Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Jesus's Shroud

1 view
Skip to first unread message

ADAM ROSENBLATT

unread,
Apr 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/9/96
to
On Easter in church this year, our priest commented on the passage (I'm
sorry, I have forgotten which gospel) in which Simon Peter, and John go
into Jesus's tomb and find him gone, but see that the wrappings for his
body have been left behind. They find the wrappings from his body, and
then in a separate place they find the wrappings for his head. He
commented that he does not know why the two sets of wrappings are in
different places. It occurred to me that the significance could be that
Jesus unwrapped himself, thereore he would have had to remove the
wrappings from his head first in order to see what he was doing, whereas
if someone else had unwrapped him, they could have done it in no
particular order. Can anyone tell me any other ideas as to the
significance of the wrappings being in two different places in the tomb?


Gerry Palo

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to
In article <4keb4f$3...@netsrv2.spss.com>,
ADAM ROSENBLATT <aros...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> wrote:

The account is in John.

Although this seems like a reasonable explanation at first glance, I do
not believe it was so. The Resurrection of Christ was not the
reenlivening of the corpse that was laid in the tomb. That body was
wholely consumed and existed no more. Christ rose out of the whole
earth, the "heart of the earth" where he lay for three days. When the
angel rolled away the stone, the tomb was already empty. Jesus was no
longer there. He rolled it back in order to show the women and the
disciples that the tomb was empty. The bonds of tomb and wrappings no
longer held him, nor did the bonds of flesh itself.

When Jesus finally does appear to the first person of whom the Gospels
tell us, Mary Magdalene, he is outside the tomb, in the garden. It is in
the whole sphere of the living, the "new garden" of the earth that he now
lives. It is not in the old body, but a new body, neither bound by
wrappings or by stone, that he reveals himself. Christ's bodily
resurrection was not, in other words, like that of Lazarus who, however
healed and transformed, nevertheless was restored to a body of mortal
flesh, destined to die. And John makes a point of the fact that Lazarus
came out of the tomb with the wrappings still on his body. But with Christ
it is not so. The body of Christ's resurrection is a body, but it is not
like other bodies. There is no more death in it. And it is not bound by
the laws of matter, time and space as other bodies are bound. He is not a
ghost, a spiritual apparition, and he can eat and drink and touch and be
touched. But he appears and disappears, revealing himself to those whose
eyes are opened to see, and that not bound by one particular place and
time. One day we too will attain to such a body. But on Easter morning,
He arose in this body in its full perfection.

Now, as for the wrappings, which is the original question you propose to
answer, I offer the following tentative explanation. The winding cloths
were in one place, on the ground, but the head cloth neatly folded. My
belief at this point is that the head cloth had not been put in place yet.
It was to have been part of the final service of the women who came that
morning. Something in the appearance of the winding cloths (othonia)
convinced Peter, and then, after had finally gone all the way into the
tomb, also the Beloved Disciple, that the body was really no longer there
and that it had not been stolen. There is a painting, early Renaissance
or before, I believe, that shows the disciples at the tomb with the head
cloth folded on the side, and the winding cloths still in the shape of the
body, but empty. This would explain why John, who arrived running before
Peter did and quickly looked inside, turned back, thinking that everything
was in order. He would have seen the shape of the body, but not the
emptiness of the "cocoon". But the impulsive Peter, arriving just behind,
goes all the way inside and sees the empty wrappings. Then John goes in
too and now he believes.

Then they go away, and Mary Magdalene, returning to the tomb, but in her
distraught condition of soul not realizing the significance of the empty
tomb, turns to Jesus, who does not immediately reveal himself, and
"thinking him to be the gardener", asks him where he had taken the body.
This is a profound and wonderful question, for it is indeed he who has
possession of it and who by his words to her answers it.

(I hope it is not too immodest for me to mention an article I wrote about
Mary Magdalene for the journal of my church a few years ago, called "Touch
Me Not! The Soul of Mary Magdalene and the Body of Christ". The whole
story of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is a wonderful revelation of the whole
nature of the Resurrection and of the old and new bodily nature, and of
the extraordinary individual of Mary Magdalene, the "apostle to the
apostles". I can send an electronic copy to anyone who might be
interested).

--

----------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
pa...@netcom.com


David Wallis

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to
ADAM ROSENBLATT wrote:
>
> On Easter in church this year, our priest commented on the passage (I'm
> sorry, I have forgotten which gospel) in which Simon Peter, and John go
> into Jesus's tomb and find him gone, but see that the wrappings for his
> body have been left behind. They find the wrappings from his body, and
> then in a separate place they find the wrappings for his head. He
> commented that he does not know why the two sets of wrappings are in
> different places. It occurred to me that the significance could be that
> Jesus unwrapped himself, thereore he would have had to remove the
> wrappings from his head first in order to see what he was doing, whereas
> if someone else had unwrapped him, they could have done it in no
> particular order. Can anyone tell me any other ideas as to the
> significance of the wrappings being in two different places in the tomb?

John 20:5* And he stooping down, [and looking in], saw the linen
clothes lying; yet went he not in. 6* Then cometh Simon Peter
following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen
clothes lie, 7* And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying
with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

The basic significance is that this is an eyewitness account of what
the empty tomb looked like: only the burial cloths were left. The
smaller headband ("napkin") was neatly wrapped up by itself, but the
larger wrap that covered the entire body looked more like an unmade
bed.

