Shroud of Turin proven genuine by REAL science

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I'm curious how you think that the Shroud of Turin is consistant with John, who clearly states that he was prepared with strips of linen?

Did John say how big the strips were?

Hint: It's a rhetorical question.

 

[DocBrown]

Originally posted by npetreley
Existence is not the only issue, as I think you already know. Jesus is offensive to some, and the idea that there is this shroud that might not only be evidence of His existence, but to the supernatural event of His resurrection, is very offensive. That is also why we Christians are offensive to some.

Exactly. And some of these people I mentioned will never accept that. No matter what you show them as proof. It's not that they just can't see it or won't see it, they can't see it. If they did then everything they believe would crumble. That's why we are seeing things like -- "oh oh well you see - it can't be true cause if you wrap a face with a towel (with paint on it) it wouldn't look that way". They overlook little facts like how the Hebrews prepared bodies for burial and the fact that this certain one was in haste. Even if they had been an eye witness to the resurrection they would have to find something to say that would cause doubt. Even to the extent of being a little silly.

Oh well they will know the truth in time, I only pray it's not too late. Lets see we have till ????????? maybe, well just maybe it could be tormorrow or even later today. Naw most likely in a billion years right? LOL

Oh and another thing, this would also indicate that we are more than just another animal that crawled out of the soup one day. Maybe our lives really have meaning. What ya think?

 

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

If someone doesn't want to believe in Jesus, a photo of Jesus caused by His resurrection would be explained away, forever. It's only natural.

 

[VOW]

To Rufus:

You're swallowing the horse and choking on the tail. STRIPS were used to bind the wrists of the Figure on the Shroud, to counteract the effect of rigor mortis. There is even a suggestion of a strip of cloth under the chin and tied on top of the head: this would be to close the mouth and keep it closed. And again, there is the possibility that coins were placed over the eyes.

These were done immediately, to give the body the appearance of restful pose. The body was then covered with the Shroud to shield the nudity, out of respect. However, there was not enough time to BATHE the body. Sundown was fast approaching, and the Disciples wanted to just get Him inside the tomb, away from predators. Plans were made to later go back and finish the burial preparations. Traditionally, the body would have been washed and anointed. The Jews have always been a clean people. Ritual bathing is required on many occasions, and the followers of Jesus would have wanted to wash him and anoint him properly. I haven't researched Leviticus, there might be an entire passage in Old Testament Scripture on how the dead are to be prepared. It would seem logical to me that they would have washed at least His FEET.


Peace,
~VOW


(and I'm STILL trying to track down that book!)

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by s0uljah
If someone doesn't want to believe in Jesus, a photo of Jesus caused by His resurrection would be explained away, forever. It's only natural.

Conversely: If someone wants to believe in Jesus, a phony relic of Jesus' resurrection would be touted as authentic in spite of the gross preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

It's only natural.

http://skepdic.com/shroud.html
http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00097.html

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

LiveFreeOrDie-

Actually the preponderance of the evidence points to it being real. If it were likely fake, I would drop it like a bad habit.

There are only two pieces of evidence claiming it is fake, and both are very shady. The rest totally outweighs those!

 

[Morat]

  How so, Souljah? The C14 dates show it to be 1400 years to 'young'. You claim the dates are wrong, but haven't given anything conclusive, merely speculative (and at that, the mechanisms for the error are....problematic).

  Thus, until you conclusively refute the C14 dates, the weight of the evidence is on the 'It's a 14th century fake' side.

 

 

[VOW]

To LFoD:

I looked at your links.

Funny, how the skeptics say the believers overlook the facts, yet in your links, your skeptics overlooked a few of their own.

We can throw experts at each other all day. Your skeptic says the head was too large for the body; other specialists say the figure on the Shroud is anatomically correct. Who's right? Your skeptic makes frequent mention of pigments and paint, yet the actual IMAGE has been determined to NOT be paint. Art analysis experts say there is no "signature" painting style. The image was "applied" (for want of a better word) completely perpendicular to the cloth. IRL, that ain't done, except in a technique using "dots" of paint. And this was "applied" as MICRODOTS, and there weren't any microscopes around in the 1300s.

