Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Holy Face of Jesus Christ as appeared on the Holy Eucharist
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church ^ | 5-5-2001 | Fr. Johnson Karoor

Posted on 09/24/2003 6:27:37 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker

The Holy Face of Jesus Christ as appeared on the Holy Eucharist

Holy Face of The Jesus Christ
On 5-5-2001

Testimony of the parish priest
Fr. Johnson Karoor 

For the benefit of the believers I would like to describe how a human face - believed to be the face of Jesus Christ has appeared in the Holy Eucharist placed in the Monstrance for adoration on the Altar of St. Mary's Malankara Catholic Church at Chirattakonam, Archdiocese of Trivandrum.

 On the 28th April 2001, we held the novena prayer to St. Jude in the parish church at Chirattakonam as usual. At about 8:49 a.m. I exposed the Holy Eucharist in the monstrance and we started the adoration. During the adoration I saw three dots on the holy Eucharist. I stopped reciting the prayers and as if from some sort of an inner inspiration I just stood looking at the Eucharist. As the novena prayer was over I gave the faithful Eucharistic benediction. Then I invited the attention of the Faithful to the monstrance and they testified that they saw three dots on the Eucharist. I asked the faithful to remain in prayer and I kept the Holy Eucharist in the tabernacle. 

    I celebrated the Holy Mass on Monday, the 30th April and on the next day I left for Trivandrum. After returning from Trivandrum on Saturday Morning 5th May 2001, 1 opened the church for the liturgical service. I vested myself and opened the tabernacle. Immediately I noticed the figure of a human face in yellow color in the Eucharist. I was at a loss what to do. I just stood there for a few seconds. I asked the faithful to kneel down and pray. I thought it was something which I alone experienced. I kept the holy Eucharist in the monstrance and asked the mass server whether he saw something in the Eucharist. "I see a figure", he said. I saw the faithful looking intently at the monstrance observing the figure. We started the adoration. During the adoration we saw the figure becoming clearer. I didn't have the strength to speak anything to the faithful. I stood aside for sometime. I couldn't control my tears.

     We had the practice of reading the scripture and reflecting on it during the adoration. The passage that I got that day as I opened the Bible was John 20: 24-29 - Jesus appearing to St. Thomas and asking him to see his wounds. Though I read the passage, I could not give a homily. I just said a few words and concluded. As I had to go for Mass to the next parish at Kokkodu, I called a photographer and asked him to take a photo of the holy Eucharist with the human face on it. After sometime we took another photo, then a third one. In two hours the photo were developed and printed. In all the  three photos there was a clear difference in terms of the clarity of the figure. The figure was slowly becoming clearer and clearer. Since then many people are coming to the church and adoring the holy Eucharist, which has been kept in the  Monstrance on the Altar in, the sanctuary of the Church.

 Clarification given by
His Grace Archbishop Cyril Mar Baselios,
on the Eucharistic event
in the St. Mary's Malankara Catholic Church, Chirattakonam

 My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ, 

    As we are all witnessing this extra-ordinary sign manifested in the Holy Eucharist, placed in the Monstrance on our Altar for adoration, I feel I should give you some guidance to understand better this unique sign. 

    The Catholic Church believes and teaches that Our Lord Jesus Christ is really present in the Holy Eucharist. Ever since the Institution of the Holy Eucharist by Our Lord in his Last Supper, the Church has been holding on to this Faith in the Eucharist and practicing it in the liturgical Eucharistic celebration. The Catholic Church believes that the presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist is real but sacramental. Thus his presence is through the species of Bread and Wine whose substance is converted to his Body and Blood, this we believe on the basis of Jesus' own words and action during his Last Supper. Hence we believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ is really present in the Holy Eucharist. In fact it is not a new Faith in the Church, but it is a faith that has been held and practiced right from the beginning of the Church, and this Eucharistic Faith occupied a central place in the life of the Catholic Church.

     Since the presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist is sacramental, though real, it is not possible for our senses to experience it. But it is possible for the Lord, if he so wills; to make himself sensibly present to us through some signs that are perceptible to our senses. Many examples of this truth are quoted in the Gospels in relation to his apparitions to the disciples after his resurrection, who had yet to be confirmed in the        Risen Lord. But it is to be noted that the faith of the Church in the presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist is not based on any extraordinary signs that might be manifested in God's own providential care for His people, nor on condition that such signs would be given to us. On the contrary, our faith in the Eucharistic presence of Our Lord is based on his own  words during his Last Supper. 

    It is against this background that we have to accept and understand this great Eucharistic sign to which we, all those who are here, are witnesses. All of us see it personally and clearly. In the light of our faith that Our Lord Jesus Christ and no one else is present in the Eucharist, the figure of the human face we see here in the Eucharist, we conclude, must be the face of Our Lord Jesus Christ. On our part we hold on to our Eucharistic faith firmly and with deep conviction. In case someone would try to explain away this phenomena on any other reasonable grounds, we do not condemn the effort. But if we cannot find any human means active in the event, it would be reasonable and wise to believe that Our Lord has given us a special sacramental sign through a special intervention.

     For us believers what we have seen is something, which we always believed. Our real attention should now be focused on the question why Our Lord gives us this unique and extraordinary sign. We must prayerfully reflect 'on the meaning of this sacred symbol. If Our Lord is speaking to us by giving us a sign, it certainly needs a response from us. While we all together pray and search for an answer, let us offer our thanksgiving to Our Lord and adore him devotedly for his gracious care and love for us.

 Address:
St. Mary's Malankara Catholic Church
Chiraftakonarn, Thalachira P.O.
Koffarakara, Kollarn Dist.
- 691 546

Kerala, South India
Phone: 0474
-402780


 

Holy Face of The Jesus Christ

Holy Face of The Jesus Christ



Copyright© Malankara.net 1997 - 2001. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Web3com Inc.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Orthodox Christian; Religion & Science; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; eucharist; india; miracle
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-108 next last
To: Pahuanui; Admin Moderator
Don't respond to me again.

You presume to issue commands?

Yes, I presume to issue commands.

Moderator, I've informed Pahuanui that I do not wish to have further interaction with him here. Please tell him to stop bothering me.

51 posted on 09/24/2003 12:33:53 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: .45MAN
Very well stated.
52 posted on 09/24/2003 12:34:24 PM PDT by dansangel (*Visualize No Democrats*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
He did not ask a question. He ridiculed the post.
53 posted on 09/24/2003 12:35:35 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
If you ask a catholic a question, you're bashing them.

Or abusing them, according to the thinner-skinned ones, it would seem.

You have to agree, no questions. :)

A fine, long-standing tradition ;-)

54 posted on 09/24/2003 12:45:30 PM PDT by Pahuanui (When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
LOL
55 posted on 09/24/2003 1:06:42 PM PDT by Barnacle (When a wise man hears of Pahuanui, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
LOL

LOL... I get it  :-)
56 posted on 09/24/2003 1:58:44 PM PDT by GirlShortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: GirlShortstop
?;^)
57 posted on 09/24/2003 2:01:43 PM PDT by Barnacle (A Human Shield against the onslaught of Leftist tripe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Bump
58 posted on 09/24/2003 2:13:54 PM PDT by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GirlShortstop
Blessings to you, my friend!

Off to teach Rel. Ed. (First Class...)

What a story to celebrate tonight!

