Posted on 01/26/2005 10:37:01 PM PST by neverdem
The Shroud of Turin is much older than the medieval date that modern science has affixed to it and could be old enough to have been the burial wrapping of Jesus, a new analysis concludes.
Since 1988, most scientists have confidently concluded that it was the work of a medieval artist, because carbon dating had placed the production of the fabric between 1260 and 1390.
In an article this month in the journal Thermochimica Acta, Dr. Raymond N. Rogers, a chemist retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, said the carbon dating test was valid but that the piece tested was about the size of a postage stamp and came from a portion that had been patched.
"We're darned sure that part of the cloth was not original Shroud of Turin cloth," he said, adding that threads from the main part of the shroud were pure linen, which is spun from flax.
The threads in the patched portion contained cotton as well and had been dyed to match.
From other tests, he estimated that the shroud was between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.
:-)
en arch hn o ihsous kai o logos hn meta ton ihsous kai qeos hn o ihsous
:-)
Thou hast said it : )
>> I'm sorry I interfered with your belief that this fraud hanky is holy and that it's remotely likely that it wiped God's face. I can understand being interested in the provenance of an historical object. However, this is not about that. It's about tangible proof of an intangible deity. You aren't going to get it, no matter how much fake science you buy. You still have to believe. A fraud hanky isn't going to make it more or less likely that Jesus was God's son. You still have to have faith, whether there's a holy hanky or not. I have faith in the carbon dating that says this wasn't around then, and I don't buy the 'they took the wrong part of the shroud' b.s. this guy is shilling. What's next--they didn't take enough? They needed to take the right corner instead? I don't think there will ever be enough proof for him...and worse, it doesn't matter if there is proof, because no matter what power is imagined in relics, faith is the real miracle worker. <<
You want tangible proof? God fills the universe with tangible proof of his existence. To this very day, though Satan whispers into Man's ear, "Did he really tell you that?" clouding reason with nonsense. Science merely proves the consistency of God, demonstrating transcendence, and Satan uses it to tempt us lies that somehow consistency is contradictory to divine authorship, while science cannot speak one word to the phenomenon of consciousness.
You misunderstand faith abysmally. Faith isn't clinging to what is irrational; God gave us reason that we might know him; this neo-gnosticism which pits reason against faith is the greatest evil of this millennium. Faith isn't weaker than knowledge, faith is greater than knowledge; it is believing in transcendence, when chasing after the immediate is so much easier. Faith is submitting to the truth, rather than clinging to the illusions of what you want the world to be.
But suppose there are people whose faith was initiated by their interest in the shroud. Maybe it got them going to church where they learned deeper truths. So what is your motivation? One moment you profess you couldn't care, the next you're venting rage all over the place. You write as if people are only allowed to be inspired to faith by what YOU deem appropriate. As if it's not like Jesus to help people's faith by working a miracle. Can you possibly fathom how silly the Pharisees would have seemed if they had said, "Your faith in God shouldn't be based on some miracles some crackpot is doing."
check the 'play' out.......thread
You make good points. Long before I even knew what the Shroud was I had faith in the Resurrection. The Shroud has not altered my faith but it has made it richer because I think about it. If the Shroud were proven a hoax (which I seriously doubt will happen) it would have no effect on my faith. I would be disappointed.
I do know of people who have been led to the church or back to church because of the Shroud. And when I can, I encourage them not to rely on it. It is a pointer. Faith is a gift from God that comes to people in many different ways: the Gospels, history, personal experience, something akin to vision, whatever. And God gives us resources, seemingly new ones in every generation. I think in our generation the variety of traditions is one of those gifts.
We can use God's faith inspiring gifts and we can share them with others. I am a Shroud nut. I know that. But it is not my life's calling to convince anyone because of the Shroud. I simply love it; but moreso I love the science and history that surrounds it.
