Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Catholic ping
Ping!
Something new to bow down to and worship...Satan is really good at his job
What you folks need is.....MORE GRANT MONEY!!!!
The Shroud is not central to my faith so it doesn’t matter to me either way. If the science says it’s not authentic, it doesn’t bother me because I still believe in Christ every bit as much but if it is somehow proven authentic, all the greater glory to God.
Interesting.
The only thing cooler than Shroud of Turin (SOT) threads are the threads about intelligent life on other planets.
The Shroud shows us the face of Jesus, his beard, nose, closed eyes, all his wounds, including the back because of the imprint on both sides of the cloth, with his hands folded over his lower belly. All his wounds.
It could be duplicated because many people then were scoured and crucified; however, NO ONE but Jesus had the Crown of Thorns...and that also shows on the Shroud. That was unique.
The Shroud has not deteriorated, as iy normally would.
The Bascilica has a short silent DVD explaining the Shroud. Amazing.
The Shroud comes out of its place for public once every 20 or 25 years.
The most interesting aspects are: not formed by contact between the body and the shroud, no sign of putrefaction, no image formed beneath blood, therefore, blood deposited first, no sign in blood stains of movement after wrapping, a 200nm thick image layer, and a total required laser energy of 34,000 billion watts to imprint an image of that size at a single time using a laser.
What the report may prove is that the image is not a “fake”, not something manufactured to look like the image it is.
What the report cannot identify or confirm is “whose” image is represented in the shroud.
THAT will remain a mystery as big as how the image came to be.
I believe the shroud is real.
There was a microscopic bit of pollen from the 1st century A.D. found in the cloth of the Shroud. THAT definitively dates it to that time.
Was Transfiguration the first time 34 thousand billion watts of radiation hit Christ`s clothes and the Shroud the second time?
St. Matthew (17:1-6),
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James
and his brother John and led them up a high mountain,
by themselves. 2And he was transfigured before them,
and HIS FACE SHONE LIKE THE SUN, AND HIS CLOTHES BECAME DAZZLING WHITE.
St. Mark (9:1-8),
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James
and John, and led them up a high mountain apart,
by themselves. And he was transfigured before them,
and HIS CLOTHES BECAME DAZZLING WHITE SUCH AS NO ONE ON EARTH COULD BLEACH THEM.
and St. Luke (9:28-36),
Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus
* took with him Peter and John and James, and
went up on the mountain to pray. And while he was praying,
THE APPEARANCE OF HIS FACE CHANGED AND HIS CLOTHES BECAME DAZZLING WHITE.
2 Peter 1:16-18
16 For we did not follow cleverly
devised myths when we made known to
you the power and coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, BUT WE HAD BEEN EYEWITNESSES OF HIS MAJESTY. FOR HE RECEIVED HONOUR AND GLORY FROM GOD THE FATHER when that voice was
conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying,
‘This is my Son, my Beloved,*
with whom I am well pleased.’
St. John (1:14),
AND WE HAVE SEEN and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world
I’m not familiar with it, but I must say I deplore reading scientific papers and legal papers that are phrased so weirdly that I can’t understand what they’re trying to say. Can’t anyone just be simple and brief?
It’s a miracle all right - well kinda.
The front image is 6’8” long, the back 6’10”
The head is too small for the body and appears to have been “pasted” on (large separation line at neck)
If the shroud was draped around the body head-to-toe, why isn’t the top of the head shown. The intervening space is too short and the images appear hinged.
The real miracle is that it appears to be the world’s first photograph. Capturing images was widely known even in Roman times, but the image soon faded. Someone found out how to “set” the image.
Whatever it is, it sure ain’t the miracle the “Shroudies” claim.
In other news, the IPCC says man-made global warming is real.
But there are serious problems with the view that this is the burial cloth of Christ, even if we ignore carbon dating tests in 1988 that showed the cloth may be only 600 or 700 years old.
We admit that carbon dating can give crazy results, and carbon dating results from the shroud have brought major criticisms, so this is not proof of the shroud’s age. Even so, there are genuine problems with the view that this shroud shows a picture of Christ.
It is clear from the Bible and from Jewish burial customs that several pieces of cloth bound Christ at His burial — not one large sheet like the shroud.
In John 20:5-7 we find there was a separate piece wrapped around Christ’s head. Yet the Shroud of Turin depicts a face on the sheet.
In December 2009, archaeologists announced the discovery of a shroud-like cloth in a cave in Jerusalem that dated to the time of Christ. Unfortunately, it was made with a simple two-way weave — not the twill weave used on the Turin Shroud, which textile experts say was introduced more than 1000 years after Christ lived.
The size of the shroud is 14 feet 3 inches by 3 feet 7 inches (434 centimetres by 109 centimetres). But the Bible says linen strips bound Jesus, not an enormous cloth (see John 19:40).
The Bible is the authoritative record of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, and the Bible mentions nothing of a shroud.
Walter C. McCrone, head of a Chicago research institute and a specialist in authenticating art objects, examined the shroud. He found a pale, gelatin-based substance speckled with particles of red ochre on fibres from the part of the cloth that supposedly showed the figure of Christ. He also found that fibers from the “wounds” had stains, not of blood, but of particles of a synthetic vermilion developed in the Middle Ages. He said the practice of painting linen with gelatin-based temperas began in the late thirteenth century and was common in the fourteenth.