59 posted on 09/24/2003 3:33:06 PM PDT by Northern Yankee (Freedom.... needs a soldier !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui; Flying Circus; Hermann the Cherusker
It is inconclusive as to who, if anyone, is represented by that image.

The following historical profile is provided by the Shroud of Turin Story.

What did Jesus look like? Amazingly, there is no description of Him in the New Testament or in any contemporary source.  Yet, in hundreds of icons, paintings, mosaics, drawings and coins, there is a common quality that enables us to identify Jesus in works of art. Shroud scholar and historian Ian Wilson theorizes that a common set of facial characteristics became the norm following the discovery of the Edessa Cloth concealed in the city's walls in 544 CE. 

Apparent Shroud-inspired images of Christ are noticeable on coins struck in 692 CE during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian II. The distinctive front-facing appearance of Jesus on the Shroud is also found on numerous icons, mosaics and frescos from the sixth century on. The most startling example is the Christ Pantocrator icon at Saint Catherine's Monastery, reliably dated to 550 CE. 


Computerized overlay of the Shroud of Turin facial image and the Christ Pantocrator icon from St. Catherine's Monastery (550 CE). Images were scaled to the same size and shifted horizontally and vertically for alignment. No changes were made in the vertical to horizontal ratios.


Christ Pantocrator, c. 1200 from dome of Church at Cefalu, Sicily. 

In the 1930's, French Shroud scholar Paul Vignon described a series of common characteristics visible in many early artistic depictions of Jesus. The Vignon marking, as they are known, all appear on the Shroud suggesting that it is the source of later pictures of Jesus.
 

Christ Pantocrator, c. 1100 from dome of Church at Daphni, near Athens. Note U at bridge of nose, triangle on nose, raised right eyebrow, uneven hair, owlish eyes. 

If indeed the Shroud was the source for many works of art including icons as early as 550 CE and Byzantine period coins struck during the time of Justinian II (685-711 CE), it is inconceivable that the Shroud is a medieval forgery.

Still in doubt? Read this book.

Review:

Reviewer: annalert from Houston, Texas After reading Antonacci's book, you may well conclude, as I did, that the Shroud of Turin was a gift from God in some ways intended specifically for those of us living in our times. Without today's sophisticated scientific equipment, much of the evidence imprinted on this ancient relic could not be observed, much less understood.

At first I wondered why an ATTORNEY was writing such a book. Then I recalled that, in spite of all the tacky lawyer jokes, it is attorneys who are trained to sift through available evidence and present it in a logical manner. Mark Antonacci has done just that - presented all the evidence in a wonderfully logical manner that even the non-scientific layman can understand. He could not have done a better job of putting the needed references and citations for anyone interested in further study.

In our world of today where we demand to see scientific proof of miracles, we can truly see the finger of God in the results of the scientific study of the Shroud. It is a gift for our times and an humbling experience. Forget what you THINK you know about the Shroud

60 posted on 09/24/2003 4:17:20 PM PDT by NYer (Catholic and living it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
No one knows what Christ looked like...


***

Shroud of Turin
61 posted on 09/24/2003 4:20:33 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Do not wring or twist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
My mother taught me a long time ago that if you let someone know he is getting your goat it will encourage him. However, if you ignore him he will go away frustrated.
62 posted on 09/24/2003 4:28:19 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Do not wring or twist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: NYer
What that demonstrates is that common images purportedly of Christ at a certain time in history resemble, to some degree, that of the image on the shroud.

There is still substantial debate on a number of different subjects, such as whether there is blood on the shroud or if it's pigmentation, etc....

You may find this interesting

63 posted on 09/24/2003 5:04:17 PM PDT by Pahuanui (When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
My mother taught me a long time ago that if you let someone know he is getting your goat it will encourage him.

Most excellent advice.

My mother taught me that it is foolish to protest that one's goat has been got when indeed it's been standing right there, the whole time, where it's always been.

64 posted on 09/24/2003 5:06:01 PM PDT by Pahuanui (When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
People were not represented as images of physical perfection or in exacting detail. Rather their appearance was nondescript; their function was to represent a historical or biblical character in a symbolic tableau from the Old or New Testament. Consequently, certain facial features, uplifted hands and eyes, etc... became very common elements in such art.

The point you seem to be missing is that it is in the details... the shape of the nose, the eyes, the mouth the beard... that the pictures show great agreement between icons, the shroud, and various holy face miracles agree. These details are not a matter of the technique used, but are identifying features of an actual person. What this implies is that there is a single source for the inspiration.

What we know is that icons are not creative exercises, but very stylized to teaching tools. In producing them iconographers tend to follow very closely the models they are given from tradition. Given that for especially old icons there is largely agreement on many features, we can say there was little drift from the original model. Given the rate of drift on the features of Jesus' face in icons through the centuries, we can extrapolate that the model is coming from a time when people were alive who knew Jesus.

As there anyone else in history who is recorded as having the combination of scourging, being crowned with thorns (multiple crowns actually, representing both king and jewish priest), and being nailed to the cross in crucifiction?

That does not, however, confirm the veracity of the shroud and who it may or may not represent.

Now you are being absurd. If it is not a forgery, there are too many unique details for it reasonably to come from anyone other that Jesus, and if it is, the similarity to the icons implies that they are from the same source. If it is a forgery, it was clearly meant to represent Christ.

But, if it is a forgery, how were they able to make the image? It strains the imagination to conceive how a forgery could be produced with so many anatomically, and historically correct details as the shroud. And why would a forgery contain so many details that could not be seen by the naked eye, but only picked up centuries later with photographic technologies?

65 posted on 09/24/2003 5:18:46 PM PDT by Flying Circus (When the foolish man sees the face of Christ he denies out loud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Flying Circus
The point you seem to be missing is that it is in the details... the shape of the nose, the eyes, the mouth the beard... that the pictures show great agreement between icons, the shroud, and various holy face miracles agree.

No, if you look back, I do not dispute those facts, but rather consider the fact that there is consistency irrelevant.

These details are not a matter of the technique used, but are identifying features of an actual person. What this implies is that there is a single source for the inspiration.

No, you are inferring that there was a single source for the inspiration. There is still no evidence that a single source, or even a limited number of similar sources, were indeed originally accurate.

What we know is that icons are not creative exercises, but very stylized to teaching tools. In producing them iconographers tend to follow very closely the models they are given from tradition. Given that for especially old icons there is largely agreement on many features, we can say there was little drift from the original model. Given the rate of drift on the features of Jesus' face in icons through the centuries, we can extrapolate that the model is coming from a time when people were alive who knew Jesus.

That is an optimistic extrapolation that I cannot justify based on available evidence.

As there anyone else in history who is recorded as having the combination of scourging, being crowned with thorns (multiple crowns actually, representing both king and jewish priest), and being nailed to the cross in crucifiction?

That does not, however, confirm the veracity of the shroud and who it may or may not represent.

Now you are being absurd. If it is not a forgery, there are too many unique details for it reasonably to come from anyone other that Jesus, and if it is, the similarity to the icons implies that they are from the same source. If it is a forgery, it was clearly meant to represent Christ.

Now you are being illogical. If it is not a forgery, given the variances in opinion of the data available from the shroud, one could posit that it is a genuine artifact of a first century Roman crucifixion of an adult Jewish male. Was it Jesus? Given the great number of crucifixions of adult Jewish males during that relative time period, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of them were not recorded, you are jumping to a conclusion that I feel is not justified.

