Skip to comments.Shroud of Turin supports Resurrection, expert affirms
Posted on 05/08/2010 4:33:54 AM PDT by NYer
.- Professor Paolo Di Lazzaro, who is head of a group of researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Development in Italy, noted this week that the latest discoveries on the Shroud of Turin are not in contradiction with the theory of the Resurrection of Christ.
In an interview with Europa Press, Di Lazzaro explained the results of their study, which lasted four years and focused on how the image came to appear on the cloth. According to tradition, the shroud was used to wrap the body of Jesus after the crucifixion.
Di Lazzaro said that scientists have not been able to reproduce an image, similar to the one on the shroud, with any kind of contact technique. While from far away, differences in the replications may appear unnoticeable, under a microscope they appear drastically different, he added.
The peculiarity of the original image lies in the depth of coloration, which on Shroud does not go beyond the first layer of strands in the fabric, Di Lazzaro said. Upon observation, his team came to the conclusion that the image on the Shroud is similar to those some textile manufactures create through the use of laser.
After years of experimentation, for the first time the team was able to color the outermost strands of a fabric similarly to how the image is present on the Shroud by using extremely brief but intense ultraviolet light impulses emitted by a special laser.
Even so, the researchers were only able to reproduce a small portion of the Shroud, as in order to color the entire image you would need 14,000 lasers, something which for now is impossible, he said.
Nevertheless, Di Lazzaro said the discovery at least points to a possible physical mechanism that may have resulted in the creation of the image. This mechanism does not contradict the religious theory of the miracle or the resurrection, he said, as it could have been the cause of the release of energy that created the image, although this is an area outside our competence as scientists.
Recently, Di Lazzaro organized a seminar in Frascati, Italy, during which 48 experts from around the world gathered together to discuss images called Acheiropoietos, that is, not made by hands. They also examined the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Manopello Veil, which, according to tradition, is the veil used by Veronica to wipe the face of Jesus.
All significant investigation into how the images might have been formed by some perfectly natural means so far suggests that a simple process is all but impossible. Chemical reactions (or stains) caused by contact with the body would produce a grossly distorted image. Gaseous products from a body or funerary spices would seem to produce a diffused image lacking in detail. Radiant energy such as bodily heat lacks essential directional qualities.
One clincher in the recent series about the face of Jesus and the shroud- the matching of the shroud to the Sudarium of Oviedo, which I had never heard about
There was a time past when many towns had their own relics and “shrouds” . It was a status symbol and it gave small towns local pride. Many,many if these are of course fakes.
this comment means you consider the Sudarium of Oveido as fake?
Give one example.
I'm not a Shroud buff, but my recollection is that the modern revival of interest dates from the point in the late 19th or early 20th century when it was being photographed, and the photographer realized that the image appears to be the equivalent of a photographic negative. Pretty neat trick for some guy in a workshop somewhere in northern Europe in the 12th or 13th century. So: how would a medieval forger have achieved this, and many other curious effects, even if accidentally?
I also am not a Shroud buff, but I have a couple of books on it and have followed the press on it in recent years.
I get some satisfaction from the fact that secular researchers have been unable to discredit it and that it defies any “scientific” explanations. It seems almost to be a cosmic taunt telling us that there is more to reality than our feeble science understands.
RE: the 1988 C-14 testing that dates The Shroud to a medieval origin.
Those who claim that the 1988 tests were compromised by bungled “patch-sampling” seem forced to admit that, if the tests results are wrong, and The Shroud is authentic, then it’s held by the technically and scientifically incompetent and isn’t completely safe in their keeping. Third possibility- it’s held by malefactors who know it’s a hoax and intentionally mis-sampled for the 1988 test to keep the controversy alive as long as possible. If this third way turns out to be the truth, then The Shroud still isn’t safe where it currently abides.
So either The Shroud is C-14 medieval, or or authentic and held by nincompoops who couldn’t tell a patch in the cloth from a hole in the ground, or it’s the Turin Cathedral’s hoax and we’re being played for fools. Would that the the rich, hoary, decrepit men-on-robes club that holds the shroud was willing to double down and carefully retest the carbon.
1. You have so little familiarity with the technical issues involved (especially the techniques of patching) that you're able to come up with what appear to be, but aren't, mutually exclusive explanations that lead inevitably to your desired conclusion.
2. You are familiar enough with them but don't want to let something minor like the truth get in the way of your prejudices ("the rich, hoary, decrepit men-on-robes club") and detract from your desired conclusion.
What no one seems to ever bring up is that there has been, for far longer than the middle ages, references to a cloth, in some cases called the "Mandylion" with an image of Christ. Tradition tells us that this is the same one and documents refer to the Knights Templar having kept it for a time. The provenance goes back much farther than the carbon dating. And then the chief carbon dater came to the conclusion that the dating was erroneous.
