It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Scientists Say Shroud of Turin Shows Jesus Was Crucified in 'Very Painful' Position

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Korg Trinity

DeadSeraph





My issue with the shroud is the length of the face.

It just doesn't look real.... it looks far more like a model or sculpture than an actual human face.

I don't know how it was done... but i'm willing bet it's a fake.

Peace,

Korg.




ya but you have no anything to dispute it.

too perfect, right?




posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


I know the bible reads that Jesus was hung by a tree, I don't recall anywhere it says he was nailed to a wooden cross. Yes crosses were made out of wood, so were lots of other things but it says hung by a tree. To me, that means rope around your neck attached to a branch. Who knows. Anyone got a time machine that doesn't cost like 17 billion?



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   

AnteBellum
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Very interesting find, though I would think all positions used for crucifixion would be very painful.

.
edit on 4/8/2014 by AnteBellum because: add


No kidding. "Painful crucifixion" sounds pretty redundant.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Personally, I don't think the shroud really matters in the grand scheme of things. Even the Vatican does not say that it is unequivocally the shroud that Jesus was wrapped in.

That being said, a new and interesting theory has come to light about the shroud and why the image is so good


The Turin Shroud may not be a medieval forgery after all, after scientists discovered it could date from the time of Christ.

The shroud, which is purported to be the burial cloth of Jesus - showing his face and body after the crucifixion - has intrigued scholars and Christians alike.

But radiocarbon dating carried out by Oxford University in 1988 found it was only 728 years old.

However a new study claims than an earthquake in Jerusalem in 33AD may have not only created the image but may also have skewed the dating results.

The Italian team believes the powerful magnitude 8.2 earthquake would have been strong enough to release neutron particles from crushed rock.


source

edit on 9-4-2014 by markosity1973 because: stupid tablet keyboard



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


An 8.2 is a pretty big earth quake! However there is no written record of such an event. One would think that the Jews, the Romans or other people living in the area would have recorded an 8.2 that ripped the through the Temple of Jerusalem, but not a peep from historians.

Further,


In terms of the earthquake data alone, Williams and his team acknowledge that the seismic activity associated with the crucifixion could refer to “an earthquake that occurred sometime before or after the crucifixion and was in effect ‘borrowed’ by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and a local earthquake between 26 and 36 A.D. that was sufficiently energetic to deform the sediments of Ein Gedi but not energetic enough to produce a still extant and extra-biblical historical record.

“If the last possibility is true, this would mean that the report of an earthquake in the Gospel of Matthew is a type of allegory,” they write. www.nbcnews.com...


Allegory? Imagine that!

Wait! There's more!


“Widely separated archaeological excavations in the countries of Israel and Jordan were conducted in 1955 by archaeologist Yigael Yadin. He found architecture bearing damage from a great earthquake…earthquake evidence is seen prominently at Hazor, Israel’s largest ancient city. Excavations in Hazor revealed tilted walls, inclined pillars, and collapsed houses. The city of Gezer was also severely shaken. The outer wall of the city shows hewn [hand-cut] stones weighing tons that have been cracked and displaced several inches off their foundation. Earthquake debris at six sites…is tightly confined [by strata] to the middle of the eighth century B.C. So, the evidence points to a single large regional earthquake that occurred about 750 B.C. at magnitude 8.2 on the Richter Scale”
www.ahabiblemoments.com...


So, it seems that the 8.2 earthquake, that is being credited for the possible causes that may have created the Shroud of Turin actually happened, according to scientists, 750 BCE!






edit on 9-4-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
star & flag..!

Yea.. saw a updated documentary couple years ago .. and at the very end..a long time professional photographer said that after looking at how the faint outline was imprinted in to the microfibers of the cloth.. is consistent with the method of how a computer printer scans a piece of paper to make a copy or a fax machine..

THAT right there ...totally freaked me out .. ...LOL



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


As if there is a non-painful way to be crucified.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

That wouldn't surprise me at all to be honest. It sounds more like a classic case of someone trying to force the evidence to fit in to a theory they passionately believe. There are many biblical stories that simply can't be proven i.e. Jonah and the whale etc.

Whether the shroud can be dated correctly or not (It can't be re-tested off a new sample because after the sample that was tested was taken it was treated with low level radiation to stop it from deteriorating) it doesn't affect my personal beliefs because I'm sure even if we were to get a correct date on it, the next argument would be 'how do wo know it's actually Jesus' Given that we have no DNA samples from him to test it against, you'd never prove that one either.

