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

[AnAmericanMother]

I wish there was more information from Constantinople before the shroud was brought to Europe during the crusades.

Yeah, what we're lacking here is a "chain of custody." :-) Especially before the 13th century.

It's impossible, by the way, to prove a negative. It's also necessary here to disprove documents which coincide with the beginning of the existing chain of custody and declare inauthenticity. But lots of creative minds are hard at work!

This issue will never be resolved to everybody's satisfaction, no matter what. Too much emotion tied up in it at this point.

[aruanan]

Difficult, but not impossible.

You love to beg those questions, don't you?

[shroudie]

Good. I like an open, well informed mind. I don't find evidence that Henri knew any such thing. Pierre is the only testament to this. Henri was dead. And there is no record of an inquest as would be expected. The criticism of the profit motives of the Geoffrey's family is non-evidentiary to my way of thinking. And I find Margaret's "representation"s and Clement's caveat political. So we disagree.

There is significant new evidence that the Shroud was a Besancon possession ca 1207 to 135?. This must be discussed at a later time. Publishers (not mine) and peer review and all that sort of stuff for now. That should be an important development. I never bought into the Templar theory all that much.

I do find, as I suspect you do, that the historical conspectus of the era presents us with a fuzzy picture. That is why we must turn to science. The simple fact of the matter is that science has irrefutable proven that it is not a painting. This is verified by spectrophotometry, fluorescence photography, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, microscopy, microchemistry, laser microprobe Raman spectrometry, and pyrolysis mass spectrometry. While non-image contaminants of pigments used in paint and dye are found on the surface of the Shroud (as there are many other particles), nowhere on the Shroud is there a sufficient concentration of this material to form a visible image.

The backside image, which is what this thread of discussion is about, is simply further proof.

With all due respect for your precision and scholarly content . . . I love a good debate . . . and I am convinced.

Shroudie

[eastsider]

You are worshiping an image of DEATH, of stench, of decay, of maggot food, of death and decay!

For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (Psalm 16:10)

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (Acts 2:27)

Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (Acts 13:35)

[Quix]

It seemed to me looking at the back image, that it could have been the back of his head.

I still think it's likely to be authentic--especially based on the pollen evidence etc.

And, Resurecting THOUROUGH the cloth might have caused the image.

[RaceBannon]

So, why are there blood stains on the cloth then?

You helped me prove my point!

[RaceBannon]

Those were not my words, but the words of the article write.

I say outright, I dont know how it was made, but there is no way it is from Jesus. This has become an idol.

[RaceBannon]

Those were not my words, but the words of the article writer.

I say outright, I dont know how it was made, but there is no way it is from Jesus. This has become an idol.

[Sloth]

I find the Shroud suspicious, as it is a little 'too perfect', but even if it was Jesus' burial shroud I don't see the significance. So what? It's a stained cloth. Hoo-rah. Jesus abandoned it for a reason.

[Jaded]

When will you be duplicating the shroud? We'd like to see pictures of each step of the process.

[RaceBannon]

It's the idol aspect that gets me, that's all.

It may actually be from someone's burial, but to claim it is Jesus, that is going too far.

Also, the perspective of the image, when the cloth would have been wrapped around a person, that is irreconcilable.

[shroudie]

My fascination with the Shroud stems from my faith. I was a Christian long before I had ever heard of the Shroud. Nothing would change, if tomorrow, somehow, it was proved a fake. The charges by some (not you) that it is somehow a crutch of faith, a thing worshipped, a graven image, etc., are preposterous.

I am fairly well convinced we will never prove beyond any doubt that it is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus (though I am convinced at an intellectual level that it is). And even if we did, we could not use it to prove the Resurrection and the Incarnation of the Christ. Faith would not want it so.

Shroudie

[eastsider]

So, why are there blood stains on the cloth then?

Blood stains without maggot eggs, etc., friend.

(MORE EVIDENCE IT IS REAL : )

[shroudie]

Actually, you quoted out of context.

Shroudie

[Jaded]

That's one of the problems. People want Christ in their own little box next to their Julian Calendar. No miracles, no Holy Spirit, no relationship, no deep abiding faith in the awesomeness of the Great I AM. The I AM who created Heaven and earth. Just words and arguments.

[Jaded]

Good morning ping.

[american colleen]

My fascination with the Shroud stems from my faith. I was a Christian long before I had ever heard of the Shroud. Nothing would change, if tomorrow, somehow, it was proved a fake. The charges by some (not you) that it is somehow a crutch of faith, a thing worshipped, a graven image, etc., are preposterous.

Same with me, exactly.

Part of the fascination for me is that science (the self appointed answer guys) can't prove it's a fake.

A friend of mine insisted that Leonardo DaVinci 'photographed' it (???) so I gave her "The Resurrection of the Shroud" by Mark Antonacci. The book is kind of dry but the author was an atheist lawyer who compiled all the medical, scientific and archeological evidence available up to now (a couple of years ago) and came away from his research a believer. My friend (a Unitarian) is a believer as well after reading the book and doing research on her own.

[shroudie]

I asked you about the belove disciple, not Peter.

And no one, no one, no one, no one, except you suggested anything about Peter "worshipping" the cloth. You keep bringing up this worshipping thing. Where to you get this stuff. Do I sense a touch of prejudice on your part?

Shroudie

[the OlLine Rebel]

I don't get how this article tells me the "other image" must mean it's a fake, or even what the image is.

[missyme]

DO we have any reference of what people looked like when it comes to Age in Jesus's Day, would they have had a white beard in there early 30's? or does that play any part, although I know the Jesus we have seen in pictures and films is young and angelique looking, the picture of Jesus on the shroud apperas to be a man in his 70's or 80's by the features.