Antonius Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWarriorPrincess Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
point5 Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWarriorPrincess Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Yeah, carbon dating is about as reliable as reading tea leaves in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Apr 2 2005, 12:17 AM'] 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. [/quote] The painting used to make the silloughette would have to show all that impossibly detailed and accurate detail. That's my point - the original image was not a painting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 4 2005, 03:44 PM'] The painting used to make the silloughette would have to show all that impossibly detailed and accurate detail. That's my point - the original image was not a painting. [/quote] I don't get why you're arguing this, because you have no idea what the results of the method I'm talking about were. The painted glass resulted in an equally detailed image, and I'm not going to bother debating this with you anymore because you really don't know what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Apr 4 2005, 05:46 PM'] I don't get why you're arguing this, because you have no idea what the results of the method I'm talking about were. The painted glass resulted in an equally detailed image, and I'm not going to bother debating this with you anymore because you really don't know what you're talking about. [/quote] I'm debating this for the simple reason that it is impossible for the "shadow" negative to be more anatomically detailed than the original image (painted or otherwise). It seems you are missing my point (perhaps I am not being very clear). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quagmire508 Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 I dont think that it is a paint it is pretty cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 4 2005, 07:24 PM'] I'm debating this for the simple reason that it is impossible for the "shadow" negative to be more anatomically detailed than the original image (painted or otherwise). It seems you are missing my point (perhaps I am not being very clear). [/quote] You're being perfectly clear, but you're also clearly wrong. You can't argue something you know nothing about. I don't get how this fact eludes you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now