Posted on 05/03/2010 6:08:46 AM PDT by NYer
Thanks for the ping.
I was wondering what the Pope would say about the Shroud, and now I think his statement is beautiful, reasonable and reverent.
I'm not "pontificating", I'm making an observation on the contemporary record.
It is a fact that the contemporary record describes it as a forgery. It is also a fact that the bishop said he knew whodunnit.
That doesn't mean it's a fact that it is a forgery. It's just one piece of the puzzle. The contemporary record itself could conceivably be a forgery, or the bishop may have had the facts wrong, or the bishop may have not been - ahem - candid. But if we're really looking for the truth, we don't discard out of hand facts that we don't like.
Also, the vehemence of the defenders of authenticity can shade over into "true-believer" hostility. That sort of no-holds-barred advocacy does the opposite of convincing doubters.
Apologies for not pinging you to this thread earlier today.
Do you recall the name of the bishop and how he arrived at this determination? That was back in the 15th century. With today's technology, new facts emerge each year that dispel the possibility of it being a forgery.
Anyone who watched “The Face of Jesus” on the History Channel recently could not come to any other conclusion. The scientific evidence presented on that program was overwhelming in verifying its authenticity.Wonderful post, NYer. Thank you.
“I carry in my heart the entire Church, indeed the whole of humanity.”
And this is why the culture of death wants to take him down.
the “Orans” position.
Religious person: by definition, someone who needs to see something in order to have faith, contradictory to the Scriptures which clearly states that faith is the evidence of things NOT seen.
Forget the word “venerate.” They will worship it. In religion there is such a thin line between venerate and worship . . . just about no difference at all.
“I carry in my heart the entire Church, indeed the whole of humanity.”
Well, just to lighten the man’s load a little, he need not carry me in his heart. Too much of what he claims to believe doesn’t help me in the least.
And what do you know about the things he carries in his heart? Can you be more specific?
This all occurred within 50 years of the time the shroud first surfaced in Europe.
As my undergraduate degree was in history, I'm very cognizant of the value of original documents. Bearing in mind that it could have been a turf war, since the shroud was in the hands of a layman, I still don't think we can just ignore contemporary accounts. Especially since Bishop de Poitier said he knew who the artist was, and that the artist had acknowledged to him that he created the shroud. Maybe the bishop was a very venal and greedy man and a liar to boot. I don't know, but I don't think we should assume that.
I suggest you exclude yourself then.
Thanks for the ping!
I can certainly appreciate the value of original documents. Now that it has been established that the shroud is not a painted image, that would dispel the accounts in those documents. It would have taken a scientific genius to also match up the blood stains with another cloth to be discovered at a later date. Moreover, the 'artist' would also have to be familiar with botany. The combination of pollen spores lodged in the Shroud’s surface, as well as floral images mysteriously “imprinted” on the face of the cloth, have been determined as only coming from plants growing in a restricted area around Jerusalem.
The negative image has apparently been duplicated by an Italian chemist using non-painting methods. So just the fact that the shroud isn't painted (pigments applied to the surface as opposed to soaked in) doesn't "dispel" the original documents.
I keep saying that moderns have this odd tendency to believe that our medieval ancestors were all benighted yahoos and knew nothing about science or technology. Leonardo alone ought to dispel that idea, but there were plenty of others too.
As for the matching bloodstains, since the shroud and photographic images of it have been around for years now, it wouldn't take a genius to match up the photographs with a not "later-discovered" but "later-created" sudarium.
Bit of devil's advocacy here, but this is by no means settled and there's no point in assuming that it is.
your posts don't even reach that level. At least a ‘devil's advocate’ would do some serious research - if you did, you'd see that your postulations have been debunked long ago.
I'm not answering your latest post to convince you of anything, as your many long posts show that you are dedicated to denying even the scientific evidence. You have your reasons for wanting to convince people it's a fraud - and you are welcome to them.
I post only to, hopefully, help others not to take your word on any of what you post...but to do their own research...even it's only to watch the History channels latest documentary “Is this the Face of Jesus” - link below - which will air again on the 10th.
It really is the best one I've seen so far - and I have been following for decades -
But for anyone who hasn't studied The Shroud, this documentary is a great place to start - and then there's Barrie M. Schwortz’s web site (He was one of the original scientists of the STURP team in 1978)
History ch.
http://www.history.com/shows/the-real-face-of-jesus
Barrie's Web site - decades of research:
This is what I mean when I say that some of the Shroud's defenders go over the line into attacking and denigrating people who are simply pointing out opposing points of view.
You completely misunderstood my earlier posts about the historical record, ignored my careful explanation, and you continue to adopt an aggressive, dismissive, hectoring tone.
Anybody who questions the 'received wisdom' is a trifling, ignorant person who has not bothered to read anything and has some concealed and no doubt evil reason for 'wanting to convince people it's a fraud.'
If you want to convince waverers or doubters, attributing evil motives is the surest way NOT to accomplish your goal.
The pollen spores are not visible to the unaided eye. So how would an enlightened medieval forger know to add them?
Luigi Garlaschelli used acid pigments, which were rubbed on, and then later washed off. Blood stains were added later. His image would show signs of directionality from the process, it would not be on the tips of the microfibrils, and the blood stains did not inhibit the image formation, as they were added later. On the Shroud, the image is inhibited by the blood stains, because the blood came in contact with the cloth first, and foiled the subsequent image formation that most likely occurred at the moment of the Resurrection. He never submitted his experiment in any peer reviewed publication, while the STURP commission did.
The provenience of the Sudarium of Oviedo is older than the Shroud, dating to the 11th century.
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.