The Church isn't stupid, they don't make claim that it really is the shroud, because they too know there are too many things that can be debated on it's authenticity. Believe it or not, the church is quite careful before claiming anything is miraculous or a genuine artifact. There are supposed pieces of the actual cross out there too, but once again the church has never officially made the claim.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by markosity1973
 


An 8.2 is a pretty big earth quake! However there is no written record of such an event. One would think that the Jews, the Romans or other people living in the area would have recorded an 8.2 that ripped the through the Temple of Jerusalem, but not a peep from historians.

Further,


In terms of the earthquake data alone, Williams and his team acknowledge that the seismic activity associated with the crucifixion could refer to “an earthquake that occurred sometime before or after the crucifixion and was in effect ‘borrowed’ by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and a local earthquake between 26 and 36 A.D. that was sufficiently energetic to deform the sediments of Ein Gedi but not energetic enough to produce a still extant and extra-biblical historical record.

“If the last possibility is true, this would mean that the report of an earthquake in the Gospel of Matthew is a type of allegory,” they write. www.nbcnews.com...


Allegory? Imagine that!

Wait! There's more!


“Widely separated archaeological excavations in the countries of Israel and Jordan were conducted in 1955 by archaeologist Yigael Yadin. He found architecture bearing damage from a great earthquake…earthquake evidence is seen prominently at Hazor, Israel’s largest ancient city. Excavations in Hazor revealed tilted walls, inclined pillars, and collapsed houses. The city of Gezer was also severely shaken. The outer wall of the city shows hewn [hand-cut] stones weighing tons that have been cracked and displaced several inches off their foundation. Earthquake debris at six sites…is tightly confined [by strata] to the middle of the eighth century B.C. So, the evidence points to a single large regional earthquake that occurred about 750 B.C. at magnitude 8.2 on the Richter Scale”
www.ahabiblemoments.com...


So, it seems that the 8.2 earthquake, that is being credited for the possible causes that may have created the Shroud of Turin actually happened, according to scientists, 750 BCE!



edit on 9-4-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)


Just wanted to point out they they didn't record the earthquake in the article you cited either...or did I miss it? Before i noticed that I wondered what earthquakes were recorded during that general time period. Searching is rather sparse.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Harvin
 


Well, if you look at the article, they were looking for evidence of the earthquake that was recorded in Amos.


Amos 1:1
1 The words of Amos, one of the shepherds of Tekoa—the vision he saw concerning Israel two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash[a] was king of Israel.


Here's a reference to an actual earthquake that really happened, that the Bible claims was predicted 2 years earlier by Amos. The same earthquake is cited again by Zacharia.


Zechariah 14:5
yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.


We know that this earthquake happened, and when it happened due to the record and the science.


He found architecture bearing damage from a great earthquake…earthquake evidence is seen prominently at Hazor, Israel’s largest ancient city. Excavations in Hazor revealed tilted walls, inclined pillars, and collapsed houses. The city of Gezer was also severely shaken. The outer wall of the city shows hewn [hand-cut] stones weighing tons that have been cracked and displaced several inches off their foundation. Earthquake debris at six sites…is tightly confined [by strata] to the middle of the eighth century B.C. So, the evidence points to a single large regional earthquake that occurred about 750 B.C. at magnitude 8.2 on the Richter Scale”
www.ahabiblemoments.com...


Okay? So, we know that there was an 8.2 earthquake in the area around 750 BCE. We have biblical and secular evidence. But we have no evidence that an 8.2 earthquake happened while Jesus was hanging on the cross, or while Jesus was entombed, that created a flash of light that caused the negative image of Jesus on the shroud, just as he was rising from the dead!

Jewish historians mark no disaster, that an 8.2 earthquake would cause, that tore the temple apart around 33 AD. We do have a record of the temple being destroyed around 69 AD, during the Siege of Jerusalem.




edit on 9-4-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


You really are grasping at straws here. It's pretty much been established as fact that there was an earthquake in palestine around the time Christ is said to have been crucified.

discovery.com


Jesus, as described in the New Testament, was most likely crucified on Friday April 3, 33 A.D.

The latest investigation, reported in the journal International Geology Review, focused on earthquake activity at the Dead Sea, located 13 miles from Jerusalem. The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27, mentions that an earthquake coincided with the crucifixion



To analyze earthquake activity in the region, geologist Jefferson Williams of Supersonic Geophysical and colleagues Markus Schwab and Achim Brauer of the German Research Center for Geosciences studied three cores from the beach of the Ein Gedi Spa adjacent to the Dead Sea.

Varves, which are annual layers of deposition in the sediments, reveal that at least two major earthquakes affected the core: a widespread earthquake in 31 B.C. and an early first century seismic event that happened sometime between 26 A.D. and 36 A.D.


