Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Bible / Christian faith / Apologetics » The shroud of Turin EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection

The shroud of Turin EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 3]

Otangelo


Admin

Richard Ingham Turin Shroud confirmed as a fake JUNE 21, 2005
https://phys.org/news/2005-06-turin-shroud-fake.html

Joe Nickell: Fake Turin Shroud Deceives National Geographic Author April 23, 2015
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/fake-turin-shroud-deceives-national-geographic-author/

Remaking the Shroud--National Geographic
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/turin358031

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

52The shroud of Turin EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection - Page 3 Empty Remaking the Shroud--National Geographic Sun May 29, 2022 8:19 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Remaking the Shroud--National Geographic
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/turin358031

A reply by Joseph Marino, author of: The 1988 C-14 Dating Of The Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé  4 novembro 2020

Here are some comments.  Quotes from the article are in gray and my comments in black below them.

Claim: This is the best Shroud film ever produced probably because most of the people who have been involved in it are professional scholars and not "shroudologists": the medievalist Richard Kaeuper (University of Rochester), who speaks on the first owner of the Turin Shroud -- the French knight Geoffroy de Charny; -- the archaeologist Shimon Gibson (Texas A&M University), who refers on Second Temple burial cloths and rites, the art historian William Dale (University of Western Ontario), who deals with byzantine icons; and the chemist Luigi Garlaschelli (University of Pavia), the first scientist to remake a full-size shroud.
Reply:     Lombatti is implying that scholars who have not studied the Shroud are more objective and/or knowledgeable about the Shroud that someone who has spent years or decades studying the Shroud.  That's nonsense.  Garlaschelli's full-sized shroud was facilitated by him looking at photos of the Shroud of Turin.  What did the putative medieval artist use as a model?

Claim: The documentary is divided into three main parts. In the general introduction, we are told what the Shroud is: a linen bearing a double image of a (presumed) man who should show the marks of Jesus' crucifixion. However, there are many inaccuracies and the image is anatomically incorrect. When the relics first appeared in France around 1355, the bishop ordered an inquiry and found out that such burial cloth with a double imprint did not find any confirmation in the Gospels. Moreover, the Pope who had to face the first controversy on the public display of the Shroud wrote in the bull that he be granted permission to show it, but it had to be said with a clear and loud voice that it was a mere representation of the burial cloth of Jesus and not the real one. Finally, even the owners - the French family de Charny - when asked for permission to place the relic in their church have always referred to the Shroud as a representation.

 Reply:Countless doctors and medical people have examined the Shroud and say it is anatomically and physiologically correct.  Drs. Robert Bucklin and Frederick Zugibe performed over 50,000 autopsies between them and they are among the many who believe the image is that of a real crucified (not presumed) man.  See my article Individual Medical Doctors’ Viewpoints on the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin  (https://www.academia.edu/50848702/Individual_Medical_Doctors_Viewpoints_on_the_Authenticity_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin) for a list of doctors who believe the Shroud is authentic.

Claim: "the bishop ordered an inquiry and found out that such burial cloth with a double imprint did not find any confirmation in the Gospels."  

Reply: He didn't "find that out"--everyone already knew that.     He goes on 

Claim:  "the Pope who had to face the first controversy on the public display of the Shroud wrote in the bull that he be granted permission to show it, but it had to be said with a clear and loud voice that it was a mere representation of the burial cloth of Jesus and not the real one."  

Reply:What about the other Popes, over 30 in number, in history who have stated they believe the Shroud is authentic.  Should Clement VII's opinion be taken as the only stance.  See my article What is the Catholic Church’s Official Position on the Shroud of Turin?  Pronouncements from The Vatican and Turin (https://www.academia.edu/45292513/What_is_the_Catholic_Churchs_Official_Position_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin_Pronouncements_from_The_Vatican_and_Turin.)
     Regarding the de Charny's stance that the Shroud was a representation only, I would need to refresh on all the details but it's obviously meant to convey that they knew the Shroud was an artistic production, that's only an assumption at best.

Claim: The image is anatomically incorrect: when a scalp bleeds, it doesn't flow in rivulets, the blood mats on the scalp or in the hair. Instead, on the Shroud we can see neat artistic rivulets seeming to be levitated on the outside of the locks.

The shroud of Turin EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection - Page 3 Remake%202


It's not true that the image of the hands crossed on the pelvis with missing thumbs -- which is typical of medieval art -- shows that the man of the Shroud was nailed in the wrists. We can only see one exit wound and it is in the hand

The shroud of Turin EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection - Page 3 Remake%203%20[/font


The right arm is much longer than the left, the head is too small in proportion to the body image. The "bloodstained" right footprint is anatomically impossible to obtain. If you lie on your back and place the right foot completely flat, you must bend the knee at a considerable angle, thus raising the calf of the leg a significant distance away from the underlying cloth.

