The 1M Challenge If The Turin Shroud Is A Forgery Show How It Was Done Christianity

But a man – David Rolfe, a director whose documentary The Silent Witness had brought the shroud to modern times – and who had converted to Christianity as a result of his research – was reluctant to give up. . He was convinced that the carbon dating, carried out in 1988 under the auspices of the British Museum and the University of Oxford, was incorrect. And now he claims to have the evidence to prove it. A new film is being released this week, Who Can He Be ?, in which Rolfe argues that, in addition to being definitely the shroud, new discoveries in recent years have reopened the question of its authenticity. Rolfe is so convinced that he is publishing a $ 1 million challenge to the British Museum. “If they think the shroud is a medieval forgery, I urge them to repeat the exercise and create something similar today,” he says. “Because of all the evidence I have seen, if it is a forgery, it is the smartest forgery in history – and of course it dates back almost 2,000 years, to an era of much less sophisticated forgery techniques. “They said it was torn down by a medieval craftsman, and I say, well, if he could do it, you should be able to do it too. And if you can, there is a $ 1 million donation for your money. “ According to the Gospels, when they discovered Christ’s burial cloth on the floor of his tomb, his followers first believed that he had risen from the dead. Over the centuries, the shroud has been worshiped as just this piece of fabric. Rolfe realized this about 45 years ago, when he submitted a request for documentary ideas, and writer Ian Wilson, who had researched the shroud – until then kept in Turin Cathedral – came into contact. Rolfe was not faithful, but he found the story of the shroud fascinating. The documentary he continued to make won a Bafta in 1978 and brought the relic to international attention. “My program by no means said it was authentic, but it did raise questions such as how the image of the crucified man came into the fabric and whether its origin matched Christ’s timeline,” says Rolf. The strongest moment for him came when he first took photos of the four-meter-long shroud and saw that the image of the dead man’s face was much more intense in the negative. “It was almost like it was created for the age of photography,” says Rolfe. In the mid-1980s, the Vatican, the owner of the shroud, agreed in principle that it could be dated using the latest technology and commissioned the work to the British Museum. A few years later, the verdict made headlines around the world: the fabric dates from the 13th or 14th century and could not be authentic. It seemed that the relic had its day. Pope Francis in the shroud in 2015. Photo: Alberto Pizzoli / AFP / Getty Images But Rolfe, now in his 70s, was determined to demystify demystification. “Five [testing] “Protocols were agreed, but everything was abandoned,” he said. In the bright light of world publicity, the trials became a political hot potato for the British Museum. The sample used for the tests, Rolfe claims in his new film, was very small and was taken from an angle where the shroud was likely to have been repaired over the centuries. Many would argue that even if the shroud could prove to be the burial cloth of a man named Jesus who was crucified 2,000 years ago, this does not equate to proof of his resurrection, the central tenet of the Christian faith. “Carbon dating could show that it was certainly from the time of Christ, but it’s still a long way to go to prove that he was resurrected from the dead,” said Richy Thompson of Humanists UK. “Some people believe that, yes, Jesus was a real person, and we know that the crucifixion was a thing at that time, and Pontius Pilate is a well-documented historical figure. “What many non-religious people would say is, where is the evidence? Because if you are going to make excellent claims, you need strong evidence to support it. And the fact that people believe [in the resurrection] it is not in itself proof that it really happened. “ Rolfe is restless: he says the image on the fabric seems to come from a huge burst of radiation, emitted in fractions of a second. When it comes to carbon dating, he certainly is not alone in his skepticism. Barrie M Schwortz, a photographer who captured the shroud in 1978, says the word “cloudy” would be a good word to describe the events of 1988. “Today there are at least six scientific articles with critics questioning the results of carbon dating,” he says. In his view, the players involved were in a hurry to get the job done because they wanted to find carbon dating on the map. “These experiments made it a household name and today it is widely used in archeology,” he says. “I’m a Jew, so I do not have a horse in this race, but I have come to believe that it is the authentic burial cloth because I looked at science.” The British Museum is less willing to get involved this time. “Any current questions about the shroud should be put to those who are currently caring for it in the royal chapel of Turin Cathedral,” said a spokesman.

