Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 06:35:11 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Hunt for Lost City of Atlantis
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3227295.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

the Shroud of Turin

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the Shroud of Turin  (Read 245 times)
0 Members and 94 Guests are viewing this topic.
Trevor Proffitt
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1988



« on: June 20, 2007, 11:16:26 am »

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Turin-shroud-could-be-3000-years-olds/2005/01/30/1107020250738.html?oneclick=true
Turin shroud could be 3,000 years old
January 30, 2005 - 4:59PM

A chemist who worked on testing of the Shroud of Turin says new analysis of the fibre indicates the cloth that some say was the burial linen of Jesus could be up to 3,000 years old.

The analysis, by a scientist who was on the original 1978 team that was allowed to study tiny pieces of the cloth, indicates the shroud is far older than the initial findings suggesting it was probably from medieval times, and will likely be seized on by those who believe it wrapped the body of Jesus after his crucifixion.

"I cannot disprove that this cloth was the burial shroud that was used on Jesus," Raymond N. Rogers, a retired chemist from the University of California-operated Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, said in a telephone interview Friday from his home.

"The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder reported for this time," about 70 A.D., Rogers said, referring to the naturalist of ancient Roman times.

"It's a shroud from the right time, but you're never going to find out (through science) if it was used on a person named Jesus," said Rogers, whose findings were published recently in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta.

Rogers wrote that in 2003, the scientist advising the cardinal of Turin, where the shroud is kept, provided him with pieces of thread taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating.

The American chemist said he decided to analyse the amount of vanillin, a chemical compound that is present in linen from the flax fibres used to weave it. Vanillin slowly disappears from the fibre over time at a calculated rate, he said.

Judging by those calculations, a medieval-age cloth should have had some 37 per cent of its vanillin left by 1978, the year the threads were taken from the shroud, Rogers said. But there was virtually no vanillin left in the shroud, leading the chemist to calculate it could be far older than the radiocarbon testing indicated, possibly some 3,000 years old.

Asked why carbon-dating might have been off, Rogers contended that "the people who cut the sample didn't do a very good job of characterising the samples," that is, taking samples from many areas of the cloth.

In his article, Rogers said that the carbon-dating tests appeared to have been performed on a patch sewn on during subsequent repairs to the shroud, which has been damaged by fires over the centuries, including one in 1532.

Rogers said he sent the results of his vanillin testing to the offices of the Turin cardinal and his scientific advisers but hasn't received a response.

The Vatican, which does not claim that the shroud is authentic, said Saturday it had not comment on the new testing.

The chairman of the Turin archdiocese's committee for the shroud, Mons. Giuseppe Ghiberti, said in a newspaper interview last week that Rogers' method was inaccurate.

"It shocks me that a specialist like Rogers should slip into such inaccuracies in his article. I can certainly hope and even believe that the 14C dating can be rectified," Ghiberti told Italian Catholic newspaper L'Avvenire. "But not on the basis of the 'patch' theory."

Rogers said he doubted the shroud could be reliably tested any more, contending that a top-secret restoration in 2002 likely would influence chemical results.

In the restoration, centuries' old patches were removed and a backing sewn on centuries ago was replaced. At the time, Shroud experts around the world were angered by the project, which they said should have had more outside collaboration.

The Shroud is a strip of linen more than 4m long and 1m wide that is marked by an image of Jesus. Believers say the image was left by Jesus' body after being taken down from the cross.

Disputes have flourished over the 1988 declaration by the scientific team that carbon-dating indicated the cloth came from medieval times. Researchers at The Hebrew University has said that pollen and plant images on it put its origins in Jerusalem sometime before the eighth century.

© 2005 AP
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2007, 12:31:16 pm »






 
Letter to Pope Clement VII, 1389.



“The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History”, Translated by Rev. Herbert Thurston, The Month, v. 101, 1903, pp. 17-29.