But, if it is a forgery, how were they able to make the image? It strains the imagination to conceive how a forgery could be produced with so many anatomically, and historically correct details as the shroud. And why would a forgery contain so many details that could not be seen by the naked eye, but only picked up centuries later with photographic technologies?

Unlike others, I don't pretend to know one way or another.

66 posted on 09/24/2003 5:33:56 PM PDT by Pahuanui (When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood,Soul and Divinity of Your dearly Beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world.
67 posted on 09/24/2003 6:38:56 PM PDT by Litany ("...and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Matt. 26: 14-15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Litany
For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
68 posted on 09/24/2003 6:55:31 PM PDT by Flying Circus (As you do pray, so you do believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Thanks for this post. I believe in the Real Presence without miracles such as this, but it is an awesome thing when Christ confirms His presence in such a wonderful way!

69 posted on 09/24/2003 7:05:17 PM PDT by sneakers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
SCULLY: Mulder, the human mind naturally seeks meaningful patterns and configurations in things that don't inherently have any. Given the suggestion of a particular image, you can't help but see that shape somewhere."
-- from "Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose" (The X-Files, episode 3X04)
70 posted on 09/24/2003 7:16:51 PM PDT by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona; dsc
Clearly, the miracle is not meant for you two! ;-)
71 posted on 09/24/2003 7:34:51 PM PDT by TotusTuus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
I remember that episode. It was one of the best. But does this mean you don't believe in the miracle?
72 posted on 09/24/2003 7:47:14 PM PDT by Pyro7480 (“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui; Hermann the Cherusker
That assumes rather much, as none of the artists who created those images ever laid eyes on him, ...

How do we know if the earliest icons/paintings of Christ were not written/painted by those who saw Him in the flesh?

In any event, it is not of primary concern. The Bishop's clarification did a good job in describing what is of primary importance to us.

The greatest miracle for us is the Eucharist itself! Anywhere it is offered. That there have been times in history where our Lord has chosen to show forth secondary miracles in union with this great Sacrament/Mystery to help deepen or strengthen Faith (or whatever else for a reason) in It, is His call. These miracles could even follow upon natural causes.

It is not within the normal course of events for the pattern of a face to become present in an exposed Host. Since this occurred here, and since the image seems to match up with images recognized by Christians as that of Christ, then it is not necessarily a mindless step in the dark to suppose that the Author of this (purported) secondary miracle meant for it to be understood as an image of Him confirming His Real Presense in the Eucharist. Either as a reward for the Faithful adoring Him there, or to strengthen their Faith, etc.

Do recognize that even the Bishop invited others to issue explanations for this event that would involve natural phenomena/causes. If you have any, I'm sure he would be delighted hearing from you as it would aid in his investigation in determining whether or not this is truly a supernatural miracle worthy of belief. I gathered from the article that he hasn't done that yet.

73 posted on 09/24/2003 8:11:27 PM PDT by TotusTuus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker; Pahuanui
He did not ask a question. He ridiculed the post.

He brought up a valid point. That it happened to be viewed by you as redicule is not his fault. He openly admitted that he was expressing his opinion regarding the validity of the images and article you posted. You then accused him of harassment and abuse. There was nothing abusive or harassing at all in his post...he simply expressed an opinion that did not agree with your own.

He would well justified in pinging the moderator for slander and personal attack.

When I last I checked this was still an open forum. If you can't handle criticism, don't post. If you don't want criticism, ignore it...or don't post.

74 posted on 09/24/2003 8:24:54 PM PDT by Frumanchu (mene mene tekel upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
I remember that episode. It was one of the best. But does this mean you don't believe in the miracle?

I should've made a link to the full transcript. Darin Morgan, a true genius, wrote that episode. If you see his name on something -- watch it. It'll be great.

Well, I don't outright disbelieve -- but I don't believe, either. Certainly not on the basis of a magazine article.

Maybe it's the influence of Jesuitical rationalism on me, but I tend to be very cautious when it comes to the face of Christ or the Blessed Virgin appearing on this or that. It's simply being prudent.

What to speak of the Vatican, the local bishop seems cautious in his statement about it. He calls it extraordinry (literally meaning that ordinary hosts do not have such markings) and says that Christ might have a reason for producing such a sign. But if I read him rightly, he does not pronounce the event supernatural. Rather, he uses it as a springboard for preaching the doctrine of the Real Presence, which we are bound to believe.

And, semiotically, a face on a host does not particularly reinforce the doctrine of the Real Presence. An image of a face can be interpretted in many ways. I mean, say, compared to the Eucharistic Miracle at Lanciano.

And, I hate to remind anyone, but now and then over the last two millennia a priest has been guilty of fraud in creating little "miracles" either for his own ego, or mistakingly thinking that frauds will increase parishoners' faith.

Or, if not fraud, it there may be a natural explanation for random discoloration, which in this case looks like an image of a face.

If anyone hears that Roma has locutaed anything on this one, let me know.

75 posted on 09/24/2003 8:57:23 PM PDT by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
Good point, concerning Lanciano. It's miraculous just in the fact that this has been going on for over a thousand years!
76 posted on 09/24/2003 9:01:35 PM PDT by Pyro7480 (“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Flying Circus
Did you know that the Vilnious Divine Mercy portrait fits exactly with the shroud?
77 posted on 09/24/2003 9:42:49 PM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tiki
Yeah... that is the point I made... there are a number of ancient icons that match the shroud exactly. The similarities are more than could happen by accident. These things have survived at least 15 centuries, but people find it so unbelieveable that nothing trustworthy could have made it less than 5 centuries that progressed between the time when witnesses to Christ lived and these icon were created.
78 posted on 09/25/2003 12:59:33 AM PDT by Flying Circus (As you do pray, so you do believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
Give it up and go away. Everybody here sees you for exactly what you are. Just quit trying to backpeddle and go away.
79 posted on 09/25/2003 3:13:47 AM PDT by Thorondir (The Catholic heart breaks in these vile times, and Satan rejoices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Beautiful. That Bishop was certainly well-schooled. magnificient
80 posted on 09/25/2003 4:04:16 AM PDT by Catholicguy (Narses to CG: "Your wit, your knowledge and your personal experiences can be of real value here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu
He brought up a valid point.

No he didn't. He didn't express it as a "valid point" at all. He expressed it purposefully to ridicule.

That it happened to be viewed by you as redicule is not his fault.

rIdicule

Yes it is. Look at his manner of first posting.

How would they know?

No one knows what Christ looked like, so it might just as well be the face of, say, Agamemnon or some plummer in Reno named Floyd.

This wasn't a legitimate question such as: "How can anyone be sure of quite what Christ looked like since to me there don't appear to be any contemporary images of him."

He did not act respectfully. Instead, he ridiculed it. "... it might just as well be the face of, say, Agamemnon or some plummer in Reno named Floyd ..." Whyever would such an image as he ridiculously suggests appear upon a Host from a Catholic Mass?

He openly admitted that he was expressing his opinion regarding the validity of the images and article you posted.

Where is there any opinion expressed other than "No one knows what Christ looks like" in the two lines he posted? I don't see it. if he was just expressing an opinion, why tack on the "some plummer in Reno named Floyd" comment?

