The Shroud of Turin Could be Authentic

A start off with a two videos http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... Edessa: Pro dismisses the text translated by academics on Syriac and Greek languages. Also disregards and the chronology and embellishment of the Edessa story. There is no mention of4 folds untilThe Acts of the Mari, the 4th rendition of the story. Later text tell a continuously embellished or contradictory tale. Like a rumor in grammar school when it comes full circle it’s completely unrecognizable from the original. Pro:“throw away arguments :” Disregarding pertinent material rather that debating on why it should be discounted proves its validity. Pro:“The Greek words” Semantics, It’s a moot point based on various versions of translations. There are larger issues to fry than wasting character counts on this. Pro:“Historian Daniel Scavone opines that the story is “made up after the fact,” Yes! Made up and embellished. Your #13 citation states “Edessan Church Father Ephrem in the 4th century show no knowledge of the picture, leading some scholars to believe there never was such an object in ancient Edessa.” Pro:“Veronica's veil : the writer doesn't know that there is more to the shroud to confuse the two.”Made up stories and confused people; more picking, choosing and disregarding. Furthermore, there is no biblical mention on Veronica; I checked [1]; another cult relic [2]. Pray Codex having a herringbone pattern? To interpret concentric pyramids to be herring bone is a stretch. The 1st panel Christ is on the cloth, no pattern. 2nd panel, there’s a drape fluidity on the figures in contrast to the rigidity of the patterned item. This patterned surface is akin to a sarcophagus and lid as depicted in similar art of the period. Tomb lids are all depicted at an angle, and take note of the ornate patterns. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... Science I concede that other textiles of the 1st C have been found that have a Z pattern weave. Pro:“Thou shalt not wear a garment that is woven of woollen and linen together” Some disingenuousness with a presentation by Pro; it’s fascinating how the original pic descriptor was edited from “Figure 4 woolen burial shroud, in situ, Quazone, Jordon ca. second century C.E.” Notice the burial cloth is wrapped around the body. Any body imprint made would be highly distorted. Matthew 27: 59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth. Not draped. Also make note of the strips of cloth used to bind the body. http://www.debate.org... Your own citation #20 states “burial shrouds could be made of wool and flax together:”…” .. because the dead are no longer subject to the Torah” C14 Testing: Most poignant of all tests, despite the pro-shroudies decrees to the contrary. It was conducted by 3 separate labs and peer reviewed. I haven’t seen any peer review by actual scientist to discredit it. Textile experts were present to ensure the sample was not taken from a repaired area [3]. Mummy: If it were tested by 3 independent labs with differing results and peer reviewed, we’d have something to debate. Walter McCone is an awarded scientist in Analytical Chemistry conducted the tape lift test as part of the early STRUP team. His findings were tempera paint of the era was found. No blood was found. Blood stains are from hemoglobin from animal bones (marrow) rendered to create a gel to bind paint; think good chicken stock, it gels when done properly. Joe Nickell PhD scientist concurred. McCone was dismissed from STRUP for not meeting the pro-authenticity criteria of the group [4,5]. Raymond Rogers has been highly criticized on his garage radiocarbon testof the shroud to the 1st C due to his numerous pro-authenticity shroud articles prior to his tests in UFO, creationism, and astrology sites and magazines[6,7]; just a little bias? DNA Testing done recently revealed DNA from different ethnic groups, plant matter and pollen from the Mediterranean, Asia and the Middle East. The shroud toured and was handled by many people; therefore contaminated [8,9,10]. Limestone found on the shroud has the same chemical make up as stone found in Bolivia, Kentucky, and Spain to name a few. Yes, also in Jerusalem; a lie of omission on where else this stone is found [11,12,13]. Chemicals attributed to Myrrh: The chemicals you listed are commonly found in many woods and grasses; palm plants, oats, rye grass, legumes and corn [14,15]. Relics: Your own citation #16 states “Care should be taken, however, to ensure the authenticity of such relics." Pope Innocent III did prohibit the sale new relics. The Crusaders did not follow the edict after pillaging Constantinople in 1204. The booty was sold throughout Europe. “Under these conditions many fraudulent relics could easily find a market in the West, for there was great rivalry in securing such treasures.” [16].The Pope did disapprove of the sacking but acquiesced because he believed the orthodox of the East were heretics and bringing Constantinople under Latin influence was the greater prize. Also the Pope granted indulgences (all sins forgiven) to those who fought in the crusades [17,18]. Burial Shrouds & Jesus The first relic being the Shroud does not track since there is no evidence of anyone picking it up (no Jew would, unclean) Your conjecture that Peter or John picked it up, a big ­guess. Pro:“hidden message within the Gospel” Made up stories, confused people, guesses and hidden messages, what will it be next? The tomb scene is described John 20:5-7 “He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.” Pro:“Stitched Back Cloth”: Really! a man rises from the dead, imaginary people pick up all the strips of cloth and sew them on the shroud; a new height of absurdity! Pro:“one crucifixion, other than Jesus', which would have the wounds attested to in the bible and which appear on the shroud” The two thieves beside Christ and Titus Flavius Josephus: "the soldiers out of rage and hatred, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest."[19] Seneca the Younger: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways:… others stretch out their arms on the gibbet." , Herodotus:They nailed him to a plank and hung him up ... this Artayctes who suffered death by crucifixion…"They crucified him with hands and feet stretched out and nailed to cross-pieces; cf. vii.33 [20]. Robert de Clari The Narratio explicitly states the Edessa Mandylion was placed within the Chapel of Pharos, not in Saint Mary of Blachernae where he claims to have seen it; thus heresy. You also have embellished on his statement “so that the wounds of the Lord could be seen” which is not stated in de Calari’s original text [21,22,23 p.61-65]. You contradicted your statement made in R1 regarding De Clari. In R4 now agreeing he knew not of what he saw. Bishop D'Arcis Your citation #1; a “Shroud of Turin” site article with no citations of original source material, where unscholarly assumptions are made without fully examining documentation. Pope Clement VII wrote on Jan. 6, 1390 4 Bulls pertaining to the Geoffroi de Charney II request to show the cloth. The Pope stated Charney could show the shroud without ceremonial fanfare and "in loud and intelligible voice" that "the Linen with the imprints is not the true Shroud of Christ but a copy and representation made in imitation of the Shroud of the same Lord Jesus Christ".As well as uses the phrase “pictura seu tabula” (painted picture) [24 p.11,13,21,28,30] This was due to Bishop D'Arcis’ letter and strong objection. The Pope threatened D’Arcis with excommunication if he interfered, providing Charney observed the rule Pope’s conditions. As you stated yourself,"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”. Art Pseudo historians who jump to conclusions omitting evidence against the shroud and icon fans don’t understand the development of art make pro-shroud assersion. Christian imagery began in the West which followed Roman sensibilities depicting Christ as a beardless ruler, sheppard of people and used symbolism. When Constantinople was established, Western influences played in depicting a bearded figure which was typical of persons living in the area. But also it moved from a reigning king and sheppard to a suffering Jesus; which had to do with the evangelization of Christianity. It had absolutely nothing to do with the shroud because it didn’t exist except in reference in the Bible [27,28,29]. 1.http://goo.gl... 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... 15. 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://www.ccel.org... 26. https://en.wikipedia.org... 27. http://tinyurl.com... 28. http://tinyurl.com... 28. http://tinyurl.com...