New research suggests Shroud of Turin dates to Jesus' era (Isaiah, disciple)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was a good post. I finished some research yesterday that was somewhat parallel to his thoughts. Intelligent to say the least. Also, I found out one of the scientists Mr. Rogers who was with the group who studied the shroud in 1978. Someone told him in ~2000 that the fibers they used for the sample were not the same. I saw the actual video that they cut out, and it was down in the left corner. Mr. Rogers told some scientists at Almos I think (they still had a small sample) he said see if that is cotton. If it is then yes, we don't have a real sample. The sample has linen and cotton. The rest of the clothe is linen. Mr Rogers died in 2005 and, just before that he had written a 100% verifiable study that was accepted by science as fact. The sample taken in 1978 was actually part the shroud and dyed cotton woven together and stained to match the rest of the shroud and that was done in the 15th century.
Of course this does not prove one iota that is Jesus Christ on that shroud. I just ask anyone to use common sense and admit the shroud is one of a kind, and there are NO OTHER pieces of cloth with those markings in the world. Over 2000 yrs later not one single scientist can duplicate that process, NOT ONE. I am sorry, but I still believe those who want to expose its forgery have been trying for ages. Imagine if you were the scientist that figured how to do the process right down in detail, recognition,wealth, etc. So, what or who is it? Was Jesus the only one buried in that fashion? We all know the answer to that. Why are there not any other shrouds out there? How did those impressions get there?
That was a good post. I finished some research yesterday that was somewhat parallel to his thoughts. Intelligent to say the least. Also, I found out one of the scientists Mr. Rogers who was with the group who studied the shroud in 1978. Someone told him in ~2000 that the fibers they used for the sample were not the same. I saw the actual video that they cut out, and it was down in the left corner. Mr. Rogers told some scientists at Almos I think (they still had a small sample) he said see if that is cotton. If it is then yes, we don't have a real sample. The sample has linen and cotton. The rest of the clothe is linen. Mr Rogers died in 2005 and, just before that he had written a 100% verifiable study that was accepted by science as fact. The sample taken in 1978 was actually part the shroud and dyed cotton woven together and stained to match the rest of the shroud and that was done in the 15th century.
Of course this does not prove one iota that is Jesus Christ on that shroud. I just ask anyone to use common sense and admit the shroud is one of a kind, and there are NO OTHER pieces of cloth with those markings in the world. Over 2000 yrs later not one single scientist can duplicate that process, NOT ONE. I am sorry, but I still believe those who want to expose its forgery have been trying for ages. Imagine if you were the scientist that figured how to do the process right down in detail, recognition,wealth, etc. So, what or who is it? Was Jesus the only one buried in that fashion? We all know the answer to that. Why are there not any other shrouds out there? How did those impressions get there?
wonderful response and great questions--i believe it to be real in my heart ----no need for scientific back-up--maybe the non-believers could ask Him when they see Him
The problem is that the samples that were permitted to be taken for testing if different from the desired results, get explained as being part of a repair and not original.
To me it makes it sound similar to the story about a "Genuine, Pre-Columbian Iroquois Tomahawk" that has been in possession of a family for over 400 years. It is the original and has only had 3 repairs done to it. The handle was replaced twice and the head was replaced once.
I still find it interesting that while existence of the Shroud has been known for about 700 years, not one Pope has braved saying He believes it to be genuine.
In a spirit of Ecumenical good will I will acknowledge I agree with the Vatican on this. There is no validation the Shroud is genuine.
However out of curiosity I would like to know how it and Veronica's Veil were made.
The problem is that the samples that were permitted to be taken for testing if different from the desired results, get explained as being part of a repair and not original.
To me it makes it sound similar to the story about a "Genuine, Pre-Columbian Iroquois Tomahawk" that has been in possession of a family for over 400 years. It is the original and has only had 3 repairs done to it. The handle was replaced twice and the head was replaced once.
I still find it interesting that while existence of the Shroud has been known for about 700 years, not one Pope has braved saying He believes it to be genuine.
In a spirit of Ecumenical good will I will acknowledge I agree with the Vatican on this. There is no validation the Shroud is genuine.
However out of curiosity I would like to know how it and Veronica's Veil were made.
Well then Woodrow, just rain on my parade why don't ya? Of course you know I am kidding.
