Posted on 10/23/2014 8:22:07 PM PDT by Steelfish
Turin Shroud Was Made For Medieval Easter Ritual, Historian Says Charles Freeman believes relic venerated as Jesus Christ’s burial cloth dates from 14th century and was used as a prop
Charlotte Higgins 23 October 2014.
The Turin shroud, revered by some as the burial cloth of Jesus, dates from the middle ages, historian says. Photograph: Antonio Calanni/AP When it is exhibited next year in Turin, for the first time in five years, 2 million people are expected to pour into the city to venerate a four-metre length of woven cloth as the shroud in which Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion, and on to which was transferred his ghostly image.
Despite the fact that the cloth was radiocarbon-dated to the 14th century in 1988, an array of theories continue to be presented to support its authenticity – including, this year, the idea from scientists at the Politecnico di Torino that an earthquake in AD 33 may have caused a release of neutrons responsible for the formation of the image.
But, according to research by British scholar and author Charles Freeman, to be published in the journal History Today, the truth is that the shroud is not only medieval, just as the radiocarbon dating suggests, but that it is likely to have been created for medieval Easter rituals – an explanation that flies in the face of what he called “intense and sometimes absurd speculation” that coalesces around it.
Freeman, the author of Holy Bones, Holy Dust: How Relics Shaped the History of Medieval Europe, studied early descriptions and illustrations of the shroud. None predates 1355, the year of its first documented appearance in a chapel in Lirey near Troyes in France, before it was acquired by the House of Savoy in 1453 and “converted into a high-prestige relic”...
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Duh.
And who said that it could? We cherish it because it wrapped the body of the One we love.
Uh oh.
Question: When archaeologists find physical confirmation of events that occurred in the Bible, to the consternation of atheists and non-Christians, is it a good thing, a bad thing, or are you indifferent? Is the only valid source of belief for you that which is unaided by objective facts?
S’excuse s’accuse?
Anyhow it’s not quite like having your late great aunt’s hat, your late great aunt herself having moldered away in the grave so the hat is the only tangible thing you have. He’s alive, and will come to all who call in sincerity.
I’m an equal opportunity artifactolatry critic when it comes to, say, bible codes. Well, what about what the bible actually says?
1 Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
"Cover" here clearly is referring to hair, not a hat.
1 Corinthians 11:14 (KJV)
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Jesus was/is without sin and would not have covered his head with long hair. Consequently,the image on the shroud cannot be Jesus.
So explain why there is no area at the top of the head that would indicate where the shroud would wrap over the skull as it would if it was real...
I'll bet that when Paul discarded the cloth that it no longer had healing powers...And I'll bet that when Jesus' robe was discarded, no one after was ever healed from touching it...
I have no doubt that many people touched Jesus robe while he was wearing it who were never healed of anything...
I would suggest that while they have faith in their religion, they do not have the faith that comes from God...They seem to live by and demand 'physical proof' that God exists...
Soooo.... Was Samson a Pagan, got his just desserts from Delilah and by killing his enemies by pushing over the Temple make him a murderer/terrorist? Jes aksin’.
I’d rather think of the instant the Shekinah Glory of God surged into Christ’s lifeless body and burst forth from His Countenance an instant before He stood up and walked out of the tomb....leaving the shroud lying there still all wound up like a coccoon.
Unfortunately for the naysayers, photographic processes were not discovered and put into use until in the 1850s and 60s by Matthew Brady, some French guys and others.
You are ignorant of the scriptures. Samson was under a nazarite vow from the womb. Jez tellin,
I can understand the sentiments of your response. Unless the shroud is proved authentic, it doesn't seem to be a relic worthy of cherishing. Things passed down from our loved ones have validity for the memories they provide. On the flip side, no real harm in holding the possibility dear as long as it is understood that it may also be proved fake and cause a huge let down among many of the faithful - that gives it the power to cause some to never hear the Word.
It is a good thing. The Bible does not mention the shroud or give it any more significance than a piece of the cross would/should have. We don't have physical proof of the Ark or of the Ark of the Covenant - Faith tells us they occurred. If the shroud can be proved authentic, then its significance becomes astronomical. If it ends up being proved fake, then the damage to carrying the Word becomes terrible in lost faith/souls.
Jesus Christ left no evidence of his existence other than the written words of scripture...And why did he do that??? To be sure that people would chose him by faith...
Heb_11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
If Jesus left you a shroud, then you no longer need faith...You have proof...Jesus wants obedience in your heart, not your head...
2Co_5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
Clear enough...
Rom_4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom_4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
You say that like it's a bad thing...
Major wrong! Jesus Christ left no scripture behind. Rather, he left a visible and authoritative church established on the Apostles. It was their proclamation, both oral and written, which declares the truth of the Gospel.
Except, Sam, it's been known for at least 30 years that the image on the Shroud is not an artifact of light, as there is no sign of shadowing or any light directionality, and there are no residues of photo responsive chemicals that could have reacted in such a manner. Finally, when the Holland Cloth backing was removed in the 2002 so-called "restoration," a faint facial image was found mirrored on the obverse. . . where the light could not have reached to form it. The intensity of the image is proportional to only on thing, proximity of the body part to the cloth.
As a result, the intensity of the image is a two-dimensional database that translates into a quasi-three dimensional terrain map of the body the cloth covered. No light created photograph provides such data.
So what you are saying is that toe I saw in the ancient church in central France is not really from the foot of Mary Magdelene? I am not going to tell the French Priest that you said that. :(
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.