The Shroud of Turin – the purported burial cloth of Jesus which contains the faint image of a crucified man – was the subject of intense scientific examination in the mid 1980s. Based on a carbon-14 dating of the fibers, scientists dated the shroud to A.D. 1260-1390. For most, this was all the proof they needed to conclude that the shroud was a medieval forgery.
Other evidence, however, suggests that it is genuine. One theory put forward to explain the medieval date determined by C-14 dating is that the fibers used for the test were either contaminated (from either the lab, or from the fire in 1532 that nearly destroyed the Shroud), or were not part of the original Shroud (the Shroud was patched by weaving new threads into the old threads).
Recently, a group of scientists in Italy conducted tests on the fibers using three different dating methods and concluded that the Shroud dates to 33 BC, ±250 years. These dating methods utilized infra-red light, Raman spectroscopy (“the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths”), and a mechanical process utilizing electricity.
I cannot speak to the accuracy of these dating methods, but given the fact that three different dating methods all arrived at dates more than a Millennium earlier than the C-14 dates is quite interesting. It gives evidential backing to those who questioned the accuracy of the C-14 tests. At the very least, the authenticity of the Shroud can no longer be dismissed out-of-hand based solely on the C-14 tests. The new data fits perfectly with a first century dating of the Shroud. It will be interesting to see how other scholars respond to this new data.
Thinking to Believe 
May 9, 2013 at 10:27 am
Does anyone really believe that a body being placed for burial would not have been washed and cleansed of blood which the Shroud is claimed to be soiled with, from the face and dripping run lines on the arms? I mean what blood, unless the heart was still beating and pumping blood through wounds?
And what was the myrrh used for after water washing if not rubbed over the body?
And why would the “handkerchief” that covered the head be lying apart from the linen the body was wrapped in? Certainly the creator of the shroud did not use this tidbit of tactical theology since the shroud shows the outline of the entire body but how could that be if the head was wrapped in a separate linen.
The conclusion? The shroud is a fake, a forgery, a clever ruse, a typical antic of religious insanity trickery. I mean common sense would not accept this as authentic, not to mention the fact that the body was not dead and that it was removed through a secreted tunnel to a safe house to recover from the trauma of the crucifixion. Removed by two of the most powerful and richest men in the community and top ranking members of the Sanhedrin, the Elitists of the elite on the Jewish Council, Joseph of Arimathea in whose own tomb Jesus was laid in burial and Nicodemus, reputed to be the third wealthiest man in town, who went to meet with Jesus secretly in the middle of the night, as noted in one gospel account.
You can draw your own conclusions of course; I have drawn mine.
LikeLike
May 9, 2013 at 12:00 pm
Hm, interesting indeed, the significant change and implications of the new dating. I’ll be following this story.
LikeLike
May 10, 2013 at 4:59 pm
Leo, yes, given the portrayal of Jesus’ burial in the Gospels. It was a huried burial to get him in the grave before the start of the Sabbath. They didn’t have time to clean up the body or anoint it with spices. That is why the women went to the tomb after the Sabbath was over, but by that time there was no need!
As for the handkerchief, it was seperate because Jesus took it off seperately, and took the time to fold it to show that his grave was not robbed (robbers don’t tend to be so polite). As for the head showing on the shroud, you are assuming that the head piece was put on prior to the shroud. Maybe it was put on the head after the shroud.
Don’t be so quick to judge the Shroud a fake. I once thought the same until I investigated it more. The characteristics of the Shroud including the fact that the image is dimensional (not flat), the image is only on the surface of the fibers, the shroud contains pollens from plants that only flower in Jerusalem, etc, mean it could not have been faked in the Medieval times. They would not have even known that such things could be detected in the future.
As for your conspiracy theory, we’ve been over that before. No comment.
Jason
LikeLike
May 10, 2013 at 11:26 pm
Jason:
Why would the women go back to the tomb; that wouldn’t make sense when you read this account of them watching Joseph roll the large stone against the door of the tomb what do you think the women were going to do roll the stone back?:
Matt 27: 59 When Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb, and departed. 61 And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the tomb.
And then Mark 16 says this:
16 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?”
And also John says Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes to anoint Jesus’ body when it was laid in the tomb.
What do you think Nicodemus did with the 75 pounds or so of Myrhh and aloes in John’s account chapter 19: 39 And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. 40 Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.
Although a paraphrase, The Living Bible clearly shows that there was enough time between Jesus’ death and burial to prepare his body according to Jewish tradition.
Some sources say that there were only seventy-five pounds of myrrh and aloes used to prepare Jesus’ body for burial. Whether it was seventy-five or one hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes, Nicodemus brought enough of these expensive embalming materials for use in a hundred or more common Jewish burials. Historical records show that the more respected an individual was, the larger the quantity of these costly materials used in the burial perpetration. Josephus records that forty pounds of spices were used at the funeral of the highly respected elder R. Gamaliel (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 17c.8, s.3).
Aside from a high degree of respect for Jesus, another plausible reason for using such a large amount of costly embalming materials may concern the fulfillment of the following prophecy about the body of the Messiah:
“For you will not leave my spirit in the grave; neither will you allow your Holy One to see decay” (Psa.16:10 Para.). See also Psa.49:9; Acts 2:27, 13:35.
Although it is unlikely that there were more than three hours between Jesus’ death and sunset, because of Joseph’s and Nicodemus’ preparations for Jesus’ burial, there was ample time to wash the body, apply the embalming materials, wrap the body in linen, and place it in the tomb before the Sabbath began.
Many believe that it took a considerable amount of time and effort for the women to purchase and prepare the spices; however, nowhere in the biblical record are we told the quantity or type of spices purchased by the women. Therefore, any assumption as to the length of time and the effort required to prepare these materials has no basis in fact. Remember also that Jesus’ body had already been prepared for burial using the extremely large quantity of embalming materials provided by Nicodemus; therefore, since his body had already been prepared, it would seem that any additional anointing of the body would have been minimal.
LikeLike
May 11, 2013 at 8:17 am
It was a rushed burial. And I’d like to add that It wasn’t only the approaching Sabbath that caused the women to be unable or unwilling to perform a proper burial It was being seen by the authorities, whether Jewish or Roman, as did Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (John 19:38). Also don’t forget what touching a dead body before the Sabbath entailed for both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.
The Shroud, to me, remains an incredible piece of history. The fact is, it is the most studied artifact in the history of the world. And after all the tests, the intricate inspections, no one knows how to make it or how it was made. Speaking as an artist myself, if the Shroud were a forgery and the work of an artist, it lacks one key thing: a signature. There’s no way an artist is going to create a masterpiece of human anatomy and then not leave a signature, neither a written name or by style / subject.
By the way, there are few things that are mentioned in all four gospels in essentially the same way. It’s surprising that the burial cloth(s) are mentioned in nearly identical fashion in all four gospels.
Thanks for bringing these latest tests to our attention, Jason.
Joshua
LikeLike
May 11, 2013 at 10:45 am
Joshua:
You said: “There’s no way an artist is going to create a masterpiece of human anatomy and then not leave a signature, neither a written name or by style / subject.”
And I say: “Unless if one wanted to create a fraud to perpetuate another religious hoax”; that then, could easily explain your observation of a lack of ID; signature, name, style / subject.
For many religious zealots, “believing” is more important than “knowing”. Perpetuating belief rather than knowledge is very common in religious circles even in the days when biblical writings in Luke for example indicated that Jesus tongue lashed the Scribes and Pharisees for their deceitful use of tactics that served only to perpetuate deceitful beliefs: “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”
Finally Joshua, and even you seem to be disseminating false information: you said:
“By the way, there are few things that are mentioned in all four gospels in essentially the same way. It’s surprising that the burial cloth(s) are mentioned in nearly identical fashion in all four gospels.”
What is surprising about your comment is
1. only two gospels (Mk & Lk) mention the linen shroud and that mention alludes only to the fact that Joseph wrapped the body with it;
2. Only John gives a detailed account of the linen cloths AND,
3. Matthew says nothing at all about the linen.
So it seems to me very curious where and how you came up with the idea about the accounts of the linen being almost identical in all 4 gospels:
FYI, I include here the references from the KJV:
MARK 15: 46 And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock.
LUKE 23: 52 This man(Joseph of Arimathea) went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 53 Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid.
JOHN 20: 4 Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus'[a] head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself.
Matthew: I can find nothing about the linen at all, perhaps you can enlighten me on this.
For the record, I remain,
LikeLike
May 11, 2013 at 5:51 pm
@Leonardo:
May I suggest that before you position yourself in the intellectually superior position that you first consider ALL the facts?
Firstly, I’m not sure what to think about you overlooking Matthew 27:59 in light of your accusations that I’m lying. I can only think that in a rush to be correct, you are overlooking important information.
Secondly, maybe you could provide some evidence for your religious hoax theory. This will be especially important given all the details we know about the Shroud.
Joshua
LikeLike
May 11, 2013 at 6:33 pm
Thank you. I stand corrected on Matt 27:59….”59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,” At least 3 out of 4 aint bad I suppose since John’s account differs substantially.
Of course I did not intimate that you lied anymore than you challenged my motives, since many Christians regurgitate what they hear from the pulpit and what the standard sayings are whether they read the bible or not and most often christians have no idea what the scriptures actually say or mean but only regurgitate textually. But in their own words would never be able to express their understanding.
On the other hand I always position myself in an intellectually superior seat; it is my mission to do so but I can also admit being wrong sometimes which is what makes my seat all the more comfortable when speaking with authority. Even Jesus, humbled by the Canaanite woman swallowed his pride and admitted his error easily without pomp.
Regarding religious hoaxes we need only to read the Matt 23 indictment by Jesus in the “Woe To You” condemnations to see how deceitful clergy operate.
We also know that at the Nicene Convention in 325CE Biblical writings(books) were discarded if they did not conform to church dogma while others were embellished, edited, fabricated, misrepresented and lied about outright, an admission the early church readily admits.
Selling indulgences was a huge monetary hoax, Limbo, Purgatory, hell itself and the heaven concept in the afterlife and all you have to do to get there is grovel, accept your guilt as a sinner born into sin, self loath, admit your unworthiness, suffer and die.
The ludicrous claims of miracles like feeding the multitudes with loaves and fishes out of thin air, raising Lazarus from the dead, casting out demons, walking on water, apparitions Mary and Jesus image in potatoes and pieces of pizza, events that would require not only the suspension of the laws of physics; indeed, suspending the very laws that are the foundation of the universe. The hoax of schools teaching exorcism.
There is very little about religion that is not built on a foundation of hoaxes: myths, miracles and magic from the burning bush to the ascension in a cloud of dust, not that the bush did not burn or the cloud was not real but they are easily explained as natural events not supernatural events that religion perpetuates.
LikeLike
May 11, 2013 at 10:31 pm
RE: Lies
“Of course I did not intimate that you lied anymore than you challenged my motives…”
No, you didn’t intimate it. You are right. You accused me of it quite directly, saying: “you seem to be disseminating false information” i.e., telling lies.
RE: “3 out of 4 ain’t bad”?!
