1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Is the Shroud of Turin Jesus' burial cloth?

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by LenKin, Jun 22, 2022.

  1. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    If science can put men on the moon, science can give reality a good or bad name.
     
  2. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,621
    Humanist
    Private
    So its all the moon's fault then?
     
  3. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +3,391
    Agnostic
    Married
    So you could create a new shroud using radiation? I'm going to call your bluff and say that's just another assertion and you don't actually know how the shroud was made either. If not, go ahead and make us a new shroud.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2022
  4. Mountainmike

    Mountainmike Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,384
    Catholic
    Married
    Men put men on the moon.
    Science was just a tool in his box.
    And that is where it needs to be when not in use, in a box.

    Although I take your point..
    In noticing from provenance what some radiocative materials will do..
    A wise man would think
    " can it usefully heat us".
    A careful man would think..
    "can it hurt us"
    Man actually thought
    "it can fry thousands of others in another country at the push of a button"
    But that is about the fall of man, not the world he is given and the tools he abuses!
     
  5. Mountainmike

    Mountainmike Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,384
    Catholic
    Married
    I do not need to.
    Having given his fraudulent shroud RC dating - it was halls who made the claim:

    "a forger faked it up and flogged it"

    We are still waiting for the fraudulent date supporters, to back that case they made. They cannot.

    I do not think it a fake. I think it is the real deal. I do not have to explain how it was faked. It really is the shroud of a crucified man, who suffered all the unique (in documented history) tortures Jesus is documented as suffering.
     
  6. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Well, I'm glad he thought that; aren't you?

    Else we'd all be conversing in German right now.
     
  7. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Why then does he have a beard?

    Isaiah 50:6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.
     
  8. Mountainmike

    Mountainmike Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,384
    Catholic
    Married
    If you go back to the concordance or youngs literal it seems to refer to "pull out hair" - it does not say all hair or even beard. I have no doubt they pulled at His hair , His beard .
    But Remove it entirely? It is not that specific even to what hair was pulled or how successful it was.
    First century Jews and older had beards. Moses and David did.
     
  9. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +23,807
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    The general Lutheran opinion on relics can be summed up in Luther's quip that 18 of the 12 Apostles are buried in Saxony alone.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  10. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Is this the same concordance that [says] Mary wasn't a virgin?
     
  11. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +3,391
    Agnostic
    Married
    Of course you don't need to, after all you've never repeated the claim that the image was made in a nanosecond burst of radiation. Only a person who made that claim should be expected to back it up, right?
    By the same token, we've been waiting even longer for the shroudies to back their case.

    Do you know what double standards are? You certainly have a few on display here.

    I didn't ask you to explain how it was faked. I asked you to explain how it was made. And if you can do that, you should be able to repeat the process. If you can't, then your claims are no different to the ones you disparage.
     
  12. Mountainmike

    Mountainmike Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,384
    Catholic
    Married
    Spare me the sophist games.
    You cannot be more wrong, or more unscientific.

    The pathology is indeed recognisable as that of a crucified man, crucified exactly as Jesus was, the only one documented as crucified that way. The pathology was invisible to a forger, and unknown at the time, and the correspondence to the sudarium shows it is very old , and Middle Eastern. Occam’s razor says it is real.
    How the mark got there is irrelevant to authentication. But it is a fascinating post mortem event.

    In the fake corner you have nothing except a fraudulent date, and if you contend it is fake you must explain the mark too. You contend an artist did it. How?

    The reaction of sceptics to the shroud is faith based not science based.
    Anyway . Until you are willing to discuss the science there is little more to be said.
     
  13. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +3,391
    Agnostic
    Married
    You have nothing except assertions and apriori conclusions based on pre-conceived ideas. You claim the shroud is real, yet you cannot demonstrate that to be true. Your response to all counter arguments is to disparage them and pretend they are worthless, while at the same time ignoring the blindingly obvious failings in so many of your own supposedly unassailable arguments.

    If you want discussion, discuss. If somebody makes an argument, simply saying "that's a lie told by a fraudster" is not discussion.
     
  14. Mountainmike

    Mountainmike Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,384
    Catholic
    Married
    You are certainly a microcosm of why the truth is never heard about the shroud.
    Another illinformed person who wants to proclaim on somehting they know NOTHING about.
    And yet another illinformed person labels your post "winner" because their faith or prejudice want what you said to be true. It is not.

