A Religious ‘Indulgence’ – The Rag That Became A ‘Relic’
30 March 2008 by KA
This bit of religious skullduggery caught my eye recently:
Shroud mystery ‘refuses to go away’
There are very few Christian relics as important and as controversial as the Shroud of Turin.
This linen cloth, measuring about 4.4m by 1.1m (14.4×3.6 feet) holds the concealed image of a man bearing all the signs of crucifixion.
Which begs the question: has anyone ever run tests on any other ’shroud’ besides this one?
Scientific tests have proved that there are blood stains around the marks consistent with a crown of thorns and a puncture from a lance to the side.
Ummm…no. This isn’t the whole story.
There are several reddish stains on the shroud suggesting blood. McCrone (see above) identified these as containing iron oxide, theorizing that its presence was likely due to simple pigment materials used in medieval times. Other researchers, including Alan Adler, a chemist specializing in analysis of porphyrins, identified the reddish stains as type AB blood and interpreted the iron oxide as a natural residue of that element always found in mammalian red blood cells.
[...]
The particular shade of red of the supposed blood stains are problematic, according to skeptics of the shroud’s authenticity. Normally, whole blood stains discolor relatively rapidly, turning to a black-brown shade, while these stains range from a red to a brown color. Skeptics claim that: ” Blood has not been identified on the shroud directly, but it has been identified on sticky tape that was used to lift fibrils from the shroud. Dried, aged blood is black. The stains on the shroud are red. Forensic tests on the red stuff have identified it as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.” and that if there is blood: “it could be the blood of some 14th century person. It could be the blood of someone wrapped in the shroud, or the blood of the creator of the shroud, or of anyone who has ever handled the shroud, or of anyone who handled the sticky tape. But even if there were blood on the shroud, that would have no bearing on the age of the shroud or on its authenticity.
Until the 1980s, millions of Christians around the world believed the Shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ.
Put simply, it meant that for millions of people the Shroud was, in effect, a Polaroid of Jesus’ death – a snapshot of the defining moment in Christianity. It put the Shroud in a league of its own in the realm of the most important Christian relics.
But in 1989, the significance of the Shroud seemed to evaporate after a radiocarbon dating test pronounced a stunning verdict – the Shroud of Turin was indisputably a medieval fake.
Again, not the whole story (from previous link):
In 1988, the Holy See agreed to permit six centers to independently perform radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud, but at the last minute they changed their minds and permitted only three research centers to independently perform radiocarbon dating. All three, Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, agreed with a dating in the 13th to 14th centuries (1260–1390).The scientific community had asked the Holy See to authorize more samples, including from the image-bearing part of the shroud, but this request was refused. One possible account for the reluctance is that if the image is genuine, the destruction of parts of it for purposes of dating could be considered sacrilege. Another possibility is that the Church is reluctant to risk exposing the Shroud as a forgery.
My bets on the latter. Any takers?
Mr Jackson, a lecturer in physics and cosmology (author’s note: I introduced this link, since obviously Mr. Jackson doesn’t practice this form of it.)
, introduced me to a wealth of fresh historical and forensic evidence that linked the Shroud of Turin to two earlier Shrouds of Christ.
The first was in Constantinople and mysteriously disappeared in the sack of the city in the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The second is, of course, the Shroud referred to in the Gospels.
Who is this mysterious Mr. Jackson? None other than John P. Jackson, director and founder of TSC – The Turn Shroud Center of Colorado. Methinks me catches a whiff of presuppositionalism here.
The irresistible force of science seems to have hit an immovable object. The mysterious image of a crucified man has refused to lie down and die.
The ‘immovable object’ seems to be the traditional wall of ignorance erected by the religious. What a shock.
The new evidence raises a question mark over that carbon-14 verdict. Should the margin of error have been wider? Could the image on the Shroud have been forged earlier in time?
Anyone who does more than a 5 minute investigation into the maelstrom of yea-sayers and nay-sayers, will likely be blinking their eyes at it as I did. The damn thing’s been more handled than Warren Beatty’s unmentionables. Contamination, anyone? Nuns patched it up after a fire. From the answers.com link:
There are numerous reports of Jesus’ burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the fourteenth century.[2] However, none of these reports has been connected with certainty to the current cloth held in the Turin cathedral. Except for the Image of Edessa, none of the reports of these (up to 43) different “true shrouds” was known to mention an image of a body.
And yes! There was a denunciation:
In 1389, the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D’Arcis in a letter to the Avignon Antipope Clement VII, mentioning that the image had previously been denounced by his predecessor Henri de Poitiers, who had been concerned that no such image was mentioned in scripture. Bishop D’Arcis continued, “Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.” (In German: [4].) The artist is not named in the letter.