>From the image on the shroud of Turin we can infer that the "napkin"
did not cover the face, but was a band tied around the head under the
chin to keep the jaw from falling down.


ADAM ROSENBLATT

unread,
Apr 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/12/96
to
: >From the image on the shroud of Turin we can infer that the "napkin"
: did not cover the face, but was a band tied around the head under the
: chin to keep the jaw from falling down.

Thank you for your reply. However, since the shroud of Turin has been
demonstrated to be a fake, not contemporaneous with the time of Jesus, I
cannot see how it would allow us to infer anything about the manner in
which Jesus was buried


David Wallis

unread,
Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96
to

This has just been discussed at some length on
news:soc.religion.christian where I and several others went into
considerable detail as to the untrustworthiness of the C-14 dating of
the shroud. I have no intention of reentering that same discussion
here. Those who want to see more information on the shroud (including
a good picture of the face of the image) are welcome to look at the
following web site:

http://www.cais.com/npacheco/shroud/turin.html


Gary Newport

unread,
Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96
to
Just to add a note to this thread...

Some time ago we discussed the Turin Shroud and one argument put forward
for its authenticity was that the nails were shown to pass through the
wrists and not the hands. This is in support of the idea that the nails
could not have gone through the hands since the hand would tear!

I have always opposed this on the grounds that there is the possibility
that the victims arms were tied up and that the nails were to restrict
movement and to increase the pain: NOT to bear the body weight of a man.

I repeat this comment since over Easter Christians in Southern American
and elsewhere have been crucifying themselves in remembrance of Jesus and
use the method I believe was used. This must be conceived as proof that
this method is usable and in fact does increase the pain whilst not
shortening the length alive (which was meant to be as long as possibile
for the victim to truly suffer).

Gary Newport

Mario Latendresse

unread,
Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96
to

Adam Rosenblatt writes:

> Thank you for your reply. However, since the shroud of Turin has been
> demonstrated to be a fake, not contemporaneous with the time of Jesus, I
> cannot see how it would allow us to infer anything about the manner in
> which Jesus was buried

And what did demonstrate that? Certainly not the c-14 dating.

Mario Latendresse


Rod Young

unread,
Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96
to
ADAM ROSENBLATT wrote:
>
> : >From the image on the shroud of Turin we can infer that the "napkin"
> : did not cover the face, but was a band tied around the head under the
> : chin to keep the jaw from falling down.
>
> Thank you for your reply. However, since the shroud of Turin has been
> demonstrated to be a fake, not contemporaneous with the time of Jesus, I
> cannot see how it would allow us to infer anything about the manner in
> which Jesus was buried_______

Please understand that I am a Baptist who normally doesn't give a hoot for relics. Someone once said that if all of the
pieces of the True cross were gathered in one place that it would look like a lumber yard. I feel differently regarding the
Shroud of Turin. The assertion that it had conclusively proven to be a fake is incorrect. Understand that I am firing off
the top of my head and don't remember all of my sources. Most comes from "Report On The Shroud Of Turin" by Heller (?).

Most people saw the news articles regarding the carbon-14 tests that revealed a very late date. There are scientists,
including the guy who invented the test, who have questioned the procedures and results. It seems that the fire that damaged
the shroud would have effected the carbon-14 results. Notice that the carbon-14 date is about that of the fire that melted
the silver box.

Also consider these facts: 1) There is very old human blood on the shroud, in the proper places, and some has seperated.
2) The image is due to oxidation of some of the surface fibers of the linen. There is no evidence of capilary action. i.e.
from a liquid. 3) The image is a correct picture of crucifixionn i.e. nails not through the palms. 4) No one has been able
to duplicate the features of the shroud without evidence of the means. i.e. scorch marks, capilary action, binders,
pigmentation, penetration beyond the surface fibers. 5) They know WHAT the image is, but not HOW it got there. The physics
of resurrection is not very well understood ;)

I am NOT saying absolutely that this is the burial clothe of Jesus Christ! There is no scientific "Jesus" test that can be
applied. I am saying that all of the evidence points to the conclusion that it is the burial cloth of a man who died after
being terribly beaten and crucified. The WHO is up to you.

The first time that I heard of the shroud I immediately dismissed it as some "painting". I don't know what it is, but it is
NOT a painting. I urge all to look at the evidence, question it, test it. Ask yourself the question: How would I make it?


Jesus Lives!
____
Rod Young email address r...@ganet.net


Gerry Palo

unread,
Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96
to
In article <4km9e2$a...@netsrv2.spss.com>,
ADAM ROSENBLATT <aros...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> wrote:

>: >From the image on the shroud of Turin we can infer that the "napkin"
>: did not cover the face, but was a band tied around the head under the
>: chin to keep the jaw from falling down.
>
>Thank you for your reply. However, since the shroud of Turin has been
>demonstrated to be a fake, not contemporaneous with the time of Jesus, I
>cannot see how it would allow us to infer anything about the manner in
>which Jesus was buried
>

That it is a fake has not been satisfactorily demonstrated to me. I don't
think it is necessary to accept or reject it, but it does explain some
otherwise puzzling details about the scriptural account, namely that the
evangelists give two different descriptions of the burial cloths. The
Synoptics speak of a shroud (sindonion, singular), whereas John describes
the cloths as being strips of cloth (othonia). Taking them both to be
true, one can conclude that the body was wrapped twice, once just before
sundown on the day of the crucifixion, a hurried burial that had to be
finished before sundown. Then a second preparation, described in John,
would involve the removal of the shroud and its replacement by the othonia
strips. This calls for an adjustment to the scenario of the Friday
crucifixion and, to my mind, is a strong argument, not usually raised by
its advocates, of a Wednesday or Thursday crucifixion., so that the second
preparation of the body, described by John, would have happened one or two
days later, probably on Friday.

