![]() There have been attempts to claim that biological or other contaminants caused a false reading. The findings of these results confirm those done by McCrone, who examined the shroud using electron microscopy in the late 70's and identified the pigment of the shroud as red ochre. The methods for the taking of samples and the treating of results were agreed upon by the three labs, overseen by the British Museum, and approved by the Archbishop of Turin and the Holy See (owner of the shroud). You can find the results of the radiocarbon dating done by accelerated mass spectrometry here. ![]() The definitive testing of the shroud was done in 1988 by 3 independent laboratories (and possibly verified by a fourth) in Zurich, Oxford and the University of Arizona. ![]() Remember the burden of proof in this case is on the believer to prove that the shroud is genuine, not for the skeptic to prove it a forgery. Is the JREF correct when they affirm that Definitive tests prove absolutely that it is a forgery? The document still exists and has been shown to be unquestionably authentic. ![]() The bishop of Troyes (Lirey) knew who the artist was who painted the cloth and when and how he did it, and so reported to Pope Clement VII.Wikipedia, for what is worth, has a totally different story on the matter. I cannot find any real affirmative confirmation of this claim - I can only find claims that someone made paint of the same color as the shroud, but no confirmation that "chemical analysis" has been performed on the shroud at all. The “bloodstains” are not only red in color (they could not be, after that period of time), but they were shown by chemical analysis to be paint of the composition used in the fourteenth century.The areas that have been cut off were the worst kept in order not to destroy important parts of the cloth. True, but there are claims that the results might have been obtained by medieval repairs instead that from an original part of the cloth. Carbon dating of the fabric, done in three independent labs, showed that the linen fabric was woven about the year 1350.This is also totally irrelevant - the fact that Jesus has been depicted as a hippy guy with a beard does not rule out or confirm anything about his appearance (if he existed). We know nothing about Christ's actual appearance. The representation of the face of Christ on this cloth and in all paintings and sculptures is and always has been a formalized guess.This is completely irrelevant - either the cloth is from that place and time or it isn't. Such wrapping disagrees with the biblical description as well. Wrapping of a body in that size and shape of cloth was not done in Palestine at that period.In any case I don't see how we can easily make such assertion (it could be an uncommon type with few examples left). I cannot find any good source to verify this. The cloth itself could not date from the correct period or from that area of the world, simply because that particular weave of cloth was not made then or there. ![]() Here in short are the claims, after each my doubts: On the other hand, the way the myth is debunked is, in my view, flaky, weak and unconvincing. I completely agree that the shroud has not, and will never, be proven to be a genuine holy item - how could one prove that it was used on Jesus of Nazareth at all? Now, the JREF claims that this particular myth is absolutely debunked. Some contend that the shroud is the actual cloth placed on the body of Jesus Christ at the time of his burial, and that the face image is the Holy Face of Jesus, while others contend that the artefact was created in the Middle Ages, as indicated by carbon dating which placed the artifact between 12. The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |