hello everybody. Just wanted to know what your opinions were on the subject. Some folk think its a significant piece of archaeology and some folk think it has no significance. i was looking around on the web and found some info that the nails could have been driven (at an angle) through the palm of the hand and emerged out of the back of the wrist. Found it quite kind of interesting (it could line up with scripture). I know there's some catholic headz on this board so id like to hear from you as well as everybody who visits this forum. Thanks
Is the shroud of Turin a hoax?
- Thread starter ez3729
- Start date
- Nov 28, 2003
- 21,661
- 12,196
- 58
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
I'd like to know what tests have been done to show that His flesh could not have supported His body weight had the nails been driven through His hands. I've seen enough carcasses hanging of meat hooks in the fridge at our local butchers to suspect that Christ's hands could easily have taken His weight. He was also a man who spent many days fasting, so it is unlikely that He would have been a heavyweight.
I personally believe the shroud is genuine, but my faith certainly does not depend on it being so.
John
I personally believe the shroud is genuine, but my faith certainly does not depend on it being so.
John
Upvote
0
According to this article http://e-forensicmedicine.net/Turin2000.htm, pierre barbet conducted a test nailing an amputated arm and concluded that the flesh in the palm would tear at about 88 pounds. The article also presents Dr Fred Zugibe's viewpoint that the nail was driven into the carpal area of the palm where there are several roundish bones (the Z-area) at an angle so that it exited the wrist area just like the shroud.
Upvote
0
- Nov 28, 2003
- 21,661
- 12,196
- 58
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
The article goes on to show Barbet's assumptions to be in error, since the crucified does not hang freely but is supported also by the feet. He also found that the weight supported by the arms did not increase substantially when the crucified died.
Thanks for the article BTW. Its just the sort of thing I've been looking for
Thanks for the article BTW. Its just the sort of thing I've been looking for
Upvote
0
CovenantRay
Well-Known Member
Hello:
My humble opinion is that the shroud is a medieval reproduction. It doesn't really matter though.
The shroud is a relic, and can inspire the faithful. It is important to remember that inspiration is good, the worship of a relic -- whether or not it is authentic -- is bad. Please remember to keep your worship on the "King" and not on his robes...
Reference 2 Kings 18:4 (NASB)
Judean King Hezekiah...
Thank you,
CovenantRay
My humble opinion is that the shroud is a medieval reproduction. It doesn't really matter though.
The shroud is a relic, and can inspire the faithful. It is important to remember that inspiration is good, the worship of a relic -- whether or not it is authentic -- is bad. Please remember to keep your worship on the "King" and not on his robes...
Reference 2 Kings 18:4 (NASB)
Judean King Hezekiah...
Thank you,
CovenantRay
Upvote
0
EPIC
Active Member
- Mar 15, 2004
- 36
- 0
- 48
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I saw a special not too long ago that presented the shroud as a hoax. The test showed that the fabric itself was not old enough to have been used in Jesus' time, and there was also some compelling written evidence that the shroud was created (and later sold) in the medieval period. I wish I could remember where I saw that. May have been KERA or Discovery.
Upvote
0
A few months ago i saw on the news that Ray Rogers, one of the original scientists who examined the shroud in the 70s claimed that the sample dated in medievel times was actually a re-woven addition to the shroud. the sample was medievel but not part of the original. heres the article from shroud.com.
Prominent Los Alamos Scientist Proves 1988 Carbon-14 Dating of the Shroud Used Invalid Rewoven Sample
Ray Rogers at his Petrographic Microscope, May 2004
A new, peer reviewed scientific paper by Raymond N. Rogers, retired Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, was published on January 20, 2005, in the latest issue of the journal Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425, Issues 1-2, Pages 189-194. Titled "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," the paper concludes:
"As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud. Pyrolysis-mass spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the Shroud."
In a press release earlier this week, Rogers stated, "The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the Shroud relic. The sample tested was dyed using technology that began to appear in Italy about the time the Crusaders' last bastion fell to the Turks in AD 1291. The radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about AD 1290, agreeing with the age determined (for the sample) in 1988. However, the Shroud itself is actually much older."
As a result of his own research and chemical tests, Rogers concluded that the radiocarbon sample is totally different in composition from the main part of the Shroud of Turin and was cut from a medieval reweaving of the cloth. Rogers was also the leader of the chemistry group for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), the scientific team that performed the first in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITOR'S NOTE: You can access the journal paper (or at least the abstract) at the following link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2004.09.029. Once there, if you click on the link to "Volume 425, Issues 1-2" at the bottom left of the page, it will open the table of contents for this volume. In the table of contents, scroll down to number 26, Ray's paper, and click on the "Summary Plus" link. That will take you to the entire paper, which is currently available gratis, but that will probably change very soon. In future, one will have to register and pay a fee to access the full text and illustrations. However, the free link to the abstract is permanent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers' new research clearly disproves the 1988 findings announced by British Museum spokesperson, Michael Tite, when he declared that the Shroud was of medieval origin and probably "a hoax." The British Museum coordinated the 1988 radiocarbon tests and acted as the official clearing house for all findings. Interestingly, the original carbon-14 dating protocol had called for chemical analysis of the samples prior to their destruction during the testing. However, that analysis was never performed by any of the three dating laboratories. Each lab was given a small portion of the single sample cut from a corner of the Shroud specifically for the tests. It is difficult to predict whether the anomalous nature of the sample would have been detected had the chemical analysis been performed, but it might have led the laboratories to request additional samples be taken from other areas of the Shroud to validate the accuracy of their results. As it was, the three laboratories concluded that their results were correct to a 95% certainty, a claim that, according to some experts, is difficult to support based on the single sample tested.
Another issue that arose in Ray Rogers' study was the finding of cotton fibers in the sample used for C-14 dating. There was no cotton found in any of the samples taken by the STURP team from the main body of the Shroud cloth in 1978. Yet even the Oxford lab, one of the three labs that performed the C-14 dating in 1988, reported they found cotton in the fibers of the sample they tested. My thanks to Rev. Albert "Kim" Dreisbach, Jr., for providing me with the additional information and several references to this cotton issue in an e-mail today. I have included his comments at the following link: Cotton Fiber in C-14 Sample.
Almost immediately after the results were released in 1988, Shroud analysts questioned the validity of the sample used for the dating. In fact, one researcher with considerable experience in radiocarbon dating ancient artifacts, University of Hong Kong based archaeologist William Meacham, presented a paper in 1986, two years before the infamous dating, outlining his concerns. Titled, "Radiocarbon Measurement and the age of the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties," it suggested that contamination could easily skew the results. Unfortunately, it went largely unnoticed. In light of Rogers' recent work, it is undoubtedly well worth re-reading.
More recently, researchers M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, using high-resolution photographs of the Shroud and enlisting the aid of textile experts, found indications of an "invisible" reweave in the area used for the C-14 testing. They presented a series of controversial papers at Shroud conferences that revealed their results, including Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs in 2000 and Historical Support of a 16th Century Restoration in the Shroud C-14 Sample Area and Textile Evidence Supports Skewed Radiocarbon Date of Shroud of Turin in 2002.
It is interesting to note that when Ray Rogers first saw the Benford/Marino papers, he believed he could "disprove their theory in 5 minutes." Of course, that was not to be the case. In essence, Benford and Marino's findings stimulated him to do the research that ultimately led to today's stunning announcement. In fact, in a classic example of how science is truly self-correcting, Ray ultimately proved that Sue and Joe were correct! Ironically, it should be noted that the 1988 C-14 dating results were also technically correct: the only sample they tested was in fact, medieval. Unfortunately, it did not represent the main body of the Shroud cloth. Years later, when Prof. Luigi Gonella, Official Scientific Advisor to the Archbishop of Turin (and the man who approved the decision to take only a single sample) was asked why this was allowed to occur, he responded with a single word, "expediency." Unfortunately, that ill-fated decision caused seventeen years of turmoil and chaos in the study of what is arguably the most important relic in all of Christianity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the course of his research, Ray enlisted the aid of professional microscopist John L. Brown to independently examine some of his samples. See the article John Brown wrote exclusively for the Shroud of Turin Website below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Microscopy Supports Ray Rogers' Conclusions
I am truly honored to publish an article today by John L. Brown titled Microscopical Investigation of Selected Raes Threads from the Shroud of Turin (.pdf format) [190k]
John was a Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology until his retirement in 1984. He is an expert microscopist specializing in the field of forensic analysis of material failures, and was enlisted by Ray Rogers to examine samples of selected Raes threads taken from the Shroud in 1973. These threads are important because they were taken from the area immediately adjacent to the sample used for carbon-14 analysis of the Shroud in 1988. In this article, John provides an independent review of the samples he examined, along with seven previously unpublished photomicrographs and scanning electron microscope views that supplement and support the conclusions drawn by Ray in his recent peer reviewed paper. I want to thank John again for taking the time to write the article and provide it to us for today's update. John's article can also be accessed from the Website Library and Scientific Papers & Articles pages of this site.
