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.

 

Turin Shroud 3000 years old?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
I saw this article today and began to wonder. Is it really possible? I am a Christian (non-wacko variety) and want to believe. What do you think?




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   
I read it was "300" years old and a hoax



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   
No, the most accurate date was around the Crusades.

"The Shroud of Turin is certainly much older than the now discredited radiocarbon date of ca 1260-1390.This is supported by chemical evidence."
2005 News on the Shroud of Turin



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Thanks for the link, intresting stuff. Still a mystery.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
To tell you the truth im divided on the issue. The Shroud of Turin obviously has been dismissed way to early as a fake, i'm interested in seeing the final conclusion in this one.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I'll throw this in I don't know if it's real or not....but just because it has some types of a burnt in image on it doesn't mean it has to be from a resurrection.....what if it was from a "beaming" up through the clothe....heck you never know. I just find it odd that it always has to be reserection



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Allan Hildebrandt
I saw this article today and began to wonder. Is it really possible? I am a Christian (non-wacko variety) and want to believe. What do you think?


Christians always feel the need to apologise for being christian. Never see an atheist say, I am a non-wacko variety atheist. I am Christian and very ok with being that, I also respect others right to be any religion or spiritual or non-spiritual being they choose.

On the subject of the new article - it is an interesting take pointing out that the previous carbon dating tests were done on the medieval patching that was done after the shroud was damaged in the fire. Is the shroud authentic? I think if anybody was being fair they would admit the jury is still out. Either way a shroud does not prove the existence/or non-existence of Jesus.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris

Christians always feel the need to apologise for being christian. Never see an atheist say, I am a non-wacko variety atheist.

That's because, as you may of noticed here at this board....there are a lot of Christians that are very closed minded, won't even listen to your point of view if your not Christian, and throw teaching at you as if they are absolute provable truths....which here at this site, doesn't go over well....I love it when we have open minded Christians here....I lean so much more, you can't learn anything new from someone spouting off the same old rhetoric at you!



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I was just watching a show on the National Geographic channel last night on this subject. they now beleive that Da Vinci may have had a hand in the creation of the shroud using a process called camera obscura here is a link on the it camera obscura
The burning of the image, National Geographic was saying was done through the use of a chemical process that Da Vinci had access to. I cannot remember the names of the chemicals that they believe that he used but at the end of the show, they tell you. Sorry, I tried to get more info from National Geographic but all there links point back on the tv schedule for the program



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
If 3000 years old, then it'd be TOO old, hehe...



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   

from advisor's article
A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old," Rogers writes.

So its from around 700 AD at the latest or 1,000 BC (which of course is entirely nonesensicle) at the oldest, according to this method.


[vanillin]is easily detected on medieval linens, but cannot be found in the very old ones, such as the wrappings of the Dead Sea scrolls.

I don't get it, stuff as old as the DSSs can't be dated using this method, yet they are saying that they have an oldest limit of 1,000 BC, which is far older than the DSSs. Anything from around the time of christ would be at the limits of detectability, if the DSSs are too old to be dated.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
If I am not mistaken, the reason we can't date it properly is because the religious that have possession of it will not allow a tiny piece of a corner to test because they believe it is Christ shroud.




rolly eyes at them not letting anyone have a tiny piece...not because they think it is Christ's shroud


[edit on 1/27/2005 by LadyV]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
If I am not mistaken, the reason we can't date it properly is because the religious that have possession of it will not allow a tiny piece of a corner to test because they believe it is Christ shroud.


rolly eyes at them not letting anyone have a tiny piece...not because they think it is Christ's shroud


This is untrue. In 1988 the Catholic Church agreed to have the shroud carbon dated. Small squares were cut from the shroud and given to the leading carbon dating experts from many nations, at least some half dozen teams I believe. The results came back with no date older than the 14th century. As you may know the shroud was almost destroyed in a 15th century fire, evident by the fire damage on the shroud. Many people argue that the flames, heat and smoke from the fire changed the chemical composition of the cloth, tainting it thereby not allowing accurate carbon dating.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
It allways gets me why some belivers have to cling to artifacts to the point they don't allow others to examine it.

If the shroud was taken out of the earth from being buried it might be a lot clearer. But also the fact it was not in anyway properly stored in a way to preserve it from damage just confuses its origins.

There is evidance that an "Image" can be produced the same way from bacteria , sweat, oils, and insense could be used to create the image on the cloth. But the parts where the image is made have not been allowed to be analysed. in the late 80s, they only took samples from the edges and corners.

In the end i could care less if the shroud is real or fake, I have the Bible, and that proves ot be Christ existed



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV

Originally posted by Mynaeris

Christians always feel the need to apologise for being christian. Never see an atheist say, I am a non-wacko variety atheist.

That's because, as you may of noticed here at this board....there are a lot of Christians that are very closed minded, won't even listen to your point of view if your not Christian, and throw teaching at you as if they are absolute provable truths....which here at this site, doesn't go over well....I love it when we have open minded Christians here....I lean so much more, you can't learn anything new from someone spouting off the same old rhetoric at you!



and your saying that there aren't close-minded athiests? i would venture to argue that the ratio to open-minded athiest to open-minded christians here is vastly in favor of the christians... i actually think open-minded athiest is an oxymoron.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV

Originally posted by Mynaeris

That's because, as you may of noticed here at this board....there are a lot of Christians that are very closed minded, won't even listen to your point of view if your not Christian, and throw teaching at you as if they are absolute provable truths....which here at this site, doesn't go over well....I love it when we have open minded Christians here....I lean so much more, you can't learn anything new from someone spouting off the same old rhetoric at you!


and your saying that there aren't close-minded athiests? i would venture to argue that the ratio to open-minded athiest to open-minded christians here is vastly in favor of the christians... i actually think open-minded athiest is an oxymoron.


I think an open minded athiest might actually be an agnostic (One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism)

But I have to agree with Lady V about Christians who won't listen to any other point of view it gets tiresome when they keep putting the same quotes and teachings and sometimes it doesn't even seem like they have read what the subject is. Sometimes it makes me think of telemarketers where if you get x comment you respond with y response. . But maybe they don't consider a Presbyterian a proper Christian
and maybe that is why I am willing to discuss possibilities of other religions and ideas.

jm


[edit on 27-1-2005 by justme1640]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Wasn't there some ancient pollen in the fibers, that came from a specific area in the Middle East somewhere????????



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Yes it looks like there was.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Is this 'physical evidence' all that is needed for non-believers to believe?


People are still digging in the dirt for ancient pieces of metal, wood or cloth as relics when they can be talking to the living God. Why? All these years of human development to acquire wisdom yet we cannot see what is real, only what our eyes tell us. When will we grow out of our spoon-fed mentality?

[edit on 27-1-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
"It will come up from the abyss and is headed for destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world shall be amazed when they see the beast, because it existed once but no longer, and yet it will come again. Here is a clue for one who has wisdom. The seven heads represent seven hills upon which the woman sits. They also represent seven kings: five have already fallen, one still lives, and the last has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a short while. The beast that existed once but exists no longer is an eighth king, but really BELONGS to the seven and is headed for destruction."



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join