Shroud of Turin

San Holo

Active member
Is the Shroud proof of Christ's Resurrection, or is it Da Vinnci's finest work of art? What do you junior theologens think?
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
roundshort said:
, I would have to say mold.

To quote a dead curator "You're more right than you know".

San Holo said:
If it is an actual funeral shroud, how do you think the image got there?

Soft bed body elevated from the torso up, linen laid across the body for at least 30 hours, blood mixed with pollen and plant spores. That, and carbon dating that links it to the time period of the Crusades.
 

San Holo

Active member
Was Hughes de Payen crucified? That would make sense, as the cloth appeared in a family who had close ties with the Knights-but carbon dating has been questionable on the Shroud because of the fire that nearly destroyed it 600 years ago. I don't know about your mold theories,the image is too clear.The first example of photography,maybe,but definatley not mold.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
According to my research, he was crucified as a mockery of his commitment to the Templars. And I incorrectly noted that it was Hughes de Payen. I meant Jacques de Molay.
 

San Holo

Active member
I would like the image to be Jesus ,but..Besides the fact that the Knights always kept short hair, Jaques de Molay is a safe bet .So you don't think Da Vincci created it using the world's first camera obscura?
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I saw a National Geographic (or perhaps Discovery) show about that. I haven't had the pleasure to read too much about it from the Da Vinci perspective. My only question would be "why". And I am starting to be turned off by all the "Da Vinci was the greatest most genius and devious and amazing conspiratorial man in the world" brouhaha. While truly an amazing man, I can't subscribe to the fact that he was responsible for everything, including Pangea. :p

I too would like it to be the image of Christ. It would support a screenplay I have been struggling with, much more readily.
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
I would like to contest the accuracy of the carbon dating. They used a damaged section of the shroud that had been burned in a fire at the monastary where it was kept, circa the 1400's. Many argue that it was because of that fire that has thrown off the carbon dating.

By no means, however, was this a piece of art...people have tried to replicate it an have been unsuccessful. Someone was buried in the cloth.
 

Tennessee R

New member
Aaron H said:
I would like to contest the accuracy of the carbon dating. They used a damaged section of the shroud that had been burned in a fire at the monastary where it was kept, circa the 1400's. Many argue that it was because of that fire that has thrown off the carbon dating.

By no means, however, was this a piece of art...people have tried to replicate it an have been unsuccessful. Someone was buried in the cloth.
Besides, Carbon 14 dating has been proven inacurate up to thousands of years by Kent Hovind in some of his material at www.drdino.com
But, no, I don't know the details about any of this. However, my daddy has had the opportunity to personally examine it under the microscope, if I remember correctly.
 

San Holo

Active member
Pale Horse said:
I saw a National Geographic (or perhaps Discovery) show about that. I haven't had the pleasure to read too much about it from the Da Vinci perspective. My only question would be "why". And I am starting to be turned off by all the "Da Vinci was the greatest most genius and devious and amazing conspiratorial man in the world" brouhaha. While truly an amazing man, I can't subscribe to the fact that he was responsible for everything, including Pangea. :p

I too would like it to be the image of Christ. It would support a screenplay I have been struggling with, much more readily.
Leonardo was also the creative genius behind the Xbox 360;) The show said that he mixed light sensitive chems with a little sodium applied to a cloth, then stood in front of a lens for a day(without ANY moving). He didn't unvail his invention for fears he would be branded a "devil". Nobody will ever know the truth about the Shroud, it all comes down to faith- in God or man.

How would the proven image of Christ support your screenplay more readily?
 

San Holo

Active member
Aaron H said:
By no means, however, was this a piece of art...people have tried to replicate it an have been unsuccessful. Someone was buried in the cloth.

Paint pigment has been found in the fibers so it must be a painting , right?... Nope. Artists painted copies of the Shroud for their churches. The copies were then pressed to the original to make them holy. And I can't imagine that it is a picture of a crucified man that someone doused with blood. So I agree with you that this is not some clever piece of art.
 

No Ticket

New member
Sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but I was reading up on this and found it interesting that it appears the person in the cloth was nailed through the wrist and not the palm of the hand, as is commonly popular to believe. Evidence from around the time of Jesus crucifixion, in the form of the bones of a crucified victim, prove that at least some of the time victims were nailed through the wrist and not the hand.

