Shroud of Turin

[Moontanman]

FINALLY

 

This shroud in no way can compromise a non-thiest belief. That is true even IF the shroud covered a guy crucified in the first century with a crown of thorns. Accordingly, I can only come to the conclusion all this hostility is political in nature. Specifically, the closer science comes to verifing the above, the more likely there will be additional Christians to threaten the non-theists political consituency. And, not implausibly, to threaten their civil rights or worse.

 

YUK

 

Wow why didn't I see this insightful explanation of the problem, hey politics was why Christ was crucified why not politics to disprove his shroud!

[CraigD]

The controversy around dating the making of the Shroud of Turin is, I think, much more ecclesiastical (having to do with churches) than scientific.

RESPONSE: This is bull feathers. The controversy is archaological. Period.

I disagree.

 

Archeology is, in the words of this wikipedia article,

the science that studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation, analysis, and interpretation of material remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, features, biofacts, and landscapes.

Physical analysis of the Shroud of Turin tells us little more about human culture than analysis of most of the thousands of similar religious art and holy relics, which include, as moontanman mentions, several other similar large shrouds and smaller image-bearing cloths (eg: Saint Veronica’s handkerchief) alleged to have covered Jesus Christ or other characters of religious importance (such as Jacques de Molay). Collectively, these many artifacts tell us at least one thing: that Christian religionists venerate and seek to collect and preserve such objects.

 

Many people are interested in the Shroud because they believe it has supernatural/magical powers. Such interest, even when shown by scientists, is obviously non-scientific.

Specifically, what the hell IS this thing.

By the most scientifically accepted accounts, its a large piece of flax fiber cloth bearing an image made of artificial pigments of some kind, possible ochre (clay power dissolved in plant oil or water), tempera (various pigments bound by egg yolk), pigmented gelatin (rendered animal connective tissue), and/or animal or human blood. Until 2002, it was sewn to a backing piece of red silk taffeta, and patched in various places with flax, cotton, and silk. In 2002, as part of its restoration, these additions were removed.

 

Were the Shroud an ordinary archeological find owned by a university or museum, more thorough testing of it, including carbon dating of many small samples from different areas of it and carefully prepared cores of its fibers. However, it is not an archeological find, but a venerated, and in the eyes of many, beautiful object owned by the Catholic Church, which its owners wish to have preserved and protected, not studied. Also, as I’ve noted above and supported with an encyclopedia reference containing several references to original sources, ecclesiastical objections to any study of it have been expressed by its owners.

Now archaology has flubbed up in a way that damages the scientific discipline itself. BIG TIME. This was one of the most important Carbon Datings of all time.

For the 1988 carbon dating to have been very important, it must have either profound consequences about our knowledge of the physical universe, of human culture, profound consequence for the future conduct of one or more major secular or religious organization, or have seriously affected the lives of the people involved in it. To the best of my knowledge, it has resulted in none of these. Therefore, I don’t believe its accurate to describe it as one of the most important carbon datings of all time.

 

Also, “flubbing” implies an uncorrectable mistake. Even if a large error was made in the 1988 carbon dating – which only a minority of experts and some enthusiasts appear to believe is the case – the Shroud remains in safe custody and good condition, so, should anyone with the authority to permit it wish it, such test could easily and inexpensively be repeated. My impression is that the Holy See is not happy with the social consequences of the Shroud having been permitting to be photographed and studied since the 19th century, and would prefer that attention to and controversy over it decrease. I suspect that the 1988 testing was allowed with the expectation that it would support the then consensus and testimony of 14th century church authorities that it was made in the 14th century. Although the test did show that, the resulting disbelief, denial and controversy over these results were not, I think, what the Church hoped for. I suspect they’ll be more reluctant now to permit a repeat of the test, fearing a resurgence of this controversy.

It was anticipated by hundreds of millions of people, and the conclusions were spread through news headlines and editorials around the world. FRAUD.

Litespeed, on what do you base your assertion that hundreds of millions of people anticipated the results of the 1988 tests? Can you present some statistical evidence that that many people even knew or now know of these tests?

 

In crying “fraud” you’re making the specific legal accusation that an intentional deception was made for the personal gain of one or more people, or to harm others. How, and to whom, has this occurred?

 

Even if intentional deception occurred – an accusation that appears to be made only by a few conspiracy theorists – without gain or harm, it would constitute a hoax, not fraud.

 

The Shroud of Turin has a long and intriguing (to at least a small audience) history (in researching this thread, my favorite history page was shroud.com’s ”Shroud History”), of which the last 20 years is only the most recent. Much of that history involved skullduggery, excommunications, executions, and other legal happenings. However, I don’t think its productive to accuse many of the people involved in its recent investigation of crimes.

[C1ay]

Clay, clay, clay - You wrote: "And what would that prove or disprove about the actual Shroud of Turin? ]

 

RESPONCE: I am assuming you refer to my cadaver posit. If I got a crucified guy, wrapped him in a shroud, then examined the result, I could compare that with the Turin relic. I suspect it would look a lot like the shroud.....

 

You still didn't answer the question. Again, what would your proposed task to Moontanman, to produce a fake shroud, prove or disprove about the shroud of Turin?

 

If you are too lazy to google it...

 

This is a prime example of attacking the messenger instead of the message and you'll be well advised not to continue using such tactics here. Support your claims yourself, don't expect anyone here to do it for you.

[litespeed]

Craig - You wrote: "By the most scientifically accepted accounts, its a large piece of flax fiber cloth bearing an image made of artificial pigments of some kind."

 

To my knowledge there has been only one scientific examination of the image. "...No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils..."

 

A Summary of STURP's Conclusions