10 Dec 11
1 edit
The Catholic Church makes no claims about the relic’s authenticity....
....The study considered to be the most definitive, however, was carried out in 1998 via separate tests by three institutions granted permission by the Vatican.
The chosen laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, used radio carbon dating on separate portions of the cloth.
They found the shroud dated from 1260–1390
Daily Mail : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218457/Shroud-Turin-replica-proves-medieval-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html
-----------
Does anybody dispute 3 independent carbon dates indicating the age of the shroud to within 130 years of each other, and all way over a millenium A.D.?
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by mikelomYes, the dating has been declared invalid due to a mistake.
[b]The Catholic Church makes no claims about the relic’s authenticity....
....The study considered to be the most definitive, however, was carried out in 1998 via separate tests by three institutions granted permission by the Vatican.
The chosen laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Te ...[text shortened]... ting the age of the shroud to within 130 years of each other, and all way over a millenium A.D.?[/b]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html
http://shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI can reply with as many websites proving the shroud is fake, as you can claim it is genuine. The Church has never declared it as genuine, so why don't we start at the end of the book?
Yes, the dating has been declared invalid due to a mistake.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html
http://shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm
The shroud is known to have appeared in 1360s, and agreed by all parties involved as appearing in that decade.
How such a valuable artifact could suddenly appear out of nowhere, 1.3 millenium A.D. makes the mind boggle, doesn't it?
If it existed prior, some make-fool would have exposed it to cash in! That's just pure human nature, especially for a quick buck in those days.
So, opposed to the Church's view, would you care to expose me to scientific proof that the shroud is genuine, and not a fake or hoax? 😉
-m.
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWell not one single non-believer would accept it as evidence, so either you are mistaken about Jesus' motivation, or Jesus wasn't particularly clever.
He wants as many as possible to believe and be saved. Therefore, he left photographic evidence and other scientific evidence on His shroud and Sudarium for all to see,
However, the apostate Roman Catholic Church treats is as a relic today
and will allow little access to those that can actually prove its authenticity.
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by mikelomI can't help you if you prefer to read outdated material.
I can reply with as many websites proving the shroud is fake, as you can claim it is genuine. The Church has never declared it as genuine, so why don't we start at the end of the book?
The shroud is known to have appeared in 1360s, and agreed by all parties involved as appearing in that decade.
How such a valuable artifact could suddenly appear out of ...[text shortened]... expose me to scientific proof that the shroud is genuine, and not a fake or hoax? 😉
-m.
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsOutdated?
I can't help you if you prefer to read outdated material.
OK.... let's go to 2004 : http://www.pensar.org/2004-01-turin.html
Considering the shroud is not displayed, and has only been accessible in great limitation to science and forensic teams, for some UNKNOWN reason, then what you may think is out of date, is actually uptodate analysis of an inaccessible artifact. (You know what an artifact is, don't you?)
I can take you to 2010: http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html
...and the last display of this ludicrous piece of cloth claiming to be from 2 millenia ago. Science has 'proven' beyond doubt that it is a fake, and does not come from the time of this said alledged son, father, ghost and himself all at once. 😉
-m. 😀
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by mikelomThis is nothing new to me and exactly what I would expect from skeptics.
Outdated?
OK.... let's go to 2004 : http://www.pensar.org/2004-01-turin.html
Considering the shroud is not displayed, and has only been accessible in great limitation to science and forensic teams, for some UNKNOWN reason, then what you may think is out of date, is actually uptodate analysis of an inaccessible artifact. (You know what an artifact is, d ...[text shortened]... from the time of this said alledged son, father, ghost and himself all at once. 😉
-m. 😀
They ignore all the evidence they can't think of a good counter argument.
They rely on the words of just one or two skeptics to make their report
that agrees with their non-belief just as you do.
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd just as you do on the other side of the coin. Have you actually even seen the shroud?
This is nothing new to me and exactly what I would expect from skeptics.
They ignore all the evidence they can't think of a good counter argument.
They rely on the words of just one or two skeptics to make their report
that agrees with their non-belief just as you do.
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by sonhouseNo, I have not seen the Shroud. But I have come to believe that if the
And just as you do on the other side of the coin. Have you actually even seen the shroud?
scientific community stated the Shroud dated back to the first century,
you guys would say someone faked it back then too.
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAll? Have you read Revelation?
But it is my hope that as the evidence
increases there will come a point that all will believe in Christ and have the
faith to trust in whom they believe.
Again, you have reverted back to the notion that facts are what is missing here. If that be the case, all God would have to do is "prove" himself to us. Not only has this not worked in the past, it is evident Bibilcally it will not work in the future.
10 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyCan't I have a hope that all will come to repentence as the Lord wishes?
All? Have you read Revelation?
Again, you have reverted back to the notion that facts are what is missing here. If that be the case, all God would have to do is "prove" himself to us. Not only has this not worked in the past, it is evident Bibilcally it will not work in the future.
2 peter 3:9 states,
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but
is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come
to repentance.
P.S. Yes I have read Revelation, but I don't claim to be an expert in
understanding it. In fact, it is safe to say I don't understand it.
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsBut you assume what is needed is to prove himself. If that were the case, then why does he not do it?
Can't I have a hope that all will come to repentence as the Lord wishes?
2 peter 3:9 states,
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but
is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come
to repentance.
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by whodeyProof and a sign is what the atheist cry out for. I am only trying to
But you assume what is needed is to prove himself. If that were the case, then why does he not do it?
help them with what I think is proof. If they refuse to believe I can
not help that. I don't understand what proof you think God should
give to prove Himself.