New face found on Turin shroud (MORE EVIDENCE IT IS FAKE)

London Telegraph ^ | (Filed: 13/04/2004) | Roger Highfield, Science Editor

[RaceBannon]

New face found on Turin shroud Roger Highfield, Science Editor (Filed: 13/04/2004)

The haunting image of a tall, bearded man bearing the marks of crucifixion that adorns the Turin shroud has been called one of the greatest religious hoaxes - one that has intrigued scientists and believers for decades.

Yesterday, the respected Institute of Physics in London renewed speculation about the revered object by announcing that a "ghostly image" had been discovered on the back.

The cloth has been hailed by some as the burial shroud of Christ but, in a milestone study 15 years ago, three teams concluded after carbon dating that it originated from between 1260 and 1390.

It led to the widespread conclusion that the shroud was a pious hoax created for the pilgrimage business.

This is an excerpt to the original article. Click on the link above

[Aquinasfan]

THERE IS ONLY ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN CHRIST AND THE FATHER AND THAT IS CHRIST

Then don't let me catch you praying for other people, or asking other people to pray for you.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

When you start reading about these in the Gospel of John, and then in the letters, then start to study them. You realize you can't deny what they are. Especially in light of their age and the recent restoration and the evidence that has come to light from that. To bad you hadn't caught the recent documentary's on tv. You maybe still could. It is on PBS on Secrets of the dead. Its about the Shroud and the recent findings on it since the 2002 restoration. They also go into great detail about the Sudarium.

Then there is this from Discovery News:

Discovery News:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040405/turin.html/

http://www.shroudstory.com/sudarium.htm

http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

[RaceBannon]

"I firmly wish that my face reflecting the intimate pains of my soul, the suffering and love of my heart, be more honored! Whoever gazes upon me already consoles me." (Our Lord Jesus Christ to Sister Pierina)

Jesus never came back to speak to this woman.

(Heb 1:1 KJV) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

((Heb 1:2 KJV) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Clearly, God stopped speaking through Prophets and visions and Dreams on the times of Jesus Christ, with the final , finished time of this beginning at Pentacost, and ending when the Church stopped having the signs and miracles gifts that ended before the fall of Jerusalem.

Jesus didn't speak to this woman.

Sorry, NYer, you are wrong.

[shroudie]

Ah, it is good to have another historian to talk with. Hello. You wrote: "As a historian rather than a scientist, I trust contemporary evidence a great deal more than speculation and inconclusive tests 800 years after the fact."

I, too, put much credence in "contemporaneous" accounts. Regrettably this is a "contemporaneous" account to what? Only to a period in which the cloth emerged, in documented form, in Western medieval Europe. The Hungarian Pray Codex is also contemporaneous to an earlier evidentiary period. The Sermon of Gregory Referendus of 944 is contemperaneous to a period of the Shroud's purported existence in Constantinople.

As a historian, I am sure you are referring to the d’Arcis Memorandum claiming that an artist painted it. Knowing that this was a time notorious for its unscrupulous market in fake relics, the bishop’s memorandum seems to have a whiff of truthfulness to it. But objective historial analysis also mandates that we recognize that the relic marketplace may also be the basis for doubting the veracity of the memorandum. Pilgrims were a source of revenue and people were flocking to Lirey to see the Shroud rather than nearby Troyes and its collection of relics.

Pierre, interestingly, states that his intent was not competitive. Why? Did he realize that others were voicing suspicions about his motives? They were. Other contemporaneous documents attest to that.

Pierre claimed that his predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes conducted an inquest in which a painter had confessed to painting the Shroud. Pierre did not have first hand knowledge of this artist; the artist is unnamed. There is no evidence of such an inquest in contemporaneous documents.

Pierre stated that Henri had the Shroud removed from the church because it was a fake, yet other documents dispute this. According to other documents, it was removed from the church for safekeeping because of the war raging about the area. Thus the d'Arcis memorandum must be understood and assessed in the light of several documents of the same period and in the context of the political situation in the region.

At least eight documents challenge the veracity of the d’Arcis Memorandum. I'm sure that as a historian you have considered these as well.

There are other problems as well. All existing copies of the memorandum are unsigned and undated drafts. The copy at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris includes a heading stating that it is a letter that Pierre intends to write. It is definitely a draft with Latin annotations in the margins. It is unlikely that it was ever sent to Clement as no properly signed or sealed copies of the document can be found in the Vatican or Avignon archives. No document of Clement refers to it, suggesting it was never received.

Numerous classicist and historians find the document questionable.

Did you consider Bishop Henri letter to Geoffroy I de Charny, dated 28 May 1356; Did you consider the letter from King of France Charles VI to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 4 August 1389; the Report of the Bailly of Troyes, dated 15 August 1389; the Letter from the First Sergeant of the King to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 5 September 1389; Clement's letter to Bishop d'Arcis, dated 6 January 1390; Papal Bull of Clement VII, dated 6 January 1390; Papal Bull also dated 1 June 1390.

Have you read the historical analysis of historians Scavone, Dietz, Markwardt, Latendresse, Dreisbach, Guscin, Marino, Marinelli, Zaninotto, “Deconstructing the ‘Debunking’ of the Shroud,” 1999. Have your read Anti-Pope Clement VII's Brief to Geoffroy II, dated 28 July 1389.

Historians must be objective, comprehensive, and open to other disciplines including science and archeology. History is filled with documents. Once upon a time a medieval abbot, Columba (Columbanus)-- contemporaneous to his time of course -- wrote that he saw a Monster at Loch Ness. Shall we simply trust him? Some do.

Didn't mean to be so hard on a fellow historian.

