| The "History" Channel & The Shroud of Turin |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Martin ® 03/30/2002, 22:42:28 Author Profile Mail author |
Perhaps this is a timely topic. The other night I watched a "documentary" on the Shroud of Turin aired by the "History" Channel. Did anyone else see it? How amazingly dishonest it was! Again and again I have been disappointed and dismayed by the kind of extraordinarily biased and inaccurate pseudo-facts which are so consistently hard-sold by the whole "Discovery Channel", "Learning Channel", and "History Channel" propagandists. I know I shouldn't be surprised that profit is more important to that corporation than honesty and accuracy, but I refuse to become acclimated or reconciled to this kind of thing, especially when they encourage their audience to believe they are being scholarly and honest! In this episode, they obviously editorially backed the Christian apologetic group known as STURP which consists of about 40 avowed Christians who are also scientists determined to prove that the shroud is actually the burial cloth of Jesus the Christ. STURP is a textbook example of how religious and other very emotionally based predispositions can blind even scientists to the plain truth of the subject of their study. Again we see how religion and science do not mix well at all. You don't even have to be a scientist to see that the shroud is a fake. Historians of the Church have the straightforward and unambiguous report written in 1389 of Bishop Pierre D'Arcis to Pope Clement VII that the shroud was a forgery beyond a shadow of a doubt. "Pretended miracles" were staged, wrote D'Arcis, "so that money might cunningly be wrung" from unsuspecting pilgrims. Some compelling reasons to conclude the shroud is a fake even without knowing the details of the technical examinations: 1) There was absolutely no record of such a shroud before the mid 14'th century. 1b) It had no provenance; i.e., the highly dubious and untrustworthy character who was the first known possessor of the shroud couldn't properly explain how it came into his posession or its history. 2) This same untrustworthy character used the shroud as a money-making faith-healing scam. 3) Another bishop who investigated more closely on behalf of the Church learned that the shroud was a forgery when the forger himself actually confessed and demonstrated how the image was produced. 4) An actual shroud laid upon a three-dimensional body would reveal signs of the sides of the face and body, but the shroud lacks anything like that and instead is clearly a two-dimensional representation such as one would find in a painting from the middle ages. 5) The figure represented on the shroud is a Caucasian, not an ethnic Jew. 6) In a photo negative of the image (which is what re-started the whole ruckus in the first place), it is clear that the figure was represented with the white hair and white beard of an old man (or at least demonstrates that the image is not a "negative" image after all). 7) The hair of the figure is obviously not that of a man lying down, but is hanging exactly as it would if standing or sitting upright. 8) The alleged "blood" is quite red (especially considering the shroud is 650 years old), which proves it isn't blood at all (since dried blood is almost black) but is obviously a red pigment such as from some kind of paint or colored powder or some such. 9) The "blood" outlines/tracings are impossibly neat and unsmudged. If you've ever put a band-aid on a cut, you will know that the "image" on the band-aid when it's removed is far from a perfect "picture" of the wound. Instead, the blood smears out quite rapidly as the blood is absorbed into the material of the gauze or linen. Even to the naked eye, the "blood" on the shroud is obviously an artistic fake. 10) There wouldn't be any blood anyway on a burial shroud of a 1'st century Jew, since Jewish Law requires extensive cleansing of the body prior to burial. Finally, these Christian apologist/scientists contentions that the shroud is the burial cloth of "Jesus" flatly contradicts their own sacred Scriptures, the Gospel of "John", which claims that a separate linen napkin was used for "Jesus'" face. So even without all the technical scientific evidence which proves the shroud is a fake, these STURP folks should have realized they were dealing with a not all that clever forgery. And when the scientific data came in -- particularly the carbon-14 dating by three independent laboratories of the very highest stature and credibility which all agreed that the shroud was made in the mid 14'th century -- did the STURP scientists acknowledge they were mistaken in believing the shroud was the burial cloth of "Jesus"? Of course not! Why would these advocates worry about intellectual honesty when their religious faith is at stake? Now I am certainly NOT saying that all people of faith put their religious beliefs before simple intellectual honesty. But it is clear that some people -- even scientists -- do just that. I guess my main gripe is about the extreme bias of The "History" Channel and how they didn't mention ANY of the numbered points above and they completely and with deliberate intellectual malice ignored almost ALL of the very powerful evidence against the shroud's authenticity. But I am certainly willing to entertain debate on the subject. Is there anyone out there who would defend the claim that the shroud of Turin actually IS the burial cloth of the Christ?
