Scientists say Turin Shroud is Supernatural !!!

It was caused by a methane gas release while the body was cooking in the sun wrapped in the shroud.......end of story.

reply to post by Rafe_


OH,,and FYI, you posted earlier one of your many novice links, which was an article from a "Templar website". The article stated something that is so stupid I almost punched my computer. Basically these modern templars supposedly new how things were back then. They claim that Templars were not aloud to have long hair. That part mite be true,mite not(but who care really,stupid claim to start with)). But to still think De Molay's hair didn't grow from 1307(when he was captured) to 1314(when he was tortured and burned) is so amateurish.

So to recap, hair does grow, especially after 7 years. If you didn't even realize that ,well,,, then you should read carefully first these novice-like articles from the web.


Do you have anymore FUN reading to post?

Originally posted by secretagentwomyn
So, what do you call someone who doesn't believe in a old grey bearded guy in the sky, but thinks intelligent life on other planets is quite plausible, Finds religion absolutely a mechanism of control, but finds spirituality innately human so stays open to ways to achieve oneness with the universe. One that thinks A God or Gods could be possible but highly doubts one's existence and theorizes it may have been E.T. ?? Always thinking outside the box and approaches each theory with open mind and heart as to allow human nature of ingenuity to stay alive. Let's start there and you let me know if I fit in your narrow categories.

I call that agnostic atheist

Being an atheist has nothing to do with your views on other things..simply on deitys as defined by theology and the dictionary
You can believe in elves, fairy godmothers, santa, etc...but if you have no real belief in a deity..then you are an atheist

If you think the deities of past times may have been aliens or some ancient race of humans...you are an atheist..

You can be a spiritualist and be agnostic atheist..hell, I am to an extent (I got some ghost stories for ya )

What the popular perception of an atheist is, is that we have a strict set of beliefs in all things..basically if its not already being taught in science class, it does not exist..This is not the case. Its simply a stance on deities..do you believe in a magical universe creation, or a science version..

Frankly, the more spiritualists that call themselves atheist, the better..it may get people confused enough to actually challenge their spoon fed perceptions and investigate what atheism truely is.

Now, last note. People whom are atheist quite often came to their conclusions based on some healthy skepticism..this in turn often gets pushed onto other areas (ghosts, aliens, etc)..but thats just a mindset trait and not what atheists must do as a rule.

reply to post by SaturnFX


At times I do call myself atheist at times I call myself agnostic. It depends how religious the person I am speaking to is. If they are super religious I know the word atheist turns them off, so I say and explain what agnostic is. When I am with other atheists though I do say atheist. However, for some reason the old quote is always stuck in the back of my head " How can an atheist be one...If they say I don't believe in God, then they just acknowledged his existence by saying 'his' name." What do you say to that? I would like to have a stronger sense of the word atheist and a good argument against people who use that quote to manipulate. My best argument now is " I DON"T KNOW AND NEITHER DO YOU!" LOL

You religious guys crack me up. God this God that one knee. LOL Facts far out way dumb belief taught to you by your ignorant parents.

1. 2000 years ago people thought world was flat, Sun rotated around the earth, The did not know North america existed, Australia, etc. Not to smart.

2. Bible is composed of many books not one and those books were decided upon by a meeting/
" Constantine offered to make the little-known > Christian sect the official ... up until 312 CE when the Council of Nicea decided > which books would compose the Christian bible.

3. King James bible is poorly translated. mistakes, names wrong, some names made up. Its like have french guy translate Chinese manual into English.

4. For God to be so good and caring more people have been killed in the name of God then in all the modern wars fought.

5. As science and knowledge progress God becomes smaller and smaller except to uneducated LOL LOL LOL

I've got something that bothers me about the TS history. In Wiki (and in all the books about the shroud) you can read this
"The history of the shroud from the 15th century is well recorded. In 1532, the shroud suffered damage from a fire in a chapel of Chambéry, capital of the Savoy region, where it was stored. A drop of molten silver from the reliquary produced a symmetrically placed mark through the layers of the folded cloth.".

