

I think you are confusing nooooby with undead_rat. Nooooby has been quite a fair umpire recently, between Undead_rat and myself. It is Undead_rat who appears increasingly irrational (see his latest post), and unwilling to answer difficult points such as those I have now put three times regarding the Image of Edessa.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I do have a follow-up question for you though - do you think that the Vatican/Church has already or would in the future, conduct its own secret tests?

If the Catholic Church was the ‘commissioning body’ for the radiocarbon dating, then no doubt it received a full report from the British Museum, which has never been published. That may be significant. In addition, various reports may have been received from the restorers, including Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. So, yes, there may well be some unpublished information, which may or may not be more conclusive as to the authenticity or not of the Shroud.

 

[nooooby]

By the way, in my opinion, the analysis and comments by Hugh Farey are simply pounding the so-called analysis by Nooooby!

I thank you Lord for preserving this poor sinner from that most deadly of sins.

 

[nooooby]

So, yes, there may well be some unpublished information, which may or may not be more conclusive as to the authenticity or not of the Shroud.

If this was the case, which is the reason why I asked the question, it would raise some disturbing questions over the Vatican itself. Namely (either way) that of concealing the truth, which would be a scandal if it was the case. I hope therefore that it is not the case!

 

[nooooby]

If the Image on the Shroud had been the work of a human artist, STURP would have found that out.

I actually agree with you on this point, but…

The 1988 C-14 results are properly interpreted as the signature of an event. The 250 year variance in the raw data proves that the results do not indicate a date at all. C-14 testing is very accurate, and a 250 year variance is way too large for a sample supposedly only about 700 years old. As detailed by the Antonacci/Rucker team, the C-14 Labs combined, eliminated, and “statistically analyzed” the data in order to achieve something that the Museum could present to the public as a legitimate dating result. That presentation is really the crime of the century.

Essentially you are saying that the C14 results have been interpreted/presented in completely the opposite way from what they should be. Although I would like to believe this, and even if it turns out to be true, the fact remains that the 1988 C14 test was allowed (by God if you will) to be announced to the world as proof the Shroud is a fake. This is the point I was making, that is the de-facto position for most people in the world (and most scientists) rightly or wrongly. I think this is significant.

For reasons previously stated an apologist for the Bahai’ Faith is desperate to hide the fact that the scientific data on the Shroud proves the miracle of the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse into another dimension.

I respectfully disagree with your point here. Mr Farey (whom I assume you mean) has stated he is a Catholic. This needs to be respected as I have no reason to disbelieve him. If at some future point evidence is provided that he is not a Catholic, his credibility (as he has already accepted) would be utterly destroyed. I doubt he would put himself in that position.

 

[undead_rat]

We have had 666 posts on this thread, and the hidden Bahai’ agenda has made itself obvious. The Bahai’ Faith is a legitimate religion and has some very important mandates for our world, not the least of which is the necessity for a bonafide world government. Unfortunately that Faith was corrupted by some spurious ideas made by its secondary founder, Abdul’baha. I see no reason to respect anyone who comes to CAF with any hidden agenda, and I do not believe the denials.

I have already addressed issue of why our Creator has presented proof of His existence in a hidden way. Adding to the hidden (but correct) interpretation of the C-14 data, would be the Shroud’s apparent lack of a history prior to 1357 and the C-14 dating of the Sudarium to about 700 AD. We should properly take these facts as a warning from our Creator that He is willing to trap us, and, even more, that this trap is about ready to be sprung.
Luke 21:34-35
that day will be sprung on you suddenly, like a trap. For it will come down on every living man on the face of the earth.

 

[nooooby]

We have had 666 posts on this thread, and the hidden Bahai’ agenda has made itself obvious.

Sir, if you have evidence that Mr Farey or anybody else is lying about their faith, background or motives, then please present it. If you have not, I would ask you, with the utmost respect, to consider the eighth commandment.

 

[thistle]

I think you are confusing nooooby with undead_rat. Nooooby has been quite a fair umpire recently, between Undead_rat and myself. It is Undead_rat who appears increasingly irrational (see his latest post), and unwilling to answer difficult points such as those I have now put three times regarding the Image of Edessa.

You are correct. I was too quick to post. Apologies to Nooooby. My comments were indeed meant for undead_rat.

 

[undead_rat]

i stand by my comments in this regard

 

[Hugh_Farey]

i stand by my comments in this regard

Fine. Now what about this? If you are not willing to respond to the query, are you willing to explain why not, or shall we draw our own conclusions? In an earlier post, you claimed that “Eleventh century Icons of the Mandylion are spitting images of the Shroud’s face.” I challenged this, with seven precise reasons why I did not agree. It would be good to read a response to this, which has not as yet been forthcoming.

 

[undead_rat]

An eleventh century Mandylion icon:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UOJjUH2o_...AAD0k/ck1D-1VBGvU/s1600/Holy+Mandylion+45.jpg

A drawing of Jesus’ portrait based on the Shroud of Turin’s facial image:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4490/2035/1600/Antlitz_Christi_nach_Grabtuch_1-1.0.jpg

I don’t feel any need to respond to drivel. I give the participants on this thread credit for their ability to draw their own conclusions w/o being held by the hand by the Bahai’ apologist.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Dear Colleagues reading this thread,

Undead_rat has said that eleventh century paintings of the Mandylion are the “spitting image” of the face on the Shroud. I said that I didn’t think they were, and gave the following reasons why:

1. The Shroud is famously a pseudo-negative image. Its nose and forehead are dark and its eye-sockets are light. Pictures of the Mandylion do not show this.
2. The Shroud image is entirely monochrome. Pictures of the Mandylion are not.
3. The Shroud has prominent trickles of ‘blood’ on the forehead and down the sides of the hair. Pictures of the Mandylion do not show any blood at all.
4. The Shroud has no ears. The eleventh century painting referenced by Undead_rat has distinct ears.
5. The Shroud has a bushy, rather than a narrow, moustache. Pictures of the Mandylion invariably show the opposite.
6. The Shroud does not have ringlets of hair flowing outwards from the cheeks on both sides. The eleventh century painting referenced by Undead_rat does.
7. The overall shape of the Shroud face is rectangular, not oval. The faces in Mandylion pictures are invariably oval, not rectangular.

Colleagues, Undead_rat thinks that these comparisons are “drivel”. I don’t think they are. Undead_rat suggests that other participants on this thread will obviously agree with him, without having to be “held by the hand” by him. I have the temerity to think that my comparisons clearly demonstrate that the Shroud image and the Mandylion are not “spitting images” of each other.

One of us is not only wrong, but extraordinarily unobservant, or obstinately insisting on something which is clearly untrue. Would anyone care to say who?