There's quibbling about the blood not being real blood. Funny, though, for all the blood talk, there's also NO mention by the skeptics that the blood was placed on the Shroud, FIRST, and then the image. How could someone know exactly how to place two different angles of blood flow and blood from an incredible number of wounds, all shaped differently, without having the body on the cloth first?

Then the skeptic article is cluttered with the mention of images found in tortillas, tree trunks, rope burns, and whatnot. That's cluttering up the argument with irrelevant material. Those have nothing to do with the Shroud. As for the opinion by Dr McCrone, it has been rejected by other scientists as incomplete. Dr McCrone's work IS published, but HE paid to have it published himself. Hmmm.

Has it been disproved?

Depends on who you talk to. But make sure you look at BOTH sides of the issue.



Peace,
~VOW

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Agreed VOW. I have read that site before and it is full of inaccurate data. *shrug*

 

[VOW]

Well, Morat, what about this?

Yes, the present C-14 dating shows the Shroud to be from the 1300s or so. However, the observable characteristics of the Shroud itself could not POSSIBLY have been created from materials and abilities and science available at that time. Photographic concepts, digitized images, and microdot "painting" techniques were unknown in the 1300s.

Therefore, the C-14 date doesn't even match the image evidence.

So I guess it was left here by space aliens?



Peace,
~VOW

 

[ocean]

The C-14 could have been messed up by micro-organisms or radiation.

 

[VOW]

Golly, ocean!

You really think so?



~VOW

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

ocean-

Why do you keep stating your opinions all over the place...its wierd, ecpecially when they keep changing.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by VOW
Well, Morat, what about this?

Yes, the present C-14 dating shows the Shroud to be from the 1300s or so. However, the observable characteristics of the Shroud itself could not POSSIBLY have been created from materials and abilities and science available at that time. Photographic concepts, digitized images, and microdot "painting" techniques were unknown in the 1300s.

Therefore, the C-14 date doesn't even match the image evidence.

So I guess it was left here by space aliens?



Peace,
~VOW

Oh, dont forget that the Shroud was known before the 1300's!  LOL The aliens must have visited then as well!

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The evidence is currently inconclusive, so people will believe whatever their initial assumption is. The amount of detail detectable only with modern knowledge and techniques strongly weakens the forgery argument. However, the C-14 data disagrees with a first century dating by over a millenium. Therefore, each side has to overcome what looks like an impossibility, and the result is stalemate.

 

[ifriit]

You know, it amazes me this conversation has gone on for this long, and noone has bothered to even ask how the heck an image of a face became "imprinted" upon cloth in the first place. It's certainly not normal; what process caused this? If magic, why are you trying to use science at all?

 

[VOW]

To Dreams:

It's either a stalemate or an Internet slugfest on message boards!!




Peace,
~VOW

 

[Starscream]

You know, it amazes me this conversation has gone on for this long, and noone has bothered to even ask how the heck an image of a face became "imprinted" upon cloth in the first place. It's certainly not normal; what process caused this? If magic, why are you trying to use science at all?

I remember reading about some professor claiming that it was 'nuetron flux' or something stupidly similar.

You can make up any nonsense you want if you need to believe bad enough.

We should bring up one of the artifacts from another religion someday.  I somehow doubt that the Catholics here wouldn't buy into that too quickly.

 

[VOW]

Thank you, Starscream, for your well-placed contribution.

Since you would consider ALL religion to be "nonsense," I guess we're just behaving as expected.

I'm sure "neutron flux" was just an answer thrown out, since the image canNOT be explained, and people can't stand the idea of something unanswerable.


Peace,
~VOW

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by VOW
Thank you, Starscream, for your well-placed contribution.

Since you would consider ALL religion to be "nonsense," I guess we're just behaving as expected.

I'm sure "neutron flux" was just an answer thrown out, since the image canNOT be explained, and people can't stand the idea of something unanswerable.


Peace,
~VOW

I don't remember ever saying that all religion is 'nonsense'.  Please find the quote and I'll quickly apologize for that is not my belief.

I'll find a relic from a competing religion.  I'm sure you and s0uljah will be swayed by the 'proof' of its authenticity.