The Shroud of Turin: An Enigmatic Anomaly

[Hestia]

I know of many things that the ''church'' has done which if they were to come to general, public light would destroy the church. As for the shroud i would not be surprised if it was a fake, it will certainly not be the first time they made something up just so that more people could believe in Jesus

 

[CEL]

I know of many things that the ''church'' has done which if they were to come to general, public light would destroy the church. As for the shroud i would not be surprised if it was a fake, it will certainly not be the first time they made something up just so that more people could believe in Jesus

Do you mind to mention some of those things you know?

 

[jreelawg]

The Sudarium of Oviedo is a cloth that supposedly covered Jesus's face. It has blood stains which precisely match the blood stains of the shroud. Supposedly a forensic analysis has proven that the two covered the same person. The Sudarium of Oviedo has supposedly been in spain since 631 AD giving doubt to the carbon dating of the shroud.

I don't know where to get a good source for this. I saw it on a history channel documentary. You could tell beyond a doubt that the shroud, and the sudarium were either from the same body, or the shroud was created to match the sudarium, because it's a perfect match.

 

[Hestia]

Do you mind to mention some of those things you know?

I do but i will mention some. 1. Have you seen the amount of symbolism in their mass?
2. Jesus, like many other heroes from ancient civilizations ''died for his people'', and he has the characteristics like all the others(born on the 25 dec/mothers name starts with m/died\went to the underworld to fight evil and rose on the day of the spring equinox, that kind of stuff)
3. Ever wonder why the bible is ''the word of God''? I mean did God come down her and tell them what to write? Heck no! The books are just accounts of people who saw things in their own perspective, and wrote about them. Then some guys came and compiled the ones they thought fit their teachings, and made up the rest along the way. I'm not denying that some of the bible could be true, I'm just saying don't believe everything they shove down your throats. After all What is history but a fable agreed upon? - Napoleon

 

[CEL]

I do but i will mention some. 1. Have you seen the amount of symbolism in their mass?

Symbolism is a constant in the rites of every religion.

2. Jesus, like many other heroes from ancient civilizations ''died for his people'', and he has the characteristics like all the others(born on the 25 dec/mothers name starts with m/died\went to the underworld to fight evil and rose on the day of the spring equinox, that kind of stuff)

The winter solstice and the spring equinox were holidays for the Romans and were adapted to Christianity in the fourth century CE.
Osiris died, resurrected and went to judge the dead, just like Christ.

3. Ever wonder why the bible is ''the word of God''? I mean did God come down her and tell them what to write? Heck no! The books are just accounts of people who saw things in their own perspective, and wrote about them. Then some guys came and compiled the ones they thought fit their teachings, and made up the rest along the way. I'm not denying that some of the bible could be true, I'm just saying don't believe everything they shove down your throats. After all What is history but a fable agreed upon? - Napoleon

Only fundamentalists believe the tale that God dictated the Bible to Moses and inspired the writing of the Gospels.
Most learned Christians and Jews believe the Bible is a collection of moral teachings, with very little of real history behind.
None of those things you pointed are any threat to the Church.

 

[zomgwtf]

The Sudarium of Oviedo is a cloth that supposedly covered Jesus's face. It has blood stains which precisely match the blood stains of the shroud. Supposedly a forensic analysis has proven that the two covered the same person. The Sudarium of Oviedo has supposedly been in spain since 631 AD giving doubt to the carbon dating of the shroud.

I don't know where to get a good source for this. I saw it on a history channel documentary. You could tell beyond a doubt that the shroud, and the sudarium were either from the same body, or the shroud was created to match the sudarium, because it's a perfect match.

I'm pretty sure that the Sudarium was 'talked about' back in the late 6th century, that was when it was first ever brought up in history. Radiocarbon dating confirms that this article came from around the 7th century! So basically when it was talked about is the furthest date scientists can trace it back to! That's really odd, so in my opinion, it doesn't add any 'doubt' to the carbon dating of the shroud. It adds more doubt to the stories told about these artices, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, both which have none. The only evidence they have is peoples belief that they are genuine.

Even if they WERE genuine all they do is show that a man existed when Christ was alive and was crucified and covered in clothes. Now I guess you could jump to the conclusion from here that this man must be the person who was written about in the bible but it hardly says anything about the validity of the religious beliefs in the bible.

So, in my opinion, articles like this are just useless artifacts that people tend to cling on to in order to substantiate their beliefs in various mystics. I'm an atheist and I can honestly say: If there was 100% conclusive evidence that a man Jesus Christ did live and people wrote about him in the Bible I would still be an atheist.

