The Shroud of Turin: An Enigmatic Anomaly

[nismaratwork]

Whenever people try to disprove the shroud they always try to argue with carbon dating, but I think there may be a much easier argument which is:

It seems quite clear that the Jesus in the shroud has long hair, just like we would expect, but many biblical scholars and archeologist believe, from the evidence they have, that the average Jewish male in the first century had short cropped hair, and the long hair and facial features we recognize as Jesus were European artist 'europeanizing' Jesus. So if this the authentic shroud of Jesus he probably should have short hair.

Regardless, the Shroud, depsite some peoples/documentary claims, is not a big deal for the faith of Catholics. As a Catholic, when I read about the latest evidence for a hoax, I merely shrugged my shoulders and went about my day without any spiritual dilemmas.

Your point about the features is probably valid, but your final statement is most telling; people will believe or not, and artifacts or relics should not, and are rarely central to true faith.

 

[alt]

Haven't read this thread, but there was a show in TV last night postulating that it was done by Leonardo Da Vinci, for political / profit motives aligned with the Savoy family.

It is easily the most plausable explanation I've seen so far.

It should be available on the 'iview' link by now. Have a look at it if interested - fascinating.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/abc1...-09-23T213000.htm?program=The Da Vinci Shroud

 

[nismaratwork]

Haven't read this thread, but there was a show in TV last night postulating that it was done by Leonardo Da Vinci, for political / profit motives aligned with the Savoy family.

It is easily the most plausable explanation I've seen so far.

It should be available on the 'iview' link by now. Have a look at it if interested - fascinating.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/abc1...-09-23T213000.htm?program=The Da Vinci Shroud

I buy the method, but not the "author". Hell, if Da Vinci did everything people believe he did in secret, he'd have rebuilt all of Rome, and put men on the moon. I can imagine a contemporary artist using these techniques for the same reason, or even to instill faith without a political or profit motive!

 

[Andre]

Just another wild thought, maybe somedoby did that already, but the shroud is supposed to be the actual cloth placed on the body of a certain deity, no?

Now did anybody ever do the reproduceability test? Take a body, rub it in with some pigment holding creme, wrap and unwrap it with some cloth and compare the inprint to that of the shroud.

Can you wrap your coth in such a way that something similar to the shroud emerges?

 

[nismaratwork]

Just another wild thought, maybe somedoby did that already, but the shroud is supposed to be the actual cloth placed on the body of a certain deity, no?

Now did anybody ever do the reproduceability test? Take a body, rub it in with some pigment holding creme, wrap and unwrap it with some cloth and compare the inprint to that of the shroud.

Can you wrap your coth in such a way that something similar to the shroud emerges?

Oh, in so many different ways, yes.

http://www.shadowshroud.com/
http://www.news.com.au/world/shroud-of-turin-created-in-laboratory/story-e6frfkyi-1225783160791

An Italian scientist named Luigi Garlaschelli claimed he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin... Garlaschelli reproduced the Shroud of Turin using materials from the middle ages, to further his claim that the ancient Jesus Christ cloth is fake. He simply placed a linen sheet over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid to copy the Shroud of Turin.

regarding the same recreation: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...val-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html

with this:

The reproduction is on the right.

And more...

 

[alt]

Just another wild thought, maybe somedoby did that already, but the shroud is supposed to be the actual cloth placed on the body of a certain deity, no?

Now did anybody ever do the reproduceability test? Take a body, rub it in with some pigment holding creme, wrap and unwrap it with some cloth and compare the inprint to that of the shroud.

Can you wrap your coth in such a way that something similar to the shroud emerges?

No - and the program I referred to above, addressed this in detail, with computer imaging. Wrap a face in a cloth, and you end up going into tree dimensions. When unfolded, the image looks very little like a human face and more like a wide browed rodent.

See following reply to Nismar for more.

 

[nismaratwork]

No - and the program I referred to above, addressed this in detail, with computer imaging. Wrap a face in a cloth, and you end up going into tree dimensions. When unfolded, the image looks very little like a human face and more like a wide browed rodent.

See following reply to Nismar for more.

Even if you believe that particular technique can't be used, you can just paint acids on, and use light as in one of the links I provided.

 

[alt]

I buy the method, but not the "author". Hell, if Da Vinci did everything people believe he did in secret, he'd have rebuilt all of Rome, and put men on the moon. I can imagine a contemporary artist using these techniques for the same reason, or even to instill faith without a political or profit motive!

I wish you'd have seen the program mentioned. (Called 'The Da Vinci Shroud'). Perhaps there's a way to get it online, though I haven't found that.

One thing that has always struck me instinctively when seeing pics of the shroud, is that there is something wrong with the head as compared to the rest of the body. And on closer inspection, and as pointed out by the program, the head is proportionately smaller than the rest of the body. The program speculated (perhaps proved, as much as such a thing CAN be proved) that LDV used 3 different bodies with which to make the shroud. One cadaver for the front (which he drove nails into, etc) and one for the back, slightly shorter than the first, which is why the front / back images are a slightly different height. The third was his own face - he would have made a mold of it and then subjected it to the same 'camera obscura' method, BUT - he got the distance wrong by a foot or so, thus the slightly smaller head in the image.

Even if you examine your two images above - the real one and the recent fake, you will see that the head of the fake, seams to be in proportion to the body, but the other isn't - very slightly, almost imperceptably, but it isn't.

 

[nismaratwork]

I wish you'd have seen the program mentioned. (Called 'The Da Vinci Shroud'). Perhaps there's a way to get it online, though I haven't found that.

One thing that has always struck me instinctively when seeing pics of the shroud, is that there is something wrong with the head as compared to the rest of the body. And on closer inspection, and as pointed out by the program, the head is proportionately smaller than the rest of the body. The program speculated (perhaps proved, as much as such a thing CAN be proved) that LDV used 3 different bodies with which to make the shroud. One cadaver for the front (which he drove nails into, etc) and one for the back, slightly shorter than the first, which is why the front / back images are a slightly different height. The third was his own face - he would have made a mold of it and then subjected it to the same 'camera obscura' method, BUT - he got the distance wrong by a foot or so, thus the slightly smaller head in the image.

Even if you examine your two images above - the real one and the recent fake, you will see that the head of the fake, seams to be in proportion to the body, but the other isn't - very slightly, almost imperceptably, but it isn't.

Hmmmm... I'm not good enough with art to tell with the naked eye... I've got to find this program. If I can watch it (by hook or by crook) I'll let you know. Certainly it's possible, and access to cadavers would have been very easy... I just don't know. I admit, for all of my skepticism it would be truly amazing if this was the work of LDV... I realize it would disappoint many Christians, but it would be stunning to everyone else.

edit: Could the proportion issue be due to shrinkage of the fibers at the head of the shroud due to different conditions, or would that create a "cone-head" appearance?

edit 2: I have to sleep now, but I'll check this thread asap in the morning. I'm enjoying this a lot, and I'll msg a friend to see if he might have DVR'ed this show... it's his kind of thing.

 

[alt]

Hmmmm... I'm not good enough with art to tell with the naked eye... I've got to find this program. If I can watch it (by hook or by crook) I'll let you know. Certainly it's possible, and access to cadavers would have been very easy... I just don't know. I admit, for all of my skepticism it would be truly amazing if this was the work of LDV... I realize it would disappoint many Christians, but it would be stunning to everyone else.

I don't often get exited about TV docos but this one is a MUST, for anyone with a casual or more interest in the shroud. Also, yes, LDV would have had abundant access to, and choice of, cadavers.

edit: Could the proportion issue be due to shrinkage of the fibers at the head of the shroud due to different conditions, or would that create a "cone-head" appearance?

