Attn RKF - Shroud and other miracles

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by RKF
The shroud is still fake, kinda like the tears from a statue of mary.

1. Prove it is fake, or kindly stop claiming this as fact.

2. As far as the tears comment, which occurance are you refering to exactly? There have been some that have not been explained by scientific investigation. My wife and her whole family witnessed the one in Woodbridge, Va, that occured in the early 1990's.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by s0uljah

1. Prove it is fake, or kindly stop claiming this as fact.

"Proof" is pretty much impossible, but I'd say there's enough evidence for it being a fake to make the question uninteresting. I don't recall any keystones of the faith being based on finding Christ's burial shroud, and I have no particular reason to believe that it should still exist.

Look at it this way: What's the evidence that it's *really* that particular shroud, and not any other? It's not as if there's only been one or two people with burial shrouds in history.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

What is the evidence of it being faked? There was a dating study done in the last decade that pointed its origin to medieval times, but since then, pollens have been found that place it in or around where Christ was buried before the 8th century.

 

[RKF]

Like I said before the same people who said it was real said that the earth is a hundred million years old. I don't need to prove it's fake, can you prove that it is real, no.
For one thing Jesus wouldn't leave a sign like that, the bible says in Luke 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by RKF
I don't need to prove it's fake, can you prove that it is real, no.

If you can't, then please don't say it as a fact. You will mislead people that may not know any better.

There are a lot of things that point to it being authentic. Tell me some that point to it being fake?

Also, let's not take scripture out of context. The very next line says:

"For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation."

Did He say there would never be any signs for other generations? Besides, I think you are misunderstanding that line in the first place. Wouldn't you consider miracles to be "signs"?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by s0uljah

If you can't, then please don't say it as a fact. You will mislead people that may not know any better.

There are a lot of things that point to it being authentic. Tell me some that point to it being fake?

Well, first off, fabric doesn't normally last that long. Various attempts at things like carbon dating seem to suggest it's more recent than 2000 years old, by a fair margin.

The world contained at one point at least a forest's worth of "real" splinters of the True Cross.

Essentially, there have been a lot of relics faked up over the ages.

Where's the Scripture that says that Christ's shroud will be identifiable?

I have no expectation that such an object would exist, or would be recognizable as such if it did. I need to see a compelling reason to believe in it before I'll pay it any attention.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by seebs

Well, first off, fabric doesn't normally last that long.

Yes, and nor does fabric normally survive fires against all scientific explanation.

Originally posted by seebs

Various attempts at things like carbon dating seem to suggest it's more recent than 2000 years old, by a fair margin.

Refer to my post above. The dating was wrong, based on the new Pollen fibers that place it before the 8th century.

Originally posted by seebs

Where's the Scripture that says that Christ's shroud will be identifiable?

Why is this required?

 

[VOW]

Have any of you really investigated the claims that the Shroud is AUTHENTIC? You might be surprised......or, as in my case, STUNNED.

And there have been reports that the original carbon dating was flawed, because of the fire the Shroud had been exposed to. Further, AFTER the fire, the Shroud was handled by people who "mended" it.

Cloth doesn't last that long? Funny, the mummy wrappings in Egypt lasted for thousands of years!

Before you reject it out of hand, study it. Even if it ISN'T authentic, it's an incredible faith-promoting artifact.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by VOW
Have any of you really investigated the claims that the Shroud is AUTHENTIC? You might be surprised......or, as in my case, STUNNED.

And there have been reports that the original carbon dating was flawed, because of the fire the Shroud had been exposed to. Further, AFTER the fire, the Shroud was handled by people who "mended" it.

Cloth doesn't last that long? Funny, the mummy wrappings in Egypt lasted for thousands of years!

Under extremely specialized conditions, and possibly with some preservative fluids, yes.

Anyway, the real problem is, I don't see enough evidence to convince me that it's that *particular* shroud, even should we grant the rough time period.

Various sources make contradictory claims; some say the coloration is pigment, others say it's blood, and no one is willing to budge.

