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

The Shroud Of Turin

Let's assume conclusive scientific tests prove that the Shroud is of first century date...

..would this change your view of religion, or reality, or human nature?



Personally speaking, it wouldn't affect my thinking very much at all. Thousands of people were crucified, so maybe once there there were at least hundreds of similar shrouds in existence. This particular one shows evidence of blood flows that (some say) could only have come from a live body, not a corpse, which drives a nail (to coin a phrase... ;) ) through traditional Christian resurrection ideas.

However, the Shroud would still be an important historical artefact in its own right, whether or not it was associated with the man that many revere as 'Christ'.
 
Certainly, even if you prove the Shroud to be circa 33AD, you'll never prove whose Shroud it really is. Speaking personally, I don't really mind about the who so much as the how. And all those experiments that claim to duplicate the Shroud's image fall very short of the mark. Not one of them has me convinced it's the method used.

Of course, people usually take that to mean I'm convinced the Shroud is Christ's ;) Nothing of the sort. I just don't think they've adequately replicated the image.
 
I think with a relic such as this we are in danger of straying into the Da Vinci Code territory... something that sounds very important and can be dressed up in all pomp and circumstance but in reality will have very little bearing on ANYTHING the Catholic Church teaches - let alone all of Christianity.
 
Yes, I find it thoroughly annoying whenever it's announced that the Shroud being called a fake "shakes the foundations of Christianity" or "proves Christianity is a fake". No it doesn't.* It just proves the Shroud is a fake, but even then, unless you can replicate it, it doesn't even prove it's a fake. Just that it might be.


*NB - not that you can't 'prove' it's all a fake if you want to. I don't mind anyone arguing the truth or falsity of any religion. Just this particular argument.


If that makes sense - I'm on strong painkillers, and I have the notion that I maybe making sense only to others stoned on codeine. :shock:
 
If the shroud is proved genuine (i.e, first century, and associated with the Jesus of the Gospels), and the blood stains are from a live body, then this should prove Christianity a fraud! It would be a religion based on a resurrection that never happened.

This is why some people think that the Church would be happy if the Shroud was shown to be later than first century. It's not afraid of a fake shroud, but of a genuine one...! :shock:
 
Of course Rynner, you are right again...

But I think I can sum up what you've just said in this smiley: :roll:
 
rynner said:
If the shroud is proved genuine (i.e, first century, and associated with the Jesus of the Gospels), and the blood stains are from a live body, then this should prove Christianity a fraud! It would be a religion based on a resurrection that never happened.

If the Shroud is proved genuine, they still can't prove whose Shroud it was. It could be anyone's - it could be the two thieves crucified at the same time as Christ. It could be pretty much anyone crucified in a 100 year period. Could even be Spartacus. ;)
 
What I find more interesting than whose shroud it is is the question of when and how it was made.

We can be fairly confident that the Shroud is a photographic negative and that the head (which is too small for the body) was superimposed on an image of what is probably a geniune crucified and tortured body.

So this means that someone in the 13th Century (if the carbon-dating holds up) or around the time of Christ, had invented photography (at least as far as making a negative). The imposition of a head onto a body suggests that someone was producing images of a client's face on "Christ's body" on the same principle as today photographers at the seaside take pictures of punters sticking their heads through cutouts in a board with pictures on it. (I am not being blasphemous, this is the nearest I can get to expressing the idea).

Perhaps during the Crusades, some enterprising individual set up a business of producing religous souvenirs for Crusaders by making "Shrouds" with the client's face superimposed on the body of "Christ". To us this seems at best distaestful, but for the participants this might have been an intense religious experience of identifying with their God. (There would have been lots of maltreated bodies around during the Crusades to act as a template).

If this theory holds water, quite a lot of these "Shrouds" should have been poroduced. We are told that quite a few were knocking around Europe in the Middle Ages. It would be really interesting if at least one other one survived for comparison.
 
Not me. I was going to, but my wife made me go to a dinner party :twisted:

Did they say anything new?
 
New to me, but having flicked through this thread maybe not as new and compelling as I thought when I watched it!
 
Age of shroud of Turin disputed again
John Follain

A LEADING expert on the shroud of Turin has won the support of an Oxford University laboratory for new carbon dating tests on the venerated but controversial relic, which was dismissed two decades ago as a fake.

Carbon dating tests carried out in 1988 indicated that the shroud, long revered as the winding-sheet in which the body of Jesus was wrapped for burial and bearing his imprint, had been made between 1260 and 1390.