You then accused him of harassment and abuse.

Harassment - I asked him to stop responding to me and he continued to bother me. Common courtesy would dictate that if someone says they do not wish to talk to you, that you refrain from addressing them.

Abuse - his very manner of coming onto this thread and purposefully ridiculing the event described and then starting his harassment of me.

There was nothing abusive or harassing at all in his post...he simply expressed an opinion that did not agree with your own.

I entirely disagree.

He would well justified in pinging the moderator for slander and personal attack.

Let him go ahead and do so and try to justify himself. I'm a big boy.

When I last I checked this was still an open forum.

Its an open forum, but rules of common courtesy still apply.

If you can't handle criticism, don't post.

WAIT! I thought you said he was just expressing a valid opinion, not offering criticism of me! Clarify for me, what was he doing? Making "valid opinion" or offering "criticism"?

If you don't want criticism, ignore it...or don't post.

After attempting to respond a couple of times politely to his question, I did try to ignore him, but he kept on pestering me by responding to my posts when I had told him I didn't wish to discuss anything further with him. This clutters up my "My Comments" page and is impolite.

What would you suggest I do in such a situation?

81 posted on 09/25/2003 5:56:29 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Flying Circus; Thorondir; TotusTuus; Litany; Bigg Red; Barnacle; Pyro7480; Aquinasfan; ...
You may find this interesting

http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

skepdic

SKEPDIC

Ha, ha, ha!

What an ENORMOUSLY appropriate name for a website for this guy to be directing us to.

I think he missed the humor in it.

82 posted on 09/25/2003 6:09:31 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Along a similar line, a couple of weeks ago, I typed “Ten Commandments” into GOOGLE; it referred me to an atheist site first.

(Just a coincidence I'm sure.)
83 posted on 09/25/2003 7:22:26 AM PDT by Barnacle (A Human Shield against the onslaught of Leftist tripe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
No he didn't. He didn't express it as a "valid point" at all. He expressed it purposefully to ridicule.

He asked a question (How would they know?) and did imply evidence of skepticism with the statement that followed. Your claiming that his intent was to ridicule is presumptuous, especially in the face of his own denial of any such motivation.

Where is there any opinion expressed other than "No one knows what Christ looks like" in the two lines he posted? I don't see it. if he was just expressing an opinion, why tack on the "some plummer in Reno named Floyd" comment?

His opinion that nobody knows what Christ looks like is obviously an opinion on the validity of the images you posted. His comment on Agamemnon and Floyd further illustrates his point (which he explained in post 38).

Harassment - I asked him to stop responding to me and he continued to bother me. Common courtesy would dictate that if someone says they do not wish to talk to you, that you refrain from addressing them.

You accused him of harassment PRIOR to asking him to stop responding:

To: Pahuanui
So why do you need to come on here and harass us on this thread?
27 posted on 09/24/2003 1:56 PM EDT by Hermann the Cherusker

To: Pahuanui
I have no interest in discussion things with a dissimulator such as yourself. Go away and learn some manners.
Don't respond to me again.
40 posted on 09/24/2003 2:36 PM EDT by Hermann the Cherusker

Abuse - his very manner of coming onto this thread and purposefully ridiculing the event described and then starting his harassment of me.

Again, you presuppose a motivation and intent that he himself directly refuted.

WAIT! I thought you said he was just expressing a valid opinion, not offering criticism of me! Clarify for me, what was he doing? Making "valid opinion" or offering "criticism"?

Apparently both. He offered his opinion, which stood in opposition to your own. You immediately took it as criticism and became defensive about it.

After attempting to respond a couple of times politely to his question, I did try to ignore him, but he kept on pestering me by responding to my posts when I had told him I didn't wish to discuss anything further with him. This clutters up my "My Comments" page and is impolite. What would you suggest I do in such a situation?

Apologize for slandering and ask him politely to refrain from further dialogue with you instead of resorting to name calling and telling him to 'go learn some manners.'

84 posted on 09/25/2003 10:03:48 AM PDT by Frumanchu (mene mene tekel upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Perhaps the punk emailed a few of his punk friends to come and join him in the rock-throwing at the stained glass windows. Ignore them all, my friend.

Dominus tecum
85 posted on 09/25/2003 11:57:06 AM PDT by Thorondir (The Catholic heart breaks in these vile times, and Satan rejoices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Do a find in forum and see that this latest sola scriptura guy is nothing more than a busy-body Catholic-basher. Shake his misguided heretic dust from your feet.
86 posted on 09/25/2003 12:01:15 PM PDT by Thorondir (The Catholic heart breaks in these vile times, and Satan rejoices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
The Controversial Shroud of Turin

click on pics for a larger image

Go to Here for even more analysis on this cloth

The most controversial relic in Christendom, the Shroud of Turin - the linen cloth that covered Jesus when he was entombed and resurrected, made its first documented appearance some years after the suppression of the Knights Templar. The biggest discovery didn't come until the age of cameras when a "negative" of a picture taken of the shroud provided incredible details never before seen by just looking at the cloth. The dispute over the authenticity of this oddly stained cloth dates from its first public exposition when, in the 1350s, Henry, Bishop of Troyes, wrote:

Many theologians and other persons have stated that this could not be the real

Shroud of Our Lord having the Saviour’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy

Gospel made no mention of such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely

that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have

remained hidden until the present time.1

The earliest reference to what could be the Shroud dates from 1203, when Robert de Clan, a French crusader, described an object that he had seen exhibited in the Church of My Lady Saint Mary of Blachernae at Constantinople ‘... where was kept the sydoine in which Our Lord had been wrapped, which stood up straight every Friday so that the figure of Our Lord could be plainly seen there’. The translation of the key word ‘figure’ has caused considerable debate. Is it the modern French ‘face’ or in the English sense, the ‘full figure’ or body? Provocatively de Clari continued ‘no one, either Greek or French, ever knew what became of this sydoine after the city was taken’.

There are historians who claim that folded and framed, the Shroud may have been the
object exhibited as the Mandylion, the imprint of the face of Jesus on a cloth which, legend
tells us, Jesus sent to King Abgar of Edessa. Linking the Shroud of Turin and the Mandylion
is the consistent and powerful literary tradition that neither image was ‘made by the hand of
man. Is it simply coincidence that the known and provable history of the Mandylion completes
, with one short gap, the earlier missing history of the Turin Shroud? Were they one and the
same?

SUCCESSIVE OWNERS OF THE SHROUD

The first known owner of the Shroud in France in the 1350s was Geoffrey de Charney, who died in 1356; the name of Jacques de Molay’s fellow martyr was Geoffroi de Chamey. If the Shroud had been brought to France from Constantinople by the Knights Templar, who had so recently been suppressed on charges of heresy, it is understandable why the de Chameys were reluctant to declare its origins. In The Shroud and the Grail, Noel Currer-Briggs, founder member of the Association of Genealogists and Record Agents and a Fellow of the Society of Genealogists, produces proof that Geoffrey de Charney was the nephew of Jacques de Molay’s companion in death, Geoffroi de Charney, Templar Master of Normandy. He also shows that this family are intimately linked by ties of blood and marriage with the families of Brienne, de Joinville and Burgundy. Could it be that Rex Deus ensured the preservation of the Shroud in the certain knowledge that, sooner or later, it would play an important part in disclosing that Jesus came to reveal the pathway to initiation and not to make any form of redemptive sacrifice?

