Shroud Of Turin

[Socrates]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Mar 31 2005, 10:31 PM'] Recently, a guy figured out a plausible explanation. He painted an image similar to that on the shroud onto a pane of glass, and put it over some brown fabric. He left the fabric in the sun, and waited a few days. After a few days, the fabric became bleached. The image was very similar to that on the shroud, and passed the 3D image test as well. With todays knowledge, the question isn't so much how as it is when. [/quote]
The problem is, the image on the shroud is nothing like a painting.

[point5]

One of the plants whose pollen was found heavily around the head area of the shroud belongs to a native plant in Jerusalem that has thorns on it!

Also the blood type found on the shroud is AB...this is also the blood type in the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. I do not think it is a mere coincidence. Only 3.6% of the population have this blood type, and it is the only blood type that can recieve all other blood types!!! Jesus recieves ALL!!!

[sweetpea316]

[QUOTE]So, whatever. Everyone disagrees. My faith doesn't hinge on a piece of cloth, even if I do believe it is the real deal. [/QUOTE]
True that! I'd never even heard of the Shroud of Turin until a few months ago actually... but from what I heard then and now, I have no reason to doubt that it is real also.

[/QUOTE]Jesus recieves ALL!!! [QUOTE]
Indeed He does! God bless.

[sweetpea316]

Blast... My quotes messed up. Oh well. Cest la vie.

[crusader1234]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 1 2005, 01:11 PM'] The problem is, the image on the shroud is nothing like a painting. [/quote]
Neither was the result of this guy's explanation. He painted onto the glass to make a shadow. Shadows don't make brushtstrokes.

[Antonius]

The Shroud is awesome, I love this discussion. I'm learning a lot.

However, does anyone know anything about St. Juan Diego's tilpa (sp?) from Our Lady of Guadalupe? I know it's supported by the Church, and I know about the people in her eyes, but anything else?

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Mar 31 2005, 10:31 PM'] Recently, a guy figured out a plausible explanation. He painted an image similar to that on the shroud onto a pane of glass, and put it over some brown fabric. He left the fabric in the sun, and waited a few days. After a few days, the fabric became bleached. The image was very similar to that on the shroud, and passed the 3D image test as well. With todays knowledge, the question isn't so much how as it is when. [/quote]
Even so, [url="http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf"]http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf[/url]

[Socrates]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Apr 1 2005, 06:10 PM'] Neither was the result of this guy's explanation. He painted onto the glass to make a shadow. Shadows don't make brushtstrokes. [/quote]
My point wasn't the absence of brushstrokes/paint on the shroud, but the amazing physical and medical accuracy of the image. The image is the negative of an actual human body, not the "shadow" of a painting.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Antonius' date='Apr 1 2005, 06:33 PM'] The Shroud is awesome, I love this discussion. I'm learning a lot.

However, does anyone know anything about St. Juan Diego's tilpa (sp?) from Our Lady of Guadalupe? I know it's supported by the Church, and I know about the people in her eyes, but anything else? [/quote]
There has recently (about a month or so ago) been a debate on this topic here. Search the archives to see arguments for and against its authenticity.

[point5]

The stars on the Juan diego Image are in the same order asronomy-wise as the were the night of the vision.

[Antonius]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 1 2005, 08:52 PM'] There has recently (about a month or so ago) been a debate on this topic here. Search the archives to see arguments for and against its authenticity. [/quote]
Thanks, Soc.

[Iacobus]

I don't think it means anything. To me the Carbon dating said it all. Carbon dating can be iffy because of a number of factors, (temp, inhibs, cats. etc) but in a short term like this (in the past 10000 years) it is a good test. The samples from being from the edges shouldn't matter. Also, the plants can be explained because nothing says plants weren't taken to the cloth nor the cloth to the mideast. If the "realness" of the Shroud is important and is the tipping point of your faith, then I am worried for your faith.

[crusader1234]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 1 2005, 08:48 PM'] My point wasn't the absence of brushstrokes/paint on the shroud, but the amazing physical and medical accuracy of the image. The image is the negative of an actual human body, not the "shadow" of a painting. [/quote]
Its not that hard to create a physically and medically accurate sihlouette. And if you reverse the image of the image created by the shadow bleaching the fabric, it also creates a negative with far more detail.

