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

The Mirror ^ | April 2, 2004 | David Edwards

[Swordmaker]

From what you say it is even stranger, as it appears that the radiation (or whatever it was) would have had to strike perpendicular to each piece of cloth, which ITSELF would have been at different angles to each other.

Now you see... each answer raises ever more questions. Fascinating, isn't it?

Its kept me intrigued for over 35 years.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[polemikos]

being the actual Son of God, it's possible there is no real DNA to go on, anyway.

Being truly man, he had DNA.

[shroudie]

RS, I wasn’t clear. Good catch. Actually, the outer layer, the coating, can be removed with adhesive (significant pressure) or reducing agents, such as diimide, whether or not it was chemically altered. When STURP examined the Shroud in 1978 several sticky tapes were applied to collect particulate matter. Those tapes are still being examined as there are thousands of particles. Some of those particles were whole fiber lengths, some with image and some without image. Some particles were flecks of the coating, some yellowed and some not yellowed. You could say that some of the image, though not noticeably so, was inadvertently destroyed. In the lab, the coating has also been removed and sometimes it remains on the tape when fibers are lifted from the tape.

Where the image has been formed by a chemical change, the coating is thinner by a few nanometers (only relative microscopic comparisons are made) and crackled. The reason is that the chemical change is dehydrative. And because it is less bonded because of the change, the layer will pull away more easily. Ray Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, a chemist who has scientifically examined the Shroud—in Turin—and studied the object for more than 27 years, summarizes nicely:

“There is absolutely no doubt that the image color exists in a thin layer on the surface of image fibers. The layer is amorphous, and it seems to have an index of refraction relatively close to that of the linen fiber. The layer is quite brittle, and many flakes of the color have flaked off of the fibers. Colorless cellulose can be seen where image color has flaked off. The flakes can be seen and identified on the adhesive of sampling tapes. The flakes have the chemical properties of the intact image color on the fibers. Non-image areas show an impurity coating on the surfaces of the linen fibers. It is slightly thicker than the colored image layer, as would be expected. When a material is dehydrated it shrinks. When the impurity layer reacted to produce the color, it got thinner.”

It should be pointed out that these layers, visible with phase-contrast microscopy, are extremely thin. On the Shroud they have been observed to be approximately 180 to 600 nanometers thick. This is in the range of the wavelengths of visible lights.

Shroudie

[Future Snake Eater]

I have heard almost the exact same statements made by those who believe in UFO's.

Based on that statement alone, I can tell that you are a made-up-your-mind skepticist who will never believe anything anyone tells you about this subject. You don't know the first thing about this project or the heavy scientific research done on it, and yet you dismiss it all as done by a bunch of kooks and weirdos. A little skepticism can be healthy, but you have taken it to ridiculous levels. I almost feel sorry for you.

[polemikos]

The image is vertically collimated.

http://shroudstory.com/essay/part18.htm

[shroudie]

Might I add to your post. You wrote: "A scientist has to be willing to follow the data to a conclusion, not start from a conclusion and ignore data that doesn't support his conclusion."

I agree. AND a Christian should never fear where truth may lead. If it is one's faith alone that precludes accepting the Shroud as genuine, I have no problem with that. If it is junk science to support a closed attitude, then what?

Shroudie

[shield]

bmp

[pctech]

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".

Whether I deserve the heat is not for you to say. Only God Almighty will tell if I was right or not. Though evidently you don't know about your church's idolatorous past history, especially when it deals with relics and idols.

As for how it came to exist, no one really knows for sure, but there is no biblical basis the burial cloth because people were wrapped in a circular fashion when buried with no cloth being drapped horizontally over the body from head to toe.

[polemikos]

Ben Witherington, a well-known and respected biblical scholar, tells us that the carbon 14 tests are now significantly disputed. Witherington has a vast knowledge of the New Testament and the history of Jesus’ era and has written many thoughtful books and articles. Recently, with Hershel Shanks, the editor of Biblical Archeological Review, he coauthored a best-selling book, “The Brother of Jesus.” It is about a controversial artifact, an authenticity-disputed ossuary bearing the inscription "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus.”

Before you enshrine Witherington, realize that he does make bonehead mistakes.

[the OlLine Rebel]

While I'm no scholar and no Catholic, the Catholic church is not as automatically "idolatrous" as you would have us believe. Even the shroud itself is not officially recognized by the Church - nor are many other claimed artifacts. Additionally, their process for recognizing miracles and saints is pretty skeptical. There are many you read about, but published books does not = church recognition.