The last member of the de Chamey line, the 72-year-old Marguerite de Charney, was childless when, in 1453, Duke Louis of Savoy ceded to her the Castle of Varanbon and the revenues of the estate of Miribel in return for certain ‘valuable services’, which included Marguerite’s gift to the duke of the Shroud. Geoffrey II de Chamey and Marguerite’s second husband, Humbert de Villersexel, had both been created knights of the Order of the Collar of Savoy by earlier dukes 2 Marguerite de Chamey had found a noble and trusted family to ensure the preservation of this remarkable relic, as the House of Savoy were Rex Deus.

By the 15th century, Church authorities had begun to refer to the relic as Jesus’ ‘burial shroud’. The theologian Francesco della Rovere wrote, in 1464, ‘This is now preserved with great devotion by the Dukes of Savoy, and it is coloured with the blood of Christ’.6 Within five years della Rovere became Pope Sixtus IV. His treatise on The Blood of Christ, published in 1468, was the first time that the Shroud was recognized as genuine by the papacy and the relic was even given its own feast day, 4 May.

Some time in the early 1500s, the Shroud suffered a degree of damage which appears to have been made by a red-hot poker being thrust through the folded cloth. Ian Wilson claims that ‘it seems very likely that they are the scars of some primitive “trial by fire” ceremony. .

In 1532 the cloth was damaged still further by a fire in the building which caught one edge of it and scorched all 48 folds before it could be extinguished. Fourteen large triangular-shaped patches and eight smaller ones, made from altar cloth, were sewn over the worst of the damage, and it was backed with a simple piece of holland cloth.

In 1578 the Duke of Savoy had the Shroud brought to Turin, where it has rested ever since. In the final decade of the 17th century a magnificent Baroque cathedral, dedicated to St John the Baptist, was commissioned from the architect Guarino Guarini. The relic took up its new abode on 1 June 1694, being carried into the building and locked behind a grille in the place of honour above the high altar and only exposed publicly at very special events such as important weddings in the House of Savoy, papal visits or great Church occasions.

THE RELIC ITSELF

The Shroud of Turin measures 14ft 3m (4.36m) long by 3ft 7in (1.lm) wide and consists of one single piece of cloth with the addition of a full length strip 3 .5in (8.5cm) wide joined by a single seam on the left-hand side. Imprinted in an almost pure sepia monochrome, like a stained shadow on the cloth, is the faint outline of the front and back of a bearded, long-haired man laid out as if dead.” The image is subtle and, except when viewed from a distance, very difficult to discern. Despite the poor quality of the image there is sufficient detail in the blood-like stains to convince the devout for many centuries that this is the burial cloth of Jesus.

The Shroud was photographed during the 1898 exposition by an amateur photographer, Secondo Pia. In those early days of photography nothing was ever certain until the plates had been developed and Secondo admitted to considerable relief when he first saw the image appear. His relief soon turned to wonder, for he was not looking, as he had expected, at a negative version of the shadowy figure he had seen on the cloth, but at an unmistakable and highly detailed photographic likeness, the light and shade of which gave the figure an almost three-dimensional quality, with the blood flows from the head, hands, feet and side showing up with magical realism. The overall impression was of a tall, impressively built man with a strikingly life-like face. The photographs caused a worldwide sensation and sparked in-depth investigations that have continued ever since. The Shroud was photographed professionally in 1931 and this time the results were even more remarkable, for considerable advances had been made in photographic techniques. Since then it has been photographed twice more, in 1969 and 1973.

The first photographs stimulated the curiosity of the medical profession, particularly that of forensic pathologists and anatomists. Yves Delage, Professor of Comparative Anatomy at the Sorbonne in Paris, was the first to announce his findings publicly. On 21 April 1902 he gave a lecture entitled ‘The image of Christ visible on the Holy Shroud of Turin’. Not surprisingly he had an unusually large and attentive audience. The professor explained that, from a medical point of view, the wounds and anatomical data recorded on the Shroud were so accurate that it seemed impossible that they could be the work of an artist. He continued by explaining how difficult and utterly pointless it would have been for an artist to depict such a figure in a negative manner and that, furthermore, as there was no trace of any known pigment on the cloth, he was convinced that the image found upon it must be that of Jesus, created by some physio-chemical process that had taken place in the tomb.

Ber here - it is MY opinion , having a degree in physics and having been heavily involved in nuclear physics as well, that when God resurrected Jesus; a great burst of electomagnetic radiation emanated from all parts of his body, through the cloth, which made the imprint on the cloth that no one could really see until a photographic negative was taken of it in 1898. Electromagenetic radiation is just like light coming from a light bulb, the microwave energy that cooks your hot dog or delivers signals to your cellphone; differing only in frequency, wavelength, source and of course energy level. Electromagnetic radiation is a photon of energy traveling the speed of light in a sine wave through space with no mass. The X-Ray your dentist uses to search for cavities which marks the photographic plate is a good example of electromagnetic radiation in the form of x-rays, created by a beam of electrons striking a tungsten surface. Notice that your dentist looks at a negative to discern the cavity. It is strange God didn't allow such details to be seen and witnessed before the advent of the camera. But then, many things are being revealed by Him today that were unknown yesterday.

Delage’s lecture caused an uproar and Marcelin Berthelot, the secretary of the Academy, refused to publish the text of it in full. With the publication of the second set of photographs, the Shroud’s authenticity began to gain far wider acceptance among the medical profession. Research by Dr Pierre Barbet of St Joseph’s Hospital in Paris led to the conclusion that the wounds depicted on it were genuinely those of a crucified man.
These results were confirmed by the Cologne radiologist Professor Hermann Moedder and Dr Judica­Cordiglia, the professor of forensic medicine of the University of Milan. In the United States further study was made on the bloodstains by Dr Anthony Sava of Brooklyn. Most of the present-day medical opinion rests on research carried out by Dr Robert Bucklin of Michigan who now resides in California.

From Ber again - It should be noted that the latest DNA analysis of the bloodstains found on the shroud of Turin also came up with only 24 chromosones (23 from Mary and a y to make him a him) which coincides with the blood testing done of the dried blood found on the mercy seat of the ark of the convenant, which was found 25' under the crucifixion post. Remember the earthquake that occurred as Jesus was near the end; it opened up a crack in the rock beneath the crucifixion post and when the Roman soldier speared Jesus in the side; his blood and bodily fluids fell down the 25' crack and landed on the ark of the convenant that had been placed there almost 600 years beforehand. It appears the immaculate conception holds more truth that the Rex Deus theory that Mary was impregnated by the high priest Gabriel at the Temple School before being handed over to Joseph for marriage. God makes these things known in due time.

A life-size model of the head portrayed on the Shroud was made by the British photographer Leo Vala, who produced a three-dimensional image. The distinguished ethnologist, Professor Canton S. Coon of Harvard, who studied these photographs, described the face as that ‘of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs’ The wounds depicted on the head, according to Dr David Willis, cannot be described except in the context of the crown or cap of thorns described in the Gospels. Marks on the back and front of the body from the shoulders downwards, found in groups of three, have been described by doctors as being physiologically accurate represen­tations of flogging. Bruising which is consistent with carrying the crossbeam of a cross has also been identified. Professor Judica-Cordiglia has classified the damage to the knees of the man in the image as being the result of repeated falls.

