Staveley Choral Society Calorie Free...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
May we treat the Turin Shroud separately, please?
48 Answers
The main theme of naomi's post below was diluted by digressions into the the subject of the Turin Shroud. May we discuss that separately?
The interesting thing about this cloth is you can cast doubt on its alleged mediaeval origins without involving Jesus at all. After all, even if it is the shroud of a crucified man, the Romans crucified countless thousands of people so we could never know which one this belonged to anyway.
There is nothing that can persuade me that the anatomically correct image on the Shroud could have been produced IN NEGATIVE a thousand years ago when it was discovered to be a negative only after photography was invented. The task is simply impossible as modern painters and researchers have shown. To leave no trace of any pigment or dye is another incomprehesible achievement. Also, the image can be properly discerned only from about 15 feet away. Very long paint-brushes?
Finally the last tests done are totallly invalid because there was no 'chain of custody' of the samples. The researchers did not cut them off themsleves but relied on the word of the Vatican officials that there were samples from the Shroud. This made the whole exercise nonsensical from the start and I am puzzled as to why anyone ever agreed to take part in.
Anyway, that's a start...
The interesting thing about this cloth is you can cast doubt on its alleged mediaeval origins without involving Jesus at all. After all, even if it is the shroud of a crucified man, the Romans crucified countless thousands of people so we could never know which one this belonged to anyway.
There is nothing that can persuade me that the anatomically correct image on the Shroud could have been produced IN NEGATIVE a thousand years ago when it was discovered to be a negative only after photography was invented. The task is simply impossible as modern painters and researchers have shown. To leave no trace of any pigment or dye is another incomprehesible achievement. Also, the image can be properly discerned only from about 15 feet away. Very long paint-brushes?
Finally the last tests done are totallly invalid because there was no 'chain of custody' of the samples. The researchers did not cut them off themsleves but relied on the word of the Vatican officials that there were samples from the Shroud. This made the whole exercise nonsensical from the start and I am puzzled as to why anyone ever agreed to take part in.
Anyway, that's a start...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As I said on Naomi's thread, it seems to be front and back images of a mediaeval 'knight' placed head to head on a long strip of cloth, such as could be draped over a horizontal pole as a decorative hanging. The negative image could have been produced accidentaly in many ways by the application and removal of paints or dyes.
Chakka, good idea. Thank you.
Khandro, I hope you don’t mind me bringing some of the points you made on the other thread into this one. As Chakka rightly said, my question was becoming somewhat lost among other issues, so could we carry the Turin Shroud issue on here please?
//why would anyone want to protect a blood-stained piece of linen if it belong to an anonymous person ?//
There are hundreds of so-called Christian relics in existence, some duplicated, but none authenticated. Why would anyone want to preserve those? Because people weep and wail over them – and as we know, in order to preserve its influence, religion depends heavily upon human guilt and sentimentality – and it’s a highly successful tactic.
//….. the Vatican doesn't want it's authenticity to be to be proven scientifically; the entire structure of Christianity is based on the fact that Jesus died on the cross.//
I see what you’re saying – that Jesus didn’t die on the cross – and I agree with you. However, I think the Vatican would love its authenticity to be proven – and not being averse to telling a fib or two here and there, they’d no doubt say that he was in the process of dying when the image was created – and the faithful would believe it and rejoice! However, the Vatican won’t allow sufficient testing because they’re not sure they’ll get the answer they want. If it turned out to be a medieval fake, it wouldn’t look too good.
I’ve seen the test results you’ve talked about, and whilst they may indicate that the cloth dates back to the period in question, they do not confirm the identity of the subject. It could be anyone. Personally, I would love it to be proven – not that I’d believe that man in question was God, or even the Son of God – but I’d like proof that Jesus the man existed. Sadly, we have none.
Chakka, //There is nothing that can persuade me that the anatomically correct image on the Shroud could have been produced IN NEGATIVE a thousand years ago when it was discovered to be a negative only after photography was invented.//
That makes no sense. How could anyone have realised it was a negative before photography was invented? The concept had never arisen.
Khandro, I hope you don’t mind me bringing some of the points you made on the other thread into this one. As Chakka rightly said, my question was becoming somewhat lost among other issues, so could we carry the Turin Shroud issue on here please?
//why would anyone want to protect a blood-stained piece of linen if it belong to an anonymous person ?//
There are hundreds of so-called Christian relics in existence, some duplicated, but none authenticated. Why would anyone want to preserve those? Because people weep and wail over them – and as we know, in order to preserve its influence, religion depends heavily upon human guilt and sentimentality – and it’s a highly successful tactic.
//….. the Vatican doesn't want it's authenticity to be to be proven scientifically; the entire structure of Christianity is based on the fact that Jesus died on the cross.//
I see what you’re saying – that Jesus didn’t die on the cross – and I agree with you. However, I think the Vatican would love its authenticity to be proven – and not being averse to telling a fib or two here and there, they’d no doubt say that he was in the process of dying when the image was created – and the faithful would believe it and rejoice! However, the Vatican won’t allow sufficient testing because they’re not sure they’ll get the answer they want. If it turned out to be a medieval fake, it wouldn’t look too good.
I’ve seen the test results you’ve talked about, and whilst they may indicate that the cloth dates back to the period in question, they do not confirm the identity of the subject. It could be anyone. Personally, I would love it to be proven – not that I’d believe that man in question was God, or even the Son of God – but I’d like proof that Jesus the man existed. Sadly, we have none.
Chakka, //There is nothing that can persuade me that the anatomically correct image on the Shroud could have been produced IN NEGATIVE a thousand years ago when it was discovered to be a negative only after photography was invented.//
That makes no sense. How could anyone have realised it was a negative before photography was invented? The concept had never arisen.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
It seems to me that most people look at this question with a pre-existing agenda. Some desperately want it to be verified, and others don't - and both camps make every effort to prove they're right. It would be more positive if we could step away from any re-conceived notion and simply examine, with a clear eye, whatever evidence tests on this cloth have revealed so far.
As a side issue Once when nursing a man with very severe jaundice (he was almost green with the amount of bile salts in his skin) after a night when he'd had a severe fever his bottom sheet carried an almost perfect image of his body every bone of his spine, his shoulder blades etc were imprinted on the fabric... Does anyone have a definitive answer on what is the substance in the fabric of the shroud only I believe there is a lot of liver disease in the middle east. hepatitis and parasites and wrapping a body with that amount of extra pigmnent in their skin in a warm environment could result in an image transfer
Rowan, a similar event occured in a hoospice in Liverpool some years back:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/mattress.pdf
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/mattress.pdf
I know I'm just pointing out a natural phenomenon that might have been interpreted as miraculous in times gone by...
But this has prompted a thought we don't know the effect of time on bile staining.. suppose it preserved the fabric that it coloured then the surrounding linen fabric would discolour/deteriorate with time mummy wrappings get very dark and they were linen if the fabric was then cleaned it might leave the stained areas in better condition with the image appearing in negative...
But this has prompted a thought we don't know the effect of time on bile staining.. suppose it preserved the fabric that it coloured then the surrounding linen fabric would discolour/deteriorate with time mummy wrappings get very dark and they were linen if the fabric was then cleaned it might leave the stained areas in better condition with the image appearing in negative...
IMO the shroud is probably genuine in as much as some presently unknown reaction may have resulted in an image of the guy underneath it, at some point. I think a deliberate fake would be too easy to spot and explain. As for who the image is of, well that must be more debatable. Would have been easy enough to assume a miracle and so claim it is Jesus, regardless as to who is really was.
Sophisticates may scoff at relics such as the Holy Prepuce, pieces of the True Cross, or The Shroud.
But they did, and do, serve a purpose. For people of simple faith they provided tangible evidence. If their provenance is doubtful, so what?
Which of us hasn't, at one time or another, told a white lie?
But they did, and do, serve a purpose. For people of simple faith they provided tangible evidence. If their provenance is doubtful, so what?
Which of us hasn't, at one time or another, told a white lie?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.