Posted on 10/05/2009 11:22:44 AM PDT by Gamecock
An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake. The shroud, measuring 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ. "We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud," Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday. A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Not odd at all. Computer studies show that the Shroud facial characteristics underly a huge proportion of all icons of Jesus. This can be explained if it were true (as documents attest, corroborated by new documentary evidence for the whereabouts of the Shroud before 1300) that what we know as the Shroud is the relic called the Mandylon preserved in Edessa and then Constantinople and shown in its folded form (face only) on certain occasions. The iconographic tradition could be derived from the Shroud, hence the deeply embedded sense of what Jesus looked like could ultimately go back to the Shroud.
In evaluating historical artifacts, pedigree is among the most important. The Lincoln bed on display at the Chicago Historical Museum is authenticated in the commentary at the display primarily by arguing from pedigree records.
Did it ever occur to the Bible-only Christians that the explicit mention of two kinds of burial cloths in the “race to the tomb” scene in John’s Gospel is odd? Why did the writer mention so much in detail (1) that the cloths were still there, (2) that they were folded (3) that the shroud was distinct from the facecloth (sweat-cloth, put on the face as soon as possible after death in Jewish burial protocol)?
This all makes sense if the earliest (and I mean EARLIEST) Christians had in fact, snatched up those gravecloths and preserved them as the sole tangible physical “keepsakes” of their beloved Lord. They couldn’t grab hold of the cross—it “belonged” to the authorities; whether Helena discovered the actual buried in rubble cross 300 years later or not is a different question (not impossible for reasons I won’t go into here).
But the gravecloths were right there. It would be utterly incredible to think that the apostles, the women, the disciples did not grab them with every ounce of energy they possessed and keep them with a devotion beyond words.
And the gravecloths were small enough that they could be preserved even in the fiercest persecution. It would boggle the mind to think that the early Christians did not preserve them, were not willing to give their own lives to protect them.
That’s all just plain common sense. The writer of John’s Gospel did not, sadly, add “And these cloths are preserved to this day in the house of Jacob bar Simon, the chief sacristan of the Christian Church at Antioch” or something like that. The author didn’t bother to mention that these gravecloths were preserved in Christian hands. He thought it would be so obvious to anyone reading the gospel that the Christians preserved them. Moreover, if he had written who was in charge of them, at a time when Christianity was still illegal, he’d have been greasing the skids for their destruction or at least for the guardians of the relics to have a bigger battle to keep them safe.
But the most reasonable explanation for including that odd mention of the DETAILS of the position and condition of the gravecloths is that they were already being valued as relics at the time the gospel was written.
And the image on the gravecloths may not have been visible or fullly visible at first. It may have formed over time.
So the PEDIGREE of this particular artifact starts from the very beginning, which is an incredibly rare kind of pedigree for artifacts this old. The record after that has long gaps, but also very significant mentions of a cloth with an image of Jesus, mentions at regular intervals until the Shroud appears in the West in the 1340s.
As pedigrees go, over such a long time span, it’s a pretty decent one. No, it’s not as tight as the chain of evidence required in court for a crime that took place a year ago. But for a historical artifact purportedly this old, it’s not a bad pedigree of guardianship.
Did you ever think about the oddity of that “race to the tomb” story? It takes on a whole different light if the Shroud is authentic.
And the pedigree is only part of the evidence. The forensic evidence from the Shroud (pollen etc.) is vast and overwhelmingly consistent.
By whom? By you?
Who is doing the worshiping?
How is it that a burial cloth of Christ (if real) would take our minds off Christ?
That sentence is not quoting the scientist, you realize?
Well, I believe it is real and after two thousand years Christ is still generating controversy. Most celebs would KILL to have that ability.
No, not "faith was challenged," who said that if "you don’t believe the cloth bears the face of Jesus Christ, you’re doomed to Hell?"
Amen.
What would it matter if someone found every shirt and shoe Jesus ever wore? They are nothing.
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God." -- 1 Peter 1:18-21"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
If it "popped up" in the 1200s, what is it doing depicted on the Hungarian Pray manuscript in the 1100s--right down to the linen herringbone weave and l-shaped burn marks? And it's got a historical pedigree back to the 500s if it is indeed the Holy Mandylion as many Shroud scholars now believe.
The C-14 dating, while disputed, is consitent with the fake theory.
More than disputed. It was "disputed" when the bioplastic coating theory was going around. The reweave idea is pretty much invalidating the c-14 findings completely.
Seconded!
It isn’t Christ, and yet many spend an inordinate amount of effort into seeing such as proof of the existence of christ.
At best it is foolish, at worst idolatry.
(1) he didn’t realize it had been rewoven—it was rewoven by those experts who can repair a tear such that it’s invisible; (2) he didn’t realize that smoke residue could throw off C-14 results because physicists didn’t realize it until some Russian scientist did experiments to show this—stimluated by the Shroud issue
(3) he wanted the sample to be taken from a marginal area rather than damage the Shroud more than absolutely necessary. No one was enthusiastic about smipping off part of the Shroud.
FALSE.
"Reverence" and "Worship" are not the same thing.
Relics are not worshiped.
Holiness is in the spirit, not the body or the physical.
Stuff and nonsense. The Son of God Himself took on human nature, really and truly. If the physical was not sanctified before then, it certainly was after.
“If it is regarded as “a Holy Relic” then it is revered and worshipped.”
Revered is not worshipped. You are missing something very basic.
The Shroud isn't Christ? Of course not. It merely bears His image.
What is all this ranting about "proof?"
Who claims they believe in Christ because the Shroud proves anything?
By you. If you exalt it above any other piece of cloth, if you revere it as a holy relic, then you are worshipping it.
Bad idea. IMO. YMMV
but my faith was challened
Poor excuse for throwing a blatant falsehood on the thread. IMO. YMMV.
Absolutely false. Why would you falsely claim I worship something?
“If you exalt it above any other piece of cloth, if you revere it as a holy relic, then you are worshipping it.”
Uhhhh, NO. You’re wrong. Do a little theological study on the meaning of the words “revere” and “worship”.
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.