Shroud of Turin: more finds

sylla1 · Jul 7, 2010

diddyriddick said:
Very true, NMS. But the other side of that coin is that if it isn't the burial shroud of Jesus, then it in no way disproves the existence and/or resurrection. Therefore, it really has no historic value either way.

We entirely agree; however, it may still have some religious value, because in this case it is strongly implied that an utterly exceptional supernatural or at least quasi-supernatural phenomenon (read miracle) has taken place.

And if for the sake of the argument it is admitted that a miracle has indeed occurred, there's only a rather short step to believe that the Shroud was indeed from Jesus or at least from a crucified saint.

merged · Jul 7, 2010

I read a book about it being done by Da Vinci. The authors replicated it with materials available to him in his time.

skizzerflake · Jul 7, 2010

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has been carbon dated to the 13th century, using 3 small samples dated by 3 labs. As always in these religious debates, the carbon date is also disputed, even though the carbon date is as close as anybody can get to hard evidence.

merged · Jul 7, 2010

Posited here & there Da Vinci got some old material,( not out of the question), & did the work. Also mentioned he knew the royal Turin family. The motivation for doing it was to get more people to line up & make donations at the Church.

Interestingly Da Vinci knew and was friends with the royal family of Turin so it’s not like it’s a far fetched reach to assert this.

http://www.itsjustlife.com/turin.html

grizzly · Jul 8, 2010

shroud of turin is a simple example of idolatry, some thing the bible clearly says not to do, I find it funny, the shroud of turin is a piece of cloth, thats all.
and I was thinking, if it was Christ's cloth, why frame it, and in some cases worship it?

Edgewaters · Jul 8, 2010

skizzerflake said:
It's a fascinating artifact, but it has been carbon dated to the 13th century, using 3 small samples dated by 3 labs. As always in these religious debates, the carbon date is also disputed, even though the carbon date is as close as anybody can get to hard evidence.

The whole religious angle aside, it IS an important artifact, both as a forgery and, perhaps, for the history of photographic techniques.

Gabriel de Lorges · Jul 10, 2010

diddyriddick said:
Very true, NMS. But the other side of that coin is that if it isn't the burial shroud of Jesus, then it in no way disproves the existence and/or resurrection. Therefore, it really has no historic value either way.

No historic value? A cloth believed by many scholars and scientists to be an archaeological artifact from the first century, which to the best of our current knowledge is unique in all the world, which has an image of a crucified man proven without doubt not to be a painting of any sort, can practically be confirmed by forensic science to be an authentic burial shroud, quite possibly may be the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa"]Image of Edessa[/ame] mentioned in historical record by [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea"]Eusebius[/ame] as early as the third century ... and it has no historical value?

wow ...

corrocamino · Jul 10, 2010

The most mysterious thing about the shroud is why Jesus doesn't post an explanation for us.

Gabriel de Lorges · Jul 10, 2010

Black hornet said:
Posited here & there Da Vinci got some old material,( not out of the question), & did the work. Also mentioned he knew the royal Turin family. The motivation for doing it was to get more people to line up & make donations at the Church.

Interestingly Da Vinci knew and was friends with the royal family of Turin so it’s not like it’s a far fetched reach to assert this.

http://www.itsjustlife.com/turin.html

No, no, of course not.

Since the Shroud of Turin's known provenance predates Leonardo da Vinci by more than a hundred years. Not only that, but the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex"]Hungarian Pray Codex[/ame], dated late twelfth century, two and a half centuries before da Vinci's birth, unmistakably depicts the Shroud of Turin.

Gabriel de Lorges · Jul 10, 2010

corrocamino said:
The most mysterious thing about the shroud is why Jesus doesn't post an explanation for us.

The most mysterious thing to me is why people choose to promote lies, distortions and hyperbole about the Shroud of Turin when a near overwhelming body of evidence supports a first century burial cloth.

http://www.shroud.com/

Edgewaters · Jul 10, 2010

Gabriel de Lorges said:
No historic value? A cloth believed by many scholars and scientists to be an archaeological artifact from the first century, which to the best of our current knowledge is unique in all the world, which has an image of a crucified man proven without doubt not to be a painting of any sort, can practically be confirmed by forensic science to be an authentic burial shroud, quite possibly may be the Image of Edessa mentioned in historical record by Eusebius as early as the third century ... and it has no historical value?

wow ...

If it's from the first century, why does it not look like ANY depiction of Jesus from that time? There's no Jesus that looks anything like that until about the mid-4th century.

There are only a handful of early depictions (3rd century or before - mostly of the Lazarus scene) and they don't look anything like that:

Gabriel de Lorges · Jul 10, 2010

Edgewaters said:
If it's from the first century, why does it not look like ANY depiction of Jesus from that time? There's no Jesus that looks anything like that until about the mid-4th century.

There are only a handful of early depictions (3rd century or before - mostly of the Lazarus scene) and they don't look anything like that:

Your answer may be found if the Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa Are one and the same. The historical record for the Image of Edessa says it was walled up in the gate of the city for several centuries.

...
Regardless of how the image-bearing cloth arrived in Edessa, it was discovered in the early sixth century concealed behind some stones above one of the city gates. It was a practice in ancient cities of this area to mount a stone tile with a picture of some favored deity above the city’s main gate. It may be that the Image of Edessa was simply stored behind such a tile as suggested by some Byzantine iconography. It could well have been that because of severe floods, to which Edessa was very prone; the cloth was placed high in the city’s walls for protection. There is also the very real possibility that it was hidden to protect it from invaders or to protect it during times of Christian persecutions. We know that during the many persecutions of the first three centuries, valuable relics, writings, and ceremonial items of the church were routinely destroyed. There is evidence of local persecutions in Edessa as early as the latter part of the first century and of Roman persecutions that persisted until the time of Emperor Constantine. If, in fact, the cloth was taken to Edessa in the earlier part of the first century, it might have been hidden for protection as early as the reign of Ma’nu VI, Abgar’s son, who is thought to have reverted to paganism. [emphasis added]

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/resources/Edessa.htm

Jesus Image Gallery

Gabriel de Lorges · Jul 11, 2010

Black hornet said:
I read a book about it being done by Da Vinci. The authors replicated it with materials available to him in his time.

Black hornet said:
Posited here & there Da Vinci got some old material,( not out of the question), & did the work. Also mentioned he knew the royal Turin family. The motivation for doing it was to get more people to line up & make donations at the Church.

Interestingly Da Vinci knew and was friends with the royal family of Turin so it’s not like it’s a far fetched reach to assert this.

http://www.itsjustlife.com/turin.html

An image from the site linked by Black hornet:

The aspect ratio of the Shroud has been altered in the above image.

•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*

My own side-by-side comparison of Leonardo de Vinci's Vitruvian Man and the Shroud of Turin. Allowing for the fact that on the Shroud the feet are extended downward, and it is difficult to determine the exact top of the head on either image, I think it is fairly obvious there are several points of incongruence between de Vinci's sketch and the image on the Shroud. The most obvious of these are the pelvic alignment and the pectoral alignment.

Shroud as a positive • de Vinci's Vitruvian Man • Shroud as negative
This image only shows the dorsal portion of the Shroud. The Shroud is over twice as tall, including the ventral portion, than the image above. The Shroud is approximately fourteen feet in length and a little over three feet wide.

The Man in the Shroud

Shroud • Leonardo da Vinci, 16th C • Aggemian, 20th C • Icon, Mt. Sinai Egypt, 6th C • Shroud

It seems da Vinci may have been influenced by the Shroud in his depiction of JJesus, but da Vinci did not create the Shroud of Turin.

Edgewaters · Jul 11, 2010

Gabriel de Lorges said:
Your answer may be found if the Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa Are one and the same.

No, that doesn't answer it. The question remains: why does it look nothing at all like early depictions, and looks like an image that only emerged 300 years later?

merged · Jul 11, 2010

In the book I read, only Da Vinci's head was used from his body, torso of another man used below the neck.

Gabriel de Lorges · Jul 11, 2010

Black hornet said:
In the book I read, only Da Vinci's head was used from his body, torso of another man used below the neck.

So? This doesn't explain why the Shroud has a provenance (undoubted history) which predates Leonardo da Vinci by over a hundred years. Nor is there any explanation for image formation on the Shroud, which no one has explained with anything that resembles empirical scientific evidence.

Edgewaters · Jul 11, 2010

Gabriel de Lorges said:
Nor is there any explanation for image formation on the Shroud, which no one has explained with anything that resembles empirical scientific evidence.

That's just your confirmation bias talking. There are a number of plausible explanations backed up by experiments in the lab. For example:

http://www.unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=7268

http://www.dim.unipd.it/fanti/corona.pdf

The only people who haven't backed up anything with empirical evidence are those who make claims about bodies suddenly dematerializing or shooting out magic radiation during religious events etc.

merged · Jul 11, 2010

Finding a 100 yr old piece of cloth would have been no major trick.

Quote;
Nor is there any explanation for image formation on the Shroud, which no one has explained with anything that resembles empirical scientific evidence.

Not true, you have to read the book, a duplicate was made using materials available to Da Vinci thereby proving through scientific means that he could have done it.

Gabriel de Lorges · Jul 11, 2010

Edgewaters said:
That's just your confirmation bias talking. There are a number of plausible explanations backed up by experiments in the lab. For example:

http://www.unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=7268

http://www.dim.unipd.it/fanti/corona.pdf

The only people who haven't backed up anything with empirical evidence are those who make claims about bodies suddenly dematerializing or shooting out magic radiation during religious events etc.

I didn't say there weren't some theories as to how the image was formed. Nor have I suggested anything supernatural created the image. Yet no one has reproduced an exact forensic replica of the Shroud. If it was so easy for a medieval artist or "photographer" to do, why can't anyone do it today?

By the way, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Shroud has, or has ever had, any form of photographic emulsion applied. The STURP team conducted spectrometric experimentation and found nothing of that nature.

Black hornet said:
Finding a 100 yr old piece of cloth would have been no major trick.

Nor is there any explanation for image formation on the Shroud, which no one has explained with anything that resembles empirical scientific evidence.

Black hornet said:
Not true, you have to read the book, a duplicate was made using materials available to Da Vinci thereby proving through scientific means that he could have done it.

What part of provenance don't you get? The image was on the Shroud when it was first displayed in Lirey, France in the middle of the fourteenth century. Leonardo da Vinci was born in the middle of the fifteenth century.

... Yet no one has reproduced an exact forensic replica of the Shroud....

Science by Press Release? An Editorial Response by Barrie Schwortz

Barrie Schwortz was a member of the STURP team, maintains the preeminent Shroud of Turin website, and is one of the foremost authorities of the Shroud.

Thegn Ansgar · Jul 11, 2010

I actually think that the man in the shroud is Jacques de Molay, just based on most depictions of him; forked beard, slight balding, similar nose, etc. The dating of the shroud also matches up with Jacques' death.

Search

Search

Shroud of Turin: more finds

sylla1

merged

skizzerflake

merged

grizzly

Edgewaters

Gabriel de Lorges

corrocamino

Gabriel de Lorges

Gabriel de Lorges

Edgewaters

Gabriel de Lorges

Gabriel de Lorges

Edgewaters

merged

Gabriel de Lorges

Edgewaters

merged

Gabriel de Lorges

Thegn Ansgar

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions