Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Or perhaps it is a hobby. I can explain to you why scientists know that the shroud is a hoax. The C14 dating was a slam dunk.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Scientific Tour of the Shroud of Turin.
- Thread starter John D. Brey
- Start date
Mel B
Member
I'm assuming he or she was being polite to the new guy.
siti
Well-Known Member
Yes. Do let us know when you have figured out the difference.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
C14 dating, under the circumstances, is like dating Comey's sister and thus being sure President Trump colluded. Carbon dating of the Shroud is like the Steele dossier. Those who think they already know the truth have many ways to prove what they already know.
John
No he has not and it is likely he never will
Your ideology colors your beliefs and ignoring science and evidence.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
siti
Well-Known Member
Yes again! You do seem to have a knack of embedding comments one could hardy disagree with in otherwise...er...other kinds of comment. I'm still trying to get over the old difference between science and toilet paper thing...and then you come out with this pearl.
Anyway, the Shroud of Toilet...oops...I mean Turin...is a piece of cloth with chemicals (perhaps paints or pigments that were put there deliberately - but whatever) on it - and chemical reactions cause colour changes over time so don't read too much into the colour of the blood marks thing. And C14 dating has been done a few times and it has never been shown to be more than about 700 or so years old. The urine...oops...I mean Turin Shroud is definitely a medieval fake. Anyway, if you really believe you have evidence that proves otherwise perhaps you should write a toilet paper...oops...I mean science paper on it - I'm sure we'll be able to flush out the truth eventually.
Sounds like your problem, and inability to consider science, because you already know the truth based on faith.
No there is not a science of grammar, but you qualify for the resident anal grammarian.
siti
Well-Known Member
Geez - that somehow fits really well with my post...
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
Approximately 700 years ago, it was in a large fire such that it acquired carbon and ash from that fire. Numerous experts say that because of that fire, the carbon dating can't be definitive. Too convenient, perhaps, but true nonetheless.
John
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
. . . Not, perhaps, in the deep woods of Tennessee where the word "sister" and "wife" are interchangeable irregardless (and that's a word there too) of what da darned lexiocogorapher thanks is good un right. Wees don't need no stanking dictonary da tell us wat you long-headed folk thinks is proper.
John
siti
Well-Known Member
References please. You can write them on the back of a sheet of toilet paper if you like.
Why Some Have Serious Doubts
A number of serious Bible scholars doubt its authenticity because of the Scriptural record. The Scriptures suggest conditions during Jesus’ burial that were contrary to what is seen on the shroud. For the shroud to be authentic, two conditions must have existed when the image was formed: (1) the body could not have been washed, for the bloodstains are clearly visible, and (2) the linen cloth would have to have been laid loosely over the body, not pressed against it. “The figures [on the shroud] had not been produced by mere contact of the linen with human flesh,” affirms shroud backer Edward Wuenschel. He adds: “Such contact would have caused considerable distortion, and there is little or no distortion in the figures on this shroud.”
The accounts of Jesus’ burial by Matthew (27:59, 60), Mark (15:46) and Luke (23:53) are quite brief. But they all say that the body was “wrapped” in “fine linen.” Was the body so quickly prepared that it was not first washed? Such treatment by Jews would be highly unusual. Why? Contemporary Jewish historian Josephus says that, unlike some of their enemies, “the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men.”
The apostle John, who was an eyewitness, fills in some additional details confirming that “much care” was taken with Jesus’ body before it was buried. He reports:
“He [Joseph of Arimathea] came and took his body away. Nicodemus also . . . came bringing a roll of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds of it. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it up with bandages with the spices, just the way the Jews have the custom of preparing for burial.”—John 19:38-40.
What was the “custom” of the Jews in preparing for burial? Virtually the only contemporary evidence is in the Greek Scriptures. There it shows that the body was first washed and then oils and spices were used to anoint it. (Acts 9:37; Matt. 26:12) The fact that Joseph and Nicodemus made use of the myrrh, aloes and bandages and “bound up” the body indicates that they had at least begun the customary Jewish preparation of the dead.
