Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does This Finding Prove Jesusí Resurrection? New Book Offers Stunning Details About the Shroud
The Blaze ^ | March 28, 2013 | Billy Hallowell

Posted on 03/30/2013 1:29:01 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

The Shroud of Turin continues to spark intense theological debate. While one side believes that the cloth is nothing more than a medieval forgery, the other contends that the x-ray-like image imprinted on it was supernaturally created during Jesus Christ’s resurrection.

In the past, claims that it was the work of a renaissance artist, an optical illusion or, as mentioned, a legitimate, faith-inspired phenomenon have abounded. Without a doubt, the cloth has confounded supporters and detractors, alike, for decades.

Now, “The Mystery of the Shroud,” a book that examines new chemical and mechanical tests that were more recently conducted on the shroud, seems to side with the latter assessment. Journalist Saverio Gaeta and Giulio Fanti of Italy’s University of Padua (professor of mechanical and thermal measurement) collaborated on the new book that maintains that the Shroud of Turin dates back to the 1st century and not to a later time period as some have contended.

As TheBlaze previously reported, the shroud features an image of a bearded man (i.e. Jesus) whose body appears to have wounds from nails in his hands and feet — the same locations that some believe were affected when Christ was nailed to the cross....

(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bookreview; catholics; medievalhoax; popefrancis; shroud; shroudofturin; sudariumofoviedo; turin; veronicaveil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121 next last
To: mkmensinger

The new weave was cotton. The old was linen. Fascinating.


41 posted on 03/30/2013 3:01:26 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: knarf

The shroud has a demonstrated power to be an instrument of conversion, and I don’t see anything wrong with it being used to strengthen and confirm faith in a tangible, physical way, that can also help bring others who require proof to a knowledge of Gods saving grace. Many scientists studying the Shroud have come to believe in Jesus Christ. if the evidence merit the historian’s trust, then we can more easily extend that trust to the rest of the Gospel accounts of Christ’s life.


42 posted on 03/30/2013 5:05:51 PM PDT by erlayman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

There is a dna link to Jesus?

Aside from that what is the scientific proof?


43 posted on 03/30/2013 7:38:40 PM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sakic

Who said anything about DNA?

They did computer comparisons of the faces on the two cloths and they matched.

How do you get DNA out of that?


44 posted on 03/30/2013 8:24:12 PM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

Clearly I was looking for scientific proof. DNA is the best indicator of that. Facial similarity is far from scientific, not to mention that we have no photos of Jesus that I am aware of.

The physical representations of Jesus that we are always presented with have to be inaccurate, anyway. Jesus had to have Semitic features being from that region, yet his likeness is not portrayed that way today, so what exactly are we comparing to the image in the shroud?

This has nothing to do with the validity of Jesus in Christianity. I just think that there is zero scientific evidence that ties Jesus to the shroud, and frankly I don’t understand why anyone cares about whether the shroud is related to Jesus.


45 posted on 03/31/2013 9:48:09 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.; grey_whiskers
Yeah, and that one has also been preserved,at Oviedo in Spain. It’s facial image lines up perfectly with the one on the Shroud.

THe Shroud IS one of the two graveclothes mentioned in John.

I have to disagree in part to correct a misstatement. There is no facial image on the Sudarium of Oviedo, only blood stains. These stains, and a bloody hand print, however, do bear seventy-two points of congruity with blood stains on the Shroud of Turin. 21 points of congruity is considered a perfect match in fingerprinting. I know. These are not fingerprints.

It is my contention that after the Sudarium was used to cover Jesus head on the cross and while carrying him to the tomb, it was further used by rolling it diagonally into a rope like form and then used to tie "around" his head, passing under his jaw and beard, behind his forelocks and ears, and then tied at the top of his head to keep his mouth closed in death to prevent gaping as part of the bindings—the other bindings being those needed to keep his arms and legs from flopping after rigor passed—thus meeting the statement about the cloth that was "wrapped around his head" that was left apart from the other graves clothes. It was this rolled and tied Sudarium that Jesus pulled from around his head as he walked from the tomb and dropped on his way out. . . a very natural act, freeing himself from the binding around his head.

I have tested this hypothesis with a cloth cut to the exact rectangular dimensions of the Sudarium preserved at Oviedo. When rolled diagonally along the hypotenuse of the 84cm x 53cm Sudarium the resultin "binding" is almost exactly one meter at 99.3cm, which is more than enough to wrap under the chin around behind the ears and then be tied at the crown. The Sudarium has repeated blood stains showing that it was rolled in just such a manner while some of the blood was still fresh enough to transfer across the roll.

46 posted on 03/31/2013 11:42:50 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline; dinodino; grey_whiskers
...or.....how about this: the fact that the Shroud image is a photographic negative, and that the blood trails follow the laws of circulation.....both 500 years before either was discovered by man? ...or the fact that the Shroud image is anatomically perfect, and there is no piece of art on the planet that is anatomically perfect......or the fact that you cannot even see the image until you are at least 11 feet away, so an “artist” would have had to use a VERY long paint brush....

I agree with your basic premise, however, it is even stranger than that. It is NOT a photographic negative, because it has been scientifically determined that there are no light generated or affected artifacting in the image! What they have determined is that the image is an analogue database; a terrain map in direct intensity, contrast if you will, of body to cloth distance with a strange twist of some radiological data included for certain body parts (teeth, phalanges of wrist and hand).

By no "light generated or artifacting", they mean there is no evidence of illumination, shadowing, reflection, or refraction anywhere on the Shroud. Instead they discovered a direct correlation of body to cloth distance and image color intensity. Whatever the causal modality, the closer the cloth to the body, the greater the intensity of the image, with the highest intensity occurring with contact and lowest fading to zero evenly at approximately 12cm.

47 posted on 04/01/2013 12:01:54 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sakic
The physical representations of Jesus that we are always presented with have to be inaccurate, anyway. Jesus had to have Semitic features being from that region, yet his likeness is not portrayed that way today, so what exactly are we comparing to the image in the shroud?

Actually, no, he does not have to be "Semitic" as a large portion of the population were in that period what are today referred to as high noble Arabs. Tall, athletic, muscular. Think Omar Sharif. Much like what we see in the man in the Shroud who is variously calculated to be 5' 10" to 5' 10 1/2" tall, hardly out of the normal range. They accounted for approximately 40% of the Jewish population of Israel in the 1st Century.

A census of 1st Century male skeletons in Jerusalem cemeteries found the average male stature was 5' 8 1/8" tall. The average height of men in America today is 5' 8 3/8", a quarter inch taller. Strangely, the average height of the Roman conquerors in the 1st century was only 5' 6".

Remember, we are talking about the single most investigated and studied historical object in history! You really don't think a claim that it can't be real because it doesn't look Semitic would NOT have been investigated by now, do you? Prior to Secondo Pia's first photographs of the Shroud in 1898, the only research being done was essentially historical and iconographic.

48 posted on 04/01/2013 12:19:41 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; Alamo-Girl; albee; AnalogReigns; AnAmericanMother; Angelas; AniGrrl; annalex; ...

Another Shroud article for the Shroud Ping list. Sorry I missed it earlier.

PING!


49 posted on 04/01/2013 12:21:55 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; erlayman

The other cloth is believed to be the “Sudarium of Oviedo, or Shroud of Oviedo, is a bloodstained cloth...”

Has similar markings as the shroud and same rare blood type (AB). It is also mentioned in a historical document from 570 AD - which is can be used to support that the shroud was around much earlier than the middle ages.


50 posted on 04/01/2013 12:30:26 AM PDT by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctGKH3oEXAk

I’m sure you have seen the History Channel show from a year or so ago. Amazing work! Here is Part 6 where they reveal the 3D image from their data analysis.


51 posted on 04/01/2013 12:40:03 AM PDT by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; erlayman

The other cloth is believed to be the “Sudarium of Oviedo, or Shroud of Oviedo, is a bloodstained cloth...”

Has similar markings as the shroud and same rare blood type (AB). It is also mentioned in a historical document from 570 AD - which is can be used to support that the shroud was around much earlier than the middle ages.


52 posted on 04/01/2013 12:44:23 AM PDT by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Would anyone believe in Christ Jesus, regardless of any artifact, other than Grace; the key, to a responding soul.


53 posted on 04/01/2013 1:04:15 AM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Would anyone believe in Christ Jesus, regardless of any artifact, other than Grace. That is key, to a responding soul.


54 posted on 04/01/2013 1:06:06 AM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

very good


55 posted on 04/01/2013 1:22:05 AM PDT by southland ( I have faith in the creator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

bookmark


56 posted on 04/01/2013 1:26:25 AM PDT by southland ( I have faith in the creator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: sakic
I just think that there is zero scientific evidence that ties Jesus to the shroud, and frankly I don’t understand why anyone cares about whether the shroud is related to Jesus.

Because it's so much fun to drive you trolls up a wall.

Cheers!

57 posted on 04/01/2013 3:06:06 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sakic

So, you care about this issue. Why?


58 posted on 04/01/2013 3:32:52 AM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob
It’s interesting that with all the modern technology, no one has been able to duplicate this “medieval forgery.”

From my experience, the "medieval forgery" crowd isn't at all familiar with the evidence.

59 posted on 04/01/2013 3:39:35 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

I never said one word about height. I wrote of facial features only. Do the representations of Jesus make you think he was Arab? The representations i have seen show a very light skinned man, a very unlikely scenario.


60 posted on 04/01/2013 4:09:41 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson