Shroud of Turin stirs new controversy

[Globalnomad]

Some people chase their fantasies and will believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of the facts.

Who needs facts when we have our wild imaginations!

http://www.livescience.com/history/050318_reason_turin_shroud.html

The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.
No examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in any case.
The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when it turned up in the possession of a man who never explained how he had obtained the most holy relic in Christendom.
The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, with "pretended miracles" being staged to defraud credulous pilgrims.
The bishop's report also stated that a predecessor had "discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested to by the artist who had painted it" (emphasis added).
Although, as St. Augustine lamented in the fourth-century, Jesus' appearance was completely unknown, the shroud image follows the conventional artistic likeness.
The physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art), and there is a lack of wraparound distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs.
The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture-like. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. Also dried "blood" (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the cloth. The blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age.
In 1973, internationally known forensic serologists subjected the "blood" to a battery of tests--for chemical properties, species, blood grouping, etc. The substance lacked the properties of blood, instead containing suspicious, reddish granules.
Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the "blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.

Let's get back to the basics. Just the most important ones.

Interest in the Shroud exploded at the end of the 19th century when it was photographed for the first time, and it was discovered that the image is a photographic negative - a concept that was unknown to mankind until the invention of photography. It is quite impossible for the image to have been painted by someone who was not familiar with that concept - and even then, he would have had to actually create such a negative and copy it - it is not possible to do it "out of your head".

And the image was NOT, to the best of our scientific knowledge, painted at all. No pigment has been found on the cloth. The outline of the body is more like light scorch marks.

That it is the "conventional likeness of Christ" is obvious, if it had existed and been known during all those centuries. It would not be the Shroud that follows the "conventional likeness of Christ", but the "conventional likeness of Christ" would have arisen from the Shroud.

I think that the article you quote is worse pseudo-science than that of the "Rorschach-like-image" proponents that it quotes. It is pseudo-science because it chooses to address (and deride) only the weakest arguments of the pro-Shrouders, while keeping quiet on the biggest points, those I have just mentioned. It is simply unimaginable that the Shroud could have been artificially produced during the Middle Ages, and the scientific evidence is that it was not painted at all. A medieval document that says that it was, is no proof vis-a-vis the logical impossibility of the thing.

P.S. I am a skeptical liberal Catholic steeped in scientific methods since 25 years; generally dismissive about miracles and relics.

 

[seeker777]

I guess I just can't believe people fall for all that mumbo jumbo.

 

[AMDG]

The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.
No examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in any case.
The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when it turned up in the possession of a man who never explained how he had obtained the most holy relic in Christendom.
The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, with "pretended miracles" being staged to defraud credulous pilgrims.
The bishop's report also stated that a predecessor had "discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested to by the artist who had painted it" (emphasis added).
Although, as St. Augustine lamented in the fourth-century, Jesus' appearance was completely unknown, the shroud image follows the conventional artistic likeness.
The physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art), and there is a lack of wraparound distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs.
The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture-like. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. Also dried "blood" (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the cloth. The blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age.

You might want to read http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm. The section is the Sudarium of Oviedo. The Sudarium has been tested and has been determined authentic. It also agrees with some of the pollen and the stains on the Shroud--the Sudarium being the napkin placed over the head and the Shroud of Turin being the linen burial shroud. The history of the Sudarium is also complete. Quite interesting--of course the Sudarium is not as dramatic as the Shroud, but it looks like it can go far in validating the Shroud. IMO it's too bad that there isn't more "press" about it.

 

[Globalnomad]

I guess I just can't believe people fall for all that mumbo jumbo.

You want to be scientific, let's be scientific.

1) What do you mean by mumbo-jumbo? This is a half-rhetoric question, since I can safely assume that your definition of "mumbo-jumbo" is the usual one: an illogical, tendentious, unintelligent statement or pseudofact, by which its originator tries to sway people to take up some opinion or ideology.

2) What, exactly, qualifies as "mumbo-jumbo" in what I have said?

 

[seeker777]

39 Reasons why the Shroud is a fraud.

If your not afraid to challenge your faith, click the link, read, learn.