Be that as it may, the evangelists do have these two descriptions of the
burial cloths. And tying the two together, Luke mentions both the shroud
and the cloth strips. In 23:53 Luke describes how the body was taken
down and wrapped in a linen cloth (sindonion). But in 24:12, where he
tells part of the story of Peter's visit to the tomb (curiously he does
not mention the Beloved Disciple's accompanying Peter!) he describes how
Peter saw the cloth strips, (othonia) - but not the head cloth.

So taking the Shroud of Turin at face value, the binding cloth around the
head and jaw would belong to the first burial, described by the Synoptics.
It would have been removed when the proper wrapping in cloth strips was
done. Then, the final burial, to have been accomplished by the women on
Sunday morning, would have entailed the covering of the head with the head
cloth.

I am still not completely sure about the significance of the head cloth,
but I do believe that the picture of the body that lay there being somehow
revivified, in the manner of Lazarus, does not correspond to the true
nature of the Resurrection. That is, Christ arose out of the Earth itself,
he did not need to free himself from either the wrappings of the grave or
the stone that barred the tomb's entry. The angel did not roll the stone
away to let Jesus out but to show the women that the tomb was empty. The
old body was gone. In the new one he could appear anywhere and any time,
to whomever he chose to reveal himself. The old limitations of matter
were no more for him in his new body of resurrection.

William H. Jefferys

unread,
Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96
to
In article <4ku60t$5...@netsrv2.spss.com>,
David Wallis <wal...@surfplaza.com> wrote:
#ADAM ROSENBLATT wrote:
#>
#> Thank you for your reply. However, since the shroud of Turin has been
#> demonstrated to be a fake, not contemporaneous with the time of Jesus, I
#> cannot see how it would allow us to infer anything about the manner in
#> which Jesus was buried
#
#This has just been discussed at some length on
#news:soc.religion.christian where I and several others went into
#considerable detail as to the untrustworthiness of the C-14 dating of
#the shroud.

You presented some flimsy arguments, which were refuted.

Radiocarbon dating is very reliable and accurate, when applied
by knowledgeable people in appropriate situations. This was so
in the case of the Turin shroud. Those who would like accurate
information about radiocarbon dating in general may set their
web browser to:

http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/index.html

Bill

--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
E-mail: bi...@clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mario Latendresse

unread,
Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96
to

Gary Newport writes:

> Some time ago we discussed the Turin Shroud and one argument put forward
> for its authenticity was that the nails were shown to pass through the
> wrists and not the hands. This is in support of the idea that the nails
> could not have gone through the hands since the hand would tear!
> I have always opposed this on the grounds that there is the possibility
> that the victims arms were tied up and that the nails were to restrict
> movement and to increase the pain: NOT to bear the body weight of a man.

Yes it is a possibility to ponder, but that does not change the
reasoning of ``in the wrist'' vs ``in the palm''. To summarize it: if
it was faked, the author would have to pierce a part of the hand, let
say either the wrist or the palm. The wrist was chosen contrary to all
known artists' representation of medieval time. Indeed, it is now well
attested that the palms would not have resisted. The wrist is the most
probable place to nail as it does not need tying. (This is attested by
an archeological find of a first century crucify man: the wrists were
used.)

It is therefore a comparison of knowledge between a suppose author of
a fake vs the knowledge of medieval time.

(Moreover, the NT does not give any clue that the arms were tied.)

Mario Latendresse
----
Laboratoire de parallélisme informatique| Computer parallelism laboratory
Université de Montréal (Canada) | University of Montreal (Canada)
laten...@iro.umontreal.ca


William H. Jefferys

unread,
Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96
to
In article <4ku7gi$6...@netsrv2.spss.com>,
Mario Latendresse <late...@raptor.IRO.UMontreal.CA> wrote:
#

#Adam Rosenblatt writes:
#
#> Thank you for your reply. However, since the shroud of Turin has been
#> demonstrated to be a fake, not contemporaneous with the time of Jesus, I
#> cannot see how it would allow us to infer anything about the manner in
#> which Jesus was buried
#
#And what did demonstrate that? Certainly not the c-14 dating.

You wish.

William H. Jefferys

unread,
Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96
to
In article <4l07oo$d...@netsrv2.spss.com>, Rod Young <r...@ganet.net> wrote:
#the top of my head and don't remember all of my sources.
#Most comes from "Report On The Shroud Of Turin" by Heller (?).

A book which I have read. It is full of wishful thinking.
#
#Most people saw the news articles regarding the
#carbon-14 tests that revealed a very late date.
#There are scientists, including the guy who invented
#the test, who have questioned the procedures and results.

Reference, please to a journal or other source where he
says this. Heller's book is not an adequate reference.

#It seems that the fire that damaged the shroud would
#have effected the carbon-14 results.