I do honestly believe that sample was from the 1400's. I say that because the scientist who did the originals in 1978 also, did the 2nd one in ~2000. I didn't get his info second hand, rather from his mouth (on a video of course.) Funny this scientist was dying of cancer, had about 5 weeks left here and maybe he was trying to score some points!! Ok, seriously, the piece was a blend of cotton and linen. That is a fact. Where the rest of the Shroud is not. Now why won't the pope, vatican let more tests be done. A real quick "because they don't want the truth to be told and lose what power and money they have." That is one thought.
However, in my heart, soul, I do NOT think God, wants us to believe in him with just our 5 senses. Although, sometimes when I am in the Sierra Nevada Mtns just gazing from 5000 ft asl it is really hard to imagine we all came from one little cell in a pool of pondslime. I do believe in evolution, and I don't think the earth is 6k either.
Just imagine someone kills someone, "Oh Jesus i knew I drank to much at the Christmas party but hey, I was celebrating your birthday. So would you appear here again and fix this for me?" Or, "Jesus I need some money, could come down here tell me lotto numbers TODAY please?" Don't wait two weeks like last time - gezzzz." We all know human nature, and we would become accustomed to him, take advantage of him and be spoiled brats. "Oh, lord, I really wanted that red porsche not this black one, come on wave a finger for me." "Thanks Jesus, I'll shoot ya some hail marys next week." That is just my little theory as to why we don't know.
Woodrow, I enjoy your questions and they make me think, please continue the debates. To me, I feel alive when discussing our thoughts, beliefs, etc in an adult way. It is healthy.
Well then Woodrow, just rain on my parade why don't ya? Of course you know I am kidding.
I do honestly believe that sample was from the 1400's. I say that because the scientist who did the originals in 1978 also, did the 2nd one in ~2000. I didn't get his info second hand, rather from his mouth (on a video of course.) Funny this scientist was dying of cancer, had about 5 weeks left here and maybe he was trying to score some points!! Ok, seriously, the piece was a blend of cotton and linen. That is a fact. Where the rest of the Shroud is not. Now why won't the pope, vatican let more tests be done. A real quick "because they don't want the truth to be told and lose what power and money they have." That is one thought.
However, in my heart, soul, I do NOT think God, wants us to believe in him with just our 5 senses. Although, sometimes when I am in the Sierra Nevada Mtns just gazing from 5000 ft asl it is really hard to imagine we all came from one little cell in a pool of pondslime. I do believe in evolution, and I don't think the earth is 6k either.
Just imagine someone kills someone, "Oh Jesus i knew I drank to much at the Christmas party but hey, I was celebrating your birthday. So would you appear here again and fix this for me?" Or, "Jesus I need some money, could come down here tell me lotto numbers TODAY please?" Don't wait two weeks like last time - gezzzz." We all know human nature, and we would become accustomed to him, take advantage of him and be spoiled brats. "Oh, lord, I really wanted that red porsche not this black one, come on wave a finger for me." "Thanks Jesus, I'll shoot ya some hail marys next week." That is just my little theory as to why we don't know.
Woodrow, I enjoy your questions and they make me think, please continue the debates. To me, I feel alive when discussing our thoughts, beliefs, etc in an adult way. It is healthy.
Thank you for the kind words. I really am not much of a debater. I have no real desire to either prove myself right or suggest another person is wrong. I only want to share different views about all things.
I see threads like this more as open dialogue than a debate. I also feel that most people sincerly seek to find the turth. I also think part of seeking is to explore as many views as possible.
We all have reasons for believing as we do. When people can share what they believe and explain their reasons for believing, we all move closer to the truth. Absolute proof, except for mathematical equations, seldom exists. Life and learning seems to be an ongoing process and it is usually best if we can understand that our view may not always be correct.
My favorite quote is: "No statement including this one is absolutely true or false" I can't remember when I first heard it, but since then, have heard it from many different sources.
We are all witnesses of that which we have individually learned and/or seen. Like all witnesses our view is from our unique vantage point. When we share our views, even if they differ, there should never be any reason for anger or offense. People need not agree in order to share thoughts. there is no reason for a debate or dialogue to become a war Zone.
Some of us believe the Shroud is a fake, some believe it is genuine others do not care or are oblivious to it's existence. We may not be able to solve any Mysteries, but we should be able to share our views and explain why we have such views.
I see threads like this more as open dialogue than a debate. I also feel that most people sincerly seek to find the turth. I also think part of seeking is to explore as many views as possible.
My favorite quote is: "No statement including this one is absolutely true or false" I can't remember when I first heard it, but since then, have heard it from many different sources.