Ancient Jewish non-Biblical writings also indicate that it was their custom to wash the body and to use spices, but not to preserve or embalm the body as some claim; rather, as the Talmud says, “The spices are to remove the bad smell.” Such preparation of the corpse was not forbidden even on the Sabbath; as the Mishnah (2nd century C.E.) says: “They may make ready [on the Sabbath] all that is needful for the dead, and anoint it and wash it.”—Shabbath 23:5.
That the two men took steps to prepare the body for burial is also indicated by what was found in the empty tomb after Jesus’ resurrection. John tells us:
“He [Peter] viewed the bandages lying, also the cloth that had been upon his head not lying with the bandages but separately rolled up in one place.” (John 20:6, 7)
There is no mention of the “fine linen” (Greek: sindón), but reference is made to “bandages” (Greek: othónia) and a “cloth that had been on his head” (Greek: soudárion). It may be that the “fine linen” was torn up into strips, providing the “bandages.” All of these had to be wrapped around the body. However, if this is true, the bandages would hold the shroud close to the body and cause a “contact print” and not allow the projected image found on the shroud. If the bandages were under the shroud, they would likewise distort the image.
The fact that a separate piece of cloth is mentioned as being “upon his head” shows that a different piece covered his head, whereas the shroud clearly shows the image of the head on the same cloth that covered the body. However, some try to contend that this headcloth is actually the shroud. Yet this Greek word is variously translated as “napkin” (AV) or “handkerchief” (Catholic Confraternity Version), and at Luke 19:20 it is applied to a piece of cloth in which one keeps money. How could this be identified with a 14-foot (4.3-m) shroud! Others feel that this headcloth was a chin strap to hold the mouth of the corpse in place. If so, that would mean the shroud is not mentioned by John as being in the empty tomb. Certainly, since he details the “bandages” and the ‘headcloth,’ would it not seem likely he would have mentioned the “fine linen” or shroud, if it had been there?
The Scriptural account suggests that the body was washed and bound with myrrh and aloes according to the Jewish custom. All was completed except the anointing with oil and spices,* which the women intended to do the following Sunday morning. (Luke 23:55, 56; Mark 16:1) Such preparations would have made impossible the present image on the shroud. Concerning the Bible account, shroud supporter Rodney Hoare admits:
“This section in St. John has for years been the main argument in the attack on the authenticity of the Shroud, and a very powerful argument it is.”—The Testimony of the Shroud, p. 120.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101980166?q=shroud+turin&p=par
A number of serious Bible scholars doubt its authenticity because of the Scriptural record. The Scriptures suggest conditions during Jesus’ burial that were contrary to what is seen on the shroud. For the shroud to be authentic, two conditions must have existed when the image was formed: (1) the body could not have been washed, for the bloodstains are clearly visible, and (2) the linen cloth would have to have been laid loosely over the body, not pressed against it. “The figures [on the shroud] had not been produced by mere contact of the linen with human flesh,” affirms shroud backer Edward Wuenschel. He adds: “Such contact would have caused considerable distortion, and there is little or no distortion in the figures on this shroud.”
The accounts of Jesus’ burial by Matthew (27:59, 60), Mark (15:46) and Luke (23:53) are quite brief. But they all say that the body was “wrapped” in “fine linen.” Was the body so quickly prepared that it was not first washed? Such treatment by Jews would be highly unusual. Why? Contemporary Jewish historian Josephus says that, unlike some of their enemies, “the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men.”
The apostle John, who was an eyewitness, fills in some additional details confirming that “much care” was taken with Jesus’ body before it was buried. He reports:
“He [Joseph of Arimathea] came and took his body away. Nicodemus also . . . came bringing a roll of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds of it. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it up with bandages with the spices, just the way the Jews have the custom of preparing for burial.”—John 19:38-40.
What was the “custom” of the Jews in preparing for burial? Virtually the only contemporary evidence is in the Greek Scriptures. There it shows that the body was first washed and then oils and spices were used to anoint it. (Acts 9:37; Matt. 26:12) The fact that Joseph and Nicodemus made use of the myrrh, aloes and bandages and “bound up” the body indicates that they had at least begun the customary Jewish preparation of the dead.
Ancient Jewish non-Biblical writings also indicate that it was their custom to wash the body and to use spices, but not to preserve or embalm the body as some claim; rather, as the Talmud says, “The spices are to remove the bad smell.” Such preparation of the corpse was not forbidden even on the Sabbath; as the Mishnah (2nd century C.E.) says: “They may make ready [on the Sabbath] all that is needful for the dead, and anoint it and wash it.”—Shabbath 23:5.
That the two men took steps to prepare the body for burial is also indicated by what was found in the empty tomb after Jesus’ resurrection. John tells us:
“He [Peter] viewed the bandages lying, also the cloth that had been upon his head not lying with the bandages but separately rolled up in one place.” (John 20:6, 7)
There is no mention of the “fine linen” (Greek: sindón), but reference is made to “bandages” (Greek: othónia) and a “cloth that had been on his head” (Greek: soudárion). It may be that the “fine linen” was torn up into strips, providing the “bandages.” All of these had to be wrapped around the body. However, if this is true, the bandages would hold the shroud close to the body and cause a “contact print” and not allow the projected image found on the shroud. If the bandages were under the shroud, they would likewise distort the image.
The fact that a separate piece of cloth is mentioned as being “upon his head” shows that a different piece covered his head, whereas the shroud clearly shows the image of the head on the same cloth that covered the body. However, some try to contend that this headcloth is actually the shroud. Yet this Greek word is variously translated as “napkin” (AV) or “handkerchief” (Catholic Confraternity Version), and at Luke 19:20 it is applied to a piece of cloth in which one keeps money. How could this be identified with a 14-foot (4.3-m) shroud! Others feel that this headcloth was a chin strap to hold the mouth of the corpse in place. If so, that would mean the shroud is not mentioned by John as being in the empty tomb. Certainly, since he details the “bandages” and the ‘headcloth,’ would it not seem likely he would have mentioned the “fine linen” or shroud, if it had been there?
The Scriptural account suggests that the body was washed and bound with myrrh and aloes according to the Jewish custom. All was completed except the anointing with oil and spices,* which the women intended to do the following Sunday morning. (Luke 23:55, 56; Mark 16:1) Such preparations would have made impossible the present image on the shroud. Concerning the Bible account, shroud supporter Rodney Hoare admits:
“This section in St. John has for years been the main argument in the attack on the authenticity of the Shroud, and a very powerful argument it is.”—The Testimony of the Shroud, p. 120.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101980166?q=shroud+turin&p=par
siti
Well-Known Member
Clearly the forgers of this supposed relic had not researched the Watchtower thoroughly enough - otherwise they wouldn't have made so many mistakes - like putting the "image" of his head and body on the same cloth. And obviously the rest of us - who also haven't researched the topic in the Watchtower library - couldn't possibly have serious doubts - only flippant or trivial ones.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately these two statements contradict each other since if the image was made without contact it wouldn't matter if the body was washed or not. There would still be residual blood after the washing that would make the laceration appear dark to the natural eye, light, in a negative image, and then dark again in a positive image made from the negative.
Whatever made the image made the bloodstains clearly visible. This is obvious since there are lacerations near the arms and at the breast that would not have made contact with the cloth unless it was designed as a body suit for Tom Jones and not a burial cloth for a deceased Jew.
John
. . . and I thought English was your first language.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
. . . I did a semester in deep woods blanco-ebonics. -----So be careful what you say about your sister or your wife when I'm in the vicinity.
John
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nonsense. C14 dating is very reliable under these circumstances. It was well within the ages where that tool is accurate. Why deny all sciences and yet depend on them to post here? Isn't that just a little bit hypocritical? And why is your faith so weak that you have to rely on an obvious hoax? Proving that the shroud is a hoax does not in any way at all disprove the Jesus story. It appears that you feel deep down inside that the story is false and you need some sort of artificial support to believe in it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
They are demonstrably wrong. That would require an immense gain in weight to give a false reading. Do you think the shroud tripled in weight? That was desperate grasping at straws by those of whose faith is very weak.