Posted by thefloppy1 on 07 Apr 2009 at about 23:49.
true science has already proven this shroud as not what it surposed to be. This is just an effort by the false church to maintain a hold on it's dwindling power.
If Jesus was in his tomb he would be doing back flips right now thinking "why did people not understand my simple teachings."
Remember, true divinity is within, not external in idols or men in fancy dress claiming to be god's represenatives.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
Actually, according to a very interesting book I am reading (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Lived-India-...) the Turin Shroud, not only it is original, it also proves that Jesus did not die on the cross... It is very well documented and makes a lot of sense.
In a world where information and connectivity seems limitless sometimes the right people just don't talk to each other. Debates and ivestigations become to simplified and narrow.
Discourse on the shroud has been isolated and limited, cut off from it's rich history and associations, maybe a victim of scientific reductionism or the interests of the participants in this debate.
There exists another relic which should be taken into account in this discussion, it's the Suderim of Oviedo. I will leave it to the reader to investigate this inconvenient object (depends on ones point of view I suppose). A good beginning can be made at www.shroud.com/guscin.htm then at www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf
Peke
Posted by red pill junkie on 08 Apr 2009 at about 00:02.
I have read enough about it to make me think there's something more to the shroud than a mere Medieval or Reinassence-era hoax.
Of course, even if its shown that the image in the cloth was the result of an extraordinary event, and not only a clever application of pigment by whichever means you choose, it would still be impossible to link it to the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
So maybe I should have picked 'Other', bu what the heck, the vestigial Catholic in me decided to show more faith on this particular issue ;-)
I think the shroud, like the Virgen de Guadalupe's ayate, falls into the fortean aspect of the Christian faith that it still very appealing to me.
BTW: The Church acknowledges the reverence many Catholics have for this relic, but they are smart enough not to subscribe to the authenticity of it. They are quite content to remain in a gray area of 'Maybe'.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
I've followed this for about 35 years. There is an American trade magazine (R&D Mag) which back in the day offered glimpses into the long and sporadic process of analyzing the Shroud. For a science mag (not a peer reviewed journal), it gave a fairly balanced account of the steps along the way.
IIRC the split between the medieval story and the 'true believers' occurred when the carbon dating did not fully account for contaminants that would naturally advance the date substantially. (Remember, it was not in a hermetic chamber all those centuries.) Also, there were pollens and other microscopic evidence that could be traced back to narrowly specific locations in the geographic area the historic Jesus would have been.
I would guess that in another 10 or 20 years there will be new techniques that will vie for access to the Shroud and may give fresh insights.
On the flip side, I could never get my arms around how the 'fake' shroud would have been done. The scoffers all sounded like the "Amazingly Clueless Randi" (TM).
Posted by thefloppy1 on 08 Apr 2009 at about 03:19.
scans and measurements have been done which show anomalies in the sizing of the head to the body. These show that the head was actually not a match to the body.
The shroud has also been duplicated by the means which were available at the time indicated by C14 dating. The result was so close to the shroud that it left little doubt that this could have been achieved at that time.
But if people need this to believe in the reality of Jesus and therefore the faith in the church then theres no real harm done,is there.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
I have no doubt that the shroud will be proven to be of the 1st century AD. Whether it is the shroud of Jesus, no one can ever say for certain. However, due to the pollen grains found within the textile, plus the method of manufacture, there can be no doubt of it's age, regardless of what the carbon-14 tests show. I don't believe it to be a cl;ever forgery, but I cannot say, nor can anyone else, that it is the burial shroud of Jesus.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am not a Christian. I am a Pagan. I have no doubt that Jesus was a real man, a Jewish Rabbi, but I believe his story was garbled in transmission, so to say. I'll leave it at that.
I do however, find it odd that so many in the scientific community take such great pains to try and "prove" the shroud to be a forgery. Are they that afraid of a bit of cloth? Why do they seethe and screech at anyone who would offer an opinion in support of the garment?
