Turin Shroud

T

Tao_Equus

Guest
Well apparently to controversy is back...
After carbon dating in the 80's proved it to be a medieval fake seems someone has revived the debate. For those in UK there is a documentary on it on BBC2 tonight, (Sat 22nd March), at 8.30.

Tao
 
lol Grey!

Well I had to watch it but wished I had not bothered. The only good that came out of it was I can now credibly argue the case "against" it being a genuine artefact from the time of Christ.

The program opened with the declaration that because of new evidence the Carbon14 dating that placed it as a medieval fake was seriously in doubt. Enter the main witness, a man who makes his living from his "Shroud museum" in ......yup you guessed it Colorado Springs....now aint he credible! There follows 50 minutes of people that he employed to prove it genuine make a bunch of spurious and unfounded claims that could only convince the already convinced. There was no evidence of any weight that was new and the program deliberately ignored, never mentioned once, the scientific explanations for its forgery. In fact it tried to make out there are none, that how the figure appears on the linen is a complete mystery. Its not. There is a very credible and experimentally proven theory that the Turin Shroud is the first known example of the photograph. Why did the program not seek to provide that information?

Eventually in the last 5 minutes this guy from Colorado Springs takes all his samples,(he has spent years getting ready for this moment), to the same lab that did the Carbon14 dating in the 1980's for testing. Result... the original dating is accurate. Its a fake. But the presenter, Rageh Ommar, is still spinning it!! He concludes that it is still a mystery and that maybe it is the real piece of cloth that the crucified Jesus was wrapped in prior to his purported resurrection.

To be honest the spin annoyed me. Not only was it was unbalanced in itself it is a part of a wider media campaign here to bring more of us heathen godless Britain's back into the realm of credulous superstition. The BBC's other "easter fayre" last night was "Richard the Lion Heart", a quiet reminder that Muslims are only good dead and the French can never be trusted. Heaps of "God and England", ....makes me want to throw up.

Tao
 
Tao_Equus said:
lol Grey!

Well I had to watch it but wished I had not bothered. The only good that came out of it was I can now credibly argue the case "against" it being a genuine artefact from the time of Christ.

The program opened with the declaration that because of new evidence the Carbon14 dating that placed it as a medieval fake was seriously in doubt. Enter the main witness, a man who makes his living from his "Shroud museum" in ......yup you guessed it Colorado Springs....now aint he credible! There follows 50 minutes of people that he employed to prove it genuine make a bunch of spurious and unfounded claims that could only convince the already convinced. There was no evidence of any weight that was new and the program deliberately ignored, never mentioned once, the scientific explanations for its forgery. In fact it tried to make out there are none, that how the figure appears on the linen is a complete mystery. Its not. There is a very credible and experimentally proven theory that the Turin Shroud is the first known example of the photograph. Why did the program not seek to provide that information?

Eventually in the last 5 minutes this guy from Colorado Springs takes all his samples,(he has spent years getting ready for this moment), to the same lab that did the Carbon14 dating in the 1980's for testing. Result... the original dating is accurate. Its a fake. But the presenter, Rageh Ommar, is still spinning it!! He concludes that it is still a mystery and that maybe it is the real piece of cloth that the crucified Jesus was wrapped in prior to his purported resurrection.

To be honest the spin annoyed me. Not only was it was unbalanced in itself it is a part of a wider media campaign here to bring more of us heathen godless Britain's back into the realm of credulous superstition. The BBC's other "easter fayre" last night was "Richard the Lion Heart", a quiet reminder that Muslims are only good dead and the French can never be trusted. Heaps of "God and England", ....makes me want to throw up.

Tao
Click to expand...
Tao,

Being an educated person, and observing the shroud for yourself and, understanding the embalming processes the Jews used 2000 years ago (with spices and oils amounting to 75 or more pounds), plus the fact that any body wrap would have been yards and yards in length, you would know that the shroud of Turin has nothing to do with Jesus' burial. I mean, where is the stain of the oils and spices on the shroud? Why is it just a man's secretions?Second, the visage on the shroud is that of an European male, not a Mediterranian male. Third, the body is of a very skinny man. If Jesus were a carpenter around the Med 2000 years ago, he would have been the equivilent of a body builder, today. Finally, Jewish men of the first millenia kept their heads closely cropped, though beards were the norm. That dude on the shroud is in serious need of a hair cut! As I recall Jesus came to keep the laws, not do away with them. I imagine that would even be the Mizhvat (613, I think). So no, the shroud is a joke. A sad one, just like the burial box some one came up with a few years ago.

