Turin Shroud may be genuine after all

UPI via The Washington Times ^ | 10/9/2002 | Uwe Siemon-Netto

[Skooz]

Couldn't have said it better.

[Swordmaker]

Sorry, but it IS correct. The Christ Pantocrater just showed a skinny guy with a beard.

Which Iconography scholar are you citing on this pronouncement? Your assertion that Durer established the image of Christ based on his own visage is the "fact" that must be proven. Centuries of studies deny your assertion. You have made the extraordinary claim... I have cited the scholarship.

I don't see a "skinny guy". I see a robust man with broad shoulders.

[spunkets]

I couldn't see the contaminants outweighing the original shroud by 4x.

N_o = original number of ¹⁴C particles.

If the date they found was 1275, then the number of ¹⁴C particles, N_found, was:

N_found = N_oe^-(767/5568)= 0.84N_o

If it was from 35AD, or so, they would have found:

N_35AD = N_oe^-(1967/5568)= 0.7N_o

The difference is what might come from contaminants:

N_contam = 0.84N_o - 0.7N_o = 0.14N_o

Since N_o and N_contam are fixed at 10^-10% of the total C particles @ t=0, the amount of C contamination adds ~14% to the original weight. (1.14x)

[spunkets]

That looks like the shoe bomber. I think the experts spent too much time with a bong.

[nmh]

It's most doubtful that it maybe a legitimate relic. Even if it is an old shroud it would be impossible to prove that it belonged to Jesus Christ. Even if the impossible could be proven, for God's sake - it's just a shroud! A Christian has NO business worshipping a shroud, an idol or image for that matter. So, the big fuss about the shroud is for naught as far as I am concerned.

[nmh]

But some people will do anything to destroy Christianity."

Christianity is not about a shroud. The shroud is irrelevent to Christianity. Destroying an old or new shround for that matter, wouldn't matter to Christianity at all. Christianity is ALL about following the teachings of Christ. Not about objects or images. Recall the Ten Commandments and see what matters to God on that issue.

[aruanan]

Ah, but that's the crux of the argument. The scientists with an agenda are out to put science vs. religion, so that unless something can be scientifically proven, it's bunk.

In other words, for certain things they demand standards of proof they would consider ludicrous if applied to them in everyday life. They are still echoing Thomas, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." Of course, setting the standards of proof for whether or not an event occurred has nothing to do with whether or not it actually occurred, though one could, by setting certain standards, preclude oneself from ever actually accepting that the event took place. But that's not the same thing as proving that the event never took place. Too bad some really smart people haven't caught on to this. But then, echoing Pascal, the heart has its reasons of which the reason knows nothing.

[john in missouri]

Got no problem with that.

[Chemnitz]

We have the risen Christ. We do not need the shroud.

The newspaper account in hilarious. The Gospel of John does not say that Jesus guided the fingers of Thomas to His wounds. Perhaps the dingbat journalist should read the passage. There is no record of Thomas touching the wounds, only him saying, "My Lord and my God."

Blessed are those who believe without seeing.

[spunkets]

I missed the 1532. Even if the contamination came from 1532, I only see 1.153X. The fire should just add creosote and formaldahyde. The cloth does have a high surface area though and any films are going to add significant weight.

[Alamo-Girl]

For the discussion ... from the shroud.com website, two interesting articles on the C-14 dating issues:

Debate between "Rodger Sparks, a carbon dating expert from New Zealand, and William Meacham, archaeologist and Shroud researcher from Hong Kong" and

Evidence for the skewing of the C-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin due to repairs (PDF)

[Swordmaker]

The portrait of Albrecht Durer you posted is his Self Portrait at age 28 painted in 1498. It is of himself and art historians note that it appears somewhat stylized as Christ. However, analysis of this painting shows that Durer used the Shroud of Turin as his starting point. Several indications are present. The tufts of hair at the part are found in many early icons of Christ... and are representations of the blood stains in the same location on the Shroud.

Portrait of Myself at Age 28
Albrecht Durer (1498)

The shroud was quite well known by the time of Durer's career and many painters were already using it as the source of the inspiration for the appearance of Christ. Durer shows some knowledge of the Shroud as a single piece of cloth in his painting the Lamentation for Christ. Joseph of Aramathea is portraid holding onto the foot of the Shroud and the top of the Shroud is draped across Jesus' loins for modesty. In addition, his knowledge of the Shroud is also shown by Mary placing her finger in the wound IN THE WRIST, which was contrary to contemporary iconography. Durer was, however, a stickler for detail and he noticed this. Note also the supine Christ has the wisp like structures on his forehead.

