Shroud of Turin, the science

[theFijian]

theFijian, I already answered HOW Christ died distinctively different.

And where are these differences shown on the shroud?

 

[WarriorAngel]

HIS side.

Here is the picture close up off the Shroud...

This is the blood from His side.

 

[theFijian]

HIS side.

Here is the picture close up off the Shroud...

This is the blood from His side.

How do we know it's his blood? Have you got a DNA sample to compare it to?

 

[WarriorAngel]

IF you read the Bible, and understand it...

Facts of Jesus;

Jesus took the Apostles with Him to show how HIS transfigured body would appear.


Matthew
Chapter 17 1 1 2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 3 And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light. 3 4 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him. 4 Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents 5 here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." 5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud cast a shadow over them, 6 then from the cloud came a voice that said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." 6 7 When the disciples heard this, they fell prostrate and were very much afraid. 7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Rise, and do not be afraid." 8 And when the disciples raised their eyes, they saw no one else but Jesus alone. 9 8 As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, "Do not tell the vision 9 to anyone until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." ****** **


Ok, now consider this cloth has a negative effect from a BRIGHT light...as from a camera.
THE fact that no mere man could have produced this with the negative effect...so who else has the Power to do this?

Besides the fact all the marks are consistent with Christ's death.

Prophecies said...HIS bones would not be broken by the 'breaking' of the bones to make sure the crucified would die b4 sunset...so the family could take the bodies and bury them b4 the Sabbath.

The Romans knew they could not let the bodies rot on the crosses...because the Jews would not claim the bodies over the Sabbath aka Saturday.
The Bible has the answers...and so do historic events, and truths from history.

Yes, this is Christ.
NO man of that time could have been LIGHT such as described in the Gospels, AS JESUS WAS.

PLUS the blood on His head..no one else had a crown of thorns. THAT was meant to be His crown as for a King..

THIS is the inside of the cloth...and here is the outside...{AND no one can explain how the two are exact..because paint could not have done that..AND yet been colored lighter...? Nope, it is a miracle.

 

[theFijian]

umm...ok. So you have no proof that it's Jesus blood then.

 

[HRE]

And you have not actually rebutted any of the refutations...nice.

 

[WarriorAngel]

DNA was taken to show it is blood...but 'IF' you know how DNA works, that means we have to have a sample of DNA to begin with to know who's it is for fact.

BUT by all accounts, it is distinctly Jesus. WHO else would it be? :o

AND I did refute everything...as succinctly as possible. Please review the 'facts' by more currently available information vs the 1988 mistakes.

 

[Deamiter]

Hate to burst the bubble... BUT, no, in fact the carbon date was misrespresented to the carbon of the fire of that time.

Interestingly enough, the site you just quoted says you're wrong. There is no way a fire could change the C14 date.

BUT when recarboned, it did in fact show the correct date as to the time of Christ...

Now you're just making things up right? I can find no reference to a dating done more recently than 1988. A thread was dated EARLIER in 1970 that gave dates of 300AD and 1000AD, but the sample was much too small (and questionable) to either give good data or be conclusive.

No, we can THINK the lies are true...but I think you need to research the more updated findings.

I'm glad you think so. It seems you DID do a bit more research... but in one post, you presented two links. Against your claims that the coins are real, both sites (even the one you gave to support your coin theory) say that it's inconclusive.

There is an Intriguing and compelling arguments, but there are scientific reasons to doubt the claim.

Alan found 74 points of congruence with an existing lituus lepton and 73 points with a Juolia lepton. But such identification is highly interpretive and other researchers do not find the same level of congruence.

Finally, you claim that there is no doubt that it is Christ given that it has the features described in the Bible. I heartily agree that the 1988 C14 dating was probably inaccurate (or at least could have been inaccurate) but no dating has been done since (despite your claim otherwise -- do you have a source? I'd really like to see that!) So... all you've shown is that either the circumstantial evidence supports it's authenticity, or it's a fake done to mirror the story in the Bible!

Finally, you have never addressed the MAIN argument against its authenticity. The perspective is wrong. Again, wrap a cloth around your head and mark features like your ears, nose etc... You could also do it with paint or lotion, but that would be messy.

Then take the cloth off, and just LOOK at it. I guarentee it will NOT look like your face in a mirror. It will be stretched out laterally. If you did it with lotion or paint, you would look REALLY fat sideways -- like in a funhouse mirror.

The image on the shroud looks like a real person -- not stretched out. If the image was created by light eminating from our Lord, it would not look like a real person, but a fat projection of a person.

Explain that, and your ideas concerning the shroud might start to convince me.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The image on the shroud looks like a real person -- not stretched out. If the image was created by light eminating from our Lord, it would not look like a real person, but a fat projection of a person.

Sorry, but when someone takes pictures of someone...the picture is not distorted..as you would seem to suggest.
Since we know in scripture that Christ could, after the Resurrection, walk thru walls and closed doors, that He literally went thru the cloth.

AND some sort of imaging shows...this is in fact a 3d picture...