Posted January 21, 2005
Prominent Los Alamos Scientist Proves 1988 Carbon-14 Dating of the Shroud Used Invalid Rewoven Sample
Ray Rogers at his Petrographic Microscope, May 2004
A new, peer reviewed scientific paper by Raymond N. Rogers, retired Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, was published on January 20, 2005, in the latest issue of the journal Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425, Issues 1-2, Pages 189-194. Titled "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," the paper concludes:
"As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud. Pyrolysis-mass spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the Shroud."
In a press release earlier this week, Rogers stated, "The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the Shroud relic. The sample tested was dyed using technology that began to appear in Italy about the time the Crusaders' last bastion fell to the Turks in AD 1291. The radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about AD 1290, agreeing with the age determined (for the sample) in 1988. However, the Shroud itself is actually much older."
As a result of his own research and chemical tests, Rogers concluded that the radiocarbon sample is totally different in composition from the main part of the Shroud of Turin and was cut from a medieval reweaving of the cloth. Rogers was also the leader of the chemistry group for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), the scientific team that performed the first in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITOR'S NOTE: You can access the journal paper (or at least the abstract) at the following link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2004.09.029. Once there, if you click on the link to "Volume 425, Issues 1-2" at the bottom left of the page, it will open the table of contents for this volume. In the table of contents, scroll down to number 26, Ray's paper, and click on the "Summary Plus" link. That will take you to the entire paper, which is currently available gratis, but that will probably change very soon. In future, one will have to register and pay a fee to access the full text and illustrations. However, the free link to the abstract is permanent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers' new research clearly disproves the 1988 findings announced by British Museum spokesperson, Michael Tite, when he declared that the Shroud was of medieval origin and probably "a hoax." The British Museum coordinated the 1988 radiocarbon tests and acted as the official clearing house for all findings. Interestingly, the original carbon-14 dating protocol had called for chemical analysis of the samples prior to their destruction during the testing. However, that analysis was never performed by any of the three dating laboratories. Each lab was given a small portion of the single sample cut from a corner of the Shroud specifically for the tests. It is difficult to predict whether the anomalous nature of the sample would have been detected had the chemical analysis been performed, but it might have led the laboratories to request additional samples be taken from other areas of the Shroud to validate the accuracy of their results. As it was, the three laboratories concluded that their results were correct to a 95% certainty, a claim that, according to some experts, is difficult to support based on the single sample tested.
Another issue that arose in Ray Rogers' study was the finding of cotton fibers in the sample used for C-14 dating. There was no cotton found in any of the samples taken by the STURP team from the main body of the Shroud cloth in 1978. Yet even the Oxford lab, one of the three labs that performed the C-14 dating in 1988, reported they found cotton in the fibers of the sample they tested. My thanks to Rev. Albert "Kim" Dreisbach, Jr., for providing me with the additional information and several references to this cotton issue in an e-mail today. I have included his comments at the following link: Cotton Fiber in C-14 Sample.
