Posted on 10/05/2009 11:22:44 AM PDT by Gamecock
An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake. The shroud, measuring 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ. "We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud," Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday. A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Wow...do you think you are Jesus??
“Whatever he may have produced, his willingness to make such a statement defines him as something other than a scientist.”
Correct.
It merely shows that a fake was possible with technology of the time.
Then check out the first line of the story; "An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin,.....".
The headline is a bald statement of fact. The story reveals that it is actually a claim made by a man funded by an organization which has a vested interest in a certain experimental outcome.
I believe this is called a "conflict of interest".
There are some that are saying that they tested part of the Shroud where a patch was placed later, therefore skewing the results.
“Wow...do you think you are Jesus??”
No Jesus is the Lord, son of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
I am merely a man whose faith does not rely on things as potentially false as this cloth.
Wow, you are completely out of touch with the legitimate doubts raised by the last carbon dating. I suggest you read up on things you are expressing opinions on.
Look again at your statement, “It’s pretty well debunked as legit.” Pretty well debunked? That’s an educated statement?
I recommend that you look up the "Sudarium of Olviedo". This is the facecloth that went with the Shroud. Its provenance is well-attested to at least as far back as the 6th Century and the thorn/blood marks on it match those on the shroud in dozens of places.
CSI Jerusalem would call that a match :0), but there is always the option of checking the carbon date of threads not taken from the 13th century patch.
This creation of a fake reeks of dishonest polemic - and at the same time should inform you that the carbon dating evidence is not settled.
“There are some that are saying that they tested part of the Shroud where a patch was placed later, therefore skewing the results.”
I saw that on this thread. That’s news to me.
Lots of peoples’ faith is very weak to be worried about whether this cloth is real or not.
ping
“A mask was used for the face.”
I see. So they “reproduced” the Shroud but just left out a little detail.
The Face. One of the most significant things about the Shroud is the way the image reproduces a human body with “3-D” modeling. A cloth draped over a pigment-covered cadaver won’t produce a properly 3-D set of highlights and valleys. The face is one of the crucial areas for assessing this modeling.
They just left it out. To keep the paint and acid out of the volunteer’s eyes? The scientists are compassionate folks. I suppose they’d not have gotten many volunteers if they had asked for someone to volunteer to be crucified.
Who said that their faith depends on this cloth?
What you don’t seem to understand is that you can have perfect belief that Christ was resurrected, and also believe that evidence of it was left behind. There is no problem here for the Believer.
Whatever the answer to that question, there is no reason not to examine the truth/falsehood of the Shroud. The truth cannot lead us away from Christ.
They could read it a thousand times. If they don’t wish to see it, they won’t.
BTW they won’t see your reply, either.
The Shroudies will correct this soon, methinks, but it's not been debunked. The C14-tested patch was conclusively demonstrated recently to contain medieval "repair" fibers rewoven into the original cloth. A new C-14 analysis has to be done that does not contain these "repair" fibers.
Also, there are some historical references that may well refer to the Shroud that predate the late Middle Ages C-14 estimate. One is the depiction in the Hungarian Pray manuscript which even reproduces the odd l-shaped burn holes in the cloth. What the Shroud may be is the Holy Mandylion of Edessa, which, in some references, is called a full-length body portrait "folded in four" as opposed to just a facial icon. Ian Wilson has done some fascinating studies historically...it would be worth checking out if you are interested in the topic.
Anyway, as you intimated, Christianity doesn't stand or fall on this particular artifact, but it is an interesting study for sure.
HURRAY!!! YOU’RE HERE!!! Autumn brings you back to us! We MISSED you! All good wishes to you and Lady Gamecock and the kidlings.
That's the wrong conclusion.
The carbon dating was off...but I have forgot were I read it so I offer my opinion as my 2 cents!!!
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.