A January 20, 2005 article in the scholarly, peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425, pages 189-194, by Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) makes it perfectly clear: the carbon 14 dating sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 was not valid. In fact, the Shroud is much older than the carbon 14 tests suggested.

As it turns out, those who suggested that the carbon 14 samples were from a rewoven area were right. This is what was reported in Thermochimica Acta on January 20, 2005.

Thermochimica Acta is not the sort of journal you will find in the reading room of public libraries. It’s a journal about thermoanalytical and calorimetric science. It is mainly for chemists. It is a peer reviewed journal which means that articles are carefully examined by other scientists to ensure that the science is true, methods are sound, and all explanations and conclusions are completely free of logical fallacies. Peer review, an exacting process of challenge and correction, is the normal way that scientists announce their findings. Rogers’ findings were that the samples were invalid and indeed the Shroud is significantly older than the carbon 14 dating suggested.

In the case of the Shroud of Turin, it was threads were dyed to look older and to match other threads. But it wasn’t the threads of the Shroud itself that were dyed. It was a small area in one corner of the Shroud where some mending threads had been dyed to look like the rest of the age-yellowed Shroud. Chemical analysis proves this. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

ETC ETC ETC.....

HAD you actually READ what I linked, you would have seen all of this.

AND doing the 3d imaging...some more science...they discovered...

http://www.shroudstory.com/vp8.htm <~~Click.

The image is really a 3D topographic image that acts like photographic negative.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Peter Shumacher, the inventor of the NASA VP-8 Image Analyzer, describes the discovery of the 3D image. He had has just finished installing a system for Dr. John Jackson of the Sandia Scientific Laboratories:

Jackson placed an image of the Shroud of Turin onto the light table of the system. He focused the video camera of the system on the image. When the pseudo-three-dimensional image display ("isometric display") was activated, a "true-three-dimensional image" appeared on the monitor. At least, there were main traits of real three-dimensional structuring in the image displayed. The nose ramped in relief. The facial features were contoured properly. Body shapes of the arms, legs, and chest, had the basic human form. The result from the VP-8 had never occurred with any of the images I had studied, nor had I heard of it happening during any image studies done by others.

I had never heard of the Shroud of Turin before that moment. I had no idea what I was looking at. However, the results were unlike anything I have processed through the VP-8 Analyzer, before or since. Only the Shroud of Turin has produced these results from a VP-8 Image Analyzer isometric projection study.

 

[Deamiter]

Sorry, but when someone takes pictures of someone...the picture is not distorted..as you would seem to suggest.
Since we know in scripture that Christ could, after the Resurrection, walk thru walls and closed doors, that He literally went thru the cloth.

AND some sort of imaging shows...this is in fact a 3d picture...

Some sort of imaging? Didn't you read your own sources? The shroud apparently has 3D data on it as it appears to be topographical (the negative you keep talking about). However, the 3D images you've seen (the best were produced by NASA -- I suggest you look there if you haven't) were created by assuming that the shroud was a topographical map of a face. This assumption makes it impossible for the picture to have been created by going through the cloth -- by assuming that the picture is topographical, they are also assuming that the cloth is laid over the face -- not possible if Jesus is currently rising through it!

Further, you never addressed the perspective issue. The topographical map is created by assuming that the image was only projected straight up onto the cloth (like a photograph). However, as the shroud has images of both the front and back of the head, it apparently was wrapped AROUND the head. So how can you assume that the head is only projected straight up when the image source is clearly meant to show all sides of the head?

Essentially, the shroud (and the 3D images) were created like a photograph (projecting onto a screen), but the entire shroud (including the back of the head) was created as if one wrapped the screen around the head and put a lightbulb in the middle of the figure's brain. Clearly the perspective is off for either the entire shroud, or just the face. This suggests to me that the artist wanted to make it look like the cloth was wrapped entirely around the figure's body, but didn't want to distort the face (as would be necessary for a cloth wrapped around a figure's body)

Note: I don't think that was TOTALLY clear, but I'm not sure what in this main point you're not getting. If you stop for a moment and ask questions about what confuses you rather than trying to tell me that I didn't read your websites, you might learn what I'm saying rather than talking through me.

HAD you actually READ what I linked, you would have seen all of this.

Um... Did you read MY post? I agreed with this:

I heartily agree that the 1988 C14 dating was probably inaccurate (or at least could have been inaccurate)

At the same time, you clearly claimed that later C14 dating showed an earlier date. That's what I was responding negatively to. Again (if you're actually reading this) I AGREED with you that the C14 dating in 1988 is suspect. However, I DISAGREE with the following quote where you claim it has been redated:

BUT when recarboned, it did in fact show the correct date as to the time of Christ...

One last time. I agree that the carbon dating is probably inaccurate. I CERTAINLY disagree that the mistakes made in 1988 prove the shroud's authenticity!

 

[HRE]

DNA was taken to show it is blood...but 'IF' you know how DNA works, that means we have to have a sample of DNA to begin with to know who's it is for fact.

BUT by all accounts, it is distinctly Jesus. WHO else would it be? :o

AND I did refute everything...as succinctly as possible. Please review the 'facts' by more currently available information vs the 1988 mistakes.

