The Shroud of Turin Could be Authentic

Thanks to Peepette for her opening round arguments.I'll start with rebuttals, then onto additional corroborative evidence of the Shroud's authenticity. RebuttalsRelicsPilgrimages and relics were and still are a part of the Catholic faith. In fact every Catholic altar has a relic embedded within it. [16] Why would Catholicism develop such a practice? I propose that it is because the existence of the shroud with the image on it was found in the tomb. This was the first Christian relic and established a special place within Catholicism for relics.Con also argued that the sacking of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade created a whole new relic trade. Yet this too is actually an argument for the authenticity of the shroud. Pope Innocent III (1161-1216) "banned the hitherto thriving trade in relics". [17] Thus those now in possession of the shroud needed to keep it secret.Money and Bishop D'ArcisCon argues that pilgrimage sites reaped significant monetary benefit from pilgrims. Con then proceeds to argue Bishop Henri and his successor Bishop d'Arcis claimed the Shroud was a forgery. It is interesting to note that the Shroud's presence in Lirey was drawing pilgrims away from the Bishops' shrines in Poitiers - perhaps motivation?Con further argues that in 1378 Bishop d'Arcis sent a letter to Pope Clement VII wherein it states that the Shroud is a forgery created by an unnamed artist who confessed to his predecessor Bishop Henri. The 2 copies of the D'Arcis letter are neither dated nor signed and are said to be "of such a faulty style that one could not attribute it to an episcopal pen". [18] Additionally, no copy of the letter has been found in Vatican archives or in archives of the Diocese of Troyes. [18]The response from the Pope to Bishop d'Arcis in the Jan 6, 1390 letter threatens the Bishop with Excommunication if he does not allow exposition of the Linen. [18] Con also fails to note a correction made to the Jan 6 bull along with an additional bull on June 1 which grants new indulgences for pilgrimage and veneration of the Linen. Taken all together, "the fundamental thought behind the Bull of Jan. 6 was not so much concerned with the authenticity of the Shroud as it was with the mode of its exposition." [18]Burial Shrouds & JesusCon notes that 1 other Shroud found in 1st century Jerusalem used a simple 2 way weave and was wool layered with linen. What Con fails to mention is that this tomb was atypical of Jewish burial customs. Molecular DNA analysis revealed that the dead man had leprosy and tuberculosis. [19] Additionally the tomb was sealed with only him in it instead of customary secondary burials in ossuaries. Even odder is that the clothes were made out of wool mixed with linen. This is forbidden by Deuteronomy 22:11Thou shalt not wear a garment that is woven of woollen and linen together. The Jews used looms that only ever wove flax [20] in order to produce Sindonic fabrics (pure linen with no wool) like the Shroud.In the 1st Century AD Jewish fortress of Masada, fourteen twill weave textile fragments were discovered including several in a diamond twill weave, which is actually a more complex variation of the herringbone pattern. [19]Other Shrouds in the region show large one or two piece burial shrouds. 2nd Century Qazone, Jordan Con also argues that it is impossible to confirm this is Jesus' Shroud. I agree! That is why the debate is: The Shroud of Turin Could be Authentic. The burden of proof is only that it could be, not that it is. Yet can she find evidence of one crucifixion, other than Jesus', which would have the wounds attested to in the bible and which appear on the shroud.ScienceCon rightly notes that multiple scientific tests have been conducted on the Shroud. In fact the Shroud is the most studied artifact in history. [21] Out of all of the scientific research conducted on the Shroud, Con notes only one piece of evidence, the 1988 Carbon dating tests.First of all it should be noted that C14 dating has not been without questionable results. Probably the most extreme of which was a mummy and its bandages were both C14 tested. The results came back that the mummy was 800-1000 years older than the linens wrapping it. [22] The above image provides the location of the C14 testing. The Photo on the right shows the C14 samples in order. What is curious is that the C14 test samples age from one end of the sample to the other. Now this is either an amazing coincidence or a strong indicator of a non-uniformity in what was tested. It was proposed that this area had been mended and contained a combination of 1st Century fibers and more modern fibres.Photos of the sample were given to textile experts for independent blinded analyses. The opinion given was that "the float was different