Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Anything goes (almost).

Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby Nosta » Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:27 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9958678/Turin-Shroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.html

From the link below, here is part of the new:

Scientists, including Prof Fanti, used infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths – to analyse fibres from the shroud, which is kept in a special climate-controlled case in Turin.
The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.
The experiments were carried out on fibres taken from the Shroud during a previous study, in 1988, when they were subjected to carbon-14 dating.
Those tests, conducted by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona, appeared to back up the theory that the shroud was a clever medieval fake, suggesting that it dated from 1260 to 1390.
But those results were in turn disputed on the basis that they may have been skewed by contamination by fibres from cloth that was used to repair the relic when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages.
User avatar
Nosta
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:28 pm

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:37 pm

even if it is the closth Christ was wrapped in, for that image on it to be his face, his head would have had to been about 2" wide.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby Nosta » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:38 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:even if it is the closth Christ was wrapped in, for that image on it to be his face, his head would have had to been about 2" wide.


To be honest I am not convinced that the new study is serious enough...the Church would pay a lot (I think) for getting such results. First it was from the twelfth century or so, now its from Jesus time...
User avatar
Nosta
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:28 pm

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:42 pm

Nosta wrote:...The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.
So they dated it somewhere between some 300 years before Jesus was born and some 400 years after his death, and based on this they claim it is real??? That's a pretty weak basis isn't it?
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7905
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby GrahamR » Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:35 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
Nosta wrote:...The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.
So they dated it somewhere between some 300 years before Jesus was born and some 400 years after his death, and based on this they claim it is real??? That's a pretty weak basis isn't it?


I remember a medieval joke.

A man goes to a monastery and sees the head of John the Baptist. Later that day he goes into another monastery and sees yet another head of the saint. He tells the monk that he saw another head earlier that day and it as bigger too.

The monk replies that their head as when John was a child!

Graham
User avatar
GrahamR
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:29 am
Location: Thailand

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby Nosta » Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:16 pm

lol, I remember to see a different aproach to that joke on strip cartoons with Disney characters (I think it was Goofy speaking about 2 heads of monkeys on a museum).
User avatar
Nosta
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:28 pm

Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby GrahamR » Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:42 am

Nosta wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9958678/Turin-Shroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.html

From the link below, here is part of the new:

Scientists, including Prof Fanti, used infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths – to analyse fibres from the shroud, which is kept in a special climate-controlled case in Turin.
The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.
The experiments were carried out on fibres taken from the Shroud during a previous study, in 1988, when they were subjected to carbon-14 dating.
Those tests, conducted by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona, appeared to back up the theory that the shroud was a clever medieval fake, suggesting that it dated from 1260 to 1390.
But those results were in turn disputed on the basis that they may have been skewed by contamination by fibres from cloth that was used to repair the relic when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages.


I don't really know why people need to have relics to bolster their faith so much.

I used to work in Constantinople (Istanbul) and love it's history. In medieval times it was creaking at the seams with faked artefacts. It made the monasteries very rich and was an early for of tourist industry I suppose, but does it really help faith?

Buddhism also has this problem. Teeth and other relics are venerated. In Thailand even monks bodies are displaced and revered. Personally I find this distasteful.

To me the Dharma stands on it's own as a path with or without any proof of a historic Buddha. Either the teaching is valid or it isn't, however it may have come to us.

Graham
User avatar
GrahamR
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:29 am
Location: Thailand

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby PorkChop » Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:14 am

GrahamR wrote:I don't really know why people need to have relics to bolster their faith so much.

I used to work in Constantinople (Istanbul) and love it's history. In medieval times it was creaking at the seams with faked artefacts. It made the monasteries very rich and was an early for of tourist industry I suppose, but does it really help faith?

Buddhism also has this problem. Teeth and other relics are venerated. In Thailand even monks bodies are displaced and revered. Personally I find this distasteful.

To me the Dharma stands on it's own as a path with or without any proof of a historic Buddha. Either the teaching is valid or it isn't, however it may have come to us.