You see, among the great fire there was a silver reliquary melting and a linen cloth inside it. Not burning!

If we look in a reference book we'll have - silver melts at 961 Centigrade, cloth autoignites at about 750 Centigrade. Of course there's some deficiency of oxigen in a closed box. Nevertheless I get it the cloth must got burned even inside a closed box when the temperature around it was 200 degrees above the autiignition point.

To the believers here who think the shroud is the actual burial cloth of Jesus; How do you explain the fact that the Bible account of Jesus burial wrappings does not match the Shroud at all?

Consider: the Bible states at John chapter 20, verses 6 and 7, that in the empty tomb after Jesus was resurrected the apostle Peter “observed the wrappings on the ground and saw the piece of cloth which had covered the head not lying with the wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.”—Catholic “New American Bible.”

So according to the Bible a completely separate cloth was used to wrap Jesus head. The rest were described as laying on the floor.

This alone would lead me to conclude that the “Shroud of Turin” could not have been any part of the actual cloths used in Jesus’ burial, since it is in one piece and Jesus was “bound . . . in wrappings of cloth,” with a separate one being used for his head.—John 19:40,

Looking forward to your comments on this.

reply to post by Sparky63


Greetings, Sparky63. I too wonder about that, and a great many other things. "The Believers," as you so aptly call them, believe what they are told to believe in Church, nothing more, or less. The Believers want to have physical Icons that they can see, and touch. The Believers also seem to love Idols too, they certainly have enough of them.

reply to post by autowrench

If I am not mistaken the official stand of the Catholic church is that the shroud is not the actual burial cloth of Jesus, but should still be venerated because it helps people to focus on God's Son.
This official stand though, does not stop some people from believing that it is the real deal.

The Church is playing both ends as usual and doing a good job of obscuring the truth about the shroud.

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by autowrench

 

If I am not mistaken the official stand of the Catholic church is that the shroud is not the actual burial cloth of Jesus, but should still be venerated because it helps people to focus on God's Son.
This official stand though, does not stop some people from believing that it is the real deal.

The Church is playing both ends as usual and doing a good job of obscuring the truth about the shroud.

The shroud is of Jacques De Molay.

reply to post by dilly1


I've seen this theory posted multiple times on this thread. But so far, I haven't seen any definitive proof although the supporters seem thoroughly convinced. Even if it is someone other than Jesus, the question about the lack of distortion of the face seems to pose a major problem.

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by dilly1

 

I've seen this theory posted multiple times on this thread. But so far, I haven't seen any definitive proof although the supporters seem thoroughly convinced. Even if it is someone other than Jesus, the question about the lack of distortion of the face seems to pose a major problem.

Major problem?,,,,, for what theory?

Definitive proof? What's your take on definitive? Is it a photograph or a video?


The OP and most want to discuss and believe the shroud is from Yeshua's time,let alone believe its Yeshua himself. Even though I am not supporter of Carbon dating ,the results suggest its from the 15 century. There's countless sources(books,not sites) that state the story of Molay. So its very plausible ,more so than any other scenario, that the shroud is of JDM.


So when you say evidence, I can't understand what else your expecting.

Originally posted by DaveNorris
its not just the shroud thats supernatual ..... look

look supernatual frying pan


look supernatual toast


and my personal favorate supernatual A-hole

A supernatural PC/laptop/cell phone RIGHT BEFORE U / IN YOUR HAND guys!!! I bet u have no clue how those gadgets work, do u?

The supernatural is right there, in ur mind. All u need is litle courage to go the insane path, and then u might see some miracle in work.

To everyone who thinks the shroud of turin is authentic and paranormal, I ask, why have you ignored all of the investigations saying the opposite, there are investigations that conclude the shroud is:

1. An ancient painting, made at least 500 years after Jesus' time.

2. An ancient hoax to fill pews in the Catholic church, you have to admit, if this was the case, it worked, the Catholic church has been hauling this circus act from church to church for hundreds of years, and it has filled the seats. I have to say the most likely scenario is this.

reply to post by dilly1


The lack of distortion of the facial features is a problem for any theory that claims this is anything other than an artistic man-made fabrication in my humble opinion.
I could be wrong of course, but I have seen nothing to change my opinion.

