"The Passion" too violent? The "Shroud of Turin" shows it happened!

The Diocese of Charleston ^ | March 21, 2002 | Dr. William E. Rabil

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Shroud of Turin history presented in Upstate
Retired surgeon relays his nearly 40 years of research on the Shroud of Turin

By SHEILA OJENDYK

GREENVILLE — Dr. William E. Rabil has no doubt that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Rabil, a retired general surgeon from Winston-Salem, N.C., began studying the shroud in the late 1950s and has been lecturing about it for nearly 40 years. He made two slide presentations to parishioners at St. Mary Church on March 6.

Rabil began with a brief history of the shroud. After the crucifixion, the shroud was originally hidden in Jerusalem and was thought to have been moved to Edessa (Urfa, Turkey) after Jerusalem fell to the Romans in A.D. 70. In 944, the Byzantine Imperial Army invaded Edessa to recover the shroud and brought it to Constantinople (now Istanbul). Raiders from the Fourth Crusade invaded Istanbul in 1294 and took the shroud to Europe. It is believed to have been hidden by the Knights Templar until Geoffrey DeCharney exhibited it in Liren, France, in 1353. From that point forward, its history is fully documented. The shroud was moved to Turin, Italy, in 1578 and has remained there ever since. It is kept in a silver reliquary behind bullet-proof glass inside the Chapel of the Shroud.

The shroud was first photographed in 1898 by Italian photographer Secondo Pia. His first shot was a misfire, but his second shot caused him to fall to his knees. On the negative was the "positive image of Jesus Christ." The markings on the shroud are negative images, and it took the photographic reversal of light and dark to reveal the positive image of a man's body.

While the evidence cannot prove conclusively that the image on the shroud is Jesus, it is definitely the image of man between 5 feet 11 inches and 6 feet tall who weighed approximately 175 pounds. Forensic medical investigation confirms that the man died from crucifixion.

The body in the shroud was unclothed. All four books of the Gospel tell of Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus' garments.

The shroud was not wrapped around the body, as one might expect. The body was placed on top of the shroud with the feet at one end. The other end of the shroud was brought over the head and spread on top of the body, ending at the feet.

Jesus' torture and crucifixion were much bloodier than most paintings have ever depicted. The back of the body in the shroud shows multiple scourge marks from the nape of the neck to the feet. The Romans used a flagrum for scourging. A flagrum was a whip with bone or metal-tipped leather thongs that was specifically designed to tear flesh. One-hundred twenty scourge marks were counted on the body.

Blood had not been washed from the body in the shroud. The Sabbath was fast approaching when Jesus was taken down from the cross, and he had to be buried before sundown. The doctor emphasized that Jesus' body would have gone into rigor mortis almost immediately after death because of the trauma of crucifixion, which would have made washing very difficult. Jewish burial practices also precluded washing blood that was flowing at the time of death.

The face shows bruising on the nose; Jesus was struck on the nose by a high priest. The body had a mustache and beard, and there is evidence that facial hair had been plucked.

There were no broken bones, but some bones were displaced. There is evidence of spike wounds to both wrists and the feet. Forensic investigators have proved that the spikes were not pounded into Jesus' palms because the weight of an adult would have torn completely through all tissues, and he would have fallen off the cross. The spikes were pounded into his wrists, and the bones separated. One foot was nailed over the other.

According to Dr. John Heller in his book, Report on the Shroud of Turin (Houghton Mifflin Co., 1983), "There is a swelling of both shoulders, with abrasions indicating something heavy and rough had been carried across the man's shoulders within hours of death."

There is no pigment on the linen cloth of the shroud. If paint had been used, the wound pattern would have become obliterated. The blood stains on the back of the skull demonstrate the unique cohesive properties of blood. No other substance behaves the same way. Scientific testing has confirmed that the stains are blood and body fluids.

The forensic examination shows that the crown of thorns was actually a cap over the entire scalp. A painting done from the shroud image shows a thorn above Jesus' right eye.

Some photos of the shroud show the image of coins placed over both eyes, a Jewish burial custom. The image exactly matches that of a coin minted during the reign of Pontius Pilate between A.D. 29 and 33.

Botanical experts have examined fragments of the shroud and found spores and seeds from 27 plants that are indigenous to Jerusalem. Geological analysis of particles showed limestone indigenous to caves surrounding Jerusalem and suggested that the shroud was placed in a damp tomb or cave.

Jesus died after about three hours on the cross, which was considered fast for a man of his age and physical condition. Medical experts theorize that he was severely weakened by the brutal scourging. Death by crucifixion is very painful. The muscles of the arms, chest, and legs quickly go into spasm, and the victim dies of asphyxiation.