There must be something frightfully terrifying to the scientists that they would weigh in on this matter with such a heavy hand. It certainly makes me understand how Galileo must have felt when facing the Inquisition, eh? Irony simply drips off this entire story.
Posted by earthling on 08 Apr 2009 at about 14:34.
Actually I meant the cloth is too thin, not the body.
But you are right, crucifixion is bad for the body.
I saw some theories about this on PBS. One was that the shroud was covering a bas-relief, another was that it is an early attempt at photography. But both of these date the shroud to the late middle ages, or later.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
I'm fairly certain I've read recently that the snippet used for C14 dating was found to have come from a patch of the shroud that was mended after that fire, and therefore not part of the original fabric.
Posted by red pill junkie on 20 Apr 2009 at about 22:06.
The shroud is made of linen, whereas the fibers studied and dated were of cotton.
Furthermore, with this new evidence re. the possession of the shroud by the Templars for 200 years, the amount of contamination due to handling and exposure should also be taken into consideration, not to mention the dust and particles that were deposited on the shroud throughout the centuries.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
I believe it is a fake made during Medieval times-it's a good one too-samples were taken that date the Shroud to Medieval times. A person also has to believe Jesus was wrapped in the Shroud-That could be anybody--Recent studies indicate that the traditional way Jesus was thought to have looked ie long hair and beard light skin color was probably not accurate-He now is believed to have had darker skin because he worked outside-true?
have a hard time to select one of the predefined choices:
I think that most likely the shroud is a genuine relict of the person known to us today as Jesus Christ; and that this person lived and was crucified - as A. T. Fomenko has found quite convinving indications, see his "History: fiction or science" book series - during the eleventh century in Constantinopolis (aka (New) Rome, Caput Mundi, City of Peace).
I don't fall for the renaissance churches efforts to make their own foundations stories appear much much older than their competitors stories, with the obvious goal to fool their followers into prolonged submission. Unluckily, their competitors choose to also play in the same game of inventing stories of fictious even older origins (appearently that was the strategy that ensured survival).
So: it is genuine as genuine can be, and that means it is about 900 years old and from the Bosporus region.
The preponderance of evidence indicates that the Shroud is man made and dates to (roughly) the medieval period. However, that does not deny some fairly divine inspiration.
This artifact is a masterful piece of work. I don't know what was going on in that person's mind at the time but he (or she?) created something extra ordinary. It's not a miracle in the classic sense of the word, but it is a testament to something "subtle" within us that allows us to go past our normal boundaries.
If we were talking about a work by... say, Picasso, we would summon a number of musty old art experts to spend a few years examining the details. They would, after a time, stand forth and announce that it was either genuine or fake.
But with the Shroud of Turin, we have no one who can take the role of examiner. We have no historical or scientific contextual experience to fall back upon to make a sure pronouncement. All anyone can do is guess... and from what we may presume to think we know of the Christian God, He does like to do these things.
If nothing else, it forces one to think and in the world of religion and its icons, that is quite an achievement all by itself.
* * * "The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'."
I think that it is the image of the last grand master of the knights templar. He was probably killed in the same way. At the time, I don't think that anyone even thought about the image, or associated with Jesus. I think that it is an accident of history that it was associated with Jesus. Besides, nobody knows what Jesus looked like and, probably, nobody has known what Jesus looked like for atleast 1500 years.
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think!!!}
Posted by alevangel on 06 Sep 2009 at about 15:13.
Just step back from the issue, and see who is most anxious to "prove" something.
I am an artist and art historian, among other pastimes. It is laughably astounding to me that that "Medieval forgery" aspect has gotten such play. Here's why: art during that period was very stylized. No known artist of that period created work that was "photographic" (looked exactly like what or who it was).