Well, you mean 4 out of 4. As I said, all 4 gospel accounts mention the burial cloth(s) in nearly identical fashion. I worded my comment carefully saying that the descriptions of the burial shroud were “nearly identical fashion”. I didn’t qualify them as “exactly”. The nearly identical information is:
1) The cloth (singular) for wrapping Jesus body is described as “linen” in all 4 accounts (which is the same material as the Shroud).
2) Joseph of Arimathea is primarily responsible for wrapping the body of Jesus.
Compare that with your original point:
“1. only two gospels (Mk & Lk) mention the linen shroud and that mention alludes only to the fact that Joseph wrapped the body with it;”
Again, I’m not sure what to make of your overlooking verses. John 19:40, like Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:52, mentions that Joseph of Arimathea was primarily responsible for wrapping the body of Jesus in a single linen cloth. So part (a) is wrong (“only two gospels… mention the linen shroud”) and part (b) is, too ([those two mentions] allude only to the fact that Joseph wrapped the body with it). All 4 gospels mention it and all 4 explicitly state that Joseph of Arimathea was involved in wrapping His body.
So far you’re batting 1 for 3. Let’s look at your remaining point:
“2. Only John gives a detailed account of the linen cloths…”
John mentions “the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head” (John 20:7). That is more detailed than the other accounts. But that isn’t about the burial cloth covering the entire body. So I must ask: What new information does he give us about the linen cloth? Yes, John mentions it more and he tells us of their — that is, the linen burial cloth and the cloth that was wrapped around Jesus’ head — position inside the tomb. But, again, what new information does he give us about the linen cloth? He confirms that it was one piece, that it was made with linen, and that Joseph of Arimathea was primarily responsible for wrapping the body (John 19:40).
RE: Evidence for Alternative Theories, i.e. Religious Hoax Theory
Well, try as I might, I fail to see any evidence for your religious hoax theory in any of your messages. Instead, I see a rant. Do you have any evidence for your theory?
Now, my opinion of the Shroud rests on facts about it. What does your opinion of it rest on?
You must remember that making a claim is not the same as demonstrating it’s true. So, in colloquial English I think people say, “Put up or shut up”. Give us some evidence that outweighs the abundance of evidences that sides on its authenticity, things like these recent tests.
Joshua
PS – RE: Council of Nicaea
By the way, we’re not discussing that, but if we were, there are legitimate, more down-to-Earth explanations as to why certain books were excluded (known forgeries, known historical inaccuracies, and a pre-existing canon). Those explanations have far more explanatory power and evidence that conspiracy theories. Was the Council about canonization? Read some more, please.
LikeLike
May 11, 2013 at 10:37 pm
Reblogged this on No Apologies Allowed and commented:
The Shroud has been a point of personal interest to me, as a piece of history, art, and religion. New tests have come to some interesting conclusions…
FYI
LikeLike
May 12, 2013 at 5:38 am
Reblogged this on Wanda's World and commented:
While the shroud if real is an awesome thing I am concerned that to many things and people have been turned into idols. It is nice to glance down at things like the Shroud, but your prayers and worship should only be focused on Jesus.
LikeLike
May 12, 2013 at 8:04 am
Funny how my expression of “you seem to be….” by your inference…”clearly accuses you of lying quite directly…” but your use of “…..”nearly identical..” lets you off the hook because “I didn’t qualify them as ‘exactly’ ” Implying that mine did qualify as “exactly”
My “It seems to be” and your “nearly'” expresses the same sentiment exactly.
2) Joseph of Arimathea is primarily responsible for wrapping the body of Jesus.
I suppose if you had qualified your comment of the burial cloth(s) being mentioned in nearly identical fashion to mean that it was described by the use of one single word “linen”, that would have made the word linen as the mention you were referring to and not the account of the story. The fact of Joseph wrapping the body has nothing to do with your nearly identical descriptor linen which you now backtrack your comment to have included Joseph and not the linen “in nearly identical fashion.
I understand that you cannot admit you were wrong, all chastisement is grievous to be borne but going to the length you did with your niggling rant is hardly an excusable defense.
Do you have any evidence that the miracles, myths and magic are not hoaxes; like I said previously to many Christians “belief’ is more important than “knowledge”. The life of Jesus revolved around knowledge while the common sense resolution to problems by the clergy and their indoctrinated masses had to incorporate the supernatural to legitimize religion and so what Jesus did by common sense got all blown out of reality like feeding the multitudes.
LikeLike
May 12, 2013 at 10:09 pm
No. I wasn’t wrong. I used the word “fashion” (style, manner, way) qualified by “nearly identical”. But something about your comments, like how you lump claims of Jesus’ face in pizza and genuine relayings of miracles in the NT together, shows me that you’re probably not too interested in details or distinctions like that.
Well, let’s end this interaction here. I think it’s obvious that I’ve called your bluff — there’s no evidence for your the-shroud-is-a-religious-hoax theory (I asked you for evidence twice) — and, instead of providing any, you’d like to go off on a tangent and yet another rant. I’d much rather be reading something else or interacting with someone who has serious, informed objections.
Good day.
Joshua
LikeLike
May 13, 2013 at 12:00 am
You WERE totally wrong but you don’t have the gonads to admit it and not only were you wrong about that; I offered an apology because I overlooked the one single line in Matthew like a cut and paste edit from Mark and Luke which may have surprised you but didn’t surprise me, but you were not content to accept my apology since you deliberately neglected to mention it; not only were you not content to accept an apology, you are still trying to turn and twist the knife of your perceived righteousness like it was a gleeful task in some crucifixion ritual, like a Pharisaical hypocrite delightfully whispering, “there take that” as you continue hammering in the nails all the more: “Come down from the cross I nailed you to if you think you can, you saved others but you can’t save yourself.”
Don’t imagine these things are taken lightly, so wear the shoe that fits, you’ve shown the treasure in your heart.
And you can stop gloating; You didn’t call anybody’s bluff so please don’t let your self flattering ego run amuck due to your inability to discipline it.
I don’t have to provide evidence that the shroud is a hoax anymore than I have to provide evidence that your supernatural miracles never happened and your gods, angels and demons are myths of imagination like the myths of Leprechauns. YOU have to prove their authenticity, until then your nest has no eggs in it. Show me the evidence that your Leprechauns exist; show me a few eggs and I’ll believe you are a chicken or whatever you think you are.
As far as “you’d much rather be reading something else” of course you would because the simple fact is, for those who have understanding no explanation is necessary; for those without understanding no explanation is possible, you belong to the apologist group.
Normally I communicate in a respectful manner but your haughty attitude prompted me to recall Proverb 26:5 as a discretionary guide: “Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.”
I rest my case.
LikeLike
May 13, 2013 at 12:37 am
@Leonardo
RE: Haughty
“Haughty”? And telling someone everything they believe and know is a delusion is “humility”? I should just sit and be a good, silent little Christian, right?
No. I refuse to play the game that way anymore. You came here, made a statement and many claims, and I’ve forced you to back only one of them up with some substance. You either couldn’t or wouldn’t. Only you know which.
RE: Apology
I don’t take what you say personally, but I should point out that you actually didn’t apologize, did you? You said: “Thank you. I stand corrected…” Nothing about “Sorry I said you were ‘disseminating false information'” (which turned out to be false). But, like I said, I don’t take anything you said personally so I haven’t and won’t demand an apology. I just find it all strange and concerning in light of the fact that you also maintained that you didn’t say I was lying, which would make an apology unnecessary to begin with, no?
And now you call me a fool.
That’s fine. I don’t take it personally. For one thing, I can sincerely thank you for helping me delve back into a harmony of the Gospels I’ve had for years. When I turn to the part about the burial cloth of Jesus, there are excerpts from all four gospels mentioning, in near identical fashion, facts about (and related to) the burial cloth of Jesus.
RE: Martyr Complex
By the way, I’m not sure what all the talk about crucifixion and such is about. As a follower in the Lord Jesus, I think it is pitiful — maybe even shameful — to compare an online interaction with crucifixion. What you wrote was just silly.
Nevertheless, you can continue to believe that all of Christianity is a delusion. You can even continue to believe your precious theory of the Shroud (without evidence). You’ll just have to do it somewhere else, I guess. As I’ve found over the years, some people are not content with knowing, but just believing.
Joshua
LikeLike
May 13, 2013 at 8:04 am
All religion derives from a person and all religion is a form of mental illness. Paul’s religion of Christianity is a delusion by its own functional stupidity as demonstrated in yesterday’s news about how miracles are typically decided by the clergy to fulfill church dogma which hasn’t changed in the last ten thousand centuries.
How Typical Christian Miracles come into being:
Antonio Primaldo, the townsfolk’s leader was the old tailor Antonio Pezzulla, known as Il Primaldo. Primaldo and his companion martyrs (army soldiers presumably?), also known as the Martyrs of Otranto, were 813 inhabitants of the Salentine city of Otranto in southern Italy who were killed on August 14, 1480, for refusing to convert to Islam after the city fell to an Ottoman force under Gedik Ahmed Pasha. They were beatified in 1771 and were canonised by Pope Francis on 12 May 2013.
Primaldo was the first to be beheaded – tradition holds that his decapitated body remained standing until the final person was beheaded, despite his executioners’ efforts to push him over. (Presumably the first miracle?)The Chronicles record that an Ottoman Turk called Bersabei saw how bravely the Otrantines were dying, converted to Christianity and was impaled by his own comrades.
On 20 December 2012 Benedict gave a private audience to cardinal Angelo Amato, S.D.B., prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, in which he authorised the Congregation to promulgate a decree regarding the miracle of the healing of sister Francesca Levote, attributed to the intercession of the Blessed Antonio Primaldo and his Companions Martyrs. (Prsumably the second miracle?)
Saints, as you might know, must have performed two miracles in the eyes of the church to qualify for the Catholic church’s highest honor.
LikeLike
May 13, 2013 at 9:25 am
Jason Thanks for posting this. I have often wondered about this artifact and have, by in large, dismissed it as a hoax. However, over the last few months I’ve been thinking a little more about this. I mean why could it not be original?
I think it is remarkable that it actually could have held the body of our Savior at one time. Wow.
It seems this artifact is authentic and has been proven worthy of respect. Just like the Word of God has been pounded on by critics yet has been found worthy of confidence, so to, this simple linen burial cloth has come clean with facts to its point of origin!
Given the weight of guilt the word of God and this simple artifact places on commentators of atheistic leanings I can understand their unwillingness to make logical factual statements. It must be easier for them to just pic apart someone’s wording then to focus on the magnitude of the situation this simple burial cloth and God’s Word has placed them in.
LikeLike
May 13, 2013 at 9:56 pm
@Leo
“All religion derives from a person and all religion is a form of mental illness.”
Do you really need to be making more baseless, blanket, ill-informed statements? You couldn’t get away with saying that an entire group of people had is mentally ill anywhere else. But I’m not interested in making the conversation about you. So, let’s get back to the topic: The Shroud of Turin. The type of miracles you’ve gone off on a tangent about are not comparable to the claims and facts of the shroud.
You kept saying we’ve got to provide evidence for the shroud’s authenticity. Let me just say…
Well, first, Christianity doesn’t rise and fall on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. I enjoy reading about it, have since before becoming a follower of Jesus, and that’s what brought me here.
Some facts about the shroud:
1) Jason’s original post was entirely about recent scientific tests which show that the cloth originated at the approximate time Jesus lived. There’s a piece of evidence.
