Jesus' burial cloth was in the Catholic church of Turin when the church caught fire sometime in the 1400's. The image of Jesus can't be seen with the naked eye. The image was only discovered when a photographer took a picture of it, and discovered the image on the negative. As of today, no one can reproduce the image on cloth. For someone to perpetrate a hoax as far back as the dark ages would be a fantastic feat. A carbon dating was done on the shroud, and found to be a fake. But the carbon dating was not done on the shroud, it was done on a piece of trim around the shroud. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MMOAV-xYFs
I've read about this...and back then when the fire-damaged shroud was repaired, this was back in the day when workmanship was appreciated and considered essential for a task such as this. I find it most interesting...however you (and I) need to know that there will always be naysayers that will contend this is a hoax bla bla bla even though NOBODY has been able to duplicate this. Unlike many (most) people who post in this Christianity subforum, I do believe in God, and all that that entails.
In October 2009 , an organic chemist, Professor Luigi Gariaschelli of the University of Pavia, reported that he had produced a reasonable facsimile by using materials and techniques available in the middle ages by placing a linen sheet flat over a human subject, using a mask for the face and rubbing it with a pigment containing traces of acid. The cloth was then heated in an oven to artificially age it, and then washed to remove the pigment from the surface, leaving behind the fuzzy half-tone image similar to that on the shroud. The pigment would fade naturally over the centuries, giving us the shroud of today. Respected, very reliable, carbon dating of the shroud places it in the fourteenth century, about the time it first appeared circa 1355, when production of fake relics was a cottage industry. This has been enough to convince many scientific observers that the shroud was a hoax, but true believers continue to explain these facts away as "blah,blah, blah".
The appearance of the x-ray like picture was not seen by the naked eye...it was 1st discovered when a picture was taken of the shroud, and it was seen in the negatives. What about the fact that the carbon dating material was taken from the outside of the shroud, not the inner part WHERE the "picture" is seen - in a negative? It has never been disputed that after the shroud was damaged in a fire, nuns repaired the edges...and the carbon dating does back up the time-line of the repair job. The inner shroud has not been carbon dated. I'm actually surprised at you Okie...I never tried to explain aways facts with bla bla bla.
As I said, the pigments may have faded since the fourteenth century. To be sure, the testing was done on parts of the shroud given to the investigators by the Vatican. Does it seem likely that parts of it were inauthentic while others were? The "bla, bla , bla" was a reference to your previous post in which you stated: " there will always be naysayers that will contend this is a hoax bla bla bla". If you didn't try to explain away facts with "bla, bla, bla", what did you mean by that statement?
First of all, it most certainly would seem that the outer edges of this shroud where it was repaired in the 14th century would be less authentic than the inner part of the shroud where the actual image appears! Has common sense taken leave here? Yes, the vatican only gave those shreds since they wanted to maintain the integrity of the inner image. In May of 2013 there were more tests done with newer technology. Perhaps you might want to look that up. This newer technology more backs up the cloth as coming from a much older time period than the carbon dating on the very edges (where repairs were done, I will repeat) indicate. In fact, this newer technology indicates there is pollen and dust in the inner cloth that could have only come from the holy land. It should be noted that the vatican does NOT claim this to be Jesus' burial shroud...it maintains it "only" to be an icon. It is for each individual to decide what it is. I also maintain that when I said bla bla bla, it wasn't addressed to facts but merely to various people's (and your's also, it seems) feelings, thoughts and/or beliefs.
Why can't people accept the fact that its a fake? Even if you ignore the Carbon-14 dating which dates its sometime between 1250-1330 the weave of the linen itself is the best evidence and places it squarely in the middle-ages Hotwater
I was wrong about the new findings/tests being done in May of 2013...it was in 2013 but it was before May. By May, the results of the new tests were being made public.
Several experts investigated and rejected the "medieval repair" theory, including John Jackson of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), Mechthild Flury-Lemberg who headed the restoration and conservation of the shroud in 2002, and Gabriel Viai, a textile expert who was present when the sample was taken. The people who performed the sampling stated that it "came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas." As for the 2013 testing you mention, it seems not to have undergone the usual process of peer review. Researcher G. M. Rinaldi describes the results as "inherently unreliable because it can not be excluded that there were influences of factors known or unknown, with effects difficult to assess. So, if his methods result in a date that differs from that obtained in other ways, it is necessary to doubt the result." Archbishop Nosiglia of Turin, custodian of the shroud, is also not convinced. He said "as it is not possible to be certain that the analyzed material was taken from the fabric of the Shroud, the Holy See and the Papal Custodian declare that no serious value can be recognized to the results of such experiments." Your comments about the "naysayers" indicates that they are voicing foolish or illegitimate objections to incontrovertible "facts", but I think the facts still warrant skepticism about the shroud.
If Jesus were here now he would most likely blow his nose on it and throw it in the trash as it is meaningless within the context of his teachings and could even be said to hing on idolatry with how some folks revere these "relics". remember he said only one sign would be given, 3 days and nights in the grave.
I think that's why I tend to be skeptical of such claims, as I do of Virgin Mary sitings. Admittedly, my secular education has conditioned me to question miraculous events. I basically agree with Hume that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World provides an excellent survey of the many instances in which the will to believe has triumphed over rational thought. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus did exist and that his teachings and example offer us salvation. It is tempting to believe that tangible evidence of his existence has been found. That's why I'm cautious, because it seems too good to be true. We do Christianity no favors by giving it a reputation for gullibility.
It is interesting as it is possibly the world's oldest photograph. It was carbon dated to a time when photo-chemicals were available and the cloth is herringbone weave - totally unknown in biblical times.
So, the latest. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/turin-shroud-global-dna_561d252de4b028dd7ea52ccd?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Definitely a fake. I mean any smart person KNOWS Billy Connolly wasn't around in the 14th century... :- /