This is false, as anyone familiar with C-14 dating would
know. The reasons have recently been posted in
soc.religion.christian.

#Notice that the carbon-14 date is about that of the fire that melted
#the silver box.

Irrelevant. The cloth is what was dated, not the silver box.
To affect the date as greatly as is claimed would have left
evidence so obvious on the cloth that it would have been
declared undateable by any knowledgeable scientist.

#Also consider these facts: 1) There is very old human blood
#on the shroud, in the proper places, and some has seperated.

There is not. There are claims to this effect, but they are
spoiled by the fact that (1) the so-called "blood" is red;
old blood is black. (2) the so-called "blood" contains
artist's pigments, notably vermillion. (2) the test that
Heller reports for blood is not specific for blood. Another
test that was performed earlier and which is not specific
was _negative_ for blood.

#2) The image is due to oxidation of some of the
#surface fibers of the linen. There is no evidence
#of capilary action. i.e. from a liquid.

Quite true. This has been explained naturalistically
by Nickell (_Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_) in
terms of a simple artist's technique, thousands of
years old, that would produce exactly this result.

#3) The image is a correct picture of crucifixionn
#i.e. nails not through the palms.

This is what is claimed. However, a good deal of
imagination is required to see the nails. Furthermore,
it is unlikely that nails were commonly used in
crucifixions in Roman times. Other techniques were
also used. The crucifixion victim that was dug up
a few years ago, for example, had the nails through
the _legs_, not as shown on the Turin Shroud.

4) No one has been able to duplicate the features

#of the shroud without evidence of the means. i.e.
#scorch marks, capilary action, binders,
#pigmentation, penetration beyond the surface
#fibers.

False. Read Nickell's book.

5) They know WHAT the image is, but not HOW it got there. The physics

#of resurrection is not very well understood ;)

False. A very plausible hypothesis of how the image
got there is given by Nickell. The physics of art
is well understood.

#I am NOT saying absolutely that this is the
#burial clothe of Jesus Christ! There is no
#scientific "Jesus" test that can be
#applied. I am saying that all of the
#evidence points to the conclusion that it
#is the burial cloth of a man who died after
#being terribly beaten and crucified. The WHO is up to you.

The evidence that _you_ are aware of, perhaps. I have
considered this evidence carefully over the years. At
one time I thought it might be genuine, but I have
become convinced that the evidence that shroud
enthusiasts point to is mostly wishful thinking and
can easily be explained otherwise. It is, on the
other hand, very difficult to explain a good deal of
physical evidence, including the C-14 dating and the
various pigment evidence, _except_ if the Turin Shroud
is a "pious forgery."

#The first time that I heard of the shroud
#I immediately dismissed it as some "painting".
#I don't know what it is, but it is
#NOT a painting. I urge all to look at the
#evidence, question it, test it. Ask yourself
#the question: How would I make it?

Been there. Done that. Read Nickell's book for an answer
to "How would I make it?"

The problem with this whole line of reasoning that it
is an appeal to personal incredulity. It says, "I haven't
been able to think of a way that this could have been
forged, therefore it (must, probably is, take your pick)
genuine." The problem with that is that I have been
convince that it _would_ be possible to forge it, and also
that I have a pretty good idea, from Nickell's work, how
it was done. Not only that, but this method of forging
it accounts for _all_ the evidence of which I am aware,
including evidence that is difficult to explain away
otherwise. Therefore, you will not convince me with such
a line of reasoning.

Very finally, the burden of proof is on those that claim
that it is genuine. You are appealing to miracles, and
"extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." You
don't have the required extraordinary evidence, IMO.

William H. Jefferys

unread,
Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96
to
In an article, I wrote:

#artist's pigments, notably vermillion. (2) the test that
#Heller reports for blood is not specific for blood. Another
#test that was performed earlier and which is not specific
#was _negative_ for blood.

That last sentence should read,

"Another test that was performed earlier and which IS specific
for blood was _negative_ for blood."

My apologies.

ADAM ROSENBLATT

unread,
Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96
to
I apologize for not having read the discussion about the shroud of Turin
previously, as I am new to this newsgroup. I think it was unfair to
chastize me, in a rather peremptory manner I might add, for not having
read an account in ANOTHER newsgroup. How can I be expected to keep up
with every Christian group in USENET? Anyway to my mind, the shroud of
Turin is a relic, like many others. The burden of proof is on those who
maintain it is the burial cloth of Jesus, not on those who are
skeptical. St. Augustine was posed the question of why there did not
seem to be any more miracles taking place at so late a date (the 4th
century A.D.) as there were in the time of Christ and he replied that the
church was now strong enough that miracles were not required to
strengthen the faith. St. Thomas Aquinas in discussing his proofs of the
existence of God admitted that they were more of a support for the
faithful, and unlikely to win over the non-believer. In fact, late in
life he said of his writings, including the magnificent Summa Theologica
"They are like straws to me." My faith is enough for me to know that
Jesus was the son of God, that he died for me, and that he rose from the
dead. Pinning one's hopes on a relic like the shroud of Turin or any
other tangible or philosophical "proof" does not play to our strengths.

