I meant to say that archeologists take c14 dating as only one clue as to the dating of an artifact, and while c14 is reliable it isn't as reliable on ancient cloths. Like I said you conveniently glossed over Ray Rogers peer reviewed work(which invalidated the c14 tests)physicist john Jackson's showing the clear connection between the shroud and mandylion, the congruent blood connection between the shroud and sudarium . Shroud experts knew there was something wrong right away because of these evidences and the Hungarian pray codex which is a clear illustration of the shroud 100 years before the oldest date on the 88 c14 tests. Again my friend your speaking from a position of ignorance. It has been shown from peer reviewed blood chemical analysis that it is blood. Alan Adler a renowned blood chemist (probably one of the top in the world) did many different blood chemical tests to shown conclusively that it is blood, but then again if you had do e your research instead of biasedly asserting that it hasn't been shown to be blood (which is a product of your worldview beliefs and not from genuine shroud research) you wouldn't be afraid of following the evidence where it will lead you. It is human blood: S. F. Pellicori analyzed the spectral properties of the Shroud's image, the bloodstains, and non-image areas using ultraviolet-visible reflectance and fluorescence spectra. These are highly reliable quantitative measurements based on reflectance and not visual interpretation. This is documented in Applied Optics (1980). pages 1913-1920. Alan Adler, an expert on porphyrins, the types of colored compounds seen in blood, chlorophyll, and many other natural products concluded that the blood is real. In collaboration with John Heller, the conclusions that the blood is real was published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Applied Optics (also 1980). The heme was converted into its parent porphyrin, and this was confirmed with spectral analysis. Baima Bollone also found both the heme porphyrin ring of blood and the globulin in flakes of blood from Shroud samples, independently confirming the work of Adler. X-ray-fluorescence spectra showed excess iron in blood areas, as expected for blood. Qualitative microchemical tests for proteins were positive in blood areas but not in any other parts of the Shroud. Definition of Qualitative microchemical tests. Various chemical tests by E. J. Jumper, A. D. Adler, J. P. Jackson, S. F. Pellicori, J. H. Heller, and J. R. Druzik are documented in a peer-reviewed scientific papter "A comprehensive examination of the various stains and images on the Shroud of Turin," ACS Advances in Chemistry, Archaeological Chemistry (1984) Other analysis by J. H. Heller and A. D. Adler in "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal and by L. A. Schwalbe and R. N. Rogers, Analytica Chimica Acta (1982) Now if you claim that you love science and follow it like almost all atheists do you would have realized that it was proven to be blood a long time ago. So much for honest enquiry. That is not woowoo face in the clouds, it is a fact. I'm gonna spoon this answer to you. What I am going to do is give you a clue. Look up a device called the vp8 image analyzer that is used by Nasa to map out terrain on mars and the moon in spatially topographical 3d. Since you love honest research I'm sure that will not be a problem for you. It is a change of subject which tells me that your not interested in really discussing the shroud by this part and the other parts of your answer. But I'll give you a clue on this also Look up the word YOM on google and its meaning and maybe you will understand my position on the age of the earth, and I'll also say that I was a believer in evolution for the first 42 years of my life and as a catholic we've been given lots of leeway to follow the evidence to where it leads. And I won't address these 2 subjects again since it will only add to distracting from the real topic at hand, which is the shroud. Remember I told you that I researched the shroud for many years and ironically it was atheists that alerted me to it, as I never knew it before. They came into our catholic forum and screamed at the top of their lungs that "the shroud has been replicated, it's now been proven to be bogus!!!!!!!" So I do have atheists to thank for something . Now I believe that you have some real honest research to do on the shroud. Woowoo statements won't suddenly make these evidences for authenticity of the shroud go away, no matter how uncomfortable they make you feel as an atheist.