You know, I've wondered this myself.
Back during the early days of Western Buddhist research, a westerner came in possession of a tooth relic of the Buddha from a Burmese monk. Turns out the tooth was actually that of a horse. I've almost wondered if this is the drive of someone like the Dalai Lama to request medical research into the existing relics of the Buddha. Of course I come from a strong Joseph Campbell influence, who says this stuff works whether the Buddha was a historical person or not.
User avatar
PorkChop
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: Marietta, GA

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby steveb1 » Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:53 am

For me, the Shroud is a scientific problem with potential religious implications. The method of its creation is still wholly unknown, which ought to, but often does not, lead over-anxious debunkers into a sense of humility before an as-yet unsolved mystery. That the C-14 test was sloppily carried out is fairly well-documented, and it has been found that the testing samples were cut from a corner of the cloth which had seen years of handling by grimy human hands - and worse, contains stray cotton fibers in an otherwise plain linen cloth; that is, the corner from which the test material was excised was contaminated and contained foreign matter (cotton). It was subsequently found that Medieval French nuns had mastered the art of invisibile mending, which to the naked eye makes a seamless union between the original material and repair patches. To the naked eye, the corner from which the samples were taken looked like the rest of the cloth, but under microscopic analysis proved not to be an original part of the cloth.

Moreover, a strong and plausible case for a pre-Medieval provenance can be made for the Shroud. It appears to have existed in the East, long enough for generations of artists to copy salient Shroud features into their own art works; and it coincides closely with what Crusaders observed in Constaninople as an image-bearing cloth solemenly raised before congregations on Good Friday. That the cloth disappeared from Constantinople during the Crusader's' ransacking of that city, and only shortly thereafter began to appear in the West is a very striking coincidence, to say the least.

A final word about the tremendous bias the Shroud faces from "skeptical quarters", who bandy about the false dilemma, "either the Shroud is Jesus' burial cloth or it's just junk, a Medieval forgery and hoax". "Forgery" and "hoax" are obvious buzzwords, unbecoming of truly scientific attitudes. It is entirely possible - if the Shroud is proven not to date to the time of Christ - that the Shroud is the most sacred, detailed, and reverential portrait of Jesus' Passion ever created by human hands. To call such a creation a hoax and a forgery speaks volumes about the "critical" minds who issue this false ultimatum. History cannot tell us if the Shroud is a fake, forgery, or hoax, unless the artist(s) responsible left behind records which would expose their motivations - decent or nefarious - in creating the Shroud image. Piety is, to my way of thinking, a much more plausible motive for human Shroud creation than is a spiteful wish to deceive. My "act of faith" regarding the Shroud is that even if it is a human creation (as opposed to a natural or paranormal effect), it is probably a work of profound devotion rather than a mean-spirited artifact of deliberate deception.
steveb1
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby GrahamR » Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:17 pm

steveb1 wrote:History cannot tell us if the Shroud is a fake, forgery, or hoax, unless the artist(s) responsible left behind records which would expose their motivations - decent or nefarious - in creating the Shroud image. Piety is, to my way of thinking, a much more plausible motive for human Shroud creation than is a spiteful wish to deceive. My "act of faith" regarding the Shroud is that even if it is a human creation (as opposed to a natural or paranormal effect), it is probably a work of profound devotion rather than a mean-spirited artifact of deliberate deception.


I take a little more cynical view of these things, Monasteries became very rich from revenue of pilgrims visiting to see often very dubious relics.

Also Queen Helena, the mother of Constantine found the most wonderful sites related to Christianity. Either she was one of the greatest archaeologists ever, sadly misled by locals or a big fraud trying to find concrete evidence for her up and coming new religion, which simply didn't exist.

With metta

Graham
User avatar
GrahamR
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:29 am
Location: Thailand

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby randomseb » Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:16 pm

I think this is one of those things people desperately want to be real in order to justify their faith and erase their doubts.. It's because of their own confusion that they need this proof. These kinds of so called artifacts are a hindrance to spiritual practice, a heavy chain.

