Posted on 04/12/2016 4:26:25 AM PDT by NYer
The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo “almost certainly covered the cadaver of the same person.” This is the conclusion from an investigation that has compared the two relics using forensics and geometry.
The research was done by Dr. Juan Manuel Miñarro, a sculpture professor at the University of Seville, as part of a project sponsored by the Valencia-based Centro Español de Sindonología (CES) (The Spanish Center of Sindonology).Transparency acetate on three-dimensional model used in the investigation of Juan Manuel Miñarro . LINTEUM
The study thus supports what tradition has held for more than two millennia: that the two cloths came from the same historical person, who, according to this tradition, was Jesus of Nazareth.
The Shroud of Turin would have been the linen that covered that body of Jesus when he was placed in the tomb, while the Sudarium would have been the cloth used to cover his face on the cross after he died.
Both cloths would be those found by Peter and John in the tomb, as the Gospel recounts.
The study “doesn’t prove in itself that this person was Jesus Christ, but it does clearly advance us along the path of being able to indisputably demonstrate that the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium were wrapped around the head of the same cadaver,” Miñarro explained to Paraula.
Blood stains
In fact, the investigation has found a number of correlations between the two relics that “far exceeds the minimum number of proofs or significant points required by most judicial systems around the world to identify a person, which is between eight and 12, while our study has demonstrated more than 20.”
Specifically, the research has discovered “very important coincidences” in the principal morphological characteristics (type, size and distances of the markings), the number and distribution of the blood stains, the unique markings from some of the wounds reflected on both of the cloths or the deformed surfaces.
There are “points that demonstrate the compatibility between both cloths” in the area of the forehead, where there are remains of blood, as well as at the back of the nose, the right cheekbone and the chin, which “present different wounds.”
Regarding the blood stains, Miñarro explained that the marks found on the two cloths have morphological differences, but that “what seems unquestionable is that the sources, the points from which blood began to flow, correspond entirely.”
The variations could be explained by the fact that “the contact with the [cloths] was different” in regard to duration, placement and intensity of the contact of the head with each of the cloths, as well as the “elasticity of the weave of each linen.”
Certainly, the coincidences demonstrated on the two cloths “are such that now it is very difficult to think that they came from different people,” according to Jorge Manuel Rodríguez, president of the CES.
In the light of this investigation, he said, “we have come to a point where it seems absurd to suggest that ‘by happenstance’ all of the wounds, lesions and swelling coincides on both cloths. … Logic requires that we conclude that we are speaking of the same person.”
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.—Luke 8:17
Related:
The Exposition of the Holy Tunic of Argeneuil.
Translated from the Spanish by Kathleen Hattrup.
Nope, LS, it is actually that's just the opposite. The image on the Shroud shows exit wounds coming out the back of the wrist of one crossed over arm, but there is a place on the base of the palm, where a natural pathway opens between the bones of the hand that Roman soldiers skilled in the art of crucifixion would know that exits exactly at the point seen on the Shroud.
If the nail were driven in the center of the palm, as artists depicted it for centuries, the weight of the body would tear through with the motion of a man in agony during crucifixion. Even the dead weight of a deceased body would do so, and multiple accounts of historians tell of bodies remaining on crosses for weeks show this did not happen.
The one extant example of a 1st Century crucifixion victim we have, Jehohannan, has a nails still in his arm, shows that the nail was driven through even farther up, through the forearm.
So the image on the Shroud is right, the images drawn by artists wrong.
Make that "French Invisible Reweaving" and you'd be right. It was a technique developed in the 16th Century to repair tapestries and arrases that had frayed or been moth eaten so that the original images woven into them would not show the patch by "reweaving" new threads invisibly into the old, pre-dyed and matching the old ones. It required very skilled artisans to do the work.