Do you see how the shroud makes most atheists completely abandon reason, logic and even science when they meet someone who truly has done their shroud research. I was t surprised at all, as this has been a very typical atheist response on the shroud. Every part of him wants the subject to be turned away from the shroud, but I'm not gonna let that happen . This is why I have told many of my friends to research the shroud. There was an unbeliever art historian named Thomas de Wesselow that came out with a book called the sign. As an art historian his book was very well researched and he believes that the shroud is the authentic burial shroud of The historic Jesus, but because he is an unbeliever and knows his fellow atheists and agnostics would come down hard on him for this, he threw them a bone. He then concocted a theory that Christianity started with the apostles believing that Christ resurrected because they saw the shroud of turin. This theory has absolutely no historic evidence and now Jews of those times would change their beliefs because of an image on a shroud, and he then came up with a naturalistic theory of how the image got on the burial cloth naturally. His theory was close to what agnostic chemist ray Rogers came up with , with the mallard reaction. Ill state this again. No scientist has successfully come up with a natural explanation for how that image got on their. NONE - - - Updated - - - Correct There is a mountain of evidence that points to it being much older then the 88 c14 tests.
I don't know how old the shroud is. All I do know is that the odds of it being Jesus' shroud are many millions to one and never provable. So what does it matter. If you know anything about early and medieval church history you will know that the easiest way for poor churches to get money, particularly from pilgrims, was to have a 'relic' of some important person or saint. Consequently today the church has innumerable pieces of bones, cloth, wood, all supposedly 'belonging' to some saint or other. Not particularly honest, but it helped to run the church. There are relics which can be provenanced, but there are far more that can't.
1. Odds. We have no idea of the actual age of the shroud. We know nothing of it before the 14th century. Shrouds were used fairly widely in the Middle East around the time. Many millions would have used them. 2. I believe that a teacher named Jesus existed. I do not think we can ever tell that this was his shroud after 2000 years. As far as I understand it we would need Jesus DNA. We don't even have the family tree. I also point to my previous post. This shroud would have been a boon financially. Why not call it 'Jesus' shroud?
My reading is that the shroud hasn't been particularly thoroughly tested at all. And that it's essentially impossible to obtain a sufficiently large and representative sample of it to do so. What we DO know is that the shroud first turned up at a time and place where the creationion of Christian artifacts was a pretty healthy cottage industry, with people coming up with any artifact that might sell. We also know that many of those artisans were remarkably skillful and meticulous. That being the case, it would be surprising NOT to find traces or remnants of blood on it. Of course, the picture on the shroud resembles the European middle-ages stained-glass and other artist depictions of Christ found in sacred art all around Turin. After all, if it looked very different from the shared artists conception of Christ, who would buy it? I'd welcome a good thorough physical examination of this artifact, but I can understand that there are compelling reasons to prohibit it - if it's genuine, such testing would damage it. And if it's not, such testing would expose it. Neither is desirable, when the mystery continues to attract paying customers.
Your "goddidit"? that is the A number one fail hen all else fails. there is a specific reason for my asking about ToE, and if you dont happen to like where it goes, then stand clear. it wasnt addressed to you anyway.
Yes but none of those other relics and artifacts have been subjected to the historical and scientific expert research that the shroud has, and none of those relics possess the unique characteristics that the shroud has. And where and how did you come up with those odds? The odds are much much smaller than that. 5years ago I didn't know anything about the shroud and in 2009 at first I just thought it was an ordinary relic, until I started to research it on a deeper level then the popular media has, and once I did that , after 5 years of research I became convinced by the evidence of its authenticity. Many people were crucified and this is true, but no one in recordable history was crucified the way Jesus was. Once you research all the evidence I believe you will come to the same conclusion that I have .
Actually you asked the question to try and label all Christians as non scientific blind faith based people, when in fact, what I showed here about you is that you your atheism is based on nothing but dogmatic assertions, and when something goes against your worldview you either ridicule it or avoid it like the plague. Pop meet Kettle.