I'm sticking with the "rich, hoary, decrepit men-on-robes club" (who, incidentally, took a vow of poverty. Material Church "wealth" is in assets held in trust for the inspiration of the faithful) on this one.
“carbon dating was debunked by the very researchers who conducted the tests.”
Quote, link, source?
Um, are you Desdemona? Is she(?) your puppet? Why didn’t you jump in, all “Do my work for me” when blackpacific asked sonic109 for specifics on the churches’ many, many previous false relics and hoaxes? Shoe on the other foot now? And are you ignoring the last sentence of my first post?
Doubledown throwdown, yo. C-14 Retest,
Turin Cathedral, once bitten, twice shy, literally hasn’t got the balls to retest.
I am NO ONE's puppet. Aruanan is a screen name I see here and it seems that we have some common interests and, probably a common faith.
Relic hoaxes have been around for centuries. Knowing that one is really authentic takes a continuous provenance. It's the same way with art. What makes the relics from the Passion different is that they do have a continuous presence in written tradition. The Shroud, the Veil, the Crown of Thorns (currently in Notre Dame in Paris) and the facial cloth in Spain, all have been documented in Europe since the crusades. They were, for all intents and purposes, confiscated. Before that, all were documented in the middle east. Modern science also tells us that the same man's blood is on each of these. I'll have to double check on the Veil, but the other three, yes. I don't need the physical proof that so many seem to think is crucial.
:) My grandmother's aunt had a reweaving business that died due to the invention and too much use of polyester. One of her weavers rewove a silverfish hole for me after she retired. The other night I was really wishing we had saved one of the magnifying arms that they used to be able to see the weave.
Thanks for the previous link, when I asked, and the “puppet” dig wasn’t meant to be directed your way. Sorry if you’re feeling what Bush and Obama both call collateral damage. You’ve gone an made another fairly weighty claim, though, that “Modern science also tells us that the same man’s blood is on each of these” relics; wonder if you can tell me which modern scientist(s) tell us so?
At this point, I've read so much on this, it all runs together. I know the blood type is AB- and that the wounds match. There's multiple references for this. Swordmaker has the big list of references. It might be in that stash. I don't have time right this second to look.
I believe the purpose of the Shroud is to trickle out scientific evidence during these modern times as a tool to reach those who will only believe through technology and science.
As technology progresses, it will become more and more apparent to these modern Thomases that the Shroud is authentic. Then they will have to rethink their doubts about Christ.
I see it as another gift from God, who always considers His children’s needs. He left this as a gift for His children far in the future.
Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if Mary had not taken possession of the Shroud at first and then given it to Church leaders to protect— and to continue Her son’s work. It makes sense to me that a loving mother would gather up the linens she’d buried her son in, especially if they were soaked in his blood.
As to any kind of hard, factual, evidence....nope.
you can’t GOOGLE for yourself?
This post is from another thread on the same subject. It wasn’t answered there and it probably won’t be answered here either.
First, let me assure everyone that I do believe the Shroud to be authentic.
Second, let me ask those who doubt: Who benefits from faking such a thing? Someone, somewhere had to make something off such a monumental forgery, otherwise theres no reason to do it. If some talented painter faked it, who paid him, and why? Even if some medieval artist painted it (which I doubt) why would he do it and why not take credit for his work?
Once the doubters answer those questions Ill entertain suggestions that the Shroud is a fake - not before.
Thanks for the ping. Scripture indicates that the body was dematerialized in the tomb and re-materialized in the upper room (and elsewhere), but science still doesn’t know how that might happen.
Right, you don’t always read the thread, got it. You were responding to a single post you saw under “recent posts”, but I should have known that. My fault. I’m apparently in the habit of overlooking things like that, eh? And are you also still overlooking the last sentence of my first post?
Doubledown throwdown, yo. C-14 Retest,
Too bad Turin Cathedral, once bitten, twice shy, won’t risk their precious Shroud again.
The circumstantial evidence surrounding this relic is so fraught with informed scientific testimony, blood types, wounds matching , pollen spores only found in Judea, that one must question the competence of the custodians of the shroud who allowed the medieval patch to be taken as a representative sample. However, even more perplexing is explaining the ability of a painter in the 16th century to reflect those present in a room looking at an inanimate imprint of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Scientists again are at a loss to explain the methodology employed to effect this fact.
Nothing new here whatsoever.....but glad to see more scientists getting onboard.
Quote, link, source??
Just kidding. I hate when people ask for a link on something they can get as easily themselves, or which is something everyone else already knows. Believe me or don't, I don't care, but don't assign me your homework. By the way, I have a few suits that could use some repair of holes. The moths got into the closet not too long ago. Is there a good way to fix them, or should I throw them out?
Why don't you rid yourself of the worry and send it to me?