I doubt it. It isn't a 'cone head' as far as I can see - it's just slightly, (nearly imperceptibly)smaller complete.

edit 2: I have to sleep now, but I'll check this thread asap in the morning. I'm enjoying this a lot, and I'll msg a friend to see if he might have DVR'ed this show... it's his kind of thing.

Sweet dreams :-)

I'll have another look on the Aus ABC site. But sounds like your friend would have better chance.

 

[baywax]

I wish you'd have seen the program mentioned. (Called 'The Da Vinci Shroud'). Perhaps there's a way to get it online, though I haven't found that.

One thing that has always struck me instinctively when seeing pics of the shroud, is that there is something wrong with the head as compared to the rest of the body. And on closer inspection, and as pointed out by the program, the head is proportionately smaller than the rest of the body. The program speculated (perhaps proved, as much as such a thing CAN be proved) that LDV used 3 different bodies with which to make the shroud. One cadaver for the front (which he drove nails into, etc) and one for the back, slightly shorter than the first, which is why the front / back images are a slightly different height. The third was his own face - he would have made a mold of it and then subjected it to the same 'camera obscura' method, BUT - he got the distance wrong by a foot or so, thus the slightly smaller head in the image.

Even if you examine your two images above - the real one and the recent fake, you will see that the head of the fake, seams to be in proportion to the body, but the other isn't - very slightly, almost imperceptably, but it isn't.

I've read studies of the shroud that point out the idea that the face and neck of the frontal image on it is a hastily fashioned mask composed of "grog clay" which hand sculpts easily and dries fast...

Some say it could be a "death mask" of Jesus. If its true then Jesus must have had very similar features to those of Da Vinci... perhaps they're related.

Just a reminder that Da Vinci was in Turin on a commission to paint the Mona Lisa at around the same time that this mysterious master piece came into the possession of a church that Da Vinci really didn't like very much. I contend that the master used the same camera obscura techique to re-create the subtle gradations of light we see today on the mysteriously smiling face of the Mona Lisa. Her smile may be so quirky because she has been asked to sit in Da Vinci's over sized camera obscura with the full light of mirror directed sunlight illuminating her enough to record her image on a canvas soaked in a primitive solution of silver halide or perhaps silver sulphate. What may have led up to his discovery of a light sensitive solution could be, in part, the fact that he used silver point for all his drawings and layouts.

 

[alt]

I don't often get exited about TV docos but this one is a MUST, for anyone with a casual or more interest in the shroud. Also, yes, LDV would have had abundant access to, and choice of, cadavers.



I doubt it. It isn't a 'cone head' as far as I can see - it's just slightly, (nearly imperceptibly)smaller complete.



Sweet dreams :-)

I'll have another look on the Aus ABC site. But sounds like your friend would have better chance.

Here is a transcript of the show from when it aired in England.

http://www.livedash.com/transcript/the_da_vinci_shroud/6222/DSCP/Thursday_September_9_2010/293838/

 

[nismaratwork]

Here is a transcript of the show from when it aired in England.

http://www.livedash.com/transcript/the_da_vinci_shroud/6222/DSCP/Thursday_September_9_2010/293838/

Ahhh, good! Thanks alt.

 

[alt]

Ahhh, good! Thanks alt.

Mind you, whoever typed it did so rather poorly, and a transcript loses out a lot, but anyway ..

 

[alt]

I've read studies of the shroud that point out the idea that the face and neck of the frontal image on it is a hastily fashioned mask composed of "grog clay" which hand sculpts easily and dries fast...

Some say it could be a "death mask" of Jesus. If its true then Jesus must have had very similar features to those of Da Vinci... perhaps they're related.

