Shroud of Turin: Old as Jesus?

THE NEW YORK TIMES ^ | January 27, 2005 | NA

[Zuriel]

People, stick with the Word! John 20:7 says, "And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the grave clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself." Note plurality of linen clothes mentioned in Luke 24:12.

My thoughts: The shroud info site mentions the cloth being about 14 ft by 3 ft something (didn't write it down). From the holy scriptures we are being told of there being 2 or more pieces. The "napkin, that was about his head" was a separate piece. The other piece(s) wrapped about his body would not have shown signs of being wrapped around his head, and vice-versa.

Believe the Word, anything else is less than perfect.

[Northern Yankee]

You're the one who's selling the faux Shroud. You've exposed yourself.

Wrong! I am not selling any idea, merely stating that the possibility exists that the shroud indeed could be the burial cloth of Jesus.

You continue to ridicule the shroud, calling it a hanky, and a fake. That bothers me greatly as you act so flippant about this subject. Certainly you must know that the dead at that time were annointed with oils, wrapped in a shroud, and laid in the tomb. How can it be so hard for you to think that the Shroud might actually exist?

You keep citing that there is no definitive proof, or biblical record of its authenticity, yet isn't that what faith is all about? To believe that something could exist in the absence of scientific fact?

Although you may not agree that it is the shroud, that certainly is your right, but to ridicule the fact that it could exist, or to put others down for their beliefs seems a bit un-Christian, don't you think?

God Bless...

[Romulus]

Believe the Word, anything else is less than perfect.

The perfect Word is a Person-- not a book.

[dangus]

Well, I'll point you to this; I just read it today, and found it very interesting: http://www.setterfield.org/scriptchron.htm

It's a very unorthodox chronology, but it makes a very good argument, and also illuminiates the more conventional chronologies. It uses an older version of the Old Testament to argue that the flood is about 800 years older than most chronologies suppose it is. That supposes that it happened in 3537 BC +/- about ten years. Strangely, it's much easier to count years BEFORE the flood than after it, since the Early Genesis Chronologies are specific about how old each patriarch was when he fathered his critical son. Thus, it calculates Creation to be in 5796 BC, and asserts that the Church Fathers considered it to be around 5500 BC.

The Jews count their calendar years from Adam; They assert that this is year 5765 since creation; hence creation happened in 3765 BC.

(One of the arguments against the conventional chronologies is that there are redwood trees in California with more annual rings than there have been years since the flood, according to those chornologies.

[dangus]

Let's just say it's quite telling that you insist on calling a 16-foot-long cloth used as a burial shroud a hanky. You can't be satisfied with simply denying that it is the burial shroud of Jesus. Whoever's blood is on it, whatever the source of the image so strikingly similar to the suffering of Jesus, your description of a burial shroud of any nature as a "hanky" is perverse. Whether natural or crafted, it is the image of our savior, and it is shocking that you would call any burial shroud, let alone one bearing the image of our savior, something you would blow your snot into. It suggests a deep-seated, repressed rage and hatred. (And don't bother denying it: the meaning of "repressed" is that you don't feel it; instead take a good hard look at the way you must be coming across to people right about now.)

Were believers of the shroud inclined to rely on ad-hominem attacks as you are, you're failure to have any self-control whatsoever would make a splendid basis for such an ad-hominem attack. Fortunately for your position, we will regularly admit that most skeptics probably show infinitely more composure than you are showing.

[dangus]

>> Same thing. Different Form. <<

Ice is water. You can walk across ice. You can't walk across water. Water feels good splashed on your face. Ice is cold and it hurts. Even though ice is water, you'd sound silly trying to assert that the ice on the nearby pond ws there last August.

Jesus is Christ made man. Christ has always been. But Christ has not always been in the form of man. Hence, Jesus has not always been. When he went to the Temple with his parents, Jesus was twelve years old. That means that fourteen years earlier, Jesus was not, even though Christ was.

Just like Ice is water made solid. The water has been in the pond for years, but the ice has not been.

Jesus is in Heaven, at the right hand of God. Referring to his human form, He told the disciples he was going away: "Where I am going, you cannot follow." But Christ is with us forever.

[dangus]

The blog, while lousy isn't quite as silly as your post makes it seem.
You refer to the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. In fact, the crusaders did sack Constantinople a couple centuries earlier. On the other hand, the site seems to have confused the shroud with the headpiece currently in Spain!

[LibertarianInExile]

You keep implying I don't think a cloth that wiped Jesus's face could exist.

I don't have issues with that. All kinds of cloth could exist. Jesus's diapers could exist. It's entirely possible.

I have concerns that you want this particular shroud to be it. It's been proven it can't be. It's too young. You say you aren't selling it, but you refuse to face that THIS PARTICULAR SHROUD CANNOT BE THE CLOTH THAT TOUCHED CHRIST. The events of the New Testament took place hundreds of years before this cloth ever popped out of a loom.

Faith isn't about belief in the face of facts. Faith is about belief in the face of an unknowable possibility. You can't know God without faith. You can know if something is old enough to have been around when Jesus was, and this piece of cloth is not it.

It's interesting you would drag in the notion that it's un-Christian to tell people they're not listening to reality, that reality has changed because of new discoveries. Jesus and his disciples had problems with that, too. So did Galileo. Carbon dating may be something you don't understand and you really, really want to believe this particular cloth is the real thing, but it doesn't make it so.

[dangus]

More to the point, the article doesn't merely suggest that the shroud may have been older, it demonstrates that it was. Radoicarbon analysis works by measuring the ratios of heavy carbon (C16) to light carbon (C14). By demonstrating that a portion of the fabric came from the 16th century, and considering that the test result pointed to the twelfth or thirteenth century, we then know that the later carbon source had to be balanced by an older carbon source to yield a test result in between the two dates.

While it may not be possible to test a new patch of cloth, it would seem quite simple to expose the lie, if it were a lie that the sampled patch conatined two different sets of fibers. Preposterously simple. And that exposed lie would discredit what is a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal, Thermochimica Acta. The publishers would certainly not publish something which could be so easily disproven.

LIE, please do also note the way VDS refused to respond to your sarcasm in kind, and learn from it. It makes her much more persuasive.

[dangus]

>> My thoughts: The shroud info site mentions the cloth being about 14 ft by 3 ft something (didn't write it down). From the holy scriptures we are being told of there being 2 or more pieces. The "napkin, that was about his head" was a separate piece. The other piece(s) wrapped about his body would not have shown signs of being wrapped around his head, and vice-versa. <<

Actually, the shroud aligns perfectly with scripture. The Sudarium is the headpiece to the burian cloths. It is presently in Ovieto, Spain, and is discussed elsewhere on this thread. The image of the head is very readily reconcilable to the image on the Sudarium, and the blood tests indicate that the blood likely comes from the same person.

According to the custom, the body would be lain on the lower part of the shroud. The upper part would be folded over, back on to the body, and the head would be wrapped in a second cloth. This is precisely what is found among the shroud and the Sudarium.

[grey_whiskers]

That is below your usual standards, Snarks.

Remember your mystery novels (no pun on Catholic "mysteries" here...) :

Means
Motive
Opportunities

What would be another avenue to pursue would be to trace the Medieval stories relating to any purported burial cloth of Christ, given the reputation Medieval Europe has garnered for being absolutely agog over any and all 'relics'.

Was this the only reputed burial shroud, or were there others?

"Shroud of Turin" does associate the Shroud with one town--was that just so people would know where to go pilgrimage, or to differentiate it from other shrouds?

Perhaps common threads between stories, or the provenance of other relics proved to be fakes, would be useful.

[LibertarianInExile]

Whoever's blood is on it, whatever the source of the image so strikingly similar to the suffering of Jesus, your description of a burial shroud of any nature as a "hanky" is perverse. Whether natural or crafted, it is the image of our savior, and it is shocking that you would call any burial shroud, let alone one bearing the image of our savior, something you would blow your snot into.

Oh, give me a break. If there's any symbolism to be found here, it's that I can't help but recognize you're so holier-than-thou; that snotty attitude seeps right into your posts. Your emotive "Don't you DARE make fun of Jesus!" notwithstanding, there is no way this is Christ's image in any way other than some historical con man's imagination, and your own deep-seated wish that there was some way you could prove God walked the planet. There ain't any tangible proof, Leroy. We won't find Christ's driver's license. You must take Jesus on faith.

It suggests a deep-seated, repressed rage and hatred. (And don't bother denying it: the meaning of "repressed" is that you don't feel it; instead take a good hard look at the way you must be coming across to people right about now.)

I can't deny I'm repressed because if I'm repressed I'd never know it. Don't tell me--you have a psychology degree. /sarcasm

More silly logic. And I can call you goofy as a fruitbat in an echo chamber, and you can't deny you're nucking futz, because if you are you'd never know it. But you call me out while you are certainly coming across as sane and sensible with that whole thing where you deny reality, so you can have Jesus's hanky handy. Nonetheless, I'll admit I do hate people who simply cannot understand that science and Christianity can coexist, and people like you who perpetrate frauds in the name of faith and in the face of science proving the frauds ain't true do make me very angry--though not quite driving me into a 'rage,' as you put it. It bothers me that people like you are out there fooling yourselves and others, especially when the others might need more than belief in a fake shroud.

