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.

 

Could the Shroud of Turin verify the supposed remains of Jesus?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
How do we verify the DNA of Jesus? The Shroud of Turin has been a highly debated artifact for years. The Vatican has possession of the artifact and have refused to have any scientific analysis done on it since the 1980's. Their reason, we may never really know. For certain they will not allow it now given the find of supposed remains of Jesus. If there was any possiblity the Shroud could be verified and the DNA matched those of the remains, the assumption of what effect that might have on the church are huge for reasons I don't think I have to tell you.

One interesting theory to look at is the timeline. These remains were orginally recovered about twenty years ago. Around the same time the Vatican refused to have any more testing done on the Shroud.

There is evidence the Shroud has blood on it, type AB blood in fact:




Blood stains
There are several reddish stains on the shroud suggesting blood. Dark red stains, shown to contain iron oxide and asserted to be a result of the presence of medieval pigment (McCrone, W. C., The Microscope, 29, 1981) Walter McCrone (see above) identified these as containing iron oxide. McCrone suggested that the presence of iron oxide was like due to simple pigment materials used in medieval times. Other researchers, including Alan Adler, a chemist specializing in analysis of porphyrins, identified the reddish stains as type AB blood.


Dr's Heller and Adler further studied the dark red stains. Applying pleochroism, birefringence and chemical analysis, they determined that, unlike the medieval artist’s pigment which contains iron oxide contaminated with manganese, nickel and cobalt, the iron oxide on the shroud was relatively pure but later proven to be iron oxide resulting from blood stains (Heller, J. H., Adler, A. D. 1980). Dr Adler then proceeded to apply microspectrophotometric analysis of a "blood particle" from one of the fibrils of the shroud and unmistakably identified haemoglobin (in the acid methemoglobin form due to great age and denaturation). Further tests by Heller and Adler established, within scientific certainty, the presence of porphyrin, bilirubin, albumin and protein. In fact, when proteases (enzymes which break up protein within cells) were applied to the fibril containing the "blood," the blood dissolved from the fibril leaving an imageless fibril (Heller, J. H., and Adler, A. D. 1981). [11]. It is uncertain whether the blood stains were produced at the same time as the image, which Adler and Heller attributed to premature aging of the linen.[12]. Working independently with a larger sample of blood containing fibrils, pathologist Pier Baima Bollone, using immunochemistry, confirms Heller and Adler’s findings and identifies the blood of the AB blood group (Baima Bollone, P., La Sindone-Scienza e Fide 1981).

The particular shade of red of the supposed blood stains are supposed to be problematic according to sceptics of the shrouds authenticity. Normally, whole blood stains discolour relatively rapidly, turning to a black-brown colour, while these stains range from a red/brown colour. Proponents of the shrouds authenticity point out that fading of blood stains over the years turned the black-brown colour to the red/brown colour presently observed. Also, some scientists suggest that the stains result from the liquid exuded by blood clots. In the case of severe trauma, as evidenced by the Man of the Shroud, this liquid would include a mixture of bilirubin and oxidized haemoglobin, which could remain red indefinitely.


External Source



Of course that does not mean it is in fact Jesus' blood. But just imagine the implications if it were. Unless the Holy Grail turns up with some ancient saliva dried on, the Shroud may be the only chance we have to find out the truth about Jesus. Oh and there is always that theory the Grail is alive today.




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Let me ask you a question. Why should the vatican continue to allow experiments done on the shroud when there were batteries of tests done on it throughout the 70s and 80s? Nothing conclusive was ever decided about the shroud. Either one believes that it is real, or one doesn't.

For me, the image on the shroud looks a bit European. Now, that is not to say that it is necessarily inauthentic, but it certainly doesn't convey the image that I receive in my mind's eye of Jesus. To me, the image is just too modern... In other words, it comes too close to coinciding with paintings and such that we see of Jesus. All of which make him look very Europeanish. I am not convinced that it is necessarily inauthentic,but I don't know if it's authentic either.


[edit on 26-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
people should just ask themselves why now. this place may of been found ages ago, but why now, are they bringing it out into the open.

seeing as we are just entering the new age of aquarius. whats the point of bringing it out now.

and no one is supposed to know what jesus looked like, and imagining what he looks like is not right. you are just not meant to visualise jesus and his face.

for me this is something weird, and i will just wait till the documentary comes out. did the vatican say anything on the claims.

[edit on 2/26/2007 by andy1033]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
people should just ask themselves why now. this place may of been found ages ago, but why now, are they bringing it out into the open.

seeing as we are just entering the new age of aquarius. whats the point of bringing it out now.

[edit on 2/26/2007 by andy1033]


That is a very interesting question. I suspect that it may be due to the attitudes toward Islam and Christianity presently. Many people are lashing out at both of these religions because they view them as being creators of war...



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Let me ask you a question. Why should the vatican continue to allow experiments done on the shroud when there were batteries of tests done on it throughout the 70s and 80s? Nothing conclusive was ever decided about the shroud. Either one believes that it is real, or one doesn't.


