The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?

[tryphon]

In the Alpine Italian region of Val d’Aosta, for centuries they have been using wooden chalices, made locally. In the local vernacular, a sort of old Italian, such a chalice is known as a “grolla”. Clearly (at least for me) the same etymology as the word “grail”.

 

[tryphon]

A XV Century depiction of the Graal, the similarities with the Grolla are striking:

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Indeed there is no dispute that the word grail has an etymological root, as well as a modern meaning, as a drinking cup. However, those who support a Templar history for the Shroud sometimes look for another etymology cognate with the word grill. In my opinion they are wrong for several reasons.

 

[undead_rat]

We know for sure that the Shroud of Turin and the Holy Mandylion and the Image of Edessa are all one and the same. Skeptics can continue to deny this fact all that they want to, but they might as well be denying that our solar system is heliocentric.
The Mandylion was confiscated in 1204 by officers of the French 4th Crusade and was hidden somewhere for 150 years until it resurfaced in Lirey as the burial linen of Jesus’ corpse bearing its miraculous Image. It had to have been held by someone during those 150 years. The Knights Templar was the international organization with the greatest financial ability to purchase this extremely valuable item, and they also had the greatest desire to own it. Vignon writes in THE SHROUD OF CHRIST:

“The Crusaders sacked the city of Constantinople, but respected the shine of St. Marie de Blakerne; this is an historic fact, and is testified to by Count Riant in his ‘Exuviae.’ . . . A considerable number of relics were sent by the Bishop [Garnier de Trainel] to Europe, the list thereof is known, but in the list there is no mention of the Holy Shroud. . . .the Bishop never returned—he died at Constantinople in the year 1205.”

From THE TEMPLARS AND THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, Frale*, 2011:

"It is, however, a fact that within the [Templar] Order images of the Face of God circulated and were venerated, which were represented in an unusual way, without aureole and not showing the neck, that is exactly as it appears on the Shroud and in the Byzantine tradition of the Mandylion. …
“Most recent Templar research confirmations that in some regions of southern France a full-figure protrait of a man on a linen sheet was offered to the brethren’s adoraton. The characteristics of this image on cloth that the Templars venerated in south France (full-scale life-sized body, reddish colour, ill-defined outline) seem to recall nothing so much as the shape of the Turin Shroud.”

The conclusion is obvious. The Templars owned the Shroud for over one hundred years. When the King of France arrested the Templars in 1307, he was unable to confiscate cloth bearing the divine face that the Templars worshiped. This sacred item was secrectly passed on to the valient Geoffroy the First, Grand Standard Bearer of France, who was a slain at the battle of Poitiers. The Charny family’s claims that the Holy Shroud had been obtained as spoils of war (the sack of Constantinole) or had been received by the Count as a reward of valour are both correct. Of course the family could not reveal that they had received the Shroud from the Templars. To do so would have been to admit that the Shroud more legitimately belonged to the King of France who had confiscated all Templar property.

*Historian on the staff at the Vatican Secret Archives.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

We know for sure that the Shroud of Turin and the Holy Mandylion and the Image of Edessa are all one and the same.

Nope. For reasons carefully explained previously.

Skeptics can continue to deny this fact all that they want to, but they might as well be denying that our solar system is heliocentric.

Nope. For reasons carefully explained previously.

The rest of the comment is based on a succession of dubious guesses by Barbara Frale, who is indeed a researcher at the so-called Vatican Secret Archives, but whose reluctance to reveal the primary sources from which she gets her ideas is legendary in pro-authenticity circles.

 

[Jackson]

History channel and NatGeo reported very interesting facts about all the investigations from STURP 1978, through to the present including finding the cause of Jesus death as cardiogenic shock, which we concur with completely.
There’s no doubt Jesus was beaten as depicted in Passion of the Christ. This would cause his wounds to weep massive amounts of interstitial fluid, even before being nailed to the cross. This fluid loss would cause great strain on his heart for lack of fluid to pump. His blood would have become very thick and create thrombophyic issues throughout his body, coupled with septicemia effect on the heart from massive uncleaned wounds?

