Posted on 08/04/2015 3:01:50 PM PDT by NYer
.- The Shroud of Turin has different meanings for many people: some see it as an object of veneration, others a forgery, still others a medieval curiosity. For one Jewish scientist, however, the evidence has led him to see it as a meeting point between science and faith.
“The Shroud challenges (many people's core beliefs) because there's a strong implication that there is something beyond the basic science going on here,” Barrie Schwortz, one of the leading scientific experts on the Shroud of Turin, in an CNA.
Admitting that he did not know whether there was something beyond science at play, he added: “That's not what convinced me: it was the science that convinced me.”
The Shroud of Turin is among the most well-known relics believed to be connected with Christ's Passion. Venerated for centuries by Christians as the burial shroud of Jesus, it has been subject to intense scientific study to ascertain its authenticity, and the origins of the image.
The image on the 14 feet long, three-and-a-half feet wide cloth is stained with the postmortem image of a man – front and back – who has been brutally tortured and crucified.
Schwortz, now a retired technical photographer and frequent lecturer on the shroud, was a member of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project which brought prestigious scientists together to examine the ancient artifact.
As a non-practicing Jew at the time, he was hesitant to be part of the team and skeptical as to the shroud's authenticity – presuming it was nothing more than an elaborate painting. Nonetheless, he was intrigued by the scientific questions raised by the image.
Despite his reservations, Schwortz recounts being persuaded to remain on the project by a fellow scientist on the team – a NASA imaging specialist, and a Catholic – who jokingly told him: “You don't think God wouldn't want one of his chosen people on our team?”
And Schwortz soon encountered one of the great mysteries of the image that still entrances its examiners to this day.
He explained that a specific instrument used for the project was designed for evaluating x-rays, which allowed the lights and darks of an image to be vertically stretched into space, based on the lights and darks proportionately.
For a normal photograph, the result would be a distorted image: with the shroud, however, the natural, 3-D relief of a human form came through. This means “there’s a correlation between image density – lights and darks on the image – and cloth to body distance.”
“The only way that can happen is by some interaction between cloth and body,” he said. “It can’t be projected. It’s not a photograph – photographs don’t have that kind of information, artworks don’t.”
This evidence led him to believe that the image on the shroud was produced in a way that exceeds the capacities even of modern technology.
“There's no way a medieval forger would have had the knowledge to create something like this, and to do so with a method that we can't figure out today – the most image-oriented era of human history.”
“Think about it: in your pocket, you have a camera, and a computer, connected to each other in one little device,” he said.
“The shroud has become one of the most studied artifacts in human history itself, and modern science doesn’t have an explanation for how those chemical and physical properties can be made.”
While the image on the Shroud of Turin was the most convincing evidence for him, he said it was only a fraction of all the scientific data which points to it being real.
“Really, it's an accumulation of thousands of little tiny bits of evidence that, when put together, are overwhelming in favor of its authenticity.”
Despite the evidence, many skeptics question the evidence without having seen the facts. For this reason, Schwortz launched the website www.shroud.com, which serves as a resource for the scientific data on the Shroud.
Nonetheless, he said, there are many who still question the evidence, many believing it is nothing more than an elaborate medieval painting.
“I think the reason skeptics deny the science is, if they accept any of that, their core beliefs have been dramatically challenged, and they would have to go back and reconfigure who they are and what they believe in,” he said. “It’s much easier to reject it out of hand, and not worry about it. That way they don’t have to confront their own beliefs.”
“I think some people would rather ignore it than be challenged.”
Schwortz emphasized that the science points to the Shroud being the burial cloth belonging to a man, buried according to the Jewish tradition after having been crucified in a way consistent with the Gospel. However, he said it is not proof of the resurrection – and this is where faith comes in.
“It’s a pre-resurrection image, because if it were a post-resurrection image, it would be a living man – not a dead man,” he said, adding that science is unable to test for the sort of images that would be produced by a human body rising from the dead.
“The Shroud is a test of faith, not a test of science. There comes a point with the Shroud where the science stops, and people have to decide for themselves.”
“The answer to faith isn’t going to be a piece of cloth. But, perhaps, the answer to faith is in the eyes and hearts of those who look upon it.”
