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
“Those making claims it is authentic also have incomplete data as well if you want to be accurate.”
You try to draw a moral equivalence where none exists.
One group says that they *believe* it is, or might be, authentic, based on some very good evidence, while the other group stridently insists that it *cannot* be authentic, that science has demonstrated its inauthenticity.
The first group is relying on good evidence which they admit to be less than conclusive, and they are not demanding that anyone adopt their point of view, on peril of ridicule and character assassination.
The second group is relying on evidence of which the kindest thing one could say is that it is far too suspect to rely on. It is known, it is demonstrated, it is beyond doubt that the material tested was taken from patches, and not from the original textile.
Despite this scandalous breach of all scientific propriety, these people continue to insist that the ridiculous farce conducted has proved that the shroud is a forgery.
Not a one of them would be caught dead signing on to such transparently fraudulent science, but for their burning compulsion to attack belief in God. And yet these are the people who claim the mantle of objectivity.
The Catholic Church itself does not openly endorse the Shroud as being the burial cloth of Jesus.
What do you suggest takes the place of “scientific consensus” then? Voodoo?
“What do you suggest takes the place of “scientific consensus” then? Voodoo?”
Logic not your strong point, Nikky?
There isn’t a consensus when the accuracy of the evidence is still in dispute, which is the case with the C-14 dating taken from the shroud. But you knew that, which is why you didn’t respond with any evidence indicating that the C-14 date has been established beyond dispute. Instead you simply decide to characterize your chosen position as “the scientific consensus”, figuring that no one will notice you trying to hijack science all for yourself. Nice try, but ultimately a lame fraud.
I notice that you didn’t dispute my point that the sole scientific evidence for a Middle Ages date is the C-14 dating. So does that mean that you have no other argument for your “consensus”? Or are you keeping some nuggets of wisdom from the rest of us rubes? And BTW, how about a list of the voters who constructed your consensus? It wasn’t just you and your cat was it?
“The Catholic Church itself does not openly endorse the Shroud as being the burial cloth of Jesus.”
Okay. And your point would be.....?
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.