FRESH CLUE SHOWS TURIN SHROUD MAY BE GENUINE BURIAL CLOTH OF CHRIST

The Mirror ^ | April 2, 2004 | David Edwards

[ZULU]

There was another theory - one supposedly confirmed by a Spanish archaeologist on the subject of Carbon 14 dating and the potential inaccuracies involved in its use.

His theory is that organic material like the cloth the Shroud is made of, supports the growth of bacteria on its surface. The bacterial population grows and dies, and as it does so, it creates deposits of fresh carbon on the surface of the organic material. After time, this builds up - a layer of fresh carbon along with more carbon 14. This layer is referred to as "bioplastic". Unless the bioplastic is removed PRIOR to the carbon sampling, the sample tested includes contaminated carbon material which provides a more recent date for the tested material than it really has.

When the tests on the organic material taken from the Shroud were made, this effect was unknown.

[AnalogReigns]

The image on the shroud is of a brutally beaten, scourged, crucified and spear-pierced man. Crucifixion was outlawed early on (3 or 400s? AD) in all Christian countries (no matter how brutal they still were) due to its special meaning for Christians.

I don't know if there was any place on earth--available to 13th Century Europe--that still had crucifixion.

Besides that, no one has been able to figure out, let alone reproduce such an image on cloth.

Carbon 14 dating, especially for (relatively recent) pieces of cloth, is notoriously inaccurate too... For example, wrappings of mummies--known for certain to be 3000 years old--have come up indicating just a few hundred years old. The sample and technique for testing the Shroud in 1988 were seriously flawed.

There are hundreds of other pieces of scientific evidence that point to a first half of the first century crucified man.

[cyncooper]

If it was the face of Christ on the cloth you would not be able to tell what He looked like. The scripture was clear that His face was so severly beaten that you could not tell who He was.

Except the theory would be that the image came to be through the act of the Resurrection.

According to Scripture, Christ rose from the dead and moved amongst His followers and Scripture does not record that they beheld a disfigured face. The record is He retained the wounds in His "hands" (wrists?) and His side.

[shroudie]

Actually, the estimates of the height of the man is about 5' 11". This height is provided by many experts. The head is disproportionately small, I agree. But until we know how the image was formed we cannot know why. There is probably some distortion caused by the lay of the cloth.

The front and back images do not match up and that probably has much to do with the drape of the cloth as well. An artist would probably not have made that mistake.

Oh, yes! It is very important to know which front and back you are speaking of. I assume you are referring to the front and dorsal images. Minor imaging of the face and hands on the "backside" of the cloth has also been discovered after the backing cloth was removed. This matches perfectly and destroys most artistic or crafty theories. Pictures of the backside image may be found in the tough questions section of http://shroudstory.com

There is, there, also to be found new information on the carbon 14 dating, the chemistry of the images, etc.

Shroudie

[ZULU]

Where did you read that about the hight of the man in the image?

If I recall correctly, I read the man was about 5'11" and of husky build - like a carpenter.

[BlessedBeGod]

The Catholic Church also accepted the scientists' findings - an embarrassing admission given that Pope John Paul II had kissed the shroud eight years earlier.

Umm, I don't think so.

[mtbopfuyn]

But the real point is that this image was not visible in any detail until seen as a photographic negative. Thus, no one could have painted it since they couldn't see what they were doing.

The detail was there when it was "made" by whatever means, it's only that the image has faded, been soiled, and contaminated through time. Look at any old painting and it's difficult to see the details until it's been cleaned. I've taken photographs of old family pictures and it's a surprise every time when the new negative shows more detail than the original photo. I use a manual camera so don't know if a digital would have the same results, but try it and you'll understand what I'm saying.

[NYer]

If the shroud really got it's image by resting on a round head, when laid flat the image on the cloth would be distorted right?

I posted a series of links at the beginning of this thread, and recommend you visit them at some point. However, to address your mapping question.

* * * * *

In 1976, research physicists Dr. John Jackson and Dr. Eric Jumper along with The Rev Dr. Kenneth Stevenson, Giles Charter, and Peter Shumacher, examined a photograph of the Shroud in the Interpretation Systems VP-8 Image Analyzer at the Sandia Scientific Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. To their complete surprise it produced a 3D image. The photograph of the Shroud, unlike any photograph of a drawing or painting, was "dimensionally encoded."