As quoted from wikipedia's entry:
The piercing of the wrists rather than the palms goes against traditional Christian iconography, especially that of the Middle Ages. Many modern scholars suggest that crucifixion victims were generally nailed through the wrists. A skeleton discovered recently in Israel shows that at least some were nailed between the radius and ulna. This was not common knowledge in the Middle Ages. Proponents of the shroud's authenticity contend that a medieval forger would have been unlikely to know this operational detail of an execution method almost completely discontinued centuries earlier.


If it was a forgery, people in the medieval times would not be aware of this most likely, so it wouldn't make sense for it to be this historically accurate if it was a fake unless it was a very rare and overly well-informed person from said times... as that information was lost to the popular belief of being nailed through the hand.

... also, I've read that the corner of the shroud which was carbon dated had been MENDED, which resulted in some newer material than the rest of the cloth because it had at one point been damaged. I found it interesting to note that when it was dated, in 1988, they said that they were unaware of "bacterial contamination," which could throw off the correct date.


And as far as the supposed blood stains go, they have performed tests which indicate it could be Type AB.

There are several reddish stains on the shroud suggesting blood. McCrone (see above) identified these as containing iron oxide, theorizing that its presence was likely due to simple pigment materials used in medieval times. Other researchers, including Alan Adler, a chemist specializing in analysis of porphyrins, identified the reddish stains as type AB blood and interpreted the iron oxide as a natural residue of that element always found in mammalian red blood cells.


... I just find it to be very compelling. I've seen a special on Discovery where artists tried to replicate the image and couldn't do it. Everything points to it most likely being REAL. But whether or not it's actually Jesus is the real question.

I also read that greek and latin letters have been found near the face using digital imaging processing. Along with coins having been placed near the eyes. I'll just quote Wikipedia here:

NASA researchers Jackson, Jumper, and Stephenson report detecting the impressions of coins placed on both eyes after a digital study in 1978. The coin on the right eye was claimed to correspond to a Roman copper coin produced in AD 29 and 30 in Jerusalem, while that on the left was claimed to resemble a lituus coin from the reign of Tiberius.[24]

Greek and Latin letters were discovered written near the face (Piero Ugolotti, 1979). These were further studied by André Marion, professor at the École supérieure d'optique and his student Anne Laure Courage, graduate engineer of the École supérieure d'optique, in the Institut d'optique théorique et appliquée in Orsay (1997). On the right side they cite the letters ΨΣ ΚΙΑ. They interpret this as ΟΨ ? ops "face" + ΣΚΙΑ ? skia "shadow," though the initial letter is missing.

This interpretation has the problem that it is grammatically incorrect in Greek, because "face" would have to appear in the genitive case. On the left side they report the Latin letters IN NECE, which they suggest is the beginning of IN NECEM IBIS, "you will go to death," and ΝΝΑΖΑΡΕΝΝΟΣ ? NNAZARENNOS (a grossly misspelled "the Nazarene" in Greek). Several other "inscriptions" were detected by the scientists, but Mark Guscin (himself a shroud proponent) reports that only one is at all probable in Greek or Latin: ΗΣΟΥ. This is the genitive of "Jesus," but missing the first letter.
 

otto rahn

New member
Wel, the Shroud Of Turin is certainly an interesting artifact. One well worth an "Indiana Jones" story I think. People seem to be rather polarized as to its authenticity so there is plenty of material there for a writer to work with. I'm surprised that it hasn't been featured more often in novels etc.
 

Barty

New member
There's a reason why the Shroud is not the real burial cloth of Jesus. That's because Jews in the 1st century did not use a single piece of linen to cover the bodies. They used strips of linen that were wrapped around the body.

The Gospel of John supports this:

John 20:5

He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Shroud of Turin would NOT a good Indy story make. (n)
It could be in like the opening scene, maybe, but definitely not the main relic. How boring would it be? ::sleep:
They know where the Shroud is and who wants it, anyway? Supposedly, Indy wants things to be in museums... THE SHROUD'S ALREADY IN ONE!
 
Top