I'm not about to make a Pittsburgh fan into a Patriots fan by telling him which team is better. I'm not going to convince you that Budweiser is the best beer or that chili should be made with beans. I'm not going to convince a hardened skeptic that the Shroud is real. Even so I'll go to great lengths to argue that it is. It's my thing and I'm thrilled that it fits in nicely with my faith -- not some proof of anything but nonetheless thrilling.
Look, I moved from being skeptical about the Shroud to being a believer. It didn't happen overnight. It took me five years of study.
Dan
I think that most who believe in the shroud don't use it as their bases of belief, but that in the fact that they do have a deep belief in God which allows the possibility for the shroud to exist in the first place.
In other words I don't believe in God because of the Shroud, but I believe that the Shroud could be because of God.
If we dismiss it and say it isn't possible, aren't we putting limitations on God?
Blessings to you.
Jay
No crackpot is doing miracles. Some crackpots are claiming a hanky that some con man hawked to the church is the shroud of the son of God. Another crackpot is claiming that the one test of the shroud that was done, which is probably the ONLY test that will ever be done, was wrong because someone managed to find the "wrong threads."
Somehow that's supposed to make this fake relic special enough to care about it. I can understand caring about it as an historic relic, because it's an interesting story. My apologies to ditter for including him in the group that thinks it's some sort of holy hanky. The hanky won't prove the divinity of Christ. And it's not a hanky that even has any reliable history of doing anything miraculous of its own. You can believe what you want (billions do) but that hanky is a fake and the only scientific proof you're ever gonna get says so.
"There was never a time when the Son did not exist. But there was certainly a time that Jesus did not exist. You cannot claim otherwise without calling the Incarnation a sham."
Seem to be contradicting your own earlier posts here. Son/Jesus/Word. Same thing. Different Form. So we agree?
"A great history of the Mandylion/Shroud of Turin is available here: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/alisonross/mandyl.html
I think that they are definetely the same. The Mandylion is the Shroud of Turin and this page does an excellent job of documenting its history. It is the image of Christ. Awesome!"
The site you link is HORRIBLE. Just the short paragraphs about the Mandylion are so replete with basic historical inaccuracies that they shed doubt about everything else wriutten there.
For instance, the Hagia Sophia is in Constantinople, not in Edessa as the blogger states. This is an error on the order of saying that the Washington Monument is in Peoria instead of in Washington, DC!
Then, he has the date of the fall of Constantinople off by THREE CENTURIES, and then has it captured by the Turks TWICE (!) (It only fell once - and it was in the 1400s - you can look it up).
Perhaps the blogger whose site you linked MEANT well, but given the above basic inaccuracies, I would not quote anything else from there.
There are many other more credible sites discussing the Mandylion. I think that Orthodox Scholars have also discussed it at some length - a much better source. If I had time I'd Google and re-find them for you.
But the one you linked to is not one of them.
Well Mr. Doubting Thomas, how many men would have 700 wives and 300 concubines, as did King Solomon? Good grief, the way we think! And, how old was Sarah when she had her first child? Anything is possible with God.
And as to your final argument, "If we dismiss it and say it isn't possible, aren't we putting limitations on God?" that's just silly. You're telling me I better believe in anything, because with God, all things are possible? I don't believe in pigs that fly or poop that smells like daffodils, either. I don't see a lot of outcry for me to believe in that fantastic stuff because I can't limit God. If God was going to be peeved that I don't buy the shroud b.s., I'm sure He'd have provided more scientific backup and biblical guidance to make me believe in a holy hanky. He didn't. It's a fraud.
>> Well Mr. Doubting Thomas, how many men would have 700 wives and 300 concubines, as did King Solomon? Good grief, the way we think! And, how old was Sarah when she had her first child? Anything is possible with God.<<
Yes, and during the lifetime of Methusaleh, after Noah was born, God expressly stated that Man would not live past 120 years old. I'm not doubting anything other than that I think you inadverdantly switched 8000 years ago to 8000 BC. Not that it's a big deal, but check your sources.
grow up
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.