I agree with your assessment. Either way, a discussion or a debate, I enjoy it. Speaking for myself, I find these discussions a form of mental exercise no matter how we package it.
what accusation? this is a forum and i was giving my OPINION on studies and testing------bottom line here--
those that believe in its realness will not change their minds based on negativities about the shroud and discrediting the capabilities of those persona does not sway them-----the agnostics,atheists,or those stating that science proves them correct in discrediting the shroud are not expected to change their views either-------so in conclusion--let both sides keep their own beliefs without ridicule and we all can wait to ask Jesus himself when we meet Him
Quote:
Originally Posted by auntieannie68
twas talking about studies for or against--no where was yours or any others name mentioned--a forum holds one's opinions--mine was on the studies of the shroud
No, auntie, I'd say you perhaps inadvertently let your true inner beliefs seep out.
This one, auntie: this one!
1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by auntieannie68
we all make up our own minds based on what we need to get from the conclusion--imo--those looking to discredit something they have no belief in always find ways to "scientifically" disprove it--all studies can be manipulated to prove or disprove something and slanted to back up what those conducting the study wants as a result
or this one from right above:
2) the agnostics, atheists, or those stating that science proves them correct in discrediting the shroud are not expected to change their views either------
As a result, the very much implied conclusion here is... well, I'm not going to waste my time in repeating the obvious, other than you may have been putting your foot into your mouth inadvertently, and to the insult of those of us) who make their (our) living doing exactly what you seem to deny as being ethically possible: to conduct unbiased studies in order to make the results fit our pre-determinbed conclsuions.
Again, how insulting. Btw, how do you interpret the studies where we do in fact find some supporting evidence and make it known that those results are also valid?
The problem with testing ancient myths is that, in general, they never fare particularly well, whether it's about Aesop's fables and his donkeys, or of herds of flighty unicorns over the tract house development last night, or of alien space ships that abscond with, oddly, the dependably same few people who then insist on a good book deal before they'll discuss their latest adventures with alien sexual experimentations?
Science abhors a total lack of reproducible results, but we also encourage anyone who does not like the results to do the experiments themselves. AS I've said several times, auntie, the paucity of such simple & objective work is amazing, the silence deafening.
I've said, the only common conclusion now is that if a story of epically grand proportions is in fact typically and consistently, over decades, found to be "wanting" in the ever-more-refined details, when it's various literalist versions are objectively tested, then the entire story does, would you not agree, tend to develop a certain, shall we say... odor?
It's like the claims of an ancient sunken city of Atlantis, or of Mayans having direct communication with the aliens, the ones who "obviously" built their temples, or those of the Egyptians, or of dinosaurs living happily all the live-long-day with God's village children, or the reason some insist on wearing unusual headgear...
Thank you for this link. If I recall the scientist Mr. Garlaschelli who did the repoduction, received his funding by the Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics. I wouldn't have expected any other results. Would you?
Also, when asked if his reproduction was the same in detail right down to the celluar - microscopic level of the original he was unable to state yes. And, the scientists who said his reproduction isn't close when put under the microscope, therefore failed. I wouldn't have expected any other answer from them either.
They only reported what they saw, and the original work was well covered in terms of contamination. As AREQUIPA also correctly notes, contamination would only have made the test results skew to being younger, not older!
But of course that part is conveniently and selectively ignored.
And in addition, why does not one Christian apologist here note that the new findings were not well supported with any documentation of better aging/dating methods? It's obvious to most readers that the authors intent, I'll betcha, was purely on having good book sales to line their personal pockets. Why did they not utilize nor report any of the now vastly improved methods, instead choosing to simply claim contamination and that the Shroud is therefore and obviously, THE true shroud of Jesus' reincarnation?
Is it only science that is self-policing? Do Christians give an automatic pass to anything that other Christians say, mutter, yowl or trill?
What? Huh? How so?
To me, personally, this Shroud, real or fake, proves or disproves nothing about the existence of a Jesus figure, other than it's probably, by literally ALL accounts including the RC church and other leading religious authorities, a faker, a likely much-replicated artifact.
Q: where does it say this artifact would or could "prove" the existence of God or Jesus, pray tell? Answer: nowhere. It only proves.. .well, nothing as regards the biblical story.