THE EVIDENCE OF CRUCIFIXION

The wounds deriving from the crucifixion itself have naturally attracted considerable attention. The flow of blood originating from the wound in the left wrist indicates that at the time of bleeding the arm must have been raised at an angle between 55 and 65 degrees from the vertical. This is consistent with crucifixion, as in order to maintain his breathing the victim would have flexed his elbows to raise his body and so bring relief to his labouring lungs. Contrary to many medieval depictions of the crucifixion, the nail wounds on the Shroud are on the wrist and not the hand. This above all is a further indication of authenticity, as nailing through the hands would not have supported the weight of the body. According to Dr Pierre Barbet, who studied the wounds in the 1930's, the soldiers who had nailed the victim to the cross were experienced men who knew their anatomy. Barbet had experimented in reproducing the wounds by nailing a recently amputated arm at the same point as that on the Shroud image. The nail passed through a gap in the bones of the wrist known as ‘the space of destot’.

The most unexpected proof that derived from Barbet’s work was the contraction of the thumb as the nail was being driven through the wrist; the passage of the nail had stimulated the median nerve, causing the muscles of the thumb to contract. When he consulted the image on the Shroud he discovered that no thumbs were visible on either hand. He deduced that the nailing of the victim had produced exactly the same effect as his experiment. He then posed the question ‘Could a forger have imagined this?’ Barbet used the same techniques on amputated feet, again emulating the position shown on the Shroud. The nail passed easily between the second and third metatarsal bones, so that the body would have been supported by a single nail impaling the feet. The nailing of the wrists and feet, with the dependant body weight, made the victims secure and incapable of freeing themselves.

A clear wound is visible on the left-hand side of the image between the fifth and sixth rib which, due to mirror image reversal, would have been on the right side of the victim. The blood flow from the wound, which must have been inflicted when the body was erect, is broken by some clear areas which are believed to show the mixture of a clear fluid with the blood24 which, according to the German radiologist Professor Moedder, emanated from the pleural sac. Dr Anthony Sava noted that there is often an accumulation of fluid in the pleural cavity as a response to injury. He is of the opinion that the scourging which is indicated by the marks on the back, shoulders and front of the body were the most probable cause of the accumulation of fluid in the pleural cavity and this trauma-induced pleurisy was the principal cause of death, which was only exacerbated by the crucifixion. The consensus that arises from the medical experts who have examined the photographic evidence of the Shroud is that the cloth was, beyond all reasonable doubt, in contact with a victim of crucifixion.

Jewish custom and the Gospels show that the body of Jesus would have been laid out full-length in the tomb prepared by Joseph of Arimathea. The position of the body with the hands crossed over the pelvic area is identical to that discovered by Father de Vaux of the Ecole Biblique in his excavation of Essene burials at Qumran. It is ironic that this connection of Jesus with Essene practices was inadvertently confirmed by de Vaux, whose principal aim in his handling of the Dead Sea Scrolls seems to have been to deny all contact between them and Jesus. Contrary to Jewish practice, it is plainly obvious from all the evidence on the Shroud that the body depicted on it was not washed according to custom and law, but had been anointed with copious quantities of expensive ointment and hurriedly wrapped in the burial cloth.

THE FORENSIC TESTS

In June 1969 a commission of specialists studied the Shroud so that they might recommend suitable tests in order to establish its nature and provenance. The commission was convened in secret, but the news leaked out and the cardinal and the custodians of the Shroud were accused of acting ‘like thieves in the night’ The commission reported on 17 June, noting that the Shroud was in an excellent state of preservation, and recommended tests which would require minimal samples of the cloth. The arrangement for taking samples was kept secret and was conducted on 24 November 1973, after a two-day exposition for the television cameras.

Seventeen samples of thread were removed from different areas on the Shroud, with great care being taken to avoid the slightest possibility of contamination. An expert from the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology, Professor Gilbert Raes, had joined the team and for his benefit, two samples, one of 1/2 x 1 3/4in (13 x 40mm) and the other of 1/3 x 1 3/4in (10 x 40mm), were taken from one side of the cloth. To add to these the professor had been given two individual threads to examine. One of 12 mm in length was taken from the weft and the second of 13 mm from the warp. The overall style of weave of the cloth was that of a three-to-one herringbone twill, which was used at the time of Jesus but was found more commonly in silk than linen. Examination of cloth fibres under polarized light satisfied him that it was linen. Microscopic examination disclosed unmistakable traces of cotton, which led Raes to conclude that the material had been woven on a loom that had also produced cotton fabric. Analysis of the cotton revealed that it was of a species known as gossypium hebaceum which is native to the eastern Mediterranean. This was extremely significant and, according to Raes, indicated that the fabric had been manufactured in the Middle East.

The Swiss criminologist, Dr Max Frei, took samples of some of the particles adhering to the cloth and was able to identify small particles of mineral, fragments of hair and fibres deriving from plants, bacterial spores, spores from mosses and fungi, and pollen grains from flowering plants. Some of the pollens were halophytes from desert varieties of tamarix, suaeda and artemisia, which are to be found almost exclusively growing around the shores of the Dead Sea. Frei stated simply:

These plants are of great diagnostic value for our geo­graphical studies as identical desert plants are missing in all the other countries where the Shroud is believed to have been exposed in the open air. Consequently, a forgery, produced somewhere in France during the Middle Ages, in a country lacking these typical halophytes could not contain such characteristic pollen grains from the deserts of Palestine.

Pollen from the surface of the Shroud includes six species of plant that are exclusively Palestinian in origin. He also states that there is pollen from a significant number of plants from the Anatolian Steppes of Turkey, as well as eight species of Mediterranean plants that are consistent with the Shroud’s admitted exposure in France and Italy.

In March 1977 the United States hosted a scientific conference of research on the Turin Shroud which was attended by clergy from different denominations and a large number of scientists, including Dr Robert Bucklin, the pathologist, and Professor Joseph Gambescia.

The majority of the scientists were from a diverse range of backgrounds, which included the US Atomic Energy Commission, the Pasadena Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Albuquerque Sandia Laboratory and the spectroscopy division of the Los Alamos Laboratory Bishop John Robinson was deeply impressed not only with the calibre of the scientists involved but also with the seriousness with which they approached the question of the authenticity of the relic. He stated:

‘There is no one in this thing who is being either gullible or just dismissive.’ The physicist Dr John Jackson and the aerodynamicist Dr Eric Jumper reported that the image had not been created by direct contact but by some form of emanation from the body and that there was a precise relationship between the intensity of the image and the degree of separation between the body and the cloth.

Dr Jackson then used a 3 x 5in (7.5 x 12.5cm) transparency of the Shroud in a modern Interpretation Systems VP-8 Image Analyzer to display a figure in perfect three-dimensional relief. An ordinary photograph analysed by the same machine simply does not carry sufficient information regarding distance and proportion to create such an accurate image. However, there was one strange anomaly in this image; the eyes displayed a curious unnatural bulge as if something had been laid upon them. Jackson discovered that it was a long-standing Jewish custom to lay coins or a broken potsherd over the eyes of a corpse prior to burial. He realized that a coin laid over the eyes in this way would exactly match these unnatural bulges.

