Scientists Say Shroud of Turin Shows Jesus Was Crucified in 'Very Painful' Position

I understand the shroud is a very controversial subject, so don't shoot the messenger. I did find it interesting however that this would seem (on the surface at least) to be more evidence that the shroud is not a medieval forgery.

l ink

A new study conducted by Liverpool scientists suggests the Shroud of Turin proves Jesus was crucified with his hands over his head in a "Y" shape, rather than to the sides in a "T" shape, as traditionally depicted in Christian art. The scientist leading this recent study says this new crucifixion would be "very painful" and likely cause asphyxiation for the victim.

Scientists at the Liverpool John Moores University in the U.K. announced their findings at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences earlier this year. They argue that the Shroud of Turin, believed by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus, shows an image of a man with blood stains streaking down his arms. Matteo Borrini, who led the shroud study at the John Moores University, argues that these stains could only have been obtained if the victim's arms were hung over his head in a "Y" shape, instead of the "T" shape that is so prevalent in Christian art.

Something further to consider is that all the artwork in the medieval period presents Christ as being crucified in a T shape, so why would the artist of a forgery paint the figure with blood marks consistent with a Y configuration? Further, how would a medieval forger even know how blood patterns would look on a victim crucified in such a manner?



This will no doubt fail to convince the skeptics (I'm not sure if any evidence would be sufficient to convince them) and solidify the beliefs of those who feel the shroud is authentic. Personally I'm still on the fence, but this latest information does seem to suggest it was not a forgery.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Very interesting find, though I would think all positions used for crucifixion would be very painful.

It is easier to crucify people this way also, which is what they probably would have done. It eliminates the use of a horizontal member to flay the arms to. In a situation where mass numbers of people were being executed this way frugality of material would probably come into play. Vlad the Impaler found this out when impaling people on poles, I believe they frequently ran out of spears, trees and material due to the high numbers. Crazy when you think about it!

Ultimately though, their findings are all based on the assumption of the Shroud of Turin being real, to which I have no comment.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Im not so sure about the shroud, but this is consistent with the manor he was executed...

Nailed to a Pole with his hands over his head...

S&F

AnteBellum
Then again, there findings are all based on the assumption of the Shroud of Turin being real, to which I have no comment.

My comment is that the Shroud of Turin makes no physical sense without resorting to some unprovable supernatural effect happening, and trying to draw logical or historical conclusions from it is a waste of time.

What it looks like when you really lay a cloth over somebody's face:

That is interesting and I would like to believe it is the shroud. That being said, think about gravity for a second. If you were nailed to cross without your arms and torso being supported your body would fall away from the cross with your hands attached and your arms pointing slightly down.

The blood running down the arms suggesting they were over his head reminded me of what we call the old indian rope trick.

A lot of time on building sites we get water running in through the roof, sometimes in existing occupied buildings. You find where the water is dripping down and put a rope there. The water travels down the rope to where you would rather have it go. So while blood is heavier than water, if Jesus was placed on the cross as is normally depicted, it would stand to reason he didnt stay in that position long. His body would have succumbed to gravity and created a pathway for blood to run down his arms as opposed to just falling straight down to the ground

me, I'm not so sure about this whole cross deal as you might notice if you go to my siggy thread

i think the cross as it is expressed in christianity and all the other religions where saviors were hung on crosses
kind of throws a wrench into the whole shroud of turin being Jesus idea

16 saviors hung on crosses
infidels.org...

not to mention buddy may have just bled out while lying in an arms high slanted position, which doesn't really have to have been on a cross at all

Danbones
me, I'm not so sure about this whole cross deal as you might notice if you go to my siggy thread

i think the cross as it is expressed in christianity and all the other religions where saviors were hung on crosses
kind of throws a wrench into the whole shroud of turin being Jesus idea

16 saviors hung on crosses
infidels.org...

I don't really want to get into a debate on the historicity of Jesus since I've done that a million times here. I'm sure this sort of comment will pop up a lot in this thread, and that's to be expected given the subject. But I do have a couple questions for you:

-Where are all the other crucified saviors from other religions? Can you provide a reliable source? I've looked into this accusation and it appears to be a completely bogus claim. Your source above is not at all neutral, or even remotely scholarly.

