|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Shroud of Turin
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz Also, even if 1192 mention is accurate, it’s still 1200 years after the fact. Dude…. That’s a long long time to be unaccounted for. In court, broken chain of custody invalidates evidence. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Zorroloco And I quote. ... " It is an X-ray study of the shroud and it shows rather convincingly that the age of the shroud is round about 2000 years."~Stahl There is a huge discrepancy between inconclusive and rather convincingly. So where is the disconnect here? Or is the requirement absolute proof or irrefutable proof? If that is the case your position doesn't have that either. Perhaps Stahl will be kind enough to weigh in regarding this. Now correct me if I'm wrong. It would appear that there isn't irrefutable evidence that it is a genuine artifact as is claimed. There is also no irrefutable evidence that it is a forgery as is claimed. Is there any other tangible artifact that has a similar problem? None that I can think of. So why is that? Shouldn't science be able to definitively determine a forgery,? Like they do with every other forgery quite convincingly? |
|||||||||||||||
|
C14 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Lord Shiva |
|||||||||||||||
|
phys.org There are many other reputable sites that you can look for. |
|||||||||||||||
|
www.google.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
shiva and apat I appreciate the idea that a massive amount of C14 might have been released into the shroud during the resurrection of Jesus, but I'm holding fast to 1: Possible contamination by 13th century nuns or 2: The shroud is a fake for now. |
|||||||||||||||
|
mo-one Just for the record, I don't care one way or the other (if the shroud is authentic or not) what I do care about is getting to the truth. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Final Word Jesus had nothing to do with this popular forgery any more than he was responsible for the millions of slivers of the true cross hawked by TV evangelists everywhere. Recognizing the shroud is a hoax in no way demeans or undermines the story of Jesus. I ran across this responding to a Facebook post regarding the shroud, surprised folks are still defending this forged relic. |
|||||||||||||||
|
jonheck 01-Jan-25, 02:50 |
lord_shiva |
|||||||||||||||
|
Jon 02:50 You hit it square on the head there, mate! a) I have come across the same attitude in Protestant circles talking about 'the power of prayer' as well as peasant Catholicism talk about holy relics; there seems to be the idea that the more idiotic the position, the 'stronger' the faith must be to stick to it. As though being irrational is virtuous! In fact, such belief that the believer's 'faith' can change things is theologically flawed in several different ways that I won't go into here. (But if anyone wants to explore further, just say so.) b) and 'keeping the Big Guy happy' by assenting to the absurd because you are told to is not a Christian concept, but a pagan one. The Bible makes it clear that God is 'kept happy' by showing mercy, acting justly, and maintaining humility. Being a fool does not feature on the list. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Bob A superb closure, mate. Tell me more. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Lord Shiva 22:07 The Carbon dating results of the shroud of Turin were indeed accurate. But the sample was taken from an area that had been repaired during the medieval area. The original dating results... From each lab The three uncalibrated radiocarbon dating results for the Shroud of Turin from the 1988 tests were: Tucson (Arizona): 646 ± 31 years Oxford: 750 ± 30 years Zürich: 676 ± 24 years These results correspond to a calibrated range of 1260–1390 CE with 95% the oldest surviving Hungarian and Uralic text (1192-1195). The Codex includes liturgical texts, laws, music, and illustrations, notably one depicting Jesus' burial and resurrection. This image has been linked to the Shroud of Turin due to similarities such as a herringbone pattern. en.m.wikipedia.org THE DATE OF THE ... Manuscript is well beyond and much older that the carbon 14 results given. How do you explain that? In 2019, Italian scientist Liberato De Caro used Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) to analyze the cellulose in the Shroud's fibers. This method suggested the Shroud dates to around 2,000 years ago, The new dating results discussion. catholicweekly.com.au www.shroud.com phys.org Q) is there evidence that the Shroud of Turin has been repaired during the medieval time period? The answer is yes. Yes, there is evidence suggesting the Shroud of Turin may have been repaired during medieval times, potentially affecting the 1988 carbon dating results: 1) Medieval Patch Theory: Researchers Joseph Marino and M. Sue Benford proposed that the sample used for radiocarbon dating included a medieval patch woven into the original fabric. This theory is supported by observations of different fibers and stitching techniques in the sample area. 2) Chemical Analysis: Chemist Raymond Rogers found chemical differences between the radiocarbon sample and other parts of the Shroud, including cotton fibers and dye, indicating possible repairs. 3) Historical Repairs: Documented repairs occurred after the 1532 fire, and earlier undocumented repairs are hypothesized based on stitching patterns and discolorations. en.m.wikipedia.org www.britannica.com The following is a download PDF www.shroud.com a chemist from the STURP team, later found chemical differences in the tested sample, suggesting it contained cotton fibers and dyes not present in the main body of the Shroud. Now I'm going to reiterate that It doesn't matter to me if the shroud is authentic or not. What matters to me is the truth. I'll spend all this time reposting evidence that I have posted several times before to the same people. That got infored the first time so I guess this time won't be any different. And all that data will be countered with pure conjecture and imaginative opinion like last time. By just speaking the words... Oh it's some knights Templar grand dragon being burnt or some statue draped with a cloth. |
|||||||||||||||
|
The individual date ranges 1) Tucson (Arizona): 646 ± 31 years BP, corresponding to a calibrated range of AD 1262–1312 and 1353–1384 (95% confidence) 2) Oxford: 750 ± 30 years BP, corresponding to a calibrated range of AD 1250–1284 and 1304–1361 (95% confidence) 3) Zürich: 676 ± 24 years BP, corresponding to a calibrated range of AD 1273–1288 (68% confidence) or AD 1262–1312 and 1353–1384 (95% confidence) www.shroud.com These results were combined to yield the overall range of AD 1260–1390. The variation of dates... It is not unusual for radiocarbon dating results from the same sample to show some variability due to factors such as laboratory-specific procedures, calibration differences, and statistical uncertainties. However, the variation in the Shroud of Turin's dates has been noted as significant. Statistical analyses suggest inter-laboratory heterogeneity and spatial variation in radiocarbon ages across subsamples, possibly caused by contaminants or uneven cleaning236. These discrepancies have raised questions about the reliability of the 1988 dating and whether external factors, like environmental contamination or neutron radiation, may have influenced the result. A PDF download.... philarchive.org pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov The Hungarian manuscript is dated at (1192-1195). Well outside the plus/minus of each test. |
|||||||||||||||
|
jonheck 01-Jan-25, 08:53 |
Has that image been challenged as not being representative of the Jesus described in the bible? Would it have been the favored image of the Christian relics seeking white Crusaders? Miraculously they managed to find plenty of um, despite lacking knowledge of such things, the means for conducting such a quest, and the passing of over a thousand years. Some were the products of highly motivated but misplaced faith, and others the products of forgers with varying motives including financial gain, fame, and salvation. The shroud is a fake, a cleaver one, and most likely among the manufactured variety. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Mo 07:01 You asked for it! This is from Amos 5:21-24 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!" |
|||||||||||||||
|
Apatzer 7:39 That claim was disputed in the account I read. The repair was obvious. Moreover the weave of the cloth, herringbone, was not known in ancient Judea, where linen shrouds discovered more recently dating back to that same time period used the plain weave. Finally, in the account I read, the fibers were very carefully washed and prepared to remove any particles of soot, ash, or residues from oil lamps or other sources of carbon rich contamination that might throw off the age measurements. They wished to ensure only original fibers were included, and the folks authorizing the test hoped for verification, not evidence of forgery, so were careful and considered in their selection of the tiny section submitted for dating. If the test was repeated on a different portion of the cloth and revealed a far more ancient age, I would happily accept that result and agree the repair had been so marvelously executed it fooled the original testers. I have no stake in the age of the cloth, other than it doesn’t precede the agriculture of linen. I would have issue with a 20,000 year carbon date, and flat out reject a 200,000 year carbon date for obvious reasons. So far as I’m concerned it could just as easily be 2000 years old as 900. Either way it is plenty old. And neither way proves it touched the face of Jesus, as you yourself have noted. Jesus was one of several notable figures who perished in the first century CE Judea. |
|||||||||||||||
|
1. The chemist from the STURP team, later found chemical differences in the tested sample, suggesting it contained cotton fibers and dyes not present in the main body of the Shroud. You Also have to remember that Joseph of Arimathea, a "wealthy" disciple of Jesus and a member of the Jewish council, requested Jesus' body from Pontius Pilate after the crucifixion. Pilate granted permission, and Joseph, assisted by Nicodemus, (also wealthy) took the body, wrapped it in linen with spices, and placed it in a new tomb he owned, sealed with a heavy stone. It would not be out of the realm of possibility given who they knew him to be. That they would've done everything to make sure that he had the best possible preparation. 3-to-1 herringbone twill of the Shroud suggests it could have been crafted with advanced weaving techniques available around the time of Christ or later. Those techniques were uncommon, but they existed prior to the 2 st century. I have no doubt that the fibers were washed very well. If the sample came from material that was used to repair the shroud at a later time. It doesn't matter how well you wash them. This also explains the unusual discrepancy in the variance of the 3 dating results as each team of tester's wouldn't have the same amount of repaired fiber's. If the shroud was one cloth cut and weaved. The variance wouldn't be nearly that much. What did you think of the X-ray test? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Shroud An analysis of the pigments? Done, but the results are 'contested'. OK, so exactly what is the basis for the two sides? A simple 'I disagree' is not a valid argument. The carbon dates were taken from a repair? Then let's agree on a few fibres that are agreed by all to be original, and date them. No progress. The bloodstains from the wounds? let's test them, even do a DNA analysis! Again, no progress. The burden of providing evidence is on those who assert it is genuine, and particularly those who profit from it via the pilgrimage trade. Why are the custodians not busting their guts to prove it is ancient, and that the bloodstains are indeed blood, and even that the DNA is of a type common in the Near Middle East 2,000 years ago? But this is not happening. Why not? I can think of one reason; that these tests HAVE been done by the owners/custodians, so they know what would be discovered. Meanwhile, there are some obvious reasons to doubt. The first is that the image is proportioned as a projection from a three-dimensional object onto a plane, like a photograph. Here is a simple test you can try at home in complete safety:- 1. Get a large sheet of butcher's paper. 2. If you have long hair, pull it back so it falls behind your ears, as it would if you were laying on a grave bench. Smear some food colouring on your face, ears and the back of your shoulders. 3. Wrap the paper from your chin up over the top of your head and down onto your shoulders, so the colouring on your face and the back of your neck are transferred onto the paper. Then wrap the sides around your cheeks so the colour on your ears also registers. 4. Unwrap yourself and look at the image on the paper. Compare to the image on the Shroud. You will note the following differences:- a) The Shroud's ears are not visible. Instead, the hair falls as though the subject is upright, not laying on its back. What sort of hair falls like that? b) The distance between the centres of the ears on the 'wraparound' sheet should be about one and a half times to distance from chin to top of forehead, measured on the flat projection of the shroud. Put a sheet of plastic over your print-out of the shroud's face and draw the ears onto it at this separation. c) The top of the head (front view) and the top of the head (back view) almost touch each other. So how long was the skull between these two? Just from the metrics of the shroud itself, it is clear that the proportions do NOT represent a body-wrap. The images are vertical projections put against each other, such as an artist would do to impress pilgrims. A more realistic portrayal (which could have been done quite easily) would have looked distorted when folded out again (as in your experiment with the paper), and would not have attracted the devotion of the pilgrims. "Give then what they expect!" |
|||||||||||||||
|
bobspringett Pigment The image wasn't made by pigmentation as we know it. The markings on the Shroud of Turin, particularly the blood-like stains, have been a subject of debate. Some researchers suggest they are composed of actual blood, including heme derivatives and bile pigments, as supported by chemical tests and spectroscopy. Others, like Walter McCrone, argue the stains are painted using pigments like red ochre in a collagen medium. However, most studies found no evidence of pigments or dyes forming the body image, which appears to result from cellulose discoloration rather than applied materialsm DNA analysis of the blood. , the blood on the Shroud of Turin has been analyzed for DNA. Studies have identified human DNA, including Y chromosome markers, confirming the blood came from a male. DNA fragments of genes like beta-globin and amelogenin (X and Y) were detected, but contamination from multiple sources complicates conclusions. Mitochondrial DNA analysis revealed sequences from diverse ethnic origins, suggesting handling over centuries. However, the degraded and mixed nature of the DNA limits definitive results about its origin. The image... www.bbc.com If it is a medieval forgery, the artist would have had to paint it in a photagrfic negative. Hundreds of years before photography existed. And that still doesn't explain how an accurate depiction of the shroud of Turin made it's way into a Hungarian prayer manuscript that decades older than the variance of any of the three dating results. Some of the things you have suggested have not been performed actually have been performed. And are easily verifiable and available. My other consideration is, even after all of the scientific scrutiny. It hasn't been ruled out or authenticated either way. The shroud is consistent with having been placed over a body. buildingcatholicculture.com You would think that a forgery would be easy to prove. |
|||||||||||||||
|
The image hypothesis Another unique characteristic. The image on the Shroud of Turin is believed to be only 2 microns deep. This extremely shallow depth indicates that the coloration is superficial, affecting only the primary wall cell of the linen fibers, which is about 0.2 microns thick. This depth suggests that the image was formed through a unique process, likely involving a brief burst of energy or radiation rather than traditional artistic methods. How is someone going to paint the image in a negative and it only be .2 microns? You can't control fluids or pigmentation like that. The fabric would have absorbed it If the image on the Shroud of Turin were created using paint or dye, the thickness would typically range from 10 to 200 microns. For instance, single coats of paint can be around 11 to 25 microns thick, while multiple layers can accumulate significantly more thickness, often exceeding 60 microns depending on the application method and type of paint used. www.sci.news |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz 15:17 <However, most studies found no evidence of pigments or dyes forming the body image, which appears to result from cellulose discoloration rather than applied materials> 'cellulose discolouration' is itself a chemical reaction. What exact reaction has been detected, and triggered such a reaction in the pattern observed rather than in splotches? <an accurate depiction of the shroud of Turin made it's way into a Hungarian prayer manuscript that decades older than the variance> People can see 'accurate depictions' all over the place if they want to find them. For example, a novella first published in 1898 featured a ship called 'Titan', described as the longest and fastest ship in the world and considered unsinkable. It sinks in the North Atlantic after striking an iceberg. The 'Titanic' didn't sink until 1912. The link to 'catholic culture' was largely speculative, but it agreed with my objections at one point. It agreed that the image is NOT of a man laying flat, but as standing. Nor does it account for the negligible front-to-back depth of the skull, nor the absence of an imprint from the ears. It also agrees that the shroud was flat at the moment the image was impressed (however it was impressed). So a shroud that had wrapped a body somehow reverted to being a flat fold-over when the body was set vertically. That doesn't usually happen to a shroud used to bind a body; the shroud is usually wrapped around by other cloths to hold it against the skin. This 'explanation' looks like a re-creation designed to fit evidence to answer a few problematic points rather than being driven by that evidence, and simply ignores considerations that don't fit. Which is fine if simple devotional purposes are in mind, but it's not fine if it is an attempt at a forensic investigation. <My other consideration is, even after all of the scientific scrutiny. It hasn't been ruled out or authenticated either way.> 'Scientific scrutiny' has been limited to what the custodians will allow. Authenticity hasn't been 'ruled out', but that can be said of any wacko theory as well as many more reasonable ones. Just as the existence of a secret moon base hasn't been ruled out, but until there is substantial positive evidence FOR, that means nothing. <The shroud is consistent with having been placed over a body.> For the reasons I gave, it is NOT 'consistent with having been placed over a body'. No explanation to overturn that has been offered. <You would think that a forgery would be easy to prove.> Yes, it WOULD be easy to prove, if the examiners had free access to examine the evidence. Not so easy if the only the tests allowed are those dictated by the custodians. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz 15:36 Thanks again for that additional theory. Note again that it is a theory, with no evidence to support it except that it 'explains' the discolouration. But does it? Look at the areas either side of the nose. Using the processed image for convenience, the cloth along the ridge of the nose is bright and either side is much darker, giving a clear representation that the skin there is not in contact. But is this how such a burst of discolourising radiation would affect the cloth? The intensity of photonic radiation from a point source drops away quickly with distance, but not from a planar source such as a wide expanse of source relative to the distance to the detector. The total flux of radiation onto the cloth in front of the cheeks would be the same as impinging on that at the tip of the nose. Yes, the cloth is further from the skin, but much more skin would be in direct line-of-sight to any one point on the cloth. Do the maths and it makes no difference. The whole face would be effectively a uniform blur. The only exception would be for a radiation source that drops off much more quickly than inverse-square, such as the strong and the weak nuclear forces which have such short ranges that they would have no discernible effect outside atomic nuclei. So if some 'radiation' is the cause, then it is a form of radiation unknown to current physics. I would suggest that if the discolouration was caused by the body, then it is more likely to be through some chemical effect seeping slowly through the cloth such that parts of the cloth not in contact were less exposed for less time. But that should leave a chemical signature. It also requires the body to have been vertical for some that long period of time and NOT to have been wrapped by outer cloths (to account for the hair and no ears), which undercuts the whole hypothesis of a rapid imprint at a 'resurrection moment'. But if perchance some explanation for the shroud being a genuine first-century item, that still doesn't identify the wrapped body as Jesus. It only shows that some man was wrapped for burial, a common enough occurrence in those days. We already know that happened to Jesus. So what is gained? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Sample The sample argument is very useful to those who want the original cloth to be older. In the original work up and determination of from where to take the tiny sample, subsequent repair was considered and discarded. I am simply convinced the people who collected the sample got it right the first time. We could continue sampling until the thing is entirely smoked, but ANY 900 year old linen is valuable, whether the myths around it are true or not. Granted, the fame of the shroud adds to its value, more than a banana duct taped to a wall. If they burn another sample, and it test dates to 1100, folks will just insist that one came from another repair too. I don’t buy the repair argument. I am sure it WAS repaired, and more carefully than the repair of any other venerable object. So carefully the testers couldn’t detect it? Then too bad. The way it works for me is that I accept the results, good, bad, or indifferent. If the results contradict theory, like some JWST appear to do, I wait for the theory to catch up. For JWST the results don’t really contradict HIBB, they just reveal structure earlier than we thought. I’m not convinced the flaw is with the theory so much as it is with how we thought the theory worked. I just don’t perceive that big of a discrepancy between COBE, WMAP (which closely agreed) and JWST, the latter of which only provides some anomalous results. Now with the shroud, we have three hard dates. Yes, we would be happier if there was better overlap. From Wiki: The discovery of dyed flax fibers in a cave in Southern Caucasus, West Asia (modern day country, Georgia) dated to 36,000 years ago suggests that ancient people used wild flax fibers to create linen-like fabrics from an early date. So I assumed linen would not predate agriculture, which I thought was twenty thousand years. Here we have evidence for 40,000 years, though it is possible they were dying wild fiber instead of growing and harvesting it themselves. Today we wear a shirt once and instead of bothering to wash it we simply throw it away. Some who recycle might baste a turkey with it or cut it up for oil and dust rags first. But no one thinks twice about tossing clothes riddled with blood splatter and bullet holes from a local school shooting, or because it’s just the wrong shade of mauve to match the MAGA hat. But in the old days cloth was passed down to the poor, and they sewed it into oblivion. No miles and miles of Fresh Kills landfills are known from that era. Though I guess to be fair we have far more of the works of Sapphos of Lesbos thanks to dump materials than we did even in 1980. And there is awesome work being done on a library of scrolls recovered from Herculaneum, where Caesar’s uncle had a villa. Wiki points out Herringbone was found all over creation by Christ’s time. Though the plain weave shroud I mentioned was for a well respected priest. I’m not sure the Turin weave employs the same 2:2 pattern used in the first century. Wiki: A pair of woolen leggings found in the permafrost of the Italian-Austrian Alps have a 2:2 herringbone weave, dating to 800 to 500 BC. A dark blue cloth with a 2:2 herringbone weave was found at Murabba'at Cave in Israel, from the Roman period. A textile with a 2:2 herringbone weave was found at Pompeii, from 79 AD. An illustration of a cloth having a herringbone weave from Antinoöpolis in Greece from 130 AD. The Falkirk Tartan, a wool 2:2 herringbone tartan found at Vindolanda in England from around 240 AD. So I’m willing to drop the weave argument. Maybe they used a special weave for Jesus. I don’t regard it as a solid argument against because these examples are too few to judge. But I do find the carbon dates absolutely compelling. That settles it for me, at least until these same three labs or an equally reputable lot redo tests on another sample, as Bob suggests. We have our answer. The X-ray test is interesting but I don’t regard it as as reliable. This is of course just my opinion based on what I’ve read, the most compelling articles were not online so I cannot provide links. The testers would have been delighted by first century results. Twelfth century dates were a big disappointment to all of us. While a first century carbon date still wouldn’t prove Jesus face planted the shroud, it would certainly have been a far more interesting find. |
|||||||||||||||
|
There are enough slivers of the true cross to build several thousand complete crosses. I myself have not yet purchased one. Maybe the Hungarian was writing about a different shroud forgery. Surely Teutonic knights weren’t the first to think of raising money for a military campaign selling holy relics to the gullible. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Weave It is easier to do herringbone on wool, instead of less pliable linen. Neither of these rule out a first century linen shroud manufacture. medievalshroud.com And also this: theshroudofturin.blogspot.com So while herringbone was used on wool and silk, this particular weave wasn’t used on linen, that we have ever shown, and appears mathematically unequivocal to have been woven on a type of four shuttle loom also unknown in the first century. |
|||||||||||||||
|
bobspringett Good question, The discoloration on the Shroud of Turin is attributed to a dehydration-oxidation chemical reaction affecting the cellulose fibers. This reaction alters single electron bonds in carbon atoms to double bonds, causing molecular vibrations that reflect light differently, giving the appearance of discoloration. The process is extremely localized, affecting only the outermost 0.2 micrometers of the fibers, and is consistent across the image rather than forming random splotches. Hypotheses suggest this reaction could have been triggered by an intense burst of ultraviolet radiation or other energy sources. Sources; This is a file download: 0201.nccdn.net As for forensic analysis: the Shroud of Turin has undergone extensive forensic examination. Studies have analyzed its bloodstains, anatomical details, and chemical composition. Forensic pathologists have noted that the bloodstains align with injuries described in the Gospels, including scourging and crucifixion. Even with access being limited (The Shroud remains one of the most scrutinized relics in history) those two assessments can't both be correct. There are discrepancies (disagreements) on the blood splatter analysis. As for the coincidence between the Titan and the Titanic, which was an odd coincidence. However the two situations are not comparable. Because there is way more to the similarities of the illustration, It does include unique features that are only attributed to the shroud. www.raydowning.com I will have to continue my replies to you and Lord Shiva some time tomorrow. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