Should of Turin authenticity doubts were put permanently to bed after researchers used a NASA camera on the Shroud, and receiving total shock of three dimensional data that doesn’t appear when used on art works. The camera was designed to give three dimensional data from photos of deep space.
SHABAT SHALOM!
Jackson.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

There’s no doubt Jesus was beaten as depicted in Passion of the Christ. This would cause his wounds to weep massive amounts of interstitial fluid, even before being nailed to the cross. This fluid loss would cause great strain on his heart for lack of fluid to pump. His blood would have become very thick and create thrombophyic issues throughout his body, coupled with septicemia effect on the heart from massive uncleaned wounds?

Should of Turin authenticity doubts were put permanently to bed after researchers used a NASA camera on the Shroud, and receiving total shock of three dimensional data that doesn’t appear when used on art works. The camera was designed to give three dimensional data from photos of deep space.

Bless you too, Jackson, for your faith. But let it be simple and honest, and not based on any of your ‘facts’, not one of which is true, and all of which are so easily refuted that you cannot have investigated them at all. That’s fine, but they must not be placed on a public table unchallenged, so I hope you won’t mind…

There’s no doubt Jesus was beaten as depicted in Passion of the Christ.

If you are referring to the Mel Gibson film, then the wounds depicted on the back of Christ are nothing whatever like those depicted on the Shroud. If Christ was indeed flogged in that way, and lost fluid in that way, and died as you say, then the Shroud is quite definitely not a representation of it. Furthermore, although such excoriation as shown on the film can be accompanied by loss of intracellular fluid, there is nothing to suggest that Christ’s flogging was as extreme as described, in that he was still able to walk and talk afterwards.

researchers used a NASA camera on the Shroud … The camera was designed to give three dimensional data from photos of deep space.

No. The VP-8 Image Analyser was not a NASA camera, and never used for space research. It was designed to envisage X-Rays in 3D. Any imaging software can easily imitate it today, and demonstrate that 3D information can be extracted from any similar art-work to the Shroud.

 

[nooooby]

What do you believe about the Shroud of Turin? Scientific tests do not seem to agree with tradition on the topic. But I’ve yet to draw a conclusion.

Your thread is generating lots of responses and does not seem to be in any danger of dying yet!

May I ask you if you have drawn any conclusions so far?

 

[nooooby]

Now that we have proved that the C14 dating is in doubt.

3… 2… 1…

here is another one of those coincidences that seem to surround the Shroud:

https://www.thedivinemercy.org/momm/programs/divine-coincidence

St Faustina actually saw Christ and was asked by him to produce an image of Himself and his mercy. Although this is not proof of authenticity, it is another coincidence that for the faithful reinforces the perception of authenticity.

 

[leonhardprintz]

Now that we have proved that the C14 dating is in doubt.

You asked us whether there were other ways to date the shroud. We offered Ray Roger’s vanilin test and Fanti’s tests, and made specific criticisms of those. You have not, so far, actually engaged with any of the specific points we made.

I’m still looking forward to you doing so.

St Faustina actually saw Christ and was asked by him to produce an image of Himself and his mercy.

Yes she did, but the article didn’t merely make the point that she had an artist paint a picture, but that she had him paint a picture with features that superimpose on the face of the Shroud.

The more interesting aspect is whether this is true of western iconography that depicts Christ in a more naturalistic stylised setting. The image on the original Divine Mercy image is a lot more angular and effeminate than the one of the Shroud, the beard is a different type too. There is a superficial similarity, but the problem is that this is true of Christ’s depiction in western art in general. There’s a motif that is being reused.

Authenticists seem to making two different arguments here, that aren’t mutually inconsistent. “The unity of the Christ motif in art is caused by artists knowing and being influenced by the Shroud of Turin” and “An artist painting a Christ motif made something that had a superficial similarity to the Shroud of Turin and this is hard to explain”

If the former would be true, then the latter would follow even if the artist didn’t have direct access to the Shroud since he’d be painting Christ the way people were imagining Christ as depicted in art.

And I don’t think we need the Shroud of Turin to explain such a motif existing. The Divine Mercy image was painted in 1934. Way past the advent of western christian art depictions of Christ.

Take the Buddha, who is depicted in a stylised form in a very consistent way across various asian countries. This is in no way requires them to have access to a single artefact to draw comparisons from.