Thanks for the ping!
The relics collected and worshipped by medieval Europeans ranged from the mundane to the truly bizarre. Bones or body parts of saints and martyrs were always in high demand. One church proudly displayed the brain of St. Peter until the relic was accidentally moved and revealed to be a piece of pumice stone.
Relics of Christ or the Virgin Mary were considered to be extremely valuable and included items such as the milk of the Virgin Mary, the teeth, hair, and blood of Christ, pieces of the Cross, and samples of the linen Christ was wrapped in as an infant. Numerous churches even claimed to possess Christ's foreskin, cut off during his circumcision. The Shroud of Turin, believed to be the funeral shroud in which Christ was buried, is perhaps the most famous medieval relic of all.
The biggest clue that the relics were fake was that there was often more than one... many more than one... of the same relic. The sixteenth-century protestant reformer John Calvin, who believed the veneration of relics to be a form of false worship, commented that if all the relics were brought together in one place "it would be made manifest that every Apostle has more than four bodies, and every Saint two or three."
The real value of relics lay in their ability to perform miracles. A relic that was an acknowledged fake could become 'real' if it performed a miracle. The European faithful regularly made pilgrimages over hundreds of miles to visit the most powerful relics. This pilgrimage traffic had an enormous impact on local economies, leading towns to go to extreme lengths to obtain the relics that would draw the most pilgrims.
Some of the lengths to which towns would go in their quest to obtain the most popular relics have been documented by Patrick Geary in his book Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages. He notes that towns were usually reluctant to simply buy or trade relics. After all, why would anyone willingly sell or part with a miracle-performing relic? Presumably they would only do so it if it no longer possessed its powers, meaning that the relic was worthless. Instead, towns often stole the relics they desired, or surreptitiously bought them while publicly claiming to have stolen them. Relic thefts were highly organized affairs, and the successful thieves were treated as local heroes. Geary tells the story of the Italian town of Bari which in 1087 commissioned a team of thieves to obtain the remains of Saint Nicolas (known more popularly today as Santa Claus) from the Turkish town of Myra. The expedition was a success, and for decades Bari basked in the glory of being the town that owned the stolen bones of Santa Claus. http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_medieval_relic_trade/
Okay, I’ll stipulate that money can be made from religious relics. I don’t neccesarily believe that the Church is involved in any sort of campaign to commercialize the shroud though but that could be because of my faith. If so, I’m probably ill equipped to argue the point.
Still, there were other questions which you haven’t addressed. Let me refresh your mrmory:
If some talented painter faked it, who paid him, and why? Even if some medieval artist painted it (which I doubt) why would he do it and why not take credit for his work?
While I’m open to reasonable arguements I have to warn you that I try hard to stay away from mud-slinging and if this degenerates into an electronic pissing contest I’ll merely stop responding. I don’t believe you normally do that sort of thing but I think it’s fair to establish ground rules before the game.
Shroud of Turin ping
Yes, there were other questions which I havent addressed. Is that a problem? God didn’t answer many of Job’s questions. And, yes, I’m not God (G-d to some observant Jews) and you’re not Job, either, but if you float me a softball like “Who benefits?”, I’ll swing for the far edge of the parking lot on the other side of the fence. I ain’t got all the answers, but I King-Kong-kick-butt answered the easy one.
Almost any good tailors could repair that kind of damage... but most of them don't employ "French Invisible Reweaving" to accomplish that. The tailor will take a small piece of the original cloth from a selvage edge that doesn't show from a hem, or a seam and reweave that into the hole. I have had expensive suits repaired with that type of reweaving in the past, one from an inadvertent cigarette burn from an idiot swinging his lit cigarette around, others from moth holes... it usually costs between $20 and $30 per hole. That type of repair is visible from the back, with the ends of the patch threads left hanging.
The French Invisible Reweaving is reserved for much more expensive cloths such as tapestries and arrases that are more complex and valuable. It is not visible from either side. I have seen examples of such repairs in museums and there is a 1950's pamphlet that has been recently uncovered that shows the technique.
For your suits, you will have to count the number of holes and assess whether it is less expensive to have them repaired or replaced... at $30 per hole, it totals up fast. But if they are $1200-$1500 suits, that's a lot of holes... But there is also the limit on the amount of material that is available for patching from the selvages and seams...
However, for the Shroud of Turin, the question is interesting. Who benefited when it was first put on display in Lirey, France, when it was owned by the de Charney family? Geoffroy de Charney built the wooden chapel in Lirey to house the Shroud and provided a Rente from his own coffers to endow it. The family did not accept donations from pilgrims to support the chapel or the monks who ran the Chapel. It was 100% supported by the de Charney family... until several years after de Charney's death.