Additional corroboration of the event exists in the reports of Julius Africanus, who cites a report by the roman historian Thallus of an earthquake and a darkness over Judea (Thallus attributes the latter to an eclipse, which Julius obviously disagrees with, being Christian).

Further Data:

National Geophysical Data Center



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


You really are grasping at straws here.

No, she's not. Not really.
You are ignoring the straws that are clouding your vision. That happens sometimes, when things are looked at too close up, they look blurry.

I had a piece of straw stuck in my eye when I was about six years old. My mom got it out for me, but I was nearly hysterical while she extracted it; I remember lying on the floor screaming, and her holding me down, saying "Hold still! I'll get it out!"

And of course, she did. Funny thing is, it was discovered years later that my eyesight is awful. I think that to compensate for it, my hearing, intution, and sense of touch were amplified.

Not good to have things stuck in your eye, and doubly bad when you have poor eyesight to begin with!


Anyway, no, wind has done her homework. I commend her.
edit on 4/9/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by BuzzyWigs
 


Yes, he/she is. Did you bother to look at the sources I provided or read any of it? You replied awfully quick. One might think you haven't even given the information much thought. I too have done my homework, and it plainly shows that windword is wrong.

Windword even makes the claim that the quake reported in the bible "tore the temple apart" when the bible itself doesn't even make that claim, and states that the veil of the temple was rent in two:

Matthew 27:51

NIV: "At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split"

King James: "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;"

So now the veil = the entire temple being "torn apart"?

link


A thick curtain separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place. This curtain, known as the “veil,” was made of fine linen and blue, purple and scarlet yarn.


Hmm.... From a curtain, to the entire temple being torn apart. That is certainly a false claim, and his/her claims about there being no proof of an earthquake in the region around the time of Christ's death have also been proven to be false.
edit on 9-4-2014 by DeadSeraph because: Formatting/errors



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


C'mon now:



"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split


The rocks split! How can the curtian be torn unless the walls were falling? Magic or an earthquake? Sheesh, who reaching now?




Additional corroboration of the event exists in the reports of Julius Africanus, who cites a report by the roman historian Thallus of an earthquake and a darkness over Judea (Thallus attributes the latter to an eclipse, which Julius obviously disagrees with, being Christian).


I don't know what you're trying to say here, but an eclipse at that time was scientifically impossible, so Thallus was wrong! Thallus wrote folk lore/oral "history" from the Trojan War, which was first written about by Homer around 1200 BCE! He was hardly an eye witness, nor do I think he spoke with eye witnesses! I don't think that he was actually known for historical accuracy, how could he be? LOL And of course Julius Africanus lived 200 plus years after the advent, so his opinion on what happened is moot.

At any rate, the earthquake that you're referring to was at the time that Jesus was hanging on the cross, according to the bible, so how did it's energy create the shroud? That's when all the dead people got up and started walking around! Yeah, that sounds legit!



Nope! I'm sorry. Your earthquake theory is a WASH!





edit on 9-4-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 





Did you bother to look at the sources I provided or read any of it?


Did you? From your link!




33 A.D. Jerusalem. This earthquake(s), which is said to have occurred during the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ in Jerusalem, caused darkness over all the land, tombs to open and the ground to split open.

The source for this information is the Gospel according to St Matthew, who mentions two earthquakes. The first, which occurred at the lime of the Crucifixion, caused the rock tombs to break open, revealing the bodies of the Just, who then rose after Christ's resurrection. The earthquake symbolises both Nature's response to Christ's death and a foretelling of the Resurrection. The second earthquake occurred after the Resurrection and thus permitted the women to enter into the tomb and veriify the absence of Christ's body.


Sorry again DS, the Bible isn't proof of Bible stories!



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 



Did you bother to look at the sources I provided or read any of it? You replied awfully quick.

I may be new here, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck (and when I was on it for 50 years, it went around the block thousands of times...and I've done my homework for decades.)
Yes, I replied "quick[ly]", because I've heard/read all the arguments before, and they don't hold up.

I respect your point of view, but his/hers is backed up by things other than "The Bible". The Bible does not prove The Bible is true.
(Picture that 'circular argument' graphic here).



edit on 4/9/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


This will be my last reply to you, since you are either being intentionally obtuse, or your reading comprehension is severely lacking.




The rocks split! How can the curtian be torn unless the walls were falling? Magic or an earthquake? Sheesh, who reaching now?


The passage in question states this:

"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split"

The last sentence is indicative of an earthquake. If the author intended to imply that the temple itself split, he would have said so. The author is clearly talking about an earthquake, since he mentions the veil in the first sentence, and then discusses the earth shaking in the second sentence followed by "the rocks split". Not "the temple split" or "the stone which the temple was carved from split". How the veil was split isn't specified, but that isn't really relevant since the bible does not claim that the earthquake destroyed the temple. AT ALL.

