Did Shroud of Turin Spread Christianity?

[Still Waters]

A hoax or a miracle? The Shroud of Turin has inspired this question for centuries. Now, an art historian says this piece of cloth, said to bear the imprint of the crucified body of Jesus Christ, may be something in between.

According to Thomas de Wesselow, formerly of Cambridge University, the controversial shroud is no medieval forgery, as a 1989 attempt at radiocarbon dating suggests.Nor is the strange outline of the body on the fabric a miracle, de Wesselow writes in his new book, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection" (Dutton Adult, 2012). Instead, de Wesselow suggests, the shroud was created by natural chemical processes — and then interpreted by Jesus' followers as a sign of his resurrection.

Read more...

[Paracelse]

This particular shroud emerged in the House of Savoie in 1357 BCE, in Chambery to be specific. Already at the time it remained hidden most of the time. It was allegedly purchased from the Lery Family. Geoffrey de Lery brought it from Byzantium at the beggining of the 13th century. In those days there were already30 or 40 different shrouds hanging around. So what would this one do more than the others to spread a belief for which millions had already died for?

Furthermore if JC had been 5'11" to 6' tall in would have been known. Most humans in those days were between 5' and 5'6"

Edited April 7, 2012 by Paracelse

[Robbie333]

This is all I have to say. Jesus said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and look at my hands. Put your hand in my side. Don't doubt it any more. Believe!" All Thomas could say was, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen? Blessed are those who have not seen but have come to believe."

[Paracelse]

This is all I have to say. Jesus said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and look at my hands. Put your hand in my side. Don't doubt it any more. Believe!" All Thomas could say was, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen? Blessed are those who have not seen but have come to believe."

Could you explain how this has anything to do with the shroud? It's just a written work done at least 50 years after JC's death!

[Amon-Ra]

Paracelse: do you know what "1357 BCE" means? It is 1,357 years before the birth of Christ. The system BCE/CE is a substitute for BC/AD used by anti-Christian writers. Perhaps you should edit it to be 1357 AD, if that is what you meant. Your disparagement of the Bible shows your bigotry, you might want to hide it. The shroud has been established to have been woven by Jews about 2,000 years ago in the near East. Highly suggestive.

[csspwns]

Total hoax.

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

Total hoax.

Have you seen History Channel’s The Real Face of Jesus?

http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/

[Paracelse]

Paracelse: do you know what "1357 BCE" means? It is 1,357 years before the birth of Christ. The system BCE/CE is a substitute for BC/AD used by anti-Christian writers. Perhaps you should edit it to be 1357 AD, if that is what you meant. Your disparagement of the Bible shows your bigotry, you might want to hide it. The shroud has been established to have been woven by Jews about 2,000 years ago in the near East. Highly suggestive.

Oups I was making cookies at the same time and didn't pay attention to was I was typing. And I've using CE/BCE since heck so long I don't remeber. The linen used for the shroud depending of the author of the research varies, a certain Frei determined it was made by Israel because of the "pollen" content. I maintain it was a forgery to bring revenues to the House of Savoie who lived in Chambery at the time.

Oh and PS: Last time I checked in order to be a bigot you have to believe into something and I don't so who's the bigot now?

Edited April 8, 2012 by Paracelse

[wingyflam]

just a piece of old cloth

[Lilly]

Regardless of what one believes, the Shroud of Turin has never been completely explained by any hypothesis. The latest research appears to have been as inconclusive as past research see link here.

So, those who believe will see it as a miracle, those who do not will see it as a clever forgery. Some will choose to see it as a true unexplained mystery.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Lilly
spelling

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

...as a clever forgery. Some will choose to see it as a true unexplained mystery.

Some forgery. Earth didn't have the technology to do it, as far as we know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvAJRp4CXdU

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

The wonderful thing is that the more our current technology advances the more the Shroud becomes truly amazing. Happy Easter.

[Lilly]

Lilly, on 08 April 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

...as a clever forgery. Some will choose to see it as a true unexplained mystery.

Some forgery. Earth didn't have the technology to do it, as far as we know.

Please do not take my post comment out of context.

What I actually said was:

So, those who believe will see it as a miracle, those who do not will see it as a clever forgery.