Shroudie

[steve8714]

Typical...we in the Church do not worship the image. If we look for intermediaries, it is because of our belief in everlasting life, and lack of presumption that our prayers are SUFFICIENT for salvation. Why are so many eager to pronounce Catholics damned for our practice of the Faith, even in the 21st century?

[shroudie]

Take a deep breath. Relax. What was it that the beloved disciple saw when he looked into the tomb?

Shroudie

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

the face cloth that Lazarus and Jesus had would have been on under the shroud, so, there would be no face image on the shroud from blood.

The face cloth you speak of was wrapped around the head, under the chin and over the top and that is discernible from the image on the shroud.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Cause it is easy and they get some enjoyment out of it. A Large number of most virulent Anti-Catholics are themselves former Catholics who are taking out their anger wrongly on something so as to justify their decision. Anti-Catholicism will always exist, because it is such an inviting target. It is sad, really, but something to be expected. It is our duty to pray for those who persecute us. God Bless

[Desdemona]

ADORATION WILL NOT BRING YOU SALVATION!

True, but it doesn't hurt. In fact, it helps very much in prayer. One has to believe in Christ BEFORE going into adoration. Adoration is there as a tool of living in Christ's Kingdom. Just to be there in the presence of God and pray, does not forgive sins, does not ensure salvation, but does help the individual live according to God's word.

In the end, it's all a matter of free will.

[Revelation 911]

Race - face it brother - in the limited interaction Ive had with you - one of my first experiences on FR as a poster was Racebannon telling me that Catholicism is the whore of babylon

....and now this title

Give it a rest - any credibility you'd presume to have is lost when you editorialize a title

It cant be proven or dis-proven IMO, It's a Byzantine image, but i cant prove it or disprove it - It could very well be the Shroud - I dont presume to know - neither should you

[Revelation 911]

Jesus didn't speak to this woman.

Odd, I had a Near Death Experience before I was a Christian and He appeared to me

Who are you to judge her validity

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Who p1$$ed in your Wheaties this morning?

[B Knotts]

Ah. Another one of these threads.

Just what you want to wake up to. :-(

[AnAmericanMother]

Looks like you're a very concentrated specialist. :-)

Of course I haven't read all those documents. The very existence of so much controversy, however (not to mention so many surviving documents), as well as the players' alignments, tells me that this was primarily a political dispute. When you add into the mix the fact that Geoffroy went over the head of the Bishop to get the exposition approved, and that Clement VII saw fit to approve the cultus (with conditions), it looks even more political. And if we want to talk about revenue, the Shroud was fought over fiercely throughout its history precisely for that reason (just ask the poor canons of Lirey). Geoffrey's family was criticized for exhibiting the Shroud for profit and the sale of souvenirs (and Margaret de Charny was excommunicated for refusing to return it to Lirey). Add that Margaret de Charny on several occasions admitted that the shroud was merely a "representation" of Christ, that Clement allowed exhibition of the Shroud only with the caveat that it was a pious representation and not authentic, that D'Arcis's predecessor (and D'Arcis) stated that they knew the name of the artist who painted the Shroud, and that Chevalier's investigation (which is the reason we have all the documents) concluded that it was a representation rather than a relic, it creates more than a little doubt.

Color me still unconvinced.

[RaceBannon]

If you actually died, you would not be here.

And Spirits talkng to people is an occult thing.

The Catholic Church condemns talkng to Spirits of the dead, right?

Oh, I forgot, unless they are spits of DEAD saints or Jesus or the DEAD Mary....

Goodness, dont any of you see this???

(Lev 20:27 KJV) A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.



(Deu 13:1 KJV) If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

(Deu 13:2 KJV) And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

(Deu 13:3 KJV) Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

(Deu 13:4 KJV) Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

(Deu 13:5 KJV) And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.



Clearly, the idea of contacting DEAD people, whether they are supposedly the same people of your faith, is OCCULT.

It is witchcraft, it is demonism.

You said this is ok, you did. The Bible says it is not.

They may have contacted you, but it is still wrong. It is something you need to ask God to protect you from, not rejoice in.

[RaceBannon]

I NEVER said the RCC is the Whore of Babylon because I dont believe it is.

You owe me an apology

[Desdemona]

Thank you for getting the information out, shroudie.

It's interesting how science has not been able to disprove the claim. The historical facts of the shroud are of more interest, I believe, than the scientific ones. It's existence is documented much farther back than the 13th century. I wish there was more information from Constantinople before the shroud was brought to Europe during the crusades.

[steve8714]

Unconvinced is OK, convinced is OK, we do not need relics to have faith, do we?

[RaceBannon]

He saw an empty tomb, Jesus was not THERE.

Peter did NOT worship the blood stained cloth that would have been reeking with stench from the blood and covered with maggots from the blood on the cloth, and the flies that would be around the dried blood.

The flies and maggots would have been feeding off the cloth from Jesus blood, eating the cloth itself, chewing the fibers. And if they washed the cloth, all those blood stains would have disappeared from the washing!

You guys better re-read that last paragraph. You are worshiping an image of DEATH, of stench, of decay, of maggot food, of death and decay!

People just need to think things through a little here, and you will see. This is a false idol, you have NO IDEA whose image it is, and you are making an idol out of it!

[AnAmericanMother]

Precisely how I feel.

The controversy over the Shroud is interesting from a historical, political, and scientific point of view. But it seems to me that it is in danger of becoming a sort of Rorschach test, with too many people deciding who is a "true believer" in Christ based on their opinion on this relic or representation, whichever it is. And it seems to me that is a danger to a single-minded pursuit of this issue.

Whether it is authentic or not should make not one whit's difference to anyone's faith in "Jesus Christ, and him crucified", rose, ascended, and will come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead . . . no matter whether his temporary cerements survived the intervening centuries or not.