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html#heading-1e

35) [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] The expression is strangely composed for someone tortured to death, and the hands are neatly folded across the genitals. A real body lying limp could not have this posture. Your arms are not long enough to cross your hands over your pelvis while keeping your shoulders on the floor. To achieve this the body can not lie flat, yet Jewish burial tradition did not dictate that a body must be hunched up so as to cover the genitals before wrapping in the shroud. The claim that rigor mortis had set in and thus caused the legs not to be straight is ridiculous, since the arms should also be contracted, plus the timing is all wrong for rigor mortis. The most obvious answer is that the artist knew the image would be displayed, and didn't want to offend his audience or have to guess what the genitals of Jesus would look like. It is also suspicious that Jesus is depicted assuming a pose that medievalists refer to as the venus pudica pose. This pose is associated with nudity and loss of innocence.[/FONT]

 

[seeker777]

And the image was NOT, to the best of our scientific knowledge, painted at all. No pigment has been found on the cloth. The outline of the body is more like light scorch marks.

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] It is true that there are higher concentrations of iron and protein, as are found in blood, in the areas of the "bloodstains". But iron and proteins are also found in pigments. Iron oxide is often used as a red colouring. Iron oxide fades to yellow when dehydrated so much of the iron oxide has now faded to yellow.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] There is also significant amounts of mercuric sulphide, which is a well-known pigment called vermilion - a red pigment.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] There is no trace of sodium, chlorine or potassium, which blood contains in high amounts and which would have been present if the stains were truly blood.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] Porphyrins are present in the area of the [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] "bloodstains". These are found in blood, but they are also found in other animal and plant products, such as those used to make artists' pigments.[/FONT]

 

[seeker777]

And the image was NOT, to the best of our scientific knowledge, painted at all. No pigment has been found on the cloth. The outline of the body is more like light scorch marks.

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] There is no blood on the Shroud: all the forensic tests specific for blood have failed (although some investigators unrigorously concluded that blood was present after conducting numerous forensic tests for iron, protein, albumin, etc., which came up positive because these materials are indeed on the Shroud in the form of tempera paint).
[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] "Blind" microscopic analyses show significant traces of paint pigment on image areas, thus proving the pigment red ocher was a component of the image. The "blood" was actually tempera paint. Real blood does not contain red ochre, vermilion, and alizarin red pigments.

[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the "blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.
[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The "bloodstains" are redder than other parts of the image. Bloodstains do not remain red over time. They turn black or dark brown. These "bloodstains" also have a chemical composition matching paint which was used in medieval times.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]It is true that there are higher concentrations of iron and protein, as are found in blood, in the areas of the "bloodstains". But iron and proteins are also found in pigments. Iron oxide is often used as a red colouring. Iron oxide fades to yellow when dehydrated so much of the iron oxide has now faded to yellow.
[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]There is also significant amounts of mercuric sulphide, which is a well-known pigment called vermilion - a red pigment.

[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]There is no trace of sodium, chlorine or potassium, which blood contains in high amounts and which would have been present if the stains were truly blood.

[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Porphyrins are present in the area of the [/FONT]"bloodstains". These are found in blood, but they are also found in other animal and plant products, such as those used to make artists' pigments. [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
Claims that the blood in the "bloodstains" is type AB "are nonsense", according to Ray Rogers, a retired research chemist and member of STURP (Rogers 2004).
[/FONT]

 

[AMDG]

Since you all seem to be interested in scientific articles concerning the Shroud, thought you'd be interested in this:

http://www.shroud.com/papers.htm

There's a list of papers concerning test results conducted, answers and questions, history, pollen results, the weave of the cloth, and more. List is quite long I'm afraid, but it is interesting.

 

[Michie]

My whole point has been concerning the shroud is that most people are interested in how it came to be. How old is it, etc.

Either scenerio whether it be real where a real man was shrouded inside it or some other means, it's still an artifact.

The depictions of inspiration & meditation in Churches are not authentic in the ways they are presented. What Jesus & Mary looked like, what have you.

David is uncircumcised, Moses has horns, there is risen bread in the depiction of the last supper. Mary is dressed in blue which was not possible for a poor woman of her station in life.

But they are still presented for edification & meditation of the faithful.

The shroud has been used basically the same way within the Church.

But there are still many of us that are interested in the scientific aspect of it.

Carbon dating was taken on replaced pieces of cloth so it was determined a medieval fake until that boo boo was discovered.

So the research is still warranted if only to find out how it was done.

Thats my interest.

Bonus it helps some reflect on the passion.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Not a fan of the Rosary or the Way of the Cross, I see.