Just a reminder that Da Vinci was in Turin on a commission to paint the Mona Lisa at around the same time that this mysterious master piece came into the possession of a church that Da Vinci really didn't like very much. I contend that the master used the same camera obscura techique to re-create the subtle gradations of light we see today on the mysteriously smiling face of the Mona Lisa. Her smile may be so quirky because she has been asked to sit in Da Vinci's over sized camera obscura with the full light of mirror directed sunlight illuminating her enough to record her image on a canvas soaked in a primitive solution of silver halide or perhaps silver sulphate. What may have led up to his discovery of a light sensitive solution could be, in part, the fact that he used silver point for all his drawings and layouts.

I don't know much about the Mona Lisa.

But so far as the shroud is concerned, in recent decades (centuries ?) the Catholic Church has remained rather mute about it being the real thing, ie, Christs burial shroud. Probably with good reason. Though it serves to keep the faith, bring the dollars in, etc (no disrespect intended to Catholics).

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't know much about the Mona Lisa.

But so far as the shroud is concerned, in recent decades (centuries ?) the Catholic Church has remained rather mute about it being the real thing, ie, Christs burial shroud. Probably with good reason. Though it serves to keep the faith, bring the dollars in, etc (no disrespect intended to Catholics).

Yep, they have nothing to gain by confirming its authenticity when it is unlikely to be "the real deal", especially when they can just remain mum and claim it's a matter of faith. CHA-CHING! I don't think that's disrespectful to Catholics, it's just a comment on how the Vatican works.

 

[baywax]

Yep, they have nothing to gain by confirming its authenticity when it is unlikely to be "the real deal", especially when they can just remain mum and claim it's a matter of faith. CHA-CHING! I don't think that's disrespectful to Catholics, it's just a comment on how the Vatican works.

If the shroud is an example of primitive photography by Leonardo then the church is in the possession of an extremely valuable piece of artwork. Cha-Ching indeed!

 

[nismaratwork]

If the shroud is an example of primitive photography by Leonardo then the church is in the possession of an extremely valuable piece of artwork. Cha-Ching indeed!

Yeah... wouldn't be the only priceless piece of art they're in possession of, but at least this one is on display instead of being stuffed away like medieval treasure.

 

[baywax]

Yeah... wouldn't be the only priceless piece of art they're in possession of, but at least this one is on display instead of being stuffed away like medieval treasure.

Do tell? What evidence is there of "hidden" artworks ?
Are the Vatican's basements a trove of ancient and hitherto unknown art? Maybe that's where all the missing anatomical parts of greek sculpture ended up.

 

[nismaratwork]

Do tell? What evidence is there of "hidden" artworks ?
Are the Vatican's basements a trove of ancient and hitherto unknown art? Maybe that's where all the missing anatomical parts of greek sculpture ended up.

I didn't say anything about the art being hidden or unknown, just sequestered from the general public. Certainly that's true of most museums, and it's true of the Vatican. As for Greek anatomy, I'd say the only interest there would be... recreational... if the continuing sex-abuse scandal is anything to go by.

 

[alt]

Yeah... wouldn't be the only priceless piece of art they're in possession of, but at least this one is on display instead of being stuffed away like medieval treasure.

But I don't even think it's on display. It's locked in some container, isn't it ? And people view that, and get all exited about it.

(Incidently, it's interesting that we can talk in critical terms in this regard about the Catholic Church, as we should be able to, poke fun at one of it's purported religious icons, molesting priests, etc, and nobody bats an eyelid. I contrast this to doing similar toward Islam - we'd probably be in trouble by now ..)

 

[nismaratwork]

But I don't even think it's on display. It's locked in some container, isn't it ? And people view that, and get all exited about it.

(Incidently, it's interesting that we can talk in critical terms in this regard about the Catholic Church, as we should be able to, poke fun at one of it's purported religious icons, molesting priests, etc, and nobody bats an eyelid. I contrast this to doing similar toward Islam - we'd probably be in trouble by now ..)

Can't argue with that last statement, but to be fair nobody ever claimed that a double-standard doesn't exist at this particular moment in history. Remember, there was a time when Christianity was of a similar age as Islam when it would have been deleterious to one's health to speak of anything like this. All religions have their... "rough" patches. We're just lucky enough that this one is happening now while we're alive to enjoy it! <-- Sarcasm dripping from that last bit.