People do indeed square off with some seeing the shroud as a miracle, others seeing it as a clever forgery. Others simply concede that it remains an unexplained mystery.

Neither the 'forgery' camp, nor the 'miracle' camp have conclusive evidence for their claims. IMO, the Shroud of Turin is one of the world's greatest mysteries.

[Paracelse]

Lily the shroud remains the greatest mystery because no one is allow to study it. Keeping it as a mystery is a great political move.

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

Lilly, on 08 April 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

Please do not take my post comment out of context.

Actually, I didn't. My post's for people who think the Shroud's a clever forgery. Again, some forgery. Atlantians, perhaps? I think, not. UFO??

[Karlis]

Lily the shroud remains the greatest mystery because no one is allow to study it. Keeping it as a mystery is a great political move.

Paracelse, actually the Turin Shroud is regarded as being, "... one of the most studied artifacts in human history, and one of the most controversial."

Consider just a few sources:

In 1978 one hundred and twenty hours of scientific studies of the Shroud were conducted. Activities included visible, ultraviolet and infrared spectroscopy light, ultraviolet and phase microscopy, infrared thermography, x-radiographic imaging, electron microscopy, computer analysis, photographic imaging with special films, microchemical analysis, etc. -- Frederick T. Zugibe, M.D., "The Cross and the Shroud", (New York: Paragon House) (Revised ed., 1988), 119 - 122.

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin 1988

Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As Controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

Source

... Scientific and popular publications have presented diverse arguments for both authenticity and possible methods of forgery. A variety of scientific theories regarding the shroud have since been proposed, based on disciplines ranging from chemistry to biology and medical forensics to optical image analysis. According to former Nature editor Philip Ball, "it's fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever. Not least, the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling".[6] The shroud is one of the most studied artifacts in human history, and one of the most controversial.

Source

Edited April 9, 2012 by Karlis

[Paracelse]

Paracelse, actually the Turin Shroud is regarded as being, "... one of the most studied artifacts in human history, and one of the most controversial."

Consider just a few sources:

In 1978 one hundred and twenty hours of scientific studies of the Shroud were conducted. Activities included visible, ultraviolet and infrared spectroscopy light, ultraviolet and phase microscopy, infrared thermography, x-radiographic imaging, electron microscopy, computer analysis, photographic imaging with special films, microchemical analysis, etc. -- Frederick T. Zugibe, M.D., "The Cross and the Shroud", (New York: Paragon House) (Revised ed., 1988), 119 - 122.

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin 1988

Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As Controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

Source

... Scientific and popular publications have presented diverse arguments for both authenticity and possible methods of forgery. A variety of scientific theories regarding the shroud have since been proposed, based on disciplines ranging from chemistry to biology and medical forensics to optical image analysis. According to former Nature editor Philip Ball, "it's fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever. Not least, the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling".[6] The shroud is one of the most studied artifacts in human history, and one of the most controversial.

Source

Sorry to disappoint you Karlis but no chemical analysis has been done on the image itself, the scientists receive a tiny piece of the shroud from one corner (which is why because shroudies are saying the radiocarbon piece was one of repairs done after the fire)

[Karlis]

Sorry to disappoint you Karlis but no chemical analysis has been done on the image itself, the scientists receive a tiny piece of the shroud from one corner (which is why because shroudies are saying the radiocarbon piece was one of repairs done after the fire)

No disappointment. As far as I understand, the donated piece of material is recognised as being from part of the original shroud weave-material, and *not* from a repair-patch. And would you expect authorise to allow part of the Shroud image to be chemically examined? If so, you would see no problems in art experts taking paint scrapings from the Mona Lisa's face for examination, right?

Apart from that, my post was to answer your statement that: "the shroud remains the greatest mystery because no one is allow to study it ..."

Edited April 9, 2012 by Karlis

[Paracelse]

No disappointment. As far as I understand, the donated piece of material is recognised as being from part of the original shroud weave-material, and *not* from a repair-patch. And would you expect authorise to allow part of the Shroud image to be chemically examined? If so, you would see no problems in art experts taking paint scrapings from the Mona Lisa's face for examination, right?

Apart from that, my post was to answer your statement that: "the shroud remains the greatest mystery because no one is allow to study it ..."

