Those Who Say The Turin Shroud Is A Medieval Forgery.
This is one of my ‘There is no conflict between Science and Religion’ kind of Noms. Only in this case it is almost as if the skeptics are believers, believers skeptics. Let me explain;
We all remember the famous photograph of the blackboard with the dates ‘1260 -1390’ written on it. That was result of the carbon dating. It was a medieval forgery. Science has proved it. End of story. Everyone went home.
‘But I want to know how that medieval guy did it’ Barrie Schwortz the Chief Documenting Photographer of the group of scientists that were allowed to study the Shroud , ‘What were we looking at’.
You see gentle reader the image on the Turin Shroud is a very mysterious thing. Firstly, paradoxically the faint image on the cloth is actually a negative. When it is developed as a negative (the famous image we see) it is clearer. So it is s positive negative.
Next it is not a painting or a rubbing or a scortch. It was done not by camera obscura. Schwortz has said – Even with all our modern technology we cannot come close to replicating it’. They can actually ‘lift’ the properties of it and you get a 3d effect. This is not a mere trick. If it was a painting or a rubbing the properties would degrade not lift.
So that’s the positive for me. Now the negative. Which is really a positive. The carbon dating. It is generally agreed now by most members of STURP (Turin Shroud Research Project) that the snippets taken from the Shroud to carbon date were poorly chosen. Poorly chosen because an order of nuns (the Poor Clares) had repaired the Shroud after it was burnt in a fire. It was a reweave (it took a lay housewife in America to notice this)..
More evidence that it is much older than Medieval-they have examined the flax and because some chemical or other is missing shows that it is between 1, 500 to 3, 000 years old. A time frame that could include the burial of Jesus.
The man in the Shroud looks like Jesus doesn’t he? That’s because the iconography of Jesus goes back a very long way.
It is anatomically correct and consistent with a Jesus’s. crucifixion. Firstly there are rivulets of (real) blood at his hairline indicative of the crown of thorns. His legs aren’t broken because remember there was no need as he had died. There are the wounds in the upper part of his palms which would hold his body. The marks of the wounds on his back are consistent with scourging.
We know from the historical record that when the Shroud first came to light in the Middle Ages the Pope of the time said it was a fake and that it should not be venerated. The Archbishop of Turin at the result if the carbon dating declared it to be a hoax. This present Pope insists on calling it an icon not a relic.
And you have the scientists like Schwortz and others of STURP who have been up close and (literally) personal with are the ones championing it as the burial cloth of Christ. Its a funny old world..
Nominated by: Miles Plastic