-Are you aware that crucifixion actually happened and the romans were famous for it? Are you also aware they crucified Christians by their own admission? One final thing to consider: Crucifixion didn't become a method of execution until around 600BC. How can there be all these ancient religions with crucified saviors when the practice didn't even exist until 600BC?

reply to post by Blue Shift


That person's nose appears to be pretty flat, indicating the cloth is wrapped tightly around the face. Not really sure what that is supposed to prove? Different cultures have different burial practices in different times. Nothing seems to indicate that a cloth should have been wrapped around the head of christ that tightly either in the bible or the historical record. If the shroud were that simple to debunk, I'm sure nobody would still be talking about.

After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud. Independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD.... In 2008 former STURP member John Jackson rejected the possibility that the C14 sample may have been conducted on a medieval repair fragment, on the basis that the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP in 1978 clearly show that the natural colour bandings present throughout the linen of the shroud propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would later provide the sample for radiocarbon dating. Jackson stated that this could not have been possible if the sampled area was a later addition.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


3 different labs have done Carbon-14 testing and have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a middle age forgery. There was a huge market for relics such as the shroud in the middle ages as every church wished to boost it's reputation and it's power....bringing more wealth and parishoners to the church.

About the beginning of the 9th century, bones, teeth, hair, garments, and other relics of fictitious saints were conveniently "found" all over Europe and Asia and triumphantly installed in the reliquaries of every church, until all Catholic Europe was falling to its knees before what Calvin called its anthill of bones.... St. Luke was touted as one of the ancient world's most prolific artists, to judge from the numerous portraits of the Virgin, painted by him, that appeared in many churches. Some still remain, despite ample proof that all such portraits were actually painted during the Middle Ages.

There were at least 26 "authentic" burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one.... The Shroud of Turin is one of the many relics manufactured for profit during the Middle Ages. Shortly after the Shroud emerged it was declared a fake by the bishop who discovered the artist. This is verified by recent scientific investigation which found paint in the image areas. The Shroud of Turin is also not consistent with Gospel accounts of Jesus' burial, which clearly refer to multiple cloths and a separate napkin over his face.

Source...here

There will always be those that will believe this no matter what science or the facts tell them.

The Shroud of Turin is a fake. Period.

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people were "crucified". Even if this shroud is "real", there's no reason to believe it was wrapped around one Jesus of Nazareth, whom we aren't even sure really existed in the first place. We do know that lots of people were brutally tortured and killed.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

"he scientist leading this recent study says this new crucifixion would be "very painful" and likely cause asphyxiation for the victim"
This kinda discredits this for me. Of course it will cause asphyxiation, that's how you die when you're crucified: asphyxiated by your own weight. It doesn't matter whether your arms at in a t, a y, or any other shape. Not " likely", it will.

DeadSeraph
Nothing seems to indicate that a cloth should have been wrapped around the head of christ that tightly either in the bible or the historical record.

If the cloth isn't at least touching much of his face, then how is the image transferred?

If the shroud were that simple to debunk, I'm sure nobody would still be talking about.

Never underestimate the lengths people will go to to desperately cling to their foolish beliefs.

reply to post by deadcalm


Unfortunately it isn't that simple:

www.innoval.com...

shroud2000.com...

There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow, and so further research is certainly needed. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information. –Christopher Ramsey, head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit which participated in the 1988 Carbon 14 Dating of the Shroud. (Mar 2008)

[T]he [1988 carbon 14] age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case. –Robert Villarreal, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist who headed a team of nine scientists at LANL who examined material from the carbon 14 sampling region. (Aug 2008

In summary, there were patches of the shroud which were repaired after a fire in the middle ages. It would appear that the samples taken from the shroud to perform carbon dating tests may have been taken from one of these patches, and even scientists that worked on the carbon dating have admitted the results are inconclusive and further testing is required. So your assertion that it is 100% a proven fake is not accurate at all.

reply to post by deadcalm

Source…here

Dorothy Murdoch (aka Acharya S) is the world's worst source on anything related to Christianity. She's an anti-Christian shill with a pile of poorly researched self-published books that she'd like to sell you.

One of the researchers who concluded that it was a fake later changed his mind on new evidence:

Radio carbon dating carried out in 1988 was performed on an area of the relic that was repaired in the 16th century, according to Ray Rogers, who helped lead the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STRP).

At the time he argued firmly that the shroud, which bears a Christlike image, was a clever forgery.

But in a video made shortly before his death three years ago, he said facts had come to light that indicated the shroud could be genuine. (Source)

So I wouldn't be too quick to hang your hat on carbon dating (and I'd seriously recommend a better source for your evidence in the future.)

reply to post by deadcalm

"3 different labs have done Carbon-14 testing"
Because we all know carbon dating is SO reliable.

Then we have a problem with the christian cross.

I know the cross is either from the egyptian Ankh(before christ) or from the Romans use of the cross for crusifiction, "but aparently Jesus was put on a pole"

reply to post by deadcalm


Carbon dating is HARDLY evidence! That is the most skewed approximate testing method in history.....Unfortunately that is all people want to believe....I can tell you something is old and within a 500-1000 year span. That system is an absolute joke and it proves absolutely less than evidence. This is the reason this topic isn't debunked either, the system is 95% flawed....Yes carbon dating can prove something is old, but to give a date is not coming from that method!

Akragon
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Im not so sure about the shroud, but this is consistent with the manor he was executed...

Nailed to a Pole with his hands over his head...

S&F

It is interesting that the shroud also seems to show scourge wounds on the back of the figure, the buttocks, back of the thighs, and even down to the calves. That appears to be consistent with how the romans actually scourged their victims. Utterly barbaric.

(William D. Edwards, MD, Department of Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Wesley J. Gabel, MDiv, West Bethel United Methodist Church, Bethel, MN.; Floyd E Hosmer, MS, AMI, Dept of Medical Graphics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Homestead United Methodist Church, Rochester, MN; review of article and excerpts from On The Physical Death of Jesus Christ, JAMA, March 21, 1986 – Vol 255, No. 11). (The medical terms in this article have been edited into layman’s terminology by: Carol R. Ritchie; TNCC, MSN, RN, CNOR.)

Scourging Practices

Flogging was a legal preliminary to every Roman execution, and only women and Roman senators or soldiers (except in cases of desertion) were exempt. The usual instrument was a short whip with several single or braided leather thongs of variable lengths, in which small iron balls or sharp pieces of sheep bones were tied at intervals. For scourging, the man was stripped of his clothing, and his hands were tied to an upright post. The back, buttocks, and legs were flogged either by two soldiers (lictors) or by one who alternated positions. The severity of the scourging depended on the disposition of the lictors and was intended to weaken the victim to a state just short of collapse or death. As the Roman soldiers repeatedly struck the victim’s back with full force, the iron balls would cause deep contusions, and the leather thongs and sheep bones would cut into the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Then, as the flogging continued, the lacerations would tear into the underlying skeletal muscles and produce quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh. Pain and blood loss generally set the stage for circulatory shock. The extent of blood loss may well have determined how long the victim would survive on the cross. After the scourging, the soldiers often taunted their victim.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

McCrone's theory is that "a male model was daubed with paint and wrapped in the sheet to create the shadowy figure of Jesus." The model was covered in red ochre, "a pigment found in earth and widely used in Italy during the Middle Ages, and pressed his forehead, cheekbones and other parts of his head and body on to the linen to create the image that exists today. Vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide, was then splashed onto the image's wrists, feet and body to represent blood."

McCrone analyzed the shroud and found traces of chemicals that were used in "two common artist's pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder" (McCrone 1998). He makes his complete case that the shroud is a medieval painting in Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (March 1999). For his work, McCrone was awarded the American Chemical Society's Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000.

Source...HERE

As for the fire.....

According to microchemist Dr. Walter McCrone,

The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.*

According to shroud investigator Joe Nickell, Rogers "relied on two little threads allegedly left over from the sampling" and the word of "pro-authenticity researchers who guessed that the carbon-14 sample came from a 'rewoven area' of repair." According to Nickell, P.E. Damon's 1989 article published in Nature claims that "textile experts specifically made efforts to select a site for taking the radiocarbon sample that was away from patches and seams."

But as we all know...it doesn't matter how many sources are cited....those that want to believe this nonsense will continue to do so no matter what.

reply to post by deadcalm

According to microchemist Dr. Walter McCrone,

The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.*

The problem with his argument is that the claim isn't that the fire changed the results. It's that the repairs to the shroud changed the results, since there were patches sewn onto it and dyed to match the rest of the material that was undamaged. As you stated, some people will believe whatever they want, no matter what. That appears to go both ways.