Does any devout Chrisitan here deny or refute that? Let's hear it please, before you once again accuse all atheists, scientists, agnostics, Buddhists, Shintoists, Muslims, Wiccans, Aboriginals, Apache Indian & Inuit Shamen of being, predictably: liars, and hucksters. OK?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvmycountry
The carbon dating project is flawed according to Richard Dawkins, hmm. Aslo, Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
So.. let's do it ASAP, for what it's worth! Let's get on with it! As suggested HERE:
We could all go round and round with speculation. I personally, would love to have the best smartest scientists in the world, both believers and non-believers do some serious research. Everything must be done in front of the others, and peer reviewed to a 100% yes or no. If it is NO, then the believers just move on with their lives and beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
The only thing I"d probably disagree with is, as per my statement above about the ultimate utility of this Shroud in the greater story of Jesus, is this absolute claim:
If it is proven YES, this is Christ, then this world will no longer be the same.
The only answer I have been able to come up with while reading and reading the yes and no theories is that no one has been able to reproduce that image exactly the same. But again I believe in God, and I don't think he is going to give us cloth and paper proof..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvmycountry
Very interesting and valid points. My hands are in the air. One scientist says this another says that. I will not kid you and say "I believe its Jesus, so shut up and go home you sinning heathens." As a person who has studied some biology, physics, chemistry etc for college, I would need more to believe it is real. I want to believe it is real, I won't lie. I do play the devil's advocate here in the forums, mainly to see what type of intelligent answers and evidence other posters provide.
As a side note I have a very hard time with the so-called church going God fearing people who point their fingers, and tell eveyone believe or go to hell, yada yada. To me, they are the biggest hypocrites I have ever met.
Quite so, IluvMC! Quite so. So again, let's get on with it, for what it's possibly worth... Which AREQUIPA points out so well here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
√ ...the only point is or was intended was that posting declarations that one firmly believes that the Shroud is 'real', the Flood/Ark story is true, Jesus rose from the dead, God exists or whatever, proves nothing whatsoever, other than
√ that believers have beliefs held as reliable facts without any sound reasons to support them.
√ Therefore they contribute nothing to the discussion and have no influence with us goddless pondslime whatsoever, so posting them is a waste of posting time.
No, auntie, I'd say you perhaps inadvertently let your true inner beliefs seep out.
This one, auntie: this one!
1)
or this one from right above:
2) the agnostics, atheists, or those stating that science proves them correct in discrediting the shroud are not expected to change their views either------
As a result, the very much implied conclusion here is... well, I'm not going to waste my time in repeating the obvious, other than you may have been putting your foot into your mouth inadvertently, and to the insult of those of us) who make their (our) living doing exactly what you seem to deny as being ethically possible: to conduct unbiased studies in order to make the results fit our pre-determinbed conclsuions.
Again, how insulting. Btw, how do you interpret the studies where we do in fact find some supporting evidence and make it known that those results are also valid?
The problem with testing ancient myths is that, in general, they never fare particularly well, whether it's about Aesop's fables and his donkeys, or of herds of flighty unicorns over the tract house development last night, or of alien space ships that abscond with, oddly, the dependably same few people who then insist on a good book deal before they'll discuss their latest adventures with alien sexual experimentations?
Science abhors a total lack of reproducible results, but we also encourage anyone who does not like the results to do the experiments themselves. AS I've said several times, auntie, the paucity of such simple & objective work is amazing, the silence deafening.
I've said, the only common conclusion now is that if a story of epically grand proportions is in fact typically and consistently, over decades, found to be "wanting" in the ever-more-refined details, when it's various literalist versions are objectively tested, then the entire story does, would you not agree, tend to develop a certain, shall we say... odor?
It's like the claims of an ancient sunken city of Atlantis, or of Mayans having direct communication with the aliens, the ones who "obviously" built their temples, or those of the Egyptians, or of dinosaurs living happily all the live-long-day with God's village children, or the reason some insist on wearing unusual headgear...
They only reported what they saw, and the original work was well covered in terms of contamination. As AREQUIPA also correctly notes, contamination would only have made the test results skew to being younger, not older!
But of course that part is conveniently and selectively ignored.
And in addition, why does not one Christian apologist here note that the new findings were not well supported with any documentation of better aging/dating methods? It's obvious to most readers that the authors intent, I'll betcha, was purely on having good book sales to line their personal pockets. Why did they not utilize nor report any of the now vastly improved methods, instead choosing to simply claim contamination and that the Shroud is therefore and obviously, THE true shroud of Jesus' reincarnation?
Is it only science that is self-policing? Do Christians give an automatic pass to anything that other Christians say, mutter, yowl or trill?
What? Huh? How so?
To me, personally, this Shroud, real or fake, proves or disproves nothing about the existence of a Jesus figure, other than it's probably, by literally ALL accounts including the RC church and other leading religious authorities, a faker, a likely much-replicated artifact.
