Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


And how common was the name Jesus?


a roman historian describing jesus of nazareth being crucified was surely not a common occurence. why would the romans care enough about some random guy to record his name ?

I'm not saying he was the son of god, just saying there is a record of him




posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


It still is not proof.
We simply do not have the records..it may have been a different person you nor I can prove it either way.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Maybe this shroud was a souvenir created by someone to commemorate the occasion.

Not the genuine article jesus was wrapped in but genuine from the date. Hung on a living room wall perhaps.

Possible?



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


It still is not proof.
We simply do not have the records..it may have been a different person you nor I can prove it either way.


so nobody existed before the internet ?

interesting



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


And how common was the name Jesus?


a roman historian describing jesus of nazareth being crucified was surely not a common occurence. why would the romans care enough about some random guy to record his name ?

I'm not saying he was the son of god, just saying there is a record of him

Which historian are you referencing?



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


You understand exactly what I mean...



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


You understand exactly what I mean...


and you ignored my question about pilate.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   
(This was at the bottom of my long post, and some may have missed it. Listed for reference and for more available data on ATS. I'll link this thread to those as well.)

Here is a semi-long thread on the shroud 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 long and well-starred thread from 2011: www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

There are quite a few more, just enter "Shroud of Turin" in the search engine.

edit on 29-3-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Look it doesn't matter you nor I can prove nor disprove any of it, Pilate doesn't matter also it can all be coincidence.
Like anything Religious it is a matter of faith not proof.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by soaringhawk
 



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.

Clearly you've fallen for hoaxes. The date of the patches is well known which is why they were not used. C-14 dating places the shroud as being made at the time it was "discovered." The image is not 3D. The image is on a flat piece of material as if it were wrapped around an object. The image has been reproduced by a group in Italy. It's folklore that it was made as if there was a burst of light.

There is pollen on the cloth showing it is of Middle Eastern origin.

I'm sure there are all sorts of sites claiming the shroud is real. Then again there are lots of sites making all sorts of unsupported claims.

Here is the 2009 report of the reproduction of the shroud image
www.reuters.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 



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.

Once again your opinion is wrong. I do not place myself "above the world scientists. " I follow what they say.

The info you posted is circumstantial. All it does is show that the shroud came from the Middle East.

You skipped over this

In 1988 a radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud. The laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, concurred that the samples they tested dated from the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390.[4] In 2008 a former STURP member stated that sample was representative of the whole shroud.

Three separate labs show that the shroud is not 2000 years old. It is much newer, less than half that age. In fact, it dates from the time that the crusaders obtained the shroud.


The dating does however match the first appearance of the shroud in church history. This dating is also slightly more recent than that estimated by art historian W.S.A. Dale, who postulated on artistic grounds that the shroud is an 11th century icon made for use in worship services.

Although the quality of the radiocarbon testing itself is unquestioned, criticisms have been raised regarding the choice of the sample taken for testing, with suggestions that the sample may represent a medieval "invisible" repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth. Additionally, the shroud was damaged in fire in 1532 and the carbon dating results may be significantly skewed by more than 1,000 years.


The best claim for the authenticity of the shroud was that no one could reproduce the image. That has been done.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 



a roman historian describing jesus of nazareth being crucified was surely not a common occurence. why would the romans care enough about some random guy to record his name ?

I'm not saying he was the son of god, just saying there is a record of him

Can you provide the name of the Roman historian and text involved?



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
The image has been reproduced by a group in Italy. It's folklore that it was made as if there was a burst of light.

Did you read the website that was linked to by Charles1952? One of the points that it makes is that, when the shroud is examined by using 20th Century forensic techniques, it reveals details that would only be known by 20th Century forensic techniques. So the concept of forgery becomes a difficult one, unless the forger were a 20th Century forensic technician, which we know is not the case.

For example:

The forger "painted" the blood flows with genuine group AB blood that he had "spiked" with excessive amounts of bilirubin since the forger knew that severe concussive scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice.

How would someone in the Sixteenth Century be aware of the fact that a certain medical condition would result from a specific mode of punishment? Or do you believe that the forger actually scourged someone in order to use their blood on the shroud? If you do, what is your explanation of their rationale, given that medical science of that time had no understanding of the nature of blood?


The forger "plotted" the scourge marks on the body of the "man in the shroud" to be consistent under forensic examination with two scourgers of varying height.

Why would anyone think to do that? If they were faking the scourge markings, what possible reason would they have to consistently do it in such a manner as to leave indications of physical differences between two different scourgers? Or, if you think that the forger actually had someone scourged to physically make the image, why have two people do it?

Claiming that someone in the 20th Century can duplicate the image does absolutely nothing to further the argument that it is a 16th Century forgery, without a valid explanation for the points raised on Charles1952's page (Link here, in case you missed it.)

Once again, we cannot use science to only prove the points that we would like to be true.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

On your reproduction source I'm not seeing the back of the shroud reproduced on the same cloth and in the same proportions of it being "engraved" on the linen at the same time. Did the test do that as well? The pic on the site was too small to really see how close the reproduction was to the original, if everything could be reproduced perfectly or if it had obvious flaws, if it was a perfect photo-negative (only the negative is shown in the article) and how it looks without the negative effect, and all the other tests of the original shroud (wound variations, etc.)