The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb and upon which the whole likeness of the Savior had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore. This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to be the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Potiers, of pious memory. Then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Savior’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. Accordingly, after taking mature counsel with wise theologians and men of law, seeing that he neither ought nor could allow the matter to pass, he began to institute formal proceedings against said Dean and his accomplices in order to root out this false presumption. They, seeing their wickedness discovered, his away the said cloth so that the Ordinary could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year. And now again the present Dean of the said church with fraudulent intent and for the purpose of gain, suggested as it is reported, to the Lord Geoffrey de Charny, Knight, and the temporal lord of the place, to have the said cloth replaced in the said church, that by a renewal of the pilgrimage the church might be enriched with the offerings made by the faithful. Acting upon the Dean’s suggestion, who was thus treading the footsteps of his predecessor, the knight went to the Cardinal de Thury, your Holiness’ Nuncio and Legate in the French territory, and suppressing the facts that the said cloth at the time above referred to was asserted to be the shroud of our Savior, and that it bore the Savior’s likeness imprinted upon it, and that the Ordinary had taken action against the canons in order to stamp out the error which had arisen, and that said cloth for fear of the Ordinary had been hidden away, nay even, it is said, conveyed out of the diocese, he represented to the Cardinal that the said cloth was a picture or figure of the shroud, which many people came to visit out of devotion and which had previously been much venerated and resorted to in that church, but on account of the war and other causes, by the command of the Ordinary, had been placed for a long time in safer keeping, petitioning that he might be allowed to set up in the said church this picture or figure of the shroud which so many out of devotion desired to see, so that it might there be shown to the people and venerated by the faithful. Then the said Lord Cardinal, without entirely approving the petition, but probably acting on the facts before him and so far prudently, granted to the petitioner by Apostolic authority that without asking leave of the Ordinary or of any other person he might set up this picture or figure of the shroud of our Lord in the said church or in any other decent place. And under cover of this written authority the cloth was openly exhibited and shown to the people in the church aforesaid on great holidays, and frequently on feasts and at other times, with the utmost solemnity, even more than when the Body of Christ our Lord is exposed; to wit, by two priests vested in albs with stoles and maniples and using the greatest possible reverence, with lighted torches and upon a lofty platform constructed for this special purpose; and although it is not publicly stated to be the true shroud of Christ, nevertheless this is given out and noised abroad in private, and so it is believed by many, the more so, because, as stated above, it was on a previous occasion declared to be the true shroud of Christ, and by a certain ingenious manner of speech it is now in the said church styled not the sudarium but the sanctuarium, which to the ears of the common folk, who are not keen to observe distinctions, sounds much the same thing, and crowds of people resort there as often as it is shown or is expected to be shown, under the belief, or more truly the delusion, that it is the true shroud. Moreover, it is currently reported amongst them that it has been approved by the Apostolic See by means of the letters of the said Lord Cardinal.

Accordingly, most holy Father, perceiving this great scandal renewed amongst the people and the delusion growing to the peril of souls, observing also that the Dean of the said church did not keep within the terms of the Cardinal’s letters, obtained though they were by the suppression of the truth and the suggestion of what was false, as already explained, desiring to meet the danger as well as I could and to root out this false persuasion from the flock committed to me, after consultation with many prudent advisors, I prohibited the said Dean under pain of excommunication, by the very act sufficiently published [eo ipso latae], from exhibiting this cloth to the people until otherwise might be determined.

He, however, refusing obedience and lodging an appeal, in defiance of the prohibition went on with the exhibition as before. Moreover, the knight, maintaining and defending his behavior, by holding the said cloth with his own hands on a certain solemn feast, and showing it to the people with the observances above described, caused himself, by a royal warrant [salvagardia], to be put in formal possession and occupation of the said cloth and of the right of exhibiting it, and had this notified to me; and so under cover of the appeal as well as of the said royal warrant this delusion is shielded and propagated, to the contempt of the Church, scandal of the people, and peril of souls – all which I am powerless to remedy – nay more to defamation of my above-named predecessor who denounced the abuse in this time, and of myself who to the best of my poor ability am also anxious to take such prudent as I may. But Alas! The scandal is upheld and defended and its supporters cause it to be spread abroad among the people that I am acting through jealousy and cupidity and to obtain possession of the cloth for myself, just as similar reports were circulated before against my predecessor; while, on the other hand, others aver that I move too half-heartedly in the matter and that I make myself a laughing-stock by allowing the abuse to continue. But though I have earnestly and humbly cited the said knight and besought him that he would for a time suspend the exhibition of the said cloth until your Holiness could be consulted and should pronounce upon the matter, he paid no attention, or rather without my knowledge he had representations made to your Holiness in the same sense as those already made to the said Lord Cardinal, adding that I refused to defer to the said Cardinal’s letters, that I disregarded the appeal and went on launching inhibitions and sentences of excommunication against those who exhibited the cloth and against the people who came to venerate it. But with all deference to the author of representations, my action in thus proceeding against those who exhibited and venerated the cloth was in no wise derogatory to the said Lord Cardinal’s letters, obtained though they were surreptitiously. This authorization of his by no means conceded that the cloth could be exposed with publicity or venerated, but only that it might be restored to or lodged in the said church or some other decent place. And because they would not keep to the terms of the Cardinal’s permit therefore it was that I proceeded against them according to the ordinary forms of law, as in my duty I am bound, and not without much asking counsel, with the view of removing the scandal and the said popular delusion, believing that I should be gravely in fault if I connived at such abuses. Moreover, having to look to my own security in this matter, I was compelled, acting always upon the advice of prudent counselors, to have recourse to the aid of the secular arm, and this being more particularly because the said knight in the first instance had begun to place the matter in the hands of the civil authorities by causing himself to put in formal possession of the right of exhibiting the cloth by the King’s warrant, as said above, which seems a sufficiently absurd proceeding. Accordingly I took measures to have the cloth placed in the custody of the King’s officers, always with the same end in view, viz., that at least until I could bring the whole story to the notice of your Holiness there might for a time being be an end of these exhibitions. And in this request I prevailed without any difficulty with the court of the King’s Parliament when once they were fully informed of the superstitious origin of this shroud, of the use to which it was put, and of the delusion and scandal to which I have called attention. Indeed it is a wonder to all who know the facts of the case that the opposition which hampers me in these proceedings comes from the church, from which quarter I should have looked for the vigorous support, nay, rather have expected punishment if I had shown myself slothful or remiss. However, the knight above mentioned has been beforehand with me, and, having represented the matter as I have explained, has obtained from your Holiness a Brief in which the said Lord Cardinal’s letters are substantially confirmed ex certa scientia and permission is granted that in spite of all prohibitions and appeals, the said cloth my be shown and exposed for the veneration of the faithful; while, as I hear – for I have not been able to procure a copy of said Brief – perpetual silence is enjoined upon myself.