Were believers of the shroud inclined to rely on ad-hominem attacks as you are, you're failure to have any self-control whatsoever would make a splendid basis for such an ad-hominem attack. Fortunately for your position, we will regularly admit that most skeptics probably show infinitely more composure than you are showing.

Oh, right, you're a study in logical thought and restraint. /sarcasm Could you BE any more pious?

You must have REALLY high boots to avoid stepping in that stuff you're spreading. You have absolutely no backup for your claim that this is THE shroud, just bare assertion that 'the wrong threads were used,' so you trot out the 'you're wrong because you've lost your composure' argument--which, if you haven't noticed, is an AD HOMINEM. You really should look up the big words before you use them.

I love how when people who have no argument get stuck, they rely on Democrat victim tactics. The "rage" and "anger" and "lack of composure" of their opponents often pop into discussion when they have nothing else to say. You can call me angry or raging or whatever you want but it doesn't suddenly provide you any proof for your statement. You're still just saying "Oh, yeah!?!? Well, I say the carbon dating is WRONG, nyah nyah!" The scientists who tested the shroud knew what they were doing. They didn't pick out some fake threads to hide the fact that this hanky was holy from you. That you want to pretend otherwise is silly. That you try to distract from that willful ignorance with your psychological mumbo-jumbo is pathetic.

[snarks_when_bored]

There were later relevant comments:  #23, #37, #47, #51, #56, #71, #80, #84, #90, #96, #100, #147, #178.

[grey_whiskers]

That brings to mind an Isaac Asimov short story (title forgotten) in which the author's uncle (Schlemmelmayer or
some similar name) is a frustrated inventor.

His crowning achievement is something which can create matter from energy to reproduce atomically identical copies of past material--but due to the enormous E=mc**2 conversion factor,
the item must be very light.

The uncle decides to concentrate on bringing back a very rare signature from one of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence (maybe the Constitution, I forget). But no one believes the authenticity of the signature. The doubt is summed up succinctly in the following line (paraphrased here):

"And if XXX has been dead for two hundred years, you Godforsaken dumperlump, how can his name on a new piece of parchment be found?"

Cheers!

[snarks_when_bored]

You're right. I suppose the point I was trying to make—not effectively—was that the finding (should it be upheld) that the Turin shroud is between 1300 years old and 3000 years old does not imply that the shroud is what it is ordinarily described as rather than a remarkable fake.

In later posts, I conceded that faking it would perhaps have been difficult. Still, it would be interesting to see what an accomplished art forger could come up with.

[DBeers]

Faith is about belief in the face of an unknowable possibility.

LOL -you appear to have complete faith in the "hanky theory".

[grey_whiskers]

Of course, there's always the Stradivarius situation. Nobody alive can produce violins comparable to the ones that Stradivarius made. We aren't quite sure how he made them, but there's absolutely no doubt that he did make them.

I was under the impression IIRC (sorry for the reference to Dirac equation and other famous blunders of mine!) that part of the Stradivarius' secret was soaking of some of the violins' wooden components in brackish or sea water for a time...thought this was in Scientific American in late 80's or early 90's.

My memory wasn't what it...oh I forgot. :-)

[grey_whiskers]

Which is unfortunate, because with the new "accelerator mass spectroscopy" techniques to do carbon dating, the amount of sample needed is miniscule.

Hi Wonder!

Only counterexample or difficulty off the top of my head with that, would be if (say) you had 1st or 2nd century hand-me down bare cloth, with pigment or whatever dating from 1200 or so. Depending on the exact ration of pigment to cloth fibers used to do the sample, you might get all sorts of ages out.

In other words, homogeneity of a microscopic sample need not be a guarantee of much, when the macroscopic structure of the entire object is very heterogenous.

Just my 0.02 worth ;-) Cheers!

[sphinx]

If you scorch the outermost fibers of a linen cloth to varying degrees such that when analyzed using a NASA terrain analyzer they reveal a three-dimensional image of a man; and if the same cloth contains type AB blood matching the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, I'd be more impressed.

Any competent medieval forger would have done as much.

[snarks_when_bored]

I posted this link earlier:  Science and the Stradivarius. A nice article.