Posted on 10/08/2009 11:35:33 AM PDT by Nikas777
Teacher Has Theory on the Shroud of Turin
Thursday March 24, 2005 1:46 PM
By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS
Associated Press Writer
SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) - Nathan Wilson is an English teacher with no scientific training, but he thinks he knows how Jesus' burial cloth was made and he thinks it's not a physical sign of the resurrection.
In other words, in Wilson's estimation, the Shroud of Turin is a fake - produced with some glass, paint and old cloth. And that theory, especially with Easter this weekend, has so-called ``Shroudies'' a buzz.
``A lot of religious people are upset,'' said Wilson, 26, who teaches at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho.
Wilson is himself an evangelical Christian but said his views on the shroud don't change his faith.
``I'm a Bible-believing Christian who believes in the resurrection completely without a doubt,'' he said.
The English instructor believes a medieval forger could have painted the image of a crucified man on a pane of glass, laid it on the linen, then left it outside in the sun to bleach the cloth for several days. As the linen lightened, the painted image of the man remained dark on the cloth, creating the equivalent of a photo negative.
Wilson wrote his theory in Books and Culture, a magazine for Christian intellectuals. It was picked up by several Web sites and is being debated in shroud circles. Wilson's Web site received more than 100,000 hits from 45 countries in the first week of his article's publication.
Shroud expert Dan Porter said that while Wilson's theory is ingenious, it does not produce images identical to those on the 14-foot-long, 3-inch-wide strip of linen.
``It is not adequate to produce something that looks like the shroud in two or three ways,'' said Porter, who lives in Bronxville, N.Y. ``One must produce an image that meets all of the criteria.''
Porter contends sun bleaching cannot have produced the image, which he and many others say is the result of chemical reactions on the cloth.
``A problem with Wilson's hypothesis is that sun bleaching merely accelerates bleaching that will occur naturally as the material is exposed to light,'' Porter wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. ``Eventually, Wilson's sun bleach shroud image will fade into the background as exposure equalizes the bleaching.''
The shroud has often been displayed, sometimes in bright sunlight for days at a time, and no such image fading has occurred, Porter said.
Porter and others also question whether panes of glass at least 6 feet long were produced in medieval times, as Wilson's theory would require.
Radiocarbon tests of the Shroud of Turin were done in 1988, and dated the cloth at A.D. 1260 to 1390. But Raymond Rogers of Los Alamos National Laboratory recently argued that the tested threads came from later patches and might have been contaminated. Rogers calculated that the shroud is 1,300 to 3,000 years old and could easily date from Jesus' era.
Wilson said he wants to write a novel about his theory. The forger or perhaps forgers, Wilson theorizes, probably robbed a grave and pulled the aged shroud off a body, then crucified someone to obtain the blood and study the wounds of Jesus.
``Most likely it involved some real wicked people,'' Wilson said.
---
On the Web:
Wilson's Web site: http://www.shadowshroud.com
Its amazing how some con artist back in the Middle Ages still has all the scientists stumped.
These alternate views are all nonsense. The shroud sat around for centuries before the concept of a negative image was ever understood.
I disagree with that. I am pretty sure the last scientific study of the shroud pinned its age to the Middle Ages.
If the image on the Shroud is not a man made work it is probably the Mandylion looted from Constantinople. The Mandylion was a historically verifiable image of Jesus on cloth that predated the Middle Ages.
My ancestors may have accepted Christ without ever hearing of the Catholic Church. And yet, I would never think of attacking the beliefs of those brothers and sisters in Christ in an effort to advance some agenda of my own, even though they have some articles of faith that I don't find in my Bible. But thanks for defining exactly how you need me to come to Jesus. If I am erring in believing in a miracle of God, I am sure He'll straighten me out in the first five minutes of the Afterlife, but I suspect, what with all the signing of praise and rejoicing, it's not going to really matter by then.
You don’t need to see the cross either but if it is ever found I sure would love to look at it.
I don’t know how to respond because I don’t see what you see in the Shroud as a link to your faith.
If you are referring to the radiocarbon testing, the samples were taken all from one area of the Shroud; in violation of pre-agreed-upon protocols.
The funny thing is, when you look at the raw data for the dates assigned to the samples taken, they don't match. Furthermore, the area from which these samples were taken have been shown to be comprised of different material, with a different weave, from the rest of the Shroud.
Homogeneity of the sample is vital in analytic chemistry.
Cheers!
The cross was found. See St. Helen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titulus_Crucis
I am pretty sure it was more than radio carbon dating. It is not like they were close and the vote was 3 for and 4 against.
I don't have a King James handy...but I believe that when Thomas said that he wouldn't believe unless he saw a miracle, I don't think Christ hid the marks on his hands and side and told him:
"Thomas! You foolish man! I'm not going to provide you any kind of evidence of God's power and glory; you're just going to have to get by on your own faith, because showing you the rapidly healing hole in my side and the shrinking wounds in my hands would be tantamount to providing proof that there is a God who would do those miracles, and if you have proof, you wouldn't be relying on your Faith, and so you would be worthless to Me, sayeth the LORD."Jesus told Thomas that his faith should be stronger...but He never hid His glory from Thomas; your own example shows God works miracles, and that they are useful teaching lessons for those whose faith is not as great as the Lord would prefer. If the Lord my God wants to allow that miracles occur, and if there are those to whom miracles provide comfort, I don't need the approval of man to believe in them. If God showed Thomas in those elder days, it is perfectly reasonable that there are proofs around us today.
My faith is solid upon Christ. The possibility of the Shroud as relic does not confirm or define it, but I reject out of hand the efforts of “wise humans” to assume that God could not use it to encourage others.
Just another yawn. Folks think that they know everything when it is apparent they do not
Are you sure? The Antikythera mechanism is comparable in sophistication to 18th century clocks, yet is dated to roughly 87 BC....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
Again, I don’t see the direct evidence to Jesus and the shroud beyond an image.
The negative image was a side effect of the creation which did not matter to those making the image. The sunbleaching experiment of this teacher produces a 3D negative effect similar to the shroud’s.
Why do people want to deride those who see reverence of an old image possibly of Christ?
It seems to me there is a current religion now in worship of a 4 or 5 tone poster with the word hope on it ....
I stopped reading at that point.
Science is not determined by voting.
Have you been to either of these two websites?
Cheers!
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Nikas777. Different from these, so the ping is here. :') To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
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.