Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin

reply to post by FlyersFan

- Coins on the eyes imprint evidence.

That's fascinating, FF. I don't remember ever hearing about that before and have always had a keen interest in the shroud.

Do you have any more information on the coins? Were they first century Roman coins or what not? I'm interested in looking into that.

The shroud fascinates me but I guess I still remain skeptical. Which I feel is fair enough since we know our faith doesn't rely on relics or 'proof.' But apologetic validation is always a nice perk. lol

reply to post by kiwifoot


I would be interested to hear from anyone who's read Knight and Lomas' claim that the figure depicted on the shroud is the last grand master of the Knights Templar one Jacques De Molay.

There seems to be something in it, any views ?

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by AshleyD

 

Did millions from that era die of crucifixion, have a crown of thorns on their heads (punctures in the head), have a wound with their side where they were pierced with a sword, etc.? Crucifixion victims typically had their legs broken- they were not pierced in their sides like Jesus was.

We don't know,

Yes, we do, or at least we are relatively certain that we know a great deal about them . There are individuals whose whole doctoral study is in crucifixions. We've unearthed crucifixion victims, analyzed images and writings... a lot is known about crucifixions.

there doesn't appear to be any bodies preserved displaying this neither are there any historical accounts in writing.

Yes, there are. How can you say so definitively that there are not?

There again the same applies to jesus, the description you quoted was written well after the alleged event was supposed to have taken place

Not necessarily true. The datings of the gospel narratives rest on one point which is argued in symposium between peers. It is not open and shut. Furthermore, there are other artifacts that have been uncovered (not yet through peer review) and artifacts that have been through peer review which lend support to these accounts.

and is no more reliable than description of Thor.

*sigh*

I cannot comment, and neither probably can you, on archeological evidence for Scandinavian deities and/or their human origins because I do not study it. However, I wouldn't use such fallacies to make an argument in the case that some scholar ripped me a new one.

Finding something that remarkably resembles Batmans' utility belt does not make Batman real.

No, but it would mean that someone created a utility belt much like that of Batman and may have adopted characteristics of Batman, and be a highly technical individual with the financial means to produce a belt of that kind. We might then presume if it were a working belt that he had at some point used it, even if only to test its capacity. We might assume other things about him, but there is a lot we could know about the individual who had owned and/or created the belt.

Likewise believing that Batman is real does not make the Utility Belt Batmans'

Exactly. It also does not preclude the existence of him or someone adopting his persona.

www.worldsuperheroregistry.com...

[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by kiwifoot

 

I would be interested to hear from anyone who's read Knight and Lomas' claim that the figure depicted on the shroud is the last grand master of the Knights Templar one Jacques De Molay.

There seems to be something in it, any views ?

Yes, I have a view. The fabric weave could be utilized in North Africa from 1000BCE to 1000 CE. It is not a "Palestinian" (I use "Palestine" loosely) weave, but neither is it a European weave. Given the trade routes it is more likely to have been purchased and used in Judea than England, France, or Spain. Therefore, it is just as unlikely to be the grand master of the Knights Templar as is it is to be Jesus.

My opinion only...

Originally posted by Erich Kemper
I have a German documentary in which they collected spores and seeds from the shroud and by determining the species they found out that it travelled from Jerusalem to France. There are also depictions from the 10th century.
I'm not an religious man but I do think there is something to the story of Jesus.

Jesus Christ

Jesus ---> Je Suis ---> French for I AM
Christ ---> Christal ---> Crystal

I AM CRYSTAL
Think about that!

what?
Jesus isnt even close to being pronounced "Je suis"

you must be trolling

Sorry, I didn't see this post until someone else quoted it.

reply to post by moocowman

there doesn't appear to be any bodies preserved displaying this...

This is true. One of the reasons so few archaeological finds have been discovered depicting crucifixion is the fact it was normal for the victim to be left on the cross and denied burial. The victims were typically left to decay or be eaten by birds or even fed to the Roman army's dogs.

Which makes the shroud very unusual. Crucifixion victims were very rarely buried. The Bible even alludes to how out of place it was for Jesus to have received a proper burial.

neither are there any historical accounts in writing.

This is incorrect. There are actually a few historians from that time (and more even before) that document crucifixion as a rather normal method of execution.

There again the same applies to jesus, the description you quoted was written well after the alleged event was supposed to have taken place and is no more reliable than description of Thor.

Define 'well after.' Also, I'm sure you know, many things were recorded 'well after' the event but archaeology confirms it. So the above quote appears to be grasping at straws.

[edit on 10/6/2009 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD

Research on the presence of footprints of coins in the orbital areas of the Shroud Man started in 1954 by the father of Chicago theologian FL Filas, who made a series of studies in both photography is numismatics. Starting with a copy of the original photographic plates of the Shroud dates back to 1931 and made by G. Enrie, Father Filas said he had identified on the right eyelid of the Shroud face prints very similar to those existing on the face of a coin, "dilepton lituus" which presents a symbol of Lithuanian law, a kind of pastoral, surrounded by the Greek inscription TIBEPIOY KAIAPO. That money, going back to the times of Tiberius, as seen from date on the reverse side of the coin, weighs just half an ounce and has a diameter of about 16 millimeters, were found deformed copies of the issue and changes in enrollment.

Source


Regarding carbon-14, there are some issues i can tell you about: i live in an island which ancient civilizations are 5.000 years old to say the very very least, we got in touch with that type of dating.
In the WRONG hands, it's some tool that lies, the basics are correct, its use is often VERY wrong.
Before claiming that carbon-14 dating IS accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has been the SAME over the years, centuries, millennia etc....
chemistry.about.com...

This, CANNOT be proven. We can get "indications" & "clues", but not proofs, because we should assume that no important events occurred in the meantime, i mean events able to jeopardize the results of the analysis.
On the contrary, experiments performed using radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates DO vary during years, not to mention MILLENNIA.
And you have no idea how some FIRE may alter the surfacial values when it comes to some carbon-14 analysis. Now serious researchers don't take it seriously anymore, BUT this does NOT mean that the theory is wrong. On the contrary, it's correct, but only in presence of a long series of factors that basically NEVER occur all together in reality, because climate variates, environment variates and so on: we haven't been on this world 50.000 years ago so the 14-C theory is a nice and fascinating question mark: but to call something hoax basing the statement to some UNPROVEN theory is just another hoax to add to the list, nuff said.




[edit on 6/10/2009 by internos]

reply to post by internos

the presence of footprints of coins in the orbital areas of the Shroud Man...

That money, going back to the times of Tiberius

Fascinating. Thanks so much.

I'll definitely be looking into that some more.

reply to post by AshleyD


Crucifixions of those who have served Rome ended in a "proper" burial and death before suffocation. Jesus was given preferential treatment as if he were someone who had "served" Rome.

EDIT: because I forgot something...

Romans often used "crowns" made out of natural elements in a symbolic fashion. There is the "laurel leaf" of which most are familiar, but there were oak leaves used, and even the favored "grass". A crown on Jesus's head would have been an honorary distinction, not one of humiliation, the fact that it was "thorns" would have been symbolic of something and it is this oddity that some will say lends proof of his existence. In HJ scholarship, the common practice is to find the "unique" items and build a case for distinction.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the Shroud and I fear being OT.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by Lister87

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by Lister87
Great post, thanks for that!

I've always thought the shroud was absolute rubbish anyway, so it comes as no suprise.

Carbon dating quite clearly stated it was from the 1200-1300's, that kills it already.

It's as phony as catholicism.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by Lister87]

That's a laugh. Even Professor Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, who did the carbon dating, has now admitted his method of using bacteria-contaminated samples from the edge of the sheet was wrong and recommends a fresh dating be taken.
www.telegraph.co.uk...

They should go ahead with it.

Even if it does prove to be from the same era as Jesus, there is no possible way they could prove it IS Jesus. It could be any bearded man from that era, hundreds of thousands of men lived in that era, if not millions, it could quite easily be a shroud from the burial of any man.

Of course the church, especially the Catholic church will say it's jesus.

the catholic church has made loads of money from saying the shroud is real... they wont let stupid things like facts and proof its not jesus or 2000 yrs old get in the way of good business.....

