Shroud of Turin stirs new controversy

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by damian

Protestantism is not really a religion, though, is it?

Well, the Reformation created a new branch of Christianity just like the Great Schism marked the separation between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, so I don't see why it shouldn't be.

As someone who's been raised in Calvinism, I've been taught that a core tenet of the Reformation is to reject the Catholic cult of "holy relics", which are considered a forgery and a superstition... the shroud of Turin being a prime example thereof.

This is why I'm rather surprised to see Protestants from across the Pond being so interested in that shroud story.

[damian]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

That depends on what the cutoff criteria is that you use to define the difference between two related religions and two different denominations of the same religion.

If we really, really wanted to, we could probably think of enough ways to differentiate between individual churches that we could make a credible argument for each of them being different religions, as the entire thing is an arbitrary definition of a man-made concept.

Or we count them all as made up stories and let them argue amongst themselves whether a sheet with a picture on it is a real image of a person that didn't exist.

[Cyrano]

Well, Damian, even if said person existed and the shroud was the real McCoy, a true Calvinist's point of view would be that there's nothing "holy" about a piece of old fabric - only God has to be worshiped, not inanimate objects.

I think the hoopla about this artifact is all because some religious people (and strangely enough, the most strident) are very eager to put their hands on a physical evidence of Jesus' existence. Which makes no sense, because if your faith is sincere, you don't need proof and if you look for a proof, your faith is at best questionable.

Sometimes, though I turned agnostic long ago, I like my Calvinist background. My Huguenot ancestors would be proud.

[diddy]

Kinda - It's all about validation of their beliefs. They don't necessarily base their beliefs on the physical item, but the physical item makes that belief easier to substantiate and maintain.

The real problem is when we attack the physical items legitimacy (like with the shroud) and they take such attacks as a threat to all aspects of their faith - which it almost certainly isn't. The real victims of this are people who are mostly thin skinned though.

[Furienna]

Some years ago, there was a documentary about the shroud on the History Channel, where people believed it really was special and unique. For example, they talked about how the image on it was three-dimensional and not just two-dimensional. And the most interesting thing was, they actually showed a painting from centuries before the shroud was made according to the carbon dating, on which it looked like the shroud was depicted! I don't know what to believe, I'm just bringing it up into the discussion.

About how Protestants are so interested in the shroud, I think it's because it really is unique. Other "relics" have been proven to be fake, and haven't plenty of them even disappeared? Not even Catholics are as interested in such things today as they were hundreds of years ago (which is good, because that means that fewer fakes will be produced). But this shroud is still around and keeps people fascinated. My mother is very religious, and even though she technically is a Protestant, she doesn't reject all beliefs, which rather are Catholic. And she really seems to believe, that this shroud is genuine.

[ganzfeld]

Whenever I think maybe those old stories might be slightly true, I look at how modern people can be duped so easily with a known fraud like the Shroud of Turin. (Although one time I mentioned this on the board, someone suggested that urban legends and hoaxes were mostly a product of the internet so they wouldn't have existed back then. )

[crocoduck_hunter]

Given how low their standards have fallen, I'm pretty hesitant to call anything the History Channel produces a documentary.

They don't ever seem to bother checking a person's credentials and are willing to show plenty of stuff that even a most basic fact-finding check would reveal as an obvious fake.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

Given how low their standards have fallen, I'm pretty hesitant to call anything the History Channel produces a documentary.

They don't ever seem to bother checking a person's credentials and are willing to show plenty of stuff that even a most basic fact-finding check would reveal as an obvious fake.

Not to mention that their programming is not really historic (Pawn Stars and American Restoration?) and some of it is just plan nonsense - namely their Ancient Aliens and MonsterQuest makes me seriously skeptical about anything that they depict on specific subjects.

[NobodyAtAll]

Man, the History Channel breaks my heart. Remember when it was history? and A&E was arts and entertainment and Bravo was performance, Biography was historical figures, and MTV was music, instead of all of them being dang reality shows. Excuse me guess I have to chase those kids off my lawn...
NobodyTheCurmudgeonAtAll

[Mickey Blue]

South Park said it best:

"You're watching the History Channel: Where facts, are history!"

I just like how so many of their shows are tenuously linked to history at best.. I mean American Pickers.. Hairy Bikers.. Really?

[crocoduck_hunter]

I don't consider the lack of history tie-ins on most History Channel shows to be anywhere near as disturbing as the lack of reality tie-ins on many of the shows.

[fitz1980]

Originally Posted by Mickey Blue

I just like how so many of their shows are tenuously linked to history at best.. I mean American Pickers.. Hairy Bikers.. Really?

I'd be OK with those reality shows if the channel stuck to historical accuracy. Bikers and people who harvest fruits are part of the USA's history. But this is a channel that has been airing programs about how 2012 is the end of times and UFO conspiracy nonsense.

[barbrainey]

I am a bit aggravated with the History Channel's lack of real history programming in recent years. The original History Channel constantly airs "Ax Men," "American Pickers," etc., and they are all so boring! Now, there is History Channel 2, and it has better programs, although they are not always history. "The Universe" is a very good show, although it is more science than history.

Barb Rainey

[diddy]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

Now, there is History Channel 2, and it has better programs, although they are not always history. "The Universe" is a very good show, although it is more science than history.

Barb Rainey

Nitpick, there was always a History Channel 2 - at least for many years. It was just called History Channel International - it was recently rebranded.

[snopes]

A sensational new theory about the Turin Shroud claims to destroy the core belief of of Christianity - that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Art historian Thomas de Wesselow is convinced the Shroud is real and did touch Christ's body.

But the Cambridge academic insists that the image on the cloth fooled the Apostles into believing Christ had come back to life, and the Resurrection was in fact an optical illusion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rise-dead.html

[musicgeek]

See "straws, grasping at."

I've always thought the Shroud of Turin was cool, if only as a curiosity. Even figuring that it is a forgery, it seems to be a pretty ingenious one on many levels. I really don't get why the Daily Mail insists on trumpeting pure (and pretty dubious) conjectures as daring new theories, though: "Jesus was a hermaphrodite! Jesus never rose from the dead; his disciples were just fooled by the image on the shroud!" At least most of the other back-and-forth on the shroud (the discovery of repairs to the cloth, the presence of a bacterial plaque that may have influenced carbon dating, the replication of possible forging techniques, etc.) have been grounded in some sort of scientific development.

[Tantei Kid]

As a 6.9/7 scale atheist I'm more willing to believe that Christ was the Son of God and was resurrected just as the Bible said than somehow his dead body made a negative image on his shroud that somehow fooled a bunch of guys into thinking he was alive.

[snopes]

Thomas de Wesselow, formerly of Cambridge University, believes the Shroud of Turin was created by a natural bodily decomposition occurrence and interpreted by Christians later on as a sign of the Resurrection of Jesus. No matter what new discoveries come out about the Shroud of Turin, there will never be a full declaration of truth. There are too many people on the many sides of the issue about the Shroud to ever come to an agreement about its creation.

http://news.yahoo.com/shroud-turin-b...222300702.html

[snopes]

The Shroud of Turin went on display for a special TV appearance amid new research disputing claims it's a medieval fake and purporting to date the linen some say was Jesus' burial cloth to around the time of his death.

http://news.yahoo.com/shroud-turin-g...164019211.html

[Hummelcat]

Over the many years I've been reading about the shroud, I've only once seen mention of the fact that the image consists of (1) the front of a body and (2) the back of a body, with the tops of the head-images touching. That is, if this cloth were wrapped around a body, foot-to-head, across the top of the head, and head-to-foot, then where's the top of the head section?

I've scanned the Wiki article and seen no mention of this, and of course I have no idea where I saw this years ago, so if anyone can point to a reference I'd love to see it.

This is, for me, the biggest problem with viewing this cloth as a real burial shroud. Many scientists are analysing the plausibility of the 3-dimentionality of the front and back images, but I see no disussion of the 3-dimensionality of the (what? 10 inches / 25 cm or so?) distance that would consist of the top of the head. Until that (lack of a) gap is addressed, I just cannot get excited about yet more radiocarbon dating tests and trying to recreate the images using only mideaeval techniques, and all the rest.

It's a great-looking image. But it looks like a mistake a painter might make. *cough* Having made a few painting mistakes myself. *cough*