Jesus didn't need to leave anything behind Tao...because He's still here...;)

Love ya man.

v/r

Q
 
Tao_Equus said:
Well apparently to controversy is back...
After carbon dating in the 80's proved it to be a medieval fake seems someone has revived the debate. For those in UK there is a documentary on it on BBC2 tonight, (Sat 22nd March), at 8.30.
Click to expand...
In science, a failure to confirm is not equivalent to disconfirmation.

If the evidence is not consistent with prediction, all you can say is that the prediction is not confirmed.
 
Tao_Equus said:
Well apparently to controversy is back...
Click to expand...
For some things it does not matter how much evidence. I've been with the folks who claim man walked with the dinosaurs and that the grand canyon is a result of instant canyonification from the great flood and the layers of silt and fossils were put there by G!d to test us.

Well apparently I failed.

And the controversy....it like Elvis, it hasn't left the building.
 
wil said:
... I've been with the folks who claim man walked with the dinosaurs ...
Click to expand...

I heard a story on the radio once of a guy in Texas, quite well-off even by Texan standards, who had casts made of dinosaur footprints (from somewhere in Mexico?) and then set in the concrete in the swimming pool area on his ranch.

At a party, he was showing a young lady round, possibly blonde, possibly a little worse for drink, who asked what they were. "Dinosaur footprints," he told her. "Geez!" she replied, "I never realised the came so close to the house!"

Possibly apocryphal ... but definitely as told on the BBC.

Thomas
 
Can I just say the 'evolution v creation' debate seems specifically American, an aspect of 'Christian fundamentalism' that leaves the rest of us scratching our heads?

Likewise the whole 'relics' debate fails to move me. There's the Shroud, and the Grail in Spain ... and as someone pointed out, at one time enough splinters of wood from 'the true cross' to build a full-size replica of Noah's Ark, and enough nails to fit it all together! (although a proper craftsman would have used glued joints, etc.)

Thomas
 
In science, a failure to confirm is not equivalent to disconfirmation.

If the evidence is not consistent with prediction, all you can say is that the prediction is not confirmed.
Click to expand...
The reason being: the methodology may be be flawed. As of August of this year, that appears to be the case for the the more recent attempt at carbon dating. Which is the finding reported by Robert Villarreal et al. at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The title of his article: "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud," which appeared in the July-August issue of Chemistry Today.

The more recent carbondating is now being hailed as vivid example of poor scientific methodology:
The Biggest Radiocarbon Dating Mistake Ever

Quahom1 said:
As I recall Jesus came to keep the laws, not do away with them.
Click to expand...
Jesus actively flaunted them to show that man-made laws can be frivolous and misleading and to call attention to a higher law.

the shroud is a joke.
Click to expand...
Apparently a very clever joke because we still don't know how the image was created!

Thomas said:
Likewise the whole 'relics' debate fails to move me.
Click to expand...
One's faith should not depend on the validation of the shroud. But it's a curious and interesting phenomenon, particulary in light of ongoing debate concerning the life of the historical Jesus.
 
Thomas said:
Can I just say the 'evolution v creation' debate seems specifically American, an aspect of 'Christian fundamentalism' that leaves the rest of us scratching our heads?

Likewise the whole 'relics' debate fails to move me.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the bone box that was touted recently...

But is that true, that we are the only ones that stick to 'the innerant word of G!d' concept, ie that every word is true and sacred???

You mean the Vatican, Italy, Germany, Spain...etc. have all moved on?

How about African nations? Orthodox Israel??
 
Hi Wil —

wil said:
But is that true, that we are the only ones that stick to 'the innerant word of G!d' concept, ie that every word is true and sacred???
Click to expand...