Almost immediately after the results were released in 1988, Shroud analysts questioned the validity of the sample used for the dating. In fact, one researcher with considerable experience in radiocarbon dating ancient artifacts, University of Hong Kong based archaeologist William Meacham, presented a paper in 1986, two years before the infamous dating, outlining his concerns. Titled, "Radiocarbon Measurement and the age of the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties," it suggested that contamination could easily skew the results. Unfortunately, it went largely unnoticed. In light of Rogers' recent work, it is undoubtedly well worth re-reading.
More recently, researchers M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, using high-resolution photographs of the Shroud and enlisting the aid of textile experts, found indications of an "invisible" reweave in the area used for the C-14 testing. They presented a series of controversial papers at Shroud conferences that revealed their results, including Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs in 2000 and Historical Support of a 16th Century Restoration in the Shroud C-14 Sample Area and Textile Evidence Supports Skewed Radiocarbon Date of Shroud of Turin in 2002.
It is interesting to note that when Ray Rogers first saw the Benford/Marino papers, he believed he could "disprove their theory in 5 minutes." Of course, that was not to be the case. In essence, Benford and Marino's findings stimulated him to do the research that ultimately led to today's stunning announcement. In fact, in a classic example of how science is truly self-correcting, Ray ultimately proved that Sue and Joe were correct! Ironically, it should be noted that the 1988 C-14 dating results were also technically correct: the only sample they tested was in fact, medieval. Unfortunately, it did not represent the main body of the Shroud cloth. Years later, when Prof. Luigi Gonella, Official Scientific Advisor to the Archbishop of Turin (and the man who approved the decision to take only a single sample) was asked why this was allowed to occur, he responded with a single word, "expediency." Unfortunately, that ill-fated decision caused seventeen years of turmoil and chaos in the study of what is arguably the most important relic in all of Christianity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the course of his research, Ray enlisted the aid of professional microscopist John L. Brown to independently examine some of his samples. See the article John Brown wrote exclusively for the Shroud of Turin Website below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Microscopy Supports Ray Rogers' Conclusions
I am truly honored to publish an article today by John L. Brown titled Microscopical Investigation of Selected Raes Threads from the Shroud of Turin (.pdf format) [190k]
John was a Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology until his retirement in 1984. He is an expert microscopist specializing in the field of forensic analysis of material failures, and was enlisted by Ray Rogers to examine samples of selected Raes threads taken from the Shroud in 1973. These threads are important because they were taken from the area immediately adjacent to the sample used for carbon-14 analysis of the Shroud in 1988. In this article, John provides an independent review of the samples he examined, along with seven previously unpublished photomicrographs and scanning electron microscope views that supplement and support the conclusions drawn by Ray in his recent peer reviewed paper. I want to thank John again for taking the time to write the article and provide it to us for today's update. John's article can also be accessed from the Website Library and Scientific Papers & Articles pages of this site.
Posted January 21, 2005
Upvote
0
- Jul 5, 2005
- 46,674
- 19,852
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
All you've got to do is read the scriptures to realize that it's a hoax. The bible describes that Jesus' body was wrapped like a mummy and a napkin was wrapped around his head. So, there were two different cloths used, so it's not right that they have only one cloth, with His whole body image on it.
Upvote
0
Actually there has been a second cloth discovered. It's called the Sudarium of Oviedo and is located in the Cathederal of Oviedo, Spain. The sudarium is believed to be the head covering that was around the head of the crucified man after he was taken off the cross. There are close similarities of the shroud and the sudarium.
Rabbis ive communicated with on askmoses.com say that ancient jewish burial customs never consisted of burying the dead like a mummy or an egyptian. To this day, jews are buried with a shroud.
Rabbis ive communicated with on askmoses.com say that ancient jewish burial customs never consisted of burying the dead like a mummy or an egyptian. To this day, jews are buried with a shroud.
Upvote
0
Isn't the story behind the shroud supposed to be that the image was burned (or otherwise transferred) onto it somehow at the time of the Resurrection? I have a hard time believing that, partly for the following reason.
When the shroud is stretched flat, the image looks realistic in the way a drawing or photograph would be realistic. In other words, the proportions look normal.
However, if a shroud had been draped over or wrapped around a three-dimensional body, and somehow acquired the image of that body, then the image should look distorted when the shroud was stretched out flat. The face, in particular, should look much too wide.
