New evidence of authenticity for Shroud of Turin

Root of Jesse · #11 11th June 2012, 11:33 AM

^-----The picture in the right corner of all my posts...Whatever you call that thing...avatar, I guess.

Originally Posted by Humble Pie

I don't quite get what you're saying.

JimR-OCDS · #12 11th June 2012, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Theofane

Things like this can always be falsified or manipulated in order to deceive people. Why base your faith on dusty old relics, anyway?

Who's basing their faith on the Shroud?

I had faith long before knowing about the Shroud.

However, such things merely help to confirm the authenticity of our faith to non-believers.

Any evidence supporting Jesus Christ, is a win for Christianity, even non-Catholics.

Jim

Christ's_Warrior · #13 11th June 2012, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by StormHawk

Today's news.

How much conjecture and hearsay can be read in one article! Lol journalism at its finest.

JimR-OCDS · #14 12th June 2012, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Christ's_Warrior

How much conjecture and hearsay can be read in one article! Lol journalism at its finest.

The opinion of one man, who BTW, never examined the Shroud and is not a scientist but a historian.

Of course there will always be skeptics.

Heck, did you know that there were skeptics about the existence of Pontius Pilate until the late 1940's?

There were no archeological proof that Pilate existed until a site in Palistine was discovered with Pilate's name all over them.

It was also shown that Pilate indeed pardon prisoners on Passover, as the Gospel states.

Since then, there haven't been any skeptics.

Jim

Christ's_Warrior · #15 12th June 2012, 06:21 PM

Thanks Jim,

Just one question, are you sure they have evidence that Pilate pardoned prisoners during pass over?

JimR-OCDS · #16 12th June 2012, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Christ's_Warrior

Thanks Jim,

Just one question, are you sure they have evidence that Pilate pardoned prisoners during pass over?

Yes, according to the Archeological finds, this was true.

Jim

Atwood45 · #17 13th June 2012, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Theofane

And if it wasn't, would your belief falter?

i have protestant friends who have this belief as well..... if it was it wouldn't just be a + to Catholics but to all Christians

JimR-OCDS · #18 14th June 2012, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by ExCatholic

<staff edit>
"

Problem is, the negative image wasn't known until the 1860's when the first photograph was taken and the negative showed the image as we see it in photos today.

In other words, in the Middle Ages, they were unaware of the negative image on the shroud.

Jim

Root of Jesse · #19 15th June 2012, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

Problem is, the negative image wasn't known until the 1860's when the first photograph was taken and the negative showed the image as we see it in photos today.

In other words, in the Middle Ages, they were unaware of the negative image on the shroud.

Jim

Not to mention the microscopic evidence, such as the herringbone weave used primarily in the Middle East at the time, and the pollen trapped in the cloth, which contains specific pollen from the immediate area of Jerusalem, as well as pollen from the Constantinople area.

Also, not only is the negative image the positive, but using technology, you can see that it wasn't a flat image, but actually a 3-D image.

Also, the image was created from something other than pigment. Nice try, though, Ex-Catholic.

JimR-OCDS · #20 15th June 2012, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Root of Jesse

Not to mention the microscopic evidence, such as the herringbone weave used primarily in the Middle East at the time, and the pollen trapped in the cloth, which contains specific pollen from the immediate area of Jerusalem, as well as pollen from the Constantinople area.

Also, not only is the negative image the positive, but using technology, you can see that it wasn't a flat image, but actually a 3-D image.

Also, the image was created from something other than pigment. Nice try, though, Ex-Catholic.

Another issue is the fact that in the Middle Ages, artist portrayed Christ as having nail holes through the center of his hand, not at the wrist as the Shroud does. Knowledge about Roman Crucifixion during the time of Christ, was pretty much lost by the Middle Ages and art work of it was done historically incorrect.

However, the Shroud is correct in this regard.

Jim