I’m including here a more exacting analysis that really rips the shroud a new one.
It’s a worn piece of cloth (cunningly wrought, I’ll grant you that), a vestige of dirty laundry from the Middle Ages that should be de-classified as a mystery and instead, slotted as a fraud like so many other religious forgeries. More of an example of how the religious ’see it the way they call it’.
For a more humorous explanation, watch this short video.
I’d advise Jackson to get a hobby.
Till the next post, then.
30 March 2008, on 11:08 am
So, then, this military blanket bearing the image and outline of a cirrhotic bum- complete with piss stain at the crotch, that I found at the Goodwill isn’t in any way holy? Well, aside from the holes in it, of course.
Seriously, what exactly does it matter whether this shroud is authentic or not? Even assuming it’s absolutely real, all it would prove is that someone walked the earth circa the first century CE who may or may not have been crucified and might have been speared while tacked to that stick. That and the cloth in question was/is exceptionally durable. It says nothing of the subject’s identity, neither confirms nor denies the historicity of Jeebus, and, unless you can Jurassic Park a blood sample from it and one day present to us a swarthy, miracle working, Aramaic speaking, Jewish ascetic clone, you’ve got exactly jacksquat. Someone really ought to burn the filthy thing, or use it to polish the furniture like a hopelessly gray pair of Y-fronts.
30 March 2008, on 2:12 pm
RDG:
It doesn’t. Not to you or I. But obviously it matters to the religious. So, best to use it as an assrag, metaphorically speaking.
There was a really terrible movie named Revelation that had that as the climax. The Anti-Jeebus was cloned off the DNA of the 3 nails.
That’s a spoiler, BTW: most of the movie was pretty predictable, w/a centurion who was immortal, waiting for technology to get to a point where he could do just that.
30 March 2008, on 4:17 pm
Joe Nickell wrote a book on the Shroud, and a new book on “holy relics”. Considering that the Church said it was a fake, the forger/maker confessed, the cloth is dated to the time of the forger, the weaving is inconsistent with 1st century burial shrouds, and even the fact that the gospels describe several cloths for the burial garments…well, only those who want to believe (or who don’t know any facts in the matter) are going to believe. The latest tv show on the BBC is a propaganda piece of crap.
GAH – I just went to the supposed “report” – I’d like to see one credible scientific report of actual blood, not just the numerous paint remains that were actually discovered through double-blind tests. Here’s one link to some info, and a search at that site has much more: http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/shroud.html
30 March 2008, on 5:24 pm
Let’s assume it’s authentic, or at least that the image IS of a real person.
Okay, feel stupid yet? Bear with me, it gets better.
How do they know it’s Jesus? Weren’t there a dozen or more other crucified messiahs running around before/during/after the supposed time of this guy?
Couldn’t it easily be one of them?
30 March 2008, on 10:52 pm
Yeah, KA…
This whole shtick brings back memories of my Catlick childhood; when every year, before Easter, a Jesuit….Father Filas(?)…hosted a perennial documentary on a major Chicago TV station. His theory, at the time, was that the imprint was left…sorta burned…onto the cloth by the magical resurrection energy of Jeebus passing through the cloth. It was a very convincing presentation for a childhood brainwashed, devoted, believer in those days.
I think I even have some “holy cards” with the picture of either the full body or the face negative imprints. They’re probably still lurking in my Latin/English Mass “missle” (prayer book).
As I’ve noted before on GifS…I was a rather zealous altar boy in those days.
[No shenanigans happened!...erm...At least, I don't remember any priestly requests to..."bend over!"...whilst wearing the usual altar boy cassock! It was always neat, though, getting out of class for weekday funerals; and playing with the incense burners, back of the altar. I don't remember stealing any 'altar wine' though.
You know...the future "blood of Jeebus"? "Bleh...Bleh"!!!]
Actually, I didn’t know much about alcohol then…but, a bit later in life…Glug, glug!!!
I can also remember how totally convincing the whole relic scenario was to a gullible, believing child. There were, indeed, MANY variations on the relic theme! The “Shroud”, though…in particular…REALLY ’seemed’ to give some kind of tangible “evidence” to an already convinced…if occasionally questioning…mindset.
That’s of course why the RCC “bent over backwards”, for centuries, to let those frauds continue while simultaneously distancing themselves from absolutely dogmatizing the matter.
You know…”Ex Cathedra” (catheter?) style?
I’m also reminded, from this, of the first part of Richard Dawkins’ “Root of All Evil” documentary; where he goes to Lourdes etc. to witness the amazing ferver of the, all too desperate, miracle seeking crowds.
