Tuesday, February 25, 2014

The Shroud of Turin is Real! -- Three New Dating Methods Point to the 1st Century

(Turin) The Shroud of Turin is a relic and therefore an object of worship for believers.  According to Catholic tradition, it is the linen cloth in which  Jesus' body was wrapped after his death on the cross and in which he was placed in the grave by Joseph of Arimathea. The Gospel narrated that on the third day an angel was standing by the open grave, though it was guarded by soldiers. Christ was resurrected with his body. Only his shroud was found in the empty grave. 
The linen cloth with the outlines of a wounded mann have fascinated people ever since and still poses a big mystery to science. Those who are far from the Church find it particularly difficult to deal with it.  They can not escape the fascination of the cloth. But  they can’t accept a supernatural origin. Since then, there have been many abstruse theories, such as the most recent theory aired in some of the major media, that the representation on the cloth was caused by a major earthquake.
Giulio Fanti, professor of chemical engineering at the University of Padua has just released together with Malfi Pierandrea a new book on the Turin grave cloth. The title is: La Shroud: primo secolo dopo Cristo ( The Shroud  First Century After Christ.! , Edizioni Segno, 425 pages, 20 euros). "Thanks to a project at the University of Padua, it was possible to develop on the basis of mechanical and opto-chemical analyzes, alternative dating methods for the grave Shroud of Turin. The results of these analyzes showed datings  which are all compatible with each other and the year 33 result in a fluctuation of a mean of 250 years after Christ " Vatican Insider  conducted an interview with Professor Giulio Fanti.
Why the exclamation mark in the title?
Fanti: In itself it’s an absurdity, because my dating could be wrong. However, I have intentionally set in response to what happened after the radiocarbon dating of 1988, when the scientists who participated in a published "final" result, which should no longer be debatable to some extent. But from a scientific point of view there is offered nothing that would not be debatable. And so it was, too. They were wrong. The scientists then could be photographed in front of a blackboard where they had written the result of their radiocarbon dating, which was provided with an exclamation mark. In response to this photo, I have now set as an exclamation mark in the title of our book: a small provocation.
The radiocarbon dating from 1988 decreed that the grave cloth came from the Middle Ages. You say that's not true. But could not be wrong and your new dating?
Fanti: We know that the radiocarbon dating from 1988 is wrong. This was verified by a series of articles in international journals. The former dating left some aspects out of consideration, as well as the phenomenon of fire.  According to the analysis of 1978 and 1988, the grave cloth was exposed to the monoterpene thymol, a very strong bactericide, however, the C-14 content changes, especially on old textiles. From a chemical point of view, therefore, you know: the grave cloth of a C-14 analysis should now again be subjected to the action of thymol would be reflected on the dating. I say this not to criticize what was done back then. However, the grave cloth may thus have rejuvenated in the course of twenty or thirty years. In light of what has happened in these recent decades: Who can tell us that the grave cloth was not stored in the first millennium with any preservative which has had significant impact? Today we know in any case that the radiocarbon date for the grave cloth poses systemic problems, because of the natural decay process is theoretically constant, but may have been changed by external events, of which we have no knowledge. Therefore, we have developed these alternative datings. I was able to systematize various methods scientifically and confirm this with what the American chemist Ray Rogers had established several years ago by an analysis: the grave cloth is older than the Middle Ages. I present in the book, three independent methods, but the results all agree with each other. All date the grave cloth much earlier than the radiocarbon analysis, and well before the Middle Ages, namely the first Century after Christ. Today, we have thus five different dating methods: the radiocarbon method, my three and those of Rogers.  Also, we could have been wrong. But four different independent methods, reach the same result, but then speak a clear language. As long as these results are not refuted, and I can not imagine how this should be possible, these results have scientific validity. So that has first Century after Christ the greatest probability as emergence period for the Turin grave cloth. This dating corresponds exactly to the time Jesus of Nazareth lived  in Palestine. We now await the reactions from the rest of the science world. So far we received only affirmative and affirmative responses, but no refutation.
But who is the man depicted on the grave cloth?
Fanti: If we stay in a scientific context, we can not give him a name. However it is interesting that all the indications - and there are a total of hundreds - at a certain point  it affirms a certain person and describes him. For example, to simply pick out a sign: The Romans crucified thousands of people, which is why the man of the grave cloth could be one of those many.  But this is not so, because the crucifixion of the man on the shroud was special, and it is hard to imagine that other crucifixions have just taken place, as they have already described in the first century: it is the head wounds of a crown of thorns, the crucifixion was a punishment in itself, in the case of Jesus, however, there was the punishment of flagellation,  because Pontius Pilate wanted to punish him really hard to release him, but  instead it was a double punishment. The man of the linen cloth also has the wounds of a hard-flagellation. This double punishment was unusual for the Romans, as illogical as the higher punishment was the death penalty anyway. Like these there are many other clues. In order not to believe,  a man must in view of the evidence and facts in abundance  muster all his will already. 
How can the representation of man have arisen on the linen cloth?
Fanti: Since there is still no way to repeat the process, the formation can not be explained with scientific clarity. At the current state of knowledge it seems to have been a burst of energy that came from the inside of the wrapped body.This energy was probably electrical and developed a special phenomenon, the coronal discharge is called (a myriad of micro-discharges between electrodes of a very high potential). While there are scientifically significant difficulties to imagine the environment in which this phenomenon could take place (very strong earthquake or lightning), everything is explained exactly from the perspective of the Catholic religion. The Resurrection, with the consequent exit from the shroud, which was mechanically transparent. This is not the "fantasy" of any slight believing fideists, but supported by plentiful scientific evidence. On one hand we have the testimony of eyewitnesses and a contemporary written document. And we have the grave Shroud of Turin as well. The results are compatible and are also scientifically sound matches.
What evidence do you mean in particular?
Fanti: For example, the human blood,  liquefied again in the shroud, as this was exposed to the humid atmosphere of the tomb. A phenomenon that is called fibrinolysis and has left the marks on the linen fabric without the slightest trace of blurring, which would, however, have been self-evident and inevitable if the wrapped corpse physically moved and would have been unwrapped from the linen cloth. There are two different layers of the grave cloth around the man's body recognizable: one that was more tightly wound during the emergence of the blood, a flatter, which goes back to the energy discharge through which the only “photograph" that Jesus left us about Himself and His painful Passion.
Introduction / Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
image: Wikicommons
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMGD

31 comments:

Jose Perez said...

Love it when science proves evidence of the churches claims.

Slick said...

"The Shroud of Turin is a relic and therefore an object of worship for believers." The Shroud is an object of veneration, not worship. We worship God alone.

poeta said...

Well, for one thing, this is a fairly rough translation from the Italian. But more importantly, this particular relic (if authentic) would indeed be the object of latria, the "worship" reserved to God Himself, because it contains the Precious Blood.

Rick Evans said...

Have you seen the startling overlay of the Face Cloth of Manoppello and its correspondence to the Shroud Image? Its definitely worth a look and further consideration as yet another validation.

Tancred said...

In addition to poeta's comment, worship can be used in senses which include both latria and dulia. I assume you know the difference between the two.

Tancred said...

If it's the one that they used computers to reconstruct the actual face, vs. the photographic image on the cloth as a kind of negative, yes. It depicts a far younger man, early thirties. Fascinating stuff.

John D said...

Excelent food for thought! Never thought of it that way. Thanks for posting, Poeta!

Anonymous said...

The shroud of Turin is one hundred percent authentic. Any one with spiritual eyes must see that when you look at all the precise details on this miraculous cloth. No one is able to reproduce anything that compares to the precision of the shroud.

jac said...

These new physical methods of dating, apart from the C14 dating, are giving us strong certitudes about the Shroud's authenticity. But there are many other clues that are pushing in the same way: For example the pollens and the flowers imprints on the linen are matching very well the species encountered in Israel. The coins imprints in the place of the eyes have been found as being those of "leptons" a currency used in Israel in the times of Christ.
Etc...

Anonymous said...

"The Shroud of Turin is a relic and therefore an object of worship for believers." Technically, this statement can be misleading. Relics are not objects of worship, but objects of veneration. Only God (The Three Persons of the Holy Trinity) and the Blessed Sacrament (which Catholics believe is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ) are worthy of worship. The Shroud is venerated as a relic, but it is not worshiped.

Anonymous said...

We would worship the living Precious Blood of Christ. The blood on the Shroud is dried up and does not contain the properties of living circulating blood. We worship the Precious Blood in the Blessed Sacrament, as it is the living Blood of Christ under the appearance of wine. When the Precious Blood in the Sacrament ceases to have the properties of wine (i.e. liquid), the real presence is no longer present. So, for example, if drops of the Precious Blood are on the purificator, or corporal, or altar cloth and are dried up, the Presence is no longer there.

