Posted on 10/05/2009 11:22:44 AM PDT by Gamecock
Regarding the complaints about C-14:
“There is nothing new, as far as I know, which would change the situation. These ideas have been raised previously and none has been shown to have any merit. Many hypotheses, such as contamination, fire changing the results and more dubious assertions have been made, but none has seriously challenged the 1988 dating,” Timothy Jull, a professor in geosciences at the University of Arizona who specializes in carbon dating, told Discovery News.
Indeed, numerous theories, such as a plastic coating built up on the linen by millions of tiny micro-organisms, have been presented to explain how the radiocarbon tests could have been inaccurate. All have been rejected by the scientific community.
In 1998, Ramsey himself tested the possibility that carboxylation of the cellulose in the linen during the 1532 fire could have produced a younger dating, but concluded that “carboxylation is not a systematic source of error in the dating of cellulose-containing materials such as the linen in the Shroud of Turin.”
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/28/shroud-of-turin-02.html
Seems is not for sure. Even given that, all that would tell you is that it existed around 1192. No evidence that it was any older.
historians have speculated...that what is now known as the Shroud of Turin was known to the Byzantines as the Holy Mandylion of Edessa that has a historical trail back to the 6th century but which disappeared (coincidentally) at the sack of Constantinople in 1204.
Historians speculated? Speculated as in "made an educated guess"? That doesn't constitute any proof at all. Spend any amount of time watching the History Channel and you'll quickly realize historians often speculate (often wrongly) all the time. Speculation isn't evidence in favor or against a proposition.
I’m not sure what this “Roman Catholic Encylopedia” you speak of is, but New Advent says the following:
“That the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is taken for granted, in various pronouncements of the Holy See cannot be disputed.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm
“has NEVER been the case with the Shroud of Turin.”
Well, except for Pope Clement VII, who stated that it had to be declared to be a picture:
” 1389 the Bishop of Troyes appealed to Clement VII, the Avignon Pope then recognized in France, to put a stop to the scandals connected to the Shroud preserved at Lirey. It was, the Bishop declared, the work of an artist who some years before had confessed to having painted it but it was then being exhibited by the Canons of Lirey in such a way that the populace believed that it was the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ. The pope, without absolutely prohibiting the exhibition of the Shroud, decided after full examination that in the future when it was shown to the people, the priest should declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ, but only a picture made to represent it. The authenticity of the documents connected with this appeal is not disputed. Moreover, the grave suspicion thus thrown upon the relic is immensely strengthened by the fact that no intelligible account, beyond wild conjecture, can be given of the previous history of the Shroud or its coming to Lirey.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm
Nice edit job. Keep reading:
“1389 the Bishop of Troyes appealed to Clement VII, the Avignon Pope then recognized in France, to put a stop to the scandals connected to the Shroud preserved at Lirey. It was, the Bishop declared, the work of an artist who some years before had confessed to having painted it but it was then being exhibited by the Canons of Lirey in such a way that the populace believed that it was the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ. The pope, without absolutely prohibiting the exhibition of the Shroud, decided after full examination that in the future when it was shown to the people, the priest should declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ, but only a picture made to represent it. The authenticity of the documents connected with this appeal is not disputed. Moreover, the grave suspicion thus thrown upon the relic is immensely strengthened by the fact that no intelligible account, beyond wild conjecture, can be given of the previous history of the Shroud or its coming to Lirey.”
“Why would it bother you if it was proven beyond doubt to be real?”
As repeatedly stated (apparently you don’t read the thread), I’d be very pleased if it was real.
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.You can't simply redefine words to mean what you choose. The net result of that option is another Babel.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't – till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.
"They've a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they're the proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
Nice try, but the Popes in 1389 were Urban VI and Boniface IX. Clement VII was an anti-pope and he IS NOT recognized by the Church as a valid pope.
One can pay homage without being reverent. Reverence is the qualifying word which defines whether homage is worship or simple honor.
People using the “New Advent” version of the Catholic Encyclopedia (at least, those who are honest) would do well to acknowledge that it was published around 1912 .... anything which happened after that time will not be reflected in it.
“Beware: Massive conspiracy, dead ahead!”
Yes, me and Pope Clement VII conspired to hide this wonderful relic.
We know for a FACT that the image on the Shroud of Turin IS NOT painted.
Well, the CE sure quotes him.
I guess the French bishop is suspect too.
And the writers of the Gospel who discuss strips of clothe.
I have already explained that the man you refer to as the pope is an ANTI-POPE, his opinion is no more valid to the Catholic Church than John Calvin's. Moreover, his concern was based on a confession that the image was PAINTED and we know that that is FALSE.
And you can't merely pick and choose the words from a definition to prove your point. You must use the definition in it's entirety. See post #217.
I am being extra careful with “seems” and “speculated” as I don’t want to stretch the evidence farther than it goes. You want more documentary evidence on the connection with the Mandylion and the Abgar image, here you go:
“King Abgar received a cloth on which one can see not only a face but the whole body” (in Latin: [non tantum] faciei figuram sed totius corporis figuram cernere poteris)—A seventh-century account from the Codex Vossianus Latinus
“The Venetians partitioned the treasure of gold, silver and ivory, while the French did the same with the relics of saints and the most sacred of all, the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after His death and before the resurrection.” Letter from Theodore Ducas Anglelos to Pope Innocent III, 1205
And some more:
* 6th Century: “The divinely wrought image which the hands of men did not form.”
* 8th Century: “The Lord (…) impressed an image of himself.”
* 9th Century: “…the city of Edessa in which there was preserved a blood stained image of the Lord, not made by hands.”
* 10th Century: “A moist secretion without pigment or painter’s art.”
* 10th Century: “The splendor has been impressed uniquely by the drops of agony sweat (…) These are truly the beauties that produced the coloring of Christ’s imprint, which has been embellished further by the drops of blood sprinkled from his own side.”
* 12th Century: “Abgar reigned as Toparch of Edessa. To him the Lord Jesus sent (…) a most precious cloth, which he wiped the sweat from his face, and on which shone the savior’s features, miraculously reproduced. This displayed to those who gazed upon the likeness and proportions of the body of the Lord.”
* 13th Century: “The story is passed down from the archives of ancient authority that the Lord prostrated himself with his entire body on the whitest linen and so by divine power there was impressed on the linen a most beautiful imprint of not only the face, but the entire body of the Lord.”
I’d really recommend you read more on this. I have plenty of experience in historical research and my nose is often buried in primary source documents from the Roman Republic on. For my part, I think the connection is pretty solid. Your mileage may vary, but it’s certainly not a case of “no evidence”.
Bit inside pool for me, but he was a smart guy and a good guy:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm
(read the article ...)
“We know for a FACT that the image on the Shroud of Turin IS NOT painted.”
The distinction between paint and stain is subtle.
And several have claimed red ochre is present (see long post above).
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.