Posted on 03/15/2002 6:57:35 AM PST by OPS4
WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE Evidence of the risen Christ? Special Easter report sheds new light on reputed burial cloths of Jesus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: March 12, 2002 1:08 p.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
The March edition of WND's acclaimed monthly magazine, Whistleblower concludes with an in-depth and stunning report on the Shroud of Turin – the 14-foot-long piece of linen believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.
The most studied artifact in human history, the image of a crucified man mysteriously emblazoned upon it – in a way modern technology has been unable to duplicate – is breathtaking.
Experts – the gurus of science and medicine, the professors of history and art – cannot agree on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Skeptics have tried, unsuccessfully, to recreate the image they insist is a “pious fake.” Most who reject the Shroud put their faith in the carbon-14 testing results that date the linen as from the 14th century. Others respond that the storage conditions over the years and at least one fire forestall any accurate dating using carbon-14 tests.
Believers point to the growing body of scientific and historical evidence that bolster the authenticity of the Shroud.
How, ask Shroud supporters, is it possible that a clever fake shroud could be made in the 1300s as a perfect photographic negative that would not be properly “seen” until modern photography was invented? And what of the incredible fact that the fabric areas on the Shroud where the image is contained are only one fiber deep? No paint or stain would remain on the top surface of the first layer of the fibrils.
And how was a fraudulent relic-monger to know the medical truths that recent medical science has just learned? The medical details of crucifixion are so complex that no modern artist has – and no medieval artist could have – duplicated the precise geometry of the body in extremis.
And most compelling, why has no copy been achieved, given the vast science and technology at our command?
Skeptics have a difficult time, say Shroud proponents, with the mounting scientific and historical corroboration that should force an open-minded investigator to reconsider his objections.
One historian of the Shroud mused, “Their refusal to believe the evidence is itself not a scientific attitude.” The real problem, claim Shroud supporters, is not that an ancient cloth that covered a crucified victim still exists after two thousand years. Said one researcher: “Do you think that if the ancient burial sheet of a sandal maker had been discovered with a scroll that read, ‘here lies Benjamin the Sandal Maker,’ that the scientific world fall all over itself to prove that it could not be Benjamin the Sandal Maker?”
“No. They only compromise their scientific witness because the peculiarities of the wounds of this victim reveal him to be no sandal maker, but the Son of God. If they could, they would get rid of all the physical evidence of Christianity – that Jesus lived, died and was buried. And then Christians would have nothing to believe in. Then, after two thousand years, Christians would finally die out.”
The March edition of Whistleblower is dedicated to the rampant persecution of Christians in today's world. But in honor of Easter, WND's editors included this special section on the Shroud of Turin. Titled "The first Christian martyr," this eye-opening report on the Shroud – as well as the lesser known Sudarium of Oveido, believed to be the face-cloth of the entombed Jesus – begins with the reactions of visitors who view the Shroud in person:
“You look at it and you cannot escape it: His body was horribly, horribly wounded. I choked up,” said one visitor to the millennium Shroud of Turin exhibit.
Another viewer summed up his experience, “I realized that this image is a message that was left for us. The resurrection truly happened. The man they tried to extinguish, lives. And we will too, no matter what the world tries to do to us, we will rise again with Him.”
Whistleblower's special report by Mary Jo Anderson includes five remarkable, high-quality photographs taken by Barrie M. Schwortz, a member of the historic 1978 scientific team that was allowed to examine the Shroud. One of them is the full-length negative of the Shroud that clearly reveals the detailed and deeply gripping image of a crucified man.
What ever its origin, it's an amazing object.
AB
A very recent book on this topic adddresses the issue of "bioplastic deposits".
When carbon dating any purely organic material like the cloth of the shroud, one has to consider the presence of a layer of organic debris called "bioplastic" which is deposited on the surface of any such material of any great age by microorganisms which have been living on its surface for many years. These microorganisms incorporate more recent carbon in surface deposits on the material as they live and die. One would assume that the older the material, the greater the impact of such deposits.