The Catholic church admitted at the time that the shroud could not be authentic.

John Jackson, a physicist at Colorado University and a prominent expert on the relic, has argued that the tests were skewed by 1,300 years because of high levels of carbon monoxide. He said many other elements of the shroud, including details of the image, indicate that it is much more ancient.

“It’s the radiocarbon date that, to our minds, is like a square peg in a round hole. It’s not fitting properly and the question is ‘Why?’,” Jackson told an interviewer.

Oxford has agreed to work with Jackson to reassess the age of the shroud. He will now try to demonstrate through experiments in his laboratory that the results were flawed, in the hope that this could prompt new tests on the relic itself.

Christopher Ramsey, head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit that tested the shroud in 1988, said: “There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed.”

Scepticism about the 1988 tests is widespread. A conference at Ohio State University earlier this month heard findings from the Los Alamos National Laboratory that they were unsound because the samples tested came from a portion of cloth that may have been added during medieval repairs.

Monsignor Giuseppe Ghiberti, spokesman for the commission that manages the shroud at the Cathedral of St John the Baptist in Turin, said any new tests would have to wait until after it is put on public display in 2010.

“The decision is a matter for its owners, that is the Holy See, and the Vatican has said nothing must be touched,” he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 596856.ece
 
Knights Templar hid the Shroud of Turin, says Vatican
Richard Owen in Rome

Medieval knights hid and secretly venerated The Holy Shroud of Turin for more than 100 years after the Crusades, the Vatican said yesterday in an announcement that appeared to solve the mystery of the relic’s missing years.

The Knights Templar, an order which was suppressed and disbanded for alleged heresy, took care of the linen cloth, which bears the image of a man with a beard, long hair and the wounds of crucifixion, according to Vatican researchers.

The Shroud, which is kept in the royal chapel of Turin Cathedral, has long been revered as the shroud in which Jesus was buried, although the image only appeared clearly in 1898 when a photographer developed a negative.

Barbara Frale, a researcher in the Vatican Secret Archives, said the Shroud had disappeared in the sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, and did not surface again until the middle of the fourteenth century. Writing in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, Dr Frale said its fate in those years had always puzzled historians.

However her study of the trial of the Knights Templar had brought to light a document in which Arnaut Sabbatier, a young Frenchman who entered the order in 1287, testified that as part of his initiation he was taken to “a secret place to which only the brothers of the Temple had access”. There he was shown “a long linen cloth on which was impressed the figure of a man” and instructed to venerate the image by kissing its feet three times.

Dr Frale said that among other alleged offences such as sodomy, the Knights Templar had been accused of worshipping idols, in particular a “bearded figure”. In reality however the object they had secretly venerated was the Shroud.

They had rescued it to ensure that it did not fall into the hands of heretical groups such as the Cathars, who claimed that Christ did not have a true human body, only the appearance of a man, and could therefore not have died on the Cross and been resurrected. She said her discovery vindicated a theory first put forward by the British historian Ian Wilson in 1978.

The Knights Templar were founded at the time of the First Crusade in the eleventh century to protect Christians making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The Order was endorsed by the Pope, but when Acre fell in 1291 and the Crusaders lost their hold on the Holy Land their support faded, amid growing envy of their fortune in property and banking.

Rumours about the order’s corrupt and arcane secret ceremonies claimed that novices had to deny Christ three times, spit on the cross, strip naked and kiss their superior on the buttocks, navel, and lips and submit to sodomy. King Philip IV of France, who coveted the order’s wealth and owed it money, arrested its leaders and put pressure on Pope Clement V to dissolve it.

Several knights, including the Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, were burned at the stake. Legends of the Templars’ secret rituals and lost treasures have long fascinated conspiracy theorists, and figure in The Da Vinci Code, which repeated the theory that the knights were entrusted with the Holy Grail.

In 2003 Dr Frale, the Vatican’s medieval specialist, unearthed the record of the trial of the Templars, also known as the Chinon Parchment, after realising that it had been wrongly catalogued. The parchment showed that Pope Clement V had accepted the Templars were guilty of “grave sins”, such as corruption and sexual immorality, but not of heresy.

Their initiation ceremony involved spitting on the Cross, but this was to brace them for having to do so if captured by Muslim forces, Dr Frale said. Last year she published for the first time the prayer the Knights Templar composed when “unjustly imprisoned”, in which they appealed to the Virgin Mary to persuade "our enemies” to abandon calumnies and lies and revert to truth and charity.

