Shroud Of Turin

[theculturewarrior]

Hello:

I saw a special on the Shroud of Turin on EWTN on Easter. It was pretty fascinating.

For one, the Shroud presents the image in a photographic negative. Photography wasn't around in the 14th C. or the 1st c. for that matter. Moreover, there was pollen from several (I'm thinking something like 125) plants that were in Jerusalem in the 1st c. AD. The wounds are anatomically correct, in that the nails go through the wrists, and the thumb curves inward, as the would when someone has a nail driven through their wrist.

As far as the carbon dating is concerned, the documentary said the sample taken wasn't representative.

They also blew up a photograph of the image to show that there were no paint strokes.

Also, I did a little reading, and there is another holy relic called the Subarium (sp?) which was the cloth used to cover Jesus's head. There is no image on the cloth, just blood stains, but they match the blood stains on the Shroud.

Question: Are there any other examples of photographic negatives before the invention of photography?

Question: Are there any other anatomically and historically correct representations of crucifixion contemporary to the time the Shroud is said to have been fraudulantly created?

Are there any anatomically correct paintings at all from 14th c. France?

[theculturewarrior]

Here are some examples of Medieval Art. Well before the photo-realism movement it seems.

[url="http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0018809.html"]http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclo...n/m0018809.html[/url]

[FutureSoror]

I've seen that special multiple times on EWTN, but I haven't seen it recently. I've been wanting to see it so I can stack it against the documentary on the Shroud I saw on the History channel, though. I always take the History Channel with a grain of salt, but their explanation for the shroud is pretty interesting. They argue that Leonardo da Vinci used an ancient and little known photography method to make the shoud, and say that he was an avid scientist who worked to the physics of crucifixion. I'm kind of on the middle of the fence about it right now because I want to see how the EWTN arguments sound again.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='FutureSoror' date='Mar 31 2005, 09:25 PM'] I've seen that special multiple times on EWTN, but I haven't seen it recently. I've been wanting to see it so I can stack it against the documentary on the Shroud I saw on the History channel, though. I always take the History Channel with a grain of salt, but their explanation for the shroud is pretty interesting. They argue that Leonardo da Vinci used an ancient and little known photography method to make the shoud, and say that he was an avid scientist who worked to the physics of crucifixion. I'm kind of on the middle of the fence about it right now because I want to see how the EWTN arguments sound again. [/quote]
Like my atheist professor once told me...went faced with multiple possibilities, usually the most parsimonious explanation is true.

I haven't seen that special, but it seems a bit cumbersome.

[theculturewarrior]

How did they explain the pollen?

[theculturewarrior]

How did they explain the carbon dating dating it to before Leonardo Da Vinci was around?

[Socrates]

[quote name='FutureSoror' date='Mar 31 2005, 09:25 PM'] I've seen that special multiple times on EWTN, but I haven't seen it recently. I've been wanting to see it so I can stack it against the documentary on the Shroud I saw on the History channel, though. I always take the History Channel with a grain of salt, but their explanation for the shroud is pretty interesting. They argue that Leonardo da Vinci used an ancient and little known photography method to make the shoud, and say that he was an avid scientist who worked to the physics of crucifixion. I'm kind of on the middle of the fence about it right now because I want to see how the EWTN arguments sound again. [/quote]
The Da Vinci explanation seems quite far-fetched to me. Are there any other examples of this primitive photography from the time?
Photography also does not seem like the way a forger would go about making the image at that time (even for a genius like Leonardo)

More importantly, this theory claims a statue was used to make the image. However, as noted, the image on the shroud has too many anatomically correct details, which appear to show a man who really did undergo all the sufferings that Christ underwent. Medical experts have examined this in detail. Much of this would be impossible for even a modern anatomical expert to fake, much less a medieval forger.

[FutureSoror]

Those are very good observations.. and I don't claim to believe anything that the History Channel documentary said. I don't remeber how they explained the carbon dating, and I don't remeber them talking about the pollen. They did say that an actual person would have been photographed, though.

[FutureSoror]

Also, the thing about the photography is that they seemed to explain it away as being something morally unacceptable for plople at the time, and therefore done secretly

I can see how Da Vinci would have wanted to avoid using paints and dyes, though.

I do agree that the thing seems far-fetched, but they deffinetly did their homework in order to make plenty of people question the shroud.

[theculturewarrior]

I think the Shroud's written history precedes Leonardo Da Vinci.

[FutureSoror]

Really?

[cmotherofpirl]

THe pollen is from Jerusalem , the weaving is dated to the first century, and the minerals around the feet are from the gates of Jerusalem.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='FutureSoror' date='Mar 31 2005, 10:02 PM'] Really? [/quote]
Well...I know the Shroud is said to have come from 14th France, and I thought Leonardo Da Vinci was from 15th century Florence. But maybe there's more to it than I know.

[Socrates]

[quote name='FutureSoror' date='Mar 31 2005, 09:45 PM'] Also, the thing about the photography is that they seemed to explain it away as being something morally unacceptable for plople at the time, and therefore done secretly

I can see how Da Vinci would have wanted to avoid using paints and dyes, though.

I do agree that the thing seems far-fetched, but they deffinetly did their homework in order to make plenty of people question the shroud. [/quote]
Is there any historical evidence that this ancient method of photography existed, much less that it was considered immoral?
Where'd they get that from???

The explanation I saw (in some science mag) involved a statue. It would required the photographed object to remain perfectly still for hours to acheive the image.

If a human body were used, this would involve someone undergoing all the tortures and crucifixion of Christ (and likely his death) for the sake of perpetuating a hoax!

(This all sounds mighty phishy to me!)

[FutureSoror]

Oh yes, I remember now, they argued that Da Vinci would have been smart enough to use an old piece of material to make his forgery. I would more readily accept that it is the actual shroud, though.