The very concept of 3-dimensions (appearance of depth) being produced on a 2-dimensional object (paper, or in this case cloth) was simply not within their understanding. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for any trained artist to even conceive of the idea, much less carry it out. They just couldn't think that way because of cultural/social training.
To convince a rational person otherwise, just produce one, ONE, piece of art that is similar to the shroud which was made during that period. Just ONE!
P.S. There aren't any!
Modern artists may be able to fake up something like the shroud using modern techniques, modern styles, and modern concepts of dimensionality -- but that is NOT proof that a Medieval artist could.
So, exactly WHY are some corners pushing this scenario so hard? (And, they have to know that it's baloney, as well, if they have any art background.) What benefit do THEY accrue?
Alevangel, your art history is obviously rather rusty.
The shroud can be safely dated from the 1350s, when it was put on display in Lirey. It was soon after denounced by the Bishop of Troyes, who claimed that an unnamed artist had confessed to painting it. It is quite absurd to claim that by 1350 no artist could conceive of the idea of representing three dimensions in two; Giotto flourished fifty years earlier, whilst a more technically simplistic 3D representation had been the cornerstone of Greek stage painting way back in the fifth century BC.
Art similar to the shroud? http://www.wga.hu/art/g/giotto/assisi/up... -- same chunky, curved brows with the 'u' shaped division over the nose; same long, narrow, straight nose; same deep shaded cheeks; same dented forking of the beard. Give him long hair, closed eyes, and a bushier moustache and he's a dead ringer.
There's no very big difficulty with the apparent 3D effect or negative appearance of the shroud. Differential fading of different pigments and greater image remnant where a tempera wash was most thickly applied for the highlights is all that's needed. If you want to see how that works, stick that above picture into a paint program of your choice, extract the highlights and paste onto an image of the shroud in multiply mode. Apart from being a much better preserved image, the resemblance is obvious.
Posted by Indrid Cold on 06 Sep 2009 at about 17:53.
I was always of the opinion that it was an image of Jacques de Molay, like the other poster here suggested. Or DaVinci using some early technique to try and mimic the passage in the "Acta Sanctorum" dealing with the story of "Berenice" or "Veronica" as she became known later...
Posted by simonconstable on 15 Sep 2009 at about 02:15.
Not sure what made the image on the Turin Shroud. But from everything I have studied noone has managed to make anything remotely resembling it. A mystery still to be solved.
Posted by Anonymous on 09 Oct 2009 at about 14:35.
How easliy things from the past are misunderstood and misused in many ways...I believe that this shroud is just another cloth with an image that most people will associate with the 1st influential bearded figure that comes to mind (Jesus). It is most likely spilled wine or early use of photography paper and not a divine blanket.
Posted by LightImage on 04 Dec 2009 at about 08:24.
The one clue so obvious is the cloth shows the head as if it was a flat object when folded over the top of the head. Looks more than likely this image transfer onto cloth was done with a wooden carving about 8 inches thick with the cloth folded over the head which was tapered to about an inch or two. Perhaps the entire carved front and back body image was no more than several inches thick. Look for yourself. You will see what I mean.
I wanted to ad, the image looks like one of those templars laying on the floor of the round nave in the temple church in england.
Comments
1 May 2004
7 min 43 sec
true science has already proven this shroud as not what it surposed to be. This is just an effort by the false church to maintain a hold on it's dwindling power.
If Jesus was in his tomb he would be doing back flips right now thinking "why did people not understand my simple teachings."
Remember, true divinity is within, not external in idols or men in fancy dress claiming to be god's represenatives.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
20 July 2005
10 weeks 2 days
Actually, according to a very interesting book I am reading (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Lived-India-...) the Turin Shroud, not only it is original, it also proves that Jesus did not die on the cross... It is very well documented and makes a lot of sense.
28 June 2006
5 weeks 6 days
I believe it is a matter of faith. All the tests in the world will never prove one way or the other what it really is.