The radiocarbon testing must be limited to the actual original material. Unless the bioplastic is stripped away prior to conducting the carbon 14 test, the test material is contaminated with more recent carbon deposits, giving an inaccurate, more recent dating for the artifact than it really merits. The carbon 14 dating on the shroud material was done prior to the knowledge of the existence of this "bioplastic" and hence gave a flawed result. The test should be repeated, correcting for this factor.
Based on many other independent factors - the weave of the material - the unknown nature of the manner in which the image was formed - the inexplainable accuracy of certain anatomical and forensic features - the presence of pollen granules from plants restricted to the Holy Land - the supposed history of the Shroud itself - etc, leads me to conculde that such a test, if performed, would vallidate the fact that this artifact is, indeed, what it is purported to be - the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth.
(By the way, the carbon dating done on the shroud has been shown to have been done on a section of the shroud that was repaired when it was damaged in a fire in the 14th century. The carbon dating shows nothing more than the fibers tested came from the 14th century.)
Thanks for saying that...you beat me to it.
As for me, I don't care about the shroud. I don't need physical proof to accept that Christ was crucified on the Cross and rose from the dead three days later.
That being said, we shouldn't place our belief in Christ as our saviour upon the shroud but in our faith. If there's physical proof, faith is not needed, no? I believe our Lord expects more from us. Faith is a journey, not a shroud.
Unlikely.
Christrianity has never relied on venerated relics for validity.
My faith does not rely on the authenticity of relics.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/search?s=Shroud+of+Turin&m=any&o=score
Quite. Still, the shroud, what ever it is, exists. If it really is Jesus' burial shroud, I'd say it was jolly decent of Him to leave us a picture. I'd also say He did it for a reason, and we might perhaps want to contemplate what would that reason be? OTOH, if it was made by human hands in the 14th century, I'd really like to know how they did it. I'd say the hypothetical 14th century maker(s) were much more sophisticated than they get credit for.
AB
Personally, the biggest vote agaist the Shroud for me is that the image in it looks like the Church art of the time: ie that the image looks like a shallow faced Western European, not like a full faced Mid-Easterner. Jesus was a green crescent Jew, he wouldn't have looked like somebody from France or England. If the Shroud didn't look just like the depiction of Jesus on the Cross I'd be much more tempted to believe it's veracity.
Finally I don't think the Shroud, or any other relic, has any bearing on the veracity of the religion itself. I could make false artifacts of Rome but that doesn't mean the Roman Empire never existed. Same thing here, so what if the Shroud is a fake, the item wasn't known (assuming it's real) for over 1000 years after Christ's death, the religion did well without it. If it proves to be a fake I don't see that as a challenge to the main tenants of the faith.
There are literally hundreds of recorded instances of religious artifact scams related to pieces of the cross and samples of blood, but there has only been one credible "burial cloth". If it was a scam, why limit it to one instance?
Couple this with the anatomical detail of the image on the cloth, i.e. nail holes in the wrists not in the hands, signs of joint stress from hanging on the cross, etc., that were not known in the 14th centuty.
Now top it off with the known inaccuracies in carbon 14 dating - organic contamination, heat/radiation exposure causing things to appear younger - and you can't conclusively say that it is not the burial cloth of Christ.
There aren't a whole lot of 14th century "scientific" methods that we can't recreate today. This "fake" would have had to be done by a genius with vast experience in biology, chemistry and physics. He would have had to have known information about the death of Christ that was not common knowledge, he would have to have a process for putting an image on cloth that has not been reproduced in the 700 or so years since him doing it, and then he would have to never use this hard earned valuable knowledge again. Ever.
I sure hope he was paid a lot for his fake.
I don't need it at all. Had it never existed, my faith wouldn't change in the slightest. That said, read some of my other posts. It exists, and is a fascinating object. At least, I think it is. If you find it utterly boring, that's your affair.
AB
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.