Shroud of Turin - Page 21

humble_catholic · #**301** May 19, '12, 4:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrick457

Thereby disproving the idea that any believer in the Shroud's authenticity is/must be a Christian.

For the record, the guy who runs Shroud.com, Barrie Schwortz (official photographer of STURP) is an Orthodox Jew, and he has kind of used it to his advantage, since (in his own words) he has "no horse in the race." In fact STURP was composed of scientists having different faith traditions (some were Christians, others were not), so skeptics can't really accuse them of religiously-motivated bias.

And BTW, Barrie was a guest in Catholic Answers Live in 2009 and 2010. Has anyone posted a link yet to these two shows?

Your right Patrick

, and this is what I liked most about the sturp team. How all of these guys got along together is beyond me

there was even an atheist on the sturp team walter mccrone. Mccrone claimed the shroud was a painting, and he actually violated sturp team protocol by not sharing his claims with the other sturp team members and instead went public with it first.

None of the other sturp scientists found any evidence of the image being made by paint and they had much more sofisticated equipment than Mccrone did.
When Mccrone couldnt get one of his research papers on the shroud to pass peer review.
Healso claimed that he was a christian before he studied the shroud and claimed that it was teh shroud that made him lose his faith. It was later found out that he was a humanist-atheist all along and that his story of beinga christian wasnt true.

I would also be very interested in the barry schwartz interview on catholic answers if anyone can find the link.

Altar Server 2 · #**302** May 19, '12, 4:35 pm

I have not read all of the 21 pages of this topic. So bear that in mind if I am being redundant.

The image on the Shroud of Turin can not be scientifically proved to be caused by the Resurrection of Christ. That being said, scientist can prove that the image was NOT caused by certain things. For example, paint. It is not possible that the image was painted for a couple reasons.
First, the image only graces the top fibres of the cloth and does not penetrate. when paint is applied, it sinks in to the cloth.
Second, the image is not visible up close but only from a certain distance away.
This would mean that the artist would have to paint with a 5 foot paint brush with a paint that does not penetrate the cloth. This is absurd.

This is my take. I believe it is the image created by the resurrected Christ, but it cannot be proved scientifically. They have not found one plausible explaination of the image other than some sort of radiation, which would have been caused by the resurrected body. I think it is pretty clear it is not a fraud and it is absurd to think it was an accident.

Blue Horizon · #**303** May 19, '12, 8:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrick457

Diaphthora (from diaphtheiro, 'to rot/destroy/ruin/' or 'to ruin') does mean 'decay' or 'corruption'. And you kind of bring up a good point: is there a need to interpret this passage (and pretty much every prophecy IMHO) in a scrupulously literalistic sense?

To bring up another related example. Some early Christians (like Tertullian) thought that Jesus was an ugly person - perhaps even deformed - in real life, apparently because they took passages like Psalm 22 ("I am a worm and no man...") and Isaiah 52 ("as many have been astonished at you, so shall his visage be inglorious among men, and his form among the sons of men") literally. Conversely, others thought that Jesus was handsome because they take certain passages such as the description of the bridegroom from the Song of Songs must have referred to that.

Patrick
Thanks for checking the Greek - and those other ancient comments are fascinating.

I believe the intent of the NT authors is predominantly theological not historical (though of course much of the clearly historic details in Acts has been vindicated). We also have to be careful to read things in the way that a first century Jew/Hellenist would have read and understood them. Thus, when Jesus is described as Mary's "firstborn" my atheist brother says, "aha, Mary must have had other children." Its an anachronist reading of the text (a bit like Charlton Heston wearing his gold rolex as he careers around the stadium in Ben Hur).

I believe the theological truth being preserved by stating that Jesus's body saw no "corruption" is that, by the Father's will, Christ's authority and power is greater than that of Death (Hades, the Devil or whatever you will).

Hence the NT phrases about "no corruption" may be no more than wonderfully poetic alternative way of describing the Resurrection and its meaning for us. I do not think it really matters what stage of physical decay (or not) the body actually underwent in those 3 days before it was glorified.

patrick457 · #**304** May 19, '12, 8:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon

Patrick
Thanks for checking the Greek - and those other ancient comments are fascinating.

I believe the intent of the NT authors is predominantly theological not historical (though of course much of the clearly historic details in Acts has been vindicated). We also have to be careful to read things in the way that a first century Jew/Hellenist would have read and understood them. Thus, when Jesus is described as Mary's "firstborn" my atheist brother says, "aha, Mary must have had other children." Its an anachronist reading of the text (a bit like Charlton Heston wearing his gold rolex as he careers around the stadium in Ben Hur).

