Shroud of Turin proven genuine by REAL science

JohnR7 · #**441** 3rd July 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch

So what do think the ratio of scientists who support evolution to those who deny it is? 19 to 1? 50 to 1? Hmm.

I would have to check into it. But off hand I would say it is more like 3 to 1. A lot of what they call evolution is just not accurate or correct. So that does not help the cause of evolution much.

Arikay · #**442** 3rd July 2003, 05:35 PM

Of course its not accurate or correct, since the bible doesnt say so.

I would recheck your figures on how many scientists accept evolution.

I believe Project Steve is currently larger than any creationist scientist list I have seen.

Originally Posted by JohnR7

I would have to check into it. But off hand I would say it is more like 3 to 1. A lot of what they call evolution is just not accurate or correct. So that does not help the cause of evolution much.

JohnR7 · #**443** 3rd July 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Arikay

I would recheck your figures on how many scientists accept evolution.

Does it really matter? They seem to think that if it was 19 to 1 that would still make evolution a lie. So as long as I could find someone, somewhere who was willing to take a stand against evolution, then it must not be true.

Don't forget the old age geology challange. No one can be found to take a stand against an old earth based on what we currently think we know about geology.

Frumious Bandersnatch · #**444** 3rd July 2003, 06:28 PM

Does it really matter? They seem to think that if it was 19 to 1 that would still make evolution a lie. So as long as I could find someone, somewhere who was willing to take a stand against evolution, then it must not be true.

So by your "logic" if I can find one somewhere who is willing to take a stand against the Shroud then it must not be true.

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe
Nonsense. Unless Jesus bled paint (one of those lesser-known miracles), then science can close the case on this one pretty quickly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a LOT more to it than that. But if your to lazy to do your research, then I guess your not going to be able to find that out.

Yes there is a LOT more to it. The image on the shroud is shaped more like a 14th century painting than a real person. The C14 dating is consistent with forgery. The shroud does not agree with the description in the Gospel of John. There was a Bishop who reported to Pope Clement that had found the forger and that that he had confessed. That should be enough more for starters.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

JohnR7 · #**445** 3rd July 2003, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch

So by your "logic" if I can find one somewhere who is willing to take a stand against the Shroud then it must not be true.

It would not matter one way or the other. Either it is real, or it is a inspired masterpiece, a work of art that can not be duplicated. The details on it are amazing. Like finding dirt on the knee and in the Bible it takes about how Jesus fell when He carried His cross to Calvery.

The value is in Jesus going to Calvery and giving Himself for us, so that we can be forgiven, so we can have our fellowship with the Father restored. Jesus died, not only so our relationship with God could be restored, but also so we could be restored to a right and peaceful relationship with one another.

The Shroud of Turin if it is a masterpeice or if it is real, it points to calvery and what Jesus did for us.

JohnR7 · #**446** 3rd July 2003, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch

There was a Bishop who reported to Pope Clement that had found the forger and that that he had confessed.

Confessed?

That would be like Michelangelo confessing to having painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

I would like to know more about this amazing artist. Who was the Bishop that he "confessed" to. Can you tell us more about it? Did he do any other masterpeices or works of art that have been preserved?

Gracchus · #**447** 3rd July 2003, 10:13 PM

Now I don't know whether the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. I suspect that no one else knows either. It makes no difference to me, as I am not a Christian. All of the "evidence" is controversial. Still, I did have a few thoughts as I waded through the interminable morass of the thread.

The radiocarbon dates would seem to be convincing, since the dates were determined at three different labs, and were done blind with blind control samples. The dates for the actual sample and the control samples seemed to agree.

The samples as I remember, were taken from an inconspicuous part of the shroud and were very small. The parts provided as I remember were not from the area carrying the image.

Some folks claimed the image was painted, and some that it was a miraculous artifact of neutron bombardment incident to the resurrection.

Some folks claimed the "blood" was hematite and some that it was type AB. I don't believe they mentioned whether it was Rh positive or Rh negative. But if this is so, and if the shroud is authentic, then it proves that neither Mary or the Holy Ghost had type O blood. So that controversy has been laid to rest.

Then there was a whole bunch of stuff about how hard it would by to forge the shroud. I don't see the difficulty. The method, the motive and the opportunity were there. As it was pointed out, in the fourteenth century the pilgrimage trade was a big business. A really good relic would pull in suck…er…pilgrims from miles around. A piece of the true cross would have been ideal, but as one wag pointed out, there were enough of those floating around to rebuild Jerusalem. (And no, I have no citation for that, but if no one said it some one should have.) In short, a piece of the true cross wouldn't draw flies. Still, it would have to be something equally dramatic. Like the shroud!

Now we can turn our attention to a really simple way to produce a shroud. If I were a fourteenth century bishop, and wanted to fill the diocesan coffers with out-of-town money, and needed a shroud to show the suck…er…pilgrims, I wouldn't hire a painter, I would drag some poor Jew out of my dungeon, one who wasn't likely to be ransomed, scourge him, crucify him,(After all he deserves it, because it's what the Jews did to Jesus.) and then lay him out on a piece of old linen, smooth it down in front, discard the cadaver, and VOILA! Money, and plenty of it! It's a miracle!

Now, (if you'll forgive a little cynicism) the Roman church, ("Roman Catholic" is an oxymoron.) might not want to kill the controversy. It doesn't want the shroud debunked because it still draws suck…er…pilgrims who still spend money in Turin, producing that same miraculous effect on the city and diocesan economy. And the controversy will keep the shroud in the public eye.

In any case the origins of this relic are still shrouded in mystery. (I'm sorry, but some one had to say it.)

JohnR7 · #**448** 4th July 2003, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by Gracchus

The radiocarbon dates would seem to be convincing, since the dates were determined at three different labs, and were done blind with blind control samples. The dates for the actual sample and the control samples seemed to agree.

The samples as I remember, were taken from an inconspicuous part of the shroud and were very small. The parts provided as I remember were not from the area carrying the image.

What was questionable was where they got the sample for the carbon test. Some people feel it came from a area that had been damaged and a attempt had been made at a repair. So the area they tested was from a restored area on the shroud.

Then there was a whole bunch of stuff about how hard it would by to forge the shroud. I don't see the difficulty.

Well, then lets crank out a few thousand of them. I am sure there are churchs all over the place that would pay good money for one. It would make a great teaching aid for their sunday school classes.

Now we can turn our attention to a really simple way to produce a shroud.

Actually crucification was common for the Romans. What makes the shroud so interesting is all the details. Things that the scientist found that no one would have thought about. Like dirt on the nose and the knee, that is a limestone native to Jerusalem.

Jet Black · #**449** 4th July 2003, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by JohnR7

Things that the scientist found that no one would have thought about. Like dirt on the nose and the knee, that is a limestone native to Jerusalem.

well the scientists obviously thought about it, so why wouldn't the forger?

Gracchus · #**450** 4th July 2003, 02:49 AM

I said:

Then there was a whole bunch of stuff about how hard it would by to forge the shroud. I don't see the difficulty.

Originally Posted by JohnR7

Well, then lets crank out a few thousand of them. I am sure there are churchs all over the place that would pay good money for one. It would make a great teaching aid for their sunday school classes.

Since most Christian bishops probably don't have Jews handy in their dungeons these days, maybe you could get the Palestinians to supply the makin's.