2) The cloth is a single piece of pure linen (apart from patches that were added later). There’s another piece of evidence that is right in line with the 4 gospel accounts of the burial cloth of Jesus.
3) Despite being the most studied artifact in the history of the world, no one knows how it was made or who made it.
4) The image is a reverse image, like a photographic negative. The shroud existed long before photography had been invented.
5) The cloth contains the negative image of a man who has been beaten with Roman flagellum and has been crucified. His side has been pierced.
6) It is a forensically perfect representation, such that a forensic expert can examine it and accurately determine the cause of death.
I could go on and on. In light of the topic of this thread, how about you interact with these few details (of many!) about the shroud? I could even suggest that you could find an equal representation in any other medium to provide evidence for your religious hoax theory. I’ll wait…
Joshua
PS – Here’s Paul Bromley’s presentation on the Shroud. May I suggest that you watch it?
LikeLike
May 13, 2013 at 11:24 pm
Joshua:
Now your last post is respectful and I like that
1. ….recent scientific tests APPEAR to show that the cloth originated at the approximate time Jesus lived, between 300 BCE and 400 CE..A 7 centuries range is significant n’est de pas?
2…..A single piece of pure linen is not unusual.
3….. How it was made? Linen is made from flax and foes back to 7000/8000BCE in Egypt. Who made it is meaningless conjecture.
4…..Put a cloth over a face and stain it, you have a reverse image; it’s always been that way; A mirror image is a reflected duplication of an object that appears identical but reversed. As an optical effect it results from reflection off of substances such as a mirror or water.
5….A negative image? speculation marks of flagellum, pierced side; I’m not impressed.
6….a forensic expert can examine it and accurately determine the cause of death?…one has to assume a death actually occurred by such and such cause…caca del toro.
Believers want to believe, atheists want to know.
Disprove a hoax? easy, try
walking on water without the illusion of David Copperfield,
Virgin birth, same thing.
Loaves and fishes out of thin air?
all miracles remain hoaxes until they are replicated but we know they never are despite the fervor of their adherents. Unknown explanations are called miracles colloquially just like the Popes canonization of 800 martyrs. Tradition has the first man to be beheaded stay standing after he was decapitated despite attempts to knock it over by the executioners, until all 800 martyrs were beheaded, then he fell to the ground, not a hoax?
This is such a no brainer. Even the magic of Moses’ snake was replicated by Pharaoh’s court magicians.
Oh, and I started watching the video you posted but stopped when I saw the time of 1 hour and 45 minutes on the counter, that’s a little much but here’s something about 4 minutes long that demonstrates the talent of some people in reproduction. You will like this one because it is a religious painting:
LikeLike
May 14, 2013 at 12:16 am
OK. Nevermind. I don’t see any attempt on your part to either acknowledge facts or obtain them. From your quick rejection of the tiny little facts I shared to your refusal to watch a single lecture that might challenge your superstitions, I gather that you’re content in believing what you believe regardless of the facts. So I’ll do the nice thing and leave you to your ill-informed opinion. I won’t bother you with the facts anymore.
Bye!
Joshua
LikeLike
May 14, 2013 at 7:15 am
Maybe you can’t see any attempt to ascertain facts just because I do not want to watch a spin video almost 2 hours long but here are examples researching for facts of recent scientific tests:
the Shroud of Turin.
The 14ft-long linen cloth, which clearly displays the face and body of a bearded man, has for centuries been associated as the burial cloth used to bury Christ’s body when he was lifted down from the cross, after being crucified 2,000 years ago. Now new experiments have allowed the Shroud of Turin to bare new scientific evidence, placing its origins closely around the first century.
Scientists or experiments, which ever it is, are said to have conducted test on the religious relic at the University of Padua in northern Italy. There conclusions suggest that the “shroud” of Turin dates back in time to between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D., a few centuries before or after the historic Christ lived.
Catholics, in overwhelming numbers worldwide, believed in the shroud’s authenticity since its first recorded discovery, arguably around 1353 or 1357.
Some scientific experts dispute the mid 14th century date simply because, physical proof of its existence was not documented until 1390, when its presence was discovered in Lirey France by Bishop Pierre d’Arcis. Pierre wrote a memorandum to Clement VII, claiming that the shroud was a forgery, as the artist had provided a complete confession.
Results of the latest test has been published in Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta’s new book, titled, “Il Mistero della Sindone” or “The Mystery of the Shroud.”
Fanti is a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University, and Gaeta is a professional journalist. Their tests have revived the debate over the true origins of one of Christianity’s most prized but mysterious relics.
According to their book, the two used infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths – to analyse fibres from the shroud. The sacred cloth is kept in a special climate-controlled case in Turin, and has been their since 1578. They claim their study shows that the shroud is much older than previous tests had concluded.
Fanti and Gaeta’s findings fly in the face of scientific tests conducted by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona, which support Bishop Pierre d’Arcis theory that the shroud was a fake. These Independent tests were carried out in 1988 and concluded with confidence that the shroud’s material couldn’t have been older than 1260-1390 CE, and therefore it couldn’t have been associated with Christ’s burial.
Nevertheless, the 1988 results were disputed on the basis that they may have been skewed by a contamination of the fibres from cloth that was used to repair the relic when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages.
Mr Fanti, a Catholic, said his results were the fruit of 15 years of research.
He said the carbon-14 dating tests, carried out in 1988, were “false” because of laboratory contamination.
Now just in case you’re leaning towards embracing the 1988 laboratory findings in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona, it’s fair to point out, “Lucy! You got some ‘splainin’ to do!,” because scientists have never been able to explain how the image of a man’s body, complete with nail wounds to his wrists and feet, pinpricks from thorns around his forehead and a spear wound to his chest, could have formed on the cloth. Mr Fanti said the imprint was caused by a blast of “exceptional radiation”, although he stopped short of describing it as a miracle.
