Posted on 05/03/2015 10:03:13 AM PDT by marshmallow
Alfonso Sánchez Hermosilla, Spanish doctor in forensic medicine, stated this at the annual conference of the International Centre of Syndonology, which took place in Turin today
All the information obtained from the studies and research” carried out on the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo “is in tune with what one would expect - from a forensic medicine point of view - to happen to cloths with these characteristics were they to cover the head of a body featuring the kind of lesions Jesus of Nazareth suffered, just as the Gospels tell us.” Alfonso Sánchez Hermosilla, Doctor in Forensic Medicine, stated this at a conference held by the International Centre of Syndonology in Turin today. The conference looked at updates to the “main themes” regarding the Shroud.
The conference was not open to the public but reserved for members of the Centre, though this year the invitation was extended to groups and organisations, based in various parts of the world, that work with the Centre in Turin. More than 300 scholars and experts came from France, England, Spain, Peru, Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. “Once again, it is not the authenticity of the Shroud that is at the centre of the debate and various speeches,” explained Gian Maria Zaccone, scientific director of the Museum of the Holy Shroud. “The point of this meeting is to discuss updates regarding certain areas of Shroud research which require further examination. For example, the role of pollen research and the significance of historical and informatics research on the Shroud.”
Sánchez Hermosilla, director of the Research Team of the Spanish Centre for Syndonology (EDICES) was among the experts who spoke at the conference. Hermosilla is the forensic expert who took over the study of the Oviedo Sudarium from Mgr. Giulio Ricci, who began examining it....
(Excerpt) Read more at vaticaninsider.lastampa.it ...
Can anyone interpret for those not so bright ones like me?
Does it mean Jesus actually died in the 12th when the shroud was made?
Swordmaker is our local shroud expert.
There are some scientists that say that was faulty dating but i am not smart enough to follow.
Some say the bible says separate cloths were used and not one big one. I am neither a bible scholar nor scientist. And I guess in the end faith is just that, faith.
would LOVE to hear from him, and at the same time want my faith to be stronger than needing to believe this.
If you want on or off the Shroud of Turin Ping List, Freepmail me.
I challenge the members of the Shroud of Turin ping list to each donate at least $10 each to the latest Freepathon. I HAVE donated $100 due to my involvement in the Apple Ping list. Many members of the Shroud Ping list are already rising to the challenge. Join them. Let's show the power of the Shroud Ping list in supporting Freerepublic!
Basically, they are saying that the impressions, bloodstains, other facial injuries from the crown of thorns, injuries around the eye socket, and other facial features, and even pollen, that were found on the shroud (of Turin) were in the same exact place, so that if one places this cloth under the shroud, they line up perfectly. So, this cloth was under the shroud, as the markings are more distinct on this cloth than the shroud.
The Oviedo ids dated to the 1st century Einstein.
The two cloths that are thought to have been associated with the burial of Jesus Christ are the Shroud of Turin, the main burial cloth, and the Sudarium (sweat cloth) of Oviedo, which is kept in the Cathedral in Oviedo, Spain, and has a known provenance to at least the seventh Century.
The two cloths are both mentioned in the Bible. In the Bible, one, the Shroud was left lying where the body had been laid out on the shelf, the other, the face cloth, the Sudarium was lying by itself on the floor as if dropped By Jesus when he pulled of off on his way out of the Tomb. If these are the same two cloths mentioned in Bible, there should be some relationships between the two.
Originally called the Sudarium Domini, the Sweat Cloth of the Lord, it was moved from Jerusalem in 614 AD to various travels and wound up in that Century very quickly in Spain. It has always been venerated as the face cloth used in the Crucifixion. However, the only negative was a C-14 dating test which returned a growth date of the linen to the 7th Century. C-14 dating of old cloth is notoriously unreliable. For example dating of the linen wrappings of mummies has routinely been dated hundreds to thousands of years younger than the mummies they wrapped. Go figure.
In any case, If the Sudarium is the actual cloth used in the Crucifixion, it is thought to have been pressed into service to cover Christ's head as he hung on the Cross after death, before he was taken down from the and the nails removed, kept covering His face while he was carried face down to the Tomb (there is a blurred, bloody hand print combined with the imprint in blood of a nose where the hand held the cloth to the face and the head while being carried), and then again, used as part of the burial clothes as a binding AROUND the face as a wound-up banana to tie the jaw closed, being tied under the chin behind the beard and ears, and knotted at the crown of the head. The original Greek in the Bible being better translated as not covering the face but being "about the face" or "around the face."
Thus, it is reasonable to infer that a newly Risen Jesus, on walking away from the thrown off Shroud, would reach up and unbind his jaw, pulling off the tied on bandana wound Sudarium and drop it on His way out of the Tomb, leaving it in a separate place for the Apostles to find.
There are approximately 110 points of congruity between the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo. These points of congruence seem to indicate that the two cloths are related. . . and that they both were associated with the same crucifixion, whether it was that of Jesus Christ of not. We do know for a fact that the Sudarium of Oviedo has existed since the seventh Century, but the Shroud's C-14 tests dated it to the 14th Century (although now falsified) this is just one more piece of evidence that the Shroud is far older than any 14th Century hoax would make it, adding to the preponderance of evidence toward authenticity of both cloths.
The earliest reported appearance of The Sudarium is ~650 AD. It shares at least one very striking similarity to The Shroud: carbon dating places its origin at ~700 AD; it is "mysteriously" contaminated in just the same way as The Shroud so that its first appearance and date of manufacture [if it is a forgery] coincide within the margin of error.
Draw your own conclusions...
Very fascinating! Thank you.
What are Barry Schwartz’s thoughts regarding this?
Cite the study that finds the carbon dating was falsified.
Actually it is not. There is a 581 year gap in which we do not know that history of where the Sudarium Domini was or it's history except oral tradition that it was kept hidden in Jerusalem. Carbon 14 tests date it to the Seventh Century. . . again, a convenient date confirming a date for when it appeared in Spain. However, all other facts known about the Sudarium show it comports to what would be expected from the face cloth mentioned in the Bible, and also it matches stains on the Shroud of Turin. The blood on it is human, although disputed it is of type AB on both the Sudarium and the Shroud, the serous fluid flow from the nose shows the head it covered was dead,
The medieval dating of the Shroud has been reported to have been done erroneously as the error was traced to samples being taken on a corner of the shroud that had been touched by countless human hands; therefore contaminated.
When the report of the contamination was published shortly after the original report, it was too late to stop the worldwide reports that the Shroud was a fake.
Those who believe do not need the Shroud to believe. Those who do not believe will never believe no matter the evidence.
There was a really computer animation that I saw on the History channel. It was really impressive. If I can remember or find it on my Tivo I’ll post the name of it.
For those of you that haven’t been following this, many if not most experts think the carbon dating was done on material that was done to repair the shroud in the middle ages.
“The blood on it is human, although disputed it is of type AB on both the Sudarium and the Shroud, the serous fluid flow from the nose shows the head it covered was dead, “
Was the blood tested for Jewish dna markers? What was found? Was the blood tested for male dna? What was found?
If Christ was wearing the cloth around his face and then covered in a shroud, wouldn’t there be a difference in the image of the head and the rest of the body?
Oh come on, where have you been for two hundred years? It’s supposed to be the 14th Century, not the 12th Century!
You can’t even be a good “skeptic”!
(I’m not a Catholic BTW and the authenticity of the Shroud doesn’t affect me one way or the other. I think it’d be a wonderful piece of archeology if it is authentic.)
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.