But whereas the canon law requires me to see that no man be imposed upon by false representations and documents for the purposes of gain, and because I am certain that this Brief was obtained by suggestion of what is false and suppression of the truth, and that otherwise it would never have been issued, while I was neither cited nor heard, especially as a the resumption ought to stand in my favor that I would not interfere in such a cause without reason, or disturb any man in any practice of devotion which was harmless and free from extravagance, I do most confidently trust that your Holiness will bear with me if in view of the foregoing facts I still oppose the said exposition until I have fuller instructions from your Holiness yourself, now better informed of the truth of the case. I would ask you then, most blessed Father, to vouchsafe to bestow your attention upon the foregoing statement and to take measures that such a scandal and delusion and abominable superstition may be put and end to both in fact and seeming, in such wise that this cloth be held neither for sudarium nor sanctuarium, nor for an image or figure of our Lord’s sudarium, since our Lord’s sudarium was nothing of the kind, nor, in fine, under any other ingenious pretext be exhibited to the people or exposed for veneration, but that to express horror of such superstition it be publicly condemned, the surreptitious letters above spoken of being recalled, or more truly declared null and void (for fear that the keen-eyed persecutors and detractors of the Church should rail at the Church’s discipline and say that a more prompt and efficacious remedy against scandals and impostures is found in the secular tribunals than in those of ecclesiastical authority). I offer myself here as ready to supply all information sufficient to remove any doubt concerning the facts alleged both from public report and otherwise, in order to exonerate myself and also to discharge my conscience in a matter which I have greatly at heart. Moreover, if health had allowed I should have presented myself personally to your Holiness to state my complaint to the best of my poor ability, for I am convinced that I cannot fully or sufficiently express in writing the grievous nature of the scandal, the contempt brought upon the Church and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the danger to souls; still I do what I can, chiefly that I can, chiefly that I may be guiltless before God, leaving all else to the disposition of your Holiness, whom may the Almighty long preserve, &c.

Pierre D’Arcis
Bishop of Troyes
 

*****************************************************************************



On January 6, 1390, Clement VII replied to D’Arcis’ letter. The Exhibitions could continue so long as it was always declared that the shroud was a figure or representation of Christ’s shroud. D’Arcis was told be keep quiet about the whole thing under pain of excommunication. Letters to other Bishops near Troyes instructed them to inforce the above decisions. D’Arcis died in 1395.

 

www.hallsofmaat.com
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Tom Hebert
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1370


« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2007, 12:42:36 pm »

It does indeed appear to be the shroud of Jesus.  However, I don't think it can be proven or disproven at this late date.

It should not affect our faith one way or another.  Believers will continue to be believers, skeptics will continue to be skeptical.
Report Spam   Logged
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2007, 03:00:09 pm »



Well, Tom, if America had been inundated by such hoaxes as Italy and other parts of Europe,

for CENTURIES - to take advantage of the gullible - you might sing a different tune.............
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2007, 05:03:35 am »

