Shroud Of Turin Real? New Research Dates Relic To 1st Century, Time Of Jesus Christ

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Cheers dude
reading now.
It has always fascinated me from being a child, Iam trying to find a documentry which remade the shroud and they tested how a mans imprint can be transferred onto cloth.




posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Thanks for putting up this thread, I really like anything to do with the Shroud. I've never doubted that it can and will be at least proven to be first century, that it has enough evidence to back up a good guess that it could be Jesus H., and that more and more of that evidence will emerge as the years go by. Why? Because it is so much fun! This is one of those "beauty" things, one which just has to stay in the strong "maybe" column of "things that are very interesting".

I always knew that the carbon dating tests were wrong (or at least would be "proven" wrong, some way, some how) for that same reason. This just "feels" right, that the thing could be a real representation of Jesus' body after the crucifixtion, or at least continue to fascinate those who think it may be Jesus. The only theory which set off my skeptic bell was the guess that it could be a creation of a camera obscura, by Da Vinci or someone, that was a fun one too.

Thanks to others for other links too, I never tire of reading about the shroud.

Sometimes I enjoy linking other ATS threads on the same subject to a good page like this, for related data. Here is a semi-long thread from 2010 started by RisingAgainst, so you know it's good (both in scope and in the opening posts by the OP):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A 2011 thread on Italian research on the Shroud: www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 28-3-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-3-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-3-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-3-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I can see why you asked everyone to read the info on the link before commenting. Wow, i mean Wow, that forger top 20 was compelling.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





The Shroud of Turin is a genuine artifact of a first century Roman crucifixion of an adult Jewish male. The radiocarbon dating placing the manufacture of the linen in the 14th century was flawed by extrinsic C14 accumulated over centuries of fungal growth, candle smoke and the intense heat of the fire of 1532. There is NO paint on the linen of the shroud and is not the artifice of a forger.


Interesting info here also.




posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by boymonkey74
 

Dear boymonkey74,

I've just had a unique experience. I'll make one response to your question about the Shroud's weave, then stop.

ANYONE WHO CARES ABOUT THE SHROUD QUESTION, GO TO THIS LINK:
www.historian.net...
DON'T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT UNTIL YOU DO.

This article was published in 3 parts in The Glyph, the journal of The Archaeological Institute of America, San Diego, Vol 1, No. 10 (Sept 1997); No. 11 (Dec 1977); No. 12 (March 1998). This is great stuff.

Now, about your weave question. From the article:

The shroud is a herringbone twill with a 3:1 weave, of probably 1st century Syrian design. The flax fibrils contain entwisted cotton fibrils from a previous work of the loom. The cotton is Gossypium herbaceum, a Middle Eastern species not found in Europe.
First Century?

Please, seriously, if you care about science and the Shroud go here. It's not a religious site and it doesn't make a religious argument. Just go there, everybody.

With respect,
Charles1952




Thank you for this very good link to a (hopefully) peer reviewed article. This one, I agree, is a must-read and must-spend-more-time with piece of the overall literature on this subject. And if it's not linked to the other good threads on the shroud, there's something to do while waiting for "Game of Thrones" to start up again.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
ANYONE WHO CARES ABOUT THE SHROUD QUESTION, GO TO THIS LINK:
www.historian.net...
DON'T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT UNTIL YOU DO.

Excellent resource, Charles, thanks for adding that. I don't know that it's a slam dunk, but the author of those articles does a pretty good job of disputing the 1988 carbon-dating.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

Dear adjensen,

I hope you don't mind if I verbally wander for a minute. I was just thinking about the effects of the Shroud.

If it turns out to be fake, I don't think any Christians will lose their faith. The only miracle my faith is based on is the Resurrection. Disprove that one and I fold. If it is real, the whole Christian world goes into ecstasy (maybe the Muslim world, too. Wasn't he one of their prophets?)

For the non-believers proof of a fraud would give them a chance for a rather cold and empty "I told you so." If they learn that science says it's authentic? Would many convert? Might that be the miracle that would turn the world?

It would be the sort of miracle that would work nicely for a scientific age, but on the other hand, nobody pays attention to Lourdes, so I just don't know.

HEY! NON-CHRISTIANS! Do you know that Easter (The celebration of the Resurrection) is the biggest day the Church has? Be careful, like it or not, I'll pray for you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by timetothink
 


Would sure p**s off a lot of white Christians when they clone him and find out he was black, lol.

edit on 28-3-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


I am white, and I am Christian. Why on earth should it upset me when someone of Middle Eastern descent looks Middle Eastern? I'm confused as to why that conclusion would be drawn.

Common sense is not unique to any one ethnic group.

J
edit on 3/28/2013 by LadyJae because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Sadly, I don't know that anyone would become a believer if science was to validate the shroud. One can see it in this thread... science is only to be believed if it debunks something. If it supports it, then science is to be doubted, or the conclusions are to be doubted.

When I show someone who claims that the universe is circular (expanding, contracting, cycle repeats eternally) that it is not and both cosmology and physics prove it, they're rarely willing to accept the proof of science, because it demonstrates that their expectation of how reality must be is wrong.

For many non-scientists, science is a tool of convenience, little more.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyJae
 




Why on earth should it upset me when someone of Middle Eastern descent looks Middle Eastern? I'm confused as to why that conclusion would be drawn.


I didnt say ALL Christians now did i? So now im confused why you assumed i was talking about you and decided to take offense.

I saw a documentary a while ago where many white American Christians being interviewed refused to believe Jesus didn't speak English and wasn't white, many of them got very angry with the guy doing the interviews when he suggested such things.

edit on 28-3-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by LadyJae
 


I didnt say ALL Christians now did i? So now im confused why you assumed i was talking about you and decided to take offense.

