Shroud of Turin Real!

[3113]

Ha! I guess this settles the debate!

....Barbara Frale, a researcher at the Vatican archives, says in a new book that she used computer-enhanced images of the shroud to decipher faintly written words in Greek, Latin and Aramaic scattered across the cloth. She asserts that the words include the name "(J)esu(s) Nazarene" — or Jesus of Nazareth — in Greek. That, she said, proves the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have mentioned Jesus without referring to his divinity. Failing to do so would risk being branded a heretic.

"Even someone intent on forging a relic would have had all the reasons to place the signs of divinity on this object," Frale said Friday. "Had we found 'Christ' or the 'Son of God' we could have considered it a hoax, or a devotional inscription."

....While faint letters scattered around the face on the shroud were seen decades ago, serious researchers dismissed them, due to the results of the radiocarbon dating test, Frale told The Associated Press. But when she cut out the words from enhanced photos of the shroud and showed them to experts, they concurred the writing style was typical of the Middle East in the first century — Jesus' time.

...In her book "The Shroud of Jesus Nazarene," published in Italian, Frale reconstructs from the lettering on the shroud what she believes Jesus' death certificate said: "Jesus Nazarene. Found (guilty of inciting the people to revolt). Put to death in the year 16 of Tiberius. Taken down at the ninth hour." ...Frale said her research was done without the support of the Vatican. "I tried to be objective and leave religious issues aside," Frale told the AP. "What I studied was an ancient document that certifies the execution of a man, in a specific time and place."

Frale's work usually focuses on medieval documents. She is noted for research on the order of the Knights Templar and her discovery of unpublished documents on the group in the Vatican's archives. Earlier this year, she published a study saying the Templars once had the shroud in their possession. That raised eyebrows because the order was abolished in the early 14th century and the shroud is first recorded in history around 1360 in the hands of a French knight.

So there!

...And yet, there are still some doubting Thomases as the full article notes here...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

As I stated before. The Shroud is like dark matter. There isn't any decent explanation for it; it's just there. It doesn't care whether you believe in it or not. It just exists. There's enough 'evidence' either way to give True Believers and atheists, romanticists and skeptics, serious scholars and dreamers plenty to argue about for centuries. The Shroud doesn't care one way or another. It simply is.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Ha! I guess this settles the debate!

So there!

...And yet, there are still some doubting Thomases as the full article notes here...

If, as alleged, the Shroud IS a holy artifact; then some miraculous or otherwise significant phenomena will or would have occurred in its presence or proximity.....These phenomena manifest themselves as unexplainable or otherwise remarkable situations - miracles....
Throughout it's history the Shroud has generated plenty of controversy but no miracles....I rather doubt it's authenticity....Just my humble take on the matter....

 

[voluptuary_manque]

If, as alleged, the Shroud IS a holy artifact; then some miraculous or otherwise significant phenomena will or would have occurred in its presence or proximity.....These phenomena manifest themselves as unexplainable or otherwise remarkable situations - miracles....
Throughout it's history the Shroud has generated plenty of controversy but no miracles....I rather doubt it's authenticity....Just my humble take on the matter....

Well, that would be true if you really believe in Relics. There are plenty of believers who don't have any truck with such things and they could still believe the historicity of the Shroud. Miracles are neither here nor there.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Well, that would be true if you really believe in Relics. There are plenty of believers who don't have any truck with such things and they could still believe the historicity of the Shroud. Miracles are neither here nor there.

True Relics always have phenomena associated with them...I'm not talking about Indiana Jones or that Tom Hanks series stuff, but verifiable, inexplicable, phenomena. Call them whatever you want, the Roman Catholic Church uses the term 'miracles' to recognize and dismiss the inexplicable at the same time. This is one reason that I really doubt the validity of this particular 'Relic'.....no verifiable phenomena (miracles)

 

[Boota]

I've never understood the obsession with the shroud. It is obviously a piece of art. Valuable for it's significance as an ancient piece of art, but other than that, nothing special. The rest of it is believers just dying to make it into something more. Once they've committed to the stone certainty that it is "real" no amount of proof could back them down. All the so-called evidence they point out to say it is more than just art is total ignorant bullshit.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

"Religious Archeologists" have been trying for 150 years to "PROVE" the text of the four gospels. For 150 years they have failed to find any definitive evidence that a specific Jesus walked the earth and was the Messiah, that same Jesus was "crucified on a cross" (an incorrect term since the Greek translates as HUNG from a TREE or POLE), or that he rose from the tomb and ascended to heaven. All the gospels were written 50 or 60 year after the events in the midst of religious growth and fervor.

To make this even worse, these so called "Archeologists" keep coming up with "new and conclusive evidence" such as the "Ossuary of James" (http://www.thenazareneway.com/ossuary_of_james.htm) which was later proven to be a fraud. And finally it is a well know fact that the "Relic Business" boomed during the middle ages (at the exact time that carbon dating shows the Shroud was made) with many people digging up graves all over northern Europe for bones (apparently Peter had three arms for instance) to be sold to Monasteries which grabbed them up thinking a "relic" would enhance their stature.

Bah Humbug!

 

[The_Trouvere]

I wanted to believe that the Shroud of Turin was authentic, but carbon 14 proves that it was created during the middle ages. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter.

 

[matriarch]

I wanted to believe that the Shroud of Turin was authentic, but carbon 14 proves that it was created during the middle ages. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter.

Ditto.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

No, it isn't. The C14 test that the University of Oxford did has been retracted because the university now admits that the sample was probably contaminated. If memory serves me correctly, the most recent test dates it to somewhere between the first and third centuries, which is about as close as you can get. What does that prove? Old cloth. The Shroud doesn't "prove" anything . . . but it sure fascinates, doesn't it?

 

[SweetWitch]

I painted the shroud.

 

[CharleyH]

Ha! I guess this settles the debate!

So there!

...And yet, there are still some doubting Thomases as the full article notes here...

Hardly.

Barbara Frale, a researcher at the Vatican archives, says in a new book that she used computer-enhanced images of the shroud to decipher faintly written words in Greek, Latin and Aramaic scattered across the cloth. She asserts that the words include the name "(J)esu(s) Nazarene" — or Jesus of Nazareth — in Greek. That, she said, proves the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have mentioned Jesus without referring to his divinity. Failing to do so would risk being branded a heretic.

How many Jesus's were born in Nazareth? How many died in that particular year?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I painted the shroud.

With brushes made from the pubic hair of virgins, which I supplied. *nod*

(the brushes, not the pubic hair)

 

[SweetWitch]

With brushes made from the pubic hair of virgins, which I supplied. *nod*

(the brushes, not the pubic hair)

Did I ever pay you for those brushes? I can't remember.

 

[3113]

How many Jesus's were born in Nazareth? How many died in that particular year?

Actually, it's a matter of how many were found guilty and put to death that year, as that's what the researcher claims it says. That does narrow things down a little.

 

[CharleyH]

Actually, it's a matter of how many were found guilty and put to death that year, as that's what the researcher claims it says. That does narrow things down a little.

damn - you caught me not reading the full article. Apologies, 3113.

 

[Epmd607]

Well, that would be true if you really believe in Relics. There are plenty of believers who don't have any truck with such things and they could still believe the historicity of the Shroud. Miracles are neither here nor there.

You need historicity of Jesus before you get historicity of the Shroud as Jesus' burial cloth.

 

[Epmd607]

No, it isn't. The C14 test that the University of Oxford did has been retracted because the university now admits that the sample was probably contaminated. If memory serves me correctly, the most recent test dates it to somewhere between the first and third centuries, which is about as close as you can get. What does that prove? Old cloth. The Shroud doesn't "prove" anything . . . but it sure fascinates, doesn't it?

Nah, the carbon dating was done by three or four universities all at the same time, Oxford, Arizona and maybe Cal-tech, they all read 800-1300CE, I'm doing this roughly from memory. There hasn't been any new dating because they said the new box they put the shroud in destroyed the possibility of dating. The best evidence says the shroud is from the Middle Ages, if you find new carbon dating was done post a link. Some guy this year re-created the shroud pretty well, I think it was mentioned on this board.

"In 1988, the Holy See agreed to permit six centers to independently perform radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud, but at the last minute they changed their minds and permitted only three research centers to undertake such analysis. The chosen laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, produced results indicating that the analysed portion of the shroud dated from the 13th to 14th centuries (1260–1390)."