I believe the theological truth being preserved by stating that Jesus's body saw no "corruption" is that, by the Father's will, Christ's authority and power is greater than that of Death (Hades, the Devil or whatever you will).

Hence the NT phrases about "no corruption" may be no more than wonderfully poetic alternative way of describing the Resurrection and its meaning for us. I do not think it really matters what stage of physical decay (or not) the body actually underwent in those 3 days before it was glorified.

That's what I think too. There are people who read Biblical prophecies as if each and every word, jot and tittle included, must be fulfilled in a literal fashion. (I mean, look at how stuff like the book of Revelation tends to be read by these people.) Personally though, I see more the underlying meaning or point as being more important than how the prophecy was worded.

patrick457 · #**305** May 19, '12, 8:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by humble_catholic

Your right Patrick

, and this is what I liked most about the sturp team. How all of these guys got along together is beyond me

there was even an atheist on the sturp team walter mccrone. Mccrone claimed the shroud was a painting, and he actually violated sturp team protocol by not sharing his claims with the other sturp team members and instead went public with it first.

None of the other sturp scientists found any evidence of the image being made by paint and they had much more sofisticated equipment than Mccrone did.
When Mccrone couldnt get one of his research papers on the shroud to pass peer review.
Healso claimed that he was a christian before he studied the shroud and claimed that it was teh shroud that made him lose his faith. It was later found out that he was a humanist-atheist all along and that his story of beinga christian wasnt true.

I would also be very interested in the barry schwartz interview on catholic answers if anyone can find the link.

Here you go.

**GEddie** · #**306** May 20, '12, 12:17 am

Rigor Mortis, AIUI, is caused by the acidification of the muscles due to the absence of oxygen. It is not decay (corruption) per se.

The RM releases later after the death, which would not occur if it were a result of body corruption.

ICXC NIKA

patrick457 · #**307** May 20, '12, 2:59 am

Here's a transcript of a part of the broadcast:

Patrick Coffin: Now, but you were on the other side of the fence for a long time, Barrie. You would have been one of the skeptics.

Barrie Schwortz: I was one of the skeptics. Right from the beginning, I didn't even feel it was appropriate to be on this team at the beginning, and I, you know, sort of resisted, and but, you know, there were certain properties of the image that eventually hooked me in, and, but even, uh, just two months into the project I turned to one of our fellow team-members, uh, Don Lynn – may he rest in peace – from the Jet Propulsion Laboratories, the man in charge of imaging on Voyager and Viking and Mariner and Galileo, and I said to Don, "Gee, Don, what's a nice Jewish boy like me doing on this?"
And he kinda looked at me and he laughed, and he says, "Oh, oh, you–" he said, uh, "Have you forgotten that the man in question's a Jew?" And I said, "Of course not." And he said, "You don't think God would want some of His chosen people on the team?" I laughed, and he gave me some great advice. He said, "Go do the best job you can. God doesn't tell us in advance what the plan is, but one day you'll know." That was good sound advice – but maybe the best I've ever been given – so that kept me on the team. But I fully expected to find paint and brushstrokes when I arrived: we got there, they laid it out, I pulled out my handy Tenex (?) magnifier, started looking at the image, looking for paint particles or, or pigments or anything that...and you know, up close, it's almost impossible to detect the difference between image and non-image because the image area fibers are only subtly darker than the surrounding areas. And the darkness of the Shroud's image comes from a cluster of those – sort of like a half-tone reproduction in a newspaper: the more dots you have, the darker it is; and in the case of the Shroud, the more darker fibers we have the more visible that area is.
But I was still not convinced, there were still many items, uh, things about the Shroud that weren't convincing to me, but over a period of seventeen years, all of those were cleared up, except one: the blood on the Shroud still remains reddish in color. Old blood is supposed to turn black or brown. And it wasn't until Dr. Alan Adler, another member of our team – another Jewish team member, as a matter of fact: world-renowned blood chemist, top man in the world on the subject of blood chemistry – he and I were speaking in 1995, and I brought this up and he said, "Barrie, don't you understand that, uh, when a man is tortured extensively and over a long period of time, the body goes into shock, the red blood cells walls start to break down, the liver floods the blood stream with bilirubin and that blood, once it gets on the cloth, will remain red forever." And that was verified to me by Frederick Zugibe – Dr. Fred Zugibe, a forensic pathologist who confirmed that, that was the sort of the last piece of the puzzle, and from that point forward I came to accept the Shroud was authentic, and it was shortly that – after that that I built the website, because I detected in all the stories I was hearing about the Shroud in the media, the public wasn't getting the honest truth – I was there, and I know what we know. And I was so frustrated by that, and the fact that my friend called me up and said, "Oh, Leonardo did it."

Patrick: Sure.

Barrie: And when I heard that, I had an epiphany, I decided to build a website where I could share this information: same information that convinced me, a Jew, a non-Christian, a no-believer – whatever you want to call me, that this cloth wrapped the historic Jesus. So, obviously that's not really a religious statement, it doesn't– you know, I understand the differences I'm making here, but the point is, there is no doubt in my mind that that's the only thing it could be. I think Arthur Conan Doyle said in one of his Sherlock Holmes books that, "when you eliminate all the possibilities, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the answer."

Patrick: Right.

Barrie: That's where we are with the Shroud.

itullian · #**308** May 21, '12, 10:22 pm

so how many examiners of the shroud have become believers?

**buffalo** · #**309** Jun 7, '12, 6:33 am

New

Pollen is evidence that the Holy Shroud is indeed a winding sheet

According to university researchers the pollen found in the Turin Shroud corresponds to that of flowers used for funerals in Asia Minor 2000 years ago

Marco Tosatti
Rome In a recent conference held in Valencia, on the Holy Shroud,the work of one Marzia Boi, a university researcher at the University of the Balearic Islands stood out in particular. Boi is an expert in Palynology, which is the science that studies pollen.

As history lovers may already know, the fabric of the Holy Shroud is covered in pollen and Boi’s report clearly highlights that the pollen is proof that the shroud, which is kept in Turin, was a winding-sheet and was used according to rituals common in the Middle East over a thousand years ago. We have therefore taken the liberty of drawing the following conclusion (which we would like to point out was never made by the researcher herself): this discovery is strong proof against the theory of the shroud being a medieval fake. It seems somewhat incredible (and it would be a true scientific miracle) that a medieval forger would have known what ointments and oils were used in Jewish funeral rites in I century AD and that this same forger would have put together aromas and ointments in the knowledge that a few centuries later tools that had not yet been invented might reveal his work.

more...

james gothic · #**310** Jul 29, '12, 7:10 pm

it seems to me that the preponderance of recent objective inquiry shows the shroud to be a middle ages fake. are we so bereft of faith that we wishful think a miracle? i think the plethora of "relics" in the church is scandalous. i think it cheapens the church in the same way ufo's and big foot legends cheapen science. aren't we better than that?

SwissGuard25 · #**311** Jul 30, '12, 3:21 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by james gothic

it seems to me that the preponderance of recent objective inquiry shows the shroud to be a middle ages fake. are we so bereft of faith that we wishful think a miracle? i think the plethora of "relics" in the church is scandalous. i think it cheapens the church in the same way ufo's and big foot legends cheapen science. aren't we better than that?

Proably because they cut off their sample from the ends of the cloth. Where everybody has been touching it. It was basically contaminated evidence. It was also proven that the Shroud of Turin couldn't of been made in the middle ages due to poor technology, just like the Miraculous Image of Our Lady of Guadeloupe but people still live in denial and believe what they want to hear. Ignorance

patrick457 · #**312** Jul 30, '12, 3:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by james gothic

it seems to me that the preponderance of recent objective inquiry shows the shroud to be a middle ages fake. are we so bereft of faith that we wishful think a miracle? i think the plethora of "relics" in the church is scandalous. i think it cheapens the church in the same way ufo's and big foot legends cheapen science. aren't we better than that?

Welcome to CAF! I recommend you first read this thread and then tell us what you think about it.

**thistle** · #**313** Jul 30, '12, 3:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwissGuard25

Proably because they cut off their sample from the ends of the cloth. Where everybody has been touching it. It was basically contaminated evidence. It was also proven that the Shroud of Turin couldn't of been made in the middle ages due to poor technology, just like the Miraculous Image of Our Lady of Guadeloupe but people still live in denial and believe what they want to hear. Ignorance

That is not true. The technology in the middle ages was available.
Camera obscura for the projection of the image and all the necessary chemicals to treat the cloth were available.

inkaneer · #**314** Jul 31, '12, 8:25 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thistle

That is not true. The technology in the middle ages was available.
Camera obscura for the projection of the image and all the necessary chemicals to treat the cloth were available.

Didn't the recent scientific investigation state that the image was not made with chemicals? I believe the word they used was that it was a scorch that did not pentrate the fibers. No dye, paint or other chemicals were in existence.

vz71 · #**315** Jul 31, '12, 11:43 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by inkaneer

Didn't the recent scientific investigation state that the image was not made with chemicals? I believe the word they used was that it was a scorch that did not pentrate the fibers. No dye, paint or other chemicals were in existence.

So we are left with a precisely controlled temperature.
Try that with middle aged tech.