The Shroud and Historicity

[pavurcn]

To read about the Vignon markings and the very likely impact of the Shroud on the iconography of Christ from at least the 6th century, see this page.

[iskander]

To read about the Vignon markings and the very likely impact of the Shroud on the iconography of Christ from at least the 6th century, see this page.

Pope Sixtus IV stated "men may look upon the true blood and portrait of Jesus Christ himself.", but the modern Catholics say differently. It is a very , very rare thing to do for Catholics to ever do.
You should pray for forgiveness and fight Satan,

"Sixtus IV, in which Sixtus states that in the Shroud "men may look upon the true blood and portrait of Jesus Christ himself." A certain difficulty was caused by the existence elsewhere of other Shrouds similarly impressed with the figure of Jesus Christ and some of these cloths, notably those of Besançon, Cadouin, Champiègne, Xabregas, etc., also claimed to be the authentic linen sindon provided by Joseph of Arimathea, but until the close of the last century no great attack was made upon the genuineness of the Turin relic....
...
On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm

[JoeWallack]

JW:
[giving you the benefit of the doubt]You seem blissfully unaware of the evidence indicating The Shroud is a painting from the 14th century[/giving you the benefit of the doubt]. The best evidence that it is is that it was carbon dated to the 14th century by three prestigious independent credentialed laboratories. Not as well known is that Walter McCrone, the only Forensic Scientist ever given free access to The Shroud and The Church's related records for an extended time period tells us it was his understanding that The Italian Commission had previously carbon dated The Shroud to the 14th century but The Church suppressed the results. On the other side there is no scientific evidence that The Shroud is from the 1st century. Your effort so far in this Thread is evidence of that. You haven't been able to find any. So the better question here is why are you trying to promote The Shroud as 1st century? What is your motivation?


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[pavurcn]

JW:
[giving you the benefit of the doubt]You seem blissfully unaware of the evidence indicating The Shroud is a painting from the 14th century[/giving you the benefit of the doubt]. The best evidence that it is is that it was carbon dated to the 14th century by three prestigious independent credentialed laboratories. Not as well known is that Walter McCrone, the only Forensic Scientist ever given free access to The Shroud and The Church's related records for an extended time period tells us it was his understanding that The Italian Commission had previously carbon dated The Shroud to the 14th century but The Church suppressed the results. On the other side there is no scientific evidence that The Shroud is from the 1st century. Your effort so far in this Thread is evidence of that. You haven't been able to find any. So the better question here is why are you trying to promote The Shroud as 1st century? What is your motivation?


Joseph

The New Porphyry

My motivation? The truth. What is yours? Avoidance of the truth?

You are not well informed. The image is not paint. The carbon-dating was on a repair strip from the edge of the cloth. Fanti showed the shroud could date from the time of Christ. The weave has been affirmed by an expert to be not inconsistent with first-century weaving. No debunking in sight so far. If it is a fake, give the evidence. Don't just quote other ignorant people.

[JoeWallack]

Then I Saw His Face

JW:
[giving you the benefit of the doubt]You seem blissfully unaware of the evidence indicating The Shroud is a painting from the 14th century[/giving you the benefit of the doubt]. The best evidence that it is is that it was carbon dated to the 14th century by three prestigious independent credentialed laboratories. Not as well known is that Walter McCrone, the only Forensic Scientist ever given free access to The Shroud and The Church's related records for an extended time period tells us it was his understanding that The Italian Commission had previously carbon dated The Shroud to the 14th century but The Church suppressed the results. On the other side there is no scientific evidence that The Shroud is from the 1st century. Your effort so far in this Thread is evidence of that. You haven't been able to find any. So the better question here is why are you trying to promote The Shroud as 1st century? What is your motivation?


Joseph

The New Porphyry

My motivation? The truth. What is yours? Avoidance of the truth?

You are not well informed. The image is not paint. The carbon-dating was on a repair strip from the edge of the cloth. Fanti showed the shroud could date from the time of Christ. The weave has been affirmed by an expert to be not inconsistent with first-century weaving. No debunking in sight so far. If it is a fake, give the evidence. Don't just quote other ignorant people.

