|
Posted on 05/08/2010 4:33:54 AM PDT by NYer
.- Professor Paolo Di Lazzaro, who is head of a group of researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Development in Italy, noted this week that the latest discoveries on the Shroud of Turin “are not in contradiction with the theory of the Resurrection” of Christ.
In an interview with Europa Press, Di Lazzaro explained the results of their study, which lasted four years and focused on how the image came to appear on the cloth. According to tradition, the shroud was used to wrap the body of Jesus after the crucifixion.
Di Lazzaro said that scientists have not been able to reproduce an image, similar to the one on the shroud, with any kind of contact technique. While from far away, differences in the replications may appear unnoticeable, under a microscope they appear drastically different, he added.
The peculiarity of the original image lies in the “depth of coloration,” which on Shroud does not go beyond the first layer of strands in the fabric, Di Lazzaro said. Upon observation, his team came to the conclusion that “the image on the Shroud is similar to those some textile manufactures create through the use of laser.”
After years of experimentation, for the first time the team was able to color the outermost strands of a fabric similarly to how the image is present on the Shroud by using “extremely brief but intense ultraviolet light impulses emitted by a special laser.”
Even so, the researchers were only able to reproduce a small portion of the Shroud, as “in order to color the entire image you would need 14,000 lasers, something which for now is impossible,” he said.
Nevertheless, Di Lazzaro said the discovery at least points to a possible physical mechanism that may have resulted in the creation of the image. This mechanism “does not contradict the religious theory of the miracle or the resurrection,” he said, as it could have been the cause of the release of energy that created the image, although “this is an area outside our competence as scientists.”
Recently, Di Lazzaro organized a seminar in Frascati, Italy, during which 48 experts from around the world gathered together to discuss images called Acheiropoietos, that is, “not made by hands.” They also examined the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Manopello Veil, which, according to tradition, is the veil used by Veronica to wipe the face of Jesus.
:) My grandmother's aunt had a reweaving business that died due to the invention and too much use of polyester. One of her weavers rewove a silverfish hole for me after she retired. The other night I was really wishing we had saved one of the magnifying arms that they used to be able to see the weave.
Thanks for the previous link, when I asked, and the “puppet” dig wasn’t meant to be directed your way. Sorry if you’re feeling what Bush and Obama both call collateral damage. You’ve gone an made another fairly weighty claim, though, that “Modern science also tells us that the same man’s blood is on each of these” relics; wonder if you can tell me which modern scientist(s) tell us so?
At this point, I've read so much on this, it all runs together. I know the blood type is AB- and that the wounds match. There's multiple references for this. Swordmaker has the big list of references. It might be in that stash. I don't have time right this second to look.
I believe the purpose of the Shroud is to trickle out scientific evidence during these modern times as a tool to reach those who will only believe through technology and science.
As technology progresses, it will become more and more apparent to these modern Thomases that the Shroud is authentic. Then they will have to rethink their doubts about Christ.
I see it as another gift from God, who always considers His children’s needs. He left this as a gift for His children far in the future.
Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if Mary had not taken possession of the Shroud at first and then given it to Church leaders to protect— and to continue Her son’s work. It makes sense to me that a loving mother would gather up the linens she’d buried her son in, especially if they were soaked in his blood.
As to any kind of hard, factual, evidence....nope.
Ping.
you can’t GOOGLE for yourself?
This post is from another thread on the same subject. It wasn’t answered there and it probably won’t be answered here either.
First, let me assure everyone that I do believe the Shroud to be authentic.
**************************************************
Second, let me ask those who doubt: Who benefits from faking such a thing? Someone, somewhere had to make something off such a monumental forgery, otherwise there’s no reason to do it. If some talented painter faked it, who paid him, and why? Even if some medieval artist painted it (which I doubt) why would he do it and why not take credit for his work?
Once the doubters answer those questions I’ll entertain suggestions that the Shroud is a fake - not before.
****************************************
Anyone?
Thanks for the ping. Scripture indicates that the body was dematerialized in the tomb and re-materialized in the upper room (and elsewhere), but science still doesn’t know how that might happen.
