 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
The Shroud of Turin is hardly "proof" of the existence of God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
How could the Shroud perfectly match the description of the crucifixion if we've already got four very different but all accepted descriptions of the crucifixion in the Gospels?
Okay, that sentence made no sense, but I think you get my point.
I have no problem with faith; but when science or investigation proves that relics are false (Shroud of Turin, Donation of Constantine), accept it. Surely even faithful people can conceive that certain trappings of faith have been falsified in order to make the faith stronger. It doesn't invalidate the faith itself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:19
|
|
* As Boris G pointed out, the alledged problems with the carbon-dating analysis are completely bogus. The orginal findings stand.
* As others have noted, the image is simply not consistant with what one would expect from a burial cloth wrapped around a body (e.g. lack of distortions, the way front and back of the head meets)
* Multiple tests have confirmed that the image is made of paint and medium commonly used in medieval times. No blood has been found anywhere on the shroud.
* All the business about pollen, limestone, etc. is a bunch of hokum perpetrated by one Max Frei, who was involved in "authenticating" another known forgery, the "Hitler Diaries". Even the Vatican has backed away from those claims.
* Historically, a bishop reported to Pope Clement that the image was a known forgery.
Monkspider, most of that long list you copied is just rubbish, I'm afraid. Here are just two of the many laughable examples:quote:
-encode the appearance of a Pontius pilate lepton over the right eye of the man so that only when photography, photographic enlargers and three-dimensional reliefs are invented 600 years later, the motif, letters, and outline of the coin can be ascertained. |
This assumes that someone painted the coins. What about pressing a cloth against a paint-daubbed model with coins placed on his eyes (a highly likely means of producing a forgery)? Naaah, too simple! 
quote:
-Encode the wound on the cloth at the man’s left side so that when the image was photographed 500 years later, the wound would be located in the precisely correct location on the man’s right side so that blood and water would escape from the victim if he receieved a postmortem wound at this location. |
Um, yeah, there is precisely one correct location where a pierced body would leak water and blood. 
Sorry, the thing is a marvelous forgery.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
Fun et al, any are free to post here of course.
Hi mindseye, let me address a few of your claims
* As Boris G pointed out, the alledged problems with the carbon-dating analysis are completely bogus. The orginal findings stand.
There is really more than suficent reason to believe that the Carbon-dating was incorrect. I explained the reason regarding fungal growth found on the shroud which was tested on three other textiles , and the age was all thrown off by a similar degree. Of course, if we accept that it was a medevil forger, how can explain all of the shroud's unique properties?
* Multiple tests have confirmed that the image is made of paint and medium commonly used in medieval times. No blood has been found anywhere on the shroud.
I'm not sure where you got this particular info, but STURP (a team of scientists, made of respected atheists, agnostics, and christians) proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no known substance that could have created the shroud. Aside from Chemical tests and so forth that would have indicated the presence of materials, but the fact that there is no directionality (such as would be the case with pain strokes) and that the image is encoded superficialy on the very top level of fibrils along with it's unique three-dimensionality make it impossible to have been a painting anyway. Also, see my response to a poster earlier in this thread regarding the blood that appears on the shroud.
* All the business about pollen, limestone, etc. is a bunch of hokum perpetrated by one Max Frei, who was involved in "authenticating" another known forgery, the "Hitler Diaries".
Dr. Max Frei was the one who originally discovered the pollen samples, I don't think he had anything to do with the limestone findings, but he was the one who originally traced the pollen samples. It is also true that he thought the "Hitler Diaries" was the real thing, which does take away some of his credibility. But that simple fact shouldn't invalidate all of his life's work. But in any event, the case is moot, because the world's leading botanist on the flowers of the middle east by the name of Danin has confirmed the presence of those pollens and flower images in 1999. Here's a couple links on when he did that.
http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9906/15/shroud.of.turin/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sc...1000/411366.stm
*This assumes that someone painted the coins. What about pressing a cloth against a paint-daubbed model with coins placed on his eyes (a highly likely means of producing a forgery)? Naaah, too simple
fair point, however there are no traces of paint or any such substance on the shroud. Even if there was, doing such a thing while maintaining the image on only the superficial fibrils of the shroud, the three-dimensionality, and so forth, would be impossible anyway.
Thanks for taking the time to look into my post mindseye. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Well it does show that something miraculous created the image and that something can't even be recreated by 21st century science. Certainly, this very fact lends great creedence to the claims of Jesus being the Messiah and son of god. |
Not really. I believe in God, and Im just playing devil's advocate here, but this wouldnt prove anything of the sort. Jesus could have been an alien.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ignorance
Well several people have made fakes that are very similiar to the "real" one.
Just because we are not sure how it was made doesn't make it miracleous. |
Thats right, its like people who say "We couldnt even build the pyramids today!". What they fail to mention is that that is due to the fact that there is no demand today for big useless pyramids.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tuberski
|
 |
ACK!!! PTHBBPPPTTT!!!!
Feb 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Another interesting point about such faith issues are Stigmata. Supposedly, intensely devout people develop wounds exactly like the wounds Jesus received at the crucifixion from being nailed to the cross.
However, such wounds as they appear in photos of people are invariably incorrect, has they show wounds in the palms of the hands. Jesus was certainly not nailed to the cross through his palms, but rather his wrists. Had the nails been driven into his palms, the weight of his body would have been enough to cause the nails to rip through the top of his hands, thus he would have fallen from the cross. Besides that, it is well-documented that the method of crucifixion was always nailing at the wrists.
So unless God himself is making an error when he gives his faithful stigmata, I'd chalk it up to either hoaxes or psychosomatic occurences. |
You miss the point. Belief in God is called Faith. Faith is the basis of Stigmata. No church I know of says that he was hung by his wrists, it is told that the wounds are in his hands. Therefore based on that belief ,their faith, when they have Stigmata, also based on their faith, they are going to have wounds in their hands. NOT where Jesus actually got nailed to the cross.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
|
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
There is actually no reason at all to assume that a medieval forger would have known less about Roman crucifixion techniques than we do today. He would have been nearly a thousand years closer to the time those techniques were used, and may have had access to much historical data since lost. |
Keep in mind would have been in 1200-1300, a time when most of the world's knowledge has been lost, or at least something as such as the exact details regarding Roman Execution, such as number of lashes, receiving lashes by being tied up and receiving them from both sides, details regarding crucifixion that were unknown until very recently, such as the nails actually penetrating the wrists rather than the palms. Even if he knew these details he would be timid to display them, since it would pertain showing an image of Christ naked, which is something absolutely unheard of in medevial times. All of this also assumes a medical knowledge that is 600 or 700 years ahead of his time, such as the effect driving nails through your wrists has, an exact, perfect knowledge of how blood flows, the effects of a post-mortem spear wound, etc, etc.
quote:
As for the image: there are three claims. It's blood, it's paint (red ocher), it's a miraculous radiation burn. People choose the option that fits their prejudices. |
Well STURP, the team of scientists concluded 100% that there are no traces of any paint-like substance on the shroud in the 70's, see earlier in this thread for details. In 2001 it had been concluded by the study of the effects of radiation on textiles, that it was formed by a burst of radiation coming from the length and width of a body beneath the shroud.
quote:
As for the "error" in carbon dating: this is clearly bunk. To produce such a huge error, the organic contaminant would have to be comparable in mass to the fabric itself: and that's assuming all the contaminant is 20th century. The older the contaminant, the more you'll need to skew the date. This implies that the Turin Shroud is a thick slab of cheese with linen fibers embedded in it. I think somebody would have noticed that. |
Not nescarrily so, I'm no expert on carbon dating, but the findings on the shroud have led to museums to round up various artifacts that were thought to be frauds due to carbon dating. Apparently using photomicrography, scientists found an organic bioplastic coating–a natural funguslike growth over the cloth’s fibers that would not have been removed by a standard cleaning. Here is something written on the subject.
"From Manchester Museum Egyptologist Dr.Rosalie David
Quite aside from its implications for the Turin Shroud, Dr.Garza-Valdes's identification of bioplastic accretions to ancient linen powerful enough to skew carbon dating readings has become of inevitable interest to archaeologists. And one prominent British Egyptologist who has been in touch with Dr.Garza- Valdes in this very regard is Dr.Rosalie David, well-known to BSTS textile expert the late John Tyrer as keeper of Egyptology at the Manchester Museum, and author of 16 books on Egyptology, including the popular Mysteries of the Mummies published in 1978. According to the Spring issue of the University of Texas house journal The Mission Dr.David has commented of Dr.Valdes's bioplastic finding: 'This could be a great breakthrough in understanding the ancient world. If this theory is correct, and there seems to be a lot of evidence it is, this would be a spot check to tell if artefacts in museums or for sale on the market are genuine or fakes.'
According to the same issue of The Mission the University of Arizona in Tucson is preparing carbon dating procedures to test Garza-Valdes's hypothesis on an ibis bird mummy that stylistically dates c.330-30 BC. Physicists will sample collagen from bone and compare its date to their dating of the mummy wrappings. Two mummy wrapping samples will be tested - one that will be cleansed of contaminants by the usual means employed for samples for radiocarbon dating, the other using a method developed by Valdes and Mattingly. This will be done to check if conventional cleaning fails to remove the bioplastic coating, as Dr.Valdes claims it does."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Monkspider-
I believe in God, but you cant prove his existence. So if you like banging your head against a brick wall....carry on.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-05-2002 19:31
)
|