McCrone concluded that a fourteenth century artist had forged the shroud, and defended this view right up until he died on July 10, 2002.
In the 1980s, Jesuit priest Robert A. Wild expressed surprise that the bloodstains showed no trace of smearing after all the movement and transport the body would have endured. Wild also noted that the hands of the body masked the genitals. He said this couldn’t be right. No matter how you arrange a body after rigor mortis, he said, the hands cannot cover the genitals unless you prop up the elbows on the body and bind the hands tightly in place. Yet this is not what the shroud’s image shows.
Above: In the studio of composer Igor Stravinsky’s home stood a reproduction of the face from the Shroud of Turin among other icons and religious memorabilia. © Time Inc. 1959.
The first record of the shroud’s appearance was in 1353, when Geoffrey de Charny presented it to the small local church in the French town of Lirey. Three years later, in 1356, the bishop of the region wrote to the pope, in Latin, telling of his annoyance that certain people wanted this “painted” cloth displayed as the burial cloth of Christ. The bishop added that his predecessor, Henry of Poitiers, “after diligent inquiry and examination,” had found the artist who painted it. The artist testified that “it was the work of human skill and not miraculously wrought.”
Interestingly, this date accords with the carbon-14 tests, which dated the shroud to about the first quarter of the 1300s — although some information suggests that this is the date the cloth was repaired, and the repaired cloth was the part that was carbon-dated. The date agrees with art expert Walter McCrone’s estimate of the age based on known painting styles (see 6th point above).
The verses that tell of Joseph of Arimathea’s wrapping Jesus in linen cloth are Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, and John 19:40. Look in Vine’s Expository Dictionary, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, and the Ryrie Study Bible. They all tell us the Greek words used in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (entulisso and eneileo) mean “to roll in, wind in”, “to twist, to entwine”, “to enwrap”, “to wrap by winding tightly”. Winding, twisting and entwining imply wrappings, or strips of bandage, rather than a single shroud.
But if they did mean a single sheet, then Matthew, Mark, and Luke would conflict with John 19:40, which is clearer by using the Greek word othonion, meaning “linen bandage” (Strong’s concordance). If the Bible writers had meant a single linen sheet like the shroud, the word used should have been othone (a single linen cloth, a sail, or a sheet). From this, it seems that all four Gospel writers were telling us that normal long strips of linen covered Jesus.
In 2005, N.D. Wilson, a fellow of literature at New St. Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, showed it would have been easy for a medieval to create a 3-D photonegative. Wilson painted faces on glass, put the painted panes on linen, and left it in the sun for various lengths of time. The images Wilson produced look remarkably similar to the Shroud of Turin, although Wilson was the first to admit that this in itself did not disprove the Shroud’s authenticity.
The Catholic Church itself does not officially accept the shroud as authentic. When we last checked, in May 2008, the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on the Shroud of Turin admitted a number of reasons to doubt its authenticity. These included:
the awkward fact that many similar shrouds existed which their owners claimed showed the genuine image of Christ
a pope in the 1300s issued a pronouncement that when the shroud was exhibited, the priest must “declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ”
the admission that “no intelligible account, beyond wild conjecture, can be given of the previous history of the Shroud” before it appeared at Lirey around 1353
this shroud, like the others, “was probably painted without fraudulent intent to aid the dramatic setting” at Easter
witnesses in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries said the image was then so vivid that the blood “seemed freshly shed.” But the blood is now dark and hardly recognizable.
On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from aroound the year AD 30, “why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.”
Even if the Shroud of Turin proves to be 2000 years old — and it hasn’t — you can see there are strong arguments against its being Christ’s burial cloth.
Historical note: The Shroud of Turin has been kept since 1578 in a chapel at the Cathedral of San Giovanni Battista in Turin, Italy.
http://www.creationtips.com/shroud.html
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
The shroud has everyone stumped. From a scientific point of view, you can say it’s a miracle if it’s real and a miracle if it’s fake.
The problem, always from a scientific point of view is that you are absolutely free not to believe that it is actually and factually the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, you may “debunk”... but then you have to “bunk”.
Okay, it’s fake, it’s man-made... but how on earth was it made? Just saying the devil made it, to lead man astray, really doesn’t do it from a scientific point of view, so what are we left with?
A Medieval (or older) man creating something capable of stumping 21st century science.
So okay, it’s a fake, but a fantastically prodigious one. How could its creator have known how to make it forensically so correct with “stuff” that could only have been appreciated by technologies many centuries away? Why would he have bothered?
The devil theory doesn’t hold water because believing that it is actually and factually the burial cloth of Christ is not required. Very few Catholics even knew about it. Even today not that many are “obsessed.” It’s a matter of interest but not of faith. It’s a matter of interest to believers and non-believers alike.
It exists. How do we deal with it?
It could be quite interesting to research how any people have come to Christ after discovering the facts of this shroud....precisely because they began to THINK about Christ.
Also, one researcher wrote “the the STURP team were able to extract DNA from the blood on the Shroud prompting the 1999 book by Leoncio Garza-Valdes The DNA of God? This leads to the question of whether or not there could be another DNA sample from a different source relating to Jesus that could be used to cross-reference the Shroud DNA, if so that could solve the Shroud mystery once and for all.”
If the Church ever requested this to be compared with the DNA from one of the Eucharistic miracle sources (Lanciano, Italy comes to mind), we might discover some FAR more interesting information.
;-))