As such, it's something I'm not going to rest my faith on.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by seebs

As such, it's something I'm not going to rest my faith on.

Nor should you, but it can help. What do you rest yours on by the way?

 

[VOW]

To Seebs:

Anyway, the real problem is, I don't see enough evidence to convince me that it's that *particular* shroud, even should we grant the rough time period.

Find a copy of the book called "The Shroud of Turin." Read the detailed analysis of the TYPE of fabric, the pollen in the flowers, the details to the scorch marks which COULDN'T have been duplicated 1000 years ago, 1500 years ago, 2000 years ago.

Read how the DISTINCTIVE facial features on the body pictured on the Shroud have been duplicated on paintings of Jesus from all time periods, throughout the world.

See how all the wounds on the body match up exactly with the ones described in the Gospels.

You don't have to believe. But you should just study it, for historical purposes.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[RKF]

It's a bunch of the same ol' rederick that the harlot as produced to keep people at awe with, goes with te crying statues. Face it it's fake. God wouldn't allow it! Why? Because he is better than that. As far as the picture of Jesus, do you actually believe those are dipictions of Jesus? If so I have a bridge I would like to sell you.....

 

[Trento]

For anyone interested in scietific analysis of the Turin Shroud go here.http://www.pixelworks.com.ph/shroud/crucifixion.htm#nailed

 

[NumberOneSon]

Come on, RKF - let's keep our comments above the belt.

 

[RKF]

Is it not offensive to see Jesus still on the cross?
it is to me!!

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by RKF
Is it not offensive to see Jesus still on the cross?
it is to me!!

If it offends you to have evidence of our Lord's burial cloth, then say that, instead of claming it to be fake with no basis for the statement other than your own interpretations.

And if you still want to dispute it, just read this site to start with:

http://www.pixelworks.com.ph/shroud/

 

[RKF]

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. That's why it's fake.

 

[RKF]

Shroud of Turin
Perhaps the world's most notorious religious hoax is the purported Holy Shroud of Jesus, now kept in a cathedral in Turin, Italy. It bears the imprints of an apparently crucified man, but modern forensic tests show the image was done in tempera paint, and radio carbon testing yielded a date between 1260 and 1390. This is consistent with the earliest written record of the cloth, a bishop's report to Pope Clement that an artist confessed he had "cunningly painted" the image. The "shroud" had been part of a phoney faith-healing scheme to bilk credulous pilgrims. Stories of the shroud's authenticity are sure to resurface this spring at the 1998 Shroud Exposition in Turin where the "relic" will be on display to the public for the first time in twenty years.

Search: shroud of Turin

(SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Spring

 

[RKF]

The situation with the VM now becomes the same as with the Turin "Shroud," another widely known and important relic that unfortunately I and my colleagues also found in the 1970's to be a fake. There we found, by identifying single submicrometer particles as the only colored matter in the "Shroud" image areas, two red pigments and a yellowed watercolor paint medium. The pigments red ochre and vermilion with the collagen tempera medium was a common paint composition during the 14th century; before which, no one had ever heard of the Shroud. The Bishop of the diocese of the Church where it was first exhibited in 1356 wrote to the Pope saying he knew the artist who had painted it. We decided, based on our particle approach in 1979, that the Shroud was painted in 1355. In 1987, eight years later, carbon dating at three prestigious laboratories confirmed this by agreeing on a best date of 1325, plus or minus 65 years.

 

[RKF]

01-MAY-3: Shroud image may belong to Jacques de Molay: Dr Robert Lomas is leading a study of the shroud at Bradford University. He suggests that the image and shroud may have been from Jacques de Molay, a medieval priest who traveled to Scotland seeking a safe refuge from persecution by the Christian Church for his Knights Temlar followers. Dr Lomas believes that high temperature and sweat from de Molay's body during his torture by the Church may have produced metabolic acids. These could have left an imprint on a shroud wrapped around him. He survived the torture and was held in prison for seven years before being burned alive with another Templar, Geoffrey de Charney. It was de Charney's nephew's widow who first placed the shroud on public exhibition