William H. Jefferys

unread,
Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96
to
In article <4ku7gi$6...@netsrv2.spss.com>,
Mario Latendresse <late...@raptor.IRO.UMontreal.CA> wrote:
#
#Adam Rosenblatt writes:
#
#> Thank you for your reply. However, since the shroud of Turin has been
#> demonstrated to be a fake, not contemporaneous with the time of Jesus, I
#> cannot see how it would allow us to infer anything about the manner in
#> which Jesus was buried
#
#And what did demonstrate that? Certainly not the c-14 dating.

Not _only_ the C-14 dating. There is a lot more physical evidence
that makes it clear, at least to me, that the shroud is a fake.
This was clear to me even before the C-14 dating, which was
merely the icing on the cake. I did not always doubt the
authenticity of the shroud, but as I have studied the
evidence, the evidence in favor of authenticity has become
weaker and weaker (IMO) until it has faded into nothing more
than wishful thinking; the evidence against authenticity has
become (IMO) quite convincing.

Proponents of authenticity are the ones with the burden of
proof. "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
I haven't seen any extraordinary evidence, and I have read
most of the pro-authenticity literature (I may have missed
some).

L.R. Waldman

unread,
Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96
to
In <4l07oo$d...@netsrv2.spss.com> Rod Young <r...@ganet.net> writes:
>
>ADAM ROSENBLATT wrote:
>>
>> : >From the image on the shroud of Turin we can infer that the
"napkin"
>> : did not cover the face, but was a band tied around the head under
the
>> : chin to keep the jaw from falling down.
>>
>> Thank you for your reply. However, since the shroud of Turin has
been
>> demonstrated to be a fake, not contemporaneous with the time of
Jesus, I
>> cannot see how it would allow us to infer anything about the manner
in
>> which Jesus was buried_______
>
>Please understand that I am a Baptist who normally doesn't give a hoot
for relics. Someone once said that if all of the
>pieces of the True cross were gathered in one place that it would look
like a lumber yard. I feel differently regarding the
>Shroud of Turin. The assertion that it had conclusively proven to be a
fake is incorrect. Understand that I am firing off
>the top of my head and don't remember all of my sources. Most comes

from "Report On The Shroud Of Turin" by Heller (?).

This book was rediculous from it's begining

>Most people saw the news articles regarding the carbon-14 tests that
revealed a very late date. There are scientists,
>including the guy who invented the test, who have questioned the


procedures and results. It seems that the fire that damaged

>the shroud would have effected the carbon-14 results. Notice that the


carbon-14 date is about that of the fire that melted

>the silver box.

The above statements were made out of ignorance by apologists to try to
explain awaythe evidence of the C14 test
>
>Also consider these facts: 1) There is very old human blood on the


shroud, in the proper places, and some has seperated.

>2) The image is due to oxidation of some of the surface fibers of the
linen. There is no evidence of capilary action. i.e.
>from a liquid. 3) The image is a correct picture of crucifixionn i.e.
nails not through the palms. 4) No one has been able
>to duplicate the features of the shroud without evidence of the means.


i.e. scorch marks, capilary action, binders,

>pigmentation, penetration beyond the surface fibers. 5) They know WHAT


the image is, but not HOW it got there. The physics

>of resurrection is not very well understood ;)

Now the best part. The method of making the shroud WAS indeed known to
13th century artists. In fact, many of them claimed that it was a fake
at that time and demonstrated just how it was done. We CAN do it today
and make it look just like the shroud looks. Anyone who says that we
don't kow how to do it simply hasn't done their homework. In addition,
when you spread out the image so as to look at the proportions of the
image, the arms are way too long; almost gorilla like. Further the
crown of thorns worn by the figure is NOT the kind found in the ancient
middle east but that found in Europe.
>
>


David Wallis

unread,
Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96
to
ADAM ROSENBLATT wrote:
>
> I apologize for not having read the discussion about the shroud of Turin
> previously, as I am new to this newsgroup. I think it was unfair to
> chastize me, in a rather peremptory manner I might add, for not having
> read an account in ANOTHER newsgroup. How can I be expected to keep up
> with every Christian group in USENET?

Sorry, Adam. I didn't intend my statement to come across the way it
did to you. All I meant was that, having just discussed this at length
with Mr. Jefferies elsewhere, I don't really want to engage in the
same debate here. So I suggested this web site for those who want more
information on the shroud:
http://www.cais.com/npacheco/shroud/turin.html

I see there is also another site that would be of interest:
http://www.shroud.com/latenews.htm

[snip]


> Pinning one's hopes on a relic like the shroud of Turin or any
> other tangible or philosophical "proof" does not play to our strengths.

I don't think any of us who believe the shroud is authentic are in any
way "pinning [our] hopes" on it. We are just more convinced of its
authenticity than we are of any theory of fraud that has been
proposed. It's not as if Jesus said he would leave us his image on his
burial cloth and we had to believe that to be saved. It's just a
freebe.


Dave Washburn

unread,
Apr 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/19/96
to
bi...@clyde.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) wrote:

>In article <4l07oo$d...@netsrv2.spss.com>, Rod Young <r...@ganet.net> wrote:
>#the top of my head and don't remember all of my sources.
>#Most comes from "Report On The Shroud Of Turin" by Heller (?).

>A book which I have read. It is full of wishful thinking.
>#
>#Most people saw the news articles regarding the
>#carbon-14 tests that revealed a very late date.
>#There are scientists, including the guy who invented
>#the test, who have questioned the procedures and results.

>Reference, please to a journal or other source where he
>says this. Heller's book is not an adequate reference.