Modified by Martin at Sat, Mar 30, 2002, 22:45:49 |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Another Miracle Re: The "History" Channel & The Shroud of Turin -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Vicki ®
03/31/2002, 01:39:30
Author Profile Mail author
Alright Martin,
I knew the post title would catch your eye! The miracle, of course, is the fact that for the 4th time now...I agree with you. The Shroud of Turin is most definitely NOT the burial cloth of Christ for all the reasons you so succintly stated. I was interested in the shroud when it first became public knowledge however it was not so many years ago that a controversy arose concerning a discrepancy involving carbon dating (?) of the blood stains. Nope, I don't think it's authentic, I think it's a money maker. And from a purely Christian perspective...the Bible says that the empty tomb did contain the burial cloths of Christ. I should think that if the cloths were taken the scriptures would have recorded this just as they record the "casting of lots" of Christ's clothing when taken down from the cross. I should think that the burial cloths, if they were indeed taken, would have commanded a fair price in those days (the love of money is the root of all evil) and again...there is no mention of the burial cloths after the resurrection for the focus is on the empty tomb. Just logging in my vote...
Vicki
BTW Martin, I don't know about this but were there blood stains on the "hands" of the shroud? Also, I think it was last Sunday (and you might not find this of interest at all) I watched a show entitled "10 reasons to believe the Resurrection". In it, there was footage of the Holy Land and the burial caves in the area suspected to be where the body of Christ was laid to rest in the burial cave of Joseph of Aramethia (a member of the Sanhedrin that voted to crucify)...the burial caves shown were not anything like what artists depict as the tomb of Christ. The bodies were laid in the ground and a large rectangular stone moved over to cover it. Also, there was an interesting fact brought out on the phrase "sealed" the tomb. The host stated that the sealing of the tomb, in those days, had to do with the Roman Seal engraved outside the tomb. The burial grave of Joseph of Aramethia would have contained such like engraving for Christ, according to the scriptures, was buried in a borrowed Roman grave. Any comments? I don't wish to twist your thread off topic.
Modified by Vicki at Sun, Mar 31, 2002, 15:11:49
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
STURP: Avowed Christians or avowed scientists? Re: The "History" Channel & The Shroud of Turin -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
03/31/2002, 17:14:00
Author Profile Mail author
What I wonder about is why "scientists" would be so anxious to prove the Shroud of Turin authentic? Does the credibility of Christ's historicity really hinge on whether that shroud is authentic or not? That they would so strongly push the idea of the shroud's authenticity, despite the very strong evidence you listed that casts legitimate doubt on that, calls into question the credibility of their claims to be scientists, IMO. Besides that, wouldn't touting this obvious fake as authentic evidence of Christ's death and resurrection eventually do more harm than good to the credibility of the very faith they are thereby trying to defend? Is that, in fact, their secret agenda? With what I know about so far about the issue, it seems, at best, yet another example of how desire to believe can lead even intelligent, well-meaning people into self-delusion.
Another thing I thought of is: suppose that the shroud really were Christ's burial shroud, and the pattern of markings actually corresponded to what would be expected of a cloth draped over the face of a supine body, and given the fact you pointed out that Jewish law required thorough cleansing of the body prior to burial, wouldn't the presence of blood on the shroud prove beyond reasonable doubt that he bled after being placed in the tomb , and was therefore still alive at the time of interment? This would lend more credence to the idea of deliberate fraud on the part of Christ and/or his followers to fake his death and subsequent resurrection than to the idea of actual death and resurrection. Wouldn't it?
Gunnar
Modified by Gunnar at Tue, Apr 02, 2002, 05:06:05
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I should think Re: STURP: Avowed Christians or avowed scientists? -- Gunnar Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Vicki ®
03/31/2002, 18:04:54
Author Profile Mail author
Gunnar,
I should think that my Savior who asks me to walk on faith would not want me or any other believer's to spend so much time and money trying to prove and capitalize on a piece of cloth rather, spend our time in Christian service. I checked a site regarding the shroud where an artist created a sculpture of the face of the man underneath the cloth. It does not look to me like a Jew. While I have read about studies done on the cloth with regards to radiocarbon dating the blood, I see no mention whatsoever of spices and oils used to prepare the body. Wouldn't these be present on the burial cloth of Christ as well? As one of the believer's on this board I would just like to add that the shroud is completely meaningless to me. The point of belief in Christ hinges not on a piece of cloth...it hinges on an empty tomb, the transformation of 11 lives on account of it, and the rippling affect 2,000 years later.
Sincerely,
Vicki
Modified by Vicki at Mon, Apr 01, 2002, 00:48:07
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I knew I should have recorded it!!!! Re: The "History" Channel & The Shroud of Turin -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
03/31/2002, 17:26:55
Author Profile Mail author
I once saw a documentary that showed the process by which one might create a shroud image... It was fairly easy to do, and would produce an image that would yield a 3D type image under the usual scanning used for the Sindone di Torino. The Catholic Church doesn't accept it as authentic though it is displayed in its Gold Case in the Torino Cathedral. Maybe you guys can go see it in the 2006 winter olympics!!
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
So Ricky, Re: The "History" Channel & The Shroud of Turin -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Vicki ®
04/01/2002, 15:53:40
Author Profile Mail author
Where'd ya go? I can't twist your thread off topic without your cooperation.
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The "History" Channel & The Shroud of Turin Re: The "History" Channel & The Shroud of Turin -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Brett ®
04/01/2002, 20:56:51
Author Profile Mail author
Martin,
I doubt that it's the same group, but back in the late '70's I attended a symposium of scientists that was held at the university where my dad taught that was trying to garner academic support for the purpose of pressuring the Vatican to allow scientific investigation of the "Shroud of Turin". They later were allowed access to the Shroud and reported their findings in recognized publications. There was even a popular article in the "National Geographic "on their study
Now, these guys were all "the real deal" as far as credentials were concerned, but I was shocked to discover their blatant bias that was exemplified in their declarations, prior to investigation, during that inital presentation, that they all believed that this was the actual burial shoud of Christ! That was, save for one skeptic on a panel of six - and he was Jewish!
I hadn't heard of the "Shroud" before that time, but I though I have a fascination for such historical mysteries and their connections to legends and lore from a purely human standpoint, I didn't base my "Christianity" on such patently material "evidence"! No more, at least than I did on any other claims of evidence for the claims of the Bible, like relics, or miracles.
And even though I experienced unexplained phenomena in my life when I was investigating various religions before deciding to accept the existence of God, I didn't accept God on the basis of those experiences.
I do have to admit, though, that those guys were very convincing to a naive young man like I was at that point. I grew up in a home where scientists were deemed the highest form of life. So, just as their curiosity was expressed with such passion, before they had access to the evidence that would declare the truth to them, mine was piqued to the point of arousal of interest that lasted until I had delved into the history of the entire Middle Ages.
I can't answer for the guys that you are talking about, but the investigators who I saw reported honestly on the results that they observed. Perhaps a couple of them became renegades from the scientific community and obsessed over their conviction that the Shroud must be the bona fide death shroud of Jesus despite the proof to the contrary. I really don't know. It's still intriguing.
It is, after all, a worthwhile endeavor to search for answers to such mysteries, don't you think? I revel in immersing myself in the pursuit of that kind of investigation! They did too! Obviously, if they are the same guys, they feel that all of their questions haven't been answered. Mine haven't either.
So, maybe you can help me with a couple of questions, since you seem to have resolved them all to your satisfaction- and I don't mean that impertinently. I haven't thought about this for quite some time, so I'm probably unaware of some more recent thoughts on the mystery of the Shroud. By the way, I didn't see the television program that you were talking about.
Your good friend,
Boje
p.s.,
Those questions deal with the elements of the practice of crucifiction, for which I've seen no demonstration that 14th century forgers would have any knowledge, along with the details of scourging, as practiced by the Romans of the first century.
Sure, one can speculate that some archeological evidence may have remained extant at that time, or that even oral traditions could have been held within esoteric organizations like the Knights Templar and acquired by them from Syrian contacts during the Crusades, but there is precious little actual evidence for such a transmission of necessary information.
Modified by Brett at Mon, Apr 01, 2002, 21:00:17
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page