Not if they are a distraction from prayer, rather than actual prayer of the heart. One can approach the Rosary and the Way of the Cross as one would approach Lectio, it needn't be all full of our selves and our intellect.

Doesn't it just stink that there are Eastern Rites in union with Rome...it makes it so hard to just blow off their spirituality as completely worthless, which would be much more convenient.

LOL! My objections seem kind of without vigor in the face of our friend seeker777.

 

[LilLamb219]

Mod Hat On

Let's keep things nice in here! If it persists in getting ugly the thread will be closed.

Mod Hat Off

 

[JoabAnias]

I guess I just can't believe people fall for all that mumbo jumbo.

Not so sure mumbo jumbo is a scientific term.

Or that the opinion you seem convinced of is entirely scientific but taken from biased sources.

Especially since I see no examination of evidence but only refutation of authenticity which naturally implies prejudice.

To employ a truly scientific principle first requires an open and impartial mind.

So far no refutations can explain:

In 1898 when the Shroud was solemnly exposed, permission was given to photograph it and a sensation was caused by the discovery that the image upon the linen was apparently a negative -- in other words that the photographic negative taken from this offered a more recognizable picture of a human face than the cloth itself or any positive print. In the photographic negative, the lights and the shadows were natural, in the linen or the print, they were inverted. Three years afterwards, Dr. Paul Vignon read a remarkable paper before the Académie des Sciences in which he maintained that the impression upon the Shroud was a "vaporigraph" caused by the ammoniacal emanations radiating from the surface of Christ's body after so violent a death. Such vapours, as he professed to have proved experimentally, were capable of producing a deep reddish brown stain, varying in intensity with the distance, upon a cloth impregnated with oil and aloes. The image upon the Shroud was therefore a natural negative and as such completely beyond the comprehension or the skill of any medieval forger. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm

Yet there is a big problem with current testing as shown here

As all is not kosher in carbon dating land:
A Carbon Dating Catastrophe with the Shroud of Turin

You may want to go back to the drawing board a bit before making such vehament conclusions. Just in case.

 

[JoabAnias]

NOW WE KNOW: [URL="http://www.factsplusfacts.com/carbon-14-now-we-know.htm"]The Carbon 14 Sample was Invalid; thus the tests in 1988 were invalid[/URL]. This is reported in the peer-reviewed scientific journalThermochimica Acta See: Volume 425 pp. 189-194).

More interesting links with FACTS.

Shroud of Turin Story Guide to the Facts
NEW 2005 SHROUD OF TURIN BROUHAHA: SCIENCE vs PAPAL CUSTODIAN

 

[seeker777]

http://www.shadowshroud.com/images.htm

How could someone have forged it? Here is how a modern day man used a picture painted on glass, a piece of linen draped over it and the entire thing exposed to the sun for 10 days.

I'm not trying to get anyone to stop believing in God, just to actually consider that there are actually plausible ( and simple) explanations, for seemingly miraculous events.

The bottom line, if you want to see a miracle, you will see a miracle, no matter how much evidence contradicts it.

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Oil paint on glass, produced by David Beauchamp in roughly forty-five minutes while watching stand-up comedy. This painting was the most successful and was used to produce three different images on linen.

[/FONT] [FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
The first linen image created by Beauchamp's window, exposed for ten days generally parallel to the sun's path. The linen bears a negative image, dark on light (left), which becomes positive, light on dark (right), in a true photonegative.

[/FONT]

 

[JoabAnias]

http://www.shadowshroud.com/images.htm

How could someone have forged it? Here is how a modern day man used a picture painted on glass, a piece of linen draped over it and the entire thing exposed to the sun for 10 days.

I'm not trying to get anyone to stop believing in God, just to actually consider that there are actually plausible ( and simple) explanations, for seemingly miraculous events.

The bottom line, if you want to see a miracle, you will see a miracle, no matter how much evidence contradicts it.

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Oil paint on glass, produced by David Beauchamp in roughly forty-five minutes while watching stand-up comedy. This painting was the most successful and was used to produce three different images on linen.[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The first linen image created by Beauchamp's window, exposed for ten days generally parallel to the sun's path. The linen bears a negative image, dark on light (left), which becomes positive, light on dark (right), in a true photonegative.[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

Now put yourself back in the 14th century. Can you show such techniques were known, used then or would have even been considered and especially on the full length scale were dealing with?

