Turin ShroudFollow

So last night I watched a documentary on the Turin Shroud. It was pretty interesting and I understand that the makers have an agenda so take of this as you will. And God lovers, don’t get too excited, even if the shroud could feasibly be from the first century, it doesn’t prove anything else. I will try and give a quick summary, some detail may be off, as this is from memory.

So the main event that puts the authenticity of the Shroud in doubt is the carbon dating performed in the 1980s. The interesting thing is that the bit of the Shroud that was cut was from one of the corners, which is exactly where the Shroud is most contaminated from various exhibitions dating back a few hundred years, in which is was physically man-handled in public. Later analysis, using various techniques attempting to establish how the image was created, show that corner of the cloth being different in nature to the rest. This is possibly due to this bacterial contamination. Experts have conceded that contamination can give incorrect carbon dating readings.

So the main evidence against the Shroud’s first century credentials is possibly flawed.

There are a number of pieces of evidence that point to the Shroud being older than the carbon dating reading.

1) While under maintenance work, it was discovered that the Shroud has an intricate type of stitching down the middle that has never been found in any Middle Ages work, and more tellingly, the only relic we have with an identical technique is a piece of cloth that dates back to the first century found in the Middle East.

2) The water marks on the Shroud are consistent with a storage technique in what is essentially a big vase that dates back to the first and second centuries

3) There is another cloth relic that is believed to have been wrapped around the head of Christ that has solid historical documentation (which the Turin Shroud does not) as having come from Jerusalem (can’t remember dates, but 1st millennium). The blood soaked into this cloth is the same AB blood type as the Turin Shroud – found in only 3% of people, and has a matching stain.

4) The blood markings on the Shroud are consistent with crucifixion as depicted in the bible (this was established by some pathologist who was clearly a lunatic with an agenda, so pinch of salt) – this could also point to it being a forgery though of course, since the forger would be going off the bible.

5) If the cloth was made as a forgery, it is incredibly intricate, and there is some doubt whether there would be anyone in the Middle Ages with the skills and techniques to do so (because it has features that suggest it is genuinely much older than the Middle Ages). The image is not any known paint – although it may be an example of the first documented photograph. Some boffin repeated a technique that could theoretically have been done using Middle Ages technology involving a dead body, some lenses, the sun, and silver oxide – this could easily be tested for, there would be traces of silver in the Shroud.

6) There is a Hungarian tapestry depicting the crucifixion of Christ that is dated prior to the earliest date suggested by the 1980s carbon dating of the Turin Shroud – it is highly detailed and depicts a cloth wrapping Christ with similar weave to the Turin Shroud and also has four holes which match some of the damage on the Shroud. This suggests that the artist may have seen the Shroud prior to it supposedly existing, and not only that, it had deterioration damage by then.

So there you go. What does this mean? That there are television companies that love stirring up **** I suppose.


Edited, Tue Mar 30 03:28:30 2004 by Patrician

I am an athiest so do not have have the sway of religious belief on my shoulders. It seems many are blinded by it when dealing with these kind of issues.

I do beleive that there was a man by the name of Jesus who did wander the earth at the times stated. Was he everything he was stated to be? Well that is a matter of conjecture but I truly beleive he existed. Could this shroud have covered him after his death? By all means yes it could and for all the reasons Patrician and many others before have stated. I have no reason to doubt the fact that this shroud is genuine in every way.

I think for many though the real issue is this. If the shroud is fake then does that make the religion false? If it is a true artifact, does that in fact 'prove' the bible and its lore? I beleive it does neither but so many need to prove or disprove its credentials in a bizarre belief it will prove something. /shrug

Have you looked hard enough? I'm sure some bible-thumper will come along and say it was. The bible can be used to prove or disprove anything.
I'm a latino Catholic, we pretty much drape any available surface with icons and shiny crosses, hearts, feet, hands, etc, and I still think that you can't trust anything that comes of man. If you admire something or put something up on your wall, let it be because it's pretty and it inspires you, not because you think Jesus actually lives there. Anyone who looks at anything and thinks that an object houses divinity is missing the whole point of faith.

The program did cover how it could well be created through natural means - some micro-biologist applied a moist solution of a natural bacteria common on the skin to his face and lay motionless for 12hours under a sheet. Apparently this would simulate a sweaty bleeding dead body. This experiment did indeed leave a stained image of the guys face on the sheet.

No holy scorching required.

