The Shroud of Turin

[thistle]

camera obscura doesn’t render a negative image but an upside down one.

The image being photographed shows upside down when the process is going on. Obviously you turn the cloth round when the process is finished. The program I watched then showed how it had the same effect as the Shroud.

 

[triumphguy]

In today’s news…

Shroud Of Turin, Jesus’ Proposed Burial Cloth, Is Authentic, Italian Study Suggests

huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/shroud-of-turin-jesus-burial-cloth-authentic_n_1161363.html?ref=religion&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl6%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D121982

This is the Telegraph article the Huffington Post used:“The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it”
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100125247/the-turin-shroud-is-fake-get-over-it/

It reminds me of the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: Luke 16:19-31

A rich man dies and finds that Lazarus a beggar is in the arms of Abraham while he is suffering torment. He begs that a warning be sent to his family. Abraham said “They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them…If they do not hear Moss and the Prophets neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.”

We have Moss and the Prophets and the Risen Jesus, surely that’s enough.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

I have seen it in person! What a great privilege!

Anyway, the problem is when people think the truth of the Lord’s divinity and resurrection depend on the authenticity (or inauthenticity) of the shroud. Atheists are threatened by it, while believers think attacks on it are attacks on their faith itself.

I have read really thoroughly on it and believe it is probably authentic. It is simply not possible to dismiss or discredit it, based on what has been discovered regarding it so far.

Anyway, what bothers me most is this idea of “fakeness.” Let’s suppose for a moment that it’s not authentic. How can anybody prove that it was intended by its makers (again, I actually believe it** is** authentic) to deceive? That is not very scholarly to suggest such.

What’s interesting is that Rome originally gave permission to display it publicly centuries ago as long as it was exhibited as a representation of the Lord’s shroud, not as the actual thing (no, that shouldn’t be interpreted as a commentary on the then-pope’s view of whether or not it was authentic).

Pope Benedict pushed the envelope as closely as possible to saying he thinks it is authentic. But The Church as such doesn’t offer judgments on these kinds of things, to answer the OP’s question.

 

[Joe_5859]

Here’s a new article on the Shroud in favor of its authenticity:

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/sacra-sindone-holy-shroud-sabana-santa-10738/

 

[CatholicRoots]

The image being photographed shows upside down when the process is going on. Obviously you turn the cloth round when the process is finished. The program I watched then showed how it had the same effect as the Shroud.

The only thing I don’t understand about this theory, (although I concede that I have hardly investigated it at all but anyway) is that the cloth shows all the marks of a crucifixion. (Nail marks at the base of the thumb coming out to the back of the wrist, lacerations on the body from scourging, and punctures in the head and around the temple from a crown of thorns [according to some academics])

How does the theory accomodate this? Its untenable to think that somebody actually allowed themselves to be crucified in c. 13 th century to create an elaborare hoax relic.

Sorry if my question is a bit ignorant. I just don’t understand thats all.

 

[HelenRose]

The Church does not have a position on it.
Catholics are free to believe or not believe it is genuine.

It is also something that could never be proven to be the actual burial cloth of Christ. The most that could ever be proven is that the cloth is from the time of Christ and that has not even been proven.

Believers will no doubt say the carbon dating was faulty, or the cloth they tested was corrupt due to fire, or it was a piece of cloth from the middle ages used to repair the Shroud.
Personally, I think it is a medieval fake made by using a camera obscura. All the materials and technology were available in the middle ages and able to produce the photo negative effect.

There are more ways to think about the Shroud besides:

1. It is the Shroud of Christ or
2. It is a fake.

If it is not the Shroud of Christ, it may have been a work of art done by an unknown artist who had no intention of making a “fake” but was trying to show his or her love for Christ. This artist may have been experimenting with new technologies that he or she had discovered.

It could have been a miracle taken place in the middle ages.

It could have been something entirely different from all the above.

Whatever the case: The Shroud is a fasinating object. I would never belittle a work of such interest as being “a fake”

I do not know whether or not it is the Shroud of Christ but in any case, I do not believe that it was created to fool unsuspecting people because - It has the markings of a work of love.