Shroud reproduced?

Who cares?

Like that is going to shake my faith in Jesus.

reply to post by A Fortiori

Did millions from that era die of crucifixion, have a crown of thorns on their heads (punctures in the head), have a wound with their side where they were pierced with a sword, etc.? Crucifixion victims typically had their legs broken- they were not pierced in their sides like Jesus was.

Can you provide a reference to a body found displaying all of these characteristics, I'm sure Ashley D would be interested as she seems totally unaware of it/them

reply to post by A Fortiori


Interesting thoughts. I have to say I disagree because, at least going by the Gospel narratives, it was most definitely meant to be an act of mockery and humiliation and the reason why Jesus was taken down had more to do with His followers and the belief that leaving a body hanging over night was against Jewish law.

I have a hard time believing the Romans honored Jesus in any way especially when He was accused of inciting a rebellion but I do always enjoy hearing different and educated opinions.

Originally posted by Lister87

Originally posted by Vanitas

"They won't give up," he said. "Those who believe in it will continue to believe."

Let's hope - for his sake - this is just an unfortunate translation...

Nobody but the superstitious believe in the Shroud.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.
(And BTW, the Vatican does not "stop short from declaring it authentic" - the Vatican is very much against declaring anything about it. After all, in their view, it is just a piece of cloth - even if it were the cloth that once contained Christ's body.)

The Vatican is as corrupt as it comes, i wouldn't care/believe what they had to say.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Lister87]

It does seem you care since you waste no time in posting hateful comments about Catholicism or The Vatican.

reply to post by A Fortiori

Why does the origin of the weave have any bearing on who it wrapped ? I'm not trying to be pedantic here but the templars would have had access to materials and artifacts from all over the world.

Therefore, it is just as unlikely to be the grand master of the Knights Templar as is it is to be Jesus.

Why so if the circumstances would allow it ? The image is clearly of someone with those specific wounds thorns etc (as pointed out by AD), you have earlier indicated those specific wounds etc were not uncommon to the victims of crucifixion.

reply to post by AshleyD

Which makes the shroud very unusual. Crucifixion victims were very rarely buried. The Bible even alludes to how out of place it was for Jesus to have received a proper burial.

Does this not then strengthen the case for the Talpiot jesus being the jesus of the gospels ?

There was a show on history about this and they said da vinci done it. He wasnt a fan of the church and he made a hoax to get back at them, it was the worlds first negative photo

reply to post by AshleyD

Define 'well after.' Also, I'm sure you know, many things were recorded 'well after' the event but archaeology confirms it. So the above quote appears to be grasping at straws.

Can you indicate where I may find where an archeologist has confirmed that the jesus with the characteristics of the gospels existed, has a body been found to go with the shroud ?

Or are you referring to the Talpiot tomb then I would agree that this particular jesus does seem to fit the bill on the face of it and one could easily speculate that this is confirmation of the jesus of the gospels, if no t why not ?

I suppose one could easily speculate that the skull positioning and entrance inscription in this tomb could indicate Templar/masonic intrusion. If this were the case then perhaps this could go some way to a shroud being squirreled away to Europe, and the Templar gaining such wealth and influence over the church.

Hey everyone, I've been at work all day and it's a bit late to join the debate.

I just thought I'd better add that whether the shroud is real or not, I in no way meant for this to insult or deny the Christian religion or Jesus in general.

This was simply about the shroud, those who want to believe for religious reasons, sorry if my thinking this may be a forgery rubs you up the wrong way.

But please don't think I meant to insult your religion as a whole!

Please carry on the debate, I'll try and see if I can answer any posts addressed to me asap!

kiwifoot

Originally posted by Broonie
There was a show on history about this and they said da vinci done it. He wasnt a fan of the church and he made a hoax to get back at them, it was the worlds first negative photo

I believe this was based on Bagent and Leighs' Holy blood holy grail, which is a fascinating read.

As no one has proven how the shroud was made I fail to see why L couldn't have done it, although the source of the cloth would be debated aggressively for sure.

You never know, perhaps we are dealing with a real shroud of a real jesus but of the Gnostic gospels, there seem to be clues scattered everywhere without a key.