When I first heard of the Shroud of Turin, I was very
skeptical that this could possible have anything to do
with Jesus the Christ. The Roman Catholic Church
had this cloth, and since I am not a big fan of that
church, I considered it probably another gimmick to
get more money coming into the church. And then
when I heard the cloth had been carbon dated by
three separate labs to be only about 600 years old,
I was sure my first impression was right. There was
then speculation that someone had painted it, etc., etc.
All these speculations were proven wrong. More and
more evidence pointed to the fact that this cloth was
authentic. The only evidence against the fact that the
image on the cloth could be that of Jesus was the carbon
date. Because the the cloth had been repaired due to
fire damage at some point and other possible causes
of an incorrect carbon date, the 1988 dating has been
challenged. One suggestion was that the corner where
they took the sample was not the original cloth but part
of the repair work. There were some other suggestions
as to why the carbon dating could be wrong, but I will
not bother going into all these. Now, that I learned more
about it, I am not sure this cloth is a fake. It appears
that this cloth was on a man, who was crucified and
beaten in the same manner as Jesus the Christ, even if
the dating is correct. The mystery remains as to how
the photographic image appeared on this cloth. Does
anyone have any serious comments about this Shroud
of Turin? See one reference link below:
Originally posted by RJHindsHow about listing the evidence for it being Jesus' cloth.
There was then speculation that someone had painted it, etc., etc.
All these speculations were proven wrong. More and
more evidence pointed to the fact that this cloth was
authentic. The only evidence against the fact that the
image on the cloth could be that of Jesus was the carbon
date. The mystery remains as to how
the photographic image appeared on this cloth.
So far we have:
1. a similar pattern of wounds, beating etc.
2. tradition of unknown origin.
Are there any other reasons?
How did they prove that the image wasn't painted on? Surely that proof would tell us something about how it did get on?
Originally posted by twhitehead&feature=related
How about listing the evidence for it being Jesus' cloth.
So far we have:
1. a similar pattern of wounds, beating etc.
2. tradition of unknown origin.
Are there any other reasons?
How did they prove that the image wasn't painted on? Surely that proof would tell us something about how it did get on?
The above is another reference from youtube on the Shroud
of Turin. There are also a lot of dumb videos on youtube that
are not really serious or credible info. Here they do mention
the blood on the cloth. I think I saw a more detailed account
on the History Channel a while back. I believe that is where
I saw the info proving it was not a painting and the blood type
was given. If I remember correctly it was type AB.
I don't know if I will be able to find any good reference links
on the web or not. But I'm sure there must be something
else both for and against it being real. Maybe you can find
something of importance. But, I guess your gut feeling is like
mine was, that is, it can't possibly be true. Is that correct?
Would appreciate any serious information you could find out
about it. Thanks.
http://www.crimeandclues.com/index.php/physical-evidence/trace-evidence/67-forensic-palynology-a-new-way-to-catch-crooks
Example 6: The Shroud of Turin, the cloth some claim was used to wrap the body of Christ before burial, represents a high profile example where pollen data were used as a key piece of evidence in the attempt to confirm the origin of the item. During an extensive study of the Shroud, Max Frei found 49 different taxa of pollen grains trapped in the fibers of the cloth. Comparisons of the Shroud's pollen spectrum with pollen from regions of Israel and the western Mediterranean revealed similar types. Pollen types reported from the Shroud included desert-type plants that still grow in Israel. Other pollen types were similar to pollen found in nearby Turkey, and a few additional types represented plants common to the western Mediterranean region. In addition, some of the pollen (such as beech) on the Shroud were of types found mostly in central Europe. The conclusion reported by Max Frei was that the majority of the pollen he recovered from the Shroud represented plants from regions in Israel, the nearby western Mediterranean, and Turkey (Wilson, 1978). The European pollen taxa, he said, represented materials deposited on the Shroud during its display in Europe. Subsequent to Max Frei's original pollen study, the origin and suspected use of the Turin Shroud have been often questioned. More recent scientific studies by Walter C. McCrone (1997) and others cast serious doubts on the authenticity of the Shroud and on the pollen that was purportedly recovered from the Shroud.
I recall seeing a Horizon Special, after the work completed by McCrone, which almost certainly concluded that the majority of pollen was not from the areas that JC had been alledgedly crucified in.
-m.
Originally posted by RJHindsI generally don't bother watching youtube links, for several reasons, including the fact that internet usage is expensive here in SA.
The above is another reference from youtube on the Shroud
of Turin.
Here they do mention the blood on the cloth. I think I saw a more detailed account
on the History Channel a while back. I believe that is where
I saw the info proving it was not a painting and the blood type
was given. If I remember correctly it was type AB.
What if it was painted in blood? Did they prove it was blood not pigment, or did they somehow prove it was not applied the cloth by a painter? What was the proof that it was not a painting?
It would be kind of cool if we could get the DNA and find out what region of the world the bloods owner came from.
From what I see on Wikipedia, although there is blood on the cloth, I don't think the image itself consists of blood.
But I'm sure there must be something else both for and against it being real.
It is the for it being real I am looking for. So far, there is practically nothing.
But, I guess your gut feeling is like mine was, that is, it can't possibly be true. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct. Of course you wouldn't agree with some of my reasons (for example the fact that I don't think Jesus was supernatural in any way nor rose from the dead), but the main reason is that there are no good reasons to believe that it is genuine. If we look at all the famous 'relics' of the past most of which we know are not genuine, it becomes obvious that there needs to be more than tradition to suggest that the cloth has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus.
Originally posted by mikelomThe following is taken from the link you provided:
http://www.crimeandclues.com/index.php/physical-evidence/trace-evidence/67-forensic-palynology-a-new-way-to-catch-crooks
Example 6: The Shroud of Turin, the cloth some claim was used to wrap the body of Christ before burial, represents a high profile example where pollen data were used as a key piece of evidence in the attempt to confirm the origin of the ...[text shortened]... ority of pollen was not from the areas that JC had been alledgedly crucified in.
-m.
"Max Frei also gained fame for his pollen analysis of the Shroud of Turin,
which revealed that the Shroud had probably been kept for some time in
Israel and Anatolia (Wilson, 1978)."
This statement appears to support the idea that this could be the burial
cloth of Jesus the Christ. It doesn't prove it was and it doesn't prove
it wasn't. And your statement that "the majority of the pollen was not
from the areas that JC had been alledgedly crucified" doesn't give
anymore information. If any of the pollen was from that area, it could
be the burial cloth. After all, it appears to have been moved from
place to place over a long period of time.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm sorry you are unable to watch the youtube videos.
I generally don't bother watching youtube links, for several reasons, including the fact that internet usage is expensive here in SA.
[b]Here they do mention the blood on the cloth. I think I saw a more detailed account
on the History Channel a while back. I believe that is where
I saw the info proving it was not a painting and the blood type
was ...[text shortened]... more than tradition to suggest that the cloth has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus.
I don't know how to explain to you how it was determined
it was not painted but the scientist still do not know how
the image got on the cloth because it is a 3D image.
I understand there is now a new way to date the cloth
without having to destroy any of it. Maybe, in a few years
the Roman Catholic Church will allow access to it again so
this could be done and settle the dating issue at least.
Originally posted by RJHindsMy best guess, based on the Wikipedia link, is that it was done using some sort of photographic technique available at the time.
I'm sorry you are unable to watch the youtube videos.
I don't know how to explain to you how it was determined
it was not painted but the scientist still do not know how
the image got on the cloth because it is a 3D image.
I understand there is now a new way to date the cloth
without having to destroy any of it. Maybe, in a few years
the Roman Catholi ...[text shortened]... rch will allow access to it again so
this could be done and settle the dating issue at least.
Even if you are a Christian, it seems improbable that Jesus would deliberately create an image of himself on a cloth then leave it lying around without any mention in the Bible or any other sort of authentication.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe problem with that theory is that there was no photographic
My best guess, based on the Wikipedia link, is that it was done using some sort of photographic technique available at the time.
Even if you are a Christian, it seems improbable that Jesus would deliberately create an image of himself on a cloth then leave it lying around without any mention in the Bible or any other sort of authentication.
technigue available at the time, not even if the carbon dating is
correct. There definitely was not a technigue that could produce
the relief features in the image at that time. There was no such
thing as 3d imaging at that time. And why can't the scientist
figure out how it was done, even today? Are they stupid or what?
Originally posted by twhitehead"But Peter arose and ran to the tomb: stooping and looking in,
My best guess, based on the Wikipedia link, is that it was done using some sort of photographic technique available at the time.
Even if you are a Christian, it seems improbable that Jesus would deliberately create an image of himself on a cloth then leave it lying around without any mention in the Bible or any other sort of authentication.
he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home,
marveling at that which had happened." (Luke 24:12 NASB)
Was part of his marveling due to the image on the linen. Perhaps
this is why someone would save a burial cloth that would normally
be considered unclean.
Originally posted by RJHindsStretching it a bit there..............marveled at the fact the body was gone.
"But Peter arose and ran to the tomb: stooping and looking in,
he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home,
marveling at that which had happened." (Luke 24:12 NASB)
Was part of his marveling due to the image on the linen. Perhaps
this is why someone would save a burial cloth that would normally
be considered unclean.
Originally posted by RJHindsFrom the Wikipedia page:
The problem with that theory is that there was no photographic
technigue available at the time, not even if the carbon dating is
correct. There definitely was not a technigue that could produce
the relief features in the image at that time. There was no such
thing as 3d imaging at that time. And why can't the scientist
figure out how it was done, even today? Are they stupid or what?
According to the art historian Nicholas Allen the image on the shroud was formed by a photographic technique in the 13th century.[119] Allen maintains that techniques already available before the 14th century—e.g., as described in the Book of Optics, which was at just that time translated from Arabic to Latin—were sufficient to produce primitive photographs, and that people familiar with these techniques would have been able to produce an image as found on the shroud.
It is not so much that scientists are stupid but that:
1. It is very difficult to know exactly what happened to something 1000 years ago.
2. Very few people have been given access to the cloth. The majority of those that have, have desired to show it is genuine.
3. The few results they have come up with tend to get ignored if they suggest that it is fake.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf what he says is true, then why is the shroud the only image
From the Wikipedia page:
[quote]According to the art historian Nicholas Allen the image on the shroud was formed by a photographic technique in the 13th century.[119] Allen maintains that techniques already available before the 14th century—e.g., as described in the Book of Optics, which was at just that time translated from Arabic to Latin—were sufficie ...[text shortened]...
3. The few results they have come up with tend to get ignored if they suggest that it is fake.
available as proof that it could be done back then? Who could
this crucified man be, if not Jesus? I don't remember anything
in history about crucifixions being performed during that time
frame.
Originally posted by RJHindsI would imagine that the Romans crucified hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people in a 400 hundred year 'time frame' including the life of the historical Jesus.
If what he says is true, then why is the shroud the only image
available as proof that it could be done back then? Who could
this crucified man be, if not Jesus? I don't remember anything
in history about crucifixions being performed during that time
frame.