JW:
The laboratories were Oxford, Zürich, and Tucson Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. They stand by their results. The Church and supporters of authenticity supervised the selection of the sample. Everyone knows The Shroud is carbon dated to the 14th century, I know it, you know it, the Church knows it, the American public knows it and even Bob Dole knows it. That's why The Church will not allow any more Carbon dating which they easily could do. The 14th century dating also agrees with the beginning of the known provenance of this Shroud, the artistic process used to create it and the extant confession held by The Church from the 14th century artist who admitted creating it. You have numerous other extant shrouds held by Churches who claim theirs is "authentic" who have exponentially better credentials for originality because their shroud has not been scientifically dated to the 14th century.

The next best evidence for forgery is that Walter McCrone, the only credentialed forensic scientist who had unlimited access to The Shroud and related records reported that The Shroud failed every standard forensic test for evidence of blood Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin.

While I confess that my favorite part of this job is when Apologists like you, when confronted with the real evidence, go back to their Apologetic sources and realize they've been lied to, stop making shit up. This isn't the place for it. This is a religious form based on science and reason. There is no better. Go to a pseudo-form based on theology and speculation. I have faith you will also notice that there is a huge difference in our respective literary ability. So this will not go on indefinitely. There's a reason Apologists do not last long here and end up more afraid than 16:8.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[Ulan]

It's funny that someone actually places faith into this shroud. Not even the Catholic church truly does (you just have to properly read the language they use when talking about it).

So there's absolutely no evidence of this shroud from prior to the 14th century. If you look at the Wikipedia entry, you will find this:
"It is often mentioned that the first certain historical record dates from 1353 or 1357.[5][32] However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.[8][33]"

So the first mention of this relic is one from an investigation that claims it's a fraud. And this is supposed to inspire confidence? We don't even have the sales pitch of whoever sold this thing originally.

It doesn't even match the description in gJohn.

[pavurcn]

Fundamentalist-apologists for the inauthenticity of the Shroud might consider some recent science:

But the coup de grace for the dating process came from a study released on 20 January 2005, in which Raymond Rogers, a scientist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of the original members of the STURP team, conclusively demonstrated that the samples used for the original radiocarbon tests were taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud, and therefore did not represent the original fabric.29 The 1988 Shroud dating tests and results have thus been completely discredited. (page 12)

McCrone’s claims have been convincingly refuted in several STURP technical reports (Pellicori and Evans 1980:42; Pellicori 1980:1918; Heller and Adler 1981:91-94; Schwalbe and Rogers 1982:11-24). (page 17)

Taken from http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sorensen2.pdf . Summary of Challenges to the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin By Richard B. Sorensen ©2007 All Rights Reserved

No debunking in sight. Only folks desperately clinging to mythicism. Wikipedia's article is biased toward the discredited debunking. It doesn't give all the reasons so many (including some scientists) favor authenticity.

[Ulan]

"Invisible reweaving" is impossible. That whole trajectory of thought is dead in the water. All these alleged "debunkings" of the radiocarbon results have been rejected.

Anyway, this whole discussion is kind of moot. There is zero evidence that connects this shroud with Jesus of Nazareth. Absolutely nothing.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

The Shroud of Turin seems to tell the same story as gospel accounts.

How?

See the 23 parallels mentioned above.

Semitic male -- scourging (with Roman flagellum) -- marks possibly from a crown of thorns (very rare, perhaps unique in crucifixion accounts) -- nail wounds -- crucifixion -- lance -- death -- (and possibly a singular energy event / Resurrection). Chemical proportions in travertine aragonite dirt suggest Jerusalem. Furthermore: Some people see spring flowers imaged on the Shroud or the find the pollen remains of Palestinian flora. Others confirm coins on the eyes with marks (e.g., of a lituus) like those marks on certian coins minted under Pontius Pilate dating to around the year 29. It is support for a narrative that you might be able to recognize. The passion account is considered one of the oldest sections of gMark's narrative.

So far I know all Gospels emphasized the point that Jesus was „bound“ or „entwined“ with the linen. John used the common word for „bound“ (as in „binding the strong man“) and Matthew and Luke a word for „entwined“, „wrap“ or „twist“. Mark used a word with a similar meaning, the same as in LXX 1 Kings 21:10 (= MT 1 Sam 21:9 The priest said, “The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod.“)

From the Gospels one should rather imagine - so to speak - a kind of "swaddling" or „mummy“ wrapping than a draping of the body with a mortcloth.

[pavurcn]

Interesting question about the kind of wrapping. Was it in strips like mummies? Here is one article that points to a far more philological one.