Catholic Online, in opposition to Fanti suggest that previous samples, which were radiocarbon dated in 1988, were taken directly from the shroud in a documented manner by a textile expert from the British Museum and transferred in a “blind” fashion to no fewer than three laboratories—all selected for their expertise and impartiality. The tests also utilized swatches of ancient cloths of known dates as controls. In contrast, the new samples—only tiny fibers—allegedly came from the “shroud” in 1978 and were allegedly obtained from pro-shroud researcher Giovanni Riggi di Numana who died in 2008. If the samples cannot be legally certified as unquestionably authentic, they are inadmissible as scientific evidence.
But Fanti counters Catholic online’s claim, arguing that his tests backed up earlier results which claimed to have found on the shroud traces of dust and pollen which could only have come from the Holy Land.
The Vatican stands between these two sides of the coin. The Church in Rome has never said whether it believes the shroud to be authentic or a fake, although Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI once said that the enigmatic image imprinted on the cloth “reminds us always” of Christ’s suffering. His newly-elected successor, Pope Francis, will provide an introduction when images of the shroud appear on television this Saturday, the day before Easter Sunday, which commemorates the resurrection. Cesare Nosiglia, the Archbishop of Turin, who also has the title “pontifical custodian of the shroud,” has stated that “The display of the shroud on a day as special as Holy Saturday means that it represents a very important testimony to the Passion and the resurrection of the Lord.
In-spite of the upcoming Catholic Easter ceremony, Catholic Online is quick to point out that in the past, such pre-Easter claims—published first in the media instead of scientific journals—have been made by pro-shroud religious zealots, and they have often been proved to be scientifically dubious.
Moreover, Catholic Online argues that since the accuracy of the 1988 tests was confirmed by three laboratories who obtained dates in such close agreement, it’s like three arrows hitting a bullseye.
Nevertheless, Fonti and Gaeta were able to partially reproduce the doubly body image of the Shroud. Dozens of tests were conducted in 2010-2013 in the Laboratory of High Voltages of Padua University to explain the origin of the mysterious image. Their findings suggested, that presently, if we were to reproduce a similar image on a fabric in 1/2 scale, it would require a voltage of about 300,000 V. But according to the American scientist Igor Bensen, a voltage of 50,000,000 would be necessary for the Shroud body image in a 1/1 scale.
Fanti was also able to show, following robust statistical analyses in collaboration with the Universities of London (Anthony Atkinsons), Parma (Marco Riani) and Udine (Fabio Crosilla), that there were difference of more than 200 years between the laboratories of Arizona and Oxford in the response of carbon 14 dating on the Shroud.
A statistical model has highlighted the systematic tendency to change: if for a few centimeters of fabric there are differences in 200 years, it’s easy to think that there are thousands years of variations along the nearly 4.5 m of the Shroud.
Clearly, both Catholic Online and Fonti and Gaeta are entrenched in their beliefs. Their arguments have been well defined well supported and well documented. The only question that lingers, is which one do we believe; or which conclusion do we trust. I believe that if we allow logic to prevail, the answer to this question is quite simple.
AND AGAIN:
The latest news is about a new Italian language book (released today) titled, Il Mistero della Sindone (The Mystery of the Shroud), and co-authored by our friend Giulio Fanti and Italian journalist Savero Gaeta and published by Rizzoli, an important Italian publisher.
So why all the controversy? The book apparently documents the recent Shroud testing done by Fanti and his research team at the University of Padua and reports the results of some chemical and mechanical tests they performed which they claim “confirms that the Shroud dates back to the 1st century.” A pretty powerful statement for sure, but that is not the major problem. You can find a more detailed report about their research on the Vatican Insider website (in English). Here is an excerpt from their article:
“Yesterday, a note from the Turin International Centre for Sindonology and the Archbishop of Turin, Mgr. Cesare Nosiglia, put stakes in the work of Fanti. No serious’ ‘value” of the results can be attributed to any of the research on the Shroud reported in the book, said the Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin, Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia. ”Since there is no degree of safety on the authenticity of the materials on which these experiments were carried out to the Shroud cloth – reads a note of Monsignor Nosiglia – the owners and custodians cannot recognize any serious value to the results of these alleged experiments.””
So the biggest issue so far seems to be the validity of Fanti’s samples and I guess we will all have to wait and see how this plays out. Remember that even if the samples are absolutely authentic, if they were not formally authorized for such testing, the results will never be recognized by the authorities. However, there is still the other issue (which I alluded to above) that must be considered. Fanti’s claims are based on the use of accepted scientific techniques, but those techniques have never before been applied to the dating of an archaeological sample nor established as a valid dating mechanism in their own right. For this dating technique (and Fanti’s dramatic claims) to be taken seriously by the scientific community, it is essential that his research be submitted for evaluation by a qualified, scientific peer review committee and published in a credible scientific journal. As far as I can see from the available information, that has not yet occurred. Unfortunately, it is far more typical to submit your work to a journal first, have it reviewed and ultimately published in the literature to establish its scientific validity, and then write a commercial book to explain it to the layman. Many quality journals will simply not accept papers that have been previously published in the popular media.
See the whole article here: http://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm
LikeLike
May 14, 2013 at 7:42 am
Joshua:
I also viewed an edited version of your video to get a capsule idea of the talking points. My conclusion is that this person admits he is a believer and furthermore: ” A believer preaching to the choir” who talks about only presenting the facts but does so with a flourish of embellishment, a flare of descriptors and phrases to provoke the emotions of passion with a gift of gab most successful preachers, teachers and lecturers have an ability to demonstrate up on a toastmaster stage.
LikeLike
May 14, 2013 at 9:12 pm
Well, I appreciate you taking the time to watch at least a bit of it. Everyone has a bias. The presenter certainly does. But he did go through a lot of facts. He also identified parts that were his speculation. Even in the first 5 minutes. Was there any specific fact you take issue with? If so, please share.
My apologies for my overly sarcastic responses. I don’t retract the points, but I should work on my execution. Sorry about that, man.
Joshua
LikeLike
May 14, 2013 at 11:01 pm
Thank you. Your comments are perfectly acceptable to me. And I am sorry too for jumping on the sarcasm bandwagon. We all experience bruised egos; as the saying goes, “all correction is grievous to be borne” even though we mean well, sometimes we just go off on personal tangents.
No, there are no general facts i disageee because mosy of the facts are only subjective facts based on personal preference biases. But there is one specific fact that I would challenge: the extra curricular embellishments designed to garner emotive responses but reality facts sometimes are not really facts as much as suggested facts; for example, the suggestion that a forensic scientist can tell exactly the cause of death by analyzing the shroud is way out in left field because forensic analysis arriving at such a conclusion must necessarily assume that a death actually occurred as a result of the trace evidence on the shroud and the evidence for a death just cannot be established based on trace evidence. True that a death may have taken place and IF SO, then “this is why the evidence supports the conclusion” but if there is no evidence to support the conclusion that a death actually happened; then, not only is the premise spurious but the conclusion necessarily follows.
LikeLike
May 15, 2013 at 7:06 am
I appreciate you accepting my apology. You don’t need to worry. The fault lies on my side.
Let me think about your latest point here. I may arrange an interview with one of the members of STURP for my blog. If I do, I’ll mention this to him and see how he responds.
Joshua
LikeLike
May 15, 2013 at 12:59 pm
It will be interesting to hear what any member of STURP may say regarding the forensics that prove a death, which I think that’s what you mean here; they have already drawn the following conclusions about the Shroud:
1. The Shroud is authentic.
2. The image of Christ is a “miracle.”
3. One can see the “story of the crucifixion” on the image of the Shroud, in
other words, the details of the Shroud confirm the gospels.
4. The Shroud proves the reality of the “historical” Jesus.
5. The miracle of the formation of the image points to the divine nature of the
event and strongly supports the story of the resurrection.
I doubt if they will appear perplexed by anything you ask but I hope you can get your interview.
Additionally however, I do not understand why STURP thinks the image points to the divine nature of the event and that it it strongly supports the story of the resurrection, well of course unless they have also concluded that the image is that of a dead man which takes me back to the first question about forensics….of course they did preface the remarks with the statement that the image is a miracle and the formation of the image is a miracle so there will be little room to maneuver from that conclusion I’m afraid. Once one enters into the world of the miraculous, it becomes a catchall to explain everything else by belief.
3. “….the shroud confirms the Gospels.” but the Gospels do not confirm the Shroud image.
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 5:45 am
Well, I’m not sure how accurate your assessment of STURP’s position on the Shroud are. What is your source for these claims? (For example, I’m curious how (1) would be qualified.)
The reason I’m questioning it is because I don’t recall any STURP member ever saying that the Shroud is 100% “proof” of anything. (I’m open to correction with a STURP-approved source.) Also, Paul Bromley starts his lecture at the 00:53 mark in the video I linked above by saying: “I can not tell you who this man was…” (points to the Shroud) “and neither can anyone else. Science is never going to be able to say that we can prove the name of the man who was once upon a time wrapped in the Shroud of Turin.”
RE: “Supernatural” Origin of the Shroud
As far as I understand their position, they have concluded that no known process can produce an image on linen or any other material with all the characteristics of the Shroud. Yes, many people have tried. Yes, many people got similar results. But their results only matched 1 aspect of many that making the Shroud that much more enigmatic. Calling something “divine” or “supernatural” doesn’t sound like STURP-approved literature. Can you give us a source in which they describe the Shroud as such?
And I never thought I could ask a question that would perplex STURP members. Not sure what that aside was about…
Joshua
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 8:03 am
Joshua:
Here is the source from which I quoted the 5 points about the Shroud:
http://www.scienceofgod.eu/chapters/chapter08.htm
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 9:52 am
Joshua:
Couldn’t have said it better myself but it is:
Worth repeating:
A SERIOUS SERMON in SUPPORT of SANITY, SPECIALLY for SENSIBLE SAINTS SEEKING, STRENGTH, SOLACE and SOUL SURVIVAL:
“The men who run religion know the human spirit can’t be contained by their miserable dogma; they know it’s like trying to force a mattress into a bucket and they know that their religion isn’t capable of understanding the things it claims to be expert in because it won’t allow itself the tools. They’re not in a position to deliver enlightenment to anyone because they don’t possess it themselves. So they have to drag us down to their level to stop us from rumbling their racket.
This is why it’s vital for them that we don’t feel at home on this earth; that we feel rootless and disconnected, they even use the word “earthly” as a pejorative term when it’s about as heavenly as it gets. They can’t justify any of this logically of course, so they hide behind smoke and mirror words like “transcendent” while carefully stoking our most primitive fears because they need to point us in the wrong direction away from the path to intuitive knowledge, to make us shrink ourselves in our own minds and to make us feel helpless and in need of guidance when the truth is we don’t need guidance from them anymore than we need a miner’s helmet to see our way around in broad daylight because it’s right there for us anytime we want it and it always has been.
For those who would call themselves Christian: “Do unto others as you would be done by” and “seek the Kingdom of heaven within” is the message of Jesus; That’s it! The rest of it, all of it, is just embroidery and none of it is there for our benefit. There’s nothing complicated or arcane or mysterious about the message of Jesus. It doesn’t need to be interpreted, explained or filtered by any self appointed middlemen and there is nothing that any of us need to transcend except our own gullibility and the criminally self serving anti humanity of organized religion.” pcondell
And everybody said….. “_ _ _ _”
You know the word here, fill in the blanks, it’s a Christian ritual!
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 10:18 am
Leo,
The text tells us how the women expected to get in the tomb: they were hoping to find someone to roll the stone away for them.
Yes, there was a partial preparation for Jesus’ burial in the 3 hours they had between Jesus’ death and burial. The women came to finish the job.
Jason
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 10:19 am
And Leo, I think it is worth pointing out that nothing you have said challenges the new dating of the Shroud, which is the topic of this post.
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 11:00 am
Jason:
The women came to finish the job already performed by Joseph and Nicodemus, well, I suppose, maybe, I think, probably, possibly……
and they were looking for someone to roll away a 2 ton round stone that was rolled into a sunken hole of earth that would have taken a team of oxen to move? well, I suppose, maybe, I think, probably, possibly……
Do you really buy your own suggestion?
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 11:15 am
Jason I cannot challenge the dating of the Shroud anymore that you can accept it. Carbon dating is not one of my fields of practice or research so I think the only challenge can come from the experts although I offered this from the Keeper of the Shroud of Turin:
“Yesterday, a note from the Turin International Centre for Sindonology and the Archbishop of Turin, Mgr. Cesare Nosiglia, put stakes in the work of Fanti. No serious’ ‘value” of the results can be attributed to any of the research on the Shroud reported in the book, said the Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin, Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia. ”Since there is no degree of safety on the authenticity of the materials on which these experiments were carried out to the Shroud cloth – reads a note of Monsignor Nosiglia – the owners and custodians cannot recognize any serious value to the results of these alleged experiments.”
And I also offered this about the experts:
“Remember that even if the samples are absolutely authentic, if they were not formally authorized for such testing, the results will never be recognized by the authorities. However, there is still the other issue (which I alluded to above) that must be considered. Fanti’s claims are based on the use of accepted scientific techniques, but those techniques have never before been applied to the dating of an archaeological sample nor established as a valid dating mechanism in their own right. For this dating technique (and Fanti’s dramatic claims) to be taken seriously by the scientific community, it is essential that his research be submitted for evaluation by a qualified, scientific peer review committee and published in a credible scientific journal. As far as I can see from the available information, that has not yet occurred.
I think both informations I offered “…. exactly challenges the new dating of the Shroud, which is the topic of this post.”
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Uh. OK. I’ll reserve commenting on what you said. What does that have to with the Shroud or anything else I asked you about it?
Now, if there’s going to be another round of Christians-are-dumb-and-believe-everything nonsense, count me out.
I’m pretty much through with this thread.
LikeLike
May 20, 2013 at 9:32 pm
Thanks for the link. I should point out that those 5 points are James Defares’s (the author indicated on the web page) NOT those of STURP. I wouldn’t accept them to be the conclusions or viewpoints of the STURP team in any way, especially since it he isn’t associated with the team (as far as I can tell) and I don’t recall any STURP member ever making such statements.
However, the problem still remains: Despite repeated attempts, no one and no team has reproduced the Shroud and all its characteristics.
But I’ve got other things to do, so that’s all from me on this thread…
Joshua
LikeLike
May 20, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Yes I knew he was the author of the book but he also says that the book goes on to detail his 5 points. I am assuming he had more luck with interviewing STURP but maybe not.
His link also has a free download for his book but I did not bother to do that either.
Thanks
LikeLike
June 6, 2013 at 5:42 pm
I have long held that the shroud was not what it has been purported to be, based on a number of things – not, however C-14 dating, which I believe to be a flawed dating method. (C-14, a radioactive isotope of carbon, is ubiquitous, and has a known half-life. The problem is that C-14 carbon-dating is based on a false premise [known to be false, even among experts] that C-14 levels are static [stay the same through life-cycles and ages], while they are not static.
Relative to science, my belief that the shroud is a forgery is based largely on the work of the late Dr. Walter McCrone, a renowned forensic scientist, founder of The McCrone Institute in Chicago, and more. Google Dr. Walter McCrone Shroud of Turin to read a bit of his findings.
Best Regards,
LikeLike
February 4, 2017 at 10:33 pm
Here’s a link that will answer most of your questions. I thoroughly enjoyed this link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhsLt4-t5I
LikeLike
February 5, 2017 at 12:42 am
Stan:
Whether or not the shroud is the burial cloth used for Jesus what is the significance of it? Nothing really. The bible tells us “Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves………” and “…the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself…..” but Jesus was missing……..well how can that be?
Jesus was secreted away through an escape tunnel and after sufficiently healed he appeared to the disciples “alive” saying:
“…Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
And he took it, and did eat before them.”
This is the important event..that Jesus arose from the place of the dead, alive and appeared to the. He did not arise from the dead but from the place of the dead.
LikeLike
July 11, 2019 at 7:39 pm
I don’t understand why Christians would even be debating the authenticity of the Shroud, especially with non Christians! It is known that the Roman Catholic church accepted and even perpetuated many hoaxes and ended up nearly using these “relics” as idols. The Shroud may be a hoax, or then again it may be real. What difference does it make? Real or hoax, it has no bearing on our salvation! And debating with non-Christians about this just gives them ammunition or “so-called” proof that we are nuts. Any Christian that is persuaded it is real or could be, fine. If you’re sure it is a hoax, fine. The important thing is: Have we followed the plan of salvation as explained in the book of Acts? All such issues may be fun to debate, but can sometimes do more harm than good.
LikeLike