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 ...
What about the significant evidence that the Shroud of Turin WAS NOT fabricated in the Middle Ages or anytime before it.
For a thousand years people have been trying to establish the Shroud as a hoax. Here we are in 2009, look at all of the technological advances we have and it is just now that someone has made a reproduction of the Shroud that they CLAIM uses methods available to medieval men.
However, the fact that medieval men COULD have have had this technology is not the same as saying that they did. Medieval man certainly had access to moldy bread, but he didn't invent penicillin.
If medieval artists had the ability to produce photo-quality artwork on pieces of linen WHERE are the other examples of it?
I think you hit the nail on the head with this.
What about the significant evidence that the Shroud of Turin WAS NOT fabricated in the Middle Ages or anytime before it.
<><><><><><>
<><><>><>><>
It’s still a huge leap to go from point a (the shroud was not fabricated in the middle ages) to point b (it is Christ’s burial shroud).
How many shrouds from 2,000 years ago do we have now?
How many shrouds from 2,000 years were there to begin with?
The chain of evidence is horrible. In many people’s hands with many fixes made to it, apparently.
This is an interesting intellectual pursuit, but in the long run, ‘full of sound and fury, signifying nothing’. Isn’t the best case scenario for shroud believers that it comes from the right time period, but are left entirely without knowledge or evidence of whose shroud it is?
Seems it comes down to faith. Exactly as before all of the scientific testing on the shroud.
Not to cheapen the debate, but this agnostic thinks it would be kind of cool if it did belong to the historical Jesus.
Agreed, but the question still remains HOW did it happen? If medieval artists weren't capable (and the fact of the matter is that having the resources available but not knowing how to use them is the same as being incapable) of producing the image, WHERE did it come from?
If medieval artists DID have the ability to produce this, logic would dictate that there would be other examples of this process, but there aren't.
And there is also one other interesting fact, the Shroud shows the nail marks on the wrists (and this is where they would be), but medieval men (as shown in countless works of art) believed that the nails went through Christ's hands. A hoax would almost certainly be based on what the artist THOUGHT was accurate.
shroud = Shroud
The bishop found the artist, and convinced the authority (be it anti-pope or pope at the time; such is war) at the time to issue a proclaimation.
Yes, he most certainly did. The pope told D'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, to "Shut up! Permanently!" about his complaints and allowed the continued display of the Shroud which he had not seen.
Me, I defer to the local bishop at the time who said it was a fake, albeit a good-intentioned fake, to illustrate the Easter story.
The Bishop who said it was a fake was preparing his letter—which apparently was never sent—25 years after his predecessor Henri of Portièrs, a man that all records indicate he never met, supposedly "found" the artist who painted it. No written record of such an investigation survives in archives that are otherwise comprehensive.
Chill, my friend. Save your ire for someone for whom it is appropriate.
Jesus is an historical figure. I agree.
He would have been buring in a shroud. Gotcha, no argument here.
We have a shroud that bears the image of a crucified male. OK.
Sure, it could be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, but the evidence you point to above and in your post hardly makes that case.
As I said in an earlier post, I think it would incredibly cool if it were Jesus’ shroud. It would do little to advance the notion that He is the Son of God, but still incredible from an historical standpoint. Unfortunately, with the evidence we have (the shroud itself), I am at a loss to figure out how we could definitively resolve this.
There's an understatement. :-))
As I’ve noted on this thread, if medieval artists had the ability to produce photo-quality images on pieces of fabric WHERE are the other examples of this artwork?
Precisely, if man didn't put the image on the Shroud WHO DID?
I guess this Bishop was lying.
possibly.
I’ve done it before, more than once. Accepted and forgotten.
The really, really cool part would be to show that this Shroud - which enclosed a crucified, Semitic male, dated to Jesus' day - had some type of extra-normal properties. We know from Scripture that when the disciples went to the tomb after the crucifixion:
Jhn 20:5 And he stooping down, [and looking in], saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
Jhn 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
Jhn 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
Jhn 20:8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
The reason I said extra-normal was because the body that was within the burial clothes "came out" of them. They were lying on the shelf where his body was placed. The cloth that covered his head was "folded" and put in another place. The specialness of this is that if you were buried during that time and wrapped in the cloths with many pounds of spices and ointments (to keep the smell down) and you regained consciousness (some people actually believe this about Jesus), I highly doubt you would gently unwrap yourself, place the cloths back into the original position and fold the cloth from your head neatly and place it in another spot.
I think the scene would be a lot messier and bloodier than what the apostles saw. One theory refuting the resurrection says wild animals came and carried the body away or ate it. My cats are domestic but they still wouldn't bother to rearrange the cloths.
Some say that others came and took Jesus' body and that they arranged the burial cloths to make it appear Jesus rose. This theory goes down the tubes when you see the effect - seeing Jesus after that and actually speaking to him, eating with him and touching his body (good old Thomas)- this had on all the disciples and how they went from hiding in an upper room to boldly proclaiming the resurrected Christ. Most even gave their lives for their testimony. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't die a horrible death for something I knew was a lie!
So not to be too much more long-winded, if this IS the actual burial shroud of Jesus it is only one more piece of evidence for the fact of the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ and proof that he was and is whom he says he is.
PEACE.
Technically we shouldn’t have to rely on anything material to support our faith.
We should not be like Thomas and doubt until we have seen it and can touch it.
Relics should be seen as something to include in our faith, but not a necessity.
Hey, welcome back. You’ve been missed.
I haven’t had much chance to be out here as we have been writing Senators, congressment, attending rallies. I’ve never been this politically active. Somehow I think it all John Calvin’s fault. :O)
Scripture please?
The first chapter of Luke if your Bible still contains it.
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.