 

[Hestia]

Symbolism is a constant in the rites of every religion.

The winter solstice and the spring equinox were holidays for the Romans and were adapted to Christianity in the fourth century CE.
Osiris died, resurrected and went to judge the dead, just like Christ.

Okay, maybe I exaggerated on the ''destroying'' part. My question to is why did they adapt the symbolism of cultures they believed to be pagan? Isn't Christianity here to make us ''see the light'' ? If so, why adopt something you think is unclean? How many of the billions of Catholics around the world do you think see the bible as moral teachings? Quite a small number considering that the church say its the word of God so they believe it. Yes there are those learned ones, but how many of them? Look I'm not saying that Catholic Christianity is wrong. I'm just saying that the church must stop making it seem like the only way to God.
I'm not an atheist or an agnostic. I actually do believe that the is something out there bigger than all of us and watching me right now. I do not know if it is female/ male/ or whether it doesn't have a gender. But i do know that it is out there and moving through me at this very moment. I just do not like the fact that the church says Christianity is the only way to he/she/it. Because it isn't. The shroud of Turin is to me something the church has manufactured for the sole purpose of enticing more to believe. And people believe because everyone has to believe in something.

 

[Evo]

Okay, maybe I exaggerated on the ''destroying'' part. My question to is why did they adapt the symbolism of cultures they believed to be pagan? Isn't Christianity here to make us ''see the light'' ? If so, why adopt something you think is unclean?

They did it so they could compete with the popular pagan practices and hopefully get converts.

 

[Hestia]

They did it so they could compete with the popular pagan practices and hopefully get converts.

I know that, but why? If their message was so ''pure'' why did they feel the need to adapt things as i said before they thought were unclean? Why did they need to compete? Aren't people supposed to change their beliefs because they think its something better than what they believe now? Not because it a near replica of the one they have at the time? Sure you change the name and the and what it means, you write it in a different language, but really its still the same thing. Religion isn't supposed to be about how many believers you have, but about the message you bring across and how people receive and interpret and practice it.

 

[jreelawg]

I'm pretty sure that the Sudarium was 'talked about' back in the late 6th century, that was when it was first ever brought up in history. Radiocarbon dating confirms that this article came from around the 7th century! So basically when it was talked about is the furthest date scientists can trace it back to! That's really odd, so in my opinion, it doesn't add any 'doubt' to the carbon dating of the shroud.
...
Even if they WERE genuine all they do is show that a man existed when Christ was alive and was crucified and covered in clothes. Now I guess you could jump to the conclusion from here that this man must be the person who was written about in the bible but it hardly says anything about the validity of the religious beliefs in the bible.

Yeah, but the shroud is dated to the 13th century. If the blood from the 7th or 6th century Sudarium is a match to the shroud. Then the shroud must be as old as the Sudarium, making it at least 5 or 6 hundred years older than the carbon date.

Researchers aren't necessarily trying to prove anything supernatural about the shroud, or the validity of the bible.

 

[zomgwtf]

Yeah, but the shroud is dated to the 13th century. If the blood from the 7th or 6th century Sudarium is a match to the shroud. Then the shroud must be as old as the Sudarium, making it at least 5 or 6 hundred years older than the carbon date.

Researchers aren't necessarily trying to prove anything supernatural about the shroud, or the validity of the bible.

No it means no such thing. Why must the shroud and the Sudarium match in dates? I certainly believe they could have been created from different dates. The testing done on the Sudarium was a blood test. Which came back AB I believe, a common blood type for people from the middle east. The blood stains are in the same locations? Please, all that means to me is that when you wrap cloth around you certain areas of the human anatomy are more prone to be touching the cloth.

Have you actually seen the Sudarium? Should look at images of it, it's hardly revealy of any specific person and you'd be jumping the gun to conclude its the same person on the shroud. (especially since scientific evidence suggests they were from completely different eras)

All that I'm getting out of your posts is this: The dating method must be mistaken because I believe they came from the same time period!

The problem is that science doesn't care about what anyones beliefs are.

EDIT: As and aside I wasn't talking about researchers trying to confirm anything supernatural. I'm talking about religious fanatics who believe that since this is conclusive proof Jesus exists that it necessarily means that Christianity is true. It's a fallacy, a big one. But hey not the first or the last that religious people will make.

