Talk:Shroud of Turin

More from Ruello

Hello members its July 2013 and a reminder of the discovery I made in 2011 when I processed the Vatican Veronica Veil using AFM. The face I processed from the Vatican Veronica is identical to the Shroud face. The Vatican Veronica legend has been authenticated and is not a myth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KegbRMCfBA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.124.213.79 (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

For info to all respected members here this week after days verifying my work on the second face from the Shroud back I have uncovered from a different angle of processing the holographic image of the face of a lion superimposed on the alive face of Christ with His eyes open. I have now called this the authorised signature of Christ as He was known as the lion of Judah Interestingly enough is the extraordinary fact that this incredible image resembles the mysterious face symbols found in Egypt of a Spynx God, half man half lion. This new discovery can be seen here http://www.gloria.tv/?media=444844 Thankyou Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.42.161 (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for this small section respected members. 3 days ago I processed the highest resolution images of the obeject on the right eye ever seen http://gloria.tv/?media=450080 thankyou Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.127.234 (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

28th May 2013 Graphic clear image of womans face processed from coin on right eye Ruello http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5OnQe200V0

One word: Pareidolia.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To respected members here the race is over stage 4 processing of the right eye is here http://gloria.tv/?media=459060 the face of the emperor is now visible and any numismatic expert will soon be able to find and date this coin. I consider this will end the mystery once and for all once the coin is identified

World wide conspiracy theory ignited against latest discovery by Ruello in the Vatican Veronica Veil http://gloria.tv/?media=501410 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.38.172 (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Forhead Is Bleading

Have any experts made comments about the blood that appears on the forhead? I think that the blood on the forhead would have been dried and would not be transferred to any cloth. Another issue is that Jesus is naked and he is covering his genitals. Was it normal practice to remove the dead person's cloths and to place the hands on the genitals? Vmelkon (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen this documented anyplace explicitly, but I believe Jesus was crucified naked, as were all people who were crucified at the time. The prosecutors would not have wanted to defile clothing by having blood on it, though the primary reason was to humiliate the victim and demoralize his associates. So He had no clothing to remove! The loincloth we see in all the paintings and sculpture are like "fig leafs" on Adam and Eve. Trying not to detract from the topic.

Women were going to prepare his body, apparently a women's function? I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't "cover his genitals" if the body hadn't become rigorous. I have no idea what they would have done, if the body were rigorous, which would, of course, happen from time to time.

I think this is worth some research, but it would already have to be published, hopefully with this shroud as it's topic.

Typically head wounds bleed profusely, though they can be stopped if someone wants to allow medical aid, which they wouldn't have in this case, presumably. Student7 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You start by saying it isn't documented anywhere and say that is what you believe. What am I suppose to do with that? I imagine that if people were crucified naked, it would be considered something to write about just like they write about the crown of thorns and that they nail people and that they put a sign over Jesus's head (INRI). The issue with the blood is that Jesus was on the cross for a long time and then he died. The blood isn't going to stay wet for a long time and blood clothing is going to seal the injured area. Another issue is blood smearing. If the blood is wet, it going to be smeared all over the fabric as the fabric is moved. Vmelkon (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Seneca thought they were crucified naked. See Crucifixion#Details.

The only details we have about the crucifixion of Jesus are in the New Testament. If they put a sign over someone else, or pounded on a crown of thorns on someone else, we don't know about it. And the NT differs about how the sign read BTW.

And actually, no, the worst parts of ancient times still elude us. They know (for example) that (before the invention of toilet paper), that Romans wiped themselves with a sponge at the end of a stick, dipped in vinegar. What the archeologists don't know, is if they carried around a stick with them all day, or if they used a common stick, or what. Something tens of millions of people did half dozen times a day, and we don't know, because they didn't write about it, or, if they did, the medieval copyists left this out of their copies.

I don't know about "the cloth." Student7 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is good if there is a source that says that people were crucified naked. It is better than nothing. What I am wondering is if it was standard jewish practice to bury someone naked. It seems to me that it is something important that would be documented by the jews. It should even be written in the Bible. The Bible doesn't even mention this shroud. I would imagine a miracle would be detailed in the Bible. It is likely to be an artist's idea to have a back and front, continuous image, with no wrinkles in the cloth. Vmelkon (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The one case they found, low caste, was wrapped with pieces of material. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/16/mideast.ancient.shroud/index.html. Cases are similar to Bible (Lazarus, who was wealthy). It seems to me that the wrappings would be used, in part, to keep the spices next to the body to retard decay and reduce odor. Just my idea. Student7 (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, just a reminder that this Talk page is only for discussing changes to the article. It is not a general forum for chatting about the Shroud of Turin. Also, only reliably sourced details and theories can be included in the article. Thanks, Ashmoo (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Needs Update - New Tests Confirm

Shroud dates to Christ era, old radiocarbon debunked

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.174.145 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in the Introduction

In the opening statement of the article there is a fundamental contradiction I do not understand..basicly it says there is no evidence for a forgery..then it says the material has been dated to the middle ages..this doesn`t make sense..which is it? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The article correctly reports the carbon dating from the series of tests performed a decade or so ago.

It also correctly reports that it found no "evidence of forgery," which is also correct. This is why there is controversy. Note the previous entry above for details on the continuing discussion. How would anyone prove "forgery" at this point. We don't know how the image was created. The material in the cloth has flunked one carbon dating but passed another. The image seems correct for a burial shroud of a crucified person. They didn't normally crucify people in the era the cloth was dated to.

Negative inventories are not a good idea, generally. So saying "there was no evidence of forgery" might be dropped, even though true. Student7 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Both statements are correct in their own context. The first study did not include the C14 dating, but they studied the cloth with the technology of their day, looking for evidence of paint etc. They did not find any explanation for the formation of the image, and reported accordingly. The second study was a few years later, by different people. They conducted the C14 dating, and found that the cloth was medieval. The pro-authenticity camp likes to quote the first study, but tends to ignore all the other more recent studies that contradict those early conclusions. There has never been a second carbon dating at all. Wdford (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that the USAToday quote is wrong or misleading. It says "The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.

It determined that the earlier results may have been skewed by contamination from fibers used to repair the cloth when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages, the British newspaper reported." I would be interested in your analysis of the article or tests. Student7 (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not read the USAToday article, so I don't know what wording they used. However the Padua tests were NOT C14 tests - they used some other ideas which they thought up themselves, the reliability of which has not been verified.

Second, there is dispute over the authenticity of the fibers tested - they were not from the C14 test, and they may or may not even be from the shroud.

Third, the so-called "repair controversy" has been debunked conclusively and by multiple specialists using actual shroud evidence - there was no repair in that section of the shroud, and thus the C14 dating is fine.

Fourth, the Padua "tests" imply that the shroud was really old, which contradicts the repair theory.

All in all, the pro-authenticity camp are undermining and contradicting each other in their separate attempts to "prove" that the shroud is authentic, while the actual scientific dating says clearly and unequivocally that its medieval. They have not yet agreed on how the image was made, but the cloth itself is clearly not an authentic 1st century artifact. Wdford (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Changed to "In 1978, a detailed examination carried out by a team of American scientists, called the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), found no reliable evidence of forgeryhow the image was produced" which I think is more accurate & less loaded. Johnbod (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.

Wdford, I'm just copying the USAToday pointer from the above subsection. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295. You seem to know the gist of it anyway.

All this talk takes on a life of its own after awhile. If you could furnish a citation that verifies what you've just said 08:26 13 October, that would hopefully close out this line of thinking for good! Or if we're called upon to state that the Padua examination was wanting in professional technique, we've (you've) got a footnote at your fingertips for entry. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The main criticism of Fanti's latest effort is that the fibers he tested cannot be verified to have come from the shroud - the church itself shot him down on that one - see article for details and references. Secondly he used tests of his own design, which are not yet understood far less verified. Third, he is contradicting solid tests done by solid teams with solid methodologies using solid material, and he has a serious history of non-objectivity, so nobody has thusfar taken him too seriously - apart from the believers and the media, who are always up for a story. Wdford (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

They know it. They don't care.

The atheists who write on wickedpedia will not bother to bother to correct the wrong information because they HATE to write anything that supports anything any Christians believe and they are GREATLY disappointed that the scientific evidence proved their mockery wrong. They will wait until an honest editor fixes the error but won't lift a finger for the sake of correcting the lies on the page that they WISH WERE TRUE.

That they've drug their feet this long, reverting a correction and calling it "vandalism" instead of improving and being more thorough so that the article is accurate IS TYPICAL for lying atheists.

Don't expect anything better. This is why wickedpedia will always lack credibility--too many contributors are more interested in their own agenda much more than they are facts. 76.6.91.175 (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have something specific in mind for the changing of this article, please say so. It would be nice to have WP:RS. If not, this section will be rm. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews

I seek consensus on this as I believe it should be in the article The Gospel according to the Hebrews ...records after the resurrection of the Savior: And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among them that sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: Bring a table and bread! And immediately it is added: He took the bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep. (Jerome, De viris inlustribus 2) Oxford Clarendon Press Early Christian Writings Gospel of the Hebrews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.202.96 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It does not belong in the introduction of the article. However, it may be worth mentioning in the section #Religious perspective. I've cut down the quotation and boldly added it there. If there's opposition, editors are free to remove it, but I'd appreciate a comment here on why they think it's not worth including. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverted - are you kidding? It has been removed by 3 different editors. Only a a WP:PRIMARY ref is given, and there is absolutely nothing from any WP:RS even hinting a connection between this passage and the Shroud - nor have I ever seen such a suggestion. Even by the dubious stantards of Shroud "scholarship" this is highly improbable OR. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with CFRED this has to be placed in the section he changed it to, this is too important a fact and a connection is clearly stated therwise I am afraid wikipedia will be seen as a joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.202.96 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod has a point. Was Jerome aware of the existence of the Shroud, to where he could say that the "linen cloth" mentioned is the Shoud? Further, it would be better if a secondary source, such as a Biblical scholar, made the connection between the cloth in that passage and the Shroud. —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What other cloth is there oh maybe its a hankerchief that Jesus blew His nose into and thats what he gave. Early Christian Writings where the Cameron translation came from is a scholar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.202.96 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no apparent connection between this linen cloth and the burial shroud. The canonical gospels say the burial clothes were left in the tomb when Jesus departed it, so where from did Jesus get his burial shroud thereafter - did he go back to fetch it? Did somebody else fetch it for him? I don't have this work available to read myself - please can you also quote the preceding verses as well that make it clear that this is actually the burial cloth they are talking about? Wdford (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand the great controversy is that the Apostles saw strips of linen and the linen cloth is vague or missing in the gospels. The Hebrew Gospel which is the Q source of Mathew Mark and Luke has given us the answer that Jesus gave the priests servant the linen cloth . When John and Peter entered the tomb all they saw was the strips that tied the Shroud around the body. This needs to be presented here as people have a right to read this and make up their own minds, it would be totally iresponsible not to give people a chance to read it, those 2 lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.202.96 (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be totally irresponsible to violate basic policy. This needs to be discussed by sources that meet WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Another secondary source scholar M R James wrote This is a famous passage. One interesting clause is apt to escape notice, about the giving of the shroad to the servent of the (high) priest, which implies that priests must have been apprised of the resurrection as soon as the apostles. Was the servant of the priest Malchus? Presumably the servant was at the sepulchre: if so, it was being guarded by the Jews as well as the Roman soldiers (as in the Gospel of Peter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.202.96 (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did James write this, so we can verify it and take the full context of the surrounding text? —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• This paper, by I think a strong Shroud proponent, deals with the passage, but concludes it has no relevance for the Shroud of Turin. Note the passage say absolutely nothing about the cloth having an image on it. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

John 19:40 says: “Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.” John 20:5-7 says the disciples entered the tomb and saw the “strips of linen”. There is never any mention of shrouds. Second, I question why Jesus would have given his burial shroud to the Jewish priests, who had just conspired to murder him. Third, the canonical gospels do not mention any meeting with James, nor that any significance should be attached to the shroud. Fourth, the so-called "Gospel of the Hebrews" no longer exists, and all we have of it are excerpts written by non-objective people quoted in excerpts written by other non-objective people. I still don't see any linkage to the shroud. Perhaps there is a different interpretation to the passage, which is obscured now because so much of it is lost? Wdford (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The James scholarly translations comes from a reputable site called Early Christian Writings, I agree with original advocate this is important and fits into the Religios opinions paragraph perhaps we can state it as A manuscript called the Gospel of the Jews which is not extant other than a dozen lines documented by Origen, Jerome and Eusibious states that a linen cloth was given to the servant of the priest unknown preceding his appearance to James I am fascinated that this is the first time I have come across this paragraph