There are variations. For instance there is a Greek statue of the Buddha done in a rather different style (but still recognisable). Which to me is a good parallel to the differences we see in depictions of Christ between western iconography and byzantine iconography.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Now that we have proved that the C14 dating is in doubt.

3… 2… 1…

Eh? You were aways in doubt about the C14 evidence, and I am still considerably less so. If Giulio Fanti’s experiments have strengthened your belief in authenticity, then good for you. I was the one who introduced you to them. That’s what I mean by impartial in my evidence. I agree that I am not at all impartial in my conclusions.

 

[Rob2]

I am waiting for our modern scientists to create a replica of the object pictured below with all the unique qualities of this “medieval forgery” .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I am waiting for our modern scientists to create a replica of the object pictured below with all the unique qualities of this “medieval forgery” .

Really? Why? Are you waiting for a replica of the Great Pyramid of Cheops? Or the Chinese Terracotta Army? Or the hanging gardens of Babylon? Or the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria? What a lot of supernatural things there must be in your life, if only a replica can demonstrate their more secular origins.

 

[Rob2]

Rob2:

I am waiting for our modern scientists to create a replica of the object pictured below with all the unique qualities of this “medieval forgery” .

Really? Why? Are you waiting for a replica of the Great Pyramid of Cheops? Or the Chinese Terracotta Army? Or the hanging gardens of Babylon? Or the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria? What a lot of supernatural things there must be in your life, if only a replica can demonstrate their more secular origins.

No I’m not waiting for a replica of any pyramid , terracotta army , hanging gardens etc.etc.erc.

I am waiting for modern scieintists who scoff at this “medieval forgery” to create a replica of this “forgery” with all its unique qualities , using all the skills and knowledge that comes in the wake of modern science which regards itself so superior to the medievals .

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Fine. Me too. Although I don’t know any "modern scieintists who scoff at this “medieval forgery”.

 

[nooooby]

You have not, so far, actually engaged with any of the specific points we made.

Again you are missing the point here. I have supplied Prof Fanti’s scientific papers and analysis, which stand open to peer review. I have also read Fanti and Malfi’s book and find their work to be more credible and persuasive than your posts. Therefore, for you and Mr Farey, there is no point throwing a counter scientific arguments at me, a non-scientist. As I said, please provide the peer review rebuttals of Prof Fanti’s results and I will be able to concede the point. It has been said in response that nobody is interested, which is a fallacy in terms of the merits. Well you and Mr Farey clearly are interested so I have a suggestion for you then. Why don’t you combine your scientific expertise and Mr Farey’s knowledge to peer review Prof Fanti’s papers and neutralise his results. I would be the first to congratulate you both and graciously concede the point.

Until then, Prof Fant’s results stand and cast serious doubt on the validity of the C14 dating.

Yes she did, but the article didn’t merely make the point that she had an artist paint a picture, but that she had him paint a picture with features that superimpose on the face of the Shroud.

You are mistaken. The article clearly states that the Divine Image painting was not influenced by the Shroud, the similarity only being recognised decades later.

The Fanti dating tests are a challenge to the sceptics from science. This challenge is a very interesting challenge from Faith. In effect, all non Catholics (including Protestants) will state this point is of no relevance, indeed almost all will state as you do:

There is a superficial similarity, but the problem is that this is true of Christ’s depiction in western art in general. There’s a motif that is being reused.

i.e. the apparition was of no consequence (as was a hallucination/mental illness) and the similarity of the image is precisely because it is a regurgitation of the standard western image of Christ. This position for non-Catholics is perfectly logical and reasonable for them and their beliefs.

BUT, a Catholic, confronted by one of the few gold standard private apparitions given the certainty of approval by the Roman Catholic Church should consider very carefully why the image has such a similarity to the Shroud. Christ himself signed off on His image, which does not look like a 5ft Chinese man, but rather is a dead ringer to the image on the Shroud. For a Catholic, this is cannot be a lucky guess for either St Faustina, the Divine Image painter or indeed a medieval forger.

So then, a test from Faith itself.

 

[tryphon]

Interesting article about the so called “poker holes”

The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (2): Poker holes

Here is "2.6. The other marks" (2): Poker holes," which is part 13 of my series, " The Shroud of Turin ." The series was originally titled, ...