I frankly don't care if the Shroud of Turin comes from Jesus, Da
Vinci or anybody else. However, I do find it fascinating that you
tell Rod he needs other sources because one book isn't enough, then
all the stuff you cited to refute him came from one book by Nickell.
Why is one book enough for your evidence but not for his?

[snip]


Mario Latendresse

unread,
Apr 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/20/96
to

L.R. Waldman writes:

> Now the best part. The method of making the shroud WAS indeed known to
> 13th century artists.

Then you should write to Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince to show your
evidence of this knowledge because they have research the problem of
reproducing the Shroud and now they are sure its Leonardo Da Vinci who
made it. (Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince, ``Turin Shroud, In Whose
Image? The Shocking Truth Unveiled'', 1994.)

And for the benefit of everybody interested on this subject you could
explain us how you know it was known in 13th century.

> In fact, many of them claimed that it was a fake
> at that time and demonstrated just how it was done.

Any names who demonstrated that in 13th century? Any references since
many did demonstrate that in 13th century?

> We CAN do it today and make it look just like the shroud looks.

We can make it ``look like'': What does it mean? We can make some
surface look like wood. Does it stand careful scrutiny? No it does
not. The method proposed has to stand careful scrutiny, not just
``look like''. A microscopic analysis has to show the caracteristic of
the Shroud of Turin.

> Anyone who says that we don't kow how to do it simply hasn't done
> their homework.

Tell me who did replicate a Shroud like the Shroud of Turin and we
will discuss it. Until then it is difficult to address the question
because there has been at least 20 proposed idea. Not one
has been convincing under careful scrutiny.

> In addition, when you spread out the image so as to look at the
> proportions of the image, the arms are way too long; almost gorilla
> like.

And what does it tell? That it was not a human body inside the Shroud?
Human bodies are not all alike. They have differences. Some have
longer legs, some longer arms compare to the rest of the
body. Moreover, a crucify man could have one or both of his arms
dislocated when he died for his legs no longer supports him.

> Further the crown of thorns worn by the figure is NOT the kind found
> in the ancient middle east but that found in Europe.

Where does your information comes from?

Mario Latendresse


Gerry Palo

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

In article <4l09h0$d...@netsrv2.spss.com>,

Mario Latendresse <late...@raptor.IRO.UMontreal.CA> wrote:
>
>Gary Newport writes:
>
>> Some time ago we discussed the Turin Shroud and one argument put forward
>> for its authenticity was that the nails were shown to pass through the
>> wrists and not the hands. This is in support of the idea that the nails
>> could not have gone through the hands since the hand would tear!
>> I have always opposed this on the grounds that there is the possibility
>> that the victims arms were tied up and that the nails were to restrict
>> movement and to increase the pain: NOT to bear the body weight of a man.
>
>Yes it is a possibility to ponder, but that does not change the
>reasoning of ``in the wrist'' vs ``in the palm''. To summarize it: if
>it was faked, the author would have to pierce a part of the hand, let
>say either the wrist or the palm. The wrist was chosen contrary to all
>known artists' representation of medieval time. Indeed, it is now well
>attested that the palms would not have resisted. The wrist is the most
>probable place to nail as it does not need tying. (This is attested by
>an archeological find of a first century crucify man: the wrists were
>used.)
>
>It is therefore a comparison of knowledge between a suppose author of
>a fake vs the knowledge of medieval time.
>
>(Moreover, the NT does not give any clue that the arms were tied.)
>

I believe that the evidence of history, scripture and the Shroud itself
favor its antiquity and authenticity, and as part of the evidence I used
to count the part about the nail holes in the wrists proving that it was
not a fake. But this part, while it still holds in an interesting way,
must be modified now in my opinion. Edward Zugibe, a physician, did a
number of tests on cadavers and also with live subjects (strapped to a
cross) that calls into question the research of Pierre Barbet, the
physician who did the original studies concerning the manner crucifixion
and the cause of death. Zugibe showed that, first of all, Barbet's
experiments were not thorough and he extrapolated to get critical
conclusions (the details are spelled out in the book, "The Cross and the
Shroud"). Zugibe shows with actual experiments using cadavers that if the
nails are driven into the fleshy part at the base of the palm and angled
back, the hold is secure and, most important, the nail *exits* at the back
of the wrist, which is exactly what the shroud reveals. On the other
hand, he argues that it requires almost surgical precision, even with an
unmoving cadaver, to get the nail into the right spot of the bones between
the wrists. The Roman executioners would have had a much more difficult
time dealing with writhing, struggling victims.

So one result of Zugibe's research is that it throws the wrist theory of
Barbet into doubt, and conversely the artistic tradition of the nails in
the palms turns out to be close to the truth. On the other hand, the fact
that the nail would exit at the back of the wrists, as shown in the shroud
image, is surprising and unexpected, and late medieval and Renaissance
paintings of the deposition from the cross, which show the backs of the
hands (also sculptures, like Michelangelo's Pieta) invariably show the
nail wounds on the hands and not further back on the backs of the wrists.

Mario Latendresse

unread,
Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96
to

Gerry Palo wites:

> Zugibe shows with actual experiments using cadavers that if the
> nails are driven into the fleshy part at the base of the palm and
> angled back, the hold is secure and, most important, the nail
> *exits* at the back of the wrist, which is exactly what the shroud
> reveals.