When it comes to testifying to this meeting point between faith and science, Schwortz is in a unique position: he has never converted to Christianity, but remains a practicing Jew. And this, he says, makes his witness as a scientist all the more credible.
“I think I serve God better this way, in my involvement in the Shroud, by being the last person in the world people would expect to be lecturing on what is, effectively, the ultimate Christian relic.”
“I think God in his infinite wisdom knew better than I did, and he put me there for a reason.”
I think it is, too. However, before the naysayers come in, my faith is not based on whether or not the Shroud is genuine.
There are a lot of books out there contending that the Shroud is a forgery. Did Mattingly ever address why skin bacteria would produce a forgery?
Yup. Surprised anyone caught what I was saying there. Well stated!
PS: Some of my work involves hyper-dimensional math up to and on occasion beyond 5 dimensions, often including “shadows” and “reflections” in those spaces. Yes, the shadow of a 4 dimensional object illuminated in a 4 dimensional space has 3 dimensions.
Yes. Lots have. Google it if you want to find examples.
They have all failed to recreate the properties of the Shroud. Spectacularly. (Some claimed to succeed by ignoring certain aspects of the Shroud such as the 3D properties of the 2D image, the nature of the image existing despite no pigments/paint, etc.)
I have not read Mattingly’s book.
My question was, has Schwortz addressed the theory?
BTW, you can then project the image of that 3D shadow onto a 2D plane. I know — the logo for one of my companies is a projection of a 3D shadow of a 4D object onto a 2D plane.
Also had the 3D shadow “printed” in plastic as a real-world “give away” version of my logo. It seriously messes with your eye when you look at it for more than a few seconds. (Before 3D printing, this thing was almost impossible to make. It now costs only about $40 a pop.)
That's a good start, but we need to think bigger. How many dimensions should God have? 5? 8? 10? String Theory posits 11 dimensions, so how about 12 then (one more)?
For the sake of argument lets pretend the answer is 12 dimensions. Call this G. Okay, so now I'll create a mathematical model with 13 (one more). Call this G+1. So can that model be argued in a sense to be 'greater' than God?
Of course not, and the idea is silly. But why?
The reason is because God is eternal. Not infinite, not forever, but something even bigger: He is Eternal.
"Ack! It's 'forever', not 'eternity'! Get it right! You know how much that annoys me when you mix those up."
"Sorry. Uh, I forgot. What is the difference between forever and eternity again?"
"Look, I told you a dozen times! Keiichi, I already explained this. I swear, the high altitude must be making you stupid or something. Okay, let's go over it again. Forever is in principle algorithmic. It means that there exists, at least in theory, some kind of generating function or description for it. For example, you can express the set of factorials of all non-negative integers like this, written in the functional computer language Haskell:
fac 0 = 1
fac n = n * fac (n - 1)
"The set of factorials is infinite, but there exists a well-formed algorithm that describes how to generate them. A more complex example is the set of prime numbers. For example, here is a function to generate an arbitrarily long list of prime numbers, also written in Haskell:
primesTo m = 2 : sieve [2..]
where
sieve (p:xs) = p : sieve [x | x - xs, rem x p /= 0]
"Now, there is no easy way to predict whether any given really big number happens to be in this set. In fact, it is the hardness of the factorization of large numbers that is the foundation for the computer encryption algorithms that you find on the World Wide Web. [SSL and TLS]. When you purchase something from Amazon with your credit card, or when you transfer money from your Fidelity bank account, your computer is actually using the factorization of a large number into two large primes to encrypt your account information.
"So now let us move up to a more abstract level. Let's define the set S of all Haskell programs that return the answer '1'. Here is the question: Is there a generating function for S that can be described using Haskell itself? In other words, can you write an algorithm written in Haskell, like the ones shown above, that will generate the set of all such Haskell programs?