Radiocarbon dating tests on the Turin Shroud in 1988 indicated that it was a medieval fake. However this had been challenged on the grounds that the dated sample was taken from an area of the shroud mended after a fire in the Middle Ages and not a part of the original cloth.

After the sack of Constantinople it was next seen at Lirey in France in 1353, when it was displayed in a local church by descendants of Geoffroy de Charney, a Templar Knight burned at the stake with Jacques de Molay.

It was moved to various European cities until it was acquired by the Savoy dynasty in Turin in the sixteenth century. Holy See property since 1983, the Shroud was last publicly exhibited in 2000, and is due to go on show again next year.

The Vatican has not declared whether it is genuine or a forgery, leaving it to believers to decide. The late John Paul II said it was “an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age.” The self proclaimed heirs of the Knights Templar have asked the Vatican to “restore the reputation” of the disgraced order and acknowledge that assets worth some £80 million were confiscated.

The Association of the Sovereign Order of the Temple of Christ, based in Spain, said that when the order was dissolved by Pope Clement V in 1307, more than 9,000 properties, farms and commercial ventures belonging to knights were seized by the Church. A British branch also claiming descent from the Knights Templar and based in Hertfordshire has called for a papal apology for the persecution of the order.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 040521.ece

I didn't know whether to put this here or in the Knights templar thread.
Using the search thingy on 'shroud' and 'turin' (title only) gives both threads - and no others!
:shock:
 
Turin Shroud COULD be real, says scientist who originally said it was a medieval fake
By Niall Firth
Last updated at 11:13 AM on 10th April 2009

For many it is the holiest of Christian relics; a simple linen cloth that was used to wrap Christ's body after he was crucified and which bears the imprint of his face.
But in 1988 a group of scientists used carbon-dating techniques to conclude that the Turin Shroud was nothing but a medieval hoax.

Now one of the scientists involved in the original tests has sensationally changed his mind and admitted that the shroud could be far older than previously thought.

Ray Rogers, who died of cancer in 2005, was a director of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STRP) that analysed the yellowing linen cloth.

Mr Rogers and a team of scientists carried out tests on a tiny section of the Turin Shroud and declared that it had been produced approximately 1300 years after Jesus was born.
But in a new documentary, a video message from Mr Rogers shows that he may have changed his mind.
In a video filmed shortly before his death Mr Rogers says: 'I don’t believe in miracles that defy the laws of nature. After the 1988 investigation I’d given up on the shroud.
'But now I am coming to the conclusion that it has a very good chance of being the piece of cloth that was used to bury the historic Jesus.'

The shroud was mended after a fire in the Middle Ages and Mr Rogers believed the 1988 tests were invalid because they were carried out on a repaired section of the shroud rather than the original linen.

When the original 1988 results came back some of those who believed in the shroud said tha tthe carbon-dating had been carried out on a newer section of the cloth.
Among these believers were amateur scientists, Sue Benford and Joe Marino, from Ohio who said that the shroud had been repaired with 16th century cotton.

Mr Rogers said: “I’d read these things by people from the lunatic fringe explaining why the date was wrong. I was irritated and determined to prove Sue and Joe wrong.”
But after examining the fibres taken from an earlier investigation in 1978, Ray was shocked to find cotton present too.
He said: 'The cotton fibres were fairly heavily coated with dye, suggesting they were changed to match the linen during a repair.
'I concluded that area of the shroud was manipulated by someone with great skill.
'Sue and Joe were right. The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken.
'It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate
.'

Some sceptics have accused Ray Rogers of 'starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence.'
But Phillip Ball, the former editor of Nature magazine, which published the 1988 carbon-dating research has staunchly defended Mr Rogers, saying he had a history of 'respectable work'.

...

The video will be broadcast on Easter Sunday in 'The Turin Shroud: New Evidence' at 8pm on the Discovery Channel.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -fake.html
 
rynner2 said:
The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken.
'It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate
.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -fake.html

From A Skeptical Response to Ray Rogers on the Shroud of Turin by Steven D. Schafersman:

As pointed out by Antonio Lombatti (personal communication), editor of Approfondimento Sindone, the skeptical international journal of scholarship and science devoted to the Shroud of Turin, only after one month of careful study on where to cut the linen samples for dating were the samples removed from the Shroud. This process was observed personally by Mons. Dardozzi (Vatican Academy of Science), Prof. Testore (Turin University professor of textile technology), Prof. Vial (Director of the Lyon Ancient Textiles Museum), Profs. Hall and Hedges (heads of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory) and Prof. Tite (head of the British Museum research laboratory). There is no way these scientists and scholars could have made such an error and failed to see that the cloth samples they removed was really from a patch, "invisibly" rewoven or not.