title: “The 1M Challenge If The Turin Shroud Is A Forgery Show How It Was Done Christianity " ShowToc: true date: “2022-10-29” author: “Augusta Ramirez”

But a man – David Rolfe, a director whose documentary The Silent Witness had brought the shroud to modern times – and who had converted to Christianity as a result of his research – was reluctant to give up. . He was convinced that the carbon dating, carried out in 1988 under the auspices of the British Museum and the University of Oxford, was incorrect. And now he claims to have the evidence to prove it. A new film is being released this week, Who Can He Be ?, in which Rolfe argues that, in addition to being definitely the shroud, new discoveries in recent years have reopened the question of its authenticity. Rolfe is so convinced that he is publishing a $ 1 million challenge to the British Museum. “If they think the shroud is a medieval forgery, I urge them to repeat the exercise and create something similar today,” he says. “Because of all the evidence I have seen, if it is a forgery, it is the smartest forgery in history – and of course it dates back almost 2,000 years, to an era of much less sophisticated forgery techniques. “They said it was torn down by a medieval craftsman, and I say, well, if he could do it, you should be able to do it too. And if you can, there is a $ 1 million donation for your money. “ According to the Gospels, when they discovered Christ’s burial cloth on the floor of his tomb, his followers first believed that he had risen from the dead. Over the centuries, the shroud has been worshiped as just this piece of fabric. Rolfe realized this about 45 years ago, when he submitted a request for documentary ideas, and writer Ian Wilson, who had researched the shroud – until then kept in Turin Cathedral – came into contact. Rolfe was not faithful, but he found the story of the shroud fascinating. The documentary he continued to make won a Bafta in 1978 and brought the relic to international attention. “My program by no means said it was authentic, but it did raise questions such as how the image of the crucified man came into the fabric and whether its origin matched Christ’s timeline,” says Rolf. The strongest moment for him came when he first took photos of the four-meter-long shroud and saw that the image of the dead man’s face was much more intense in the negative. “It was almost like it was created for the age of photography,” says Rolfe. In the mid-1980s, the Vatican, the owner of the shroud, agreed in principle that it could be dated using the latest technology and commissioned the work to the British Museum. A few years later, the verdict made headlines around the world: the fabric dates from the 13th or 14th century and could not be authentic. It seemed that the relic had its day. Pope Francis in the shroud in 2015. Photo: Alberto Pizzoli / AFP / Getty Images But Rolfe, now in his 70s, was determined to demystify demystification. “Five [testing] “Protocols were agreed, but everything was abandoned,” he said. In the bright light of world publicity, the trials became a political hot potato for the British Museum. The sample used for the tests, Rolfe claims in his new film, was very small and was taken from an angle where the shroud was likely to have been repaired over the centuries. Many would argue that even if the shroud could prove to be the burial cloth of a man named Jesus who was crucified 2,000 years ago, this does not equate to proof of his resurrection, the central tenet of the Christian faith. “Carbon dating could show that it was certainly from the time of Christ, but it’s still a long way to go to prove that he was resurrected from the dead,” said Richy Thompson of Humanists UK. “Some people believe that, yes, Jesus was a real person, and we know that the crucifixion was a thing at that time, and Pontius Pilate is a well-documented historical figure. “What many non-religious people would say is, where is the evidence? Because if you are going to make excellent claims, you need strong evidence to support it. And the fact that people believe [in the resurrection] it is not in itself proof that it really happened. “ Rolfe is restless: he says the image on the fabric seems to come from a huge burst of radiation, emitted in fractions of a second. When it comes to carbon dating, he certainly is not alone in his skepticism. Barrie M Schwortz, a photographer who captured the shroud in 1978, says the word “cloudy” would be a good word to describe the events of 1988. “Today there are at least six scientific articles with critics questioning the results of carbon dating,” he says. In his view, the players involved were in a hurry to get the job done because they wanted to find carbon dating on the map. “These experiments made it a household name and today it is widely used in archeology,” he says. “I’m a Jew, so I do not have a horse in this race, but I have come to believe that it is the authentic burial cloth because I looked at science.” The British Museum is less willing to get involved this time. “Any current questions about the shroud should be put to those who are currently caring for it in the royal chapel of Turin Cathedral,” said a spokesman.