New Chemical Testing Points to Ancient Origin for Burial Shroud of Jesus

Yahoo ^ | January 19, 2005

[WindOracle]

To me the thing is merely a curiosity really. I have my faith, whether there is physical evidence or not.

I have no real opinion as to whether it is genuine, however, the carbon dating of the cloth seems likely to be inconclusive no matter what date it should return, given the fact that it was exposed to heat and smoke in a fire a few hundred years ago, and on a recent documentary they demonstrated how that can definitely throw off carbon dating. So what does it prove either way? And what is it with the catholic obsession with relics anyway? Some religious practices seem to "feel right" while others have more of a paganistc "feel" to them, like ritual cannibalism, religious tattooing, sacrifices, etc. This is, admittedly a personal sort of feeling about these things, and maybe others do not really relate to what I mean, I don't know. But anyway, the idea of keeping relics, some of which included body parts, as objects of religious adoration strikes me as a bit odd.

[True Republican Patriot]

That Today We Now Know The Shroud is much Older Than One swatch had Tested is Exciting!!!!And Sad That It Took 16 Years to Catch The Error. That It was So Painstakingly and Perfectly Rewoven Around 1290AD Adds to The reverance and Importance It Represented During Those dark Times. That We Today Can't Replicate Any Method to Create the Negative Image, makes Me a Believer in It Today.It Covered The SON of GOD In Death. AMEN.

[usurper]

So the question becomes which came first: the veneration and popular acceptance of the shroud as the image of Christ or the image of Christ in the artwork of the time?

Humm, that’s a good point. I always wondered why all the old paintings from antiquity basically looked the same. Perhaps this was the original image they copied. Strange

[Joe Marine 76]

To All:

Read "The Second Messiah: Templars, the Shroud of Turin and the Great Secret of Freemasonary" by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas. The authors believe that the image on the Shroud of Turin is that of Jacques de Molay of the Knights Templar (1244 - 1314). They posit a reasonable explanation for the image. A good read!

[Terabitten]

To carry it a little further, doesn't anyone think it's funny that it's a common "conceptual image" of Jesus?

I'm that rarest of birds, one who doesn't have an opinion on the shroud either way. It won't change my faith one iota if it's fake, or if it's true.

You pose a good question, but I'd have to ask - where did the conceptual images *come* from? :D

[Terabitten]

we still couldn't say -- for certain fact -- that it is the burial shroud of Jesus.

I don't think anything will prove conclusively that it's the shroud of Jesus until Earth and sky stand presently at God's great judgement seat.... and Jesus yells, "Gimme back my bathrobe!"

[Terabitten]

That Caps Key Must Sure Get a Workout.

:)


Is Everything You Say the Title of a Book?

I'm just teasin' - no offense meant, my FRiend. :)

[Sloth]

To carry it a little further, doesn't anyone think it's funny that it's a common "conceptual image" of Jesus?

Yep, way too perfect traditional Euro-centric 'Jesus' image. For all we know he looked like an Mid-Eastern Don Rickles.

[Beowulf9]

By "Conceptual image of Jesus" I take it you mean 'a guy with a beard'.

That's pretty unusual.....especially for the Jews in those days!

[Terabitten]

That's pretty unusual.....especially for the Jews in those days!

Really? I thought orthodox Jews were required to have beards.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

I've been saying this since 1988. The shroud was damaged by fire in the middle ages, and there is quite a bit of patching material, especially at the corner where the sample was supposedly taken. I think it's understandable that the shroud's owners wouldn't want to destroy even a little bit of the actual cloth, but given the ramifications of the testing, every effort should have been made to ensure that the samples were from the actual relic and well-documented as to where they were taken from.

Incidentally, I believe the image on the shroud was created through the agency of ionizing radiation originating from a hard prototype (statuary) made of sedimentary rock containing moderate amounts of radioactive material.

