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

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
What I always find amazing about news that uses science to prove or disprove a spiritual belief are the reactions.

If the news supports the belief: See we told you it is true. This is great news. Even science confirms it.

If the news does not support the belief: You can't believe science. Dating techniques are faulty. It's a deception. It's what they want you to believe.

I never understood how in one instance you could mistrust science so much and then wave it around like a banner when it supports a specific cause. You can't have it both ways. Either recognize the validity in the research or throw it all out. I think only special circumstances would allow you to nitpick.

As far as I can recall there is no mention of this phenomenon in the Bible. I would think that those who discovered the tomb would not fail to mention such a miraculous thing. They could have used it as a rallying tool. This alone makes me think it is a fraud when the supporting religious literature fails to mention it.




posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



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

Are you certain that is true for the tests that were done?


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.

So you're saying that the forger took license to do whatever they thought was appropriate.


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?

This is a pointless argument. All you are saying is that some of the techniques used to analyze the shroud do not show it to be a Medieval forgery, yet other techniques do.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by adjensen
 



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

Are you certain that is true for the tests that were done?

If you want to cite evidence that dead bodies can produce heightened levels of bilirubin, please do.


So you're saying that the forger took license to do whatever they thought was appropriate.

All you are saying is that some of the techniques used to analyze the shroud do not show it to be a Medieval forgery, yet other techniques do.

No, I personally have no axe to grind here -- the carbon dating is pretty damning, but there are unanswered questions, and while they exist, and plausible explanations of errors in the carbon dating, one cannot simply dismiss this item.

Again, the issue is whether a 16th Century forger would take steps in the production of their item that would not have any bearing on its authenticity for 500 years. If aspects of this relic could not even be contemplated until the 19th or 20th century, why would a forger have the idea to incorporate them? You suggest that they did whatever they thought was appropriate, but the problem is that they couldn't have thought some of it appropriate in their time.

That's the question, and I don't think that there is an easy answer to it.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
For those who were looking for the documentary about recreating the image from the shroud, it is called The Real Face of Jesus and aired on the History channel.



I know it's long, but well worth the watch. My faith isn't affected one way or the other if the shroud is real or not. That being said, it was pretty cool to see how emotional the graphics artist became just by seeing his own work. He was obviously profoundly affected by his involvement on this project.

Enjoy!

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



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DetectiveT
What I always find amazing about news that uses science to prove or disprove a spiritual belief are the reactions.

If the news supports the belief: See we told you it is true. This is great news. Even science confirms it.

If the news does not support the belief: You can't believe science. Dating techniques are faulty. It's a deception. It's what they want you to believe.

I never understood how in one instance you could mistrust science so much and then wave it around like a banner when it supports a specific cause. You can't have it both ways. Either recognize the validity in the research or throw it all out. I think only special circumstances would allow you to nitpick.

As I noted earlier, this goes both ways. Go find an atheist and engage them in a discussion of the eternal nature of the universe. Odds are they will claim that the universe is cyclical -- it expands after a big bang, contracts back into a singularity, and the cycle repeats, eternally. Nothing was ever created by a deity, because it just keeps cycling.

Then point out to them that the universe is not cyclical -- it had a discrete starting point, it is expanding at an accelerating rate, and it will have a discrete end, because accelerating expansion cannot be reversed. See what they have to say about science then -- my experience has been that they reject those observations, because their beliefs are predicated on a cyclical universe.

For myself, I accept scientific data either way. So long as it's valid and analyzing something that it's able to analyze, science reveals the truth, even if its contrary to my beliefs.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Even if it's Jesus, so what? Jesus was a man put on a cross because he was a freak. The bible is just a glorified retelling of history, at best. I don't know what all the fuss is about.

People die everyday that have given at least as much of themselves to others. Why don't we glorify them? Because they didn't preach? Or because it wasn't convenient? Or it wasn't fashionable?

And how do you know it wasn't somebody else that was executed?

Some people desperately want physical evidence of Jesus's presence on earth 2000 years ago. Perhaps because deep down they doubt their own faith, and, of course, they should. All the bible is is a fictional recounting of historical events to feed the religious fantasies of christians.

Don't you dare doubt or question God or deny him! You'll go to hell forever!!! Turn away from my evil words. For I am tainted by the master of lies. A blind sinner. A secularist humanist.

Let me ask you: Are you a christian because you're afraid to go to hell forever? Or are you a christian because even if there was no punishment for rejecting God you'd still praise him? If all the Ten Commandments were removed and all the talk of Hell and punishment were cut out, what say you? You say you have love in your heart and that's what it all means to you, but I doubt that...

God is like a man who watches his sister get raped and only when the rapist is done does God jump up and oppose the act. Only when the damage is done. How is that omniscient? I'm sure you have silly reasoning for this in your mucked up mind, but I feel sorry for you, honestly. If you're having to make these ridiculous excuses for God's actions then you're nothing more than a blind follower.

Let me be straight with you. I think it's the threat of eternal punishment you fear. You tell yourself it's about the threat of being separated from God and from love, but you fear also the evilness of Satan. You've had it been drilled into you that Satan is the most vile thing imaginable. It strikes fear into you. God rules over you because God fills you with fear of the consequences of turning away from him. This does not appear to me to be a loving God. This is a jealous and wrathful God.

Last time I read the bible it's filled with God's wrath. Numerous instances of genocide. And yet when I examine the actions of Satan, I only see abstract references to sin and possession. What's sin? Sin is vanity, hate, jealousy, crime, and other such things. But all these ara very human things. Humans are flawed. And what about possession? In modern times, possession can be descrbied as a psychotic disorder. Again, it's a very human thing. So where in all this is the vile evil Satan? All I'm seeing is a human. So we have a bible filled with examples of God's destructive judgment, even cases where God instructs his followers to slay babies and woman, but for Satan all we got are some loose references to things that can only be described as Human. Thus, the Bible tells us to give our soul to a genocidal tyrannical God and to hate Humans. To me, this is clearly a degenerate religious faith.

The bible is a trojan virus, sent here to harm humanity. To make us hate our natures and to follow blindly the will of a dictator God for which no supporting evidence of his existence is forthcoming.

There is love. Maybe even unconditional love. But you don't have to live the rest of your life with the threat of eternal punishment stuck on you like a parasite. The only threat in this life is to get things wrong. This can happen to you no matter what you believe. There's no presiding authority. Death is to us what it's to every other creature on earth; food for the replenishment of the earth's ecosystem. Love is free for the taking so long as you are alive and conscious. No added costs are needed. In fact, if somebody comes up to you and says they can offer you unconditional love, but at a price, you should immediately laugh in their faces and tell them to find another fool to scam.

There may turn out to be a God, but I doubt God is interested in our foolishness. I can imagine this God-being seeing us and raising an eyebrow and quickly growing bored with it. Let us hope that God doesn't destroy us by accident, but instead has the presence of mind to care just a little.
edit on 29-3-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



If you want to cite evidence that dead bodies can produce heightened levels of bilirubin, please do.

I didn't claim it had to be a dead body. You did.


Again, the issue is whether a 16th Century forger would take steps in the production of their item that would not have any bearing on its authenticity for 500 years. If aspects of this relic could not even be contemplated until the 19th or 20th century, why would a forger have the idea to incorporate them? You suggest that they did whatever they thought was appropriate, but the problem is that they couldn't have thought some of it appropriate in their time.

That's the question, and I don't think that there is an easy answer to it.

I believe that is a straw man argument.

There is no need to suspect that anyone took such steps. The argument here is that tests which do not discredit the shroud are seen as steps purposely done by a forger. Your claim that "they couldn't have thought some of it appropriate in their time" is without merit. A person did what they needed to get an image onto a cloth to sell to crusaders. At best we see that a body was used and bodily fluids leaked onto the cloth to suggest injuries that came while the person was possibly still alive. This was done where the shroud was sold to crusaders picking up relics. It is a cloth made where the crusaders collected the item. The tests just verify the crusaders story.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Thank you for the explanation........I also appreciate your thoroughness and concern for the topic. Bravo + Kudoz



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Then point out to them that the universe is not cyclical -- it had a discrete starting point, it is expanding at an accelerating rate, and it will have a discrete end, because accelerating expansion cannot be reversed. See what they have to say about science then -- my experience has been that they reject those observations, because their beliefs are predicated on a cyclical universe.

Remember that the verdict on the universe is dependent on theoretical physics. The Higgs boson suggests that the universe may not be stable.
www.scientificamerican.com...

Of course that is a matter that needs to be studied more.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by adjensen
 



If you want to cite evidence that dead bodies can produce heightened levels of bilirubin, please do.

I didn't claim it had to be a dead body. You did.

You didn't say this?


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.

The alternative, of course, is someone taking a live person, scourging them with the intent of creating a fraud, without the knowledge that a live scourging is necessary to produce the shroud. Maybe you figure that there was such an evil genius in the 16th Century, you'll forgive me if I doubt it.

Your abject dismissal of such questions without a valid reason, apart from terms of debate, seems to indicate that you have an steadfast opinion, and the evidence is irrelevant. That's fine, but it's hardly scientific.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
This is the image you get when you actually lay a cloth on somebody's real face:


Shroud Image Experiments



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Just before he died of illness the lead researcher in the previous scientific examination whom found it to be medieval admitted that there test sample was contaminated with thread from the repairs that the nun's had made to it and he said he believed it may be genuine, personally I do but as this has been left as a whiteness of Christ's death and resurrection we often make the mistake of confusing the cloth with the lord as it is just that a whiteness and is only as holy as the faith in the lord that the observer has, so to an atheist it is just a cloth and to a sceptic no amount on proof will ever convince them but to us it is a miraculous survivor of the age's that bear's testimony to our lord's suffering.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


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


Josephus was a 1st Century historian who wrote about Jesus and the origins of Christianity.


Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [4] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


It's worth mentioning that even if it had been a medieval hoax, it represents a level of photographic realism (3D body image perfect) that had not been achieved by the artists of the world until way after the suggested time of 'hoaxing', and indeed represents the highest quality of art even by the standards of today.

I personally believe the shroud is real, but I know that this world is so full of disingenuous hoaxes, liars and charlatans, that the rational minded folk of the modern age don't trust even the most convincing evidence if it seems that a particular 'myth' is in any way supported by the facts arising from a believer's inquiry.

FITO.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Erm...

I think you're somewhat missing the point as regards the shroud being evidence of a miracle, in and of itself; also that apparently it was the shroud laid upon the Son of God, and that the image was formed by means of vast energy being expended, the very power of God. Not something that can be replicated in the lab, seeing that as far as I know, science hasn't been successful in resurrecting a man who has been dead for three days, nor has Iit been successful in harnessing all the power of the entirety of the universal Deity in order to prove He doesn't exist. ..

The closest we'll get to proof of what the shroud actually represents is the date range, location of origin and circumstances in which it was preserved.

More or less what we now seem to have. The rest is left to faith, and as someone else mentioned above, to a militant atheist the shroud will always be just a piece of cloth.
edit on 29-3-2013 by FlyInTheOintment because: Clarity.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
I personally believe the shroud is real, but I know that this world is so full of disingenuous hoaxes, liars and charlatans, that the rational minded folk of the modern age don't trust even the most convincing evidence if it seems that a particular 'myth' is in any way supported by the facts arising from a believer's inquiry.

Well, there's a quick way to test that statement. Present some convincing evidence of something. Because the Shroud of Turin sure ain't it.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


In your opinion. Which I disagree with, having understood the methodological flaws in the various attempts to debunk the shroud as a medieval forgery. Which it ain't.

See, I can do that too!



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I've had a loooong sleep and am reapproaching this with a couple of thoughts, but the one which is most prominent is pity. Pity for those who are convinced that Jesus isn't God and the Shroud is a hoax. Let me explain.

Believers see the Shroud as an object, not a god. It can be true or false, but it has inspired many and if it's fake, souls and Salvation go on.

Those who actively don't believe have to prove the Shroud is a fake. Everything they believe, their entire existence, depends on proving it. For if it turns out to be as it is claimed, what happens? The non-believer has to say, if they have any honesty at all, "This is a miracle."

Considering the nature of the Shroud, they would then be forced to accept Jesus, and at least part of the Gospels. A non-believer who is neither ignorant nor stupid must approach new Shroud findings with fear and trembling. Every day the news may break out that the Shroud is real. Then the non-believer is lost, or rather, found, by truth. If that day comes does the non-believer turn from truth and live in lies forever, or does he finally accept Truth?

Believers don't have that problem and can live in joy and freedom. Happy Easter.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 
Can you provide the name of the Roman historian and text involved?

Josephus was a 1st Century historian who wrote about Jesus and the origins of Christianity.

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [4] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.

en.wikipedia.org...


The so-called 'Jew'(ish) historian Flavius Josephus was a nototious liar........In his infamously corrupt writings he followed the same pattern as they follow today................nuf said.
edit on 29-3-2013 by POXUSA because: txt



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Please learn how the discipline of history has evolved and what distinguishes ancient historians from contemporaneous historians. After understanding that can you provide the source link/reference to Pontius Pilate original text ?
edit on 29-3-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join