Actually it has been subjected to many hands on tests. If you had research he's the sturp team findings you would have known that they had unprecedented access to the shroud (hands on) for 5 straight 24 hour days and they uncovered a lot of info on it. If you had consulted art historians like unbeliever Thomas de Wesselow ,a me world reknowned artist dame Isabelle Pitzek among other, you would have known that the shroud doesn't conform to any artwork of any era. You need to do some actual research into the shroud before forming an opinion one way or the other. It took me 5 intensive years to come to a conclusion on it. And when you said that it started popping up in the Middle Ages that's simply not true. The connection between the shroud and the mandylion shows that the shroud was here way before the Middle Ages but that it was called the mandylion back then. As far as the theory of the shroud being made in the Middle Ages to fool middle age people that theory is proposterous. Why would a forger have traveled to Palestine to put travertine aragonite on the shroud that only can be found in the tombs of Jerusalem . No one in the Middle Ages would even be able to tell the difference and the technology to detect it wasn't invented until modern times. Then why would a forger sprinkle pollen from flowers that only bloomed in the springtime in the Jerusalem area when no one would even be able to find these pollens and detect where they were from until modern times. No forger would even need or want to go through the trouble to do all of that to fool anyone in the Middle Ages. The forger theory is utterly ridiculous and makes no sense at all from any aspect.
Actually we have an idea of its age, and you can only have that if you sighed deep into shroud research. We know that the shroud and the mandylion are most likely the same object. We know that the Christ pantocrator congruently matches the shroud . So that also takes care of the assertion that we knew nothing of it before the 14th century. We also have the clear illustration of the shroud in the 1190ad Hungarian pray codex which no historians doubt is a clear illustration of the shroud with the 3way herringbone weave pattern and the 4 poker holes drawn into the picture. There is no doubt that its a picture of the shroud . We have many clues that it is Jesus's burial shroud. Like is said doing if your doing just a rudimentary type of research on it. This is why when our atheist friend claimed that there was no blood on it I was able to refute that claim from ignorance very easily. I'm gonna give you guys an excellent shroud blog to start from, and it's from a gentleman named stephen Jones from Aussie land. His shroud blog is one of the best ones out there and it has very well research he's articles that span around 10 years (at least) http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com
I congratulate you on all the research you have done. I have also gathered the impression that you strongly desire the shroud to be genuine. Wikipedia summarizes it as follows: If anything definitive comes to light, I'd be interested to read it.
According to the gospel of John, Jesus was wrapped in strips of linen. The head had a different piece. Was John wrong?
Your gathering your data from Wikipedia and telling us its a scientific fact? The chemical analysis data from a professional chemist who had the samples to do the chemical analysis proved conclusively that the corner area was chemically different then the rest of the shroud. I have allready provided the peer reviewed chemical analysis paper submitted by Rogers so I'll take chemical facts over the opinions of 4 people that never did the chemical analysis on the shroud to know for sure if that area was the same chemically compared to the rest of the shroud. Flint suddenly an atheist like you that claims to love science will take the opinion of 4 people that never did a chemical analysis test over a chemical expert with impeccable credentials in his work . No flint it is you the atheist who is wishing that the shroud isn't authentic and you will accept non peer. Reviewed work and non chemical analysis to believe it. What did I tell you guys from the beginning. Atheists will abandon science ,peer review , logic and open mindedness to ignore the scientific research that doesn't go their way. I have always stated that the shroud brings out the true nature of atheists and atheism as not an intellectual,worldview but an emotional one based on dogmatic beliefs. They love and use science ..... As long as it agrees with their worldview but when it doesn't, they will abandon it at once. Stick to Wikipedia, I'll stick to science lol
actually it's based on an inability to accept dogmatic assertions in the absence of evidence. and the total and utter failure of god to turn up for dinner. for two thousand years.