 

[CEL]

Okay, maybe I exaggerated on the ''destroying'' part. My question to is why did they adapt the symbolism of cultures they believed to be pagan? Isn't Christianity here to make us ''see the light'' ? If so, why adopt something you think is unclean? How many of the billions of Catholics around the world do you think see the bible as moral teachings? Quite a small number considering that the church say its the word of God so they believe it. Yes there are those learned ones, but how many of them? Look I'm not saying that Catholic Christianity is wrong. I'm just saying that the church must stop making it seem like the only way to God.

You must remember that until the Roman Emperor Constantine I adopted Christianity as the official religion of Rome, this was a marginal religion. The Judeo/Christian god was one more of the several deities worshiped in Rome.
The Council of Nicaea, convened by Constantine, decided for the date of Easter, along with several other decisions, like the divinity of Christ.

I'm not an atheist or an agnostic. I actually do believe that the is something out there bigger than all of us and watching me right now. I do not know if it is female/ male/ or whether it doesn't have a gender. But i do know that it is out there and moving through me at this very moment. I just do not like the fact that the church says Christianity is the only way to he/she/it. Because it isn't. The shroud of Turin is to me something the church has manufactured for the sole purpose of enticing more to believe. And people believe because everyone has to believe in something.

The shroud is one more of the thousands of relics from medieval times. People say that the shards of the true cross of Christ, that exist in European churches, could be used to reconstruct Noah's Ark.
If in our time, with the profusion of information existent, there are still Bible literalists, imagine what was the level of knowledge of medieval people. The Christian religion, based on Greek philosophy, was too much abstract for them. Hence the need of images and relics.

 

[jreelawg]

Have you actually seen the Sudarium? Should look at images of it, it's hardly revealy of any specific person and you'd be jumping the gun to conclude its the same person on the shroud. (especially since scientific evidence suggests they were from completely different eras)

All that I'm getting out of your posts is this: The dating method must be mistaken because I believe they came from the same time period!

They match too perfectly. Like I said, the shroud was either created to match the Sudarium, or they are from the same body. This is not just a case of same areas of the head, but identical patterns of stains indentations, and blood. Same blood type is a bonus I had not even known until now. The scientific evidence is convincing enough, that I would say it is most likely that the shroud and Sedarium came from the same body prior to the carbon date of the shroud. In my opinion at least. That or an elaborate hoax.

 

[jreelawg]

... and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, both which have none. The only evidence they have is peoples belief that they are genuine.

It is hardly an extraordinary claim, that the shroud and the Sedarium covered the same body.

You can't throw out all the evidence about this mystery based on the disbelief of the conclusions some people are attempting to make.

 

[Evo]

I know that, but why? If their message was so ''pure'' why did they feel the need to adapt things as i said before they thought were unclean? Why did they need to compete? Aren't people supposed to change their beliefs because they think its something better than what they believe now? Not because it a near replica of the one they have at the time? Sure you change the name and the and what it means, you write it in a different language, but really its still the same thing. Religion isn't supposed to be about how many believers you have, but about the message you bring across and how people receive and interpret and practice it.

You're describing an ideal of what the church wishes to present itself as opposed to the reality.

Also, the church as we know it today is nothing like it was in the early days.

 

[zomgwtf]

They match too perfectly. Like I said, the shroud was either created to match the Sudarium, or they are from the same body. This is not just a case of same areas of the head, but identical patterns of stains indentations, and blood. Same blood type is a bonus I had not even known until now. The scientific evidence is convincing enough, that I would say it is most likely that the shroud and Sedarium came from the same body prior to the carbon date of the shroud. In my opinion at least. That or an elaborate hoax.

First of all, have you seen the shroud and the Sudarium? They don't match 'too perfectly' at all. All your information it seems is coming from a documentary on the History channel. The same type of documentary that makes people believe it's plausible that 2012 will be the end of the Earth by linking various religions to each other in prophecies. Go do some of your own research. Nothing you are saying is 'scientific evidence' lmfao.

I'll give you some points to think about:
-The shroud and the sudarium do not match perfectly like you seem to think. Go look at images in google images search. They might appear 'similar in symmetry' but that's becaus e the human body is pretty damn symmetrical.
-It's not entirely conclusive the blood is real blood however: Some researchers say it is genuine blood and the type would be AB. Same as on the sundarium.
-Blood type AB is only believed to 'come into existence' around 7th-8th century.
-Blood turns black with algae growth, the stains on the shroud are not black but red.
-Carbon dating puts the at different time periods completely. Carbon dating is pretty damn reliable, and extremely rigourous.
-There are two clothes that covered Jesus, this leads me to be somewhat skeptical considering all the forgeries done by churches over the years. They just mass produce them for effect.
-The type of weave done on the shroud has never been found as far back as 2000 years.
-The type of weave normally done for burial back then was just plain.
-The types of weaving on both shrouds is different.

