Posted on 04/12/2004 4:17:04 AM PDT by shroudie
A new study will be published on Tuesday by one of the peer reviewed scientific journals of the Institute of Physics, "The Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics." This may be one of the most revealing discoveries in the last few years in addition to the debunking of the carbon 14 testing and the discovery of the images chemical nature.
Giulio Fanti, professor of Mechanical and Thermic Measurements at Padua University and main author of the study, told Discovery News in an interview:
"On both sides, the face image is superficial, involving only the outermost linen fibers. When a cross-section of the fabric is made, one extremely superficial image appears above and one below, but there is nothing in the middle. It is extremely difficult to make a fake with these features."
He is God!!! afterall....
I treat the shroud the same way I consider a lot of stories from the Bible or not.....I don't need any MIT expert telling me what to believe....I can certainly accept difficult concepts as truth even without the scienctific community agreeing....
I don't even need a consensus ......
faith has to play a part ......
Actually, that isn't what it is at all. I'm Catholic. I'd like to believe the shroud is genuine. However, I'm also rational enough to relize there may be other explanations to account for the image. I don't just toss out scientific explanations because they happen to interfere with my belief, and that's what I'm seeing with the skeptics here. We can't just say, "this is the image of Jesus Christ. Case closed" because there is strong evidence (not overwhelming, mind you, but very strong) that this is actually a more recent portrayal. Following those lines of evidence is not an indication the followers are trying to debunk the shroud -- they might merely want to discount that particular line of reasoning.
Think of how the Catholic Church investigates the purported miracles of saints, or purported demonic possessions. All efforts are made to research the situation thoroughly before rendering a yay or nay.
I don't think anybody reasonable is saying that. It has been more the skeptical position, of late, to say the Shroud is not real by ignoring proper investigation of the evidence.
I for one started out believing it was not real. I was certain it was not. Some of that doubting came out of a strong educated-into-me-belief that any relic with a footprint in medieval Europe must be false. I also don't deny that I had a certain amount of Protestant prejudice against anything that was a Roman Catholic icon. It took me a long time to change my mind.
It is interesting that acceptance of the Shroud's authenticity is strong among not only Catholics but also among many in Orthodox, Anglican and Evangelical traditions. The strongest resistence seems now to come from two sides: 1)liberal Protestant scholarship as found in the Jesus Seminar and 2)extreme biblical sola-scriptura literalists. That is not to say that all criticism comes from those two groupings.
My position is quite clear on my website Shroud Story. I am quite convinced that it is a burial cloth of a first century Roman-style crucifixion victim. Science supports this. I also believe that from history and the gospels we can reasonably infer that the images and the bloodstains are those of Jesus. I doubt that can be proved. Science can only go so far. History can make a good case but as with all ancient history, it will always be a bit fuzzy.
Junior. I'll take an open mind anytime. I am troubled by anyone who says "case closed." Christian faith can never be afraid of truth, no matter where it leads. Take some time to study my site. Understand too, that my faith does not depend on the Shroud; not in the least. My interest in the Shroud stems from my faith.
I believe the Shroud is authentic. I love to discuss it with anyone who advances informed positions on either side of the issue.
Shroudie
That post addresses nothing I said in the post which prompted you to emptily declare, "You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about".
As for the linked thread, it was all over the map (and I participated in it at that time, you'll note, so don't pretend that you're calling my attention to something I had not been previously aware of). And you tried this same game on me there as well.
Care to try again?
If you have something *specific* to say, say it, but this game of "look over in yonder large thread, it supports me somewhere, but I won't say where" is getting old.
You have a stance, and damn the facts. That makes your point(s) worthless to me. How's that, slick? Clear enough?
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.