• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Shroud Of Turin

lopaka

lopaka

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
2,011
Howdy, folk-saw a program on the television last night about one of my favorite unsolved mysteries/fortean phenomem: The Shroud of Turin. Without proclaiming on what it actually might be, the thing is freaking weird. High weirdness, for that matter. Any opinions/hypotheses/theroies? Full disclosure, on my end: I am a fairly devout Christian in a mainline/liberal /Protsestant US deomination. My faith will not depend on the debunking of this particular artifact. but wht the heck is it? Waiting for your opionions-Lopaka
 
I remember reading about the shroud a couple of years ago and they sad it was a fake but was done by an artist (can't remember which) a few hundered years ago and that that was where the modern impression of what a god would look like with the beard and long hair
cas,
 
I have seen on a few television programmes and in magazines that some believe it to actually be a early "photograph" of Leonardo Di Vinci (sp?).

luce
 
The work you refer to is by Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince. I don't hold much support for their conclusions, personally (and I have at least spoken to them in person). Far more interesting are those lines of research not dependent on sensationalist-distance commentary, but the work of people with hands-on experience. Particularly interesting in recent years is the work that has been carried out on the fibres, specifically the bio-plastic coating on them that is bacterially derived. I'll dig some references out ASAP, so I'm relying on memory for the moment, but a micro-biologist believes this laid-down product of bacterial action (that gives rise to the plastic-like sheen to the fibres, as a result of centuries of intermittent handling) is actually a coating - a biological contaminant - that has skewed the radiocarbon dates upward toward the 15th Century. Other samples - e.g. with Egyptian mummies have revealed such paradoxes as a mummy that, by current techniques, is younger than it's much handled wrappings!
He is pressing for further allowance of a sample to strip of its bio-plastic coat, which will then be carbon-dated...and which he feels may push the date back to 1st Century times, in accordance with the pollen and textile data found on the shroud.
On top of that is the anatomically accurate evidence of a man who had undergone crucifixion in an identical manner to Jesus Christ, including the much-overlooked fact of nailing through the wrist rather than the unbound flesh of the hands.
DNA has been extracted from the disputed 'blood' areas, suggesting they are derived from blood, not paint pigment. I don't recall the evidence, but this data apparently confirms it belonged to a human male who had undergone extreme physical trauma.
Is it the image of Jesus Christ? Well, it could be of someone from the same period (or a little later) who underwent a similar death, including a crown of thorns and wound to his side. But possibly the odds are stacked more against this than the former. And more and more, the possibility of the former increases rather than diminishes with scientific investigation.
I await the latest work with interest and anticipation. What it all means in the final analysis is up to the individual. But if the science and the methodology check out, then it gives pause for thought to all, particularly to those who argue that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist at all.
 
Synchronicity strikes again! A friend in the US (not a Fortean) emailed me about the program that Iopaka saw. As it happened, I had just finished reading "The Second Messiah" (A Google search will turn up reviews, etc.) which covers the shroud, Templars, Freemasons, Rosslyn Chapel, Arthurian lore, etc, etc.

And this is the second thread today I've had cause to mention this book, which I highly recommend.

The basic premise is that the Templars derived from families descended from survivors of the Jerusalem Church (which did not believe Jesus was divine, unlike most of Christianity today, which derives from the teachings of Paul, who never even met Jesus).

When the French King swooped on the Templars, their leader was cruelly tortured (including flogging and crucifixion), but then left to recover wrapped in a shroud in a grotesque imitation of a Templar ritual. He eventually recovered, the shroud was washed and put away. Generations later it was discovered that his image was imprinted on the shroud, and the owner put it on show to earn some money. (This post greatly condenses the detailed evidence the authors amassed.)

So the shroud is medieval, in accordance with the carbon-dating, according to this book. Regular Christians won't like it because it denies Jesus' divinity, and disconnects him from the shroud. But to little ol' agnostic me (who has read widely on the subjects mentioned here) this book stitches together the most consistent story I've ever read out of all the little fragments of historical evidence we have left.

The other thread I mentioned this on is about the Oak Island Money Pit, where (some say) the Templar treasure ended up.
 
