DBowling wrote:Your experience is different from mine on this then. What I've consistently seen is the shroud wrapped around a body with external straps straps of cloth (or single strap of cloth wound around the body) holding the shroud to the body. Which explains the position of the the arms and shoulders which indicate some external force is pulling them inward. All the creation of 3-D models of the body that I've seen assume the shroud is wrapped around a physical face and body.
I'd be interested to know the name of any shroud researcher who claims that the image was made while the shroud was closely wrapped around a body. (And by researcher, I mean someone who has made an attempt to demonstrate how it occurred, not just someone who quoted from someone else). I can think of no researcher into image formation who thinks this for a minute. Try Paul Vignon, John Jackson, Petrus Soons or Mario Latendresse, for example. If the arms and shoulders need to be held in place, then strips of cloth around the wrists are usually mentioned. There is even one school of thought that says the blood was made by contact, and then the Shroud mysteriously opened out to receive the image.
I personally do not believe the Shroud image is a 'contact image' anyway.
You don't feel that your last sentence comtradicts the previous ones? You think that the shroud was in contact with the body, but that the image does not relate to that contact? I don't understand what that means.
Do you agree that the blood was deposited on the Shroud before the image of the body was formed?
No. The evidence for that is extremely tenuous, based on an observation by Heller and Adler that was repudiated by Ray Rogers.
The best attempt I've seen is the one by Luigi Garlaschelli, and upon examination it is a far cry from the real deal. I would be interested to see what you've come up with.
Bear with me while I experiment with imgur....
I happen to disagree with the premise that the image on the shroud is a contact image. The deposits of blood are definitely a result of contact. But the image itself was formed some time after the blood was deposited, and by some means other than contact with the body.
Fair enough. See my comment above.
From my perspective there are three potential causes.
1. Human fabrication of the image
2. A 'natural process' produced the image
3. The image was produced as a byproduct of Resurrection.
1 and 2 are even less probable than the 'French reweaving' theory that you dismiss out of hand. And I have no problem dismissing 1 and 2 out of hand due to the many failed attempts by skeptics who have been unable to replicate or even explain how the image was formed.
If (3) is distinct from the other two, then I'm assuming the Resurrection, in this context, infers a miraculous event involving something wholly beyond scientific explanation. Fair enough; I agree with that. But your next statement, that 1 and 2 are improbable because they have never been replicated is not invariably held by both authenticists or non-authenticists. There are many convinced authenticists who are equally convinced of a natural explanation.
That leaves #3. Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus was miraculously resurrected from the dead.
No, it doesn't. You have sneakily inserted 'miraculously', which is loaded with interpretation and connotation which is missing from scripture altogether.
Since resurrection is a miracle there is no way to explain or recreate the energies involved in the resurrection of a human body.
If the resurrection involved a process wholly beyond scientific explanation then I completely agree, but then the inclusion of any discussion of the Shroud in the God and Science forum would be wholly inappropriate. The series of videos with which Kurieou started this thread go on and on about the scientific evidence for various aspects which would all be nonsense if a miraculous interpretation is inferred. What is the point, for example, of all the attempts to try to falsify the radiocarbon dating? If the Shroud is miraculous, it could end up with any radiocarbon date God liked, and maybe he just liked 1350.
Philip wrote:As Christians, we should all believe that the shroud of Christ once existed. We should all believe the resurrection occurred. A tortured man/God was killed and returned to life afterward. This is a miraculous thing - that's the only word for it. Hugh argues as if the miraculous doesn't exist. But if that were true, Jesus was not resurrected, and thus our faith is as worthless as those worshipping stone statues. Also, Hugh's arguments show great improbability, especially when it comes to supposed replication of the Shroud. If it were easy and well-demonstrated, that evidence would be all over the net with the associated photos. Merely obtaining an image by some means is insufficient. At the very least, he should admit that the level of detail, microscopic evidences - particularly the correct narrow region of the pollens, would have been impossible to know about, much less fake. All this, and it just happens to be a very old cloth that has long been believed to be the burial shroud of Christ.
This starts well, but I'm afraid deteriorates. The definition of a miracle is more theological than scientific, and, as I say above, if the Shroud is the result of a miracle, then there is no need, no point even, in discussing how the image was formed. Miracles deny rational explanation; that's what a miracle is. As soon as you start involving science, such as the pollen investigation, things start falling apart. Max Frei's work was deeply flawed, and fails to demonstrate the presence of exclusively Judaean pollen.
Really, what are the odds that a cloth with such an association just happens to be so extraordinary, has confounded so many experts? A NEGATIVE image - done by an ancient or even medieval faker? Preposterous! If it was designed to fake, then why up close does the artifact look pretty unremarkable? Only the positive image brings out the extraordinary - and that's just by looking at its more obvious attributes. If you can't replicate it today by means available to those medieval and older, that should tell us something. And I've seen nothing that remotely looks like the Shroud image. Also, there is no indication of these incredible attributes before it was finally photographed. One would think, IF fake, that the originator and collaborators would have hyped various remarkable details, to those it was meant to fool. But there is no record of such.
There are a lot of assumptions here that need to be taken apart. You should not assume, for example, that the medieval craftsman had to have any knowledge of negativity in order to produce the Shroud. You should not assume, for example, that by simply by describing something as preposterous or incredible that it somehow becomes so. And you should not assume, for example, that it was meant to fool anyone. It was intended to be what it is - a representation of the burial shroud of Christ.