The shroud has been studied and tested carefully by surgeons, forensic scientists, nuclear scientists, radiologists, Biblical scholars, botanists, and historians. Experts have disagreed with each other and challenged each other's theories and tests. Nobody will ever prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ — but nobody can prove it wasn't either.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

That is your opinion. There are scientist who disagree with you. And I'm a person who believes they are correct after reviewing both those sides of the issue.

[MEGoody]

"It's fake."

It might be. But we do know that Jesus was horribly brutalized before being crucified.

And to think He did it all out of His love for us.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

There is "NO" name on the "to" box. So that is why I replied the way I did. I'm "chilling". I'm just replying the way I did, because I can't tell who you were replying to. :o)

Fregards

[MEGoody]

"I read where virgin conceptions do happen about once every billion births."

LOL Where did you read that?

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Boy.. did you ever miss something VERY important He commanded. (hint.. FORIVE)

[Swordmaker]

That's just precious-people who want to sell you books and junk have convinced you that the Catholic Church is lying about definitive proof of their own deity's resurrection.

This Encyclopedia entry was written in 1912... by an author who's work was described as "poorly researched." I showed you this in an earlier post CITING your link's copyright date. This entry was replaced in 1968... and is still outdated.

Stop using outdated source material, Dog. It is DISHONEST!

[Swordmaker]

The Shroud is not authentic. Jesus was buried in a burial wrap that consisted of strips of fabric that totally wrapped His body in a cocoon fashion with a cloth covering His face. When He was risen this was the striking thing the disciples saw that convinced them of a supernatural event.......an empty cocoon!

This is incorrect, Doc. You are confabulating Egyptian burial practices with Jewish. The Bible DOES NOT describe any such "cocoon" or strips of fabric. The original Greek speeks of Joseph of Arimathea buying a "Sindon", a Shroud, and reports a "sudarion" (Greek), "sudarium" (Latin), "napkin" (English) head cloth... no strips.

[happydogdesign]

So any source before 1912 is invalid- unless it supports your goofy gratuitous assertions and psuedoscientific gibberish, of course. Better chuck that Bible then, it's pretty old! And to think those wacky Catholics have had physical proof of the Lord's resurrection in their hands, and they just aren't smart enough to read the same books you do.

I just got an email from the Pope-he said he's been been monitoring this thread, the Church is all wrong, and you're in charge now! Rule wisely

[Swordmaker]

Did you read the article, especially the portion about how it was discovered? The image was not always apparent, it did not come into view until a gentleman took a photo of it & looked at the NEGATIVE.

Secondo Pia, the photographer, was the first to discover that the ALREADY EXISTANT image on the shroud produced a POSITIVE in the NEGATIVE glass plate of his photographic process. In other words, the Shroud itself is apparently a negative, with darks and lights reversed. Check out the pictures on this page: Shroud Face images

The first is an image of how the Shroud appeared througout its history. The second is a negative of the first.

So those in medieval times most likely did not even know the image was there. They just believed it to be the burial cloth of Christ.

Medieval descriptions of the Shroud ALL speak of the faint image of the crucified Christ on the Shroud... they were quite well aware of the image.

[Agamemnon]

Perhaps the tin-foil hat was a stretch,

We agree.

but I have no love or respect for the shroud, and I wince when people cling to it as some kind of proof of Jesus' existence.

I'm interested in it as a testable archaeological artifact. I don't forclose the possibility that it could be THE shroud. If it happens to be the actual shroud, and proves itself to be so, then that could be pretty neat. As an accomplished scientist, I will look at it from this perspective as well. No one can positively say one way or the other right now, though even I must honestly admit that at this time the evidence appears to be building for it rather than detracting from it.

It challenges my faith in no way at all, however it proves to be. If I were you, I wouldn't let it challenge your faith either.

Just don't refuse to believe it out of hand, simply because of how some people may look at it or how you feel they have become inappropriately attached to it. If it strengthens their faith, so what? Who are you or I to say otherwise or judge their faith? Don't fear that there actually may be a true testable artifact from the crucufixion of Christ, just to fear it. That is actually more "tin-foil" hat-ed than you may realize.

Who knows...they might even locate the Holy Grail some day too. Keep an open mind and remain intellectually honest.

[madison10]

Medieval descriptions of the Shroud ALL speak of the faint image of the crucified Christ on the Shroud... they were quite well aware of the image.

But they could only see it partially, correct? The full extent of the image was not apparent until it was photographed. What I was trying to say...it would have been difficult to fake the image in medieval times. How could they create the image of Christ if they could not see it completely? The detail of the scourging & blood spots would have very difficult to show.

Yeah, I know you're an expert. (no sarcasm) :)

[Swordmaker]

So any source before 1912 is invalid- unless it supports your goofy gratuitous assertions and psuedoscientific gibberish, of course. Better chuck that Bible then, it's pretty old!