 

[HelenRose]

The only thing I don’t understand about this theory, (although I concede that I have hardly investigated it at all but anyway) is that the cloth shows all the marks of a crucifixion. (Nail marks at the base of the thumb coming out to the back of the wrist, lacerations on the body from scourging, and punctures in the head and around the temple from a crown of thorns [according to some academics])

How does the theory accomodate this? Its untenable to think that somebody actually allowed themselves to be crucified in c. 13 th century to create an elaborare hoax relic.

Sorry if my question is a bit ignorant. I just don’t understand thats all.

I think when it comes to the Shroud we are all a bit ignorant and don’t understand.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

Something I have always wondered: assuming the Shroud is authentic (and I believe it is), why such a stark difference in the numbet of scourging lacerations on it as opposed to the images we see in say, The Passion of The Christ, or in holy art? He does not seem nearly that abused on the Shroud. Any thoughts?

 

[Fiasco]

Something I have always wondered: assuming the Shroud is authentic (and I believe it is), why such a stark difference in the numbet of scourging lacerations on it as opposed to the images we see in say, The Passion of The Christ, or in holy art? He does not seem nearly that abused on the Shroud. Any thoughts?

It`s an over-the-top representation in The Passion of The Christ.
Under Roman law, scourging was set at 40 strokes, but because the Pharisees were worried about miscounting, in that part of the world, it was “limited” to 39.

If we make the assumption that. the Shroud is authentic, there were two men doing the scourging, with one being shorter than the other.

Some alleged mystics have come out with outrageous claims of how many times our Lord was struck. He would have been skinned alive! Mels depiction wouldnt be too far off that!

There`s a silly idea that the words of Scripture: “I can count all my bones.” [Psalm 22:17] mean thet Jesus was beaten so savagely that all of His bones were visible!!! The words actually mean that not a bone would be broken - as with the original Paschal lambs.

One lot of “evidence” against authenticity is that “provided” by the late Walter McCrone, a member of the 1978 (was it?) STURP team, He became convinced that he found pigment on the cloth, broke ranks with his fellow members, and published his ideas separately from the others. To his dying day, he refused to budge, even though his former collegues disputed his findings. The McCrone Research Institute can be visited online, and it`s very sure of itself in pronouncing the Shroud a mediaeval forgery.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

And I agree with you. What I find confusing is that some of the mystics are Blessed or evSaints. So, why and how could their visions be inaccurate? Perhaps an outward exoression of Christ’s internal pain of bearing billions and billions of sins? And what wasHis cheif agony? Physical distress or the pain of the previously mentioned. My old Baltimore Catechism says it was the physical pain, but it also suggests the existence of Limbo for unbaptized infants.

 

[patrick457]

Something I have always wondered: assuming the Shroud is authentic (and I believe it is), why such a stark difference in the numbet of scourging lacerations on it as opposed to the images we see in say, The Passion of The Christ, or in holy art? He does not seem nearly that abused on the Shroud. Any thoughts?

Ooh, another Shroud thread! I’ll jump in the bandwagon.

“Not nearly that abused.” Take a look at this pic:

http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/pathol8.jpg

Just imagine the wounds still bleeding: the man’s back would have been literally red with blood.

Another thing is, Mel Gibson was making a movie. Crucifixion was indeed a brutal and shameful way to die, but Mel’s portrayal of said brutality IMHO exceeds even what would have really happened: the protracted scourging you see in the film is sufficient to kill a person. Now to be honest, Mel, despite promises, isn’t really a person who’ll concern himself with 100% historical accuracy. I mean, look at Braveheart, with its 13th century Scottish warriors looking like Migration Period barbarians, Lowlanders wearing kilts (a garment of the Highlands, having its origins in the late 16th century - way after William Wallace lived), and the Battle of Stirling Bridge without any bridges in sight , but still, I give him credit for making The Passion of the Christ.

 

[patrick457]

And I agree with you. What I find confusing is that some of the mystics are Blessed or evSaints. So, why and how could their visions be inaccurate? Perhaps an outward exoression of Christ’s internal pain of bearing billions and billions of sins? And what wasHis cheif agony? Physical distress or the pain of the previously mentioned. My old Baltimore Catechism says it was the physical pain, but it also suggests the existence of Limbo for unbaptized infants.

