Not a Reproduction
Part 3 of our investigation into the Shroud of Turin centers on the fact that the image on the Shroud was not a forgery done by some medieval painter. We will be continuing this series through Easter, so be sure to join us!
Disclaimer: Though I believe the Shroud to be the authentic burial cloth of Christ (as you shall see), I do not believe it to be an object of worship; only Jesus Himself and God the Father are to be worshipped. However, I do believe that the Shroud provides sufficient evidence of the Resurrection. It is for this reason that I present this material. For more information, visit http://www.shroud.com/, hosted by Barrie Schwortz; he presents all views on the Shroud, as well as the latest information. To see my complete investigation, click here.
----------------------
As mentioned before, Bishop d’Arcis claimed that the Shroud was “cunningly painted.”[1] Skeptics seize upon this statement to say that the Shroud is a forgery. Anyone who says that the image on the Shroud is a fake has a lot of explaining to do! According to an Internet source (see footnote), skeptics must explain how “whoever fabricated it before 1357, by whatever unknown methods, had command of knowledge and abilities quite incredible for his time. He [the forger] must have: known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century; possessed the medical knowledge of a modern expert surgeon; utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since; been able to foresee and approximate principles of photographic negativity not otherwise discovered for centuries; imported a piece of old cloth of Middle Eastern manufacture; used a coloring agent which would be unaffected by intense heat; been able to incorporate in his work details (that have only recently been discovered), that the human eye cannot see and that are visible only with the most advanced 
computer-scanning devices; been able to reproduce flawlessly, on a nearly flat linen surface, in a single color, undistorted 3-D characteristics of a human body in a 'negative format' on the tops of the threads, while conversely showing the 'blood' as positive and soaking all the way through. All of this had to have been done prior to 1357, for since that date the Shroud has a clearly documented and uninterrupted history. And even now, with all the scientific and technical skills at our command, our scientists and artists cannot duplicate the Shroud.”[2] Marc Antonacci agrees, “Such an artist would have had to have a knowledge of light negativity, light spectrometry, microscopy, radiology, human physiology, pathology, hematology, endocrinology, forensics, and archaeology. In fact, even with all the technology available to us today at the dawn of the twenty-first century, the Shroud’s unique characteristics cannot be duplicated.”[3] Skeptics have failed to explain this. Also, the image has three-dimensional qualities that no forger could have “conjured up” with paint. Paint doesn’t even have these three-dimensional qualities![4] “The three-dimensional effect indicates that the image has correct tonal gradations, i.e., contour [a form of] information of a type not seen in medieval paintings, rubbings, or black prints…”[5] Even STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) said that they “found no evidence of paints or pigments”[6] that would suggest that the image had been painted. STURP member, Berry Schwortz, says on his website (www.shroud.com), “…ultraviolet fluorescence and microchemical identification of serum albumin in the clear areas within the blood flows provide conclusive evidence that the bloodstains on the Shroud derive from direct contact with a corpse and not from an artist's brush...Similarly, even the blood flows painted in the greatest 14th-century works of art are not at all comparable to those on the Shroud...there is no rubbing from the entire medieval period that is even remotely comparable to the Shroud, nor is there any negative painting...”[7] Any known artistic materials would have soaked through the cloth,[8] and yet, the image on the Shroud is strictly “a surface phenomenon.”[9] Artists from the 13th and 16th century, when depicting the crucifixion, all place a nail in the palm of each hand. However, when looking at the Shroud, one can tell that the nails were placed in the wrists. No forger would have known to “paint” the wounds in the wrist. They would have painted them in the palms of the hands. This proves that wrist nailing is unique.[10] In archeological expeditions, victims who were crucified have been found. These victims have spike marks not on their palms, but on their wrists. Studies show that nails in the palms of the hands “will not support the weight of a body.”[11] Evidence suggests that the Man on the Shroud had a “crown” of thorns that was not “molded” into a crown,[12] but rather placed on the head in a large clump. This is supported by the fact that the scars from the crown of thorns cover the entire head.[13] Furthermore, the body of the crucified victim depicted on the Shroud is naked. If a “medieval” artist had painted the image, as is claimed, he “would not have dared to publicly reproduce” [14] a naked body, and even if he had, he would not have been able to do so with that much precision. And lastly, in anatomical and physiological details, the image depicted on the Shroud is completely accurate.[15] An artistic forger could not have possibly painted such an image as to cover so many incredible circumstances.[16] Another point that should be considered is the fact that “…there is now strong evidence that the bloodstains were on the cloth prior to the body image.”[17] As Dr. John Jackson says, “As scientists, we believe that it would be practically impossible for a forger, much less, a medieval one, to produce an image like this.”[18]
----------------
[1] Inquest of the Shroud of Turin Prometheus Books, 1983, p12, By Joe Nickell (Note: Joe Nickell is a skeptic!) [2] http://www.roca.org/oa/65/65m.htm [3] Risen Indeed, by Dr. D. James Kennedy, p 81 [4] http://www.carolebevanirby.com/answertocritics.shtml [5] www.shroud.com (brackets added for clarity) [6] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud.html [7] www.shroud.com [8] http://www.nhne.com/articles/sashroud.html [9] The Silent Witness, 1978 video recording, Don Lyan [10] http://www.carolebevanirby.com/answertocritics.shtml, www.shroud.com [11] http://www.nhne.com/articles/sashroud.html [12] www.shroud.com [13] The Silent Witness, 1978 video recording [14] http://www.nhne.com/articles/sashroud.html [15] ibid [16] www.Shroud.com [17] www.shroud.com [18] The Silent Witness, 1978 video recording, Dr. John Jackson
Comments
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Please keep in mind that the topics are not open to debate; however, I do allow (and encourage) friendly discussion and dialogue. Check out the comment policy for details before commenting. Thank you for visiting!