It reminds me, today, of how glad I am to finally be…an out of the closet…perhaps, too honest…atheist! It ain’t easy though being out of the closet…I lost the friendship of another fellow musician, yesterday, because of my critical response to a silly “God/Satan” type email joke…which I, in my return email critique, touched a hot button; and he promptly ended a some 23 year friendship.
In return, I wished him “Fare Thee Well, old friend”! So much for honesty?
Oh well…
C’est la vie?
31 March 2008, on 1:19 am
Sorry to hear about your musician friend, Chuck. Sounds like a lack of humor and maybe a small case of L.V.D. to me. That’s Lead Vocalist Disease, which afflicts most musicians to some degree. Chronic cases show a number of symptoms, including swollen ego and severe allergic reactions to being challenged or corrected. In my professional experience, the only proper course of treatment is no treatment at all. Once the patient’s hypersensitivity has been thoroughly ignored, the swelling generally goes down, and other symptoms retreat as a result.
I joke. But only because I know your pain.
From what I’ve gathered from your comments, I’m a little over half your age. So far I’ve lost two girlfriends to Jesus, lost a few friends to Jesus or other assorted woo, and regularly make some friends and family uncomfortable by simply offering my opinions on subjects that others bring up. Curse of the atheist artist, I suppose. As an atheist bassist, I’m doubly cursed; few enough people take me seriously to start with.
One of my best friends from high school has rejoined the fold in a big way over the last few years. I actually try not to play it up, because I value his friendship. But as time goes on, our 22 year friendship continues to
wane, not because I pursue unwelcome conversation, but because I can’t help but point out obvious bullshit. But to have someone cut it off over a couple of emails?
Seems pretty cold to this heartless materialist. Best wishes.
31 March 2008, on 11:40 am
This hokey blanket has been bandied about for a long time by the hopelessly faithful. I’m not going to waste a lot of my breathe arguing that it’s a fake to the same people who will drive for three hours to a gas station in New Jersey because an oil stain looks like the virgin Mary (the last time this happened, it looked more like Tori Amos to me).
31 March 2008, on 1:35 pm
Neil?…Thanks for the sympathy.
Yeah…EGOS…but then; as we all know, that’s common human stuff, not just RE musicians.
I think it’s also, for my old friend, a case of “that’s the last straw” syndrome. It was over a rather silly, but somewhat ‘over the top’ little “God gave man this….Satan caused that; done with “animated text” in a PowerPoint format.
[Which he had to direct me to a download for the necessary PowerPoint plug-in!]
An Example: “God gave man the potato…Satan caused man to deep fry them with saturated fat”. The old Satan/God dichotomy, never giving man any credit for anything bullshit [like Science?]…similar to the old story of God & Satan playing gambling games with Job, in the old Testicle.
What man-made, mean spirited, bullshit!
A pet peeve of mine has always been THOSE kind of “jokes”; or the countless ones about St. Peter at the “Gate” shtick. In my opinion…dumb stuff, which assumes and never questions the whole religious concept of such a stupid heaven/hell, black/white, totally simplistic…VICIOUSNESS!
AARGH!
To my friend, I was (he claimed) the only one who DIDN’T get a laugh out of the so-called, “Non-sectarian” joke. Non-sectarian?…WTF…to an Xtian believer, yes! To an atheist…SAY WHAT? Of course I had linked some “Sun Mythology” [Zeitgeist oriented] video links…”Booga, booga!” Get the picture?
Yeah…my “Atheistic Rant” was just TOO much!
I occasionally had sent atheist oriented comments to him; with no replied reaction. Age and spousal influence also enters into this case. Most old codgers, in my 68 year experience, are afraid to drastically change, or even ‘tinker’ at all with their long held belief system. He happens to be a year older and a longtime church goer…more probably because of his wife.
So I CAN understand the fear based stance.
Anyway, enough, already!
Sorry Neil…and fellow GifSters…for my OT blabbing. I guess I needed to get it “off my brain”!
Bottom-line, though…I’m really not sorry for being honest about that kind of bullshit! I think it’s time…long overdue…for standing up against all the readily dished out crap that’s been stuffed down all our throats from time immemorial.
One of the big advantages of getting old, I rationalize, is not having to worry any more about losing employment, etc. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not really out to proselytize my atheism. It’s more like reacting more honestly to others’, often implied, self righteously arrogant assumptions. So, if it means losing a few erstwhile “friends” [more like "associates"], so be it!
With family, of course…it’s quite a bit ‘touchier’.
My new mantra?…
“Principles trump Personalities”!(?)