Lamentation for Christ
Albrecht Durer (1503)

I searched the Internet and Durer biographies and nowhere did I find an attribution to Durer of the modern appearance of Christ's image. In fact, Durer himself only admitted to ONE deliberate usage of his own face is in a portrait he cakked "Christ the Man of Sorrows".

Christ as the Man of Sorrows
Albrecht Durer

This painting is hardly our modern idea of the appearance of Jesus Christ.

[WVNan]

John 20:27-Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

I find it interesting that without exception, the doubters and their arguments have not read the scientific, forensic, historical and biological records. Read "The Shroud and the Blood" by Ian Wilson. He answers every argument with facts from all these disciplines. As for worshipping a relic, I know of no Christian who would worship the shroud. But could not God's hand be in the recent advances in science and the revived interest in the shroud? Maybe there are some Thomases who need to put their hand in the wounds.

[Chemnitz]

The doubting Thomases need their blanky. They can have it. Some of us have read lots about the shroud.

[Skooz]

This is a real big deal to you, isn't it? Sorry to have touch such a sensitive nerve.

I never said that Drurer's visage was the only representation of Christ in the history of the world.

Geesh.

[Physicist]

N_found = N_oe^-(767/5568)= 0.84N_o

Two quibbles: 5568 is not the lifetime, but the (Libby) half-life, so it would be a power of 2 and not of e. Second, the Cambridge half-life of 5730 years is a better number (a minor mistake that I made myself).

N_contam = 0.84N_o - 0.7N_o = 0.14N_o

You're mixing two different N_o's.

N_o for the Shroud won't be the same as N_o for the contaminants. You have two unknowns and only one equation.

Consider this as a check: If the Shroud dates from 35 AD and the contaminants date from 1275 AD, by what factor must the contaminants outweigh the Shroud to get a date of 1275 AD for the combined sample? Answer: by a factor of infinity. Your method should blow up at 1275 AD.

[Conservative til I die]

Exactly. I have no problem with scientific standards. Believe me, I don't have the opposite agenda, which is to say that science is the tool of the devil. My issue is with scientists who do use the scientific method to prove a point. And they hide behind science, which has this rep as this pure, untainted art, when science can be manipulated. People can do shoddy studies and research, and "accidentally" leave out some sort of variable when performing tests, when they want to prove something, like say that the Shroud dates to the 13th century, which they visibly and excitedly announced.

[spunkets]

Half-life = 5730. I wondered why the 2 numbers were different when I saw 5730 last night when looking for abundance.

"You're mixing two different N_o's. N_o for the Shroud won't be the same as N_o for the contaminants.

I was considering particles only and that, x amount of cloth with N_o particles was either ~767y/o, or ~1967y/o + B amount of contamination added at some time with N_contam.

I wrote:
N_contam = 0.84N_o - 0.7N_o = 0.14N_o,

after rearranging, it becomes

0.84N_o = 0.7N_o + N_contam, as worded.

"You have two unknowns and only one equation."

That's why N_contam is in terms of N_o by plugging in a time for the contamination to occcur, the N_o factor and N_contam changes. So if the time of contamination is recent, with the real 1/2-life, the amount of ¹⁴C contamination is 0.165N_o and if from the time of the fire, (0.165/0.91)N_o.

"by what factor must the contaminants outweigh the Shroud to get a date of 1275 AD for the combined sample?"

Since the abundance at t=0 is fixed at 10^-10 the factor, at t=0 is 1.17 and at tfire, it's 1.18. The total C contamination number of particles, or weight is only ~18% higher than the original cloth C.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

This accounts for the image being only on the surface and the almost photographic nature of the image.

That's the first time I've heard that. I guess I always thought that the image and markings were the same on both sides.

It just deepens my belief that the shroud is a photographic negative of some kind -- a beautiful elaborate hoax.

[aruanan]

It just deepens my belief that the shroud is a photographic negative of some kind -- a beautiful elaborate hoax.

Your talk about the shroud being a photographic negative is anachronistic in much the same way that someone claims a coin is ancient whose date reads 27 B.C..