What Barbet has shown is that the nail has to go between some bones.
Not that you could not do it from the palm. As you stated, the nail
exits at the back of the wrist. My question is: does the nail go
between some bones? If yes, this does not contradict Barbet's work.

But more important is what follows.

> On the other hand, he argues that it requires almost surgical
> precision, even with an unmoving cadaver, to get the nail into the
> right spot of the bones between the wrists.

> On the other hand, the fact that the nail would exit at the back of


> the wrists, as shown in the shroud image, is surprising and
> unexpected, and late medieval and Renaissance paintings of the
> deposition from the cross, which show the backs of the hands (also
> sculptures, like Michelangelo's Pieta) invariably show the nail
> wounds on the hands and not further back on the backs of the wrists.

So the theory of `medieval knowledge vs knowledge as found on the
Shroud' still holds. May be we can imagine many other ways to hold
secure a man on a cross. But what has been put forward has always been
the contrast in known knowledge of medieval time vs the knowledge of a
suppose frauder of the Shroud. And this study does not change that.

Mario Latendresse

L.R. Waldman

unread,
Apr 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/29/96
to

>
>
But you still ignore the carbon 14 evidence, the fact that when the
shroud was found, artisans of the time said it was a forgery, the man
who originally investigated the pollen grains on it was himself a
fraud, the image has arms whose proportions are those of a gorilla not
a man, and that we know exactly how to make an image on a cloth just
like that on the shroud (PBS even did a show on it and the same
technique was know in the 12th century).


Rodney Young

unread,
Apr 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/29/96
to

William H. Jefferys (bi...@clyde.as.utexas.edu) wrote:

: In article <4l07oo$d...@netsrv2.spss.com>, Rod Young <r...@ganet.net> wrote:
: #the top of my head and don't remember all of my sources.
: #Most comes from "Report On The Shroud Of Turin" by Heller (?).

: A book which I have read. It is full of wishful thinking.

Which tests were wishful thinking?

: #


: #Most people saw the news articles regarding the
: #carbon-14 tests that revealed a very late date.
: #There are scientists, including the guy who invented
: #the test, who have questioned the procedures and results.

: Reference, please to a journal or other source where he
: says this. Heller's book is not an adequate reference.

Sedon Labs (USSR)- Exchange of Carbon Isotopes in Linen
They used a piece of linen that had c-14 tested to 200 A.D.-subjected it
to high tempature conditions in the presence of silver- this procedure
added 1400 years to the c-14 date

: #It seems that the fire


that damaged the shroud would : #have effected the carbon-14 results.

: This is false, as anyone familiar with C-14 dating would
: know. The reasons have recently been posted in
: soc.religion.christian.

: #Notice that the carbon-14 date is about that of the fire that melted
: #the silver box.

: Irrelevant. The cloth is what was dated, not the silver box.
: To affect the date as greatly as is claimed would have left
: evidence so obvious on the cloth that it would have been
: declared undateable by any knowledgeable scientist.

: #Also consider these facts: 1) There is very old human blood
: #on the shroud, in the proper places, and some has seperated.

: There is not. There are claims to this effect, but they are
: spoiled by the fact that (1) the so-called "blood" is red;
: old blood is black. (2) the so-called "blood" contains
: artist's pigments, notably vermillion. (2) the test that
: Heller reports for blood is not specific for blood. Another
: test that was performed earlier and which is not specific
: was _negative_ for blood.

Please see: "Blood On The Shroud of Turin" Applied Optics, Vol 19 (Heller
& Adler); "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin", Canadian
Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, Vol 14 (Heller & Adler); " The
Shroud of Turin Through the Microscope", Archaeology, Jan/Feb 1981;
"Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin, A Summary ofthe 1978
Investigation", Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol 135
The presence of human blood on the shroud is without doubt.
Heller & Adler used tests specific for hemoglobin.

: #2) The image is due to oxidation of some of the

: #surface fibers of the linen. There is no evidence
: #of capilary action. i.e. from a liquid.

: Quite true. This has been explained naturalistically
: by Nickell (_Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_) in
: terms of a simple artist's technique, thousands of
: years old, that would produce exactly this result.

An artists technique that produces a 3 dimensional image? How did the
artist view it?

: #3) The image is a correct picture of crucifixionn

: #i.e. nails not through the palms.

: This is what is claimed. However, a good deal of
: imagination is required to see the nails. Furthermore,
: it is unlikely that nails were commonly used in
: crucifixions in Roman times. Other techniques were
: also used. The crucifixion victim that was dug up
: a few years ago, for example, had the nails through
: the _legs_, not as shown on the Turin Shroud.

Romans felt that nails that had been used for crucifixion were thought
to have healing power and were retrieved from the victim. The man that you
speak of had been nailed and one of the nails had hit a knot in the wood
and bent, making the nail unretrievable. The Romans did use many positions
for crucifixxxion, it woud seem that they were not very particular when
there were a large number of victims. Also note that at one point the
crucified were used as human torches.

: 4) No one has been able to duplicate


the features : #of the shroud without evidence of the means. i.e.
: #scorch marks, capilary action, binders,
: #pigmentation, penetration beyond the surface
: #fibers.

: False. Read Nickell's book.