Q: where does it say this artifact would or could "prove" the existence of God or Jesus, pray tell? Answer: nowhere. It only proves.. .well, nothing as regards the biblical story.
Does any devout Chrisitan here deny or refute that? Let's hear it please, before you once again accuse all atheists, scientists, agnostics, Buddhists, Shintoists, Muslims, Wiccans, Aboriginals, Apache Indian & Inuit Shamen of being, predictably: liars, and hucksters. OK?
Quite so, IluvMC! Quite so. So again, let's get on with it, for what it's possibly worth... Which AREQUIPA points out so well here:
And on and on it goes. <sigh>
the topic here is our own personal belief on the shroud-
----not whether scientific studies and the people that do them are accurate or above board----we all have our own opinions on that
imo--the purpose here is to state our own views on the TOPIC without bad mouthing the other person's character--comprende?
as to the last paragraph--no one has accused any of the groups mentioned zbove as being liars,etc that i noticed
the topic here is our own personal belief on the shroud-
----not whether scientific studies and the people that do them are accurate or above board----we all have our own opinions on that
imo--the purpose here is to state our own views on the TOPIC without bad mouthing the other person's character--comprende?
as to the last paragraph--no one has accused any of the groups mentioned zbove as being liars,etc that i noticed
I can't agree, dear madame. The thread raised the question of new, scientifically reliable evidence that the shroud had to date from the time of Jesus. Debate about the validity or not of that and any other relevant data is the topic and while nobody can be prevented from making statements of faith (or even preference) about the thing, they are quite irrelevant and add nothing whatsoever to the debate but fuel mutual irritation.
I can only think that such declarations are made because the people who post them find nothing else to bring to the table.
wonderful response and great questions--i believe it to be real in my heart ----no need for scientific back-up--maybe the non-believers could ask Him when they see Him
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI
In a spirit of Ecumenical good will I will acknowledge I agree with the Vatican on this. There is no validation the Shroud is genuine.
However out of curiosity I would like to know how it and Veronica's Veil were made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auntieannie68
the topic here is our own personal belief on the shroud-
----not whether scientific studies and the people that do them are accurate or above board----we all have our own opinions on that
imo--the purpose here is to state our own views on the TOPIC without bad mouthing the other person's character--comprende?
as to the last paragraph--no one has accused any of the groups mentioned zbove as being liars,etc that i noticed
hmmm... my apologies: I surely must have misread or mis-understood the clear message in this post, and/or whom the author was... please do correct me, auntie...
__________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ??
"we all make up our own minds based on what we need to get from the conclusion
√ --imo--those looking to discredit something they have no belief in always find ways to "scientifically" disprove it
√ --all studies can be manipulated to prove or disprove something and slanted to back up what those conducting the study wants as a result
Fact is, by the key elements within the correctly applied SM (i.e.: the Scientific Method), an accurate presentation of the methodologies used, then how the data was obtained and documented, the methods (statistical, logical, philosophical, quantum-physical or any other proven and indisputable means); all these factors lend themselves to a certain credibility of conclusion.
Not to mention the ability for some typically untrained, scientifically illiterate doubter(s) to go ahead and duplicate the experiment themselves, so as to satisfy that "...it was, obviously all faked!"
But it does not stop there: the vaidation of any high-visibility study then always goes to a vigorous (and most often highly competitive and ego-testing...) pre-publication peer review, in which dedicated and tenured specialists try their darnedest to pick about the new-fangled results of some wet-behind-the-ears postgrad multi-PhD'd individual, who had access to the latest super-whammo gizmo that increases the resolution of such work by, say 100X.
Those improved results do not (as is so very often so fervently claimed...) totally debunk all the old stuff. What such follow-on studies usually accomplish, in fact, is to vastly improve the resolution of the original results, as in :their resonance to the original issue, as well as the credibility of the original study, perhaps by clarifying some previously unclear point.
But of course, avid Christians then pounce, claiming "science" (you know, that Evilâ„¢ Entity Science?) is always changing it's mind, and never gives us a final answer! Especially since "it's all only a theory, for heaven's sake!"
Thus and again showing their mainstream illiteracy about Science.
(It is, for sure, a saving grace that such denouncements and claims of outright fakerism are restrained to such fora as City-Data which does not, thankfully, possess the peer position to obstruct honest scientific evaluation, that such persistent but hollow howls of Christian Protest do not in any way interfere with the general and exponentially ever-faster advancements of true science-based knowledge.
Thus, the grist mill turneth, facts fall out of the system, and the residual intellectual chaff is then fed to the local flock of sheeple!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here it is ,again.