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com

 

[undead_rat]

Graduate student Lisa is working on her thesis. As an experiment she is attempting to radiocarbon date her grandmother’s old tablecloth. But she is running into a problem with the C-14 results, and goes to consult with her professor, Dr. Husayn Fairie.
Lisa: “Dr. Fairie, the C-14 data on grandma’s linen table cloth make no sense. The analysis gives a date of 6,500 A.D.! Is my grandma and alien from the future?”
Dr. Fairie: “Lisa, when did your grandma acquire her tablecloth?”
Lisa: “She received it as a wedding present in 1965.”
Dr. Fairie: “Let this be a lesson to you, Lisa. C-14 data must always be viewed in the context of the history of the artifact being tested. The flax that was the source of the linen was probably grown in 1963. Atomic bomb testing had been adding carbon fourteen to the earth’s atmosphere for years, and in 1963 it was at almost double the ratio that it had been historically. That is what accounts for the high level of C-14 in your tablecloth. Your grandma is not an alien from the future after all.”
Lisa: “Thank you so much, Dr. Fairie. Now I can sleep at night!”
Dr. Fairie: “Don’t mention it. Lisa. The British Museum made the same mistake when it attempted to attach a C-14 date to the Shroud of Turin, an artifact which had been proven to be 2000 years old. Its C-14 data had been skewed by the miracle of Jesus’ corpse vanishing into another dimension.”
Lisa: “But, Dr. Fairie, I’m a Bahai’. I am not allowed to believe the Jesus actually did miracles or that His corpse vanished!”
Dr. Fairie: “Lisa, I sympathize with you. I am also a Bahai’, and I had the same problem until I had a treatment from our new neuralyzer.”
Lisa: “Neuralyzer, Dr. Fairie?”
Dr. Fairie: “Yes, Lisa. You have seen the film, Men in Black? Our neuralyzer is a more advanced device that has many settings. I first employed the ‘cult theology removal’ option. Now, although still a Bahai’, I am able to believe in Jesus’ miracles.”
Lisa: “Is it safe, Dr. Fairie?”
Dr. Fairie: “Oh, yes, Lisa. I have had several treatments.”
Lisa: “Several, doctor?”
Dr. Fairie: “Yes, I found that I was also in serious need of a condescension deletion as well as treatments for stubbornness, cynicism, and internet aliases. Do you want me to make an appointment for you?”

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I have also read Fanti and Malfi’s book and find their work to be more credible and persuasive than your posts.

Not a problem. If that’s what you feel, then good for you. I don’t mind at all.

There is no point throwing a counter scientific arguments at me, a non-scientist.

Then I won’t.

As I said, please provide the peer review rebuttals of Prof Fanti’s results and I will be able to concede the point.

No need. You may think whatever you like. You are in good company.

It has been said in response that nobody is interested, which is a fallacy in terms of the merits.

I’m not sure what this means, but in general terms, an invention is demonstrated to have merit when lots of people use it, especially if it purports to solve a problem lots of people have.

Well you and Mr Farey clearly are interested so I have a suggestion for you then. Why don’t you combine your scientific expertise and Mr Farey’s knowledge to peer review Prof Fanti’s papers and neutralise his results.

No need. I would be preaching only to a few authenticist sindonologists, whose faith I have no wish to upset. Practising chronologists already know that the technique is not worth pursuing; that’s why they haven’t pursued it.

I would be the first to congratulate you both and graciously concede the point.

I do not mind if you concede the point or not. You asked for information and I gave it to you. What you make of it is entirely your own business.

Until then, Prof Fant’s results stand and cast serious doubt on the validity of the C14 dating.

For you, clearly. For me, not at all. And that’s fine by me.

 

[nooooby]

Mr Farey, thank you for your reply, we can of course agree to differ, life would be so dull if everybody thought the same way.

I am getting this odd feeling again though, it seems you have replied on behalf of Mr Printz, whom I addressed my comments to. It may be me and perhaps I have been working too hard and watching too much football of late.

In future, should I address any comments to “the sceptics” rather than each of you individually. It is getting rather confusing.