"The answer is no. In the lingo of computability theory, it is undecidable. According to Gödel you could say that the Haskell programming language is 'incomplete', in the sense that it cannot express all expressible truth statements (members of S) within that logical system. So it is 'imperfect' in that sense. Yeah, I know this is easily provable using the Halting Problem, but bear with me here. The point is, any such sufficiently complex system that can be described using finite symbology is by necessity either incomplete or inconsistent. That is a direct consequence of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: That no such logical system can be both completely consistent (internally perfect) and can find and prove all its truth statements within that system (is complete). Such a system cannot possibly exist."
Keiichi said, "In other words, it is flawed."
"Yeah. Now let us move up to a really ambitious logical system. Remember when I described to you the Standard Model of particle physics, the so-called 'Theory of Everything'? The TOE?"
"Uh, yeah.."
"If you recall, the Standard Model describes the dynamical behavior of the fundamental particles of the physical universe within a quantum mechanical system whose gauge symmetry can be expressed as a function of the Lagrangian, L."
"In other words, it's a model. A system."
"Yes. And so in principle it can be generated algorithmically, although as a practical matter that's actually infeasible."
"Okay."
"So now, here is the big question: Is this model perfect? In the Gödelian sense?"
"It's a finite description, so no, it is not."
"Correct. So could you conclude that, in that sense, that the design of the physical universe is flawed?"
"Sure. In the sense that the quantum states are based on the operation of that finite TOE model. Okay, fine. But I still don't see what you are driving at."
"Don't you see, Keiichi? One of the big arguments against the existence of God is that His creation is flawed. God is perfect, the argument goes, but his creation is imperfect. Creation is messed up. And so atheists claim that this apparent contradiction refutes the existence of a perfect God."
"Ah, I see. But we just established that a perfect creation is impossible to create."
"Bingo! Yay! I love it when you get clever." She playfully approached him to tousle his hair, but he jumped back before she could do it.
"Hey, don't muss up my hair! You know I hate that."
"Feh, like your hair can get any more mussed up than it already is. You never comb it."
"Just don't touch it. Anyway, I think I get what you are saying."
"The point is, God's creation is flawed by necessity. It is not His fault, it just is. By logical necessity. It is intrinsically flawed due to its nature of being described by finite rules."
"Got it."
"Now let's get really ambitious. God is perfect. So tell me, Keiichi, how would you describe God then?"
"You can't."
"And why not?"
"Uhm.."
"Before you answer, think carefully about the little thought experiment that we just did."
Keiichi thought hard. "Hmm.. the nature of God cannot be described by any finite logical system."
"Hooray! You got it! You win a kewpie doll! This is what we mean when we say God is eternal."
"In other words, God is literally indescribable."
"Correct. When we call something 'eternal', what we mean is that it cannot be described in finite symbols. Now you are ready to understand the distinction between 'forever' and 'eternal'. An entity that is eternal is something that cannot be conceived using finite terms. This is why Gödel cannot capture God within his nasty logic trap. Because to capture Him that way Gödel needs to first come up with a symbol that fully describes Him, and there isn't one.
"Is that why Jews are so reluctant speak God's name aloud?"
"I like to think so. You see, in a certain sense one can argue that God has no name. For he literally cannot be named by any symbol. More specifically, His conception cannot be labeled or captured in any finite set of symbols that fully describes Him."
Keiichi said, "I am rather amazed that I actually understood that."
"Heh, good boy. I admit these are rather deep concepts, but I think they are important."
(Excerpt from After Ragnarok Chapter 37.)
No number of dimensions nor any other other mathematical model will ever be sufficient to describe God.
He is not only bigger than we imagine, He is bigger than we literally can imagine, mathematically or otherwise, in any sense of the word.
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
I am known to offer that to see something in its true essence one must be of equal or greater dimensional essence. So, when we see Him as He is, we shall be of the same dimensional essence. I won't bore you with the analogy of flatland and a three spatial dimension object. BUT, Jesus gave this Physics lesson to Philip as recorded in John 14.
That book's theories fail because it doesn't address all of the features of the Shroud. One of the failings is that the Shroud shows some of the bones and teeth below the surface of the skin.
That could not be a manifestation of bacteria on the surface of the skin, regardless of any exudations or effects they may have, unless those exudations or effects are increased over bones and teeth.
It also does not address how those exudations or effects can be directed in a collimated vertical only nature away from the body after leaving the skin. As you can see, it fails in many ways.