In my opinion, it’s not so much that saints and mystics saw the historical fact (the ‘what really happened’) as if watching a videoclip recording, but saw the events more or less filtered through their own eyes. It’s kind of similar to the apparitions of Our Lady or Jesus: different visionaries see them differently.

 

[Faith1960]

And I agree with you. What I find confusing is that some of the mystics are Blessed or evSaints. So, why and how could their visions be inaccurate?

There are a lot of conflicting descriptions from Saints who have had visions of the Blessed Virgin, too. Can someone answer why visions of Jesus and Mary are so vastly different if these mystics are seeing visions of the real Christ and Blessed Virgin Mary?

 

[Fiasco]

…more or less filtered through their own eyes.It’s kind of similar to the apparitions of Our Lady or Jesus: different visionaries see them differently.

There are a lot of conflicting descriptions from Saints who have had visions of the Blessed Virgin, too. Can someone answer why visions of Jesus and Mary are so vastly different if these mystics are seeing visions of the real Christ and Blessed Virgin Mary?

The Church realises that even the saints who have experienced supernatural phenomena can be mistaken about the messages. One saint (can`t remember who: Saint Catherine of Sienna?, Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque?) said that our Lady told her that she was NOT immaculately conceived …obviously wrong.
Patrick makes a good point in his comment, above.

Years ago, someone lent me a copy of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich`s “The Dolourous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ”. Started to read it, but gave up because it contradicted evidence from the Shroud, and what we know by reading documents from the period, medical evidence, archaeological evidence etc, etc, etc, most of which tends to support the Shroud.

There are other alleged visionaries/mystics whose names are best left unmentioned…

i want my ideas about the Passion to be based on truth, not on outrageous claims based on over-the-top misguided piety!

Layp3rs0n: **
Our Lord`s chief suffering was probably spiritual: having to endure the CRUSHING **weight of our sins, and the knowledge that His ultimate Sacrifice would be rejected by so many of us. In a way, He willingly became SIN INCARNATE…the horror of that!
Not to forget His infinite LOVE!

 

[HelenRose]

The Church does not have a position on it.
Catholics are free to believe or not believe it is genuine.

It is also something that could never be proven to be the actual burial cloth of Christ. The most that could ever be proven is that the cloth is from the time of Christ and that has not even been proven.

Believers will no doubt say the carbon dating was faulty, or the cloth they tested was corrupt due to fire, or it was a piece of cloth from the middle ages used to repair the Shroud.
Personally, I think it is a medieval fake made by using a camera obscura. All the materials and technology were available in the middle ages and able to produce the photo negative effect.

Even if it were not the shroud of Christ, it may not be a “fake”.

To call it a fake is to assume that it was made with the deliberate attempt to defraud and fool someone. It could have been an honest work of love and art by an devout artist whose life has been forgotten in time.

The shroud expresses so much sorrow and pain. It is hard for me to believe that someone would create something so fascinating, so touchingly real, and unique just to fool people.

 

[CarloMagnus]

What is the Church’s view on the Shroud of Turin?

Well that it’s an awesome piece of cloth.

-Karl

 

[Hesychios]

Well that it’s an awesome piece of cloth.

-Karl

It will be nice when the Roman Catholic church returns it.

 

[Wildkit]

Something I have always wondered: assuming the Shroud is authentic (and I believe it is), why such a stark difference in the numbet of scourging lacerations on it as opposed to the images we see in say, The Passion of The Christ, or in holy art? He does not seem nearly that abused on the Shroud. Any thoughts?

I always thought the movies or artist impressions were the real thing?

 

[patrick457]

I always thought the movies or artist impressions were the real thing?

Artists and filmmakers couldn’t even agree on whether Jesus’ feet were positioned one over the other or separately, whether He wore the crown of thorns or not, or just how tall the cross exactly was.

 

[patrick457]

It will be nice when the Roman Catholic church returns it.

If we identify the Shroud with the Holy Mandylion, the question would probably go like: shouldn’t the Church in Constantinople have returned it to Edessa?