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 ...
I’m not saying anything about the shroud itself and don’t really care that much. What does bother me is the ridiculousness of the conclusions based on what the researcher supposedly did.
“You presume inauthenticity”
Correct. I do. The trade of fake religious icons is well-known, ESPECIALLY back then.
The burden of proof lies on those making an exceptional claim.
The claim is that this shroud covered Jesus Christ in his borrowed tomb and was imprinted with his features during that three days.
That’s quite a claim.
The proof for the claim is lacking, and the proof against the claim is considerable.
You are off-subject.
There is a theological meaning attached to the words “revere” and “worship”.
If I knew you, it could be “ad hominem”. Since I don’t know you, I can only go by what you are writing on this thread, which seems to imply only a knowledge of dictionaries for your arguments.
Stop right there.
I have been on FR for nine years now, and I have seen a lot of threads with a lot of anger. I've been on threads regarding Terri Schiavo where people accused each other of things like enjoying the suffering of the disabled. I've been on crevo threads where I was accused of being part of a cabal that will overthrow the United States government and replace it with a theocracy that would ban scientific inquiry, Catholicism, all non-Christian faiths and many Protestant denominations. In other words, I've seen hysterical anger on this site.
There has been no "hysterical anger" on this thread. Disagreeing with you does not make one "hysterical" or faithless.
Look, the burden of proof is on the proponents of the thread. What they have is a cloth that poppsed up in the 1200s.
Many on this thread say that isn't the case, and have provided evidence to back it up. Now, I'm not endorsing their claims, but I'm just wondering if "No, it didn't, read this" is the "hysterical anger you're referring to?
The theory used to be that it was “impossible” to recreate the image. Well, this experiment shows that it could be created with tools available at the time of appearance.
Do you really know enough about the methods used to make such a determination? For example, was the experiment filmed? Have the results been peer reviewed? Are we absolutely certain that he didn't sneak in a modern method, or use a contemporary technology in a way those living at the time couldn't have conceived? One brief description in a news story is proof beyond reasonable doubt in your world?
“Is your beef with the inauthenticity of this particular relic or with cherishing of relics and heirlooms of any sort, including authentic relics?”
Find where I didn’t say I would be thrilled if the shroud could be authenticated.
We know what the image is made of and there are no pigments involved. The Shroud has been examined with very sophisticated instruments and all of them have failed to find any pigments on the Shroud that correspond to the location of the image.
The copy made by Garlaschelli apparently approximates only ONE of the multitude of characteristics of the Shroud... the evanescent image. This has been done before... and none of the techniques have yet met all of the criteria for duplicating the Shroud... one of which is the lack of pigments down to the electron microscope level.
I find the Shroud of Turin interesting but it has no bearing whatsoever on my faith. It would be neat if its authencity is proven (which it probably never can be) but I wouldn't be troubled in the least, if it was found to be a fake (which I suspect, it probably is).
This isn't the first time that someone has shown a method which could have been used to produce something like the Shroud of Turin. N. D. Wilson, the author, reported such a method a few years back. I really liked Wilson's statement about his conclusion: "it (the Shroud) is a lie about a great truth (the Resurrection)."
I note that there have been many attempts to duplicate the image over the years - thermal, vapors, oinment/sweat, urea/photography, etc. While an image was formed, these images failed to reproduce ALL the features found in the shroud. The article is just a claim without substantation at this time, but I suspect it will pan out like the others (as a coating method was already tried by others).
Wow, what a great name for a Christian rock band: The Various Shroudies!
“It gives more space to them than it does to Joseph the adoptive father of Jesus or to thre-fourths of the apostles.”
Correction. There is more space given to Joseph. But the cloths receive more space than many of the apostles. Indeed, more space than Peter’s wife (who is never mentioned but whose existence is properly inferred from the mention of Peter’s mother-in-law. Yet, on the basis of the existence of Peter’s unmentioned wife, an immense edifice of married apostles has been built.
I’d say the mention of the burial cloths exalts them, compared to a lot that never gets mentioned in the gospels. What happened to Joseph after Luke ch. 2?
And you're making repeated false accusation in this thread.
“Anti-Catholic bigotry on your part, to decry any respect whatsoever to relics, and your claiming they are really being worshipped.”
Find a post where I said anything like that.
“The proof for the claim is lacking, and the proof against the claim is considerable.”
This is pure B.S. You have gall. I know of no historical artifact for which evidence of the sort that exists for the Shroud. The evidence adds up to proof insofar as any historical artifact’s authenticity can be proven.
The proof against the claim is laughable.
And that you don’t know this proves beyond any doubt that you have not read the evidence on either side.
You simply are BSing your way through this.
It’s a stain, not a pigment. The “acid” is lemon juice.
It’s an old technique for the transfer of images to fabric (or paper or anything else).
Seconded!
Pipe down already and let the experts tell you when you are worshipping something or not. Who the heck do you think you are to determine such grave questions about yourself? Geeeez...
Freegards
The carbon date has been falsified. The labs tested a 16th century Cotton patch that included some original Linen material interwoven into it. This is peer reviewed science and has been independently confirmed.
The main body of the Shroud is Linen from Flax and contains no cotton... yet the C14 test sample was approximately 50% cotton. Once the sample was proved to be not homogenous with the intended object to be tested, it invalidated the entire test.
A melange of 16th Century Cotton mixed with 1st Century Linen, in the observed percentages will test to the exact date ranges the 1989 test returned.
I was accused of being an atheist (and thus doomed to Hell) in post 45.
Yes, and N. D. Wilson’s attempt failed to duplicate a host of characteristics. He at least was honest in recognizing the limitations of what his ‘experiment’ “proved,” though he drew more skepticism from the limited “proof” than its limitations warranted. But at least he was honest about some of the limitations.
“You simply are BSing your way through this.”
Yup, cuz he don’t like them relics and them thar Papists!
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.