The Shroud of Turin Could be Authentic

My thanks to Peepette.RebuttalsCon's historical rebuttal was incredibly weak. The majority of her arguments are not actual rebuttals, but merely attempt cast aspersions on the evidence.EdessaCon notes that in the Acts of Thaddeus where "Jesus asked for a towel in which he wiped his face, leaving his image miraculously on the cloth". Now this sounds very good except that it was already rebutted in Round 1.The Greek words used were "rakos (piece of cloth) which was a tetradiplon, a word translated as “doubled in four," [13] Along with the image: Rakos is a very common word, but tetradiplon is very rare. This word has never been used except in reference to the Shroud. [13]So the fact that the author is describing only seeing a face on cloth folded in eight is actually confirming that this was the shroud. Con confirms this by noting the Acts of Mari describes only the face of a cloth folded in 4.Historian Daniel Scavone opines that the story is “made up after the fact, when the real history was forgotten, to explain the presence of the Christ-picture in Edessa”. What the TA may also suggest is that there was a distant memory in 4th century Edessa of a Christ picture coming to their city in an early evangelization, and if a lengthy history (like The TA) were to be written, contemporary readers might expect it to be included. However, because of persecution, it had to be hidden away and perhaps even lost, with only confused memories surviving by the 4th century. [13]Con adds in a couple of throw away arguments about somebody commissioning an artist to produce a copy and a bishop noting that the Holy Sepulcher also claimed to have the shroud. Neither of those are actual arguments against this being the shroud.In the Biblical account their is a story about Veronica's veil on which Christ wipes his face. It is quite possible if the writer doesn't know that there is more to the shroud to confuse the two. The fact that there are different stories just shows that people are delving to different sources to explain something that requires explaining. This is what happens in history. However, what is never in question is that there is a cloth bearing the image of Christ crucified that defies explanation.This is why they think that the image was formed by sweat and blood. It wasn't paint. They knew what a painting looked like and the shroud isn't a painting, but it does have blood and it does have an image that is separate from the blood.As for the bishop with the wet sponge, well I do know that with Catholicism that Holy Water is blessed at Easter with the Easter Candle. By pouring additional water into blessed water, makes that water blessed as well. This is similar to what is being said in your quote. The bishop, invokes a blessing on the water by wiping the icon with a wetted sponge. That water can now be removed from the sponge and used to bless the people. As for there being water marks on the shroud - this simple ceremony from the bishop wouldn't have left water marks, and yes there are large water stains on the shroud. There are two theories for these water stains. The first is that they resulted from extinguishing the burns being suffered in the 1532 fire. There is evidence that the watermarks were made by condensation in the bottom of a burial jar in which the folded shroud may have been kept at some point kept. [30]These water stains are actually proof that the shroud is not the work of an artist.Finally the quote from the Gregoious Referandious sermon seems to me to be evidence of the shroud. It talks about the image being of two colours. Red where there were blood stains and different colour where the image was formed. The entire essence of the argument is that because those who did not know the full history or science of the shroud interjected their opinions, conjecture or hearsay into their descriptions does not in any way invalidate the historicity of the shroud in these tales. On the contrary, it actually shows that the means of creating the shroud were so far removed from them that there was nothing even like it in existence.In the end I believe that Con's further evidence only strengthens my position of the historicity of the Shroud.Pray CodexThe Eastern Orthodox Church developed a tradition where an image of the Crucified Christ on a cloth is placed on the Altar. Yet this similar tradition did not evolve in the Western Church even before the schism. I find this to be actually more evidence in favour of the shroud being located in the Eastern Empire prior to the sacking of Constantinople.Unfortunately with the resolution of the photo Con posted, I am unable to make out any weave detail on it. Yet I can see Jesus with arms crossed, just like they are on the shroud. What makes the Pray Codex irrefutable proof is 2 things: 1) the L shaped poker holes on the shroud that pre-exist the 1532 fire can be seen on the Lier Shroud Painted in 1516. A blow up from the poker holes on the Pray Manuscript: 2) On both the Shroud and the Pray Manuscript Jesus is shown as being naked. Showing Jesus as being naked is virtually unheard of. Even on the little picture you provided Jesus has a cloth over his groin.ConstantinopleCon claims that after the sack of Constantinople the Mandylion went to King Louis IX. However, from Con's own source: "The story that de Clari tells of the origins of the “touaile” is completely unrelated to the Image of Edessa, so much so that it is impossible to identify the two. It therefore seems unlikely that the “sancta toella” obtained by Louis IX was the Mandylion." [31] JerusalemCon notes that the Gospel of John notes cloths and spices. Along the top edge of the shroud, there is a visible strip with pieces missing at each end. This is a second strip of cloth made from the same cloth that has been stitched back on with a stitching method only otherwise observed on textiles excavated from the first-century Jewish Fortress of Masada. [32]Thus the Shroud is actual two pieces of cloth.Myrrh - The properties that make up the image on the shroud are [33]:1. Frucose2. Galactose3. Arabinose4. Rhanmose5. Xylose6. Glucose7. Gluceronic AcidThese are all the properties of Myrrh Resin. [33]Finally I would argue it was Peter and John who took the burial cloths. But I noted in the first round that they would have kept it hidden as such things violated normal law. A miraculous sign is enough to consider breaking ceremonial customs over.New ArgumentsIt isn't only History and Art history that are in favour of authenticity of the Shroud. The scientific reviews of the Shroud are also overwhelmingly pro authenticity.The 1978 study of the Shroud by STURP concluded the following [34]:- No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image.- The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry.- there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.- We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin.The long and short of which is that the blood stains on the shroud are real blood containing an elevated bilirubin count which is consistent with a haemolytic process caused by torture. [35] It also notes that there is no known process which will recreate the shroud image, and there is nobody since 1978 who has replicated the shroud image. [36]A sample of calcium was found in the foot area of the Shroud. It was Limestone and when compared to limestone found only in Jerusalem there was "an unusually close match, the only disparity being a slight organic variation readily explicable as due to minute pieces of flax that could not be separated from the Shroud's calcium." [37]The shroud image is so faint that it cannot be seen up close [38]. This is why people called it sweat or divinely wrought. The image that I have been using in this debate is digitally colour enhanced. The Shroud is actually a negative. It's true features appear when you look at a negative of it. The 1532 fire showed that the image is not paint. - "If either inorganic pigments or natural organic stains or dyes were responsible for the shroud images, some evidence of their chemical alteration should be observable in and around the fire marks.- Most inorganic pigments and natural organic dyes are water soluble...the colour should have run or migrated in areas where water stains are present. It did not. [39]The image on the shroud is 200-800nm. It is as thin as a soap bubble and thinner than most bacteria. [40]The best theory as to how the image was formed is a short burst of intense light. When the atomic bomb went off in Hiroshima, permanent images were formed: A report was published showing that the image on the shroud could be reproduce using ultraviolet light. However, it would require 34 Trillion watts of power using a single UV laser. The highest power laser built today is no more than several billion watts.ConclusionsThe historical evidence stands and the scientific evidence greatly favours authenticity.References[30] http://tinyurl.com...[31] http://tinyurl.com...[32] http://tinyurl.com...[33] http://tinyurl.com...[34] http://tinyurl.com...[35] http://tinyurl.com...[36] http://tinyurl.com...[37] http://tinyurl.com...[38] http://tinyurl.com...[39] http://tinyurl.com...[40] http://tinyurl.com...[41] http://tinyurl.com...