However you keep bringing up 'scientific evidence' yet you provide none. Then you discredit the mountains of evidence against the conclusion you've drawn. I believe the tactic you are using is a pretty popular tactic used by YEC or OEC in that they talk a lot of crap about 'scientific evidence conclusively proving such and such by blah blah scientists' yet they never provide the evidence and their scientists are far from what I'd consider 'scientists'. When they DO provide research for you to look over it's normally FAR from the truth or you can't possibly see how they concluded what they've concluded. They then go on a rampage about how you can't discard their evidence because 'it's not in line with your beliefs' (even though that's not what's going on) and so far you've followed this to a T. Good job champ, really.
You're starting to make me think you are a religious fellow, which there is nothing wrong, its just kind of pathetic how you will debate out the 'scientific evidence'.

 

[zomgwtf]

It is hardly an extraordinary claim, that the shroud and the Sedarium covered the same body.

You can't throw out all the evidence about this mystery based on the disbelief of the conclusions some people are attempting to make.

Yes, it actually is an extraordinary claim.

No scientific evidence suggests that they covered the same body or even came from the same time period. No scientific evidence suggests that they had ever even covered the body of a dead body with blood dripping.

Scientific evidence has shown that the blood was not actually blood and gives us dates to which we can pretty firmly say they came from.

Believers of the shroud claim that they both came from the same time period, that this time period was WELL before even the earliest of the clothes by 600 years, that both clothes covered the same person and specifically that the person was Jesus christ after being crucified. This my friend, is really far out there in extraordinary claims.
The only connection between the two cloths is blood type and 'symmetry'. It's pretty much 100% certain that the blood is not actually blood, I believe only one article was published in mainstream journal on the blood type and since then the evidence is stacking up against it actually being blood. Symmetry is hardly an argument to suggest that they are from the same person, same time, that the time was 600 years prior to carbon dating, and that the person was Jesus Christ.

EDIT: Just to make it ABSOLUTELY clear: I'm not throwing out ANY evidence just because of my disbelief. I am throwing out peoples FAITH and their BELIEFS based on the evidence provided. I have absolutely 0 tolerance for people who walk around ignorant of the facts, they might live a life of bliss but that means diddly squat to me.

 

[jreelawg]

I don't think I'm biased at all. I think you can't handle the facts however as you haven't commented on any of them and instead have continued ad hominem attacks.

Since you think I should comment on the evidence you pointed out I will.

The differences in weave patters too me, is not a scientific argument.

The point about AB blood not even existing until the 7th or 8th century. The face cover is about that age, so that fit's with my opinion.

I am not familiar with the thing about algae? Is blood that old always turned black by algae, or does it depend on how it was stored, or wether it was kept dry?

Two cloths, I believe was normal, I think. One is small, and just covers the face, the other the whole body. This doesn't seam strange to me, and it doesn't seam at all like a scientific argument.

 

[Evo]

I don't see anything that matches. Why is there none of the famous blood on the forehead? I see absolutely nothing on the forehead of the Sudarium.

Sudarium

[PLAIN]http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/5484/sudariumofoviedo.jpg

Shroud of Turin

[PLAIN]http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/9413/shroudofturin.jpg

 

[baywax]

They match too perfectly. Like I said, the shroud was either created to match the Sudarium, or they are from the same body. This is not just a case of same areas of the head, but identical patterns of stains indentations, and blood. Same blood type is a bonus I had not even known until now. The scientific evidence is convincing enough, that I would say it is most likely that the shroud and Sedarium came from the same body prior to the carbon date of the shroud. In my opinion at least. That or an elaborate hoax.

Sorry, you'll have to produce some images or even an article about these items that shows what you're claiming. You have to realize the (negative) image of a long haired and bearded man on the "shroud" blatantly shows the front and the back of two different people... the (negative) image face up is about 5 inches taller than the (negative) image of the back.

edit: nice comparison Evo... by the way, I've got an old hanky that's stained and looks like a panda bear.

 

[zomgwtf]

Since you think I should comment on the evidence you pointed out I will.

The differences in weave patters too me, is not a scientific argument.

Sure but I never presented it as such, it was just a point to think about.

The point about AB blood not even existing until the 7th or 8th century. The face cover is about that age, so that fit's with my opinion.

Ok so you think that both are forgeries you only debate the date of the shroud? I guess that makes all the difference now.

I am not familiar with the thing about algae? Is blood that old always turned black by algae, or does it depend on how it was stored, or wether it was kept dry?

Well there are circumstances which this doesn't happen I guess, but the blood would still turn a dark brown. The blood on the shroud and turin if you zoom in is still pretty red. I'm not entirely sure if any further testing has been done on the blood but the last literature I've read stated that they concluded using various tests that the substance was probably some sort of vermillion pigment that was commonly used in medieval times.

Two cloths, I believe was normal, I think. One is small, and just covers the face, the other the whole body. This doesn't seam strange to me, and it doesn't seam at all like a scientific argument.

Both of different weave patterns? One of which wasn't even used during the times of Jesus? As well these weave patterns were pretty much limited to really wealthy Jews. From reading the bible it didn't strike me that Jesus was a wealthy Jew, it might have been 'given' by a wealthy Jew after he died, but again there are no other weaving patterns from the time period that are similar.

They are both forgeries. I do not think they came from the same time period but even if they had they are still both forgeries.

PF Should publish an article on this and close the case once and for all.

 

[zomgwtf]

@Evo, thanks for posting those images. I was going to make a comparisson side by side in photoshop but I haven't gotten on my desktop today . I don't think they are very similar, aside from the fact that they are both being used, as fakes, to prove that Jesus Christ existed.

 

[CEL]

Both of different weave patterns? One of which wasn't even used during the times of Jesus? As well these weave patterns were pretty much limited to really wealthy Jews. From reading the bible it didn't strike me that Jesus was a wealthy Jew, it might have been 'given' by a wealthy Jew after he died, but again there are no other weaving patterns from the time period that are similar.

.

I am not saying that the Shroud is authentic, but according to the Gospels, Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy Jew, donated his tomb for the burial of Jesus. If this is true, he should have donated the shroud too.

 

[baywax]

I am not saying that the Shroud is authentic, but according to the Gospels, Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy Jew, donated his tomb for the burial of Jesus. If this is true, he should have donated the shroud too.

Not when it radiocarbon dates to the 13th century. There are many stories, "fabricated" or not, that mention a cloth with the likeness of J.C. on it. I have a couple of posts in this thread that go into the details surrounding these accounts. Whomever compiled the "shroud" (and my guess is it was da Vinci and his use of the Camera Obscura + plus silver sulphide + egg albumen + cadavers from the morgue in Turin) obviously played on the myths, fables and hearsay of this "relic".

 

[CEL]

Not when it radiocarbon dates to the 13th century. There are many stories, "fabricated" or not, that mention a cloth with the likeness of J.C. on it. I have a couple of posts in this thread that go into the details surrounding these accounts. Whomever compiled the "shroud" (and my guess is it was da Vinci and his use of the Camera Obscura + plus silver sulphide + egg albumen + cadavers from the morgue in Turin) obviously played on the myths, fables and hearsay of this "relic".

Again! I am not saying the Shroud was used to bury Jesus. The tests indicate it is a fake.
I am contesting the affirmation of zomgwtf that the wave, if genuine, was a privilege of very wealthy Jews. Joseph of Arimathea, assuming he existed, was such a person.

 

[baywax]

Again! I am not saying the Shroud was used to bury Jesus. The tests indicate it is a fake.
I am contesting the affirmation of zomgwtf that the wave, if genuine, was a privilege of very wealthy Jews. Joseph of Arimathea, assuming he existed, was such a person.

Sorry if I missed any earlier posts of yours CEL... its a funny thing that the "wealthy" Joseph of Arimathea has taken the place of the wealthy "the son of David" who was "Jesus's" father. Any son of David would be wealthy beyond the means of the rest of the townships in those days and there are reportedly records of JC's dad owning scads of land and a large "garden". In the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln (3 investigative journalists from Europe) the Joseph in their records is his father and it was arranged that Judas point out a "secret disciple named "Simon" who looked like Jesus and that this decoy be crucified on Joseph, son of David's land and then be brought to lay somewhere on the same land.

These sorts of undertakings were the strategy of generals in a force fighting to rid their Hebrew lands of the Romans. Today we can see similarities in how Saddam of Iraq had reportedly 12 look a likes to protect his well being... people who would even hang or be crucified for him. There are similar stories as well about Bin Laden.

 

[zomgwtf]

Again! I am not saying the Shroud was used to bury Jesus. The tests indicate it is a fake.
I am contesting the affirmation of zomgwtf that the wave, if genuine, was a privilege of very wealthy Jews. Joseph of Arimathea, assuming he existed, was such a person.

No it wouldn't belong to Joseph of Arimathea, because I specifically stated that it would belong to a wealthy Jew WELL after Jesus was dead. We're talking hundreds of years here.

 

[CEL]

Sorry if I missed any earlier posts of yours CEL... its a funny thing that the "wealthy" Joseph of Arimathea has taken the place of the wealthy "the son of David" who was "Jesus's" father. Any son of David would be wealthy beyond the means of the rest of the townships in those days and there are reportedly records of JC's dad owning scads of land and a large "garden". In the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln (3 investigative journalists from Europe) the Joseph in their records is his father and it was arranged that Judas point out a "secret disciple named "Simon" who looked like Jesus and that this decoy be crucified on Joseph, son of David's land and then be brought to lay somewhere on the same land.

These sorts of undertakings were the strategy of generals in a force fighting to rid their Hebrew lands of the Romans. Today we can see similarities in how Saddam of Iraq had reportedly 12 look a likes to protect his well being... people who would even hang or be crucified for him. There are similar stories as well about Bin Laden.

Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln are nuts. Their work is an exercise of imagination and served as inspiration to Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. The villain Leigh Teabing is named after two of them (Teabing is an anagram of Baigent). If you think those are historical works, there is nothing more to discuss.
The only known historical mentions to Jesus are the Gospels, written by his followers, so they must be taken with suspicion.
According to the Gospels, Joseph brought two doves to be sacrificed, when he presented his son to the Temple. A wealthy Jew would bring a lamb.

 

[CEL]

No it wouldn't belong to Joseph of Arimathea, because I specifically stated that it would belong to a wealthy Jew WELL after Jesus was dead. We're talking hundreds of years here.

You are using two different arguments here:
1. The Shroud belonged to a wealthy Jew.
2. The Shroud is from medieval times.
I contested the first argument. If you are using the second argument, there is no need to use the first. If the weave is a medieval work, it could belong to a Jew or to an Italian.

 

[zomgwtf]

You are using two different arguments here:
1. The Shroud belonged to a wealthy Jew.
2. The Shroud is from medieval times.
I contested the first argument. If you are using the second argument, there is no need to use the first. If the weave is a medieval work, it could belong to a Jew or to an Italian.

Yeah but they go together. The weave patter suggests both things. So you contested the first point with some story from the Bible. I countered it with the evidence brought up by rigorous scientific study.

If you can't handle compound statements then sorry. Go ahead and attack them one by one if it makes you happy.

EDIT: The statement 'it could have belonged to a Jew or a Italian' doesn't make any sense. That isnt' dependent on when the weave came from at all, if it came from 2000 years ago or 100 years ago it is still MOST likely to have come from a wealthy Jew. How can people say this? Because most weave patterns like this come from wealthy Jews. It's actually pretty complex.

 

[CEL]

Yeah but they go together. The weave patter suggests both things. So you contested the first point with some story from the Bible. I countered it with the evidence brought up by rigorous scientific study.

If you can't handle compound statements then sorry. Go ahead and attack them one by one if it makes you happy.

EDIT: The statement 'it could have belonged to a Jew or a Italian' doesn't make any sense. That isnt' dependent on when the weave came from at all, if it came from 2000 years ago or 100 years ago it is still MOST likely to have come from a wealthy Jew. How can people say this? Because most weave patterns like this come from wealthy Jews. It's actually pretty complex.

Do you have any evidence that those weaves were used by wealthy Jews? When were they used? In the first, seventh or thirteenth century? In Palestine or in Europe?
If the Shroud is a medieval forgery, it was probably made in Italy, where those things were made and it was weaved purposely to be the canvas for the forgery. So, it was never used by wealthy or poor Jew.
And the type of weave is dependent from when it was made. If, as seems the case, such weave was not made 2000 years ago, it is almost certainly fake and no carbon dating is needed. If the wave was common in the first century, than the dating becomes important.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Off-topic posts, religion bashing, crackpot theories, and flakey links deleted.

This is about origins of the shroud and not a place to put religion on trial.

 

[nismaratwork]

How about "lost in the mists of time", and "who cares"? People can't agree whether or not Elvis is alive, or how JFK died, with pictures and modern media. Does anyone really think that such a valuable article of faith for some is going to be easier to trace?

 

[baywax]

Here's what may be a useful link in obtaining a better informed opinion about the Shroud of Turin

http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p08.pdf

 

[PaulS1950]

The dating samples were taken from a location that contained two different threads. One was the original thread that the cloth was made from and the other was cotton that was rewoven into the shroud to repair damage and colored to match.
This was discovered only after the dating had been completed and released. One of the original scientists confirmed that this was the case by testing a remnant with UV light. the cotton threadsglowed and the original threads did not. This tainted the results of carbon dating by averaging the two threads into one date.
PBS has shown this in a show about the shroud several times.
so far the church has not allowed a retest of the shroud to place a proper date on its origin and the manner in which it is being stored will soon render further dating impossible due to the gas being used to keep it from deteriorating.
Looks like it will have to be one of those mysteries / myths or a matter of faith for a long time to come.

 

[zomgwtf]

Yeah, I've heard of that story paul. Where did he get the sample from I thought it was all destroyed for the testing?

It's not a very promising argument to use in my opinion. 'Oh that was a redone part you guys sampled' so it's younger than the rest, however you can't test the real fabric.

 

[baywax]

The dating samples were taken from a location that contained two different threads. One was the original thread that the cloth was made from and the other was cotton that was rewoven into the shroud to repair damage and colored to match.
This was discovered only after the dating had been completed and released. One of the original scientists confirmed that this was the case by testing a remnant with UV light. the cotton threadsglowed and the original threads did not. This tainted the results of carbon dating by averaging the two threads into one date.
PBS has shown this in a show about the shroud several times.
so far the church has not allowed a retest of the shroud to place a proper date on its origin and the manner in which it is being stored will soon render further dating impossible due to the gas being used to keep it from deteriorating.
Looks like it will have to be one of those mysteries / myths or a matter of faith for a long time to come.

This seems like an odd story since you need much more than a thread to do a proper carbon dating.

For instance, to radiocarbon date (C14) a piece of cloth you need 25 grams for a reliable result..

http://www.ausetute.com.au/carbon14.html

Please check your sources or post them for further scrutiny.

 

[dlgoff]

... to radiocarbon date (C14) a piece of cloth you need 25 grams for a reliable result..

http://www.ausetute.com.au/carbon14.html.

Just for information:

Radiocarbon dating using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) differs from the decay counting methods in that the amount of 14C in the sample is measured directly, rather than by waiting for the individual radioactive decay events to occur. This makes the technique 1,000 to 10,000 times more sensitive than decay counting.

http://www.physics.arizona.edu/ams/education/ams_principle.htm"

 

[baywax]

Just for information:

http://www.physics.arizona.edu/ams/education/ams_principle.htm"

Looks like the technique used to date the Shroud was "ams".

Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As Controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Here's the exact amount and procedure that was involved in extracting and testing the samples...

The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each ~50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip. The samples were then taken to the adjacent Sala Capitolare where they were wrapped in aluminium foil and subsequently sealed inside numbered stainless-steel containers by the Archbishop of Turin and Dr Tite. Samples weighing 50 mg from two of the three controls were similarly packaged. The three containers containing the shroud (to be referred to as sample 1) and two control samples (samples 2 and 3) were then handed to representatives of each of the three laboratories together with a sample of the third control (sample 4), which was in the form of threads. All these operations, except for the wrapping of the samples in foil and their placing in containers, were fully documented by video film and photography.

http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

No mention of "threads" here.

 

[dlgoff]

I would think 50mg is about the mass of a single thread.

 

[baywax]

I would think 50mg is about the mass of a single thread.

a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas.

10 mm width is a fair bit wider than a piece of thread.

 

[dlgoff]

10 mm width is a fair bit wider than a piece of thread.

At work today, I cut a 3 inch (76 mm) thread out of a piece of string and weighed it on a analytical balance. It weighed 10.9 mg.

I'm not sure what their threads weighed but if they were like this, then it would take about three of them to make the test. One wouldn't want to use the whole piece of fabric to do just one test. So if the shrouds fabric used heavier thread, I think it may be possible to get a date from just one thread out of the sample.

 

[nismaratwork]

Is modern thread in any way similar to course linen used in the time the shroud has been dated to? I have no idea, but it strikes me as being an issue.

 

[baywax]

The dating samples were taken from a location that contained two different threads. One was the original thread that the cloth was made from and the other was cotton that was rewoven into the shroud to repair damage and colored to match.
This was discovered only after the dating had been completed and released. One of the original scientists confirmed that this was the case by testing a remnant with UV light. the cotton threadsglowed and the original threads did not. This tainted the results of carbon dating by averaging the two threads into one date.
PBS has shown this in a show about the shroud several times.

I don't know how the 10 mm x 70 mm patch of 400 year old fabric (thus, very fragile... and light) was divided up. But I'm pretty sure it would be divided equally amongst the institutions testing it. This could have been done by cutting the swatch vertically or horizontally. This would give each team a 3.3 mm x 70 mm strip or a 33 mm x 10 mm patch to analyze. There is no mention of "threads" in the nature article

Here's the proof from the article we need to settle this tributary of discussion.

The laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample. Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample. If the samples had been unravelled or shredded rather than being given to the laboratories as whole pieces of cloth, then it would have been much more difficult, but not impossible, to distinguish the shroud sample from the controls.

So what they are saying is that they might have had better control if the samples were shredded but they didn't shred the clothe... they just concealed the identity of both the control and target samples.

http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

 

[baywax]

Does the shroud represent an example of "proto-photography"?

It plainly shows a negative image imprinted on linen. Are there any papers showing the presence of silver sulphate on the shroud? And does silver sulphate decay or transform into another chemical over time or in the presence of fire? Specifically, would the silver off of a silver pencil mixed with the egg tempura used in fine painting create silver sulphate?

 

[nismaratwork]

If I remember correctly, experiments to re-create the shroud didn't require anything like photographic media or chemicals. I think some acid and heat was all it took, along with a bit of artistic skill. I'll see if I can find that study before I hit the hay. Silver would not need to be present to create a negative image, only a negative on a photographic plate where light is a factor.

 

[dlgoff]

I don't know how the 10 mm x 70 mm patch of 400 year old fabric (thus, very fragile... and light) was divided up. But I'm pretty sure it would be divided equally amongst the institutions testing it. This could have been done by cutting the swatch vertically or horizontally. This would give each team a 3.3 mm x 70 mm strip or a 33 mm x 10 mm patch to analyze. There is no mention of "threads" in the nature article

Here's the proof from the article we need to settle this tributary of discussion.



So what they are saying is that they might have had better control if the samples were shredded but they didn't shred the clothe... they just concealed the identity of both the control and target samples.

http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

I'm not arguing how they received the samples, I'm was just showing that you really don't need to use the whole sample supplied to make a test. Just a few threads will do ya.

 

[baywax]

I'm not arguing how they received the samples, I'm was just showing that you really don't need to use the whole sample supplied to make a test. Just a few threads will do ya.

And that's amazing in itself.

 

[baywax]

If I remember correctly, experiments to re-create the shroud didn't require anything like photographic media or chemicals. I think some acid and heat was all it took, along with a bit of artistic skill. I'll see if I can find that study before I hit the hay. Silver would not need to be present to create a negative image, only a negative on a photographic plate where light is a factor.

There have been successful attempts at re-creating the effect seen on the shroud using a camera obscura... but the authors of these studies are neither photographers nor are they historians or scientists... I'll post the links later with some trepidation or at least have the links cleared by the mentor.

For now, here's something I hadn't heard of about the Shroud of Turin... these copies of the shroud were painted to depict the cherished artifact.?

The copy was found Jan. 18, 1999 by theol. scholar Premysl Sochor in the first balcony to the right in the monasterial church of Broumov, Czechia, hidden in a framed wooden box with a glass door, under the floor of the balcony (in a height of appr. 15m). With the linen was the authenticity, i.e., a letter of the archbishop of Turin, Bergiria, giving names, year and date (4 May 1651).

http://www.shroud.com/bazant.htm

Another attempt was made to reproduce the method thought used to produce the shroud... here's a comparison which was made between the shroud on the left and the copy on the right.

A Copy of the Shroud of Turin Has Been Made, Using only Medieval Materials and Techniques by Luigi Garlascheli

http://cyberbrethren.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/shroudcompare.jpg

 

[mnafetsc]

Whenever people try to disprove the shroud they always try to argue with carbon dating, but I think there may be a much easier argument which is:

It seems quite clear that the Jesus in the shroud has long hair, just like we would expect, but many biblical scholars and archeologist believe, from the evidence they have, that the average Jewish male in the first century had short cropped hair, and the long hair and facial features we recognize as Jesus were European artist 'europeanizing' Jesus. So if this the authentic shroud of Jesus he probably should have short hair.

Regardless, the Shroud, depsite some peoples/documentary claims, is not a big deal for the faith of Catholics. As a Catholic, when I read about the latest evidence for a hoax, I merely shrugged my shoulders and went about my day without any spiritual dilemmas.