As a result of the American experiments, the hardened sceptic, Dr John Robinson, was moved to claim that with the accumulated evidence already available, the burden of proof had shifted and it was now up to those who doubted the Shroud’s authenticity to prove their case, rather than the reverse. To the distress of those who supported its authenticity, this is apparently what happened.

THE CARBON DATING

After the death of ex-King Umberto of Italy in 1983, the Shroud of Turin passed into the hands of the Vatican, who gave permission for carbon dating as a result of intensive lobbying from a wide spectrum of interested parties. Three laboratories were involved, the University of Arizona in Tucson, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, and the Oxford Research Laboratory.

The samples were taken in total secrecy, but the Church did allow representatives from all three laboratories to be present. One 2 3/4in (7cm) sample was cut from one corner and divided into three. Each piece was sealed in appropriate containers, one for each of the laboratories concerned. The whole process was videotaped. The results of the carbon dating were announced by Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero in Turin on 13 October 1988 and later the same day by Dr Tite of the British Museum Research Laboratory, who had supervised the entire process. The results disclosed that it was 99.9 per cent certain that the Shroud of Turin had its origins in the period from 1000—1500 CE and 95 per cent certain that it dated from somewhere between 1260 and 1390. The world reeled with shock from the announcement that the Shroud of Turin had been scientifically shown to be a fake. The papal hierarchy’s attitude was oddly ambivalent. Professor Luigi Gonella, the scientific adviser to the Vatican, made a strange comment: ‘The tests were not commissioned by the Church and we are not bound by the results.’

Journalists and fantasists had a field day; articles on the dating of the Shroud were soon replaced by multiple allegations of conspiracy concerning the tests. Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, the extreme right-wing luminary of La Contre-Reforme Catholique au XXeme Siecle, accused Dr Michael Tite of switching samples taken from the Shroud with those from a 13th-century cope, and implied that Tite received a professorship for his pains. This eminent Christian claimed that the tests were a deliberate attempt by scientists to undermine Christianity. Professor Werner Buist denounced the scientific community on television, and fell back to a tried and trusted defence by claiming that it was all a masonic anti-Catholic plot.

The German authors, Holger Kersten and Elmar Gruber, wrote that the carbon-dating results were rigged by the scientists acting in collusion with the Church. For reasons that are completely unexplained, the video cameras had been switched off after the samples had been taken and were not switched on again until after they had been sealed into their containers. Thus there was ample opportunity for a deliberate breach of protocol and for Tite to have switched the samples as has been alleged by Brother Bonnet-Eymard. They also allege that there are serious discrepancies between the descriptions of the samples that were taken and those made by the scientists in respect of the samples that they had received. Viewed from the perspective of the hidden streams of spirituality, the motivation they ascribe to the Church to explain this alleged conspiracy is particularly interesting, for they assert that the Church wished to discredit the Shroud because it proves that Jesus was still alive when he was taken down from the cross.39

THE CONTROVERSY REOPENS

The validation of the carbon dating by three leading laboratories of international repute should have put an end to the argument over the authenticity of the Shroud once and for all. However, an American scientist made a discovery which appears to discredit the results. Carbon dating techniques are subject to massive distortion by extremely minute amounts of contamination, which is why the samples used for dating the Shroud were cleansed by the most reliable techniques then known. Yet despite all the precautions taken, one significant form of contamination that was unknown at the time arose from the very nature of the doth that was being tested.

Many commentators, including Ian Wilson, have described the holy relic as having ‘a damask-like sheen’.41 This shiny appearance has recently been discovered to arise from a natural growth of micro­biological organisms which completely envelop each constituent thread of the cloth. The extent of this contamination, which has been proven to be completely resistant to the cleansing methods used by the three authorized laboratories, is such that what was in fact being tested was slightly less than 40 per cent Shroud material and more than 60 per cent living organism. Recent tests have proved that the cleansing agents used by the laboratories doing the carbon dating were completely ineffective in respect of the microbiological organisms coating the Shroud, but do tend to dissolve part of the cellulose from the flax, thus increasing the distortion created by the microbiological coating. The end result is that there is such a gross distortion of the results that the whole question of the age and authenticity of this controversial relic is still wide open.

The existence of a microbiological coating of living organisms has already been demonstrated on jade and stone carvings from the Mayan civilization in Mesoamerica and on mummy wrappings from ancient Egypt. The initial discoveries that led to this re-evaluation of carbon dating techniques were made by Dr Leoncio A Garza-Valdes from San Antonio, who held the chair of microbiology at the Health Sciences Centre of the University of Texas. He noticed that jade and stone carvings of the Mayans all had a particularly lustrous sheen. He found that the carvings had been coated by millions of bacteria which produce a pinkish pigment and also by some fungi which varied in colour from dark brown to black. This strange mixture combined to form a yellowish ‘plastic coat’ over the entire surface of the carving and the resultant lustrous gloss he called a ‘bioplastic coating’. One of the artifacts he examined was a pectoral formed of several pieces of carved jade held together by strong cotton filaments. Using an electron microscope he discovered that these cotton threads were also covered with fungi and bioplastic coating. A further examination of the coating by an industrial analysis laboratory in San Antonio confirmed his findings and proved that the lustre on the artifacts was organic and not man-made.

He then proceeded to study the textile wrappings on two very different Egyptian mummies, one of a 13-year-old girl which was found during excavations by Sir Flinders Petrie and which now rests in the Manchester Museum in England, the other of an ibis from his own private collection. Both the mummy and the wrappings of the girl were carbon dated by the University of Manchester with disturbing results. The bones were dated to 1510 BCE but the wrappings to 255 CE — a discrepancy of more than 1,700 years. In January 1996 Dr Garza-Valdes discovered that the flax fibres making up the cloth all carried a thick bioplastic coating similar to those he had found on other ancient textiles. Similar tests were performed on the mummified ibis and the presence of a bioplastic coating on the fibres of the bird’s wrapping was also clearly established. When both the ibis mummy and the wrappings were carbon dated the age discrepancy between the wrapping and the bone was 400—700 years.

The samples of the Shroud taken for radio carbon dating in 1988 were cut by Professor Giovanni Riggi Numana who showed small fragments of the original samples to Dr Garza-Valdes as well as pieces of Scotch tape with blood samples taken from the back of the head of the image. Riggi removed a thread from one of the original samples which Dr Garza-Valdes placed under the microscope and immediately discerned bioplastic coating completely covering the fibres.46 He is of the opinion that if the carbon dating tests were to be repeated today, in exactly the same manner as they were conducted in 1988, the results would indicate an even later date because the bacteria have multiplied considerably in the last 12 years and will have skewed the date even further. He has been able to culture the bacteria from the Shroud and prove that they are still living and multiplying organisms, therefore the proportion of organism to thread is increasing. This American scientist has not restricted his investigations to the bioplastic coating alone, however, but has also rigorously examined the pieces of Scotch tape and the so-called ‘blood’ samples taken from the back of the head of the image.

There are already conflicting scientific reports in this respect. The Italian scientist Dr Bauma-Bollone reports that these stains were human blood of the AB group. Drs Adler and Heller, examining the same tapes used by Dr McCrone, supported the statements of their Italian colleague, that these were indeed bloodstains. Dr Garza-Valdes examined the sample given to him by Professor Riggi and proved that it contained human blood of the AB group, which has historically been the most common blood group found amongst Jewish people. He was able to state that the bloodstains were ancient because of the degree of degradation in the small amount of blood he had found on his sample. He also examined everything else that could be found on the samples and Scotch tape provided by Riggi. In the sample taken from the occipital area of the image he found several microscopic tubules of wood which, if the Shroud is authentic, could only have come from the part of the cross that Jesus carried to Golgotha. These tubules proved to be of oak.