The program wasn't suggesting that the shroud actually was from Jesus, more that it could well be from the first century in contradiction to the carbon testing.

Edited, Tue Mar 30 09:58:49 2004 by Patrician

I saw another program where a murdered woman's body produced a facial imprint on the sheet she was wrapped in through decomposition. It looked like Tammy Faye Baker pressed her face on the sheet, but hey, decomposition is a funny thing.

I think the point was that the cloth along with free image included (them Jews know how to strike a deal even back then), could well be first century, as opposed to the other theory which is that it is a Middle Ages fake.

Sorry about the edit, I knew what you were going to quip, so I clarified.

I must say that if it is in fact an item from the first century, then it is an object of considerable interest regardless of it being connected to Jesus.

My understanding of the Shroud is limited and sketchy, but I recall that it is a negative image upon it, something which wouldn't be artistically discovered for another sixteen centuries. It also is supposed to have a 3-D effect, which, if it is based on a vanishing point, also wasn't discovered artistically for another fourteen centuries or thereabouts.

Like Jophiel, I know that relics were the Thigh-Masters of their day, where everyone could own a little bit of the most conspicuous celebrity, that being Jesus in the Middle Ages. Everything from bones and pieces of wood to goblets and dried up blood were hawked as being authentic relics, virtually guaranteed to get you into heaven if you owned such an item. The Shroud of Turin is something like that in my eyes, particularly since I too believe that it would negate what Jesus stood for, that is, the Gospel is not about irrefutable proof, it is about deciding and choosing what you will believe in and consequently living your life by those beliefs.

Totem

Nah, the fact that I can almost see a boob makes it a craven image.

Oh, you mean we're not talking about your avatar? :)

You do realize that there is no actual historical evidence that a guy named Jesus was ever crucified right?

Forget the shroud. No one can even prove the guy ever existed at all. It's just assumed he existed because there are so many Christians throughout the world.

That's right kids, it could all be a giant con game! Some guy looking for some fast cash selling a scroll of sayings he made up in his spare time by reading the ancient equvilent of fortune cookies.

When there's ever any historical documents from the time Christ was supposed to have existed that have any mention of him give me a call and we'll re-adress wheather the stained bedsheet is his or not.

Eh, could be. So what? As Patrician already pointed out, the point of debate at the moment is whether or not the cloth of the Shroud dates from 1st Century or from the 13th, not if it was covering the body of Christ. I find it odd that you spent two posts spazzing over how Christianity is all false and the Shroud is false, when not a single person posted saying they believed the Shroud to be a bona fide artifact.

As for whether or not there was a chap named Jesus, I couldn't tell you. True there's no accounts written while he was alive, but there are assorted non-scriptural and historical writings from the early 2nd Century in which the author seems to have little doubt of Christ's life from an academic point of view. Mystery cults and claimed messiahs were nothing new back then, and I find it easier to assume that someone named Jesus was the catalyst for the faith whether he was the Son of God or not.

As for the existance of faux artifacts pawned off on the gullible public -- grats on saying what Totem and I said two days before you

Actually, Smash, there is historical evidence of a person named Jesus, just as there is valid historical evidence that he was crucifed.

I will pull the reference for that later tonight after I get some sleep. It was a Jewish historian who documented it for the Romans, I believe.

Don't let your rabid anti-religious views color your ability to correctly view the past. It makes you look less smart than what you are reputed to be-- and that could be quite damaging to the fearsome image you have fostered among the more easily quailed and intimidated among us.

Totem

the donkey punch is much better.

whoops, i mean donkey punch

Actually, Totem, there isn't. Never has been, likely never will be. All there is are refrences to him by historians who lived, at the very least, two centuries after the alleged Jesus was alleged to have lived and alleged to have been crucified.


You know, I'd really like to see that. I imagine every Ancient Near East History scholar in the world would as well, along with the Vatican, and every other major Christian orginisation on the planet. I wait with baited breath.


Ahh, the delicious irony of it all. Nothing's better than seeing a self righetous brain washed Christian attempt to seize the factual high ground if only for a breif few moments before he realizes he's screwed and what he's chided someone not to do actually applies to HIMSELF.

Hang on, I need a ciggerette after something that beutifull.



Oh, indeed. Perish the thought. On the other hand, when you aruge with me it makes you look like a silly Hare Krishna version of a Christian who's made believing in someone who was quite possibly a fictional character (like Santa Claus) a large portion of the focus of his life.