I do appreciate all the comments presented so far and the passionate debate that has ensued. It has been very entertaining and I have learned a few new things in the process.

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by dilly1

 

The lack of distortion of the facial features is a problem for any theory that claims this is anything other than an artistic man-made fabrication in my humble opinion.
I could be wrong of course, but I have seen nothing to change my opinion.

I do appreciate all the comments presented so far and the passionate debate that has ensued. It has been very entertaining and I have learned a few new things in the process.

edit on 12/28/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment

Please show me lack of distortion of facial features?
How do you come up with that?.

Understand No one is an expert on the shroud of turin(or any other shroud) ,because there hasn't been a sufficient amount of cloth images arising. And there is no way of proving who it could be on the shroud. It could be a fake . But there are numerous accounts of a particular man (and plausibly others) being tortured by the king of France in the same exact way the supposed jesus received.

After the templar massacre the universal jesus image started to appear in Cathedrals all over europe. Christendom found a more appealing euro-mascot. More nordic than the supposedly earliest painting of jesus(from 6th century a.d.), which was white but dark hair and dark eyes(eastern roman version).


We will never know for sure

Originally posted by secretagentwomyn
If they say I don't believe in God, then they just acknowledged his existence by saying 'his' name."

I don't believe in unicorns
God is a concept. sure..I know what the concept is, and I find no proof or even real evidence supporting one. Super alien..sure..why not, that is based on physics we understand. but a creator of the universe and ourselves like some cosmic mad scientist..nope, no evidence.

And certainly not the one defined by religions..so small and selfish, so egotistical and a bully..not just scientifically disregard it, but philosophically reject the concept as painted by the masses. its silly. tooth fairy has a better possibility in my mind

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Hey guys,this is my first post ever in Ats,and I wanted to start off auspiciously,so here goes.I am not Christian,and don't have the slightest temptation to be the traditional church approved Christian.But I do believe in Jesus Christ.He was as great an avatar as Buddha or Krishna.As for the shroud of Turin,there is enough scientific evidence that it isn't a hoax.It has undergone such scientific scrutiny that precludes the idea that it is a hoax.In my mind it is just another proof for the doubting Thomases that Jesus really existed.Great post RevelationGeneration.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Did you read the article?

Yes.

Scientists have proven that there is no way that could of created this in medieval times.

Really? Because that is not in your article anywhere. What is in there is the claim that some scientists have made a claim.

BIG DIFFERENCE.
You know Korean scientists claim they were on the moon before us and their leader does not piss or poop, right?
Scientists say things.
I bet it helps when lots of money is involved as with this.
What a trophy tourist trap alone it is for the holy city to claim it has magic stuff along with all its child rapists.
One must cancel the other out.

p Some how I don't think even the best Alchemists had high-intensity ultra violet lasers back in those days.

edit on 22-12-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

Somehow I do not think you read your article with a critical eye. I think you got the confirmation bias you were hoping for.

reply to post by rhtverma


Unfortunately simply "believing" In Jesus is not enough and it will eventually lead you to hell. Now don't get upset with me for telling you that but it is my duty to tell you the truth. The reason its not enough to simply believe is because even the devil and his demons believe in Jesus. You need to love him with a desire to serve him and accept him into your life. Jesus Christ is the living most high God. Christianity is not just a religion; it is a relationship with God. It is a trusting in Jesus and what He did on the cross, not on what you can do for yourself. Going to church does not make you a Christian unlike what people believe. Buddha didn't rise from the dead, nor did Confucius or Zoroaster. Muhammad didn't fulfill detailed prophecy. Alexander the Great didn't raise the dead or heal the sick. And though there is far less reliable information written about them, people believed in them. Jesus is unique. He was either telling the truth, He was crazy, or He was a liar. But since everyone agrees that Jesus was a good man, how then could He be both good and crazy, or good and a liar? He had to be telling the truth. He is the only way.