 

[baywax]

I didn't say anything about the art being hidden or unknown, just sequestered from the general public. Certainly that's true of most museums, and it's true of the Vatican. As for Greek anatomy, I'd say the only interest there would be... recreational... if the continuing sex-abuse scandal is anything to go by.

erm,

at least this one is on display instead of being stuffed away

nismaratwork

Sorry "stuffed away" means "hidden" to me... much the same way the abuse of children in so many countries is "stuffed away" from the consciousness of millions of followers. The abuse issue is probably, in part (if not wholly) the reason for the creation of a "fake shroud". It is the equivalent to dropping a frozen fish in a safety deposit box at a bank you don't like during the summer months.

 

[nismaratwork]

erm,

nismaratwork

Sorry "stuffed away" means "hidden" to me... much the same way the abuse of children in so many countries is "stuffed away" from the consciousness of millions of followers. The abuse issue is probably, in part (if not wholly) the reason for the creation of a "fake shroud". It is the equivalent to dropping a frozen fish in a safety deposit box at a bank you don't like during the summer months.

Baywax, most museums have FAR more in their collection than they display. In fact, the majority of a collection is not presented to the public on a regular basis. I think this is a basic misunderstanding of how collections are curated, and the contrast between access to archived materials in the Vatican versus a Museum. The Vatican has a VAST collection of art, gifts over the centuries, and writings/books... most of which are impossible to see or gain access to... or nearly so. That's not an issue of HIDING or secrecy... it's an issue of hoarding. Certainly it's unseemly for a supposedly charitable group, but my issue is just with access.

Just to be clear, if I meant "hidden" or "secret", that's exactly what I'd say. If you've ever seen a museum archives... say, the MFA in Boston, there are paintings in drawers lined up like manila envelopes, back to back. The impression you get, is that this material has been stuffed into every available spot, and that gets even more severe when we're talking about museums of natural history.

 

[baywax]

Baywax, most museums have FAR more in their collection than they display. In fact, the majority of a collection is not presented to the public on a regular basis. I think this is a basic misunderstanding of how collections are curated, and the contrast between access to archived materials in the Vatican versus a Museum. The Vatican has a VAST collection of art, gifts over the centuries, and writings/books... most of which are impossible to see or gain access to... or nearly so. That's not an issue of HIDING or secrecy... it's an issue of hoarding. Certainly it's unseemly for a supposedly charitable group, but my issue is just with access.

Just to be clear, if I meant "hidden" or "secret", that's exactly what I'd say. If you've ever seen a museum archives... say, the MFA in Boston, there are paintings in drawers lined up like manila envelopes, back to back. The impression you get, is that this material has been stuffed into every available spot, and that gets even more severe when we're talking about museums of natural history.

I get ya!

I've excavated 12 years worth of artifacts for the BC Museum of Anthropology and not one of them is on display... they're all in locked drawers and dusty reports.

 

[nismaratwork]

I get ya!

I've excavated 12 years worth of artifacts for the BC Museum of Anthropology and not one of them is on display... they're all in locked drawers and dusty reports.

I know, and I don't blame the museums (they can't tunnel into some extra dimension to display their archives), but it really drives home the point that in a given lifetime we see only a fraction of the art, history, literature, and specimens that have been painstakingly collected! I feel lucky (as I suspect you may) to have had the chance to get into the archives of some museums... it really is an amazing experience when you're not dying from dust-poisoning.

 

[mugaliens]

I get ya!

I've excavated 12 years worth of artifacts for the BC Museum of Anthropology and not one of them is on display... they're all in locked drawers and dusty reports.

Same with the National Ski Museum in Vail, Colorado. I noticed there were no split-edge Hexcel skis on display, of which I own a pair. I talked to the head boss about donating them, but she said, "We have less than 5% of our holdings on display," and said I should simply keep them for another decade before selling them to a collector online, as they are quite rare, so far as skis go.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Something that I never realized is that the Catholic Church has never claimed that the shroud is authentic.