...

The tiny patch threads that Rogers analyzed are suspect: there is no official record of the supposed removal or donation of the radiocarbon dating sample threads or the Raes sample threads Rogers claims to possess (personal communication, Antonio Lombatti).

Schafersman goes into detail about the lack of scientific credibility in Rogers' pro-authenticity Shroud studies and methods. Important reading for anyone exposed to Rogers' pro-authenticity claims.
 
Concerns about the validity of the radiocarbon dating go back to the time it was carried out, in the late 1980s. There were stories that the specimens chosen were not from the original cloth; that the specimens tested had been switched deliberately (maybe by the RC Church); and that there was other scientific dating evidence that contradicted the radiocarbon dates.

But as has been expressed many times before in this thread, even if we could get a consensus agreeing that the shroud is 1st century, it doesn't really prove whose shroud it is, nor is it evidence of a resurrection, since the blood-flow stains seem to indicate that the body was alive anyway.

It's very generous of the Catholic church to let believers 'make up their own minds' on the shroud's authenticity - if somehow the shroud could be linked to the Jesus of the Gospels, it would destroy the very basis of Christian faith, the resurrection.

Still, not long now before the opportunity for more carbon-dating arises. And then, no doubt, all the claims and counter-claims will be given a re-run, with whatever new twists the Cosmic joker sees fit to add! :twisted:
 
The concerns about the radiocarbon dating came from the camp that held the Shroud was authentic, didn't they? Did any of the scientists whose estimates were confirmed by the radiocarbon dating voice any concerns about the validity of the dating?

There were stories, as you say. Just that: stories. Didn't they also come from the camp that held the Shroud was authentic?

Regarding blood stains, Walter McCrone showed there's no blood on the Shroud, but plenty of red ochre, vermilion, rose madder and tempera - medieval art supplies. Schafersman's article details the evidence presented by all sides, including STURP.

The Church's position has been ambivalent but not exactly distant. They won't issue an official pronouncement on the Shroud's authenticity; but they've been merchandising the Shroud for almost seventy years, and approved devotion of the image, and Pope John Paul II said "The Shroud shows us Jesus...."

If the Church allowed more scientific tests - which I doubt, seeing as the radiocarbon dating scuppered a first-century origin - their value would be problematic, due to the restoration work done seven years ago.
 
The tests weren't done blind though. The samples from the Shroud, the 2,000 year old mummy wrappings, and the mediaeval linen were all labelled.

Really, they should have made absolutely certain that there wasn't any room for debate after the tests.
 
I'm really not sure what any of these test prove.
If the shroud is 2000 years old so what? Does it have a label that says 'property of JC' - could be anyone.
And far more importantly it is clear the image is not the result of contact by the wrapping of a body*

I was fascinated by the reactions on newspaper forums etc. that the latest shroud rumblings have generated. So many Christians took the time to come out of the woodwork and grasp the straw of this latest non event (guy staring death in the face says maybe I was wrong :roll: ) that IMO it calls the strength of their own faith into question - why else do they need such a talisman?


* anyone who doubts this should get a sheet, wrap/lay it around someone then do a 'brass rubbing' of their face using a crayon or whatever is to hand. Now lay it flat and see just how distorted it is compared to the perfect picture that is the shroud image.
 
Re: A Skeptical Response to Ray Rogers on the Shroud of Turin by Steven D. Schafersman:

Schafersman's response seems to be as biased as he claims Rogers' was!
Almost hysterically so, in fact: "Rogers' paper is not science, but classic pseudoscience: it is an example of nonsense-mongering and overreaching, of willingness to use any method, no matter how scientifically unsupported and disreputable, to confirm one's apriori beliefs. I can't understand how this clumsy, invalid, and totally illogical paper passed peer review in a legitimate scientific journal. Actually, I can understand how this lapse happened.... etc" (contd. p. 93 ;) )

And was this piece published in a peer-reviewed publication?
Er, no, it was on THE SKEPTICAL SHROUD OF TURIN WEBSITE
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic//shroud/
which does seem to hint of a certain amount of bias. 8)
(A case of preaching to the converted, methinks.)

And why the haste to offer this intemperate rebuttal, which he admits might contain errors?

I suspect here we have a case of

"For each and every bias, there exists an equal and opposite bias!"

I've been following the Shroud story for decades, and I've been posting on the thread since 2001, so I've heard stories pro, anti, and undecided, and that third position is where you'll find me!

But one point might be worth making. Whether the shroud is 1500 or 2000 years old, for the greater part of its existence it hasn't been handled in sterile labs by people wearing latex gloves, so who knows what kind of contamination it has picked up in all that time?

Modern forensic techniques are good, and can solve crimes decades old, but with something this old, and with the Vatican exerting total control over what can and can't be tried on it, we are probably like those blind men, trying to describe an elephant by touch.

I'm not holding my breath for any conclusive results yet! :D
 
Yeah, I don't care for Schafersman's tone either. He doesn't miss an opportunity to put down Rogers, STURP, et al; and it's tiresome, and makes reading his article unnecessary difficult. I have no problem with his evidence and logic, but his tone overshadows his arguments, and that's a shame, because it can prevent people from getting to the very good points he has.
 
Was Turin Shroud faked by of Leonardo da Vinci [sic! :roll: ]
The Turin Shroud was faked by Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci using pioneering photographic techniques and a sculpture of his own head, a television documentary claims.
By Alastair Jamieson
Published: 7:49AM BST 01 Jul 2009

A study of facial features suggests the image on the relic is actually da Vinci's own face which could have been projected into the cloth.

The artefact has been regarded by generations of believers as the face of the crucified Jesus who was wrapped in it, but carbon-dating by scientists points to its creation in the Middle Ages.

American artist Lillian Schwartz, a graphic consultant at the School of Visual Arts in New York who came to prominence in the 1980s when she matched the face of the Mona Lisa to a Leonardo self-portrait, used computer scans to show that the face on the Shroud has the same dimensions to that of da Vinci.

“It matched. I'm excited about this,” she said. “There is no doubt in my mind that the proportions that Leonardo wrote about were used in creating this Shroud's face.”

The claims is made in a Channel Five documentary, to be shown on Wednesday night, that describes how da Vinci could have scorched his facial features on to the linen of the Shroud using a sculpture of his face and a camera obscura – an early photographic device.

The programme says the fabric could have been hung over a frame in a blacked-out room and coated it with silver sulphate, a substance readily available in 15th century Italy which would have made it light-sensitive.

When the sun's rays passed through a lens in one of the walls, da Vinci’s facial shape would have been projected on to the material, creating a permanent image.

Lynn Picknett, a Shroud researcher and author, said: “The faker of the shroud had to be a heretic, someone with no fear of faking Jesus’ holy redemptive blood.

“He had to have a grasp of anatomy and he had to have at his fingertips a technology which would completely fool everyone until the 20th century.

"He had a hunger to leave something for the future, to make his mark for the future, not just for the sake of art or science but for his ego."

Art historian Professor Nicholas Allen, of Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in South Africa, has called for more tests on the Shroud for the presence of silver sulphate, which causes a reaction with the sun's UV rays.

He said: "If you look at the Shroud of Turin as it appears to the naked eye, you see a negative image of a human being, and if you take a photograph of that you produce a positive image of that human being, which means the shroud is acting as a negative.

"That in itself is a very good clue that it was made photographically."

Radiocarbon dating in 1988 showed the cloth was made between 1260 and 1390.

The programme explains the theory that da Vinci's forgery was commissioned to replace an earlier version that was exposed as a poor fake, which had been bought by the powerful Savoy family in 1453 only to disappear for 50 years. When it returned to public view, it was hailed as a genuine relic, and experts say it was actually the artist's convincing replica.

American Professor Larissa Tracy, of Longwood University in Virginia, told the programme: "Da Vinci had the necessary skills. He knew enough about anatomy and about the physical muscular structure of the body. Da Vinci had all the skills to create an image like the shroud. If anybody had the capacity to work with camera obscura or early photographic technique, it was Leonardo Da Vinci."

However Professor John Jackson, director of the Turin Shroud Centre of Colorado, who believes the item dates from the time of Jesus's crucifixion, dismissed the programme’s findings and said the earliest known record of the Shroud appears on a commemorative medallion struck in the mid-14th century and on display at the Cluny Museum Paris, he added.

“It clearly shows clerics holding up the shroud and is dated to around 100 years before Leonardo was born. There is no evidence whatsoever that Leonardo was involved in the shroud.”

The professor believes the radiocarbon dating of the shroud was wrong because the sample was contaminated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... Vinci.html

There's certainly a good likeness in the images. I'm surprised that no-one seems to have remarked on this before...
 