I can see how a bacterial coating on the skin may exude gases which may tend to discolor the cloth with a stronger colorization the closer the body is to the cloth. However, it does not explain the accuracy of the image given the nature of gas to expand to fill space available in a globular fashion, not in a linear mode. The farther away from the body, the more blurred out the any details would be from diffusion of the gas. Any detail would be lost in chaos. That is not seen at all in the Shroud. Instead we see a laser like collimation of what ever it was that created the image as it reduces its ability to impart color with distance.
We cannot falsify something we cannot test for. . . since we cannot raise someone from the dead, we cannot photograph them and see what the differences would be. Ergo, we cannot falsify the evidence in front of us. Therefor, science is unable to test those sort of images. There are none. There is nothing to compare it to.
2000 years later, technology still cannot reproduce the 3D images on the shroud.
It’s real.
Ipso facto....Christ is exactly who he said he was - the Son of God.
Since Secondo Pia photographed the Shroud in 1898 and discovered that the NEGATIVE was a positive image of a real man, hundreds of people have tried all kinds of ways to duplicate the image. All have come up short of duplicating the image.
To be successful, it has to account for all of the features of the Shroud. None have been successful. None really have come close. . . although some have been sort of analogous, but they all failed in fundamental ways and were easily debunked. The primary one is that those attempts all used some kind of medium or pigment. There is none on the Shroud.
Well, at the end of the tribulation the believers who were murdered during that time are resurrected. When Satan puts his man out there and says he is god, use the same type of cloth to bury a murdered believer and wait 3 years or so.
Mr. GG2 and I agree with you and we would project even further that this intense burst of light or energy which left the “photograph” of Christ on the Shroud was due to Jesus resurrection and basically passing into a parallel universe which is Heaven.
We are revisiting the book of Thomas. Especially where he says to the effect of look for me by lifting a board or a stone.
OK, thanks. I sort of thought the article was implying that science wouldn’t be able to capture the images even if they somehow had access to a raised live human from a dead body. Which might be the case, but like you say it’s a moot point without access to raising of the dead.
Freegards
Thank you. Makes sense, and I don’t want to waste time reading about a bacteria theory if it’s already been refuted by an expert. Or if the effect can’t be replicated; and I think Schwortz would know, since he’s heard it all.
Piytar:
You said “... the image was burned into it when He converted back to His true form aka rose from the dead.”
I remember a discussion with an elder in the church I belong to about the Shroud. He put forth a similar reasoning for how it was created, along the lines of: “The image was imbedded in the Shroud as it fell through Jesus’ body at the moment of resurrection.”
Sans-Culotte: You stated:
“I think it is, too. However, before the naysayers come in, my faith is not based on whether or not the Shroud is genuine.”
I agree with you. I believe that the Shoud is real, but my Christian faith is NOT based upon whether or not the Shroud is real. It is based upon my belief in the resurrection of Jesus and his promise to us.
There are two show I’ve seen on tv that have dealt with the Shroud that are quite good. One deals with an examination of the Shroud as a 3D image and a computer analysis of it that is used to recreate a computer generated image of Jesus. The second is a show where a bust of Jesus’ head is created using 3D imaging technique and a one of the new “printers” that carves solid objects.
And I remember a third show about the face clothe that covered Jesus’ face before burial. The clothe is at a monastery in Spain and records of it being there go back to around 900 AD. The image on the face clothe was super-imposed over the face image on the Shoud and there is an exact match.
I am of a mind that this aspect of the image on The Shroud is a sort of touchstone. Think of it as a sort of monolith buried on the lunar surface.
It awaits the day that man's technology can decipher its meaning and prove beyond any doubt Who is represented by this image. I also think that when this day comes, millions of non-believers will come to see the Light and come to seek Jesus. It will be a watershed event and will come after the Tribulation and usher in a thousand years of peace as Jesus returns to shepherd His flock.
Just one man's opinion.
Bingo.
This is also one of the main things that skeptics use to point out that it is a fake produced by the hand of man.
They say that the crown of thorns being included is proof that someone "painted" it. Why else would they include it other than to get the masses to believe it is an image of Jesus?
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.