Normally, I would not get involved in this thread. For whatever reason, I stumbled upon it (probably because of the association with the McCrone Institute) and saw this ancient post.

In the event nobody has seen this:

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Benedict 02May2010.pdf

Pope Benedict XVI clearly states the Shroud is an authentic Icon.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Normally, I would not get involved in this thread. For whatever reason, I stumbled upon it (probably because of the association with the McCrone Institute) and saw this ancient post.

In the event nobody has seen this:

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Benedict 02May2010.pdf

Pope Benedict XVI clearly states the Shroud is an authentic Icon.

Note first that this came long after I made that post. However, from what I see, he never says it is authentic, only that it corresponds in every way to the biblical shroud.

The history according to wiki

The first official association between the image on the Shroud and the Catholic Church was made in 1940 based on the formal request by Sister Maria Pierina De Micheli to the curia in Milan to obtain authorization to produce a medal with the image. The authorization was granted and the first medal with the image was offered to Pope Pius XII who approved the medal. The image was then used on what became known as the Holy Face Medal worn by many Catholics, initially as a means of protection during the Second World War. In 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus, and declared its feast to be celebrated every year the day before Ash Wednesday.[41][42] Following the approval by Pope Pius XII, Catholic devotions to the Holy Face of Jesus have been almost exclusively associated with the image on the shroud.

In 1983 the Shroud was given to the Holy See by the House of Savoy.[38] However, as with all relics of this kind, the Roman Catholic Church made no pronouncements claiming whether it is Jesus' burial shroud, or if it is a forgery. As with other approved Catholic devotions, the matter has been left to the personal decision of the faithful, as long as the Church does not issue a future notification to the contrary. In the Church's view, whether the cloth is authentic or not has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of what Jesus taught nor on the saving power of his death and resurrection. [43]

Pope John Paul II stated in 1998 that:[44] "Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet".[45] Pope John Paul II showed himself to be deeply moved by the image of the Shroud and arranged for public showings in 1998 and 2000. In his address at the Turin Cathedral on Sunday May 24, 1998 (the occasion of the 100th year of Secondo Pia's May 28, 1898 photograph), he said:[46] "The Shroud is an image of God's love as well as of human sin [...] The imprint left by the tortured body of the Crucified One, which attests to the tremendous human capacity for causing pain and death to one's fellow man, stands as an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age." In 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the Shroud of Turin is ″a truly mysterious image, which no human artistry was capable of producing. In some inexplicable way, it appeared imprinted upon cloth and claimed to show the true face of Christ, the crucified and risen Lord."[47]

Pope Benedict XVI has not publicly commented on the Shroud's authenticity, but has taken steps that indirectly affect the Shroud. In June 2008 he approved the public display of the Shroud in the spring of 2010 and stated that he would like to go to Turin to see it along with other pilgrims.[48] During his visit in Turin on Sunday May 2, 2010, Benedict XVI described the Shroud of Turin as an "extraordinary Icon", the "Icon of Holy Saturday [...] corresponding in every way to what the Gospels tell us of Jesus", "an Icon written in blood, the blood of a man who was scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified and whose right side was pierced".[49] The pope said also that in the Turin Shroud "we see, as in a mirror, our suffering in the suffering of Christ".[50]

On May 30, 2010 Pope Benedict XVI beatified Sister Maria Pierina De Micheli who coined the Holy Face Medal, based on Secondo Pia's photograph of the Shroud.[51]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

 

[Andy Resnick]

Note first that this came long after I made that post. However, from what I see, he never says it is authentic, only that it corresponds in every way to the biblical shroud.

No, the Pope said a lot more than that: Page 1:

"Indeed it is a winding-sheet that was wrapped round the body of a man who was crucified (corresponding in every way)..."