on either side of the sample...due to each side of the pattern being woven independently" [23]Chemist Ray Rogers published a paper wherein he concluded that: Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. [24] Evidence of this is readily visible in samples from the adjacent Rae's fragment: This thread goes from dark and tight at one end to light and fluffy at the other. Magnification also shows the end of the splice. Colour enhancing the photo shows: This reveals the intertwining of two disparate materials with each other.Only one of the 3 papers that con presented attempts to deal with this. There was no chemical or microscopal evidence presented. The paper was done by a textile expert who's argumentt was "the operation is indeed invisible on the front, still it is always clearly recognizable on the back". [25]Michael Erlich, owner and president of "Without a Trace" (invisible mending company) remarked:"Today, there is a modern, time-saving technique called “inweaving: that would be invisible from the surface, but easily recognizable from the back. However, the technique used in sixteenth century Europe called “French weaving” is an entirely different matter. French weaving involves a tedious thread-by-thread restoration that is, indeed, invisible. Sixteenth century owners of the Shroud certainly had enough material resources and weeks of time at their disposal to accomplish the task."Additionally it was known at the time of sampling that there were anomalies."I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the Shroud...This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric" [26]The Oxford sample contained "rogue fibers were cotton of 'a fine, dark yellow strand.' According to Peter South of the lab, 'It may have been used for repairs at some time in the past...'" [26] We believe that the heavier, blended material may explain why the C-14 sample apparently weighed about twice as much as expected [26] The problem is that there is that there is no way of being sure that one sample (even if tested multiple times at different laboratories) is still only one sample. No method is immune to processing grossly incorrect dates when unknown problems may exist with the sample at the collection site.. a combination of at least two independent dating techniques is indispensable for the highest level of confidence. [22]I will leave this, there will be more opportunities for rebuttal.New ArgumentsArt History of the ShroudThe Vignon markings are 15 markings on the face of the Shroud that are appear on artwork of Jesus following the historical path of the Shroud detailed in Round 2. "Beginning in the sixth century, eastern icons of Christ underwent a radical change and followed the form set forth by this relic" [27]The Christ Pantocrator - St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai. This is a 6th century image - which I noted in Round 2 is when the Image of Edessa was found. It was likely a gift to Emperor Justinian the Great who reigned between 527 and 565. [27] In a court of law 45-60 points of congruence are enough to declare that the faces are the same. [27] Over 170 points on the face and 250 points including areas around the face have been identified. [27] Thus it is quite obvious, and legally submissible, that the Pantocrator's painter had seen the Shroud.The gold solidus minted between 692 and 695 has 145 points of congruence: [27] There are many additional examples [28], however artistic congruence with the shroud in the Eastern Empire has been firmly established.SudariumIn the previous round I noted the napkin that was wrapped around Christ's head in the Gospel of John. This cloth has been in Spain since 631 and is known as the Sudarium of Oviedo.[29] The Sudarium has:- The same blood type found on the Shroud, AB- The length of the nose on both cloths is the same - 8cm- Pollen grains found on the cloth of Oviedo match pollen found on the Shroud.- The blood (stain symmetry, type and other indicators) on the Sudarium matches the blood on the Shroud. [29]There are also over 70 points of correlation between the Sudarium and the Shroud [29], thus it is highly likely that the two were in contact with the same person.BandingBanding is a pattern seen in the cloth and the result of sun bleaching the fibres. Shaded bands had vanished by the 4th century. [23] The linen of the Shroud cannot be newer than he 4th Century.I will delve into the science in round 4.References[16] http://tinyurl.com...[17] http://tinyurl.com...[18] http://tinyurl.com...[19] http://tinyurl.com...[20] http://tinyurl.com...[21] http://tinyurl.com...[22] http://tinyurl.com...[23] http://tinyurl.com...[24] http://tinyurl.com...[25] http://tinyurl.com...[26] http://tinyurl.com...[27] http://tinyurl.com...[28] http://tinyurl.com...[29] http://tinyurl.com...