The Shroud of Turin Could be Authentic

"5th round summary of arguments and closing statements." I guess we got off track. Relics: With Christianity spreading and pilgrimages, people returned with souvenir relics. It was also profitable. But the proliferation of relics was so astounding that it developed into a relic cult. The first record of a relic is recorded in Constantinople. Helena, mother of Constantine in 327 traveled to Jerusalem and brought back the True Cross, but this is not chronicled until 350. Three hundred years after Christ death, things that should have long rotted or rusted suddenly are found in a cave on Golgotha or under a temple of Venus depending on which story version is read [1]. Theologian Erasmus made comment that many buildings could have been constructed from all the wood claimed to be from the true cross [2]. There are 30-40 known nails from the cross [3,4]. The Edessa Mandylion is claimed to be in St. Bartholomew of the Aremenians, Genoa and another Matilda Chapel of the Vatican Palace Both are paintings on canvas mounted on wood. Lastly, in reference to the tax collector story, a copy in the church of the Nestorians. All of these are portraits of a living Christ. These are not the Shroud a.k.a folded mandylion you are referring too, or are they? All claim providence from Edessa [5]. Shroud reproduction “submitted for peer review”, no citation provided; moot. Edessa First,there was no cloth per the original story of Edessa. The story itself a fabrication; all else that follows is an elaboration. So no Edessa Mandylion a.k.a. Shroud ever existed. Pro has not accounted for the continuously embellished of story, just dismissed material out of hand. As mentioned in previous rounds with citations for reference, additional embellishments can be found: “Life of Jacob of Galash, by Jacob of Serugh” 521, where Daniel and a monk went to Edessa and saw the portrait of the Messiah. But how can that be, it was wall up in a niche until 544? There are six or more alternative versions [6, 7, 8]. Four folds are meaningless; I did a load of laundry yesterday and folded several towels. Pro:“That the Edessans allegedly "made up" facts about the Shroud in the 6th Century…”defied explanation.” Let’s be realistic and factual, with the evidence of a tall tale, a made up story to explain a “defied explanation” makes no logical sense. The embellishmemts are due to the evengeligalizing of Catholicism together with the political climate of the time. Hymn of the Pearl was extrapolated from the bible. Now you present Antioch as an alternative location where the shroud was held? Grasping at straws. We can add this to the list of places which claim to have the Edessa Mandylion. Tetradiplon: this word was used to describe all the other mandylions as well. Pray Codex: How could a sarcophagus lid also be the shroud since a shroud is on the lid. The pic had labels and arrows, was it missed? Also ignored, the fluidity of draped figures and the shroud in panel 1 vs. the sarcophagus lid (which you claim is the shroud) in panel 2. Another page of the same Codex also features circles as a decorative element. A matching L shaped circle patterns on this pic can be discerned as well. A few other points,, the naked body of Christ in the Codex shows no injuries as the shroud does. In the Codex, where is Christ’s mustache and beard? Surely if the artist were so detailed to show burn holes the details of Christ’s injuries and facial hair would not be over looked. (close ups) http://www.debate.org... , http://www.debate.org... , http://www.debate.org... Science Matthew is the Gospel: Merely pointing out inconsistencies in Pros argument and citations, which will stand. Draped vs. wrapped: Semantics yet again, (Pre-debate we discussed avoiding this) Look at the 2nd century Jordon pic, is it not typical of a shroud wrap burial? http://www.debate.org... C14 Testing Ray Rogers may have scientific credentials but is not above bias. His “Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin”which discredits the original C14 test results between 1260 and 1390 to his results of the shroud being from the 1st C has been highly criticized. “..at least 20 or more members of STURP examined the Shroud in various ways for 120 hours. Neither they nor any of their Italian colleagues observed that the radiocarbon site wasn’t part of the original cloth,”.. “Moreover, between 5,000 – 7,000 photographs of the Shroud were taken at this time in various wavelengths and magnifications, but no such photographs or microphotographs indicated such a repair.” Rebutting Rogers assertion that the 1988 samples for C14 dating were taken from the repair done in 1532. Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, ancient textile expert present:“There is no doubt that the Shroud does not contain any reweaving”. Professor Giuseppe Ghiberti, the Vatican Scientific Advisor: “the samples had been removed in a corner area with no scorched holes and no medieval darns. I am astonished that a scholar such as Rogers has written so many inaccuracies in his article.” [ 9 ]. The editor from “Thermochimica Acta” in which Rogers paper was published resigned shortly thereafter due to break down of appropriate peer review. [10] There is an inherent problem citing from all pro-Shroud sites, there is no balance of information. “STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, an organization totally composed of believers in the authenticity of the Shroud) and accepted the authenticity of the Shroud from the very beginning of their work in the middle 1970s. He accepts (Rogers)all the shoddy work that STURP passed off as science two and three decades ago. As is well known, STURP's analyses on image formation, identity of the blood, …. hopelessly incompetent and unscientific, despite their claims and posturing to be rigorously scientific. There is no real blood of any kind on the Shroud. Both the image and "blood" were applied by an artist. These facts were conclusively proved beyond even a shadow of doubt by microscopic chemist Walter McCrone, whose microscopic analysis revealed the presence of abundant iron oxide (red ocher) and cinnabar (vermilion) pigments on the Shroud. [11] 1st C Who Picked up the Shroud Luke 9:2-5 “Takenothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt.4 Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town.” Me thinks these are Christ words when he sent out the 12 to preach. On top of the shroud being an unclean thing that no self respecting Jew would touch, Christ told them to have nothing, therefore, no shroud was pick up and saved [12]. Stitched Back The absurdity of Pros premise remains. Crown of thorns: No need to provide proof, it’s a fabricated object. Sufficient evidence to fact has been presented. Robert de Clari: What he saw was heresy, which you concurred. Pollen: The articles presented also stated pollen found was from Central Asia, India and China; as well as the Eastern United States. Many pollen samples from plants “were widely distributed throughout Europe before the age of Christ” and yes, a few did not fit within that category [13,14]. How about the US pollen, what can we extrapolate from that? Limestone: My position stands Myhrr:Its composition is not exclusive to myhrr, which is the point. D'Arcis Letter: Your own cit.#18 states the unsigned copy is a draft, when/if the final copy was sent became part of the Pope’s personal memorandums therefore, not an official church document. Also, states there were various versions of the Bull but, “Clement VII contained perfectly consistent and univocal dispositions.” Also, In the documents “imprints is always called a figura seu representacio Sudarii Domini Nostri Jhesu Christi (a figure or representation of the Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ).” The June 6th disposition did grant indulgences to visitors but still used the same phrase of description stated above, hence never acknowledging the shroud to be authentic. [15]. Then your citation moves on to make conjectures; another citation from a Shroud site. I presented citations to actual quotations from the Bulls without extrapolation. (Ref:R4, Con # 24) Art,Naked Christ: Vignon Marks: If the two pics were similar we’d have a point of contention, eyes closed, eyes open. Does the shroud show a blown out pupil? http://www.debate.org... , http://www.debate.org... Summary: The story of Edessa is a contrivance. The original story told had no mention of a portrait of Christ. Later versions were riddled with embellishments. It’s lasted walled up for 500 years in dampness, yet survived. It's an unconvincing assumption that a towel to wipe a face, also fabled to have swabbed Christ’s face at Gethsemane was a 20 lb, 14ft cloth. Yet these stories describe a living Christ, not a dead one, as the shroud depicts. The thought that no one noticed or bothered to unfold the mandylion it until 944, after some 900 years from its original creation is assuming everyone down the line was an idiot. Although, there are multiple locations that claim to have the Edessa Mandylion which Pro contends is the Shroud of Turin. Furthermore, the cult of relics was instrumental in creating multiple false artifacts in an effort to obtain pilgrimage dollars, hence the multiples of anything of biblical reference. The Edessa Mandylion and the Shroud of Turin are not one in the same, but both man made creations. 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. http://tinyurl.com... 13. http://tinyurl.com... 14. http://tinyurl.com... 15. http://tinyurl.com...