Peter Shumacher, the inventor of the NASA VP-8 Image Analyzer, describes the discovery of the 3D image. 

He had has just finished installing a system for Dr. John Jackson of the Sandia Scientific Laboratories:

Jackson placed an image of the Shroud of Turin onto the light table of the system. He focused the video camera of the system on the image. When the pseudo-three-dimensional image display ("isometric display") was activated, a "true-three-dimensional image" appeared on the monitor. At least, there were main traits of real three-dimensional structuring in the image displayed. The nose ramped in relief. The facial features were contoured properly. Body shapes of the arms, legs, and chest, had the basic human form. The result from the VP-8 had never occurred with any of the images I had studied, nor had I heard of it happening during any image studies done by others.

I had never heard of the Shroud of Turin before that moment. I had no idea what I was looking at. However, the results were unlike anything I have processed through the VP-8 Analyzer, before or since. Only the Shroud of Turin has produced these results from a VP-8 Image Analyzer isometric projection study.

[ICE-FLYER]

Well, no kidding! I agree with you, but that makes no sense if it was a BURIAL cloth. And such mysteries are not in the character of God to foist upon man. God knows full well the ability of man to lose focus on Him and worship images or idols, it would be totally against His character to leave such a stumbling block behind for man to trip over. Remember "Blessed is he who believes and has not seen"?

[CCCnative]

For merely one instance - if all the pieces of "the cross" which have been sold to such people were assembled, it would be gigantic.
...source?...

[cyncooper]

Mary, too, was of the House of David.

[MEGoody]

It's interesting to read the debate about the Shroud of Turin, but whether it is a fake or not has no bearing on my faith in Jesus the Christ.

[mtbopfuyn]

Then do DNA on Mary's side and check for a match with the shroud.

[Alberta's Child]

That's the first time I ever heard that the image on the Shroud depicts a man who was 6'-8" tall. I think it's actually closer to 5'-11" or so.

Also, you should keep in mind that any questions related to the distortion of different parts of the Shroud would also apply to the Shroud if it were fabricated by someone in the 12th century using some kind of primitive form of photography. In essence, what you are saying is that the distortions call into question the fact that the image was created using a live human being as a subject.

We have already pointed out that there is no pigmentation on the surface of the Shroud, so if it was not created using "photography" or something similar to it, we have no idea what could possibly have been used to put the image there.

[cyncooper]

Yes, I know that, and my faith was firm before I ever heard of the Shroud or the head cloth.

My point is the image was not made by simple contact.

[cyncooper]

And about that head wrap, the shroud doesn't show the wrap.

From the link at #64:

Jewish tradition demands that if the face of a dead person was in any way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth to avoid people seeing this unpleasant sight. This would certainly have been the case with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood from the injuries produced by the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being struck.

It seems that the sudarium was first used before the dead body was taken down from the cross and discarded when it was buried.

This fits in with what we learn from John's gospel, which tells us that the sudarium was rolled up in a place by itself.

[RS]

"And if you sat a monkey down at a typewriter, he could eventually type a random sequence of letters, spaces, and punctuation in such a way that he replicates the Declaration of Independence."

Exactly my point... thanks... It COULD be duplicated, to an extent that whatever tests have be performed on it so far would show it identical.

[NYer]

Sadly, many people trust more in the authenticity of the shroud, than in Christ Himself.

Sadly, Preacher, many believe in Jesus but not in His words.

Jesus therefore said to them, “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks My blood has life everlasting and I will raise Him up on the last day” (John 6:53-55).

[Alberta's Child]

It's also worth noting that in Scripture, after Christ rose from the dead he was not easily recognized as the person whom He had been before He was crucified (the passage in the Gospels about the encounter with the disciples on the road to Emmaus is a good case in point).

[MEGoody]

"If by chance DNA proves that he wasn't, can you see the problems it would cause?"

How would one go about proving this? Would one have to have DNA proven to be from Jesus or could the DNA be from a relative? How close must the relative have been (e.g. could it come from a half-brother? A cousin?)