Dr Garza-Valdes’ research was published early in 1996 in an article which described his work on the Mayan artefacts and the Shroud of Turin, including the results of the DNA testing of the blood samples. The front cover of the journal carried the facial image of Jesus taken from the Shroud over the caption ‘Secrets of the Shroud — Microbiologists discover how the Shroud of Turin hides its true age’. The article concluded that the Shroud of Turin is many centuries older than its carbon date would suggest. Even Dr Harry Gove of Rochester University in America, the prime inventor of the methodology used to carbon date the Shroud, was quoted as saying ‘This is not a crazy idea’. Thanks to the immaculate research by the American microbiologist the validity of the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin is now highly questionable.

THE HIDDEN MESSAGE OF THE SHROUD

If we first assess the scientific comment in chronological order we start by considering the words of Professor Yves Delage of Paris, who claimed in 1902 that the wounds and anatomical data recorded on the Shroud are so accurate that it seemed impossible to conceive that they could be the work of an artist. The research by Dr Pierre Barbet concluded that the wounds depicted on the relic were genuinely those of a crucified man and these results were confirmed by Professor 1-Iermann Moedder of Cologne, Dr Judica-Cordiglia, professor of forensic medicine, Dr Anthony Sava of Brooklyn, and Dr Robert Bucklin of California. Then we have to include in our deliberations the views of the ethnologist Professor Coon of Harvard, who described the three-dimensional image derived from the face on the Shroud as ‘of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs’. The professional opinion of Dr David Willis and Professor Judica-Cordiglia in respect of the wounds depicted on the Shroud are given further credence by the work of Dr Pierre Barbet, whose experimentation on amputated limbs replicated many of the depicted details which could not possibly have been known by any artist of the medieval era.

The comparative studies of the weave of the cloth indicate that the cotton used derived from the Middle East, not Europe. Dr Max Frei’s analysis of the small particles found on the Shroud indicate that the relic had been exposed to the air in the desert areas near the shores of the Dead Sea. The experiments in technological image processing conducted in 1976 moved Dr John Robinson to state unequivocally that the burden of proof had shifted and that it was now up to those who doubted the Shroud’s authenticity to prove their case rather than the reverse.

We believe that it is now almost certain that the Shroud of Turin is genuine, that it IS the shroud or cloth in which Jesus was wrapped when he was taken down from the cross nearly 2,000 years ago or used to cover him with when he was entombed and resurrected.

The resurrection, in my opinion, is the only means by which such detailed imagery of Jesus could have been transferred to this cloth. There are those in the Rex Deus lineage who claim Jesus was NOT dead when taken down from the cross; and the anointment with oil was to bring him back to health, but it does not account for the details found upon the cloth which could only have come from an intense radiation occurring during the resurrection; and certainly no one would get up and walk away from that ordeal a couple days later.
87 posted on 09/25/2003 1:11:05 PM PDT by Catholicguy (I found this much more interesting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
I found it interesting that Dr. Michael Tite advertised for objects from the 13th Century to "test" the material from that source against the material cut from the Shroud.

I found it interesting the weight of the samples cut from the Shroud differed in the weight of the samples weighed prior to their being tested.

I found it, ah, intersting that, surprise, surprise, Dr. Tite et al declared the Shroud a hoax prior to any professional review ect.

I did find it interesting the Shroud just happened to be dated from the same epoch as the Cope of St. Louis that Dr. Tite had access to to, ah, compare against the material of the Shroud.

88 posted on 09/25/2003 1:17:47 PM PDT by Catholicguy ( Nothing suspicious here, just us scientists doing our scientific thing. Move along....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui; Hermann the Cherusker
Pahuanui



One of the demons of the sea in Tahitian cosmology.
89 posted on 09/25/2003 1:20:05 PM PDT by Catholicguy (I find the s/n interesting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Catholicguy

Some guy who's Catholic.

Any other utter irrelevancies you'd care to bring up?

90 posted on 09/25/2003 1:23:45 PM PDT by Pahuanui (When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
Do a find in forum and see that this latest sola scriptura guy is nothing more than a busy-body Catholic-basher. Shake his misguided heretic dust from your feet.

Kindly point out exactly where and how I have ever 'bashed' Catholics.

Try and dust off your self-righteousness beforehand, it may help you to actually be honest.

91 posted on 09/25/2003 1:31:40 PM PDT by Pahuanui (When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
VERY interesting. Thank you.
92 posted on 09/25/2003 1:34:15 PM PDT by Desdemona (Kempis' Imitation of Christ online! http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/imitation/imitation.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
I don't consider choosing as a s/n a demon of the sea an irrelevancy.

I know you say your choice of a s/n is an irrelevancy, but, I dunno, I'm, ah, skeptical.

93 posted on 09/25/2003 1:34:24 PM PDT by Catholicguy (Say "Hi" to Charlie the tuna for me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
I don't consider choosing as a s/n a demon of the sea an irrelevancy.

Fine.

I know you say your choice of a s/n is an irrelevancy, but, I dunno, I'm, ah, skeptical.

It's actually more of a sea monster, rather than a demon, but it depends on who's reading the mythology, I suppose.

No matter.

94 posted on 09/25/2003 1:41:00 PM PDT by Pahuanui (When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
You're welcome. It does prove helpful in the sense it makes no sense to attempt a dialogue re Holy matters with certain individuals.

He has been successful in hijacking the thread but I supect "one bitten, twice shy" will apply when next he visits us.

All one has to do is read some of his other posts to other freepers to get an indication of what is in store for those that attempt to have an exchange with him.

95 posted on 09/25/2003 1:53:58 PM PDT by Catholicguy (If I desired nettlesome pedantry I'd go back to College and engage my ol' skeptical profs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Dear Catholicguy,

Are you skeptical, or, ah..., "skepdical".

LOL. Sorry. Couldn't resist.


sitetest
96 posted on 09/25/2003 2:10:23 PM PDT by sitetest (I'm short on snappy taglines just now. Could anyone lend me one? I'll gladly repay you on Tuesday.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
He has been successful in hijacking the thread but I supect "one bitten, twice shy" will apply when next he visits us.

Uh, CG, that guy's not shy.
97 posted on 09/25/2003 5:22:28 PM PDT by Desdemona (Kempis' Imitation of Christ online! http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/imitation/imitation.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu
His motivation is obvious, and apparently you are his ideological twin in defending it.

As I had to tell him, please do NOT contact me again. I have NO interest in talking to someone like you.

Is that clear?

98 posted on 09/25/2003 6:59:43 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker ("Vade retros Satana")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
I wasn't talking about you. The other guy is the heretic sola scriptura fool. You are just the childish disrupter troll.

Got it?

Good.

Now go away. The adults are trying to talk.
99 posted on 09/25/2003 8:17:03 PM PDT by Thorondir (The Catholic heart breaks in these vile times, and Satan rejoices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
THat word is a new one for me :)
100 posted on 09/26/2003 4:08:04 AM PDT by Catholicguy (Tradition is the living faith of the dead and traditionalism is the dead faith of the living)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-108 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson