Posted on 07/16/2018 12:19:27 AM PDT by Simon Green
The Shroud of Turin, which has been revered by some Christians as the burial cloth of Jesus, could be a fake, according to a new forensic investigation.
The investigation into the bloodstain pattern on the cloth was reported Tuesday in the Journal of Forensic Sciences and is apparently the first such analysis of the controversial shroud.
Held in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, the shroud shows the image of a crucified man and has been analyzed and scrutinized for many, many years. The Vatican regards it as an icon, rather than a religious relic—and the church has never weighed in on its authenticity nor officially rejected it.
In 2015, more than 2 million people saw the Shroud of Turin, which is 14-feet-long, 3.5-feet-wide and kept in a bulletproof, climate-controlled case. The cloth has long been the subject of debate and study.
Researchers concluded that the linen seems to be patched with bloodstains from a standing model, not a crucified man or a facedown corpse, reports BuzzFeed News, adding evidence to claims that it is a fraud.
“This is the kind of forensic work done all the time in police investigations,” Matteo Borrini, a forensic scientist at Liverpool John Moores University in the United Kingdom, told BuzzFeed News. “Even a crucified or hanging person should leave a distinct blood pattern on the cloth, which would be fascinating information to have.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Nope.
““See my hands and my feet, that it is I; touch me and know that a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.””...
Jesus was raised in His same natural body that He was crucified in, just like Lazarus.
The Shroud is a craftily designed hoax, with the head and body “photographed” by camera obscura at different times, thus the perspective shift in the two “photos”...
.
The shroud showed up at a time when there was zero technology existing to create such things.
This is the point that all the dismissers skip when making up their wacked-out theories.
They are in total temporal dissonance.
Camera obscura... technology understood at least 1000 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura
.
Unlike Lazrus and so many others, Yeshua was not resurrected as a mortal.
.
.
Please do not be a wikipedophile!
.
That’s not what Jesus said to His disciples:
“See my hands and my feet, that it is I; touch me and know that a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.”
The technology for camera obscura came about at least one thousand years ago,
and this is most likely why the Shroud has a slit on the neck for the head and the body... “photos” taken at two different times with two different perspectives.
Probably Leonardo or some other famed atheist who hated Christ.
I wasn’t suggesting that Jesus was a “ghost.” It’s just that He clearly existed in a different state — a “glorified body” — than His natural human form. He was able to pass through doors, for example ... and He wasn’t immediately recognized by the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.
He had the same molecule-defying powers before the Resurrection: He walked on water and was transported immediately two or three miles to the other side of the lake with the Disciples. He also escaped somehow from the crowd that was set to stone Him before the Resurrection.
He voluntarily died for us by putting off His divine nature and died and was risen in His human flesh and blood body, same as Lazarus.
And He was taken up to heaven in this same physical flesh and bones and blood body as were Enoch and Elijah.
There, after the Ascension, He is seated in a glorified form, but as John writes, what that form is, we do not yet know because we have not yet seen Him in that form. (And John would know, having been a witness to Him after He was risen, as well as before.)
If Jesus was raised as a God in some different semi-spiritual state, then we are dead in our old dead man of sin, because the Word says we are born again by the same Spirit that raised Him from the dead.
.
“Camera Obscura” is not a photographic technology.
It only projects a light image on a surface. It doesn’t print images on linen.
Time to stop grasping at straws.
Yes, No, No.
Same body, yes. It was the same body that was born of the Virgin Mary, the same body that suffered dread and bloody sweat and exhaustion, the same body that was crucified.
Natural body, no. It was natural-PLUS. Same body, now with pretenatural powers, such as, walking through walls. Appearing and disappearing. Rising up in the air. Being impervious to injury or disease, suffering or death.
Just like Lazarus, no. OK: Jesus' resurrected body was His same personal body, yes, but unlike Lazarus, he would not suffer and die again, as would Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, the widow of Naim's son, and other people who had been raised from the dead.
Jesus' resurrection was not merely the resuscitation of a corpse unto mortal life (again.) . It was transfigured, glorified, immortal. He was now
.
Yeshua was resurrected in exactly the state he explained to Nicodemus in John 3. Able to move invisibly through a room like the wind.
If you lack an understanding of what Yeshua was explaining in John 3, you probably think that you are already saved (born again) but you definitely are not.
You forget that artists and chemists and alchemists were obsessed with these types of issues for since antiquity:
“The notion that light can affect various substances - for instance the suntanning of skin or fading of textile - must have been around since very early times. Ideas of fixing the image seen in mirrors or other ways of creating images automatically may also have been in people’s mind long before anything like photography was developed.
However, there seem to be no historical records of any ideas even remotely resembling photography before 1725, despite early knowledge of light-sensitive materials and the camera obscura.
It has been suggested that some lost type of photographic technology must have been applied before 1357: the Shroud of Turin contains an image that resembles a sepia photographic negative and is much clearer when it is converted to a positive image. The actual method that resulted in this image has not yet been conclusively identified. It first appeared in historical records in 1357 and radiocarbon dating tests indicate it was probably made between 1260 and 1390. No other examples of detailed negative images from before the 19th century are known.
Albertus Magnus (1193/1206–80) discovered silver nitrate and noted that it could blacken skin. Silver nitrate would later be used as a light sensitive material in the photographic emulsion on photographic glass plates and film.
Georg Fabricius (1516–71) discovered silver chloride, later used to make photographic paper...
In 1614 Angelo Sala wrote in his paper Septem Planetarum terrestrium Spagirica recensio: “When you expose powdered silver nitrate to sunlight, it turns black as ink”. He also noted that paper wrapped around silver nitrate for a year had turned black....
Wilhelm Homberg described how light darkened some chemicals (photochemical effect) in 1694...”
If it were a "hoax," it would be a pointless one -- yes, it would be stupid--- since the image is hardly discernible by the naked eye. As pictorial propaganda it would be a "fail." It's only very recently, with sophisticated imaging technologies, that the surprising characteristics of this image have been uncovered.
If it were a "hoax," it would be a pointless one -- yes, it would be stupid--- since the image is hardly discernible by the naked eye. You couldn't even see it, let alone make it. As pictorial propaganda it would be a "fail."
It's only very recent imaging technologies that have disclosed the surprising characteristics of this image, which were not even guessed 100 years ago.
Jesus possessed the same molecule-defying powers before the Resurrection.
After the Resurrection, He specifically corrected the Disciples, who thought He was a ghost, for them to touch Him and handle His body, because He was flesh and blood and bones, NOT a Spirit and not animated by a supernatural or spiritual force.
Just as Jesus explained to Peter that though He could ask His Father to call 12 legions of angels to avenge His arrest... Jesus did not do this. Jesus put off His divinity in order to die in His human fleshly nature on the Cross and was risen in this same body.
As He said (again) “See my hands and my feet, that it is I; touch me and know that a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.”
(to editor surveyor: don’t make up a Frankenchrist out of the plain humanity that is the Incarnation.)
John underscored the importance of this teaching by stressing that “Anyone who says that Jesus is not come in the flesh is antichrist”
He is come in the flesh... before and after the Resurrection.
And John then, says that we shall be like Him, but we do not know what we shall be like (in our own glorified bodies) until we see Him — because John had NOT seen Jesus in His glorified body.
And John wrote this after he and Peter and James saw Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration!
So John definitely did not see Jesus glorified after the Resurrection.
Jesus is come in the flesh and blood and bones before and after the Resurrection.
Well, none of the disciples or Mary or Mary Magdelene mentioned that there were markings on the binding cloths.
And since the Word doesn’t discuss it, nor stress the importance of such an artifact, our faith shouldn’t rest on it.
Remember, even a handkerchief that had touched Paul was believed to be able to heal a woman; it would seem unlikely that Christ’s gravecloths were not discussed any further than they were discussed in the Word.
Well and truly stated!
My God, but you're pig-fornicatingly stupid.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
That would include the shroud whether real or fake,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.