I also mite argue that it's not idolatry to use an actual artifact connected directly to a recognized religious figure. Idolatry, specifically, is making up your own gods w/the incidental creation of images of them.

[Badeye]

"You apparently believe that if the "facts" that support your position are proven not to be facts, that you can just ignore the disproof??? That is not scientific at all... that becomes a dogmatic desperation in your disbelief."

I don't understand the implied hostility you are throwing my way, Swordmaker.

Sorry, I disagree for the reasons I've posted, and I'm okay with my viewpoint as stated.

Those that "keep the faith" must accept the stated position that this is the "real deal". I'm under no obligation to do so. I don't find the "evidence" as its been presented to date to be enough for conclusive proof that the Shroud of Turin is really what its proponents claim it is, the burial clothe of Christ.

I don't object to your believing it, far from it. I'm just not convinced. Its not a "blind faith" issue to me, its a "what does the evidence support" kind of thing.

Lighten up.

[shroudie]

I agree he makes mistakes as do many scholars, probably all scholars. And if you read . . .

http://shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm

you will notice that I disagree with his carbon 14 assessment as published in Christianity Today. That said, what I said about him I believe to be true. Vast knowledge and thoughtful books and articles does not, however, mean he is right in all things and I apologize if I gave that impression. He goofed on the "cousin" thing and he goofed in explaining why the carbon 14 date was wrong, in my opinion. Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.

Shroudie

[cyncooper]

Though evidently you don't know about your church's idolatorous past history, especially when it deals with relics and idols.

How presumptous. Your smugness comes through loud and clear.

[RS]

"...and yet you dismiss it all as done by a bunch of kooks and weirdos."

You obvously have not read my other posts on this thread - perhaps I don't respond well to comments like "Don't bring your snide crap to me until you've done some research."
when my comments appear to have been courteously recieved by FReepers who THEMSELVES appear to have personal knowledge well beyond yours.

"I almost feel sorry for you"

I DO feel sorry for you.

[pctech]

How presumptous. Your smugness comes through loud and clear

Hey, I'm not smug, rude, crude, or anything else you may throw at me. I'm just speaking facts, facts given to me by catholic laity, clergy, priests, whatever you want to call them. If your own leaders acknowledge these facts (and even joke about them), you better confir with them than throw insults at me.

[cyncooper]

Hey, I'm not smug, rude, crude, or anything else you may throw at me

I didn't call you crude and I didn't "throw" anything at you. I accurately described your attitude.

you better confir with them than throw insults at me.

You again assume I don't *confer* with Church leaders, making yet another leaps and bounds assumption.

The only insults that have been leveled have been from you.

[Future Snake Eater]

I guess it would appear that some FReepers are nicer than I am.

[Havoc]

I assumed nothing. I remarked based on history and the context in which this thing appears. Beyond that I care not a whit for your particular stance. I commend your search for truth; but, I also am mindful of the history of those making claims about this oversized towel.

[shroudie]

Pctech, you wrote: “there is no biblical basis the burial cloth because people were wrapped in a circular fashion when buried with no cloth being drapped horizontally over the body from head to toe.”

I hear this from time to time and find it puzzling. As you choose to reference the Bible, could you explain to me the biblical basis for, as you say, “people were wrapped in circular fashion.”

It is my understanding that Jerusalem Jews of the second-Temple period, if they were buried in a tomb, were generally enshrouded in a long cloth and their hand and feet were bound with strips of cloth. Their jaws may also have been tied closed with a chin strap. Placed in a rock hewn tomb or cave, often with other deceased members of a family, they were left to decompose, a process that may have taken as long as a year. Their bones were then collected and re-interred in a bone box or ossuary. The bone box may have been placed back in the tomb or another location. Archeological confirmation includes a tomb in the Hinom Valley of Jerusalem that contained fragments of skeletal remains, along with a carbonized shroud. The first century tomb also contained at least 20 ossuaries, many of which had been stolen or broken by the robbers.

Most Jews, including peasants and crucifixion victims, were not placed in tombs but buried in common open pit graves known as charnel pits. That Jesus was not so buried was truly exceptional and I imagine that was so because of Joseph of Aramethia. It was possibly Joseph’s own tomb.

Shroudie