Posted on 04/28/2019 8:33:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
What if it is real?
exactly how would that ever be proven...?
It is a matter of faith
"If I were you, I'd retain a healthy dose of skepticism. If you haven't already done so, you might try reading the Byzantine history of the Mandylion .... Notice that in each of the two separate accounts given of the Mandylion's origin, the cloth was found in proximity to a "tile" (keramion in Greek) upon which an identical copy of the image on the cloth had been inexplicably engraved. To my mind, this suggests that the image supposedly placed above the gates of Edessa by Abgar in the first century was not a cloth, but an image of the crucified Jesus sculpted in stone. That makes much more sense, because (1) a cloth would have quickly deteriorated if openly displayed in the manner suggested by the text; and (2) there is no mention of such a cloth in Eusebius's ecclesiastical history, although pre-sixth-century texts do mention the fact that the sick Abgar was keenly interested in knowing precisely what Jesus looked like and even sent a commission (Ananias) for the purpose of capturing his likeness. When Abgar's son reverted to paganism, threatening the destruction of the icon, it seems hardly logical that, had the icon been a piece of cloth, it would have been bricked-up into the niche in which it lay--it would have been far more expedient simply to have removed it to a safe location. If the image, however, had been a cumbersome piece of statuary, incorporated within the city walls, the best way of removing it from sight might well have been simply to brick over the place in which it reposed. The Byzantine account (number 2) states that the "tile" was probably placed in front of the cloth for protection. Under the most logical scenario, the exact opposite would have been the case, i.e., a piece of plain cloth was probably placed in front of the stone image for the purpose of covering and protection. If, as the legend suggests, this piece of cloth and work of statuary stood undisturbed in close proximity (albeit not necessarily in contact) over the course of four or five centuries, it's neither illogical nor presumptuous to hypothesize that somehow the image of the statue transferred itself to the cloth. I don't profess to know exactly what agency might have been involved in such a transferral; however, it is a well known fact that many rocks, especially of the sedimentary variety, contain varying amounts of natural radioactive substances, notably thorium and uranium. Over the course of five centuries the slow but steady emanation of radiation from the statuary might well have caused the effect seen on the cloth we know as the Shroud of Turin, that is to say, a very light and superficial dehydration of the outermost fibrils of the linen threads. To the ancients who discovered the cloth, its accompanying statuary would not have appeared as miraculously wrought as the cloth itself, which contained an image formed through an agency they were powerless to understand. Since the statue was an exact likeness of the image it must have seemed to them that the cloth image had been transferred to the stone, rather than the opposite."
Whatever the case, the Shroud remains a true enigma, a phenomenon that is not to be taken lightly, nor to be dismissed out-of-hand.
That’s why it works so well as a fund raiser.
If by “proven”, you mean in the sense of a mathematical proof, of course never. But “proving” in the courtroom sense of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is still unlikely, but not so far-fetched.
There is a wealth of forensic evidence making a very strong case that the shroud was wrapped around a man who died as a result of crucifixion (see the many Shroud web sites for details). There is significant, but weaker evidence tying the shroud to Jerusalem in Jesus’ day (pollen, minerals, absence of vanillin, etc.) The C-14 dating that supposedly dated the shroud to the middle ages has now been largely debunked.
As to tying it to Jesus specifically, there are several details (whipping, crown of thorns, legs unbroken) that are described in the Gospels but not usually seen with crucifixion. Beyond that, I resort to Occam’s razor - why would the shroud from another victim have been preserved? When one looks at the totality of evidence, that the Shroud was Jesus’ seems to be the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
Ping
Your flip response notwithstanding, careful review of all of the evidence, and application of Occams Razor, gives the skeptic a tough roe to hoe
How many other fabric items of the same construction still exist from 2000 years ago still exist?
The only way to “disprove” that it’s real is to recreate it, using techniques pertaining to the age a couple thousand years ago. The image has already been verified as not painted or dye is used, but burned into the fiber through a radioactive type of event that is unknown. The only way that could even be done today is with a laser printer. It also appears to be a 3D image. http://shroud3d.com
The closer you get to the image the more it just becomes a smudge here and there - you have to view it at least 18 feet away to discern any image; whereas in a painting the closer you get the more detail you see. Spent three days at a Shroud seminar.
This has been going on for years and years and I have reviewed it for years and years. Nothing flip about my response.
Really? I guess you haven’t studied Impressionism.
Author asks.....”If those who insist that the Shroud is fake, then we must counter with the question, What if it is real?
I prefer being blessed for believing without seeing....as is written...”Blessed are those who believe without seeing.” John 20:29
Author asks.....”If those who insist that the Shroud is fake, then we must counter with the question, What if it is real?
I prefer being blessed for believing without seeing....as is written...”Blessed are those who believe without seeing.” John 20:29
The item is known as the Tarkhan dress. It was discovered in 1912 by one of the most famous Egyptologists in history William Flinders Petrie. Petrie excavated the site of Tarkhan, located 50 km (31.07 miles) south of Cairo, in 1912 1913. The impressive textile was found in one of the tombs, which was a large mud-brick niched construction. The tomb was built during the First Dynasty (c. 32183035 BC).
Odd how the shroud suddenly popped up in Europe after more than a thousand years. Where had it been all that time?
Well yeah. I mean it’s not made of Van dyke brown and crimson white like a painting. It’s a radioactive occurrence of some sort when its burned into the cloth. No photo that I’ve ever seen reveals more details as a negative than a fade out positive If viewed as a negative, it’s much more defined. All I want to see it exposed as a fraud is it being recreated with the tools of the time. Has yet to be done
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.