Who's 'we' Wil? ;)

wil said:
You mean the Vatican, Italy, Germany, Spain...etc. have all moved on?
Click to expand...
Well I can only speak for Catholicism.

Here is what we believe:
"Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit" and thus "are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted." (Dei Verbum)

I dwell heavily on the words of Cardinal Avery Dulles, who defined Scripture as "as a medium of Divine Revelation and a self expression of the original community of faith". It is Divine Revelation, and it is the testimony of the witness of that Revelation by the community in receipt of it.

It is evident from the social sciences that the material content is not without error, but then one has to consider literary forms and genres: mythical, historical, prophetic, poetic, discourse, anecdote, and seek out what the scribe wanted to express through contemporary literary forms.

The scribes are only human, and gave their testimony to the best of their abilities. What the scribe wishes to make known in his testimony is subject to human fallibility because the scribe is human; what God wishes to make known in the scribe's testimony is infallible because it Revealed.

Not every word of Scripture is itself directly a revelation — St John states as much, how little they understood what was to happen, even though Jesus told them so — but what Scripture says about God is a Revelation.

So what Scripture says as a whole, is true, sacred and infallible.

It's an interesting debate.

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
I heard a story on the radio once of a guy in Texas, quite well-off even by Texan standards, who had casts made of dinosaur footprints (from somewhere in Mexico?) and then set in the concrete in the swimming pool area on his ranch.

At a party, he was showing a young lady round, possibly blonde, possibly a little worse for drink, who asked what they were. "Dinosaur footprints," he told her. "Geez!" she replied, "I never realised the came so close to the house!"

Possibly apocryphal ... but definitely as told on the BBC.

Thomas
Click to expand...

Ive actually been to this place in Texas its called Dinosaur Valley and I kid you not there are foot prints in the rock on this riverbed and the guy who discovered it was cutting them out and selling them for peoples yards until it was stopped and the park became protected. Its an awesome thing to see

TPWD: Dinosaur Valley State Park
 
They reckon to create the image that is visible on the shroud a microscope would have to been used. The microscope would have been so powerful that the technology wouldn't have been available then, as it would be quite an achievement even now to get that negative effect on material in that way. Although I don't believe personally it was "the" shroud the imprints of the flowers from Jesus area found in it are quite compelling. Also the fact the guy has been heavily flogged and he shows evidence of crucifixtion is another point.

So then:-

1. Is was "the" shroud and it is an imprint of Christ
2. Somebody found technology hundreds of years in advance to fake it
3. Somebody flogged and crucified a guy and prepared it all for a fake "future revelation"
4. The guy in the shroud martyed himself, was godly (could have been a monk) voluntarily executed and then the woundings put on his body after and the shroud prepared under his left instructions by asistants. His legacy would be to bring/attract people to Christ by his essence on the shroud.
5. The imprint in the shroud is an unexplainable miracle, created by something we don't understand or God himself.

It must be one of these choices? My thoughts!
 
'they reckon'

'They' have set up a conjecture that says this could have only been made 'this' way. If you take that away, it could have been anything, a cloth tossed away that faced in the light, or was stained somehow and then when unfolded suddenly had this appearance that if you look at this you see that... No different than a stain on the side of someone's house or the Jesus potatoe chip...or the constellations in the sky forming animals and shapes...it takes the human mind to create order out of nothing and see something when nothing is there.
 
wil said:
'they reckon'

'They' have set up a conjecture that says this could have only been made 'this' way. If you take that away, it could have been anything, a cloth tossed away that faced in the light, or was stained somehow and then when unfolded suddenly had this appearance that if you look at this you see that... No different than a stain on the side of someone's house or the Jesus potatoe chip...or the constellations in the sky forming animals and shapes...it takes the human mind to create order out of nothing and see something when nothing is there.
Click to expand...

Apologies, bad wording on my part (as usual:)) When I put "they" I meant top Professors etc. You highlight another possibility wil, that it was produced over time in somekind of random manner of ageing. Anything is possible I guess and each will have there own opinion. We must have covered all possible options now then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top