Taking a historical approach to the shroud could enlighten the story. Geoffrey de Lery is supposed to have brought the shroud from Jerusalem; then sold it to the Charny family a middle aristocratic family of Burgundy and was sold at the end of the 14trh century to the House of Savoi, who lived in Chambery France at the time. The first document of that particular shroud was done in 1389 by Pierre d'Arcis bishop of Troyes (the same city that saw the birth of the Knight Templars and Chretien de Troyes of Arthurian fame) in a letter to the Pope Clement VII and calls it "a fake cynical forgery to defraud innocent pilgrim". Obviously he wasn't talking about the same shroud because in his letter he (Pierre d'Arcis) mention paint. And yet historically this was the shroud purchased from the De Charny. So science can say anything historical facts point to "fake". Not to mention the size of the picture if JC had been 5'11" someone in the new testament or in any other source of time would have mention it. There is an Australian scientist and I forgot his name who proved that camera obscura work could have been done with the knowledge of the 13th century.

Edit to PS: all the above is actually not part of the OP which questions the shroud potiential value into the spread of christiannity and the answer is NO. The development of monacal life by Benoit de Nurcie(Saint Benedict) than the work of Benedictins monks in France particularly (see Cluny Citaux and Clervaux) shows heavy chrisnianisation of Europe. Byn 1095, Urban V had no problem calling for the first Crusade (which ended in a desaster) and even children left for Jerusalem to free the city from the infidels. To finish by 1184 the inquisition was in place in Languedoc first (see Albigency crusade) and did forbid any other type of worship besides christianity. The work of Augustin, City of God was a great help amongs more litterate people.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Paracelse

[TattooMan]

I think we missed the point of this article. Point being... was it responsible for helping in the spread of Christianity.

Personally, I believe it was responsible, because at the time it was seen as proof positive of the third day miracle. The shroud with the image, the body of Jesus gone, and the accounts of what happened. Back in that time, the burden of proof would be much less and because of Roman rule and occupation, the people needed to believe and their faith justified or affirmed.

Whether or not the shroud is authentic, it still played the role of spreading the word and the faith.

[hellig heilige]

Taking a historical approach to the shroud could enlighten the story. Geoffrey de Lery is supposed to have brought the shroud from Jerusalem; then sold it to the Charny family a middle aristocratic family of Burgundy and was sold at the end of the 14trh century to the House of Savoi, who lived in Chambery France at the time. The first document of that particular shroud was done in 1389 by Pierre d'Arcis bishop of Troyes (the same city that saw the birth of the Knight Templars and Chretien de Troyes of Arthurian fame) in a letter to the Pope Clement VII and calls it "a fake cynical forgery to defraud innocent pilgrim". Obviously he wasn't talking about the same shroud because in his letter he (Pierre d'Arcis) mention paint. And yet historically this was the shroud purchased from the De Charny. So science can say anything historical facts point to "fake". Not to mention the size of the picture if JC had been 5'11" someone in the new testament or in any other source of time would have mention it. There is an Australian scientist and I forgot his name who proved that camera obscura work could have been done with the knowledge of the 13th century.

Just finished watching the History Channel link. That was excellent! You should check it out to update your info.

[hellig heilige]

Actually, I didn't. My post's for people who think the Shroud's a clever forgery. Again, some forgery. Atlantians, perhaps? I think, not. UFO??

That's a possibility. Always blame it on the aliens. I wanna get xeroxed when I die from head to toe just like Jesus.

[danbell06]

Although there is no evidence he made it, nor did he ever write about it in his notebook's, Leonardo (Da Vinci) had drawings of a camera obscura in his notebook's, i watched a documentary on channel 5, in which it shows that a camera obscura was used to create the Shroud.

"Leonardo scorched his facial features on to the linen of the Shroud using a sculpture of his face and a photographic device called a 'camera obscura'."

And it also shows that the self portrait that Leonardo drew fits exactly over the "face of jesus".

Another amazing fact was that the Mona Lisa's facial dimensions are EXACTLY the same as the portrait of Leonardo.

He was a genius, and was WELL ahead of his time.

Edited April 11, 2012 by danbell06

[Paracelse]

That he was