25 May 2005
14 weeks 5 days
In a world where information and connectivity seems limitless sometimes the right people just don't talk to each other. Debates and ivestigations become to simplified and narrow.
Discourse on the shroud has been isolated and limited, cut off from it's rich history and associations, maybe a victim of scientific reductionism or the interests of the participants in this debate.
There exists another relic which should be taken into account in this discussion, it's the Suderim of Oviedo. I will leave it to the reader to investigate this inconvenient object (depends on ones point of view I suppose). A good beginning can be made at www.shroud.com/guscin.htm then at www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf
Peke
Peke
12 April 2007
19 min
I have read enough about it to make me think there's something more to the shroud than a mere Medieval or Reinassence-era hoax.
Of course, even if its shown that the image in the cloth was the result of an extraordinary event, and not only a clever application of pigment by whichever means you choose, it would still be impossible to link it to the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
So maybe I should have picked 'Other', bu what the heck, the vestigial Catholic in me decided to show more faith on this particular issue ;-)
I think the shroud, like the Virgen de Guadalupe's ayate, falls into the fortean aspect of the Christian faith that it still very appealing to me.
BTW: The Church acknowledges the reverence many Catholics have for this relic, but they are smart enough not to subscribe to the authenticity of it. They are quite content to remain in a gray area of 'Maybe'.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
5 days 17 hours
I've followed this for about 35 years. There is an American trade magazine (R&D Mag) which back in the day offered glimpses into the long and sporadic process of analyzing the Shroud. For a science mag (not a peer reviewed journal), it gave a fairly balanced account of the steps along the way.
IIRC the split between the medieval story and the 'true believers' occurred when the carbon dating did not fully account for contaminants that would naturally advance the date substantially. (Remember, it was not in a hermetic chamber all those centuries.) Also, there were pollens and other microscopic evidence that could be traced back to narrowly specific locations in the geographic area the historic Jesus would have been.
I would guess that in another 10 or 20 years there will be new techniques that will vie for access to the Shroud and may give fresh insights.
On the flip side, I could never get my arms around how the 'fake' shroud would have been done. The scoffers all sounded like the "Amazingly Clueless Randi" (TM).
Cheers,
Xavier Onassis
1 May 2004
7 min 43 sec
scans and measurements have been done which show anomalies in the sizing of the head to the body. These show that the head was actually not a match to the body.
The shroud has also been duplicated by the means which were available at the time indicated by C14 dating. The result was so close to the shroud that it left little doubt that this could have been achieved at that time.
But if people need this to believe in the reality of Jesus and therefore the faith in the church then theres no real harm done,is there.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
30 October 2005
1 week 1 day
Just going by what I've seen and read about the shroud, I believe it is genuine. But Jesus? I think that is all purely speculation.
Reaching out to embrace whatever may come
8 April 2006
3 weeks 1 hour
I voted "other".
I have no doubt that the shroud will be proven to be of the 1st century AD. Whether it is the shroud of Jesus, no one can ever say for certain. However, due to the pollen grains found within the textile, plus the method of manufacture, there can be no doubt of it's age, regardless of what the carbon-14 tests show. I don't believe it to be a cl;ever forgery, but I cannot say, nor can anyone else, that it is the burial shroud of Jesus.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am not a Christian. I am a Pagan. I have no doubt that Jesus was a real man, a Jewish Rabbi, but I believe his story was garbled in transmission, so to say. I'll leave it at that.
I do however, find it odd that so many in the scientific community take such great pains to try and "prove" the shroud to be a forgery. Are they that afraid of a bit of cloth? Why do they seethe and screech at anyone who would offer an opinion in support of the garment?
There must be something frightfully terrifying to the scientists that they would weigh in on this matter with such a heavy hand. It certainly makes me understand how Galileo must have felt when facing the Inquisition, eh? Irony simply drips off this entire story.