“What!…Loneliness?…
I can handle it!” (fingers, fondly, a blue blanket remnant…
“The Shroud of Chagrin”?)
31 March 2008, on 5:32 pm
Ah, a GifSter brings up the subject of “holy relics” – this gives me an idea for a post. Thanks, KA!
31 March 2008, on 9:38 pm
ChuckA:
Maybe you should just tell these other musicians that your being an atheist must be Skyboss’s way of saying he wants you to be a soloist!
1 April 2008, on 1:45 am
Not impressed in the least by dirty rags that bare the image of “our holey lard.” As has been pointed out, it proves nothing.
But a pancake that looks like the Holey Mutha?–Now that’s sacralicious!
1 April 2008, on 2:42 am
Badger3k in #3
“only those who want to believe (or who don’t know any facts in the matter)”
Those two usually go together…in fact, the first part usually requires the second.
When I’m feeling magnanimous I tell Xtians to just enjoy the shroud as they would any other piece of religious artwork and not get their pants all twisted up about it.
1 April 2008, on 6:20 pm
^ Aye, JJR; I only wish the Shroud’s “creator” could have lived to see the continuing effect of his creation! Art is truly eternal…
2 April 2008, on 9:27 am
The Creator of the shroud is alive and well, and He is very pleased with the faith that it inspires in his flock and with the irritation it gives to “scientists.” Nobody else living today was there,
but the shroud is still here!
2 April 2008, on 9:32 am
Okay, that last one (Believe it!) was me-feel free to disemvowel and throw the remains to your cat. I saw I only had 3 minutes left to pull some kind of sad caper, and that was it.
It wasn’t convincing though. I am a master of the run-on sentence; I read too much Dickens, Melville, Conrad and other assorted 1800’s literature as a child. Still, I think I need to work on bad punctuation, misspelling, and ALL CAPS before I really fool anybody.
JESUS LOVES YOUALL EVEN THE ATHIETS! The shrowd is real and not even Steven Hocking can prove otherwise! CAN YOU?
2 April 2008, on 9:36 am
Sorry for the multiple posts, but one last turd in the punchbowl, if I may. I know that there are good reasons for the comment policy-I don’t want to be overrun by idiots either. I was thinking about all the trollish godbot comments I’ve read here and elsewhere over the last couple of years.
While I was contemplating, an old aphorism came to mind. “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”
Assuming that catching flies is actually a priority, I’m not convinced of the truth of that saying.
The honey of the internet, from my perspective, would be moderate skeptic and science sites that do their best to talk sense to everyone. Bad Astronomy and TalkOrigins come to mind.
This place is vinegar. Don’t get me wrong, I loves me some vinegar. I love it so much that I fry my eggs in Italian dressing and then breathe on other people after I’ve eaten.
And I’ve noticed that the vinegar sites draw just as many if not more flies than the honey sites.
But the largest amount of flies still hover around various religious sites, woo-woo forums, and conservative political sites.
As I was (still) contemplating, I remembered something my Grandmother used to say:
“You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but you catch even more with bullshit.”
Actually on topic, for those who care about Jesus’ dirty laundry:
I’m pretty familiar with the shroud legend, but I was curious as to the current science on the issue. After first reading the post, I spent 3 hours reading everything I could google about the Shroud of Turin. And what did I find?
A few bits of scientific research that the Vatican allowed, and 10 tons of bullshit.
Three hours of my life gone forever, and it’s still just a fucking twill tarp. I wasn’t expecting miracles, but I had hoped for a hint of honesty from the believers. Apparently, believers would rather be probed by their priest than by an honest question.
Grandma was right.
Thanks for putting up with my late night rantfest and multiple posts-not too many christians would. I offer no excuse, but I will say:
“With a name like God is for Suckers, it has to be good.”
2 April 2008, on 3:18 pm
Heh, Neil; nice try but I for one wasn’t fooled, no sir! *coughs embarrassedly*
Re: approaches, I think both honey and vinegar are equally valid in general, and one or the other may be more called for depending on the particular situation. Out there in the “real world,” I’m much more honey than I am vinegar, although I’m not reluctant to “spice up” my honey if I feel the circumstances warrant it. Certainly, when the guest in a theist’s home, I defer to my hosts and play nice, although I won’t lie if directly addressed about my beliefs and/or lack thereof.
GifS is a place mostly for atheists and agnostics to sound off, vent, rant and rave, and otherwise let off steam when overwhelmed by our still primarily believing society, and I cherish that. I’m glad you feel comfortable here! I guess we’re the sort of place you can kick off your shoes, put up your feet, loosen your waistband, and shoot the shit with buddies who by and large aren’t going to be upset by choice words and such.