Posted on 04/05/2004 7:13:37 AM PDT by NYer
IT'S been called the longest-running hoax in history - an 800-year-old religious riddle that's taken in popes, scientists and believers from all faiths.
The Turin Shroud has been either worshipped as divine proof that Christ was resurrected from the grave or dismissed as a fraud created by medieval forgers.
But new evidence suggests the shroud might be genuine after all.
HAUNTING: The face on the shroud
As Mel Gibson's film The Passion Of The Christ rekindles interest in Jesus, stitching on the shroud which could have been created only during the messiah's lifetime has been uncovered.
At the same time, tests from 1988 that dated the shroud to between 1260 and 1390 have been thrown into doubt.
Swedish textiles expert Dr Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who discovered the seam at the back of the cloth during a restoration project, says: "There have been attempts to date the shroud from looking at the age of the material, but the style of sewing is the biggest clue.
"It belongs firmly to a style seen in the first century AD or before."
Her findings are being hailed as the most significant since 1988, when scientists controversially carbon-dated the 14ft-long cloth to medieval times, more than 1,000 years after Jesus died.
Yet experts now say the team unwittingly used cloth that had been added during a 16th-century restoration and it could have been contaminated from handling.
Mark Guscin, of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, says: "The discovery of the stitching along with doubt about the carbon-dating all add to the mountain of evidence suggesting this was probably the shroud Jesus was buried in.
"Scientists have been happy to dismiss it as a fake, but they have never been able to answer the central question of how the image of that man got on to the cloth."
Barrie Schwortz, who in 1978 took part in the first scientific examination of the shroud, says: "I was a cynic before I saw it, but I am now convinced this is the cloth that wrapped Jesus of Nazareth after he was crucified."
THE history of the cloth - which bears the ghostly image of a bearded man - is steeped in mystery.
The first documented reference was in 1357, when it was displayed in a church in Lirey, France. The cloth astonished Christians as it showed a man wearing a crown of thorns and bearing wounds on his front, back and right-hand side.
He also had a wrist wound, which confused some pilgrims who thought Jesus was nailed to the cross through his hands. Scientists have since discovered the wrists were used as the hands could not support the body's weight.
Before it arrived in France, it is thought the shroud was known as the Edessa burial sheet, given to King Abgar V by one of Jesus's disciples.
For the next 1,200 years it was kept hidden in the Iraqi city, brought out only for religious festivals. In 944 it is thought to have turned up in Constantinople, Turkey, before being stolen by the French knight Geoffrey de Charny during the Fourth Crusades.
It soon became Europe's most-revered religious artefact, although it was scorched in a fire in 1532. In 1578 it was moved to Turin in northern Italy and was frequently paraded through the streets to huge crowds.
Yet while the shroud attracts hundreds of thousands of pilgrims when it goes on display, it was not photographed until 1898. The photographer, Secondo Pia, was amazed at the incredible depth and detail revealed on the negative.
There were even rumours that the shroud had healing qualities after the British philanthropist Leonard Cheshire took a disabled girl to see it in 1955. After being given permission to touch it, 10-year-old Josephine Woollam made a full recovery.
But it wasn't until 1978 that scientists were allowed to examine the shroud for the first time.
The Shroud of Turin Research Project spent 120 hours examining the cloth in minute detail but was unable to explain how the image had got there. Barrie Schwortz, the project's photographer, says: "We did absolutely every test there was to try to find out how that image had got there.
"We used X-rays, ultra-violet light, spectral imaging and photographed every inch of it in the most minute detail, but we still couldn't come up with any answers.
"We weren't a bunch of amateurs. We had scientists who had worked on the first atomic bomb and the space programme, yet we still couldn't say how the image got there. The only things we could say was what it isn't: that it isn't a photograph and it wasn't a painting.
"It's clear that there has been a direct contact between the shroud and a body, which explains certain features such as the blood, but science just doesn't have an answer of how the image of that body got on to it."