There was only one set of carbon testing done and it was in 1988. The results of those tests have been questioned:



the 1988 radiocarbon dating was a fraudulent experiment due to erroneous sampling and alleged collusion between experimenters and the Vatican; and repeated peer-reviewed analyses of the image mode which have ruled out medieval pigments as a course of the image and proved to Judicial standards that blood is present on the cloths.


Source

If there were tests done by professionals not mixed up with the Vatican then perhaps we would have a few real answers. There is also more advanced testing that could be done now as opposed to 1988.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Personally, I don't think the Shroud is a relic from Christ. It looks like Leonardo to me. His likeness and his work.

I think all the claimed relics should be tested. The Church has the power to do it but they don't. Why?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Originally posted by Speakeroftruth


Many people are lashing out at both of these religions because they view them as being creators of war...


As well they should.
Until modern times, wars were fought in the "just and righteous cause" of
both religions.

To this day, radical Muslims still practice Jihad.

How can both factions preach peace, and advocate war in the same breath, is beyond my intellect.

Just my 2 cent,
Lex

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Lexion]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Lexion, that quote was mine... not, andy's..



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Noted, and edited.

Thanks for pointing that out.


Lex



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
If one looks at the facial image on the shroud, it becomes clear that it is relatively a lot like what we see in modern depictions of Christ:

Here is an image from the shroud




Here is a modern depiction




See the similarities.. Very European looking.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Here is another depiction




[edit on 26-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Here is another depiction




[edit on 26-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


He is so white and pretty,


The oldest representation of jesus is a 6th century hand painted icon, and was inspired by the shroud of Edessa.

From Santa caterina Monastery Library, Sinai.

During the fourtheenth century there were several shrouds, that werre claimed to be jesus own they disappear leaving the "shroud of turin" as the only evidence. . . but the shroud itself is not old enough and is put in time as far as the 14th century.

From THEODURUS LECTOR OF THE EARLY 500'S A.D, as excerpted from Nicephoras Callistus Xanthopoulos" Church History 1,15:


At the time of Gennadious (Patriarch of Constantino from 458 to 471) the hand of a painter was withere who decided to paint the saviour in the likeness of Zeus (with long hair). Gnenadious healed him by means of a prayer. The author (Theodorus Lector) says that the other from of Christ, that is, the one with Short, frizzy hair, is more authentic.


www.askelm.com...

Before Constantine in orthodx circles ( in rare occasions) Jesus was portrayed as being younthful, without a beard, and with short hair.

By the fourth century, he had a transformation and became more like the pagan god Zeus.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Remember when Dolly was the first cloned Mammal? About the same time arson was committed against the church in Turin. As I watched CNN report on these seemingly un-connected events I immediately thought, "wow, someone doesn't want a sample of the shrouds blood to be cloned! Would that be the second coming if anyone pulled it off?"



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gatordone
Remember when Dolly was the first cloned Mammal? About the same time arson was committed against the church in Turin. As I watched CNN report on these seemingly un-connected events I immediately thought, "wow, someone doesn't want a sample of the shrouds blood to be cloned! Would that be the second coming if anyone pulled it off?"


Gatordone, there has been much talk about this. The general notion is that since the clone would not actually contain the spirit of Christ, it wouldn't be anything like Christ other than appearance. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that such a creation would be more like the "anti-Christ," than Christ like.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 26-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Yup, the anti-christ. That this wouldn't be the "Son of God" but instead the "Son of Man" using science as the language of God. Another Tower of Babylon.

It would however, if viable at all, answer the black Jesus debate.

No i guess not after all with still no proof of authenticity...



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gatordone

It would however, if viable at all, answer the black Jesus debate.

No i guess not after all with still no proof of authenticity...


The whole debate about whether Jesus was black or white is really ridiculous to me. He was neither!! If anything, he probably looked like an arab from Saudi Arabia or something. I can't imagine him being black and certainly not white.

It's really ridiculous and petty to me.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
The shroud has already been proven a fake and its from the middle ages, the proved that with carbon dating.

So taking DNA from that wouldnt prove anything.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Yeah, i thought that they already tested it and proved that the "blood" was just an old type of red paint, and that its from the middle ages?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
There's a thread here somewhere that claims the carbon dating tests were screwed up because they took fibers from a part of the shroud that had been patched in the middle ages after a fire.

Anyway, you can't get DNA from old blood. The cells would be completely decomposed after just a few years, let alone 2000. I doubt if they could even verify that it IS blood.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I happen to think that the image on the Shroud is Jacques de Molay, the ill-fated Templar Grand Master. The Templars wore their hair long and had beards, in the likeness of what they thought Jesus looked like. Also, I subscribe to the theory that he was tortured in a mockery of the Crucifixion, which may account for the similarity of the injuries shown on the Shroud and those of Jesus. Plus, I believe the Shroud appeared for the first time shortly after de Molay's death.

This theory is largely expounded in The Second Messiah, by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas. I don't know if it has been debunked at all yet but it sounds plausible.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by TheComte]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join