The head piece is in Spain and it's called the sudarium of oveido and when the the sudarium is overlaid on the head image of the shroud, the blood stains match exactly, even to the point where the nosed hat caused the blood stains on the sudarium was determined to be 8 centimeters, the same length determined to be on the nose of the head image of the shroud. I'm gonna give you some good links to look through from evangelical apologist Gary Habermas who together with the head spokesperson of the sturp team Kenneth Stevenson wrote a very good book called (I believe ) The verdict on the shroud. This link will help answer many objections from the strips of linen to any other area of concern that shows that not only does the shroud has no problems with the gospel description of Jesus's passion, crucifixion and burial but that it actually confirms the biblical accounts. http://www.garyhabermas.com/article...c/habermas_shroud_turin_significance_1981.htm another good article that goes further into detail from his book as far as connecting the shroud with the gospel . here is another great article that shows the research that indicates that the shroud and the head image on the shroud are a nearly perfect match when it comes to the blood stains. 120 points of congruence found between the shroud and the sudarium make it very hard to argue against their match with each other. http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2007/08/bogus-shroud-of-turin-10-shrouds-blood.html In fact "Dr Alan Whanger" using a "Polarised Image Overlay Technique" (PIOT) which "allows comparison of various objects and images with the Shroud images or stains ... image by image, stain by stain" (my emphasis): "The PIOT methodology (Whanger & Whanger, 1985, 199 allows comparison of various objects and images with the Shroud images or stains. This affords for confirmation, image by image, stain by stain, painstakingly, of the historical authenticity of the Shroud. Representative observations include: … Sudarium (face cloth) of Oviedo, dated to the 1st century in Jerusalem, kept in El Salvador Cathedral of Oviedo, Spain, since the mid-8th century (Guscin, 199, 120 points of congruent bloodstains between the Sudarium and the Shroud." (Whanger & Whanger, 199." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, pp.6-7) found that "The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty" (my emphasis) : "Dr Alan Whanger has studied the points of coincidence and relationship between the Shroud and hundreds of Byzantine paintings and representations of Christ, even using coins, from the sixth and seventh centuries. This was done using a system called Polarised Image Overlay Technique. His conclusion was that many of these icons and paintings were inspired by the image on the Shroud, which means that the Shroud must have been in existence in the sixth and seventh centuries. This coincides with Ian Wilson's theory that the Shroud was `rediscovered' in Edessa just before this. Dr Whanger applied the same image overlay technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and blood stains on the Shroud. Even he was surprised at the results. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion, according to this highly respected scientist, is that the sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud. If this is so, and taking into account that it is impossible to deny that the sudarium has been in Oviedo since 1075, it casts a great shadow of doubt over the results of the Shroud's carbon dating." (Guscin, 1998, p.32).
Again another atheists , instead of answering the evidences that are being brought up for the shroud chooses to accuse us of something that I just showed that his brethren and. Oat atheists have been doing against the shroud. Crank is just another in a long line of atheists that are scared to do research of any depth at all on the shroud. Crank is obviously scared of the shroud and frankly I don't blame him as he has seen how his 2 fellow atheists have abandoned their supposed love if science, logic and reason when the shroud of turin was brought to them here. Now I fully understand why his type of biased atheists screamed with joy at the top of their lungs on the forum I was on that """yayyyy the shroud has been replicated, it's been proven to be a fake" when I first saw their posts in 2009. It's funny seeing crank and his atheists brethren turn into exactly the same type of people that they have been accusing us believers of being. This type of hypocrisy is so delicious and as ironic as it gets. But now that crank and their brethren have been exposed to the shroud their dishonesty in researching it can no longer qualify them to plead to being invincibly ignorant. No wonder why the shroud is a painful thorn in their side that they wished would go away.
that was like the rant of a crazy person after too much coffee in the meantime I havent a clue and dont give a damn if your jesus sheet is 'authentic' or a fake. just as I imagine the determination of authenticity of the sacred satan's toenail (kept by his dark majestic's earthly minions) is of zero interest to you
'thorn in the side' talk about delusions of grandeur! imagining that atheists are somehow troubled by the existence of the shroud is one of the more bizarre delusions some xians are able to drum up. if you're troubled by the existence of pasta machines (which prove the FSM exists) you might have a case. further, you dont even know why you think this - you just get all excited and run with the idea that we're in the bubble with you. tip - we're not. more importantly, the vast majority of atheists would be perfectly happy to have the shroud proven as an object connected to a supernatural event. we go where evidence takes us, remember. if it takes to the very narrowly defined and personal judeo xian godhead, so be it.
Ask the scientists: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html There are things that tie it to the time and place of Jesus, such as the weave of the cloth and the presense of pollen from the Jerusalem area on it.
Not true. From Wikipedia: "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."[86] From the same article, some interesting facts showing that the shroud has the same pollen and blood type as the companion piece, the Sudarium of Oviedo: "In 1999, Mark Guscin investigated the relationship between the shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo, believed to be the cloth that covered the head of Jesus in the Gospel of John[20:67] when the empty tomb was discovered. The Sudarium is 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.[87]" - - - Updated - - - That is quite obvious.