All that said, can you reproduce my avatar exactly using another white buffalo skin, or would there be differences in the science only evident after a thousand years of wear? The details on the shroud, if it is artwork, are very minute and correspond to a specific incident in "history". If it is a fake, and Goddess knows, then the person making it had to have expertise in many fields of endeavor and a mind with very few limits (who could play with the Jesus story in such a way and still not fear the townspeople with torches). The reproduction article is a good find, how did the shroud websites deal with it?

edit on 29-3-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Did you read the website that was linked to by Charles1952? One of the points that it makes is that, when the shroud is examined by using 20th Century forensic techniques, it reveals details that would only be known by 20th Century forensic techniques. So the concept of forgery becomes a difficult one, unless the forger were a 20th Century forensic technician, which we know is not the case.

Regardless of the techniques used today, tomorrow, or the next century, the shroud is the shroud. That has nothing whatsoever to do with how it was made. Does carbon dating only apply to things after the invention of the technique? No. Should a Medieval forgery be only unearthed using methods and thinking known to Medieval man? No.


How would someone in the Sixteenth Century be aware of the fact that a certain medical condition would result from a specific mode of punishment? Or do you believe that the forger actually scourged someone in order to use their blood on the shroud? If you do, what is your explanation of their rationale, given that medical science of that time had no understanding of the nature of blood?

Your line of reasoning is that someone checked to see if there was real blood there. They got results that they conclude are consistent with a wound type. Then you suppose that the forger must have been aware of modern science. That's a non sequitur.

There was a crusade going on. What if a dead person was used? What if a person was killed to make the shroud?


Why would anyone think to do that? If they were faking the scourge markings, what possible reason would they have to consistently do it in such a manner as to leave indications of physical differences between two different scourgers? Or, if you think that the forger actually had someone scourged to physically make the image, why have two people do it?

You are over thinking the problem. It's simple. You get a body. Maybe its a criminal or someone who died of disease or a victim of war or whatever. You whack up the body according to the bible. Then you get the image to transfer to a cloth. Next you sell it to the crusaders who are looking for things to take home.


Claiming that someone in the 20th Century can duplicate the image does absolutely nothing to further the argument that it is a 16th Century forgery, without a valid explanation for the points raised on Charles1952's page (Link here, in case you missed it.)

Once again, we cannot use science to only prove the points that we would like to be true.

You're not using science. You are using a illogical argument that someone creating a forgery would not try to make it look realistic. How silly is that?

Look at the first 3 so-called facts at the top of the link
1. The sheet has a size which was a common size used for a long time in that area.
2. The weaving style is a type known for a long time in that area
3. Pollen shows that the shroud was once in the Middle East

At best those facts show that the shroud is probably no older than the first century and might be more recent.

Later on C-14 dating is discussed and part of that mentions that not all labs get the same results when testing. Not the case here. They end up focusing on a possible issue which is not shown to be an issue, only a possibility.

The conclusion at the end of the document is flawed because "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. " is an untested hypothesis and appears to be wishful thinking on the part of the author.

edit on 29-3-2013 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Can't they just put this whole back and forth debate to rest by cutting off a small piece of it for the sake of direct dating? I suppose that those with a bias towards faith would rather indirect methods to save their doubts from coming to fruition.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 



On your reproduction source I'm not seeing the back of the shroud reproduced on the same cloth and in the same proportions of it being "engraved" on the linen at the same time. Did the test do that as well? The pic on the site was too small to really see how close the reproduction was to the original, if everything could be reproduced perfectly or if it had obvious flaws, if it was a perfect photo-negative (only the negative is shown in the article) and how it looks without the negative effect, and all the other tests of the original shroud (wound variations, etc.)

All that said, can you reproduce my avatar exactly using another white buffalo skin, or would there be differences in the science only evident after a thousand years of wear? The details on the shroud, if it is artwork, are very minute and correspond to a specific incident in "history". If it is a fake, and Goddess knows, then the person making it had to have expertise in many fields of endeavor and a mind with very few limits (who could play with the Jesus story in such a way and still not fear the townspeople with torches). The reproduction article is a good find, how did the shroud websites deal with it?

The point of the article is that it is possible to reproduce an image like the one on the shroud using Medieval techniques. Did the reproduction have to be exactly like the original? No. It shows that it can be made without painting the image onto the cloth.

The only "history" we have is from a single source. That source was written by people who never met Jesus. The fake was made by people in the Middle East that were selling relics to crusaders.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Please amend the title..........Shroud Of Turin Real!
New Research Dates Relic To 1st Century, Time Of Jesus Christ

The only one's who deny the 'realness' of the Shroud of Turin are the enemies of the Catholic Church.

edit on 29-3-2013 by POXUSA because: Shroud of Turin



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
You are over thinking the problem. It's simple. You get a body. Maybe its a criminal or someone who died of disease or a victim of war or whatever. You whack up the body according to the bible.

Dead bodies do no react in the same way that living bodies do, so, given the medical evidences, that is not a valid conclusion.

In addition, you're missing the main point, which is that if one "whacks up the body according to the bible," one would not get a body that is evidenced on the shroud. The Bible doesn't say anything about multiple scourgers. It doesn't say anything about crucifixion nails going through the wrists, rather than the hands. It doesn't say anything about the hair and beard styles of 1st Century Jews.

There are things in the shroud which are only evidenced by modern forensic techniques -- now one might say that a forger could have made the shroud with the characteristics that only 20th Century technology could uncover, but why would they do that? It's one thing to say that, 500 years later, we know that there is dirt and pollen consistent with Jerusalem embedded in the shroud, but as there was no way to make that determination in 1500, why would the forger bother?



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by POXUSA
reply to post by adjensen
 


Please amend the title..........Shroud Of Turin Real!
New Research Dates Relic To 1st Century, Time Of Jesus Christ

In the Breaking Alternative News forum, the thread title is the exact title of the posted news article. In this case, it includes the question mark (it is the Huffington Post, after all, lol) so the thread title must, as well.






top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join