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 ...
Touché! Unfortunately the question of worship is secondary. It is the graven image itself that gives offense.
Well of course! To trace any artifact like this to a specific PERSON?? That's almost impossible historically. No one is saying that the science can prove it is Christ's shroud (at least I hope not, because it can't).
But if it is shown to be, for example, a first-century artifact that was known in Syriac and Byzantine sources, given the image preserved on it, doesn't that at least give good cause for people to believe in the genuineness of the thing?
On the 5th century "problem", yeah, I work in Roman history alot so I get the time gap here. But so little has been preserved from the first century that demanding detailed contemporary documentation is not very reasonable. HOWEVER, there may well be some nevertheless. I mentioned the connection with the Abgar story (Abgar of Edessa, who in the tradition of the Mandylion was its first recipient). Eusebius tells us that he saw correspondence between Christ and Abgar *preserved in Syriac in the Imperial Archives of Edessa*. IF, and it's a big if I know, the Abgar healing cloth can be connected with the Mandylion that takes us right back to the time of Christ and the 1st century provenance.
Christ himself allowed Thomas, his apostle, to confirm the resurrection by probing his wounds when Thomas expressed his doubts. It seems reasonable to me that Christ would offer some similar means of confirmation to doubters in subsequent ages. Many may not need such physical proof, but Christ offered it to Thomas. Why would he not offer such proof to us?
Besides the fact that he’s basically saying “one was faked, therefore the one at Turin was faked.” That’s a non sequitur.
There are first-century coins covering the eyes of
the man on the Turin Shroud. That would be pretty crafty to fake for a medieval artist. Since they can really only be seen when a photographic negative is magnified or blown up in size during a developing process. So the alleged medieval hoaxer anticipated modern photography? How likely is that?
Especially in combination with the biblical references in all four Gospels to the burial cloths and the specific reference to two different kinds of cloths in John 20. This is quite remarkable in light of how many other details are left out. If the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin were already in Christian custody at this point, these specific details in the Gospels make perfect sense. It hints at the fact that the Christians fairly widely knew of the existence of these relics but also shows that they did not make so much out of it that they felt a need to point to the present-day location of the relics. What was important to them was that the gravecloths were left behind and were seen on the day of the resurrection by two leading apostles, including the purported author of the account of the tomb scene. Since John’s Gospel has a unique emphasis on “eyewitness” accounts, including this vignette means that the (purported) author of this Gospel is saying “I was there, I saw those cloths with my own eyes.”
It depends on who you ask.
I find the coin evidence among the less credible, esp. the claim of a second coin. It’s possible, but when magnified, what one sees is so hard to interpret that I would not place a lot of weight on this particular bit of evidence. It may be that those squiggles are images of coins but one can equally say they are not—this is a case where it’s very much a matter of interpretation of visual imagery.
I think other evidence is much, much, much stronger.
Even if true, that doesn’t address medieval fibers in the sample, or the unreliable nature of carbon dating.
I’m not even convinced the shroud is real and your case looks like Swiss cheese from here.
Your attempt to equate or conflate “reverence” with “worship” has failed.
You do not get to decide the intent of the acts of others. Sorry, but you just don’t get to have that kind of power.
In a way, He did. He instructed Thomas in a truer faith in the spiritual things of God as oppossed to the material world.
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." -- John 20:27-29"Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
It's similar to the "rebuke" Jesus gave the woman who sought to praise Mary at the Sermon on the Mount...
But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." -- Luke 11:27-28"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
Yes, not to hijack this thread, there was an article recently on F.R. about the creation process.
Each shul/temple/whatever generally has one, but it’s, by far, the biggest expense of the congregation.
I don't think you understand the consequences or meaning of this phrase.
I don’t see the problem. The burial shroud is a “by-product” of his crucifixion and burial and (depending on how one interprets the image) his resurrectionl. I don’t see it as an question “should I leave this behind me or not.” He suffered, died, was buried, and rose. In the process of burial a shroud was used. That it became imprinted with this image is a consquence. We don’t know how the image was produced, whether it actually suggests some unique process associated with resurrection or whether it’s “just” the result of burial. But either way, it’s just what is. I don’t see this as Jesus asking himself, “should I or shouldn’t I.”
I don’t think it’s helpful to puzzle over that question.
Carbon dating is effective, but it begins with certain base presumptions which have to be met. It measures the ratio of C14:C12. When the shroud was burnt, it affected the carbon ratios.
Not to anyone who's had cause to use both of them. Plus, any painting or staining process would leave plenty of material behind, enough that no one would have any dobt there had been pigmentation.
No, they clipped areas where the cloth had been repaired and damaged from fire later in its history for the '88 carbon dating. The carbon particles from the ash and soot alone would have been enough to throw off the carbon dating. But any copy cannot explain the coins and pollen...
Charny was in Savoy, was it not? Savoy was not yet a part of France. There had to have been some politics mixed up in this but beyond that, I don’t know the details.
It’s irrelevant to the issue here because no almost no one had convincing evidence of any sort and no one had convincing forensic, scientific evidence of the Shroud’s authenticity at the time. Those who believed it was authentic did so based on whether they trusted the proponents or opponents. The reasonable thing was to be skeptical and this remained true for centuries, though skeptics, if they were honest, had to admit that they had no proof either.
That’s all changed with the research of the last 40 years.
The material seems to have been taken from http://www.creationtips.com/shroud.html and posted here without attribution.
Unless the poster is the author of the work posted at that address, this appears to be an act of plagiarism.
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.