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It's far more complicated than that. I realize that Wiki isn't the absolute answer to everything, but this article takes into account a great deal and has a huge bibliography, one that would take entirely too long to detail here. The upshot of the whole thing is that nothing is settled, which is exactly the position I have maintained all along. It can't be unshakably proven an fake except to those who want it to be a fake. It can't be unshakably proven real except to those who want it to be real. So if you have a position on either side, you can find evidence to support it. That doesn't mean that there isn't evidence on the other that someone else can put forward with the same vehemence. Dogmatic stances don't work here.

 

[Epmd607]

The upshot of the whole thing is that nothing is settled, which is exactly the position I have maintained all along. It can't be unshakably proven an fake except to those who want it to be a fake. It can't be unshakably proven real except to those who want it to be real. So if you have a position on either side, you can find evidence to support it.

They could have made swiss cheese out of the Shroud to do the carbon dating, but they didn't. It wouldn't matter to some people even if they did and got the same dates of origination in the Middle Ages for every different piece. The best scholarship and science couldn't come up with an origin in 0-200CE. But that's okay because the burden of proof is on those who believe it's the Shroud of Jesus from the New Test. The only known way of scientifically showing that the Shroud was from Jesus' time was carbon dating, so they did it, and people can write papers why the portion they chose was a repair or whatever, but just because questions can be raised about the scientific method doesn't mean the Shroud is any closer to Jesus than the Middle Ages.

Putting aside the science, no one can show that the Shroud that's in Turin right now existed before 1357. How could something supposedly so holy just appear to be put on display in some Church, 1300 years later? It wasn't even a special church, there was nothing special about Turino either. The best information points to it not being from the 1st century, and there is corroborating data that says Middle Ages.

 

[Boota]

If anyone ever proves Jesus existed I'll then consider whether the shroud is real.

 

[3113]

If anyone ever proves Jesus existed I'll then consider whether the shroud is real.

Well, I'm not even convinced that you really exist. I still think that avatar's too good to be true

I suspect this is the real Boota--

http://www.mid.muohio.edu/computer/images/geek2.jpg

And that avatar's just photoshopped together

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Hardly.

How many Jesus's were born in Nazareth? How many died in that particular year?

Actually, Charley, you are correct. Jesus was quite a common name. There are records that show "Jesus" in one area ofJudea and the next day evangelizing in another several days travel away. That would indicate that there were more than one doing the same thing.

The other part of the article that makes no sense is the same problem that arose with the Dead Sea Scrolls - "Computer Enhanced Images" of the "writing". That technique can be used to "enhance" anything to be anything. Ever hear of PhotoShop? Same thing.

There are a couple of other things that are bothersome about this. First Barbara Frale describes herself as "a historian on staff at the Vatican Secret Archives. A specialist on the Templars, the Crusades, and the papacy..." If she is "...on the staff at the Vatican Secret Archives" she is hardly a person with no vested interest. The Vatican has commissioned hundreds of "Religious Researchers and Archeologists" for nearly 150 years to "PROVE" the bible. All their efforts have raised great hoopla but turned out to be false, forgeries or just plane wrong interpretations of obvious evidence. Case in point the insane interpretations of an entire fictitious civilization of cleric jews living at the palace at Quom Ran.

Secondly, if she is an expert on the Templars, Crusades and Papacy, she has stepped out of her field. Interestingly enough, in her book Templars, The Secret History Reveled she uses the exact same device of photo enhancement to prove the Knights Templar found the Holy Grail and hid it from the papacy. Nobody points out that the time of Christ was the first century while the Templars and Crusades were 800 to 1400 years later.

She sounds more like Dan Brown out to sell fictional books than an honest researcher.

 

[DeeZire]

If anyone ever proves Jesus existed I'll then consider whether the shroud is real.

I once saw the face of Jesus in a cum-puddle I had deposited on my GF's tummy, but by the time I found the camera, she had swirled it into a happy face and it was too late to prove the existence of Jesus.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Personally, I'm interested in this notion that "faded writing" can be seen on something as coarsely grained as that linen. That's one of those pattern seeking reflexes us humans are so good at, in my opinion-- apophenia.