This one's been around for a while! I've got Lynn Pickett and Clive Prince's "THE TURIN SHROUD:in whose image", from about 1994, and I seem to remember the theory turning up at UnConvention a few years ago.
 
I'm sure they wrote an article about it in the FT as well, around the same time (mid-1990s).
 
MsPix said:
This one's been around for a while! I've got Lynn Pickett and Clive Prince's "THE TURIN SHROUD:in whose image", from about 1994, and I seem to remember the theory turning up at UnConvention a few years ago.
Yes, it sounded vaguely familiar - like the plot of a Dan Brown novel perhaps! :twisted:
 
MsPix said:
This one's been around for a while! I've got Lynn Pickett and Clive Prince's "THE TURIN SHROUD:in whose image", from about 1994, and I seem to remember the theory turning up at UnConvention a few years ago.

Yep - I gave a talk on it at UnCon complete with a Shroud I made myself. As you do.

Gordon
 
Scientist reproduces Turin shroud

The Shroud of Turin has been reproduced by an Italian scientist in another attempt to prove that the cloth bearing an image of Christ's face is a fake.

A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia said he had used materials and techniques that were available in the Middle Ages.

These included applying pigment to cloth and then heating it in an oven.

Tests 20 years ago dated the fabric to between 1260 and 1390, but believers say it is an authentic image of Christ.

The linen cloth, measuring about 4.4m by 1.1m (14.4 by 3.6 feet) holds the concealed image of a man bearing all the signs of crucifixion, including blood stains.

The tests in 1988 have been repeatedly challenged, and scientists remain unsure how the image came to be on the cloth.

Scientist Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to present his findings to a conference on the paranormal at the weekend, said many people believed that the shroud "has unexplainable characteristics that cannot be reproduced by human means".

But, he added: "The result obtained clearly indicates that this could be done with the use of inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure."

Mr Garlaschelli, funded by a group of Italian atheists and agnostics, reproduced the shroud by placing a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbing it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.

The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it.

This removed the pigment from the surface but left a half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud.

Blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains were then added to achieve the final effect.

Mr Garlaschelli said he expected people to challenge his research.

"If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories they certainly won't believe me."

The Shroud is kept in Turin Cathedral and rarely displayed in public.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8291948.stm
 
Jesus Christ's 'death certificate' found on Turin Shroud
Barbara Frale, a Vatican researcher, claims to have discovered Christ's 'death certificate' on the Turin Shroud.
By Nick Squires in Rome
Published: 6:05PM GMT 20 Nov 2009

The historian and researcher at the secret Vatican archive said she has found the words "Jesus Nazarene" on the shroud, proving it was the linen cloth which was wrapped around Christ's body.

She said computer analysis of photographs of the shroud revealed extremely faint words written in Greek, Aramaic and Latin which attested to its authenticity.

Her claim was immediately contested by scholars who said that radiocarbon dating tests in 1988 showed the shroud to be a medieval forgery.

Dr Frale asserts in a new book, The Shroud of Jesus the Nazarene, that computer enhancement enabled her to detect the archaic script, which appears on various parts of the material.

She suggested that it was written by low-ranking Roman officials or mortuary clerks on a scroll or piece of papyrus to identify Christ's corpse. Such a document would have enabled the relatives of a dead person to retrieve a body from a communal morgue, she suggested.

It would have been attached to the corpse with a flour-based glue and the ink could have seeped through into the cloth below, leaving a faint imprint.

Scholars first noticed that there was writing on the shroud in 1978 but when the radiocarbon tests a decade later suggested that the shroud was a forgery, historians lost interest in the script, Dr Frale said.

She claimed she had been able to decipher a jumble of phrases written in three languages, including the Greek words (I)esou(s) Nnazarennos, or Jesus the Nazarene, and (T)iber(iou), which she interprets as Tiberius, the Roman emperor at the time of Christ's crucifixion.

The text also mentions that the man who was wrapped in the shroud had been condemned to death, she believes. The hidden text was in effect the "burial certificate" for Jesus Christ, Dr Frale said.

"I tried to be objective and leave religious issues aside," she said. "What I studied was an ancient document that certifies the execution of a man, in a specific time and place."

But other experts were sceptical. "People work on grainy photos and think they see things," said Antonio Lombatti, a church historian who has written books about the shroud. "It's all the result of imagination and computer software."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... hroud.html
 
rynner said:
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.

The book your recommending here is called The Second Messiah?

I also thoroughly enjoyed your response to the poster below this post quoted above. You articulate yourself quite well ! I betcha'd make a great Minister ;) hah
 
Back
Top