Wait wait wait...

I just want to get this perfectly clear:

They did a DNA analysis on the Shroud of Turin, which you believe to be approximately 2000 years old?

Yes?

 

[WarriorAngel]

They did a study for human blood. NOT an exacting DNA per say.

http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/turin-shroud-faq-02.htm

Dr. John Heller, MD, studied the blood flecks on the STURP sampling tapes [Heller and Adler, Applied Optics 19, (16) 1980]. They converted the heme into its parent porphyrin, and they interpreted the spectra taken of blood spots by Gilbert and Gilbert. They concluded that the blood flecks are real blood. In addition to that, the x-ray-fluorescence spectra taken by STURP showed excess iron in blood areas, as expected for blood. Microchemical tests for proteins were positive in blood areas but not in any other parts of the Shroud.
Several claims have been made that the blood has been found to be type AB, and claims have been made about DNA testing. We sent blood flecks to the laboratory devoted to the study of ancient blood at the State University of New York. None of these claims could be confirmed. The blood appears to be so old that the DNA is badly fragmented. Dr. Andrew Merriwether at SUNY has said that "… anyone can walk in off the street and amplify DNA from anything. The hard part is not to amplify what you don't want and only amplify what you want (endogenous DNA vs contamination)." It is doubtful that good DNA analyses can be obtained from the Shroud.

It is almost certain that the blood spots are blood, but no definitive statements can be made about its nature or provenience, i.e., whether it is male and from the Near East.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Some sort of imaging? Didn't you read your own sources? The shroud apparently has 3D data on it as it appears to be topographical (the negative you keep talking about). However, the 3D images you've seen (the best were produced by NASA -- I suggest you look there if you haven't) were created by assuming that the shroud was a topographical map of a face. This assumption makes it impossible for the picture to have been created by going through the cloth -- by assuming that the picture is topographical, they are also assuming that the cloth is laid over the face -- not possible if Jesus is currently rising through it!

Further, you never addressed the perspective issue. The topographical map is created by assuming that the image was only projected straight up onto the cloth (like a photograph). However, as the shroud has images of both the front and back of the head, it apparently was wrapped AROUND the head. So how can you assume that the head is only projected straight up when the image source is clearly meant to show all sides of the head?

Essentially, the shroud (and the 3D images) were created like a photograph (projecting onto a screen), but the entire shroud (including the back of the head) was created as if one wrapped the screen around the head and put a lightbulb in the middle of the figure's brain. Clearly the perspective is off for either the entire shroud, or just the face. This suggests to me that the artist wanted to make it look like the cloth was wrapped entirely around the figure's body, but didn't want to distort the face (as would be necessary for a cloth wrapped around a figure's body)

Note: I don't think that was TOTALLY clear, but I'm not sure what in this main point you're not getting. If you stop for a moment and ask questions about what confuses you rather than trying to tell me that I didn't read your websites, you might learn what I'm saying rather than talking through me.


Um... Did you read MY post? I agreed with this:

At the same time, you clearly claimed that later C14 dating showed an earlier date. That's what I was responding negatively to. Again (if you're actually reading this) I AGREED with you that the C14 dating in 1988 is suspect. However, I DISAGREE with the following quote where you claim it has been redated:

One last time. I agree that the carbon dating is probably inaccurate. I CERTAINLY disagree that the mistakes made in 1988 prove the shroud's authenticity!

Rather I was first going on memory @ first in the debate...but then sought the webby's.
So, I mistakenly said recarboned, when I meant retested. I suppose obvious mistakes MUST be pointed out.

ALL in all you keep referring to this as a picture created.

That has been shown to be false. Because there are no elements of paint or other manufactured substances.

YOU cannot state that Christ did not go thru it...or rather, whatever you are saying, it gets lost in translation. The suggestion that Christ was wrapped seperately head and body is not completely true.

Evidently, He was wrapped, but not 'completely' as would be suggested in normal context, because the body was not prepared with oils and spices for 'proper' burial.

 

[TheBear]

Sorry...I already quoted and answered that site. Sorry.

Is your name John, or are you John's spokesperson?



My remarks were directed to JohnR7, based on JohnR7's specific remarks. Please feel free to allow John to speak for himself.

 

[WarriorAngel]

LOL...hey, what's the problem with varied opinions on a site?

Maybe because it was prooven false?

Touchy touchy.

 

[TheBear]

LOL...hey, what's the problem with varied opinions on a site?

Maybe because it was prooven false?

Touchy touchy.

Hello, WarriorAngel.

JohnR7 and I have been members here for years. We have participated in numerous discussions together. We agree on some things and disagree on others. My remarks were specifically directed to him. My remarks to John are not what you should be focusing on. They were second removed from the topic at hand.

You are brand new to CF. I don't know you. You and I haven't had the chance to get acquainted yet.

I have absolutey no problem with you stating your opinions. Just don't use one of my posts, (second removed from the topic and specifically directed to a long-time acquaintance), as a springboard for your own remarks.

 

[TheBear]

By the way, welcome to CF, WarriorAngel.