You are 100% WRONG. Ask any Christian with half a brain if they interpret that scripture as implying that the temple was destroyed by the earthquake. You are making things up now, and unwilling to admit that you were wrong. That, or you have absolutely no interest in the truth, and find nothing wrong with lying as long as it supports your agenda.



I don't know what you're trying to say here, but an eclipse at that time was scientifically impossible, so Thallus was wrong!


You obviously didn't read the source material (big surprise there). Julius ACTUALLY AGREES WITH YOU, and states as much! Thallus is attempting to explain away the darkness and Julius is claiming his explanation is impossible. Maybe next time you should actually READ the material before commenting. However, You will of course find a way to twist this material to suit your agenda regardless of what it says, and I knew that when I presented it to you. What Thallus wrote is only included in my reply because it corroborates not only the biblical narrative but the scientific data I linked you to. The issue isn't the darkness, the issue is the EARTHQUAKE which you claim never happened.



Thallus wrote folk lore/oral "history" from the Trojan War, which was first written about by Homer around 1200 BCE! He was hardly an eye witness, nor do I think he spoke with eye witnesses! I don't think that he was actually known for historical accuracy, how could he be? LOL And of course Julius Africanus lived 200 plus years after the advent, so his opinion on what happened is moot.


Didn't see this coming at all. No really. Not at all predictable. Well there you have it. I guess we should just discard any and all accounts of roman historians since they have written about things they didn't witness personally. Or maybe we should only consider what they have to say when it's convenient for our own arguments. Either way, the account matches the data.



At any rate, the earthquake that you're referring to was at the time that Jesus was hanging on the cross, according to the bible, so how did it's energy create the shroud?


I'm not sure to be honest. I never claimed I believed the earthquake was responsible for the image on the shroud, only that the earthquake itself occurred. I suppose it's possible that an aftershock could have had the same effect, but I am no geologist so you would have to ask Alberto Carpinteri.



Nope! I'm sorry. Your earthquake theory is a WASH!


It's not my theory. See above.



Sorry again DS, the Bible isn't proof of Bible stories!


From the source I linked to you:


To analyze earthquake activity in the region, geologist Jefferson Williams of Supersonic Geophysical and colleagues Markus Schwab and Achim Brauer of the German Research Center for Geosciences studied three cores from the beach of the Ein Gedi Spa adjacent to the Dead Sea.

Varves, which are annual layers of deposition in the sediments, reveal that at least two major earthquakes affected the core: a widespread earthquake in 31 B.C. and an early first century seismic event that happened sometime between 26 A.D. and 36 A.D.


Does that sound like a quotation from the bible to you? Did you bother to read the whole article? Did you even take a glance at the link from the National Geophysical Data Center's website that I provided for you?

It's pretty sad when you are willing to argue a point after you have been thoroughly proven wrong, and then scream "THE BIBLE ISN'T EVIDENCE" without reading the non-biblical evidence provided to you. I'm doing your own research for you and I don't even get so much as a thankyou.

Typical.


edit on 9-4-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 



Did you bother to look at the sources I provided or read any of it? You replied awfully quick.

I may be new here, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck (and when I was on it for 50 years, it went around the block thousands of times...and I've done my homework for decades.)
Yes, I replied "quick[ly]", because I've heard/read all the arguments before, and they don't hold up.

I respect your point of view, but his/hers is backed up by things other than "The Bible". The Bible does not prove The Bible is true.
(Picture that 'circular argument' graphic here).



edit on 4/9/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)


Then you obviously didn't actually read anything. My position regarding the earthquake taking place around the time of Christ's death is backed up by science, AND the bible. Go read again. I don't care how long you've been "off the turnip truck".
edit on 9-4-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 



Go read again.

Okay, I will.

I admit I was knee-jerking because I've studied so-called scientific studies that are ludicrous....
like Jesus's heart having been impaled by the spear. People refuse to believe that a pleural empyema was perfectly possible....
and more likely.

My spouse nearly died of one 3.5 years ago....
broken rib from a fall, bruised/punctured the lung - chest tube to drain it: blood and water and puss. Eleven days in hospital. Heart sac was not compromised.

But, okay, I'll go read your thing again.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Jordan River
reply to post by windword
 


Im not understanding you, but christ was a historical figure, not a made up man. Him being a God is the only thing debatable. I myself believe, because there is much less hope on earth than in death


The first two sentences are your opinion. And what does your last sentence even mean?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join