No writings of classical antiquity are as well attested bibliographically than the writings of Paul. Therein he details his meeting with Jesus Christ. His writings, along with other early Christian works, firmly attest the belief of the Jeruslaem church in the divinity of Christ. I am not aware of any writings of that period which tell us otherwise.
To say that modern Christianity derives mostly from the writings of Paul is to ignore the wealth of influence from other early Christian writings in addition to Christian tradition. Christian belief derives from these as a whole and not just the writings of Paul.
Interesting theory about the Turin Shroud though. An intriguing item, the shroud, although patently not one which forms the basis for any Christian belief.
CSICOP have a good article on the Oak Island Money Pit in which the Templar/Freemason link is explored in terms of symbolism. Very interesting, and discussed on the Oak Island thread elsewhere on this board
 
When it comes to religion there seems to be an infinity of viewpoints. And it's the viewpoints that matter, because alleged facts are filtered through them. People can agree that a particular document says this, that or the other (give or take the odd quibble about the translations of particular words) but totally disagree about the interpretation of it, and how it fitted in with the beliefs of the times it was written.

I believe that modern Christianity filters all the remaining documents (the Church itself destroyed much that it did not agree with) from the first 3 or 4 centuries, seeing them through Pauline spectacles.

In fact I had the same idea way back in my teens, when I was a fervent, bible bashing Christian myself. Just carefully reading the bible, especially the NT, brought me to this view. It seemed to me then that Paul had hijacked the new Christian sect as a way of spreading Judaism through the Roman world - he was a roman citizen himself.

Now I am an agnostic, and have wider views, but my ideas on Paul are still much the same. So I have changed my views on religion once - could I change back? I doubt it, unless someone produces new and compelling evidence. All the old evidence has been so thoroughly chewed over during the last 2K years that to me it has lost all flavour of conviction, if not of interest.

I could debate endless details of this and related subjects, but I know that where religion is concerned there is rarely a reconciliation between opposing viewpoints, so I think I'll let go of the subject now! (But no doubt some of you will try to tempt me out by trailing contentious and juicy bits of bait past my lair!)
 
Wasn't the Pauline doctrine adopted at the suggestion of Constantine?

8¬)
 
A couple of points... one, I remember hearing rumours than Leanardo Da Vinci was linked to a sect worshipping John The Baptist. Analysis of the shroud image suggests the the head of the man pictured is actually decapitated - interesting link. Either the head was seperate, or it was "imprinted" seperately to the body.

And yes, Constantine (and his elderly Lara Croft of a Mother) was integeral to the way that Christianity was spread... I forget the dates but I believe it was the 4th century, and it was after that that the religion spread globally. It was his mother's sacred artifact hunting that uncovered the purported true cross that was burnt in battle against the Turks during the crusades.
 
From memory, the image of Christ the Divine was a better method of crowd control...

It seems possible that LdaV was a Johanite, but it think the jury is still out. There is some pretty 'heretical' imagery, but that could just be Leonado satirising his rich clientelle. Picknet and Prince commit a lot of paper to the idea. I have no idea how much of an axe to grind they have, but their work *is* well referenced, unlike a lot of work in the area of the shroud. Some of their aguments are hard to ignore, since they are based just looking at the image:-

The head does seem to be detached from the body

The type of distortion of the image is *not* consistant with the cloth being draped over the subect, but is cocnsistant with the cloth laid flat and parallel with the subject, light rays falling almost at 90degrees to the surface (my early church may be rusty, but I'm not bad at optics :D )

The rest of their argument may merely be seductive.... but it does raise some of the right questions

8¬)
 
The tests done in 1978 (before the later radio carbon tests) indicated that all aspects of the shroud (type of material, weave, etc) were consistent with the near eastern area of the early 1st century AD. Grains of pollen from plants of that area were also found.

I don't know what the shroud is myself, but, as well as what I've read about it, my instinct (for what that's worth) tells me it's not a painting nor is it an early 'photo' but has been created by some as yet unknown process.

But, as Hermes, so rightly says, even if further tests prove that it dates back to Jesus's time, we have no way of proving that it was his shroud.

Carole
 
Hmmm, I thought that the pollen found came from later species that were introduced from the Far East (Circa 15th C), thereby proving that it was from that era and not from the time of Christ.

That idea was countered by some parties as they claimed that there was contamination of the shroud at that time, and that the shroud was indeed genuine, a textbook case, and indeed an early case of needing proper handling of artefacts.

