Given what I’ve seen of the proposed methods for how it could have been made, I’d say quite the opposite, since the cloth could have been doubled, or that they might have tried one side of the cloth out as a test piece and then used the other side for the final version. One would think that God would have a higher quality printer (say something with like 8 billion dpi) than the incredibly low-res version he apparently used.
They’re determined to prove it’s real no matter what.
Get over it, folks. It ain’t.
It’s the face of his evil twin, Cthulhu of Nazareth.
So the paint or heat or whatever went all the way through the cloth. Not really earth-shattering, IMO.
If it is real, I have to say that Jesus looks an awful lot like Duane Allman. Guess you need to listen to At Fillmore East more often if you wanna get to heaven, huh?
Well, if you want to get to heaven you got to raise a little hell.
People who want to believe will believe. I read a pamphlet-type thing on it and it discussed the history of the shroud and some religious stuff … nothing about the fact that the face on it isn’t shaped right to be the remnant of a face wrapped in cloth (here’s a hint: it wouldn’t be the size of a normal man’s face).
People who want to believe will believe pretty well regardless of whatever science says. Anything science says, they can (and will) reply with “I believe it’s a miracle.” The rest of us can either get on with our lives or continue the unwinnable argument.
Fight ignorance all you want. First you’ll have to find a rebuttal to “I don’t care what you say, I choose to believe something else instead.” Best of luck there.
Yeah, but you have to admit that it is a strange object, though. It certainly makes me curious although I don’t consider myself christian.
And here I was going to say that the second face was Lennon…
There was a PBS special about the Shroud on the night before Easter of which I only saw a few minutes. They were talking about another cloth that is keep in Spain that is hundreds of years older than the carbon dating showed the Shroud to be. There is blood on this cloth and it was stated that this has been proven to be the same blood that is on the Shroud. Does anyone know anything about this other cloth and the claims made about it? Is there blood on the Shroud?
No. Not very strange. A shroud, from a few hundred years ago would maybe look like that… very possible. From 2000 years ago??? Not bloody likely. :rolleyes: What Mr. Blue Sky said…
I’m not in any way arguing that divine intervention caused that piece of cloth to look that way. Of course, the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of it being a fabrication. What I find interesting is how it was fabricated. If find it a strange object not from a religious perspective but from artistic, technical and historical point of views.
As an old curiosity, there are a number of observations that are interesting and none of them have anything to do with Jesus. For instance:
There are many types of pollen found in the cloth’s fibers. This indicates that it travelled a bit before showing up in Europe. It might have been that the cloth was manufactured in the Middle East and the image produced in Europe. In any event, it’s still an interesting factoid.
The blood marks are real human blood. Group AB. Higher levels of bilirubin have been reported. Proponents of the shroud’s authenticity have argued that this is consistent with heavy beating. A search reveals, however, that higher levels of bilirubin is typical of liver disease. The bleeder might have had jaundice. I find this interesting.
There is a decent argument that contamination by soot from a fire, and fungi leads to some imprecision in carbon 14 dating. It might be a bit older than tests seem to show. What this means is that it might be a bit older than tests seem to show.
The most interesting aspect, though, is that I have yet to read or hear about a convincing hypothesis as to how it was manufactured. I love art history and old manufacturing techniques fascinate me. Also interesting, in an art history context, are the following questions (assuming the iamge was produced prior to, or during the 14th century): why is the man portrayed bleeding from the wrists, when crucifiction scenes of the time show nails in the palm? Why is the image negative? Why is the representation more naturalistic than contemporary artworks?
I’ll readily admit that some people take those factoids and run quite a few miles with them. I just find them amusing. In the same way that I find the Voynich manuscript interesting. The deciphered text might be extremely trite for all we know, it’s still a fascinating and strange object. Like the shroud.
The allegedly Palestinian pollens may have been fraudulent.
The “blood” is red paint. (See also the above link.)