Dating the Shroud of Turin
 
by Ken Mondschein


For centuries, the Shroud of Turin, a 14-foot-long, three-foot-wide sheet of linen imprinted with the ghostly image of a bearded man bearing a crown of thorns and wounds in his wrists, feet, and side, has been the object of devout veneration. However, modern science has raised many questions about the holy relic’s true origins. According to the most accurate tests available, the shroud was made no earlier than the 13th century. Still, despite such high-tech investigations, scientists have been unable to resolve the controversy to the satisfaction of all.
  In the Middle Ages, holy relics could be found everywhere, from the mightiest cathedral to the humblest parish church. Some, such as the tunic of the Virgin in Chartres Cathedral in France, were the object of pilgrimages. Others were obtained at great risk, as when a cadre of Venetian merchants pilfered St. Mark’s bones from Alexandria in the ninth century. Some were even fought over, such as when Edward I captured the Holy Rood (a piece of the True Cross) from the Scots in 1296.
  Not only were such objects thought to work miraculous cures, but they enabled people to touch holiness, bringing something of the sanctity of heaven, the reality of the Bible, and the promise of a better world into their own lives.
  Because these items were in such demand, it was perhaps inevitable that people would begin manufacturing them. (It is a common joke amongst medievalists that if all the pieces of the True Cross were gathered together, there would be enough wood to create an entire forest.) Yet the fabrication of such relics is not fraud in the modern sense because of the belief inherent in medieval religion. Much like how a scale replica of a jet airliner is a representation ofa real 747, so, too, did medieval people believe that a vial of holy blood—real or fake—participated in the sanctity of the real blood of Christ.


The Shroud’s Obscure History
The history of the Shroud of Turin is, for these reasons, somewhat obscure. Though the first written evidence comes from 1357, when it was recorded being in a a church in Lirey, in southern France, many people insist that the shroud is much older. Supposedly, the relic passed from one of Christ’s disciples to King Abgar V of Edessa sometime in the early first century and thence to Constantinople. In 1204, it was stolen from the Byzantines by French knight Geoffrey de Charny during the Fourth Crusade.
  But if the shroud is so venerable, why was it not mentioned in the historical record—including the New Testament—earlier than the mid-14th century? Indeed, as early as the 1380s, churchmen such as Pierre d’Arcis, the Bishop of Troyes, were speaking of the shroud as a forgery. In 1900, based on the examination of medieval reports, letters, and decrees, French priest and medieval historian Cyr Ulysse Chevalier published his claim that the shroud was a fake. Since its provenance leaves much to be desired, an alternate means of investigating the mystery of its date was required.


Dating the Shroud
Since the 19th and early 20th centuries, critics have pointed out that the image of Jesus on the shroud is not anatomically correct, but rather shows unusual elongation and asymmetry that is reminiscent of medieval religious iconography. Others countered this argument with the fact that the direction of the blood flow on the body depicted on the shroud was the same as if the figure had died with its arms outstretched, not lying supine.
  Moreover, believers noted that the nail holes depicted on the figure on the shroud were in the figure’s wrists, not its hands, which is now believed to be the way people were crucified during Roman times.
  Then in the 1990s, Swedish textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg noticed that the style of the cloth’s weave, as well as its stitching, matched those used in ancient Israel around the first century AD. Therefore, either the medieval forgers of the shroud had a detailed knowledge of ancient textiles (which is highly unlikely), there are fortuitous similarities between medieval and ancient textiles, or the shroud’s cloth was indeed created in the first century AD.
  However, according to Dr. Walter McCrone and his associates, who conducted tests on the shroud in 1979 and 1980, the image is composed of red ochre and vermilion, in a binding of egg tempera. Both red ochre and vermilion are common pigments used in paint. Tests for body fluids, meanwhile, were negative, all of which suggest that the image had been painted on, not naturally created by human blood and/or sweat.
  In 1988, the shroud was again tested, this time by radiocarbon dating conducted by separate labs in England, Switzerland, and Arizona. The tests revealed that the shroud dated from no earlier than 1260 and, most likely, from around the mid-14th century, about the time it first appeared in the historical record.
  However, Stephen Mattingly, a professor with the University of Texas Health Center, suggests that the tests might have been made inaccurate by bacteria that may now contaminate the shroud, and that the bacteria that is present in such appreciable concentrations that its age cannot be properly carbon-dated. Those who put their faith in the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating, however, point out that to alter a first-century date to a 14th-century date requires contaminants weighing roughly twice as much as the tested material.
  Is the Shroud of Turin the image of Jesus of Nazareth? Dismissing the evidence to the contrary, true believers are unlikely to concede that the venerated relic is a forgery. So for the time being, the date of the Shroud of Turin remains a mystery of science… and of faith.


from issue #8
 
http://www.mysteriesmagazine.com/articles/issue8.html
Report Spam   Logged
Trevor Proffitt
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1988



« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2007, 03:50:31 am »



The first photo of the Shroud of Turin, taken in 1898, had the surprising feature that the image on the negative was clearer than the positive image.
Report Spam   Logged
Trevor Proffitt
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1988



« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2007, 03:51:55 am »



Secondo Pia's negative of the image on the Shroud of Turin has an appearance suggesting a positive image.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2007, 03:53:40 am by Trevor Proffitt » Report Spam   Logged
Trevor Proffitt
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1988



« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2007, 03:53:03 am »



 
More recent photo of the face, positive left, negative right. Note: Negative has been flipped to facilitate point-by-point comparison.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy