snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 02 July 2007, 10:30 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
However, to me, the biggest evidence that it's a fake is that there is no image of the top of the head.
Good point. The cloth should also show indications of the sides of the arms and legs, where it would have draped down over them. Also, the buttocks should be compressed, and the nose should be smeared. Blood should certainly be impressed all the way into the fabric at such pressure points as the buttocks, shoulders, and heels.

In fact, there is no possible "scientific" explanation for the shroud, only the "miraculous" fancy that the cloth and the body were levitated and that the body left the imprint of its dematerialization when it was translated out of our cosmos.

This idea cannot be disproven, but it is of very little scientific interest, since there is no conceivable way for it to be tested. Faith has its place, and if one wishes to hold this view out of a dedication to faith, it is of no great concern to me.

If they start to use science to justify it, then they trespass.

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03 July 2007, 07:28 AM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,504
Default

Also, the figure is around 5'9". That is considered quite tall for the era.

If you lay flat on your back (as if dead, shoulders relaxed on the ground) and cross your hands, where do they reach? The figure on the cloth shows the hands covering the groin.

The bible does not mention Jesus being extraordinarily tall (for the times) and having extra long arms.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03 July 2007, 08:20 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,655
Psychic

To me, the biggest evidence that it is a fake is that we know where it came from and the fakers admitted it. Everything else is just an interesting but unnecessary extension of a story that should have died seven centuries ago.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03 July 2007, 12:32 PM
Jonny T
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Base Ten, why do you keep reiterating that people can believe as they like? surely that's a given?

IMO, the Shroud is not of Christ. Christianity wasn't consistently persecuted through its early centuries, and the presence of relics (e.g. the "True Cross" found by Empress Helena) is well-attested historically. For something like the shroud it is unlikely that there would have been little to no mention of it until the middle ages.

more interesting than whether or not it is the shroud of Christ, to me, is just what it *is*. how was it made? and, more importantly, why would something be made that showed up best as a negative, in the middle ages?

it does irritate me somewhat when people use the word "fake." okay, if we take it as a simple binary "Is it Christ", then yeah - but it not being Christ does not end all the questions.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03 July 2007, 12:35 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,655
Throw Tomato

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonny T View Post
Base Ten, why do you keep reiterating that people can believe as they like? surely that's a given?
Speak for yourself -- I can't!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03 July 2007, 12:57 PM
Eddylizard's Avatar
Eddylizard Eddylizard is offline
 
Join Date: 15 June 2006
Location: Tonbridge, Kent, UK
Posts: 17,857
Default

I also take exception to the word 'fake'. There are after all many artistic representations of Christ, and since he didn't actually sit for the artists, then they are also fakes by this broad definition.

I have heard one theory that the image on the shroud was produced using a primitive and now forgotten photographic process. The shroud was created maybe three or four centuries before Tom Wedgewood's "Sun Pictures" (c1800) and Niépce's famous picture of his house and barn (c1826) but neither persevered very much with their work. Not too much of a leap that a medieval artist might have stumbled upon photosensitive substances, tried it out, found it un-satisfactory and buried the idea.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03 July 2007, 01:06 PM
Jonny T
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Eddy - I read something similar a while ago. The theory was that people in the Middle East had been experimenting with early photographic techniques but that the research stalled following the end of the Islamic "golden age" and was generally neglected. it is known that, for example, Ibn al-Haytham had been experimenting with predecessors to photography so the idea isn't *entirely* unlikely, tho somewhat implausible.

admittedly, IIRC I read this in one of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail genre of books (not that one specifically, but one of the "Templar/Mason/Egypt/Essene/Gnostic/Vatican conspiracy thriller unveilled" types) which I think was claiming the Templars had learnt the technique while in the middle east and used it to preserve the image of Jacques de Molay. but still...
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03 July 2007, 01:42 PM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddylizard View Post
I also take exception to the word 'fake'. There are after all many artistic representations of Christ, and since he didn't actually sit for the artists, then they are also fakes by this broad definition.
The Shroud of Turin is believed by many to be the actual death shroud of Jesus. If you disagree with this belief then you are calling it "fake".

The artistic representations of Jesus are not presented as being anything other than artistic representations.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03 July 2007, 01:56 PM
Eddylizard's Avatar
Eddylizard Eddylizard is offline
 
Join Date: 15 June 2006
Location: Tonbridge, Kent, UK
Posts: 17,857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damian View Post
The Shroud of Turin is believed by many to be the actual death shroud of Jesus. If you disagree with this belief then you are calling it "fake".

The artistic representations of Jesus are not presented as being anything other than artistic representations.
Not at all. Fake implies that there was a deliberate intention on the part of the artist to deceive - to create something and pass it off as the shroud of Jesus.

I was suggesting that there may be a third option - that the shroud may have been an artistic representation, not intended by the artist to decieve.

Then that the artists work was represented as the burial shroud, by other persons after the artists death, knowingly or unknowingly.

There are skilled artists who can and will paint for your viewing pleasure good copies of famous artworks, almost indistiguishable from the original.

I know it's a copy, the artist knows it's a copy. No-one's being decieved. Not a fake.

If the artist copies a painting, then passes it off on the market as a real Picasso or whatever, that's a fake.

My contention is that the shroud was created as a piece of art, and that's all the artist intended to be. What has been done with it or calimed about it is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03 July 2007, 02:19 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

Quote:
that assumption [that the shroud is authentic] seems to me would leave the least amount of unanswered questions
Yeah, because then the answer to any question is "It was a miracle."

People are allowed to believe anything they want, but back when people believed in miasmas as the cause of communicable disease, or in blood-letting as a cure-all, that didn't make these things true. There are people who believe in astrology or that the earth is flat, in spite of all contradictory evidence. That doesn't make these things true, or require people who respect scientific findings to respect these beliefs as well.

It seems to me that the last-ditch argument of someone who's losing a debate is often "I have a right to my beliefs."

And it should be "...fewest unanswered questions."

Last edited by RivkahChaya; 03 July 2007 at 02:22 PM. Reason: left out a word
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 03 July 2007, 08:59 PM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
In fact, there is no possible "scientific" explanation for the shroud, only the "miraculous" fancy that the cloth and the body were levitated and that the body left the imprint of its dematerialization when it was translated out of our cosmos.

This idea cannot be disproven, but it is of very little scientific interest, since there is no conceivable way for it to be tested. Faith has its place, and if one wishes to hold this view out of a dedication to faith, it is of no great concern to me.

If they start to use science to justify it, then they trespass.

Silas
Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
Yeah, because then the answer to any question is "It was a miracle."
Could someone please let me know which of my posts I stated either that "It was a miracle" or that believing that this image could have been created somehow from Jesus's body would somehow prove the resurrection?
Don't put words in my mouth, or assume motives on my part that don't exist. If you have questions or would like clarifications on what I've stated in my posts about something, or even my thinking, opinions and beliefs behind them, please ask.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonny T View Post
Base Ten, why do you keep reiterating that people can believe as they like? surely that's a given?
You'd think it would be. But several of the posts in this thread seem to indicate that some my believe me to be some type of religious fanatic, possibly trying to convert others to my beliefs. That's not who I am, and don't want to be lumped in with that crowd, or dismissed as "one of them". Forgive me if I protested too strongly (or too often), or if I somehow misread those posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
Also, the buttocks should be compressed
That's a good point. The only explanation I remember reading for it was that the body was standing upright. Not a theory that I give much credence to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
To me, the biggest evidence that it is a fake is that we know where it came from and the fakers admitted it.
(They must've been given the comfy chair...) Confessions, (especially 2nd or 3rd hand, in this case) without backup proof of how it was done are highly suspect. Police offices get confessions all the time that they discount, as the confessor can't provide details to them that only the perpetrator would know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by damian View Post
Also, the figure is around 5'9". That is considered quite tall for the era.

If you lay flat on your back (as if dead, shoulders relaxed on the ground) and cross your hands, where do they reach? The figure on the cloth shows the hands covering the groin.

The bible does not mention Jesus being extraordinarily tall (for the times) and having extra long arms.
Having arms stretched out on the cross, possibly even dislocated, could lengthen the arm images.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonny T View Post
Eddy - I read something similar a while ago. The theory was that people in the Middle East had been experimenting with early photographic techniques but that the research stalled following the end of the Islamic "golden age" and was generally neglected. it is known that, for example, Ibn al-Haytham had been experimenting with predecessors to photography so the idea isn't *entirely* unlikely, tho somewhat implausible.
Here's a link I found for this:
Is The Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph?
A Critical Examination of the Theory
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf

And... just now while poking around, I found these very interesting links describing a possible (natural) chemical reaction that could have taken place in the tomb. I haven't read these in detail, or looked to see if they've been debunked, but if something like this formed the image, that would certainly be a non-miraculous, non-resurrection explanation for the images on the cloth. While it wouldn't prove the image was of Jesus, it would explain many of the unanswered questions.
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-burial-of-caiaphas.htm
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers7.pdf

Base Ten
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03 July 2007, 10:42 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Base Ten View Post
Could someone please let me know which of my posts I stated either that "It was a miracle" or that believing that this image could have been created somehow from Jesus's body would somehow prove the resurrection?
Don't put words in my mouth, or assume motives on my part that don't exist. If you have questions or would like clarifications on what I've stated in my posts about something, or even my thinking, opinions and beliefs behind them, please ask.
I don't believe we were speaking of you, either directly or implicitly. Please believe me, I hate the rhetorical technique of putting words in another person's mouth more than just about any of the other items in the Devil's Nine-Volume Cookbook.

My point was that only miraculous means could suffice to "explain" the origin of the SoT as the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. (i.e., blood miraculously changed to paint, etc. etc.)

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03 July 2007, 11:03 PM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
I don't believe we were speaking of you, either directly or implicitly. Please believe me, I hate the rhetorical technique of putting words in another person's mouth more than just about any of the other items in the Devil's Nine-Volume Cookbook.

My point was that only miraculous means could suffice to "explain" the origin of the SoT as the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. (i.e., blood miraculously changed to paint, etc. etc.)

Silas
Sorry if I misread your previous post then. I don't know if you can speak for others, though. As you may remember from an extended conversation I had with Chloe, it really irks me when people do that to my words. (Never read that cookbook, though.)

I've don't believe a "miraculous" type of transformation (blood to paint, etc.) created the Shroud either. I think the means that it was created will eventually be found and understood. (And I doubt that it was a forger, otherwise we'd probably have been able to explain and duplicate it by now, among other reasons.)

I was intrigued today when I found those two links at the bottom of my last post. You should give them a read, and let me know what you think.

Base Ten
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04 July 2007, 09:28 AM
Don Enrico's Avatar
Don Enrico Don Enrico is offline
 
Join Date: 05 October 2004
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 7,654
Vanishing

But if the image isn't miraculus in any way, of what importance is it in this case?

From my point of view, there are this options:
  • The Shroud is man-made, either as a piece of art or to decieve the public into believing it wasn't man-made (a forgery, that is). This would have no significance at all, apart from telling us something about artistic technics at whatever time it was made at.
  • The Shroud came into existence by natural means while the cloth was wrapped around a dead body. This wouldn't tell us more than there was a man of that-and-that features and with certain wounds buried at some point in time. The way his image happend to be kept on the cloth is of scientific interest, but nothing more.
  • Since no artistic or natural way can be found to produce such a picture, it is a miracle. This would show that this man, and this man alone (there is no other Shroud) was able to work miracles even after his death - a proof of him being somebody special, probably somebody devine.

The second option is the one you choose, Base Ten, if I understand you correctly. The third option is the one favoured by the Catholic Church and other religious groups.

Don Enrico
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04 July 2007, 11:18 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,655
Icon215

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Enrico View Post
  • [...]
  • [...]
  • Since no artistic or natural way can be found to produce such a picture, it is a miracle. This would show that this man, and this man alone (there is no other Shroud) was able to work miracles even after his death - a proof of him being somebody special, probably somebody devine.
[...] The third option is the one favoured by the Catholic Church and other religious groups.
I don't think that represents the Catholic Church's offcial position on the shroud at all. The site calling itself "Catholic Encyclopedia" is not very favorable to the hypothesis of authenticity or miraculous origin:
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11753
(Actually, this article is pretty good, if a little longwinded.)

Last edited by ganzfeld; 04 July 2007 at 11:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04 July 2007, 11:24 AM
Don Enrico's Avatar
Don Enrico Don Enrico is offline
 
Join Date: 05 October 2004
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 7,654
Default

Well, according to your second link, the Shroud bearing the true picture of Jesus at least was the opinion of the Catholic Church for some time:
Quote:
That the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is taken for granted, in various pronouncements of the Holy See cannot be disputed. An Office and Mass "de Sancta Sindone" was formerly approved by Julius II in the Bull "Romanus Pontifex" of 25 April, 1506, in the course of which the Pope speaks of "that most famous Shroud ( præclarissima sindone ) in which our Savior was wrapped when he lay in the tomb and which is now honorably and devoutly preserved in a silver casket." Moreover, the same Pontiff speaks of the treaties upon the precious blood. Composed by his predecessor, Sixtus IV , in which Sixtus states that in the Shroud "men may look upon the true blood and portrait of Jesus Christ himself."
But I'm no expert, and if you say todays Catholic Church takes a more distant point of view, I'll go with that.

Don Enrico
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04 July 2007, 11:28 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,655
Crash

Quote:
Originally Posted by Base Ten View Post
Confessions, (especially 2nd or 3rd hand, in this case) without backup proof of how it was done are highly suspect. Police offices get confessions all the time that they discount, as the confessor can't provide details to them that only the perpetrator would know.
Why would anyone in possession of something so valuable be so careless? What possible motivation would anyone in the Church have to obtain such a confession? After the confession was believed, the shroud was declared to be a representation of the original shroud. Why in the world would the owner of the true Mona Lisa (times a thousand) ever do such a thing? The most logical explanation to me is that this was the plain and simple truth. (It makes me wonder why people believe some rather unusual events in old books and stories passed down for generations but won't believe an ordinary, documented, story like this. As I said, contrary to what you say, I cannot believe as I like. My brain won't allow it.)
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04 July 2007, 11:32 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,655
Psychic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Enrico View Post
But I'm no expert, and if you say todays Catholic Church takes a more distant point of view, I'll go with that.
I don't know either. The cynic in me makes me think the Church wants a little vagueness about matters of some miracles so that they can keep favor with those who believe them. But maybe a Catholic person would say that the Church is only trying to be honest and open-minded.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04 July 2007, 12:33 PM
Jonny T
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Enrico View Post
But if the image isn't miraculus in any way, of what importance is it in this case?

From my point of view, there are this options:
  • The Shroud is man-made, either as a piece of art or to decieve the public into believing it wasn't man-made (a forgery, that is). This would have no significance at all, apart from telling us something about artistic technics at whatever time it was made at.
  • The Shroud came into existence by natural means while the cloth was wrapped around a dead body. This wouldn't tell us more than there was a man of that-and-that features and with certain wounds buried at some point in time. The way his image happend to be kept on the cloth is of scientific interest, but nothing more.
  • Since no artistic or natural way can be found to produce such a picture, it is a miracle. This would show that this man, and this man alone (there is no other Shroud) was able to work miracles even after his death - a proof of him being somebody special, probably somebody devine.

The second option is the one you choose, Base Ten, if I understand you correctly. The third option is the one favoured by the Catholic Church and other religious groups.

Don Enrico
Personally, I find options one and two to be the most interesting. if it was man-made, then by who? why? and how? and if it happened naturally, why has it not happened before, and what caused it to happen this time?

I find both of those more interesting than yet another relic with some odd stories attached to it.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04 July 2007, 02:00 PM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonny T View Post
Personally, I find options one and two to be the most interesting. if it was man-made, then by who? why? and how? and if it happened naturally, why has it not happened before, and what caused it to happen this time?

I find both of those more interesting than yet another relic with some odd stories attached to it.
I also find options 1 and 2 most interesting.

Option 1 is a mystery that can be solved - at least most questions about it. We may not know that Smedley Smith created it in 512 AD, but we may be able to say it was created by this method, and the time period for that was without a doubt in the 480 to 540 time period.

Option 2 would make this the first "photograph"-type image ever preserved. If it is indeed an actual crucified body, it would confirm many things we now believe about crucifixion in general. At least in this particular case. As I understand it, crucifixion existed well back into BC and evolved over time. If we could narrow the time period for this to the time period we believe that Jesus was crucified, it allows the possibility that this is His shroud. And if so, a possible "photograph" of Him, and would confirm some of the details in the Gospels. Even without knowing that this is His body, an actual archeological artifact increases our knowledge and adds another jigsaw-piece to our search for our past.

There's no proof by this natural method that any miracle occurred. Only that this particular shroud was in contact with this particular body for a short time period and then removed. This type of image may have occurred many times in the past, but without the shroud being removed from the body, the images were destroyed by the decomposition process continuing. It may be that the particular chemical composition of the Jerusalem caves (or wherever this is from) was needed to form the image, just as certain conditions need to exist to naturally mummify a body.

Base Ten
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.