It is not burned on in a conventional heat application method. It is not a stain, nor is it painted on the Shroud. Here are the pieces of evidence which I find compelling.ġ) The image. Instead he gathers and weighs all the facts. However, a good detective does not rely on one piece of evidence. There is now a mountain of evidence about the Shroud, but too many dismiss the possibility of the Shroud’s authenticity based on the Carbon-14 dating alone.
Of course, there are critics who argue that Fanti’s methods are unreliable. Fanti’s method dated fibres from the Shroud to 300 BC–400 AD. This technology uses infra-red light and spectroscopy to measure the radiation intensity through wavelengths, and from these measurements a date can be calculated. The Carbon-14 tests (it is argued) were therefore compromised.Ī different sort of dating test was conducted by Giulio Fanti of Padua University in 2013. The most recent critique argues that the samples used for the 1987 test were taken from an edge of the Shroud that was not simply patched in the middle ages, but patched with a difficult-to-detect interweaving. Predictably, the result has been criticised for a range of reasons. In 1987 the Shroud was subjected to carbon-14 dating technology which dated it to the 13th century. One scientist proposes a new idea of how the mysterious Shroud could have been produced only to have another researcher argue that it was impossible. Like a tennis ball, the hypotheses are whacked back and forth. However, the imaging expert Barrie Schwortz, not himself a Christian, has challenged Allen’s work, which he says only accounts for some of the Shroud’s properties. He then proceeded to produce a Shroud-like image on a piece of linen using his theoretical process. Professor Nicholas Allen of South Africa proposed that the materials and knowledge to produce a “photograph” existed in the Middle Ages. The question immediately arises, “If the Shroud is a medieval forgery how did they do that?” He concluded that the image itself was therefore, in effect, a photographic negative. When he developed the negative he noticed that it showed a positive image of a human face. The Shroud’s relationship with modern technology began in 1898 when Secondo Pia took the first photographs of the Shroud. The delicious irony is that it is our sceptical, scientific society that has empowered all the new evidence. The most recent claim – that the blood on the Shroud is from a torture victim – has re-opened the debate.
That settles it.” But the believers bounce back, and year by year, as modern technology advances, more and more evidence accumulates which causes anyone who reads the research to be sceptical of the sceptics. They refer to the 1987 Carbon-14 dating and say, “It’s medieval. Popes have come to gaze on the Shroud Benedict XVI said when he visited in 2010 that “we see, as in a mirror, our suffering in the suffering of Christ”. It has been venerated as such for centuries, and since the 17th century, when it came to Turin, has been the cathedral’s best-known treasures. It is, they believe, the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. A verse in the epistle to the Hebrews asserts that faith is “the substance of things hoped for – the evidence of things not seen.” The resurrection of Jesus Christ is an event forever hoped for, but it is also an event unseen.īelievers in the Shroud of Turin, however, insist that the Shroud is the substance of this hope and the evidence of this unseen event.
0 kommentar(er)