I saw a documentary a while ago where many white American Christians being interviewed refused to believe Jesus didn't speak English and wasn't white, many of them got very angry with the guy doing the interviews when he suggested such things.


No, Phoenix, you didn't say ALL white Christians. Perhaps I read an implication that wasn't there. If so, I apologize. I didn't take offense at your post, but it did confuse me as to why such a conclusion would be drawn. After reading of the documentary you saw, I have a better understanding.

Just as common sense is not unique to any one ethnic group, sadly, neither is ignorance. Sometimes (lol..maybe most of the time) we of the older generation become very set in our paradigms. Perhaps the resistance to a change of mind comes more from a false sense of stability than to ignorance.

I, for one, would love to see definitive proof that the Shroud is real. I don't, however, think that such proof would be welcomed and/or believed.

J



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Already knew that it most likely was. Read a book on it decades ago, and when they placed it at the later date, it had had some repairs done and they weren't allowed to take samples in various areas, which is the only way they could really date it. But they did pick up plant material that was 2000 years ago, and much older than the date given. So chances were very high they had sampled the repair job.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   
There is no mystery to the Shroud of Turin. It is in fact the image of Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Templars.

h2g2.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   
So what dating technique was used now. We all know that C14 dating puts it at a time when it was found, which was during the Crusades. At least the Crusaders did not come back with a Jesus bobblehead as a keepsake.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 



So chances were very high they had sampled the repair job.

Laughable. The repair zones are obvious.

It was a nicely made "Elvis on velvet" of its day. It's the sort of kitsch that a sword swinging crusader could bring home to his family.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
I was just watching movie trailers for 2013 on YouTube.com and I saw one for a movie about the stealing if the shroud and using it to clone Jesus.

edit on 28-3-2013 by timetothink because: (no reason given)


I remember seeing that in an episode of Star Trek TNG... They cloned the Klingon whatever-his-name-was hero from blood off an old sword...



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Sterologist, evidence proves you wrong. You clearly haven't done any real research into it.

Evidence shows the Shroud is 2,000 years old. The area that was originally tested was on a patch from a repair made after there was a fire. The image is 3D. To date there is no explanation of how the image was made. It was made as if there was a burst of energy. Like might happen in the resurrection.

There is human blood in the fiber and plant fiber native to Israel. There is a website that goes into a lot of detail about why the shroud is authentic. I'll post it if I find it.

reply to post by adjensen
 


Exactly. Their foolish hearts are darkened.
edit on 29-3-2013 by soaringhawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Unity_99
 



So chances were very high they had sampled the repair job.

Laughable. The repair zones are obvious.

It was a nicely made "Elvis on velvet" of its day. It's the sort of kitsch that a sword swinging crusader could bring home to his family.


I know you place yourself above researchers and scientists unless they are of your opinion. I don't place you there, but in a different category. That was a very well researched book. And yeah, the cloth had repairs done, damage. And normally samples are taken from numerous places, but they werent allowed. The work on the plant material already placed it in the middle east, 2000 years ago.

en.wikipedia.org...


Repairs were made to the shroud in 1694 by Sebastian Valfrè to improve the repairs of the Poor Clare nuns.[29] Further repairs were made in 1868 by Clotilde of Savoy. The shroud remained the property of the House of Savoy until 1983, when it was given to the Holy See, the rule of the House of Savoy having ended in 1946.[30]

A fire, possibly caused by arson, threatened the shroud on 11 April 1997.[31] In 2002, the Holy See had the shroud restored. The cloth backing and thirty patches were removed, making it possible to photograph and scan the reverse side of the cloth, which had been hidden from view. A ghostly part-image of the body was found on the back of the shroud in 2004. The most recent public exhibition of the Shroud was in 2010.....




According to textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg of Hamburg, a seam in the cloth corresponds to a fabric found at the fortress of Masada near the Dead Sea, which dated to the 1st century. The weaving pattern, 3:1 twill, is consistent with first-century Syrian design, according to the appraisal of Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology in Belgium. Flury-Lemberg stated, "The linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing techniques which would speak against its origin as a high-quality product of the textile workers of the first century."[78]

In 1999, Mark Guscin investigated the relationship between the shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo, claimed as the cloth that covered the head of Jesus in the Gospel of John[20:6–7] when the empty tomb was discovered. The Sudarium is also reported to have type AB blood stains. Guscin concluded that the two cloths covered the same head at two distinct, but close moments of time. Avinoam Danin (see below) concurred with this analysis, adding that the pollen grains in the Sudarium match those of the shroud.[79] Skeptics criticize the polarized image overlay technique of Guscin and suggest that pollen from Jerusalem could have followed any number of paths to find its way to the sudarium.[80]....


Joseph Kohlbeck from the Hercules Aerospace Company in Utah and Richard Levi-Setti of the Enrico Fermi Institute examined some dirt particles from the Shroud surface. The dirt was found to be travertine aragonite limestone.[82] Using a high-resolution microprobe, Levi-Setti and Kolbeck compared the spectra of samples taken from the Shroud with samples of limestone from ancient Jerusalem tombs. The chemical signatures of the Shroud samples and the tomb limestone were found identical except for minute fragments of cellulose linen fiber that could not be separated from the Shroud sample


I guess your all that, above the world scientists.




posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by adjensen
 


Since the the historic existence of Jesus Christ is yest to be proven


really ?

he is mentioned by name by 3 ancient historians

is pontius pilate real ?

how would you prove that ?
edit on 29-3-2013 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


And how common was the name Jesus?





top topics
 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join