[therut]

Don't forget about Doubting Thomas. He had to see the marks from the nails!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even then it was just to unbelievable to some. Blessed are those who have not seen and believe.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks solitas. Added it to GGG. Similar, a little earlier:

Shroud Of Turin - New Date?
Yahoo ^ | 1-19-2005 | Michael Minor
Posted on 01/19/2005 11:46:04 AM PST by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1324044/posts

[TexasGreg]

To carry it a little further, doesn't anyone think it's funny that it's a common "conceptual image" of Jesus?

Hmm ... like the nail prints in the WRISTS and not in the palms? Traditional iconography places the nails in the palms.

[RightWhale]

The headline does not logically match the text. Nevermind that the article or a close relative was posted already.

[TexasGreg]

Faith and evidence, by definition, are mutually exclusive. Evidence proves fact, not faith. Faith depends upon belief alone. The certainty of that which is unseen, unproven. It is the depth of ones faith that is important, not the evidence.

Faith, in it's verb-form, is an action which one takes (i.e., trust manifested in an outward affirmation) based upon belief, and that belief is sustained by a level of confidence in the object of faith. In its normative meaning for Christians, one's confidence in their belief is rooted in the revelation of Jesus Christ through (1) the written word, (2) the teachings of the church, and (3) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Other evidences -- like a relic, or a trip to the Holy Land -- can also help to build that confidence. Making a trip to Israel and visiting Golgotha and the other Biblical sites can serve as evidences and help build confidence in one's belief and appreciation of one's faith without being "proof." The shroud -- if ever discovered to be authentic -- could serve a similar role.

In short, the way some want to define faith makes it almost the equivalent of "believing without any reason." Faith is never without any reason; evidences support confidence in one's belief, but are not -- themselves --the object of one's faith. Are such evidences "proof" of the gospel? No. We're not talking about a proof of the theological meaning of the death (i.e., the substitutionary atonement) or even of the resurrection; we're talking about possible proof of the historical existence of Jesus, whom some (like G.A. Wells) have, in the past, denied even existed. We're talking about a piece of possible evidence that points to the historic fact of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, something with some have a also denied. That Jesus lived isn't a "proof" of his divinity or of the Gospel, nor is his crucifixion and death a proof of the theological content Gospel. However, they DO serve as a piece of evidence supporting confidence in one's belief that the one who lived, crucified, and died, was also Divine and died for our sins.

If dating of the material that is not part of the repair weaving proves the shroud was made in the 1200s, this wouldn't effect how I currently view the shroud -- it is an amazing piece of religious iconography, one which truly does challenge our ability to comprehend how it was made back in the 13th century ... and, not only how, but WHY it was made to have the characteristics which it manifestly has. If nothing else, it has value as a piece of religious iconography.

[elbucko]

If nothing else, it has value as a piece of religious iconography.

That's fine with me.

[finnigan2]

" To carry it a little further, doesn't anyone think it's funny that it's a common "conceptual image" of Jesus?"

- An interesting question and one for which there is a plausible explanation.
It has been noted that early Christian churches, especially those in and around Byzantium, often had paintings or murals in their churches which look remarkably similar to the image on the Turin shroud. Also, the historical trail of the shroud supposes that it traveled to Constantinople where it was kept until pirated away by Crusaders in the middle ages and eventually found it's way to Turin.
The plausible explanation is that the early Christian churches in the middle east had access to the shroud (the image at that time being much clearer) and copied it as best they could in their local places of worship so a common conceptual image developed in that region - based on the shroud.
Of course, the paintings of Jesus that were produced in Europe after the Renaissance have a different common conceptual image based on artists making copies based on versions done by the old masters who they admired and tried to copy.

[swilhelm73]

I didn't create the title, and as FR clearly notes, you are to use the real title. As for it being posted...you know teh search function is real easy to use...and no...it has not been posted before.

Geez.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=New+Chemical+Testing+Points+to+Ancient+Origin+for+Burial+Shroud+of+Jesus&ok=Search&q=quick&m=all&o=time&SX=41f16c30a41ae3f04650fed111fdbee1977a133b

[DBeers]

The Shroud is back in play -one can only wonder why sceptics will be coming out of the woodwork? The real question may be -what is gained by disproving it?