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.

 

410 years of Burial face Veil of Christ came to Manoppello, Italy

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Just one extra remark: Veneration of relics , that is the correct term.

the objects are venerated for their connection with Jesus Christ or other relevant Saint people, not because they are by themselves divine, there is no intention of any idolatry with them.

Now, in particular Christ relics can show evidence of His divinity, for instance when images appear not made by any Artistic technique, but through a strange look like radiation.

How can somebody explain through other hypothesis the existence of an X rays plate or a Hologram more than 20 centuries ago??

The images of the Shroud or the Manoppello Veil are really other not written by human hands gospels that are saying to us (without barriers of human languages):

' Here I am, recognize me skeptics of all generations, I was neither an Egyptian myth, nor a recreation of pagan deities or a by product of popular Literature, I actually came to this world and I did all the wonders that it is written I performed, it is true that Jealous and confused people killed me brutally but I resurrected and moreover I have the power to come back again, so please be prepared.'

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 12/5/2018 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

In your ignorant ramblings you ASSUME I'm both young and a fan of the Davinci Code (which was mediocre art best). There''s more evidence the Turin shroud iooks like Leonardo than there is it looking like someone we have no proof ever existed in the first place.



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

So, even though scientists have once again proven the Shroud of Turin a fake, people are still trying to offer up even more 'Christ' artefacts to try and what..? 'Prove' he was real?

I think the more the religious try to use ridiculous claims to prove the existence of Jesus, the more they keep failing when science gets involved.

But I guess that's the point, right? 'Faith' -- believing in the absence of evidence.



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

Oh no you didn't! Did you just use science to debunk this? Haven't you heard of faith? Faith trumps Science, well in the minds of some people....



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: The angel of light

So, even though scientists have once again proven the Shroud of Turin a fake, people are still trying to offer up even more 'Christ' artefacts to try and what..? 'Prove' he was real?

.


From your link...


The Turin Shroud is a fake.

That is the verdict of Catholic Bishop Pierre d’Arcis who has written to tell the Pope it was “a clever sleight of hand” by someone “falsely declaring this was the actual shroud in which Jesus was enfolded in the tomb to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them”.



Wait, the church using things to draw money from people? Seriously? Colour me shocked.

In all seriousness though, if you chose to read the bible and follow it, remember this...


The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,


The church is corrupt, you just need to look at the institutionalised child abuse perpetrated by men of the cloth to know that, it's all based on lies. And to think they call Lucifer the father of lies...



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

Ha ha ha, this must be a joke isn't it? but of very weird taste, you are just recycling fake news from 1390, bringing them here as a "conclusive verdict" of a supposed forgery?!

Neither the Bishop Pierre d’Arcis nor his predecessor Henry of Poitiers were ever appointed by Pope Clement VII, who certainly believed the relic might be authentic, as official Holy see investigators on any supposed fraud, there is no single document signed by the Pope given to them such a commission.

The letters your link reproduce were spontaneously written by the French Bishops moved by their obvious jealousy over the decrease on their collection of donations to their Cathedral that they attributed to the crowds Pilgrims going to Lirey instead to visit the Holy Shroud.

The motifs of the French bishops are so evident, they couldn't obtain custody on the relic, they even menaced under penalty of excommunication members of the Charny Family to surrender the relic to them and since their blackmailing couldn't work they decided to manufacture the case of forgery to discredit it.

None of the letters of two Bishops where they insist the relic was falsified they mention any Artist at all, What an omission isnt it? they even said to know the Artist but they never gave his name at all, the most conclusive data was never disclosed at all in their long written communications to the Pope that were full of intrigue tone.

Anybody that know the multiple violations of scientific protocols committed by the laboratories that tested three times the same only sample taken against recommendations clearly stated to so by multiple scientists from a corner that had repairs of centuries in the Shroud can see that their results were suspicious of to be biased.


“There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow, and so further research is certainly needed. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information” —Christopher Ramsey, head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit which participated in the 1988 Carbon 14 Dating of the Shroud. (March 2008)



“[T]he age-dating process [in 1988] failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.” —Robert Villarreal, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist who headed a team of nine scientists at LANL who examined material from the carbon 14 sampling region. (August 2008)


The Biggest C14 Mistake Ever

But lets assume that at least something of what it was done in 1988 was correctly performed, if we check their own report at least one of the four subsamples that they dated gave to the relic an age of 1,964 ± 20 years, you can see that on Arizona, London and Zurich reported data, of course the other dates are not giving that range but why so much variance in between one and the others?


Sample Mean Date (yr BP) Calendar date ranges
1* 691 ± 31 68% AD 1273 - 1288
95% AD 1262 - 1312, 1353 - 1384 cal
2 ** 937 ± 16 68% AD 1032 - 1048, 1089 - 1119, 1142 - 1154 cal
95% AD 1026 - 1160 cal

3** 1,964 ± 20*** 68% AD 11-64 cal 95% 9 cal BC - AD 78 cal


4** 724 ± 20 68% AD 1268 - 1278 cal
95% AD 1263 - 1283 cal

Official Data report from 1988 C14 Shroud Dating


1988 October. A few days before the dating, Meacham composed a letter to the British Museum, which he copied to STURP, Gonella and several news agencies, in which he wrote, “In sum, the British Museum has much to answer for in its involvement:
1.) Why did it acquiesce in the reduction of samples to be taken from seven to three, against the recommendation of the Turin Commission?