Right, you don’t always read the thread, got it. You were responding to a single post you saw under “recent posts”, but I should have known that. My fault. I’m apparently in the habit of overlooking things like that, eh? And are you also still overlooking the last sentence of my first post?
Doubledown throwdown, yo. C-14 Retest,
Winner
Takes
All.
Too bad Turin Cathedral, once bitten, twice shy, won’t risk their precious Shroud again.
The circumstantial evidence surrounding this relic is so fraught with informed scientific testimony, blood types, wounds matching , pollen spores only found in Judea, that one must question the competence of the custodians of the shroud who allowed the medieval patch to be taken as a representative sample. However, even more perplexing is explaining the ability of a painter in the 16th century to reflect those present in a room looking at an inanimate imprint of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Scientists again are at a loss to explain the methodology employed to effect this fact.
Nothing new here whatsoever.....but glad to see more scientists getting onboard.
Quote, link, source??
Just kidding. I hate when people ask for a link on something they can get as easily themselves, or which is something everyone else already knows. Believe me or don't, I don't care, but don't assign me your homework. By the way, I have a few suits that could use some repair of holes. The moths got into the closet not too long ago. Is there a good way to fix them, or should I throw them out?
Why don't you rid yourself of the worry and send it to me?
Cheers!
Thanks for the ping!
The relics collected and worshipped by medieval Europeans ranged from the mundane to the truly bizarre. Bones or body parts of saints and martyrs were always in high demand. One church proudly displayed the brain of St. Peter until the relic was accidentally moved and revealed to be a piece of pumice stone.
Relics of Christ or the Virgin Mary were considered to be extremely valuable and included items such as the milk of the Virgin Mary, the teeth, hair, and blood of Christ, pieces of the Cross, and samples of the linen Christ was wrapped in as an infant. Numerous churches even claimed to possess Christ's foreskin, cut off during his circumcision. The Shroud of Turin, believed to be the funeral shroud in which Christ was buried, is perhaps the most famous medieval relic of all.
The biggest clue that the relics were fake was that there was often more than one... many more than one... of the same relic. The sixteenth-century protestant reformer John Calvin, who believed the veneration of relics to be a form of false worship, commented that if all the relics were brought together in one place "it would be made manifest that every Apostle has more than four bodies, and every Saint two or three."
The real value of relics lay in their ability to perform miracles. A relic that was an acknowledged fake could become 'real' if it performed a miracle. The European faithful regularly made pilgrimages over hundreds of miles to visit the most powerful relics. This pilgrimage traffic had an enormous impact on local economies, leading towns to go to extreme lengths to obtain the relics that would draw the most pilgrims.
Some of the lengths to which towns would go in their quest to obtain the most popular relics have been documented by Patrick Geary in his book Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages. He notes that towns were usually reluctant to simply buy or trade relics. After all, why would anyone willingly sell or part with a miracle-performing relic? Presumably they would only do so it if it no longer possessed its powers, meaning that the relic was worthless. Instead, towns often stole the relics they desired, or surreptitiously bought them while publicly claiming to have stolen them. Relic thefts were highly organized affairs, and the successful thieves were treated as local heroes. Geary tells the story of the Italian town of Bari which in 1087 commissioned a team of thieves to obtain the remains of Saint Nicolas (known more popularly today as Santa Claus) from the Turkish town of Myra. The expedition was a success, and for decades Bari basked in the glory of being the town that owned the stolen bones of Santa Claus. http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_medieval_relic_trade/
Okay, I’ll stipulate that money can be made from religious relics. I don’t neccesarily believe that the Church is involved in any sort of campaign to commercialize the shroud though but that could be because of my faith. If so, I’m probably ill equipped to argue the point.
Still, there were other questions which you haven’t addressed. Let me refresh your mrmory:
**************************************
If some talented painter faked it, who paid him, and why? Even if some medieval artist painted it (which I doubt) why would he do it and why not take credit for his work?
**************************************
While I’m open to reasonable arguements I have to warn you that I try hard to stay away from mud-slinging and if this degenerates into an electronic pissing contest I’ll merely stop responding. I don’t believe you normally do that sort of thing but I think it’s fair to establish ground rules before the game.
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.