Geoffroy De Charney was no ordinary country knight... he was the Standard Bearer for the King of France, who was trusted to fight by the King's side in battle, and the author of the French Code of Chivalry, the rules under which all French knights were expected to live. He was exemplar. He lived by that code.
Shortly after his death de Charney's daughter, Margaret, DID start to accept donations to the Chapel... because de Charney had essentially bankrupted the family supporting the chapel and the Shroud. She sought, and gained Papal permission to do so from the Avignon Pope before doing so. This display went on for years... and gathered the attention of Philip di Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, when his own donations from pilgrims coming to see the relics at his Cathedral, started to suffer... and he drafted a letter to the Pope complaining about the exhibition of the Shroud in Lirey and claimed that his predecessor had investigated it and had located the "artist who had painted it," twenty-five years earlier. No report of such an investigation has ever been uncovered, although lesser investigation reports are properly filed in the Troyes Cathedrals archives, and there is also no evidence in either the Cathedral's archives or in the Avignon or Roman archives of the Bishop's draft letter ever being completed or sent, or responded to.
Apparently, some complaint DID reach the anti-Pope in Avignon's attention, perhaps orally, because there IS a Papal bull sent to the Bishop of Troyes from the Pope... ordering him to perpetual silence about the Shroud in Lirey, in so many words saying "SHUT UP!" ... and granting the de Charney family permission for it to be displayed so long as it is made clear it is only shown "as a representation of the burial Shroud of our Lord."
Somewhat later, the de Charney's solved their bankruptcy problems, handsomely, by selling the Shroud to the Royal House of Italy... for a large sum of money, an estate, and a perpetual Rente... and the Shroud was moved the Cathedral in Turin.
In any case, if the question is "Who benefits?" at the time of it's purported "creation" in the medieval times... at least when it was first historically put on display... no one did. In fact, its owner bankrupted himself, bending over backwards to piously privately house it and support the monks who ran the Chapel... and display it for free for the pilgrims who came to venerate it.
And it was only reluctantly, after de Charney's death, that the family had to accept donations to keep the doors open.
That makes the Shroud unique... a relic that did not benefit it's owners...
The best case for its authenticity is, if they could make one just like it, they surely wood. The fact that they haven’t speaks volumes.
a relic that did not benefit its owners... until they obtained a large sum of money, an estate, and a perpetual Rente from the Royal House of Italy? Might I ask if you’ve ever heard that he who laughs last laughs best?
And before becoming wonderfully, beautifully, altruisticly rich by selling the shroud, the Charney family didn’t benefit from the pilgrimage traffic’s impact on the local Lirey economy? The rising tide of religious tourism didn’t lift any Charney boats?
James Jones, President Obamas national security advisor, recently told a mostly-Jewish audience in Washington the old Jew/water/necktie/brother joke. Jones told of how a Taliban militant gets lost and is wandering around the desert looking for water. He finally arrives at a store run by a Jew and asks for water.
The Jewish vendor tells him he doesnt have any water but can gladly sell him a tie. The Taliban begins to curse and yell at the Jewish storeowner. The Jew, unmoved, offers the rude militant an idea: Beyond the hill, there is a restaurant; they can sell you water.
The Taliban keeps cursing and finally leaves toward the hill. An hour later hes back at the tie store. He walks in and tells the merchant: Your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.
I’d guess, SM, that the extended Charney family probably sold the shroud pilgrims a few neckties.
Thanks for the info. How do you like your iPad? My son wants one for graduation.
You are on of those "glass is half empty" guys who judge people by what YOU would do in similar circumstances. I just told you what history says de Charney did, and you choose to ascribe underhanded motives to it. Circumstances change over a generation. Motives change as well. It was Geoffroy de Charney who funded the Shroud Chapel with his personal fortune and his wife and daughter who attempted to do so as well until that well ran dry. Only when they could no longer personally fund it, did they seek permission from the Pope to accept donations.
They had a relic that could easily have supported a major Cathedral with donations from the pilgrims it could have drawn. Instead it was kept in a backwater town of fewer than 500 people in a Wooden chapel. Did Lirey mercheants gain something from pilgrims? Possibly in later years. Most likely not during Geoffroy's control. Certainly the town of Lirey was not a destination at that time for pilgrims.
It was Geoffroy's daughter and son-in-law who, having fallen on hard times, made the decision to sell the family's prize possession to the House of Savoy. There is some scholarship that indicates that had they not done so, it would have been seized by the French crown for back taxes, and that Margaret made the best deal she could for her family, paying the back taxes and gaining the political patronage of the Savoys in exchange for the Shroud.
Certainly there is no evidence that Geoffroy had any plans for gain attached to "creating," displaying, or exhibiting the Shroud during his lifetime, which denies your basic premise.
It's a great device... magical in many ways. Arthur C. Clarke's law... any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from Magic. This is close.