A SECOND study was carried out in 1988, when scientists cut a sliver from the edge of the shroud and subjected it to carbon-dating.
Carbon has a fixed rate of decay, which means that it is possible to accurately measure when the plant materials that formed the basis of the cloth were harvested.
The announcement that the shroud was a fake was made on October 13, 1988, at the British Museum. Scientists compared those who still thought the shroud was authentic to flat-earthers.
It led to the humiliating spectacle of the then Cardinal of Turin, Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, admitting the garment was a hoax.
The Catholic Church also accepted the scientists' findings - an embarrassing admission given that Pope John Paul II had kissed the shroud eight years earlier.
But experts now say the carbon-dating results are wrong. Ian Wilson, co-author of The Turin Shroud: Unshrouding The Mystery, says they were flawed from the moment the sample was taken.
He says: "What I found quite incredible was that when they had all the scientists there and ready to go, an argument started about where the sample would come from.
"This went on for some considerable time before a very bad decision was made that the cutting would come from a corner that we know was used for holding up the shroud and which would have been more contaminated than anywhere else."
Marc Guscin, author of Burial Cloths Of Christ, believes the most compelling evidence for the shroud's authenticity comes from a small, blood-soaked cloth kept in a cathedral in Oviedo, northern Spain.
The Sudarium is believed to have been used to cover Jesus's head after he died and, unlike the shroud, its history has been traced back to the first century. It contains blood from the rare AB group found on the shroud.
Mark says: "Laboratory tests have shown that these two cloths were used on the same body.
"The fact that the Sudarium has been revered for so long suggests it must have held special significance for people. Everything points towards this cloth being used on the body of Jesus of Nazareth."
Yet despite the latest discoveries, there are still many sceptics.
Professor Stephen Mattingly, from the University of Texas, says the image could have been created by bacteria which flourish on the skin after death. "This is not a miracle," he says. "It's a physical object, so there has to be a scientific explanation. With the right conditions, it could happen to anyone. We could all make our own Turin Shroud."
Another theory, put forward by South African professor Nicholas Allen, is that the image was an early form of photography.
However fierce the controversy, the shroud is still a crowd-puller. When it last went on display in 2000, more than three million people saw it. Many more visitors are expected when it next goes on show in 2025.
Mark believes the argument will rage on. He says: "The debate will go on and on because nobody can prove one way or another if this was the shroud that covered the body of Jesus. There simply isn't a scientific test of 'Christness'.
"But there are lots of pointers to suggest it was."
Yes, you'll get deserved heat for your absurd and outrageous comment about Catholics.
But you need to explain "how" it came to exist before you assert your flawed "why".
Onus for proof belongs on the claimant, not on the detractor. Christ didn't come saying "I'm Christ till you prove otherwise.' Contrarewise, he came proving he was Christ by the prophecy and mission he fulfilled. And that we know from scripture. Somehow, many of you have gotten your laws of proof reversed and seem to think you can claim what you want and have an air of authority till someone debunks you. That is neither a Scientific nor a Christian stance to take. Nor is it new with Catholicism to introduce the name - wherein it is argued "authoritatively" that Peter was bishop of Rome and died in Rome because no other city claimed him.. This is authoritative as saying That the bones of Mary are in Indiana and until someone else claims otherwise, it's true. It isn't true; but, that's the fallacious type of thinking invoked as though it meant something. If one has the truth, one need not behave oneself in such manner.
Yep. And the image does indeed exist, does it not? The person I addressed made the claim it exists to confuse the masses.
The onus is on him to demonstrate how the image came to be in order to prove his assertion as to the why. If he cannot explain how the image that does exist came to be first before making his conclusion, then his reasoning falls.
Don't confuse my logical reasoning with an insistance that one believe that it is the burial shroud of Jesus. No, I have not ever said one must believe that or question it. But the person made a *conclusion* without basis in fact.
What exactly have I claimed?
You seem to be leaping to conclusions, too.
So do the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses and they are both noted to be cults. Mormons teach polytheism and Jehovah's witnesses teach similarly whacked things that claim to be christian but that pervert the truth. They're viable religions, they just aren't Christian, yet they teach the resurrection of Christ. That isn't the problem. The problem is what they teach and espouse that perverts that core truth into something that bears no resemblance to the Gospel.
I believe that the Shroud is a genuine burial cloth of a Roman-style crucifixion victim. This is not a matter of my faith but of science and history; stuff that I am highly confident about. I also am able to infer from history and scriptural content that it is the burial cloth of Jesus. I cannot prove that but I am reasonably convinced that it is so.
And Mormons are reasonably convinced that something called Moron(i) appeared to Joseph Smith and prophesied in King James english. Something I don't think you'll find anywhere in the Greek; but, ok.. lol. Reasonableness isn't the rule for faith - nor are trinkets. And while you don't seem to be making that argument yourself, the Roman Church uses it as though it were some grant of authority to them for posessing it.. just as they have countless othere claimed relics. Whether it is overt or covert matters not. Science has faught with itself on this matter and still can't prove the case. If they can or cannot, it matters not a whit to Christianity. It may matter to people stuck on trinkets; but, that isn't Christianity. The treasure of all Christians is Christ himself - not discarded remnants which have no spiritual worth or significance. So, while I honor your search for the truth of the matter, I stand on my prior statements.
An image exists. That is all that can be said. Who it is or how it got there is quite another matter. Excercise: Paint your face and hair liberally with a non-toxic paint. Wrap linen around your head, making sure to allow the paint to contact the linen. Now remove it and you will find -not a 2d image as though it were a portrait; but, rather something distorted like a flattened orange peal. There is appearance and there is reality. And in this case appearance belies reality - thusly telling us something about the appearance.. ie that it is a fraud.
If he cannot explain how the image that does exist came to be first before making his conclusion, then his reasoning falls.
Ou contrare. If I have a sword pretending to be an original Katana of the early school of Japanese Ninjitsu - the first ever made, it matters not how it came to be but what can be proven about it. If it can be shown it can't have been made in that time, then how it came into being is irrelevant. By your logic, I could sell a 19th century Rocking chair to someone, claim it belonged to John the Baptist and until it can be discovered how it was made or came into being, we can't conclude it didn't come from the Baptist. People are not this stupid with all due respect.
Don't confuse my logical reasoning with an insistance that one believe that it is the burial shroud of Jesus. No, I have not ever said one must believe that or question it. But the person made a *conclusion* without basis in fact.
Rome makes a claim without a basis in fact and that is the core issue here. I can make a conclusion with a firm basis in fact - that basis would be Rome's track record for producing items and claiming them to be something they are decidedly not. I would be on firm footing to reject the word of a known liar or deciever for practicality's sake. And on a matter of that doesn't touch faith, that smacks of the opposite and in light of prior tall history of failings, it is pragmatic to do so. I look at it from the standpoint of a common knowledge of how Rome works knowing that a *conclusion* without basis in fact is fine as long as they're the one concluding. And knowing that to them, a conclusion with no basis in fact is superior to an opposing conclusion bathed in fact disproving their claim. Cults are the same way - no amount of facts or truth is enough to dispell blind indoctrination. And that extends to 'holy' places and 'items'. Again, there is a track record and an overabundance of caution required due to it. I disbelieve on it's face knowing it matters not a whit one way or another. And I do so because I won't be taken in based on feelings or trinket chasing. The world involves itself with such spiritual vacuity, Christians need not mirror them.
Broken strands of DNA have been recovered from the Shroud... but they are far too degraded to provide any matching information. There is also the problem of eith 650 or 2000 years of people drooling, touching, follicating, and other human natural emissions perhaps contaminating the Shroud.
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.