No, but a source citing opinions and errors AS FACTS that have been disproven by subsequent research IS invalid. You choose to use that source because it says what YOU WANT IT TO SAY. I, on the other hand, discount it because later research has superseded it... and disproved its thesis. HappyDogDesign prefers to ignore 92 years of valid research and latches onto a "poorly researched" article from 1912.

To keep using an outdated, disproven, and invalid source in a discussion is dishonest, Dog. You keep using the 1912 source... ignoring those of us who point out your error. That makes you dishonest. Do you use a Highway Map from 1912 as well? And I bet you keep reading the same newspaper from 1962 as well...

And to think those wacky Catholics have had physical proof of the Lord's resurrection in their hands, and they just aren't smart enough to read the same books you do.

Don't you think that those "wacky Catholics" have changed their opinion since 1912... based on those same books and the research that is reported in them? Yes, they have... and it is reported in the 1968 version of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

You seem to think that I am Catholic. I am not. However your Catholic bashing is bordering on abuse. I suggest you stop. Discuss the issues honestly, without the ad hominem.

[happydogdesign]

And to think the Church hasn't updated their website since 1912! Chatting with unicorn hunters can be an amusing diversion, but I must be off. Don't buy any wooden nickels or magic beans!

[1Old Pro]

"The face shows bruising on the nose; Jesus was struck on the nose by a high priest"

Uh-Oh, don't tell Krauthammer, Safire or Mona Charen. They'll say this is an unfair depiction and might rile people to think that the Jewish High priest didn't exactly like Jesus.

[dangus]

My college biology textbook. Actually, it may have been about one every 350 million or something like that. The number is hypothetical, based on the likelihood of several unlikely events happening; they have not observed an instance of it, yet, among humans, but they have been able to induce it in animals by "stacking the deck" for those unlikely occurrences.

[Swordmaker]

But they could only see it partially, correct? The full extent of the image was not apparent until it was photographed. What I was trying to say...it would have been difficult to fake the image in medieval times. How could they create the image of Christ if they could not see it completely? The detail of the scourging & blood spots would have very difficult to show.

You are right, Madison.

The image is VERY faint. Even today, one has to stand at a good distance (usually about 15 feet or more away) to see the image. Any closer and it fades into the background color of the linen. Any "artist" working on such an image would have a difficult time even seeing what he was "painting".

Yeah, I know you're an expert. (no sarcasm) :)

No, I am not an expert... but I have studied this topic for over 30 years. I have made some small contributions to the scholarship on the Shroud. You will find my name on www.shroud.com along with fellow freeper Shroudie's. I know Barrie Schwortz and several other of the scientists doing research. I will be attending another Shroud symposium the Month. All of this, perhaps, makes me more informed on this subject that most other Freepers with the sole exception of Shroudie.

[shield]

I'm not against the Shroud in the least, in fact at one time I believed it. However after studying the scriptures, I found JESUS did not have a burial cloth. The linen clothing is just that clothing, and is in NO way, especially in that day, considered a burial cloth. I think it would be wise of you to take another look at the Shroud, upon observation you'll see it is not clothing. I might suggest you study the clothing of His day.

The Shroud covered the face, and shows an imprint of a face. Clothing does not cover the face, and if you take a look at John 20:7, it was a napkin that covered his face.

What we have today are more doctrines and traditions of men, than what the bible truly teaches us. Let's let go of the false and fraudulent. Let's stick to facts of the scriptures. John 20:7

[Swordmaker]

And to think the Church hasn't updated their website since 1912!

BZZZT! Wrong. Your link does not link to the "catholic website." It is a commercial site selling various religious books, DVDs and PUBLIC DOMAIN documents (like the 1912 version of the Catholic Encyclopedia). IT is Advent.org, a private organization with a Catholic agenda.

Is your research always this flawed, Dog? You really need to know WHO you are quoting or linking to. It causes you to make assumptions that make you look ignorant and at worst stupid. I don't believe you are stupid... but you are ignorant (which just means "ininformed") on this subject.

[dangus]

Um, try reading the previous verse:
John 20:6-7
Then came Simon Peter, following him, and [he] went into the sepulchre, and [he] saw the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, which had been about [Jesus'] head not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by himself.

IOW, there were "linen clothes" over the body of Jesus AND a "napkin" over Jesus' head. "Linen clothes" refers to the burial shrowd, as was the custom in those days. Another posts discusses the possibility that the veil ("napkin") was kept in Spain for the past 12 centuries, and matches excellently the shroud.

But even if this verse made no mention of the clothes, it would be odd to insist there were none, just because they were not specifically mentionned. "Sola Scriptura" (a self-contradicting heresy anyway) means not establishing doctrine or articles of faith which are not in the bible; it does not mean one cannot presume as likely things which are not in the bible. It would be extremely odd to leave a man in a tomb naked except for a headcovering; the bible did NOT say he was naked, so to presume he WAS naked is to make an assertion which is not supported by the bible.

[dangus]

O, and this is what Matthew 27:59 says:

And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,