Skip to comments.Original research team member says science still can't explain Shroud (with video)
Posted on 04/28/2013 12:51:20 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Even with modern scientific technology, the Shroud of Turin continues to baffle researchers.
Barrie Schwortz was the documenting photographer for the Shroud of Turin research project in 1978, an in-depth examination of what many people believe to be the burial cloth of Jesus.
Raised in an Orthodox Jewish home, "it took me a long time to come to terms with the fact that I'm a Jew and involved with probably the most important relic of Christianity," Schwortz told Catholic News Service.
"Isn't it funny how God always picks a Jew to be the messenger," he said.
Schwortz said that he, along with the other members of the research team who came from various faith backgrounds, had to set aside personal beliefs and focus on the shroud itself rather than any religious implication it might carry.
"We were there to gather information ... to do empirical science and do it to the best of our abilities," Schwortz said. "It doesn't have anything to do with my personal religious beliefs. It has to do with the truth."
The Shroud of Turin is a 14-foot linen that has a full-length photonegative image of a wounded man on the front and back of the cloth. The scientific team spent five days analyzing the chemical and physical properties of the shroud, paying special attention to the topographical information showing depth that was encoded in the light and dark shading of the cloth.
"Our team went to Turin to answer one simple question: How was the image formed?" Schwortz said. "Ultimately, we failed.
"We could tell you what it's not -- not a painting, not a photograph, not a scorch, not a rubbing -- but we know of no mechanism to this day that can make an image with the same chemical and physical properties as the image on the shroud."
Testing has been performed on the shroud since the initial analyses, and the results continue to be contested. In 1988 carbon testing dated the cloth to the 12th century, leading many to conclude that the shroud is a medieval forgery.
In a paper published in 2005, chemist Raymond Rogers, member of the 1978 research team, challenged the claim that the shroud is a fake. He said the sample used in the 1988 carbon testing was a piece used to mend the cloth in the Middle Ages and that the methodology of the testing was erroneous.
Even though the controversy over the origin of the cloth does not seem like it will be determined any time soon, Schwortz said the shroud can still be regarded as a bridge between science and faith.
"I think the implication of the shroud, for those particularly of the Christian faith, is that this is a document that precisely coincides with the Gospel account of what was done to the man Jesus," he said.
Schwortz said the public online technical database -- www.shroud.com -- that the team created should be used as a tool to learn more about the physical attributes of the shroud, but that individuals should draw their own conclusions about what it means for their faith.
"People often ask me, 'Does this prove the resurrection?'" Schwortz said. "The shroud did not come with a book of instructions. So the answer to faith isn't going to be on that piece of cloth, but more likely in the eyes and the hearts of those who look upon it."
For your list.
I have a shroud question if anyone knows. Are the wounds in the hand or in the wrist?
In the wrist.
Before he died, Raymond Rogers withdrew his belief that the Shroud was from the Middle Ages. As a result of questions raised by research provided by Sue Benford, he went back and did more testing. He confirmed that the carbon dating was performed on a portion of the Shroud that was repaired.
Response: Ergo it is divine Q.E.D.
According to the experts who examined the shroud, the wounds are in the wrist ref
I know that Barry believes that the Shroud is authentic, but he has never converted. An unusual case!
In the wrist. Nobody nails in the hands, they can’t support the weight of a person, it’d tear through them. They already were looking for this long ago, they know how the Romans crucified and know anatomy. You can see it in the image.
Science still can’t fully explain things like the ancient Wootz steel.
Therefore, Wootz steel must be holy.
“Russian metallurgist Pavel Petrovich Anosov, Dr. Oleg Sherby and Dr. Jeff Wadsworth and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have all done research, attempting to create steels with similar characteristics to Wootz. However none have had any success so far and the original techniques used to produce Wootz steel in India have been lost for centuries.”
And the repair had to date from the Middle Ages where a report arises about the shroud being repaired. In short, the shroud is easily older than the material introduced in the repaired part!
The answer to that question is simple ~ if God selected a Jew to bring the message, then he’s a Jew ~
Show me an ancient stainless steel sword with a photo of Jesus on it and we’ll talk. Otherwise, no go ~ the formula and process seem to have been lost as recently as the 18th century anyway.
The point was something that was made by people in the past is not replicable by modern technology today. Wootz steel is one of those.
For a jewish, largely secular scientist averse to Jesus being the messiah, it’s not really that unusual. Many jews can’t believe a god exists for allowing the holocaust to occur.
And of course just because you can’t explain something it doesn’t mean what we believe what happened is true. Just that science hasn’t figured it out yet. This reasoning somehow satisfies them with not having to decide one way or the other. The only faith they have is that someday, somehow, some way, “science will explain it”. Science doesn’t give the “why” to it, though, just the “what”.