Tancred said...

So pedantic.

Anonymous said...

Jesus is God, the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Therefore, all Christians worship Him.

Anonymous said...

"The coins imprints in the place of the eyes have been found as being those of "leptons" a currency used in Israel in the times of Christ."

Placing coins on the eyes of the dead is a pagan custom, not a Scriptural one. The coins were placed on the eyes so the dead could pay Charon (the Ferryman) for their journey across the river Styx.

The Jews of that time would not have placed coins on His eyes unless they followed this pagan burial ritual as it could be considered idolatry.

To me this is evidence that the Shroud is not the burial cloth of Messiah, but instead a cunning forgery.

Tancred said...

It doesn't matter whether something is Scriptural or not, unless you're a Prod, in which case you have a deliberately inaccurate translation of the Bible in the first place.

It was a Jewish custom to use coins and Jews didn't believe in Charon.

Anonymous said...

Tancred

"It was a Jewish custom to use coins.."

That is not entirely correct. HELLENIZED Jews that were not living according to Torah might have placed coins on the eyes, but Torah-observant Jews would not have done so.

The followers of Messiah were Torah-observant, not Hellenized, therefore, the coins on the eyes of the man on the Shroud prove that the man is not Messiah.

Tancred said...

You mean like Caiaphas?

Jadis said...

Coins could have been placed on the eyes for a purely practical purpose - to weight them down and prevent the disconcerting gaze of the corpse. We already know from the Gospel that the body was taken down and prepared for burial in a great hurry - and it is not stated whether the Centurion's men (unlikely to be observant Jews) did so (though this is likely, as the body of a felon was the property of the State) - but we know Joseph of Arimathea had to ask for permission for its release for interment in his own tomb. Therefore it is not unlikely that it was given a rudimentary preparation and wrapped to hide its (offensive to all contemporary cultures) nakedness and deterioration from public view. It is also unlikely that observant Jews such as Joseph would have re-opened such wrappings and rendered thenselves ritually unclean for the Sabbath - and the fact that the women came on the Third day, we are told, to remedy the situation, and tend to the body lends weight to the argument that it was initially buried in a way not compliant with Jewish custom. So yes - leptons could well have been used on the eyelids.

Anonymous said...

Amen brother!!!

Tancred said...

No one has proved that this is an unacceptable practice. The HIgh Priest of the Temple, Caiaphas had them in his tomb finds when his remains were found.

So far, we have a few protestant interlocutors insisting, in their great knowledge of Classical Middle Eastern Archeology, no doubt, that this practice isn’t “biblical”. Never mind that Protestants are missing five books from the Canon, to say nothing of the inaccuracy of their translations...

Anonymous said...

There is a basic problem I don't see addressed here or in any discussion I've seen. That is that the image looks correct only when the cloth is flat.

A draped or wrapped cloth, no matter if the image was produced naturally or supernatural, would look distorted if later flattened. Try it yourself: Get a large cloth, lay down, and drape it over your face. Use a marker and draw where your eyes are your hairline behind the ears (shown in the image,) your mouth, and nose. Now flatten it out and look at how wide it is! How distorted it is.

Even if you imagine some 'rays' pointing straight up into a draped or wrapped cloth, the effect is the same. You can not hypothesis your way around that basic problem that the image--however it was produced--was produced on a flat surface.

Obviously, a simple glance should tell the observer it is not an image of a person in a grave shroud but rather an image made on a flat surface such as what an artist would create. One is tempted to provide an explanation as to how the image was produced and that's all very interesting but do you not see the problem? The reaction to this object should be D'oh! not speculation and veneration.

This is not a comment about faith, God, nor a theological comment or theological criticsm or a general debunker/athiest comment--just pointing out the obvious about what some scoundrel did, some time in the past.

Sorry to post as Anonymous but it kept saying I didn't 'own' my WordPress ID

Tancred said...

Yeah, that was discussed above. Computer guys put together what the face actually looks like when you take into account the cloth being draped over a face.

http://www.history.com/shows/the-real-face-of-jesus

Anonymous said...

Tancred,

Thank you for the reply.

Use your own two eyes and look at the photo above. Look. It's correct as is. The cloth is laid flat when that picture was taken. If it were an image made when draped, it would only look correct if someone held it in that shape. Come on man, you know that's true. It should be a forehead slapping moment. I'm not trying to make some obscure point that relies on computer manipulation. It's a simple observation.

I'm pointing out that when you look at the shroud, just plain... look at it. It is correct, like a photo would be or if you were a painter painting on a flat surface.

Yes, I too I saw that 'History' (or is it the UFO channel?) show. They did no such thing. They used the computer to turn the flat image into 3D and manipulated as they saw fit to 'correct.' Watch them carefully and listen carefully--they go over that very quickly from my memory and they speed over and gloss over that part rather stealthily. They messed with a draped cloth and it's very, very clear to me that they only used what they wanted to 'adjust' the problems with their straight 3D interpretation. From what I recall they tossed out what they did not like.

Did you try my suggestion of draping a cloth over your face and marking where the features are and then looking at it flat? Get back to me when you've done that.

Best wishes!

Allen

Tancred said...

Allen, I know you think you're brilliant and everything, but did you bother to follow the link?

Tancred said...

There's also a big difference between drawing with marker and using light to impress an image.

Anonymous said...

Not only did I follow that link, as I said, I watched the (rather disappointing) show. I was really excited about the proof and had this horrible sinking feeling when it got to that part. The show (and that's what it was) was what made me realize the problem. I found nothing at the 'link' to support what you are contending--perhaps you can point it out . I'd be thrilled to find I'm wrong.

Light is different from a felt-tip marker? No way! LOL :-) Tancred, the marker shows where the 'light' from the various locations should be effecting the cloth. I feel like the man who points to the moon and I has someone looking at his finger.

Defending this cloth is not defending one's faith. Rejecting the veracity of the object is not rejecting one's faith.

It isn't real because the image is an image made on a flat surface. There is no way around that. A draped cloth is not flat.

The image you see above looks proportional when flat.

An impression made on a draped cloth (no matter how made) would only look like that when held in the original shape when the image was made (no matter how made.)

You may want to show those points to someone you trust read that and discuss it with them.

Best wishes,
Allen

Tancred said...

I'm well aware that the Shroud isn't an article of Faith, and tracing out an image on a bed sheet and spreading it out doesn't account for the supernatural character of the phenomenon.

I assume that aspect of the event wouldn't suffer verification by your test since the radiation necessary to impose the image on the cloth and the fact that he was passing through it would be difficult to reproduce.

Re

Anonymous said...

He would have to be 'passing through' a cloth held flat.

Again, no matter how one imagines the image was created--short of angels holding the corners taught (and remember this is both a front and back image!)--we're stuck with the 'flat cloth' problem which is a clear indication that it is simply a thing that person made.

You do see how the 'passing through' scenario (because there is a front and a back image) demands both a downward and an upward activity. Right? ;-)

You'll forgive me for pointing this out but making up new arguments as objections are raised, that don't address the original problem (and create new problems of their own,) seems desperate.

I did not get a reply when I asked you to point out what I missed about that documentary or what one was supposed to glean from that History Channel web site or the documentary.

I'm as disappointed as anyone that this is a fake.

Best wishes,
Allen

Tancred said...

I don’t think it’s a fake. When you can reproduce the conditions of the event, then we’ll talk. I think the shroud is also far more credible than your “disappointment”.

Anonymous said...

Tancred,

It does not matter that we don't know how the artist created it. We're stuck with the 'flat surface image' problem. One look and everyone should have said, "oh." and moved along.

Saying 'we don't know how they built the pyramids' is not proof of supernatural nor alien help.

But since you insist. It was painted.

"The faint sepia image is made up of billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium. The pigments red ochre and vermilion with the collagen tempera medium was a common paint composition during the 14th century"

http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin

"On the tape-lifted STURP samples (affixed to microscope slides), McCrone found a variety of substances (including mold spores and wax spatters). Major pigments were red ocher (in “body” areas) and vermilion (together with red ocher in the “blood” areas), contained in a collagen tempera binder. He also found the madder,2 orpiment, azurite, and yellow ocher pigments, as well as paint fragments, including ultramarine and titanium white—together suggestive of the shroud’s origin in “an artist’s studio” (McCrone 1996, 85, 135).."

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/claims_of_invalid_ldquoshroudrdquo_radiocarbon_date_cut_from_whole_cloth/

Let it settle a while. Think about it. Sorry for the disappointment. It means nothing about a proof or dis-proof of Christianity. It is just a fake thing.

Allen

Anonymous said...

The Shroud is not a painting. Anyone who knows anything, the slightest thing, the very first thing about painting knows it is not a painting. The only people who would say it was a painting are people who have never painted. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhaWFFlTpfc

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...