Posted on 03/29/2013 1:24:39 PM PDT by marshmallow
There is no paint on the cloth. The image is on the surface of the fibers, something like a scorch mark.
That's the key of the matter, the image on the shroud was NOT made with ink, or die or paint! The only identifiable stains are the blood stains, the rest is speculation. So, where is the problem?
Look, the point I was making is, a piece of cloth draped/wrapped/bound .. whatever .. over/around an irregular surface like a human body (or banana in my illustration) would not show the details claimed by those that believe the shroud is a relic of Christ.
I don't have photoshop skills or anything, so I can't describe what I think I think except what I have already said.
ink, shmink ... supernatural radiation if you will ...
Listen, I am not Catholic, but I am a Christian. As a graduate student in chemistry I had the honor to listen to the presentation of the research team from the 70's to the American Chemical Society. Believe me, it was a scientific presentation. But the bottom line was, the image has not been made by any means that we can think of. Every possibility had been analyzed and discarded. At the end of the presentation, the speaker said that the image had been made by some energy source that he, or his team, were not familiar with. I still get goose bumps when I remember his words:"the only explanation is that the man buried in this shroud rose from the dead". Not exactly the kind of statement that you expect to hear at the annual meeting of the ACS!
Well, there might be a residue from all that perfume. I’m actually ready to listen about the shroud.
Look at this this way: On the one hand you have a certifiable dead person.
On the other hand, that person IS RISEN ! He rose Himself up from the grave ! He LIVES !
Can we be surprised at whatever happened there along the way from the one to the other ? Definitely Supernatural. It had a purpose, too.
Tomorrow is Resurection Day .. !!
“Look, the point I was making is, a piece of cloth draped/wrapped/bound .. whatever .. over/around an irregular surface like a human body (or banana in my illustration) would not show the details claimed by those that believe the shroud is a relic of Christ.”
You’re a bit behind the curve. As early as 1976 there was 3-D computer modeling of the image which reveals it to contain accurate depth information corresponding to a cloth draped over a human form. Google “NASA Shroud of Turin 3-D imaging” and judge for yourself.
I’m not Catholic and my opinion of ‘sacred relics’ is that they are all fakes. When I first heard of the Shroud of Turin I put it in the same category as Jesus’ face appearing on a tortilla or a chunk of wood supposedly part of the Cross.
At some point I ran across a discussion of just how peculiar the image on the shroud is.
The image is anatomically correct from a time when artists didn’t render such details accurately.
It is a photographic negative from a time when photography didn’t exist.
The image isn’t painted on, it’s part of the surface of the threads.
And now it appears to contain depth information that could only be revealed with the advent of computer imaging.
Whatever it is, it can’t be summarily dismissed.
The book “It is the Lord”, which came out circa 1972, offered just two options — fake or the actual burial shroud of Christ.
When it emerged in the Middle Ages, it was known to be a fake, and the letter from the local ecclesiastic authority to the higher ups survives. It doesn’t name the fraudster, but states that the name was known to the author of the letter.
The RC dating was conclusive, and matches the information found on the sole surviving documentary evidence contemporary with its first appearance — so naturally it is not accepted by the True Believers.
There’s no logical sequence to lead anyone to the conclusion that the cloth served as the burial shroud of Christ. The reason there is no way to find scientific evidence is that there’s no forensic evidence from the crime scene, no body, no chain of custody tissue samples, etc. Understand? No way to prove it was used as the burial shroud of Christ.
Furthermore, there’s no way to prove it was ever used as anyone’s burial shroud.
The denial on this thread by the True Believers is as mind boggling as the chant by the global warming advocates.
No way to prove it was used as the burial shroud of Christ.
That statement is essentially correct. You can get more evidence if the blood on the Shroud was DNA tested. My guess, if they would ever do that, would be a Semite. Then of course the question would be, which Semite.
there’s no way to prove it was ever used as anyone’s burial shroud.
Your statement should say, beyond a reasonable doubt. All current evidence points to a burial shroud from the first century.
No matter, I have faith in my Lord and savior Jesus the Christ. Don't need, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, to believe that I am saved. Have you every felt the Holy Spirit in your life? The feeling of peace is overwhelming.
Have a blessed and happy Easter.
He has risen, just like He said He would. Alleluia!
5.56mm
“The RC dating was conclusive”
Yes, the radio carbon dating appears to have accurately dated the age of fibers used to repair the shroud after it was damaged in a medieval fire.
“When it emerged in the Middle Ages, it was known to be a fake,”
And a fake easily reproduced by any competent artist. Which is why you can name so many similar artistic creations adorning art museums worldwide. And those examples are: (you get to fill in the blank)
No, not ones “will” nor a relativists personal opinion (”it’s my truth”) but rather based on already known facts. Your latest belittling slur “ink, schmink” wasn’t unexpected as you’re obviously uninformed on this topic which only leaves you the ignorant silly name-calling tactic. A repeat scenario of your tactics can be found at the link I provided earlier. One can witness it on leftist forums on the continuum.
It’s characteristic of all forms of relativism that they wish to preserve for themselves the very principles that they seek to deny to others. Relativism basically presents itself as a true doctrine, which simply means that it will logically exclude its opposites (absolutism or objectivism), but in reality what it’s actually saying is that no doctrines can logically exclude their opposites. It wants for itself the very thing (objectivity) that it denies exists. Logically this is called self-referential inconsistency, which means that you are inconsistent when it comes to considering what you are actually doing yourself. And you don’t even know you’re doing it.
Jesuit psychobabble
.
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.