Respects,
Respects,
Gwedd
22 November 2004
2 days 19 hours
Due to the global warming it is snowing here again. So I need multiple covers on my bed, because I do not heat the place excessivly.
Go turn off some lights :P
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
1 May 2004
2 days 5 hours
>> too thin
Crucifixion is very dehydrating.
1 May 2004
26 weeks 12 hours
A genuine relic but not necessarily of JC..!
Possibly modified through the ages..?
22 November 2004
2 days 19 hours
Actually I meant the cloth is too thin, not the body.
But you are right, crucifixion is bad for the body.
I saw some theories about this on PBS. One was that the shroud was covering a bas-relief, another was that it is an early attempt at photography. But both of these date the shroud to the late middle ages, or later.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
9 May 2004
1 day 23 hours
I'm fairly certain I've read recently that the snippet used for C14 dating was found to have come from a patch of the shroud that was mended after that fire, and therefore not part of the original fabric.
12 April 2007
19 min
The shroud is made of linen, whereas the fibers studied and dated were of cotton.
Furthermore, with this new evidence re. the possession of the shroud by the Templars for 200 years, the amount of contamination due to handling and exposure should also be taken into consideration, not to mention the dust and particles that were deposited on the shroud throughout the centuries.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
9 May 2009
44 weeks 19 hours
I believe it is a fake made during Medieval times-it's a good one too-samples were taken that date the Shroud to Medieval times. A person also has to believe Jesus was wrapped in the Shroud-That could be anybody--Recent studies indicate that the traditional way Jesus was thought to have looked ie long hair and beard light skin color was probably not accurate-He now is believed to have had darker skin because he worked outside-true?
1 May 2004
8 hours 15 min
have a hard time to select one of the predefined choices:
I think that most likely the shroud is a genuine relict of the person known to us today as Jesus Christ; and that this person lived and was crucified - as A. T. Fomenko has found quite convinving indications, see his "History: fiction or science" book series - during the eleventh century in Constantinopolis (aka (New) Rome, Caput Mundi, City of Peace).
I don't fall for the renaissance churches efforts to make their own foundations stories appear much much older than their competitors stories, with the obvious goal to fool their followers into prolonged submission. Unluckily, their competitors choose to also play in the same game of inventing stories of fictious even older origins (appearently that was the strategy that ensured survival).
So: it is genuine as genuine can be, and that means it is about 900 years old and from the Bosporus region.
11 June 2009
10 weeks 5 days
[Edited by moderator: Skills4u, please don't post this again. Some hidden character in the post is making the page crash. ]
11 June 2009
10 weeks 5 days
Sorry, any idea what it could have been ?? Don't want to repeat the mistaske whatever it was !
1 May 2004
1 day 13 hours
It's genuine but Christ's death is only as old as the shroud.
17 July 2009
34 weeks 5 days
The preponderance of evidence indicates that the Shroud is man made and dates to (roughly) the medieval period. However, that does not deny some fairly divine inspiration.
This artifact is a masterful piece of work. I don't know what was going on in that person's mind at the time but he (or she?) created something extra ordinary. It's not a miracle in the classic sense of the word, but it is a testament to something "subtle" within us that allows us to go past our normal boundaries.
14 July 2008
1 day 6 min
If we were talking about a work by... say, Picasso, we would summon a number of musty old art experts to spend a few years examining the details. They would, after a time, stand forth and announce that it was either genuine or fake.
But with the Shroud of Turin, we have no one who can take the role of examiner. We have no historical or scientific contextual experience to fall back upon to make a sure pronouncement. All anyone can do is guess... and from what we may presume to think we know of the Christian God, He does like to do these things.
If nothing else, it forces one to think and in the world of religion and its icons, that is quite an achievement all by itself.
* * *
"The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'."