I don't know if crucifixion was common in the ancient middle east, though my guess is that the Greeks and Romans probably copied it from someone else. The ancients were pretty creative in their modes of execution. I'm not inclined to put much weight to put on the Old Testament references to crucifixion. The prophets might have written that Jesus would be stoned. Or beheaded. Or burned. Or struck by lightning. Or whatever. The important thing is not the particular mode of death; the important thing is that the prophets called it ahead of time.
A pox on auto-correct!
And so they would be, from the front view. At the base of the palm, there is a depression in the muscles you can feel yourself. Place the nail there and it will naturally find the channel through the wrist bones and come out exactly in the place on the back of the wrist seen on the Shroud. The wrist bones encircle the nail and keep the body on the cross, not allowing it to tear thrower as would be the case if it were placed in the center of the palm. The Roman Soldiers who performed crucifixions would have been taught this technique and location by their leaders.
That was not a wise place to take a piece for the purpose.
With which I totally agree. And the word “hand” can be broadly translated to mean anything in that area. And you can be sure that the holes were big enough to go into the palm part of the hand also. Which would help explain why the men in Emmaus did not really recognize Him until He stretched out His hands with bread.
I am of the mind that the shroud and Sudarium are what is claimed, the actual facial covering and shroud of Jesus Christ. The image was made when the Holy Spirit regenerated Him.
If I am wrong and it isn’t, no problem. It does not negate His resurrection or salvation. I just feel there is enough evidence to back up the claim that the cloths are what I think they are.
“Cursed is he who hangs on a tree” was pretty specific.
Thank you
Ping for new update on the Shroud of Turin.
“The one extant example of a 1st Century crucifixion victim we have, Jehohannan, has a nails still in his arm, shows that the nail was driven through even farther up, through the forearm.”
Correction: I mis-remembered Jehoannan’s case. The nail was through the ankle bone. The forearm showed scrapes of the passage of the nail through the on both the ulna and radius. There are some broken bones in the hand bones which some interpret to mean a nail was driven through there, but it is an outlying interpretation and an unlikely result of driving a nail in the hand as no pathologist has ever seen the metacarpal bones broken by a nail driven through a cadaver’s hands during testing.
The people doing this research usually pay for it themselves. Scientific evidence that is replicable has nothing to do with gullibility.
True...one of the apostles (I think Peter?) was crucified upside-down, wasn't he?
Celibacy was uncommon but not unheard of. As far as we know, John the Baptist was celibate. Celibacy was also practiced in the Essene community at Qumran.
All the way back in Daniel five you will see ‘hand’ is including forearm.
The women came to the Tomb with the ointments but the tomb was empty
There would have been no way to keep the ointment on the body of Jesus with just a shroud...The ointment would have fallen right off...Plus, the shroud would have been smeared severely with ointments...And even had the shroud been washed numerous times there still would have been residue from the ointment in the fibers...
It was part of the Shroud we have today, just not part of the Shroud as originally made. The C-14 test sample was a melange of original 1st Century Flaxen Linen and Seventeenth Century cotton patch threads interwoven together to repair a worn corner using a technique called "French Invisible Reweaving."
Actually, no. The skilled reweavers replicated the weaving pattern and the color by dying the threads they were weaving into the damaged area to match the original cloth. There were discrepancies to the original cloth but they were not visible to the naked eye. These discrepancies were, however, visible under ultraviolet light because that area of the Shroud fluoresced while the rest of the Shroud did not.
This was due to the different chemical make up of the fullering, retting, and dyes used to make the patch threads match. Also, the dyed cotton threads were, on average, just slightly thinner overall than the average size of the Linen threads of the main body of the Shroud. The biggest difference was that the threads in the patch were an "S" twist, while the threads of the main body were an opposite "Z" twist. The opposite twist is apparently to better allow the joining of the threads together, so they will lock. At least that's one weaver's explanation. The weave pattern of the Shroud and the patched area were both three over one twill.
The ointment was never put on in the first place. See your Bible for the explanation as to why.
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.