So whatever the shroud is, I don't think it could have acquired its image as the result of being in contact with a human body. Personally, I think it's simply an interesting medieval artifact, nothing more.
When the shroud is stretched flat, the image looks realistic in the way a drawing or photograph would be realistic. In other words, the proportions look normal.
However, if a shroud had been draped over or wrapped around a three-dimensional body, and somehow acquired the image of that body, then the image should look distorted when the shroud was stretched out flat. The face, in particular, should look much too wide.
So whatever the shroud is, I don't think it could have acquired its image as the result of being in contact with a human body. Personally, I think it's simply an interesting medieval artifact, nothing more.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The 1988 carbon-dating was done on a re-weave part of the Shroud for fire damage.
Please goto news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal.
A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old. (Jesus' period)
"A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."
"Fire damage He says he was originally dubious of untested claims that the 1988 sample was taken from a re-weave. "
"... was damaged in several fires since its existence was first recorded in France in 1357, including a church blaze in 1532. "
It is said to have been restored by nuns who patched the holes and stitched the shroud to a reinforcing material known as the Holland cloth.
Please goto news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal.
A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old. (Jesus' period)
"A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."
"Fire damage He says he was originally dubious of untested claims that the 1988 sample was taken from a re-weave. "
"... was damaged in several fires since its existence was first recorded in France in 1357, including a church blaze in 1532. "
It is said to have been restored by nuns who patched the holes and stitched the shroud to a reinforcing material known as the Holland cloth.
Upvote
0
hyperlink to that article here
thats a good interesting point. although i think if body was wrapped with a dry blanket that encompassed the whole body i think it would make that sort of impression. i think the shroud captured the basic front plane of the body. i think if there is distortion it is mostly towards the ankles and feet where there is more planar change.
thats a good interesting point. although i think if body was wrapped with a dry blanket that encompassed the whole body i think it would make that sort of impression. i think the shroud captured the basic front plane of the body. i think if there is distortion it is mostly towards the ankles and feet where there is more planar change.
Upvote
0
Robert the Pilegrim
Senior Veteran
Um... what he saidCovenantRay said:Hello:
My humble opinion is that the shroud is a medieval reproduction. It doesn't really matter though.
The shroud is a relic, and can inspire the faithful. It is important to remember that inspiration is good, the worship of a relic -- whether or not it is authentic -- is bad. Please remember to keep your worship on the "King" and not on his robes...
Reference 2 Kings 18:4 (NASB) Judean King Hezekiah...
Thank you, CovenantRay
To show that it was a hoax would require showing intent to deceive.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
shroudstory.com the preceding link has a ton of recent info on the shroud. History, science almost everything. Just found it so be careful. theres also an article there about a recent meeting with shroud reps from turin and american scientists in dallas texas.
Upvote
0
Yes I saw the same program. I've also read books which make the same claim.EPIC said:
One of the things that cracks me up about the claims is that they are ready and willing to believe that mediaeval artists could duplicate a negative image, but they are not willing to believe that people could have used a specific weave of cloth earlier than people once supposed. lol
Question is - did you see the program that proves that it is real? Or read the books which support it as real?
Personally - there are too many unexplainable things about the shroud for me to say it is a fake.
Upvote
0
- Jul 5, 2005
- 46,674
- 19,852
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Jesus still had a napkin wrapped over his face.
Then cometh Simon Peter following him and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie and the napkin that was about his head not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. John 20:7 KJV
that was a great point could you elaborate a little more? Some say the Sudarium Oviedo is the smaller head cloth with blood stains that match the shroud's.
Then cometh Simon Peter following him and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie and the napkin that was about his head not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. John 20:7 KJV
that was a great point could you elaborate a little more? Some say the Sudarium Oviedo is the smaller head cloth with blood stains that match the shroud's.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
BarbB
I stand with my brothers and sisters in Israel!
Br. Max said:
I have seen and read books that have convinced me that the shroud is real. That said, I believe that the shroud is a gift to us from God that we should not doubt that our Savior lived and died and rose again. There are other things surfacing in archeology which continue to confirm these claims.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