    Meanwhile in the land of science.
    Which is where MY arguments come from:

    The forensics that go back to STURP and beyond clearly state the crucifixion pathology is real. The forensic correspondence with the sudarium would be enough to satisfy a criminal court they are the same victim. That means the shroud is very old, and also middle eastern. Indeed multiple physiochemical tests determine first century. It carries forensic evidence of the documented tortures of Christ.

    Just correcting your false hood. I stated i cannot prove it is real until there is a test for "jesus christness" (which is yet possible). However with so much evidence for authenticity including the unique tortures, the inability of a forger to even see the pathology, let alone reproduce it, the fact of the long term historic separation of shroud and sudarium, then occams razor states it probably is. I believe it to be so. But I separate the belief from what I can say from science.

    So let us deal with the one supposed evidence for " medieaval".
    So what we know of the test:
    - It is now an established fact that the data put in the nature paper which you all hang on to by faith was not the data from lab books which were obtained from the british museum by legal process. The data was fiddled by an unknown transform.
    ie THE DATE was a fraud. It was a fraud committed activey not passively. Fiddling data to make it homogeneous. That much we know as of fact.

    The rest just shows how incompetent the daters were at science.
    They were after all just trying to create a market for Goves new but as yet unproven AMS.

    - So A test published by the daters themseleves demonstrated AMS failed equipment qualification. No doubt about it. It misdated a fabric by an outrageous amount. In any metrology lab, the equipment would not be used again until the error was found. They carried on regardless.

    - The only archeologist involved - Meacham - said beforehand from long experience dating samples and fabrics that the outcome would not be definitive, and it would only be indicative if they followed a proper protocol involving multiple sites for samples, proper chemical characterisation and preparation.
    The testers ignored the protocol completely.

    - Ray rogers paper indicates why. The linen had different character from the rest of the shroud. It is much younger - by virtue of lignin at nodes. Even the diameter off threads was different. There was cotton interweaved which there is nowhere else on the shroud. In short they tested a mediaevel repair made to look like the shroud. No surprise there. It has been heavily repaired.

    - The actual test data is inhomogeneous - so fails homogeneity tests ( so is not valid for any date fro the shroud) and shows a date gradient. That is consistent with it being partially old and new.

    In short the test was done by incompetents ignoring protocol, who then cheated the data to try to give a date. A total fraud.


    My views are the views of science. Yours are the views of faith in a fake that you have no idea where, or how, or whether it can have been done.

    Would you like to contest the science instead?
    You would have a problem with that. You clearly have never studied any of it.

    I will not reply to another post of yours until it queries some aspect of the science. And for that you will need to study it for the first time.

    It is sad that on a science forum only one of us is interested in discussing the sciecne. The rest of you want to discuss your apriori prejudice and faith. Or mark as "winner" posts that just happen to agree with their beliefs.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2022
  15. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,797
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    And there you go again, dismissing people who don't agree with you as "ill-informed" and you imply they are living in a world of fantasy. You have long since ceased making any rational claims. You are now just writing emotional, fallacy-riddled rants in which you insult anyone who doesn't agree with you.

    If your views are so scientific, why has the paper citing a medieval creation date for the shroud not been retracted?
     
  16. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +3,391
    Agnostic
    Married
    Science does not say the shroud is Jesus' burial cloth. Another dishonest claim from you.
    No faith on my part. Another dishonest claim.
    Of course not, because you can't deal with any other challenge. History doesn't get a look in, contradicting the bible doesn't get a look in, correspondence with gothic art doesn't get a look in. The only part you want to talk about is an RC date and apparent correspondence of blood stains to what you think a crucified body should have. How many crucified bodies have you examined to come to this conclusion?
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2022
  17. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,797
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    @Mountainmike why hasn't the original paper been retracted? Show me where the science you claim is valid has been published in a peer reviewed journal.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 2
    • List
  18. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +3,391
    Agnostic
    Married
    To be fair, there are some peer reviewed challenges to the RC dating.
     
  19. Mountainmike

    Mountainmike Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,384
    Catholic
    Married
    Eureka.
     
  20. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,797
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    @Mountainmike why hasn't the original paper been retracted? Show me where the science you claim is valid has been published in a peer reviewed journal.

    I asked you before, but you weren't able to answer these questions.
     
Loading...