2.) Why did it agree to the elimination of the small counter laboratories, which employ a more reliable counting system?

3.) Why did it agree to only one sampling site, thereby raising the possibility of an anomalous zone being dated?

4.) Why did it agree to the sampling of a scorched area of the cloth, again in conflict with the recommendation of the Turin Commission?

5.) Did it approve the choice of a textile ‘expert’? And is it satisfied that his visual inspection of the sampled area is sufficient to rule out any possibility of a restoration/re-weaving of that area?

6.) Why did it not follow its own guidelines in the inter-comparison experiment and insist that samples be taken well away from selvedges? Or is 2-3 cm. considered to be ‘well away’?


Politics on the C14 Dating of Shroud Joseph Marino

In 1982, as part of a recommendation the holy see was asking from a laboratory in charge of establish procedures of preservation of the relic, in request of John Heller on a Nuclear Physics facility of the University of California at Berkeley two threads of the Shroud were C14 tested secretly , the results showed the effect of high contamination on the cloth, but both of them were revealing an age of even thousands of years.

Thread #1 700 BC to 200 AD
Thread #2 200 AD to 1000 AD.

Radio Carbon Dating carried out in California 1982

Guided from those results in 1986 in a special meeting on the Holy see scientists recommended that any minimally acceptable C14 dating on the relic must be done taking samples of several different points from the cloth, to be able to avoid the contamination found on it.

1986 Recommendations that were bypassed on how to C14 test the Shroud

Since 1997 a panel of scientists of a British University in conjunction of three of the most reputed Italian Universities proved that the 1987 C14 data does not resist a Statistical Analysis for abnormal behavior in the data variance.

Critical Statistical Analysis of 1988 C14 Dating of Shroud

In 2011 the same panel carried out a new dating using a new not destructive techniques based on spectroscopy and micromechanical properties of the cloth that show the relic is as old as from 300 BC to 400 AD.

MicroMechanical properties Analsys of Shroud fibers to date it

Mechanical and Opto Chemical Dating of Turin Shroud

You can Not be serious if you think a body that was carried in a Shroud by walking from the place of execution hundreds of meters to the tomb can Not show different flows of blood, need not multiple manipulations of a Manikin with synthetic blood to try to get fame at expense of the relic speculating about them.

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 12/6/2018 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

So, even though actual science, real science - not "science' carried out by the religious, has proven time and time again the shroud is not real, you'll keep that scientific faith going, huh?

I suppose if that was the only 'evidence' i had i would be as persistent as you, but thankfully, I go by the facts, not by what I "want" to be true. You believe in God and Jesus and all that stuff, no matter how little (read: none) evidence there is to support your faith.

This new 'relic' brought forward is just like all the others - not evidence of anything.
But let's just suppose the shroud is real, or the spear, or the coffin nails or any of the 1000 other supposed artefacts the religious claim -- none of it proves his Divinity or that he was the son of God. At best it proves there was a man who fit the profile of the supposed Jesus fella. Nothing more.

I was always fascinated how the fanatical can be so easily blinded by trickery and hoaxes.



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

I am a scientist, that is my profession, neither a priest nor a common monk, and the data I have shared come from reputed researchers that are affiliated to famous Universities like Padova, Pisa, Emilia, Bologna, or London, and serious laboratories around the world.

I am frankly intrigued on your interest on this thread:

Your own reply shows that you are not objective on the subject, your mind is hermetically closed to discuss about anything that smells supernatural intervention of any kind.

Why you decided to come to this thread?

it is clear that a forum devoted on paranormality is for people that believe in the possibility to know and study events overcoming natural laws, by definition Paranormal phenomena defies all what is ordinary experience.

Since you have already decided long time ago, years before to come in to this thread who and what are you going to trust, why you are losing your time here discussing things that clearly defy or contradict your materialistic convictions?

It is funny to see an atheistic person fighting against his own curiosity of Paranormality, moreover trying to shield his prejudgments in a wrong understanding of science too.

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 12/6/2018 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2018 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

No, I'm not objective when it comes to religion because it is a hoax, a fraud, man-made, delusional, and can make even the most sane people commit the most abhorrent atrocities in the name or belief of their religion. So when people claim there is more 'evidence' of a religious artefact that might support their delusion, no - I'm not going to sit there with a sh*t eating grin saying, 'Please, tell me more'.


I came to this thread because I'm allowed to and allowed to voice my opinion, regardless of whether it supports your OP or not. That's what this is - a public forum. I'm not using foul language against people, i'm not using racial slurs, or advocating violence. I'm expressing my disbelief in your belief. Is that not allowed?

I'm not curious about the Paranormal -- I have never seen a shred of evidence to support a paranormal dimension outside our own, so I am always curious as to why people like you believe in such. Then, when you make references to known frauds or fakes (ie; Shroud of Turin and this other thing you posted) it makes me sit here in disbelief that you let yourselves be led so far down a made up belief it baffles me.

And what's my wrong understanding of science, please, Mr Scientist? My understanding is that it's the study and understanding of the world around us, the physical/natural world from the observations of these phenomena and empirical experimentation to understand and prove the hypotheses behind why we think they occur. Seems to have worked thus far - the computer you're using is evidence of that. Please educate me as to why it's wrong.
edit on 9-12-2018 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join