And page 3:

"The Shroud is an Icon written in blood; the blood of a man who was scourged, crowned
with thorns, crucified and whose right side was pierced. The Image impressed upon the Shroud is that of a dead man, but the blood speaks of his life. Every trace of blood speaks of love and of life. Especially that huge stain near his rib, made by the blood and water that flowed copiously from a great wound inflicted by the tip of a Roman spear. "

The Pope (and others) are free to believe what they will; to me, these statements demonstrate the Pope's infallible word that the Shroud of Turin is in fact the burial shroud of Jesus. As opposed to say, calling it a *representation* of the burial shroud, perfect in every detail.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, the Pope said a lot more than that: Page 1:

"Indeed it is a winding-sheet that was wrapped round the body of a man who was crucified (corresponding in every way)..."

And page 3:

"The Shroud is an Icon written in blood; the blood of a man who was scourged, crowned
with thorns, crucified and whose right side was pierced. The Image impressed upon the Shroud is that of a dead man, but the blood speaks of his life. Every trace of blood speaks of love and of life. Especially that huge stain near his rib, made by the blood and water that flowed copiously from a great wound inflicted by the tip of a Roman spear. "

The Pope (and others) are free to believe what they will; to me, these statements demonstrate the Pope's infallible word that the Shroud of Turin is in fact the burial shroud of Jesus. As opposed to say, calling it a *representation* of the burial shroud, perfect in every detail.

He was drawing strong parallels [the reasons why many think or thought the shroud to be authentic], but he never made any declarations. Also, according to the Catholic faith, the pope's word is only infallible wrt church doctrine - this because they believe Jesus gave the Pope power to define sin. You can't be in error about the rules when you make the rules!

I could be reading this wrong, but I don't think he meant to say it is authentic. It would surprise me if he did given that no pope before ever made such a declaration. The shroud is used as a symbol of faith for what it represents, and not for what it may actually be.

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

 

[Andy Resnick]

As I said; I'm not interested in discussing beliefs. Walter McCrone's findings are reasonably conclusive and passed peer review:

http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64-293/the-latest-shroud-update

http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin?PHPSESSID=fd4982ceec20411d96f2deb56945523e

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As I said; I'm not interested in discussing beliefs. Walter McCrone's findings are reasonably conclusive and passed peer review:

Yes, rather than sticking to the facts, you specifically called the Pope's belief and Catholic doctrine into question.

To say the cloth "speaks to" biblical teachings, is not a declaration of authenticity.

Reasonably conclusive? Either they are conclusive, or not.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Yes, rather than sticking to the facts, you specifically called the Pope's belief and Catholic doctrine into question.

To say the cloth "speaks to" bibilical teachings, is not a declaration of authenticity.

Reasonably conclusive? Either they are conclusive, or not.

It is fact that the coloring on the shroud is not from blood. It is fact that the shroud is not contemporaneous with jesus. The pope's statements are factually incorrect.

The pope can believe whatever he wants. You can believe whatever you want. You are free to come up with alternate hypotheses for the existing experimental results, propose tests to select one hypothesis from many, carry out the tests, and publish the results. That's how science works.

I'm a scientist- I believe nothing and hold no-one's word to be sacred.

 

[alt]

It is fact that the coloring on the shroud is not from blood. It is fact that the shroud is not contemporaneous with jesus. The pope's statements are factually incorrect.

The pope can believe whatever he wants. You can believe whatever you want. You are free to come up with alternate hypotheses for the existing experimental results, propose tests to select one hypothesis from many, carry out the tests, and publish the results. That's how science works.

I'm a scientist- I believe nothing and hold no-one's word to be sacred.

The Catholic Church doesn't promote is as been authentic. I suppose they suspect that it may not be, and are silent on the issue rather than end up with egg on their faces.

Also, a relative of mine was over there in the last couple of years, and she says they no longer even display it - the just show an opaque container that it is supposed to be held in.