I agree with Harl that (working with computer games, and the technique of "skins" folding round a head) the image is completely wrong, you get distortion on the side of the head with the front being relatively squished up. Imagine taking the skin off your head, starting by a cut down the back of your head. Laying it down, you would see: -

| back - side - front - side - back |

With the portion near the top of the head giving a pyramidal shape; most certainly not just an image of just the front portion, regardless of how the head was wrapped.

Personally, I find the idea of early photography just as intriguing as the shroud itself :)
 
At the very least I'd expect more distortion, even if it was laid flat on top - it must've been stretched tight to recieve an image like that. The skinning analogy is actually very useful... if only they'd had Quake 3 in the 70's when the research was done :)

Also, to stretch it tight would require pulling the cloth over the crown of the head, which IS'NT on the shroud...

I've seen a 3D image constructed from the shroud image, but maybe someone could try and replicate the image in a similar way... that is make an image from a 3D model (and no, I dunno where to start... can't think how you'd do it in MAX, and I'm more a PhotoShop man anyway... Might get to work on the Charles Fort skin right now...)
 
There is some distortion of proportion on the legs which looks *like* (I'm not saying it is) forshortening of the type you get with cheap wide angle (28 mm and less) lenses, when the ogject is at the 'edge' of the lens. Also, as P&P point out, ther also appears to be something that looks like lens flare in the face area...

Apropos of little, how did anyone get dna from an air dried blood sample, over 1500 years old, let alone the near 2000 year mark? Can we have some documentation and/or clarification on that please? Im not saying that they couldn't do it, I'd just like to see a primary source... Thanks :)

8¬)
 
rynner said:
I believe that modern Christianity filters all the remaining documents (the Church itself destroyed much that it did not agree with) from the first 3 or 4 centuries, seeing them through Pauline spectacles.
Click to expand...

This is a modern myth. If the church really destroyed "much that it did not agree with", then I would not treasure my Apocryphal New Testament which comprises the heretical and/or non-canonical "Mary hath Chapters", Protovangelion, I & II Infancy, Christ and Abargus, The Apostles Creed, Laodiceans, Paul and Seneca, Paul and Thecla, I & II Clement, The Epistle of Barnabas (not the Italian medieval 'gospel') "Ephesians hath Chapters", Magnesians, Trallians, Ignatius, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, Polycarp, Phillipians, I, II & III Hermas and the Gospel of Thomas.
 
harlequin said:
Wasn't the Pauline doctrine adopted at the suggestion of Constantine?
Click to expand...
Effectively, yes.
Constantine (274-337) recognised Christianity as one of Rome's official religions in 313. But, fed up with bickering between rival sects, he forced them to come together to hammer out an agreed doctrine at the Council of Nicaea, 325. This meeting created the concept of the Trinity (which has no origin in scripture), and condemned Arianism as a heresy (the Arians did not believe in the complete divinity of Jesus). Nevertheless Arian ideas occasionally resurfaced throughout history.

Thus modern Christianity is the product of decisions made by a committee under political pressure. History is part of the reason I am no longer a Christian.

As for the Apocrypha, these are merely the bits that weren't considered quite 'proper' to include in the canon, but many other writings, such as the Gnostic works found hidden in Egypt this century, were supressed whenever possible. The Church only believes in its own version of 'the truth'.

(Curses, you lured me out again!)

NB: "The Second Messiah" gives references for most of its findings.
 
rynner said:
As for the Apocrypha, these are merely the bits that weren't considered quite 'proper' to include in the canon, but many other writings, such as the Gnostic works found hidden in Egypt this century, were supressed whenever possible. The Church only believes in its own version of 'the truth'.
Click to expand...

Of the gnostic works found hidden in Egypt, perhaps the most important is the The Gospel of Thomas, which purports to be a secret account of the original words of Jesus, and on which the gospel in the film 'Stigmata' is based.
The early church would hardly have wanted to suppress these works, and if they did it was through ultraorthodoxy rather than any attempts to hide any great secret. Within The Gospel of Thomas we find little that would be considered heretical. Indeed there is what would be termed 'Pauline' phraseology, and many echoes of the canoncial gospels. There is even a Trinitarian formula. Thomas is an interesting document of significant value to textual analysts. However, since it has little in the way of documentary attestation, is clearly not what it claims to be and has suffered from adulteration. Its supposed source is actually a reconstruction based primarily on the canoncial gospels, so whatever claims to authenticity it can make is dependent on these. Consequently, there is no valid intellectual argument for citing Thomas as grounds for rejecting any material from the canoncial gospels.

As for the early Christians destroying scriptures, if indeed they did it is a wonder they had anything left to destroy considering the ten persecutions they endured prior to the rule of Constantine. The most thorough of these persecutions was that of Diocletian, who in 303AD ordered his troops "to tear down the churches to the foundations and to destroy the Sacred Scriptures by fire".

Many still seem bitter that he did not succeed.
 
There is extensive evidence of heavy editing;

From memory (oh the horror of having the bulk of one's library in boxes in the attic...)

There is an version of John which ends at the crucifixtion, also the alternate version of Mark, detailing what appears to be an initiation into an inner circle. Both antedate the versions handed down as 'gospel'. So which is right? There is also evidence that some gnostic content, specifically around the non-divinity of the christ figure.


NOTE: This is NOT intended as a criticism or insult :)

What is ultra-orthodoxy if not systematic supression? The Cathars were a victim of this sort of persecution, as were muslims and jews who co-habited, peacfully, I may add, the Cathar regions. I know this was a later date, but it illustrates the 'orthodox' mind set... There was also a lot of 'rationalisation' during the unification of the Catholic church with the largely Gnostic influenced Celtic Church (Synod of Whitby, I forget the date)

8¬)
 
On a slightly more irrelevant outlook. :

There was a 'History's Mysteries' program on the Discovery Channel that displayed a 3d image of the face on the shroud.
It was the spitting image of Hulk Hogan.
I remember watching Hulk always telling kids to eat their vitamins and say their prayers, maybe he's the second coming.

Just think, Hulk Hogan the new messiah and his disciple Brutus 'The Barber' Beefcake.
 
He's called Hollywood Hogan now... I would imagine he got tired of paying Marvel (tm) comics for the use of the name 'Hulk(tm)

8¬)

Sorry about being offthread, but I couldn't resist...
 
On that whole edited gospels thing, there is extensive evidence of such both from extant ancient fragments of the canonical gospels and from analysis of the canonical works.

For example, the whole importance of Mary in the Catholic church is an invention that originated in Ephesus. Based on the popular worship of Artemis or Diana, which it supplanted, Marian worship was later justified by quotations in the bible that were "found" by the bishop of Ephesus. They refer to the Annunciation where the angel says "blessed art thou among women" and later when Elizabeth hears that Mary is preganant and says to her " blessed is the fruit of thy womb". Both of these were later adopted into the Ave Maria but both are spurious and do not tally with earlier versions of the gospels. This is simply one example, there are many.

As correctly pointed out earlier there are numerous instances where doctrine was adopted simply because a large faction believed it and the whole church adopted it to avoid schism. These episodes are responsible for the trinity, Jesus ultimate divinity, Marian Worship, the Imaculate Conception and the Ascention. For example the Arian heresy is matched by another where an important theologian held that Mary should not be called the Mother of god. It went to vote and despite a compelling case he was defeated and excommunicated and the title was awarded and made dogma.

In truth the christianity we know today is the result of several influences. But the main ones would be first of all, the Essen doctinres which wewre the basis of the ministry of John the Baptist. Secondly the divergent teachings of Jesus himself saying that god was for all, including the gentiles. Later then was Pauline influence which was mainly Hellenic and took further elements of Stoicism in which environment Paul was raised. Later then further Hellenic influence came from Ephesus and was finally integrated with the other major contemporaneous faction in Rome. Much of the Hellenic influence was retained but the ROman faction became dominant and by the sixth and seventh centuries Christianity was mouled as we know it today. As it met varying influences it absorbed them and adapted. History was edited and certain texts that did not fit with doctrine were "lost".

However to its great credit, the legendary Secret Vatican Library has been opened. Apparently in the 80s the peope said the church had nothing to hide and quietly made avaiable the items in this archive. The number of texts and items supposedly numbers in the hundreds of thousands. A small staff is currently cataloging and indexing the items. Notable among them are Galileo's forced confession.
 
harlequin said:
He's called Hollywood Hogan now... I would imagine he got tired of paying Marvel (tm) comics for the use of the name 'Hulk(tm)

8¬)

Sorry about being offthread, but I couldn't resist...
Click to expand...
Thought he went back to Hulk when he started wearing yellow again.
 
RD, I stand corrected, my WCW knowledge is out of date... :D

LD,

Is there still the proscribed book list?



8¬)
 
I'm having trouble keeping up with you guys!:)
(Not in terms of finding answers - I'm merely reiterating widely accepted academic facts; I mean timewise!)

Some cards on the table firstly. I am not trying to convert anyone to anything, I just have a passion for historical fact. I am not religious and do not attend any church. I am a non-practicing Roman Catholic.

Originally posted by rynner
...the Council of Nicaea, 325. This meeting created the concept of the Trinity (which has no origin in scripture), and condemned Arianism as a heresy (the Arians did not believe in the complete divinity of Jesus).
Click to expand...



Many evangelical Christians read the biblical books as if they were 19th/20th century history books. How they find any evidence for the divinity of Christ in this way is beyond me and explains why many desert their faith. From ignorance they end up resorting to spurious passages like the Vulgate insertion in 1 John 5:7.

However, a scholarly appraisal of these texts, i.e., reading them within their cultural context, yields a much richer insight.
The faith of the Jerusalem church had its origins in three sources - the paschal event, the gospel facts and the texts of the Old Testament.
"Raised to the right hand of God", Jesus was seen to possess "glory" and "power", "might", dominion", and "sovereignty". In terms of first century Judaism these attributes are strictly divine.

Our sources, fragments of prayers and teachings, do not give the full picture of this theological development. The first generation of Christians was more concerned with living the faith than worrying about how to translate it into neat themes written in faultless theological language. Were the later church to corrupt these writings, don't you think they could've done a better job than the pathetic attempt of a Latin insertion in 1 John 5:7!?!?

Most of the assertions of Christ's divinity in early Christian writings are not apparent to 20th century minds used to didactic prose and linear thinking. To the first century Jew they leapt off the page. I could write a book in this respect - indeed many have. One example is the hymn which found its way into Paul's letter to the Philippians (2:6-11). To the 20th century mind it's just not explicit enough (few things are!), but any first century Jew would find it startling in its application of the divine proclamation found in Isaiah 45:23 to Jesus Christ.

The notion of Christ as judge on the "Day of Jahweh"/"Day of the Lord" permeates New Testament writings, and is another example of a strictly divine attribute being applied to the Messiah. Again, academic to us but blatantly obvious to first century Jews - who we mustn't forget are the readers and writers of the texts we have tried to make our own.

If you must however, have more direct statements, they are there. John tells us (5:17-18) "Jesus said to them, 'My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.' For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
And more explicitly in 10:3o: "'I and the Father are one'", for which the Jews attempted to stone him for blasphemy "'because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"

There is much more, like the pre-existence of Christ and the assertion of 'doubting Thomas', but time is a factor. :)
 
Ha! Nobody spotted my deliberate mistake. When I referred to 'documents discovered this century' I should have said 'LAST century'! Have I just suffered a time slip? Should I submit to hypnotic regression? So many questions...
 
Proscribed book list? Hell, there's still the Inquisition! Only now they call it The Congregation for the Promulgation of the Faith, or something like that. A Catholic can report their priest, or anyone really, to them and they investigate them!
 
Is there still the proscribed book list?
Click to expand...
It was called the Index of Prohibited Books and was abolished in 1966.
Hell, there's still the Inquisition! Only now they call it The Congregation for the Promulgation of the Faith, or something like that. A Catholic can report their priest, or anyone really, to them and they investigate them!
Click to expand...
Founded in 1542, the Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition has gone through three or four name changes, Currently known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it has twenty-three members headed by Prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and 27 consultors. They meet once a week, usually on Wednesdays.Technically, a Catholic can report another Catholic to the Congregation for heresy, but, realisticly the matter would be handled by the parish priest or bishop.
 
The biggest cover up in the history of Christianity is the cloth around Christ's waist in crucifixion scenes disguising his Jewishness.
 
Circumcision wasn't (and isn't) unique to Jews - many Muslims practise it, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top