In order for the Shroud to be the “right” age, it would have had to have been contaminated to the extent that it would have tripled in weight.
See also the thread Shroud of Turin in “Comments on Cecil’s Columns”.
Thanks for the links MEBuckner.
On the issue of the blood, although the AB identification does seem to be BS, from what I could find there was some sort of debate as to whether there was possibly some blood on the cloth or if it’s all paint.
In one corner, there are Dr. Alan Adler and Dr. John Heller who co-authored a number of peer-reviewed papers on the presence of blood component in the shroud.
In the other corner is Dr. McCrone, mentioned in one of your links, who came to the conclusion that it was all paint. McCrone used polarized light microscopy while Adler and Heller used chemical analysis of fibres. There appears to have been some amount of animosity between the two groups.
What is very unfortunate is that pretty much all the sources that contain some amount of info on this debate seek to authenticate the relic and are not in any way impartial.
I came accross a fairly good article by a Dominican. Unfortunately it’s in French. He does a fairly good job at presenting elements of the debate, particularly historical ones. (His conclusion is that it’s a fabrication.)
The one thing I wasn’t aware of and was mentioned in the last link are the earliest documentations of the shroud. Here’s a link that deals with those circumstances in greater detail. Bishop Henri de Portiers of Troyes is said to have lead an investigation in the authenticity of the shroud. The earliest mention of it is in a letter his successor, Pierre d’Arcis wrote to the pope. In it, he mentions that an artist confessed to manufacturing the work. He also mentionned that it was cunningly executed fraud. It’s the “cunningly executed” part I find fascinating, as well as its general historical context.
I have read quite a bit about the shroud, and I believe that it is a fake. However, nobody seems to be abletoexplain why the shroud image is a negative…it would have been almost impossible for a medieval artist to have painted a negaitive image on pupose.
My theory is this: the shroud wasonce originally painted as a positive image (like a atandard painting). The shroud was hung up, exposed tosunlight for centuries…this caused the exposedlinen fabric to darken with time. Also, the shoud was washed,possibly dozens of times…this washed most of the pigement out of the (positive) image…this left the sun-darkened image as a negative.
This explains why the late Dr. McCrone found iron oxides in the untinted portions of the image. As for the blood=it is entirely possible that human blood was added tothe image over the centuries…the cloth is 700 years old.
Add real blood now and then to punch it up and increase its value as a tourist attraction? I’m shocked–SHOCKED–you would suggest such a thing!
I love the whole “It’s real blood so it must be Jesus!” thinking. Like He was the only source of blood the past 2000 years.
The Bethlehem Horror: “It was his twin… only it looked more like the Father than he did!”
According to Adler and Heller, iron oxide can be a bi-product of the linen manufacturing process. I believe they found that the oxide was both very pure and present throughout the cloth, which would be consistent with such an origin.
I don’t see what would be so exceptional about blood being on the sheet. I remember when I was a kid there was a big hoop-la about statues of the virgin Mary that were crying blood in a church. It was real blood. Or course, someone soon enough admitted that the thing was a hoax and the blood was his own. I can see something like that happening with the shroud.
Okay, here’s something that’s bugged me. Jesus died at Sundown Friday. IIRC, they didn’t even have time do do any rites. They just dumped him in the tomb, and headed home to observe the sabbath. Sunday rolls around, and Mary; Mary; and Sarah head out to clean and prepare the body for burial. That’s when they find the stone rolled away and some guys in flashy suits hanging out.
Before the sabbath, there was no time to prepare the body (i.e. clean and wrap).
After the sabbath, there was no need.
And don’t get me started on how 36 hours = 3 days.
The Turin shroud does not conform to the Biblical description of Jesus’ grave clothes:
I don’t understand why there ever was any debate over this; if you accept the Biblical account, the cloth is clearly not the genuine article, if you don’t accept the Biblical account, you have no reason to suspect it to be genuine in the first place.