When weighing both the pro's and cons, which I have done, I still can make no definite conclusions.

I find both forgery and authenticity plausible. Of course there are those who want it to be real and then those who do not and those biases make it that much more difficult to discern the facts from the propaganda.

Its obvious much of the negative evidence is biased and positive belief could be superstitious which doesn't help matters much.

Showing how it could have been forged with 20th century technology does not mean it in fact was in the 14th.

Still inconclusive for me. Yet really its value both religiously or scientifically isn't in its authenticity or not but in its mystery imho by showing the significance of Faith and Reason not being contradictory as both are deepened in the exploration process.

I do like this source though for impartiality and scientific critique:
Forensic Science CSI to Explain the Pictures of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin
If We Wish to Think These Are Fake Pictures of Jesus

 

[kisstheson]

Obviously not understanding the difference between using holy images and conjuring up one's mental images.

To focus on and conjur up mental images is to be distracted by our intellect during prayer; it disallows one from truly praying from the heart. If our imagination is active it precludes us from being still and knowing that He is God.

Or so says our Eastern brethren, our other lung.

When I as an artist paint an image of Christ, and when I did my illustrations of the fourteen stations of the cross, I did my work as a prayer and meditation. There are pictures and statues in just about every catholic church. They are used to direct attention to God. BOTH ways of prayer are valid, using images and not using them. I have seen a show on EWTN called "praying with icons." In fact the EO brethren believe that their icons are the true face of Christ and if you do some reserch guess what they base their paintings on...The Shroud of Turin.

 

[kisstheson]

Not if they are a distraction from prayer, rather than actual prayer of the heart. One can approach the Rosary and the Way of the Cross as one would approach Lectio, it needn't be all full of our selves and our intellect.

Doesn't it just stink that there are Eastern Rites in union with Rome...it makes it so hard to just blow off their spirituality as completely worthless, which would be much more convenient.

LOL! My objections seem kind of without vigor in the face of our friend seeker777.

What can't both forms of prayer be valid?

 

[JoabAnias]

What can't both forms of prayer be valid?

Of course they can, all drawing into contemplative prayer. Its taught that prayer finds validity on many levels.

 

[Caedmon]

History.

Education that comes from studying any artifact.

Thats like saying what difference does it make if the dead sea scrolls are real or any artifact that we use to display in a museum to understand the past. Authenticity promotes understanding. Fakes do not.

Some may use it as edification for faith regardless but there are a great number of people that would like to definitively unravel the mystery of the shroud one way or the other.

*shrug*

I disagree. The Shroud of Turin can, indeed, be studied as an artifact, regardless of when it was created. However, the Shroud of Turin is not being used for that purpose. In my opinion, most of the people interested in the Shroud of Turin aren't primarily concerned about it as an artifact. They are interested in the Shroud of Turin as an object that proves Jesus' resurrection and by extension the Christian faith. But it really doesn't matter whether it's a fake.

If it turns out to be a medieval forgery, Christianity isn't harmed, it isn't disproved, and those who are religiously devoted to it won't be diminished (consider devotion to splinters of the "True Cross"). The only thing that will be hurt is the pride of those who put all their chips on it being proof of Jesus' resurrection. On the other hand, if it proves to be genuine, none of the opponents will be discouraged from their position or automatically convert. I don't have a problem with it being investigated. I just think people are using it for the wrong reasons, investing too much emotional energy in a pursuit that very well could prove a disappointment.

On that note, I have a question. How would these people react if it was found out that the Shroud is a fake? What would be their reaction be, "Hmph, I guess we were wrong"? Would they accept the truth for what it was?

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

When I as an artist paint an image of Christ, and when I did my illustrations of the fourteen stations of the cross, I did my work as a prayer and meditation. There are pictures and statues in just about every catholic church. They are used to direct attention to God. BOTH ways of prayer are valid, using images and not using them. I have seen a show on EWTN called "praying with icons." In fact the EO brethren believe that their icons are the true face of Christ and if you do some reserch guess what they base their paintings on...The Shroud of Turin.

Once again- not getting the nuance of the difference between Holy Images and conjuring up one's imaginings while at prayer. For the Chrisitan, all things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial. We are all called to mystical, infused unitive prayer--that isn't something reserved for a select few Saints. We can only grow so far in our prayer life if we insist on praying with our intellect.