 The shroud of Turin EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection - Page 3 Remake%204

Moreover, if you think of a body lying on a linen sheet, you would expect the back image -- with all the body weight and pressure -- to be darker and more deformed than the front image. Even more absurd are the locks of hairs at the sides of the face. The hair is on the level with the cheekbones. As the body is lying on its back, these locks of hair, if they had been freed, would by their natural weight have fallen back. Finally there is a curious space between the hair and either side of the face. Last but not least, the front image measures 205 centimeters and the back 198.

Reply: Are we to believe countless doctors and surgeons or historians on medical accuracy?

Claim:  It's because of this evidence, that Garlaschelli tried to remake a full-size shroud. Garlaschelli reproduced the shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages. He placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A bas-relief was used for the face. The linen was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed the pigment from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. The pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries. Garlaschelli then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.
His replica is amazing, and even the shroudologist Mark Guscin has to admit it. As for those who claim that under the microscope the image cannot be identical to the Turin Shroud, one must consider that even two coins minted in the very same mint aren't identical under the microscope. The goal achieved by Garlaschelli was to show that such a relic could easily be produced in the Middle Ages.

Reply: In the Middle Ages there were the raw materials to build an airplane, but that doesn't mean it was built back then.  As mentioned above Garlaschelli used Shroud photos to make his, and while it's somewhat visually similar to the Shroud, it certainly does not contain all the characteristics.  We know from the Shroud that the blood went on 1st and then the image.  Garlaschelli did his image and then added his blood.  Not a match.

Claim:  But shroudologists are hard to convince, and they speak of the Shroud as the "snapshot of the resurrection," thus avoiding any scientific explanation for the image formation. Richard Kaeuper is right when he says that the first historical document on this relic dates from the middle of the XIV century. Many Shroud experts agree on that, even if they quote meaningless legends and apocryphal texts to support the presumed existence of the Shroud in the first millennium. When the Pontifical Academy of Sciences chose the three university labs to perform the carbon dating, leaving aside all the church and diocese amateurs who dealt with the Shroud for years -- it confirmed its medieval origin. Thus, historical and scientific data do match.

Reply: While the 1st historical document mentioning the Shroud is from the mid-1350s, there are plenty of documented references to the burial linens of Jesus before that and they are more than just "meaningless legends and apocryphal texts."  See my recent 45-page+ article Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Shroud of Turin’s Appearance in France in the Mid1350s (https://www.academia.edu/75771585/Documented_References_to_the_Burial_Linens_of_Jesus_Prior_to_the_Shroud_of_Turins_Appearance_in_France_in_the_Mid_1350s).
     Small point but it wasn't the Pontifical Academy of Sciences who chose the 3 labs.  The Academy had been involved in the preparation but was one of the many victims of the politics involved in the dating, as covered in my 800-page book on the C-14 dating.  The only thing the labs knew about the Shroud was that it historically surfaced in the mid-1350s.  You can be sure that the dates were going to be "massaged" so that the range included 1357 and that's what the 2019 article in Archaeometry by Casabianca et al. showed-- the labs had thrown out many of the bad dates, making the 1260-1390 with a 95% confidence rate a sham.

Claim:  Then Shimon Gibson is interviewed on the Akeldama shroud fragments found in Jerusalem in 1999. A very curious aspect of the whole controversy is why Shroud fans have never mentioned the Second Temple burial cloth remains that were found. The answer is quite simple because they completely contradict the Shroud as a first century Jewish artifact: fabric, patteakeldama shamirrn, twist of the fibers and a four meter long cloth have nothing to share with the archaeological findings. Gibson refers to his amazing discovery of the first Jerusalem shroud ever found: it is made of wool (not linen), it has a simple 1:1 twill weave with 'S' spinning twist (3:1 complex herringbone twill weave with 'Z' spun). Moreover, despite the fact that the Akeldama shroud remained in the dirt and bacterial contamination for 2,000 years, it was carbon dated to 50 AD. So, archaeological evidence from controlled excavations of Second Temple Jewish tombs clearly prove that the Turin Shroud is not an artifact from that period.

Reply: So all shrouds in the 1st century had to be a 1:1 twill with "S" spinning twist?  This simply ignores the fact that rich people of the time could have afforded to buy more expensive linen.  It's absurd to think that a scholar would discount the Shroud simply because it was more complex than an archaeological find in the same period.

Claim:  In the last segment of the documentary, William Dale illustrates how Byzantines were those who created and used icons after the controversy among iconophiles and iconoclasts was settled. The Shroud is a "not made by human hands” image which tells the whole story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. People who were not able to read or understand the Gospels had an image to look at. It was the ideal icon for illiterate believers. In Dale's opinion, the Shroud was created just to evoke and inspire the faithful. However, bishop Pierre d'Arcis in 1389 wrote that the dean of the collegiate church of Lirey had the Shroud displayed with the deliberate intent of deceipt and cash offerings from the pilgrims (fraude premeditata). The bishop even stated that some people were paid to fake healings so that the faithful in the church could believe that miracles were happening thanks to the relic (ut subtili ingenio aurum extorqueretur ab eis, inibi confingebatur miracula mendaciter certis hominibus ad hoc precio conductis, qui se sanari fingebant in ostensione dicti sudarii, quod domini sudarium ab omnibus credebatur.) So, on this, I don't agree with Dale.

Reply: It's not mentioned that d'Arcis was upset that de Charny had gone over his head directly to the Pope.  d'Arcis' own church was in dire need of expensive repair.  It's certainly possible that he was angling to get his own hands on cash offerings.  The d'Arcis memo isn't as black and white as it's made out to be.  See my article "http://The c. 1389 d’Arcis Memorandum and the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin – an English-Language Bibliography" 

https://www.academia.edu/49761930/The_c_1389_dArcis_Memorandum_and_the_Authenticity_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin_an_English_Language_Bibliography

Claim:  Don't forget that in the XIII century there were (at least) forty burial shrouds of Jesus circulating in Eastern and Western Europe. Each of them was of course the real thing. A few of those cloths are still visible today in France (Carcassonne, Cahors, Cadouin); others have been lost or destroyed during the French revolution.


Reply: So what?  Each shroud needs to be evaluated on its own merits.  Just because there are fake $20 bills doesn't mean that every $20 bill is fake.  The Shroud is the most intensely-studied artifact in human history.  All of the other 40 shrouds never went very much investigation and most people with any sense knew those were copies.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

i don't have to prove that the Shroud is of Jesus. All I have to demonstrate is that there are no natural known processes to forger all the intricate characteristics of the Shroud. And from there, anyone can make up his own mind.
anatomy is not wrong Joe Marino: Individual Medical Doctors' Viewpoints on the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin 2021

Starting with French biologist Dr. Paul Vignon in the early 20th-century, most medical doctors who have studied the Shroud believe that the image accurately depicts anatomically and physiologically an actual human body that has undergone the torture of crucifixion. Drs. Robert Bucklin and Dr. Frederick Zugibe, who each studied the Shroud about 50 years each and who performed a combined approximate 50,000 (!) autopsies, both believed that the Shroud image was that of a real, crucified man who died. It seems bizarre that some skeptics will bring up the aforesaid point about a difference of beliefs of where the hand wound was located as if that also practically disauthenticates the Shroud.  It’s fair to say that an overwhelming number of medical doctors believe that it’s not a forgery.

Jesus is too high? There is no problem of Jesus being a bit higher than average.
Experts agree that facial features identify the man buried in the Shroud as a Caucasian. Carlton Coon, a leading ethnologist, says he has the physical features of a Jew or Arab. The man’s hairstyle, characterized by a beard and long hair parted in the middle, further identifies him as a Jew. In addition, the hair in back is cut in the form of a pigtail, a hairstyle very common in firstcentury Jewish men. It is thus probable that this crucified person was a Jew.

Judas kiss. It was at night. So there is no problem that he had to identify him and point out who he was.

The head: As said previosly, experts see no problem in the anatomy on the shroud.

In regards to the blood stains: “A BPA APPROACH TO THE SHROUD OF TURIN” by Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli
The article presents numerous formal and conceptual errors that deprive it of scientific credibility. First of all, neither author is a forensic physician, so they lack the experience and knowledge necessary to successfully deal with any kind of investigation of human bloodstains. The “experiments” have been conducted on a living and healthy human being, without traumatic wounds of any kind and with a dummy vaguely reminiscent of a human trunk. But if it is not done with a living human being who has suffered the same wounds and the same chronology as the Man of the Shroud, nor with a corpse that meets the same requirements, then the experiment does NOT reproduce, not even approximately, the circumstances in which the bloodstains originated.

In regards to the letter of D'Arcis: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present FOURTEENTH CENTURY Stephen E. Jones
D'Arcis provided no evidence in his memorandum to substantiate his claims[45], which he would have if there had been any[46]. D'Arcis did not provide the name of the artist[47], nor a record of his confession[48], nor the source of his allegations[49]. There is also no record of Henri de Poitiers conducting any inquiry into the origin of Shroud[50] and d'Arcis did not even know its date[51]! But there is a record of a letter of 28 May 1356[see "1356a"], from Bishop Henri de Poitiers, praising Geoffroy I, ratifying the Lirey church and approving its "divine cult"[52], which presumably refers to the Shroud[53]! It is also highly unlikely that Geoffrey I de Charny, the owner of the Shroud in the 1350s [see "c.1355"], one of France's most ethical knights, and a devout author of religious poetry, was complicit in forging Jesus' burial shroud[54]. The final refutation of the d'Arcis memorandum is that the image of the man on the Shroud is not painted


It's not mentioned that d'Arcis was upset that de Charny had gone over his head directly to the Pope.  d'Arcis' own church was in dire need of expensive repair.  It's certainly possible that he was angling to get his own hands on cash offerings.  The d'Arcis memo isn't as black and white as it's made out to be.  See my article "http://The c. 1389 d’Arcis Memorandum and the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin – an English-Language Bibliography"
https://www.academia.edu/49761930/The_c_1389_dArcis_Memorandum_and_the_Authenticity_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin_an_English_Language_Bibliography

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum