Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin

Originally posted by Observer_X

Shroud of Turin...

Another one?

When will it end......

Oh, like there isn't fifty million 9-11 threads. Come on now! It is of interest to people. If it is not of interest to you post elsewhere.

Originally posted by Observer_X

Shroud of Turin...

Another one?

When will it end......

Oh, like there isn't fifty million 9-11 threads. Come on now! It is of interest to people. If it is not of interest to you post elsewhere.

Sorry it was a pointless remark, to be honest I think I read into the title completely wrong anyway! its 5-6am Im not quite with it. Im going to read the actual story and head to bed.


Peace




[edit on 9-10-2009 by Observer_X]

reply to post by A Fortiori


Hey A Fortiori!
You Said: "Not being "smart" but why do you think that the early Christians didn't agree on "who" Jesus was? Are you referring to the "one iota"? Whether he was considered a prophet, a god, Messiah, or G-D, they would have still collected a token/relic. The ancients were very into collectibles, as it were. "

Yes that's what I mean't by 'Who'. Pardon my poor posting *laughs*. I'm mostly a lurker and am new to posting. One of the posts I made on another thread didn't even make sense. It looked more cranky than anything LOL.

You are right, they would have still had relics of some kind.

Love your posts. I'll have to look into your recommendation that sounds like a good read.

reply to post by A Fortiori

The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.

Indeed, and this is surely the crux of the matter, and the same reasoning should apply elsewhere.

A claim is made that the shroud is that of a jesus -

The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.

The gospels are an accurate account of a very real individual having no relationship with any other character with the same or similar attributes -

The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.

The Talpiot tomb cannot be that of the individual mentioned in the gospels because this individual has certain attributes not mentioned in the gospels -

The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.

The individual in question was one and the same omnipresent,omnipotent,omniscient being, claimed to be the creator of all that there is that appears in the old testament.

The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.

We are then left with probability and belief, do we choose the observe the uncertainty and "let it ride" or do we ignore it and claim certainty based on wishful thinking?

Whether a missing person or a murder, a CSI team uses physical evidence first hand witnesses reason and probability to make deductions.

In an imaginary situation in the future the UK Royal family tomb is found and very little writings of them is still in existence.


Their all there Philip queenie Charles William and harry the lot, based on where the tomb is located and royal crest etc it is highly probable that this indeed is the tomb of the Windsor but of course one cannot be certain as there's no first hand witness account or bodies.

Then a discrepancy is observed there are two names that are not so familiar one is Debbie and one is Camilla.

Both Camilla and Debbie are in the same box as Charles Harry and William.

What is left of historical documents (tabloid newspaper clippings) show no account of a Debbie although a Camilla was mentioned several times but the documents also clearly state that Charles was married to one Diana.

From what your implying, the CSI should now conclude that Camilla and Debbie were wife and daughter of Charles as it would be highly improbable that anyone other would be with him which is reasonable.

However you also seem to be implying that the CSI team then conclude that these people could not be the royal family, because what documents they have allude to Charles' wife being one Diana and make no mention of a daughter.

The CSI team the shut shop announcing that the tomb is probably not that of the royal family it's just a group of people who happen to share almost identical attributes.
Diana isn't there Camilla and Debbie are, can't be them time for bed.

If you are saying this is how modern archeological methodology operates then there is something very wrong.

Christian reasoning appears to be somewhat insane, the claim is that Batman is real because he appears in a book which chronicles his adventures in the US. However when a Batmobil is found they claim it can't be Batmans' because his car didn't have shields.

If this wasn't silly enough, the likes of AshleyD claim that a sketch of Batman found, must be of the "other" Batman and completely ignores the Batmobil.

The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.

The individual in question was one and the same omnipresent,omnipotent,omniscient being, claimed to be the creator of all that there is that appears in the old testament.

Moocow, you are going to make Christians pelt me with rotten tomatoes...

First, Messiah did not equal Yahweh. Messiah equaled Messiah. It was the argument between the Justinians and the Athanasians, the "one iota" which led to Jesus as the equivalent to Yahweh God in the Church. However, the Gnostics had a view (for those that don't understand Gnostics--God and Sophia are not Yahweh, they are spirit only. Yahweh created man to diminish his spirit. Jesus and others are larger, more concentrated God spirits that are trying to lead the little spirits back to the big spirit entity---in a two line nutshell) that was different.

Had to get that out there first....

Where in the Gospels does Jesus say he is "Yahweh"?

The scholar in me says the jury is still out because we can't say anything with a certainty. It doesn't say "no way"...just...let it ride and see what happens.

We are then left with probability and belief, do we choose the observe the uncertainty and "let it ride" or do we ignore it and claim certainty based on wishful thinking?

Whether a missing person or a murder, a CSI team uses physical evidence first hand witnesses reason and probability to make deductions.

In an imaginary situation in the future the UK Royal family tomb is found and very little writings of them is still in existence.


Their all there Philip queenie Charles William and harry the lot, based on where the tomb is located and royal crest etc it is highly probable that this indeed is the tomb of the Windsor but of course one cannot be certain as there's no first hand witness account or bodies.

Then a discrepancy is observed there are two names that are not so familiar one is Debbie and one is Camilla.

Both Camilla and Debbie are in the same box as Charles Harry and William.

What is left of historical documents (tabloid newspaper clippings) show no account of a Debbie although a Camilla was mentioned several times but the documents also clearly state that Charles was married to one Diana.

From what your implying, the CSI should now conclude that Camilla and Debbie were wife and daughter of Charles as it would be highly improbable that anyone other would be with him which is reasonable.

However you also seem to be implying that the CSI team then conclude that these people could not be the royal family, because what documents they have allude to Charles' wife being one Diana and make no mention of a daughter.

The CSI team the shut shop announcing that the tomb is probably not that of the royal family it's just a group of people who happen to share almost identical attributes.
Diana isn't there Camilla and Debbie are, can't be them time for bed.

Unfortunately, yes. That is in fact how archaeology treats potential finds involving famous people.

Imagine if they found a tomb three weeks from now with all the correct spellings and the first tomb was a happy coincidence. The archaeologists and historians who pronounced the first time the tomb of Jesus now look like frauds to the world.

If you are saying this is how modern archeological methodology operates then there is something very wrong.

No one wants to appear stupid to the world.

Christian reasoning appears to be somewhat insane, the claim is that Batman is real because he appears in a book which chronicles his adventures in the US.

Ahh, but you forget the people who claim to have NDEs and other religious experiences. Those people would tell you that they have corroborating "evidence". You would call it faith. Those people who've experienced it would say it was not faith and was evident.

However when a Batmobil is found they claim it can't be Batmans' because his car didn't have shields.

Well, that would be Christians like me who are un-tenured and have to make nice with my three classes and comply with the standards of my Department Head. I'm not allowed to have an opinion yet.

IF I were a Department Head or even tenured I would probably ask the class what they think and explore it with them, as opposed to just asking them what they think. I think there is a good possibility that may be the tomb of the HJ, but I can't prove it in consensus in a peer seminar so that leaves me with teaching in a school that does not prescribe the JS as authority.

If this wasn't silly enough, the likes of AshleyD claim that a sketch of Batman found, must be of the "other" Batman and completely ignores the Batmobil.

Moocow, stop acting like a believer! It's like you're trying to convince us that this is the Jesus of the Gospels. Next you'll be telling me he walked on water....

reply to post by A Fortiori

Where in the Gospels does Jesus say he is "Yahweh"?

I did not claim that they do say that, christianity and Christians overwhelmingly claim that (however they come to the conclusion) jesus and yahweh are one and the same being the creator of all that there is.

Please let's not go off on a tangent of the insanity that is the trinity or I will throw veg at you lol.

I'm not trying to prove that the jesus at talpiot is one and the same jesus that appears in the gospels, I'm trying to look at things objectively.

I was responding to AshleyDs preposterous claim that the cartoon jesus is likely to be jesus of the gospels because its' attributes are "claimed" to match that of the jesus of the gospels which the "jury is out" on leaving uncertainty .

The uncertainty is created by lack of evidence in that the evidence of the jesus of the gospels is but hearsay so one could possibly conclude that its' all a matter of probabilities.

Compounding the bizarre problem is the claim by xtians that although there is uncertainty in relation to the jesus of the gospels, there is certainty that this uncertain character is the creator of all that there is.

It would be interesting indeed if the shroud were to be linked to talpiot (limestone in the shroud ?) would a big chunk of xtians have to start retracting their claims that the cartoon jesus is the image of god ?
Well they'd probably have to, as this particular artifact wouldn't exactly fit the hearsay evidence anymore.

It is unacceptable for any jury to convict someone on hearsay evidence, it is completely insane to dismiss one possible peace of physical evidence that could corroborate the hearsay, in favour of another piece of physical evidence less likely to and is of dubious origin.

Never mind. Not worth it.

[edit on 10/9/2009 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

Where in the Gospels does Jesus say he is "Yahweh"?

I was responding to AshleyDs preposterous claim that the cartoon jesus is likely to be jesus of the gospels because its' attributes are "claimed" to match that of the jesus of the gospels which the "jury is out" on leaving uncertainty .

I'm confused. Cartoon Jesus? Do you mean the Shroud?

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

Where in the Gospels does Jesus say he is "Yahweh"?

I was responding to AshleyDs preposterous claim that the cartoon jesus is likely to be jesus of the gospels because its' attributes are "claimed" to match that of the jesus of the gospels which the "jury is out" on leaving uncertainty .

I'm confused. Cartoon Jesus? Do you mean the Shroud?

Yup, just being a little frivolous for a moment my bad.

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...

Firstly:

".. is investigating claims that its findings were wrong."

Secondly,

"The results, which are due next month, will form part of a documentary on the Turin Shroud that is being broadcast on BBC 2 on Easter Saturday."

What were these results? That article is February 2008, we're now over a year further ahead. I guess nothing major, because it wasn't publicized?

It WAS publicized in many magazines and newspapers since last year. Professor Ramsey even admitted on TV in a documentary about the Turin Shroud that his protocols were badly designed and recommended another carbon dating, using a sample further away from the edge of the sheet.

Im currently reading the book: The Templar Revelation by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, the authors of Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?

Really interesting book and makes me want to buy the latter.

Was the Turin Shroud faked by Leonardo Da Vinci?

Lynn Picknett, a Shroud researcher and author, said: “The faker of the shroud had to be a heretic, someone with no fear of faking Jesus’ holy redemptive blood.

“He had to have a grasp of anatomy and he had to have at his fingertips a technology which would completely fool everyone until the 20th century.

"He had a hunger to leave something for the future, to make his mark for the future, not just for the sake of art or science but for his ego."

Peace.