That remark by Noory did mark a new level of outrageousness in his pandering to the goofballs. It's quite probably the stupidest thing ever said in public in the context of the Shroud of Turin. It's because he must discuss the Shroud as a generic paranormal object; not as the deeply Christian relic that it is, lest he offend the cracked-pots and New Agers whose money provides the kick-backs from his growing cadre of "alternative reality" scammers. He was showing the crystal skull crowd that belief in the Shroud can be separated from belief in Christ.
Yes. Although if by some miracle the shroud could be definitively authenticated, it automatically becomes relevant to
everyone.
Me, I'm a fence-sitter on the legitimacy of the cloth. I was not conclusively convinced by the latest Italian attempt at debunking, just as I wasn't convinced before that the shroud is legitimate. But since I am a believer in the event it purportedly records, I also believe the cloth
could be real.
It's just that, particularly in the Middle Ages and through the Renaissance, there was a
huuuge financial market for any supposed physical remnants of Biblical events, and Europe was awash with so-called "true relics" of this and that. Then, I presume, the Roman Catholic Church conceivably would have had a religious motive for commissioning such a work as the shroud, in order to bring new converts to The Church or to bolster the faith of the already faithful. So there most certainly would have been a strong motive to create something like the shroud.
Then there's the appearance of the shroud itself. It can seem "too perfect", without "wrinkle", and not what you'd expect from a body wrapped in a cloth. Also, to me the image on the shroud appears artificial, not like it came from life. But then, if legitimate, it would be evidence of a literal miracle of God, and perfection is less surprising.
What to make of the fact no one today can perfectly recreate the imaging process with modern methods (the recent Italian claim notwithstanding)? They most certainly cannot recreate the image with what materials and processes were available in the 14th century. No one can supply a good answer about how it was faked without a physical application of tint, and 5 centuries before photography was first accomplished. While there are other claimed partial shrouds of Jesus (the "Sudarium of Oviedo" "face shroud" in particular), none of them, AFAIK, appear to have been created by the same process as that used in the Turin shroud. And I don't think there are any other examples of this kind of artistic process, if that is what it is. Thus it seems hard to believe that the genius who conceived and executed such a brilliant and unique work of art would have never in his entire life used it again, whether for relic or religious or secular art.
Now, if this latest testing shows, conclusively, that the cloth is indeed no older than 700 years, I think it badly cripples, if not kills outright, the argument for legitimacy of the shroud of Turin...but
only the shroud of Turin. It does not mean the event didn't happen: it just means this purported relic is not evidence of the event. As for me, that a faked shroud might exist is completely irrelevant to my personal faith that the underlying event occurred.
It's just great fun to wonder whether we have a physical remnant of a divine miracle, which prospect would be mind-boggling and world-changing; or just a highly sophisticated artistic process discovered by an unknown master, breathtakingly advanced for it's day, which was mysteriously used one time and one time only.
(Man, I'm sorry for all the pixels that had to die for this post. I promise I'm gonna cut back on post length real soon. Tomorrow. I'm gonna kick tomoooooorrow.)
Poll