Did that. Any process that he used left evidence that was detectable with
the tests used on the shroud. Please see "Xray Fluoresence Investigation
of the Shroud of Turin", X-Ray Specrometry, Vol 9, No. 2


: The evidence that _you_ are aware of, perhaps. I have


: considered this evidence carefully over the years. At
: one time I thought it might be genuine, but I have
: become convinced that the evidence that shroud
: enthusiasts point to is mostly wishful thinking and
: can easily be explained otherwise. It is, on the
: other hand, very difficult to explain a good deal of
: physical evidence, including the C-14 dating and the
: various pigment evidence, _except_ if the Turin Shroud
: is a "pious forgery."

Traces of pigment are distributed all over the shroud, in addition to
other particles. (including pink latex, as I recall) The image is NOT
caused by any of the trace pigment.
McCrone was correct that he saw pigment, but he was incorrect that it
caused ANY of the image or blood stains. ( you may note that pigment fails
tests for hemoglobin)


It is not my purpose to convince anyone, just to honestly look at the
facts. I have nothing to lose if the Shroud was found to be painted by
Jerry Falwell. My faith is not is the Shroud, but in the risen Jesus
Christ. However, the skeptic has a great deal to lose. How can not afford
to have physical, cerifiable, testable evidence of someone the he denies.
To the skeptic, Jesus is just another dead guy and must remain that way.

Jesus Lives!

Rod
--
rody...@freenet.columbus.oh.us

Rodney Young

unread,
Apr 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/29/96
to

William H. Jefferys (bi...@clyde.as.utexas.edu) wrote:

: There is not. There are claims to this effect, but they are


: spoiled by the fact that (1) the so-called "blood" is red;
: old blood is black. (2) the so-called "blood" contains
: artist's pigments, notably vermillion. (2) the test that
: Heller reports for blood is not specific for blood. Another
: test that was performed earlier and which is not specific
: was _negative_ for blood.

I forgot to mention the tests that were perfromed for blood, all POSITIVE.
Microspectrophotometry, reflection spectrometry, presence of bile,
presence of protein, protease , hemochromogen, cyanmethemoglobin,
phorphyrin fluoresence.
----

Mario Latendresse

unread,
Apr 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/30/96
to

William H. Jefferys writes:

> [... i.e. nails not through the palms ...]


> This is what is claimed. However, a good deal of
> imagination is required to see the nails.

We don't see the nails but their effects and these are in agreement
with a crucifixion using nails.

> Furthermore, it is unlikely that nails were commonly used in
> crucifixions in Roman times. Other techniques were also used.

Why mention this? Are you saying that Jesus might not have been nailed
on the Cross? No one dispute that the Romans might used other
methods. But Jesus was crucified using nails as the NT says that.
(See for example John 20.25)

> The crucifixion victim that was dug up a few years ago, for example,
> had the nails through the _legs_, not as shown on the Turin Shroud.

If you are speaking of the man Jehohanan dug up in 1968, at Giv' at
ha-Mivtar, he had one nail in his feet, not his legs. It agrees with a
close analyses of the Shroud of Turin with one nail in both feet.

Mario Latendresse


William H. Jefferys

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

In article <4m51tf$b...@netsrv2.spss.com>,
Mario Latendresse <late...@raptor.IRO.UMontreal.CA> wrote:
#
#William H. Jefferys writes:
#
#> [... i.e. nails not through the palms ...]
#> This is what is claimed. However, a good deal of
#> imagination is required to see the nails.
#
#We don't see the nails but their effects and these are in agreement
#with a crucifixion using nails.

Like I said, a good deal of imagination is required.

#> Furthermore, it is unlikely that nails were commonly used in
#> crucifixions in Roman times. Other techniques were also used.
#
#Why mention this? Are you saying that Jesus might not have been nailed
#on the Cross? No one dispute that the Romans might used other
#methods. But Jesus was crucified using nails as the NT says that.
#(See for example John 20.25)

There is a very good reason to mention this. Normally people were
tied to the crosses, with rope. Nails might also be used. But if
Jesus were both tied and nailed, then the whole rationale of the
argument that shroud enthusiasts use, that nails had to go through
the space of Destoit and not through the hands, is destroyed. This
is because if he were tied as well as nailed, the load is borne by
the rope and not by the nails; the nails can then go anywhere.

#> The crucifixion victim that was dug up a few years ago, for example,
#> had the nails through the _legs_, not as shown on the Turin Shroud.
#
#If you are speaking of the man Jehohanan dug up in 1968, at Giv' at
#ha-Mivtar, he had one nail in his feet, not his legs. It agrees with a
#close analyses of the Shroud of Turin with one nail in both feet.

My recollection is that this victim had his feet drawn up (in sort of
a crouch), and that the nail went _sideways_, through the _ankles_,
not through the feet. This is at variance with the shroud and with
most artistic representations, which have the feet one on top of the
other, and the nail through the arch of the foot. I should have
written ankles above, not legs. But this victim doesn't look the way
the shroud image looks at all.

Unless you have a very active imagination.

Stephen Rathkopf

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

Even if the Turinese shroud should prove to be that of Jesus,

what difference will this make to a person about to die and be denied
access to the Kingdom of God?

The only thing to make a difference will be the answer to the question,
"What did that person do with Jesus?".


--
Steve, for whom Jesus died __|__
Salvation is free, |
but a deadly price was paid for it. |


0 new messages