[TheWarriorPrincess]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Apr 1 2005, 11:31 PM'] I don't think it means anything. To me the Carbon dating said it all. Carbon dating can be iffy because of a number of factors, (temp, inhibs, cats. etc) but in a short term like this (in the past 10000 years) it is a good test. The samples from being from the edges shouldn't matter. Also, the plants can be explained because nothing says plants weren't taken to the cloth nor the cloth to the mideast. If the "realness" of the Shroud is important and is the tipping point of your faith, then I am worried for your faith. [/quote]
The carbon dating on the Sudarium dates it to the 7th c. A.D. Still, if you read the article I posted, you'll see that the blood stains are in the same place, which would indicate that they came from the same nose. I think it also says they are the same type. (I understand that I could very well be misunderstanding the article. Time to give it a better read.)

The Sudarium was first recorded in history in the 7th c. A.D. You have to wonder, wouldn't they have known it was new? The same logic applies to the Shroud. If it dates to the 14th c., howcome nobody said, "why is the cloth still white? Why do the blood stains look fresh?" etc.

I understand that they may have figured out a way to age the cloth. I honestly don't know what technology was available in either the 14th or 7th c. But wouldn't that aging process have been discovered by modern scientists?

Just a thought.

[point5]

Ive heard that the shroud developed a film covering from the cave/tomb it was originally kept in. The film is prevalent in burial caves in the Holy land. Apparantly the carbon dating was thrown off by this film...and they are redating it. Not sure how accurate that info is...it was on a dvd I watched on the topic.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='point5' date='Apr 2 2005, 12:56 AM'] Ive heard that the shroud developed a film covering from the cave/tomb it was originally kept in. The film is prevalent in burial caves in the Holy land. Apparantly the carbon dating was thrown off by this film...and they are redating it. Not sure how accurate that info is...it was on a dvd I watched on the topic. [/quote]
The Church is allowing for that? Last time they did it (the only time) they sent 3 samples to 3 labs, total area of the Shroud removed was 3 cm squared. I thought they were refusing further testing the required the Shroud to be removed or damaged?

I am making no effort to state how they did or did not make the Shroud. I don't know how they make Stonehedge or the Pyramids, while we have good ideas, those are big questions. I just know from when they date. If three labs, at least one was headed by a faithful Catholic, return values near 1300, I would bet it does not date to 33. If the year value was less, under 500, then I would say it was in the margin of error, but three reports near 1360 doesn't allow for that range. Thus, not knowing how it was or was not made, I know it dates from a good span after the death of Christ.

[TheWarriorPrincess]

I've also heard the theory that resurrection is an atomic process, like fusion or something, and as a result, the carbon count is off. That wouldn't explain the Sudarium though.

Still...comparing the Sudarium to the Shroud. There are a LOT of "coincidences."

BTW: This is TCW posting under my niece's account. Gotta go sign out.

[jasJis]

The latest question about the carbon dating is the fact that patches of the Shroud had been repaired over the ages, by weaving in fibers. This is a known fact. Cetain UV photographs have called into question the area the sample was taken and it is know believed that the sample contained newer fibers from patches. It's not the test or technique, but the sample itself.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Apr 2 2005, 03:11 AM'] The Church is allowing for that? Last time they did it (the only time) they sent 3 samples to 3 labs, total area of the Shroud removed was 3 cm squared. I thought they were refusing further testing the required the Shroud to be removed or damaged?

I am making no effort to state how they did or did not make the Shroud. I don't know how they make Stonehedge or the Pyramids, while we have good ideas, those are big questions. I just know from when they date. If three labs, at least one was headed by a faithful Catholic, return values near 1300, I would bet it does not date to 33. If the year value was less, under 500, then I would say it was in the margin of error, but three reports near 1360 doesn't allow for that range. Thus, not knowing how it was or was not made, I know it dates from a good span after the death of Christ. [/quote]
The pollen and weaving are from the first century and the vanillan decay dates it back then as well.
Carbon dating is not all its cracked up to be.

[crusader1234]

Yeah, carbon dating is about as reliable as reading tea leaves in this case.