28 June 2006
6 days 15 hours
I think that it is the image of the last grand master of the knights templar. He was probably killed in the same way. At the time, I don't think that anyone even thought about the image, or associated with Jesus. I think that it is an accident of history that it was associated with Jesus. Besides, nobody knows what Jesus looked like and, probably, nobody has known what Jesus looked like for atleast 1500 years.
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think!!!}
1 May 2004
5 weeks 6 days
Just step back from the issue, and see who is most anxious to "prove" something.
I am an artist and art historian, among other pastimes. It is laughably astounding to me that that "Medieval forgery" aspect has gotten such play. Here's why: art during that period was very stylized. No known artist of that period created work that was "photographic" (looked exactly like what or who it was).
The very concept of 3-dimensions (appearance of depth) being produced on a 2-dimensional object (paper, or in this case cloth) was simply not within their understanding. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for any trained artist to even conceive of the idea, much less carry it out. They just couldn't think that way because of cultural/social training.
To convince a rational person otherwise, just produce one, ONE, piece of art that is similar to the shroud which was made during that period. Just ONE!
P.S. There aren't any!
Modern artists may be able to fake up something like the shroud using modern techniques, modern styles, and modern concepts of dimensionality -- but that is NOT proof that a Medieval artist could.
So, exactly WHY are some corners pushing this scenario so hard? (And, they have to know that it's baloney, as well, if they have any art background.) What benefit do THEY accrue?
alevangel
2 November 2009
19 weeks 1 day
Alevangel, your art history is obviously rather rusty.
The shroud can be safely dated from the 1350s, when it was put on display in Lirey. It was soon after denounced by the Bishop of Troyes, who claimed that an unnamed artist had confessed to painting it. It is quite absurd to claim that by 1350 no artist could conceive of the idea of representing three dimensions in two; Giotto flourished fifty years earlier, whilst a more technically simplistic 3D representation had been the cornerstone of Greek stage painting way back in the fifth century BC.
Art similar to the shroud? http://www.wga.hu/art/g/giotto/assisi/up... -- same chunky, curved brows with the 'u' shaped division over the nose; same long, narrow, straight nose; same deep shaded cheeks; same dented forking of the beard. Give him long hair, closed eyes, and a bushier moustache and he's a dead ringer.
There's no very big difficulty with the apparent 3D effect or negative appearance of the shroud. Differential fading of different pigments and greater image remnant where a tempera wash was most thickly applied for the highlights is all that's needed. If you want to see how that works, stick that above picture into a paint program of your choice, extract the highlights and paste onto an image of the shroud in multiply mode. Apart from being a much better preserved image, the resemblance is obvious.
6 September 2009
7 hours 41 min
I was always of the opinion that it was an image of Jacques de Molay, like the other poster here suggested. Or DaVinci using some early technique to try and mimic the passage in the "Acta Sanctorum" dealing with the story of "Berenice" or "Veronica" as she became known later...
23 July 2008
13 weeks 6 days
Not sure what made the image on the Turin Shroud. But from everything I have studied noone has managed to make anything remotely resembling it. A mystery still to be solved.
How easliy things from the past are misunderstood and misused in many ways...I believe that this shroud is just another cloth with an image that most people will associate with the 1st influential bearded figure that comes to mind (Jesus). It is most likely spilled wine or early use of photography paper and not a divine blanket.
5 November 2009
18 weeks 6 days
An early method of photography was likely used by Leonardo Da Vinci to create a self-portrait on some painters' drop cloth.
Peace be upon you.
12 April 2007
19 min
Mister Taylor: tear down this poll!
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
16 August 2007
1 week 4 days
The one clue so obvious is the cloth shows the head as if it was a flat object when folded over the top of the head. Looks more than likely this image transfer onto cloth was done with a wooden carving about 8 inches thick with the cloth folded over the head which was tapered to about an inch or two. Perhaps the entire carved front and back body image was no more than several inches thick. Look for yourself. You will see what I mean.
I wanted to ad, the image looks like one of those templars laying on the floor of the round nave in the temple church in england.