Posted on 03/15/2002 6:57:35 AM PST by OPS4
WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE Evidence of the risen Christ? Special Easter report sheds new light on reputed burial cloths of Jesus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: March 12, 2002 1:08 p.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
The March edition of WND's acclaimed monthly magazine, Whistleblower concludes with an in-depth and stunning report on the Shroud of Turin – the 14-foot-long piece of linen believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.
The most studied artifact in human history, the image of a crucified man mysteriously emblazoned upon it – in a way modern technology has been unable to duplicate – is breathtaking.
Experts – the gurus of science and medicine, the professors of history and art – cannot agree on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Skeptics have tried, unsuccessfully, to recreate the image they insist is a “pious fake.” Most who reject the Shroud put their faith in the carbon-14 testing results that date the linen as from the 14th century. Others respond that the storage conditions over the years and at least one fire forestall any accurate dating using carbon-14 tests.
Believers point to the growing body of scientific and historical evidence that bolster the authenticity of the Shroud.
How, ask Shroud supporters, is it possible that a clever fake shroud could be made in the 1300s as a perfect photographic negative that would not be properly “seen” until modern photography was invented? And what of the incredible fact that the fabric areas on the Shroud where the image is contained are only one fiber deep? No paint or stain would remain on the top surface of the first layer of the fibrils.
And how was a fraudulent relic-monger to know the medical truths that recent medical science has just learned? The medical details of crucifixion are so complex that no modern artist has – and no medieval artist could have – duplicated the precise geometry of the body in extremis.
And most compelling, why has no copy been achieved, given the vast science and technology at our command?
Skeptics have a difficult time, say Shroud proponents, with the mounting scientific and historical corroboration that should force an open-minded investigator to reconsider his objections.
One historian of the Shroud mused, “Their refusal to believe the evidence is itself not a scientific attitude.” The real problem, claim Shroud supporters, is not that an ancient cloth that covered a crucified victim still exists after two thousand years. Said one researcher: “Do you think that if the ancient burial sheet of a sandal maker had been discovered with a scroll that read, ‘here lies Benjamin the Sandal Maker,’ that the scientific world fall all over itself to prove that it could not be Benjamin the Sandal Maker?”
“No. They only compromise their scientific witness because the peculiarities of the wounds of this victim reveal him to be no sandal maker, but the Son of God. If they could, they would get rid of all the physical evidence of Christianity – that Jesus lived, died and was buried. And then Christians would have nothing to believe in. Then, after two thousand years, Christians would finally die out.”
The March edition of Whistleblower is dedicated to the rampant persecution of Christians in today's world. But in honor of Easter, WND's editors included this special section on the Shroud of Turin. Titled "The first Christian martyr," this eye-opening report on the Shroud – as well as the lesser known Sudarium of Oveido, believed to be the face-cloth of the entombed Jesus – begins with the reactions of visitors who view the Shroud in person:
“You look at it and you cannot escape it: His body was horribly, horribly wounded. I choked up,” said one visitor to the millennium Shroud of Turin exhibit.
Another viewer summed up his experience, “I realized that this image is a message that was left for us. The resurrection truly happened. The man they tried to extinguish, lives. And we will too, no matter what the world tries to do to us, we will rise again with Him.”
Whistleblower's special report by Mary Jo Anderson includes five remarkable, high-quality photographs taken by Barrie M. Schwortz, a member of the historic 1978 scientific team that was allowed to examine the Shroud. One of them is the full-length negative of the Shroud that clearly reveals the detailed and deeply gripping image of a crucified man.
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.-- John 14:6
Do i personally think that the Shroud is truly the burial cloth of Jesus? No. Have I rejected the possibility that it truly is? No.
A concrete, irrefutable answer to the question of its authenticity or fraud is not possible at this time and may never be.
Except for the fact that Leonardo da Vinci was a genius.
If you look at the original shroud, you see the faint outline of a tall man with some distinguishable features. Let's assume that the guy who made such a thing would have been able to sell it for $500.
If you look at the negative of the shroud, you see amazing details about the position of the hands, the exact locations of the wounds, etc. (in other words, the shroud is actually the negative and the "negative" of the shroud is the real photograph). If someone in the 13th century truly had the ability to create such a thing, he would have been able to sell it for $500,000 instead of $500.
Logically, it seems that anyone with a profit motive would not have created the shroud as it was seen in the 13th century if he had the ability to create it as it was seen in the 20th century.
Yeah, as opposed to uninformed, crackpot opinions... which are worthless.
This is the most preposterous statement in the post. Who are "they?" Why, the science community, of course.
I have a Ph.D. in a science-related discipline, so I guess that qualifies me as a scientist. I must have missed the class on destruction of the physical evidence of Christianity, because I don't recall studying anything of the kind.
How, ask Shroud supporters, is it possible that a clever fake shroud could be made in the 1300s as a perfect photographic negative that would not be properly “seen” until modern photography was invented?My personal thoughts concerning the shroud notwithstanding, I'm not particularly impressed with this argument. Conceivably, some observant artist in the 14th century could have noticed that if you stare at an object long enough and close your eyes, you "see" a negative of the image you were just observing.
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.