Anyone not afflicted by desperate need and who this who looks at this particular artifact can clearly see that there's something obviously fishy about it. Everyone else wants it to be some kind of miracle, and this is kind of morbid, as this would be some kind of non-degrading biological goop off leaked from a dead person, huh?

This is like that image of jesus in a grilled-cheese sandwich!

Those folks need to look inside themselves, clear away the mess, and find what they would call their connection to jesus and god by doing deep practice, and therefore end up at the same non-place non-thing non-mind awareness as buddhists and other spiritual paths.

:namaste:
Disclaimer: If I have posted about something, then I obviously have no idea what I am talking about!
User avatar
randomseb
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:12 am

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby steveb1 » Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:13 pm

Shroud authenticity is not dependent on religious faith or non-religious debunkery. Moreover, the science thus far does not support "fishiness". Quite the contrary. From the blood stains to the crucifixion wounds, the Shroud is medically amd historically sound. Moreover, its unexplained anomalies thus far defy explanation, from the microscopic thinness of the image itself to its 3-D qualities to the fact that it is a light "negative" image, which when photographed renders a strikingly positive image. It is not a primitive "camera obscura" photograph, it is not a painting, it is not a scorch. It has an extremely plausible pre-Medieval historical provenance. Its many anomalous, unexplained features automatically void the view that "the Shroud is just another relic". It is not "just another" relic, no other claimed relic matches the Shroud's striking features. And, as I said earlier, the C-14 test was sloppy, the testing was performed on a patched-on piece of cloth that was not even part of the Shroud, thus rendering the dating conclusions highly problematic. The most recent news, which the OP cited, can be found in this PDF (which, today at least, seems to be loading slowly):

http://www.shroud-enigma.com/resources/The-C14-dating-of-the-Shroud---web-version.pdf

Some other sources:

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf

http://shroud-enigma.com/challenge/jackson_paper/jackson-paper-on-image.html

... an "artistic fake/new duplication" attempt debunked:

http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/HeimburgerWeb.pdf

People tend to substantiate or reject the Shroud from their own deeply-embedded anti-or-pro religious biases. However, the issue is purely scientific and historical. "Supersitious worshipers' need to believe" is a factor that simply does not enter into scientific study of the Shroud. And for those who rightly see the Shroud image as the corpse of the crucified Jesus, the cloth is not a "chain", but a sacrament, i.e., it functions as a lens that focuses the attention on Christ, and as a doorway into Christ mysticism. And I use the term rightly deliberately, since the Shroud image - whether of the historical Jesus, a natural product, or an artistic creation - clearly shows a male who has suffered all the wounds reported of Jesus - particularly the side-wound and the crown of thorns. If the man is not Jesus; if the image is a natural product; if the Shroud is an artistic product does not matter in terms of devotion, since the image as it is, is already a perfect facsimile of the Passion, regardless of the question of the circumstances of its creation.

It is important to recall that the claim, "the Shroud is a fake", is an incomplete sentence. I.e., if the Shroud is a fake, one must state, and then prove, what kind of fake it is, and this is what no Shroud critic has thus far been able to do. All claims of normal image production, as well as attempts at duplication, have failed utterly. The burden of proof also falls upon on those who insist on the Shroud's inauthenticity, and thus far none has been able to prove that the Shroud is inauthentic. And again, this is a scientific problem, not a matter of faith, belief, or superstition. As soon as next month, for example, the Shroud might be scientifically proven to be a relatively recent piece of art work. But until that time comes, "the jury is out" on Shroud authenticity, but with the constant proviso that, as the scientific situation currently stands, the Shroud's mystery is unassailed. The jury is still out, and those who deny this basic fact are clearly acting out of ignorance.
steveb1
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby justsit » Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:57 pm

It reminds me of the story of the lazy son taking home a dog's tooth to his mother, telling her it was the Buddha's tooth.
The old lady had great devotion to the "relic" and eventually attained rainbow body.

It's the devotion that's important, not the actual object.
People who want to believe will, doubters will not.

Maybe the shroud image was generated when Jesus attained rainbow body, all the energy of that light
left a picture like a photographic negative? Maybe it's the shroud of one of the many others who were crucified in that era?

Or not. :shrug:
User avatar
justsit
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:24 pm
Location: Delaware

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby steveb1 » Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:02 pm

Maybe it's the shroud of one of the many others who were crucified in that era?
===

Possibly, if the dating can be better confirmed. However, the combination of the scourging, side wound, and most importantly the crown of thorns are only simultanesouly ascribed to one crucifixion victim that we know of, namely Jesus. However, as far as we know, maybe every false messianic claimant got his own crown of thorns as a mocking "tribute" to his false claims to kingship? Access to time travel would be helpful in settling these matters :)
steveb1
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby oushi » Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:32 pm

There are many evidences proving the shroud to be "real". Material (way it was made), facts about the crucifiction unknown in medieval etc.
It is the church that is least interested in this fact. When they took samples for carbon tests, it was all filmed except 30 mins when the samples were put into containers. This is where they were swapped, and that is why those carbon tests were so inconsistent. There was something around 100 years difference between samples. Now, why would church want to falsify the results? Because the person on the shroud is heavily bleeding, which requires... a living person.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby greentara » Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:49 pm

"Many experts stand by carbon-dating of scraps of the cloth that date it to the 13th or 14th century. However, some have suggested the dating results might have been skewed by contamination and have called for a larger sample to be analysed.

The Vatican has tiptoed around just what the cloth is, calling it a powerful symbol of Christ's suffering while making no claim to its authenticity"
"
You'd have to conclude the Catholic Church has a strong vested interest in the mystery of the shroud.
greentara
 
Posts: 892
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby GrahamR » Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:17 am

steveb1 wrote:Shroud authenticity is not dependent on religious faith or non-religious debunkery.
<snip>
http://www.shroud-enigma.com/resources/The-C14-dating-of-the-Shroud---web-version.pdf

Some other sources:

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf

http://shroud-enigma.com/challenge/jackson_paper/jackson-paper-on-image.html

... an "artistic fake/new duplication" attempt debunked:

http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/HeimburgerWeb.pdf

People tend to substantiate or reject the Shroud from their own deeply-embedded anti-or-pro religious biases.


I couldn't agree more regarding the bias. What scientific evidence there is remains contradictory. Different arguments abound. Nothing is certain.

But does it really matter how or why it was created? If someone has faith in Jesus, fine, if they don't, well that's fine with me too.

Graham
User avatar
GrahamR
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:29 am
Location: Thailand

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby randomseb » Sun Mar 31, 2013 3:11 am

Well, we always say things like "science has a bias", but this is true of the other side has a very strong bias in this being "real", so this claim of bias is a non-argument :rolling:
Disclaimer: If I have posted about something, then I obviously have no idea what I am talking about!
User avatar
randomseb
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:12 am

Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby GrahamR » Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:28 am

randomseb wrote:Well, we always say things like "science has a bias", but this is true of the other side has a very strong bias in this being "real", so this claim of bias is a non-argument :rolling:


Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

It is almost impossible to write anything which is completely objective and few of the conflicting reports written about the shroud could be considered objective!

With metta,

Graham
User avatar
GrahamR
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:29 am
Location: Thailand

Re: Turim Shroud_New Study Claims is Real

Postby randomseb » Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:26 am

This was addressed to the folk who claim science has a bias without realizing their own position is just as biased, if not more so, because they have a lot more to gain by some miraculous cloth being real than science does, as it's just information to science, nothing particularly important, you know?
Disclaimer: If I have posted about something, then I obviously have no idea what I am talking about!
User avatar
randomseb
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:12 am

Next

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TaTa and 7 guests

>