Posted on 06/22/2005 9:55:20 AM PDT by aculeus
A FRENCH magazine has said it had carried out experiments that proved the Shroud of Turin, believed by some Christians to be their religion's holiest relic, was a fraud.
"A mediaeval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue.
The Shroud is claimed by its defenders to be the cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion.
It bears the faint image of a blood-covered man with holes in his hand and wounds in his body and head, the apparent result of being crucified, stabbed by a Roman spear and forced to wear a crown of thorns.
In 1988, scientists carried out carbon-14 dating of the delicate linen cloth and concluded that the material was made some time between 1260 and 1390. Their study prompted the then archbishop of Turin, where the Shroud is stored, to admit that the garment was a hoax. But the debate sharply revived in January this year.
Drawing on a method previously used by sceptics to attack authenticity claims about the Shroud, the magazine got an artist to do a bas-relief - a sculpture that stands out from the surrounding background - of a Christ-like face.
A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face.
Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. When the cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ.
Gelatine, an animal by-product rich in collagen, was frequently used by Middle Age painters as a fixative to bind pigments to canvas or wood.
The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250 C (482 F) and was undamaged by exposure to a range of harsh chemicals, including bisulphite which, without the help of the gelatine, would normally have degraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide.
The experiments, said the magazine, answer several claims made by the pro-Shroud camp, which says the marks could not have been painted onto the cloth.
AFP
Well, that's that.
No, no. I just put a call in to God Himself, and He confirmed the shroud is legitimate. So everyone can just relax.
If the French did it, it must be right!
Yeah, those French are trustworthy! (sarcasm)
I don't put my faith in relics - those are from the hands of man.
So how long until you can buy it on Ebay?
I don't know whose definition of 'proof' that meets. That being said, it probably isn't the burial cloth of Jesus.
Fake what?
As CBS would say, "It's fake but true"
Yeah, I trust the French on this. Right.
Oh, well! If the French came to this conclusion, then that settles it. Case closed........../sarc
I think it was Twain that wrote about his visit to the Holy Land; he was accosted to buy "enough splinters of the cross and spikes to build a good size barn."
I paraphrase, but that was the gist of it.
Don't forget the images of Mary on underpasses.
Like the Quran?
[I]f one has to depend on material objects to connect to God, then one has missed the point, at least, or does worship idols, at worst.I wasn't aware that Christ's body and blood were immaterial. Live and learn ...
It's nice to see you have an open mind about the root of your Christian faith.
Dan Rather and Mary mapes confirmed it........
From the French no less.
This is typical baloney about the Shroud.
The anatomical details portrayed in it are beyond the knowledge of Medieval Science. The c14 tests have since been discounted as having involved segments of the cloth which were addded in the Middle Ages for repairs.
Forensic pathology, palynology and a host of other techniques indicate that while the Shroud cannot be DEFINITELY identified as christ's burial cloth, the circumstantial evidence is as compelling.
No one has explained WHY, during a period of time when any piece of human flesh or human organ could be successfully marketed as a holy "relic" anyine would see the NEED to create such an elaborate forgery in the FIRST place, especially since the details would have meant nothing to ANY observer at the time.
The Shroud is real, and the French, as usual, are phonies.
What harm is done, if a relic, fake or not, brings someone some comfort or perhaps closer to God?
Nothing has "proved" the shroud to be fake.
Some things may cause questions, but nothing "Proves" it to be fake.
To "science" the whole notion of the Risen Christ, can be "proven fake".
But, then, that's not the basis for my faith.
lol what a load of BS. I wouldn't believe anything some Frog newspaper or magazine said, and there's no way it can be a fake or a fraud or a copy. Even the Catholic Church doesn't say for certain that it's the burial shroud of christ.
You are confusing theology with archaeology.
Obviously, the existence or non-existence of the Shroud or its authenticity has no bearing on a true believer.
However, discounting the authenticity of what by all respects appears to be a genuine article on spurious and illogical grounds makes no sense.
And linking this item with the mass of holy "relics" of the Middle Ages is an illogical analogy.
>>None of that has any bearing upon a real relationship with the living God.
Hmm, actions and practices of the Church have no bearing upon the relationship with the living God? These things are reminders of the Living God. They don't take away..
You forget there is only one Christian Faith and it isn't protestantism. Protestantism, evangelical fundamentalism, are "daughters" of the Christian Church.
In Modern English, the word Christian may connotate protestant religions, but the true meaning doesn't at all. Historic Christianity is older than "reformed" or "evangelical" Christianity.
What do these religions have to due with the true faith and true path to God (as HE defined it.) ? I think you need to answer that before worrying about reminders....
France is a fake . . . country, that is. If it weren't for other countries saving its a** all the time, it wouldn't exist.
I'm more concerned about verifying His image appearing in my spaghetti dinner every time we consume it.
Based on my own readings of the Shroud, existing evidence indicates it very well could be the burial cloth of Christ, it bears the actual image of a crucified man who was treated as Christ was in the scriptures, it DOES date from the time of the early 1st Century and originates in the Middle East, and I'm not Catholic.
Its apparent to me that most of the individuals making critical comments here are ignorant of the facts involving this artifact, or are allowing their judgement to be clouded, as you infer, by theological bigotry.
The French have "proven" it. Case closed.
</Sarcasm>
Does the existence of Dick Durbin prove that Joe Besser was a fake?
This doesn't end it.
Previous studies recently aged it earlier and fibers, plants were both consistent with the area and time of 1st Century Israel.
Evidence of this substance would be on the shroud if it were.
The media only reports the studies that put the shroud in doubt.
The old carbon dating was done on a part that was added on to the shroud anyway, so of course it would give the wrong date.
Recent study has shown the shroud is not medieval, but from around the first century.
I am not saying it is the burial cloth of Christ. We don't know what he looked like. But, it isn't a medieval hoax.
You are correct that religion is not the true path to God. But be very careful--Catholicism is a religion as well.
I think you've missed the point, friend. Basic Christianity is that we all depend on a "material object" to "connect to God": "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
Christ's flesh, given for the life of the world, isn't immaterial, but material. What you are pointing to is something much closer to Platonism than Christianity.
Their faith is a sham based on an object and not faith in the unseen God, that is why.
http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm Let God be true and every man a liar.... If the media says that forged documents are real, are you going to believe them when they say a real Shroud is fake?
If someone chooses to believe the shroud is a fake, they will. If they choose to believe it is genuine, they will. No amount of evidence either way will make them change their minds.
Forgive the crass comparison, but I wonder if the same people with a healthy skepticism about the Shroud have the same skepticism about the "Downing Street Memo."
Do the same initial assumptions apply in both cases?
In these types of controversies, what someone wants to believe can be a powerful "thumb on the scale" affecting what they ultimately decide.
"Religion" is not an entity, but a category. I agree with you that a category is not "the true path to God," for the simple reason that a category is not an entity, but a class of entities, while a path is an entity.
But the claim of some fundamentalists that they "don't have a religion, but a relationship with Jesus" is a lot like me saying "I don't have a marriage, I have a relationship with my wife".
Do we know the provenance of the Shroud? My impression is that it first surfaced around 1350 AD.
Exactly. As my late, great, Dad used to respond to my question of : "What's it all mean, Dad"? He would reply: "What ever you want it to mean, Buck"!
In this case it means that people tend to believe what they want to believe. Fake or real. As long as they don't kill each other over it, either way is OK.
So if we use non-ferrous oxide would this guy reverse his findings? LOL!
This just in... American scientists have proven that croissants are fattening and will kill you!
I think what 1stFreedom is saying is "don't allow "religion" to get in the way of a "relationship" with God.....
Who are you to judge?
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.