Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Turin Shroud may be genuine after all
UPI via The Washington Times ^ | 10/9/2002 | Uwe Siemon-Netto

Posted on 10/10/2002 2:14:50 AM PDT by SteveH

Edited on 07/12/2004 3:57:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

GURAT, France, Sept. 24 (UPI) -- The Turin Shroud bearing the features of a crucified man may well be the cloth that enveloped the body of Christ, a renowned textile historian told United Press International Tuesday.

Disputing inconclusive carbon-dating tests suggesting the shroud hailed from medieval times, Swiss specialist Mechthild Flury-Lemberg said it could be almost 2,000 years old.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; godsgravesglyphs; shroud; turin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-211 next last
To: ALS
Come on, ALS, I know you want to. You got the "rag worshipping." You've got that tantalizing word "again." Any folks in particular you want to link these words to?
51 posted on 10/10/2002 8:21:23 AM PDT by j.havenfarm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: aShepard
Radiocarbon dating is not interested in the total amount of carbon, but rather the relative quantities of carbon isotopes. If the shroud was burnt, and its carbon impregnated into other portions of the shroud, that is not likely to make a significant difference in the test results...however if other cloth or wood was burnt with it, or the water was fetid or otherwise contaminated, that introduction of "new" carbon would affect the tests.
52 posted on 10/10/2002 8:23:36 AM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: All
About contamination and radiocarbon dating

Let's suppose that the Shroud of Turin as it exists now is made up of two components: a shroud dating to 35 A.D. and contaminants of very recent origin. Let's suppose the worst-case scenario, and assume that the contaminants were dumped in just before the dating. The question is, how much contamination would we need to make the Shroud look as if it were made in 1275?

Let's define Ms = mass of Shroud, M1 = original mass, M2 = Mass of contaminants. Thus:

M = M1 + M2

But if we assume a natural C14 concentration of C, and know that the half-life of C14 is 5568 years, we also know that:

C*Ms*(-727/5568) = C*M1*2^(-1967/5568) + C*M2

0.9135*Ms = 0.7828*M1 + M2

Solving for the M1 gives

M1 = 0.3983 Ms, which means that

M2 = 1.51*M1, i.e. that the amount of contaminants in the Shroud outweighs the original Shroud by a factor of one and a half.

If we posit that the contaminants date to the fire of 1532, which the Shroud survived, the contaminants must outweigh the original Shroud by a factor of almost four and a half.

'Nuff said.

53 posted on 10/10/2002 8:34:21 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lepton; sharktrager; ZULU; aShepard
Please consider #53.
54 posted on 10/10/2002 8:47:24 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: All
I wrote: C*Ms*(-727/5568)

Of course, this is supposed to be C*Ms*2^(-727/5568). I performed the calculation correctly, even if I didn't write it down correctly.

55 posted on 10/10/2002 8:55:15 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: j.havenfarm
you're closest :)
56 posted on 10/10/2002 8:58:42 AM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
If you believe that the cloth hails from the Middle Ages then you must also believe that a man looking exactly like Jesus

And their baseline for what Jesus actually looked like is...?

57 posted on 10/10/2002 9:02:29 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
And about him saying "looks exactly like Jesus"...we have no idea what Jesus looked like. I'm partial to Caravaggio's powerful version, myself.

A carpenter before power tools were invented would tend toward the burly side, methinks, and not much resemble the rather willowy traditional representations.

58 posted on 10/10/2002 9:05:02 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
A carpenter before power tools were invented would tend toward the burly side, methinks, and not much resemble the rather willowy traditional representations

Not necessarily. Poor nutrition, constant fasting, tremendous self disipline.

We don't know if this is the image of Christ, but all images of Christ dipected for centuries have been referenced to the Shroud.

59 posted on 10/10/2002 9:17:09 AM PDT by phil1750
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
And their baseline for what Jesus actually looked like is...?

The biblical description of the wounds JC received. The scourge marks, thorny crown blood spots (not typical of an ordinary crucifixion), unbroken legs (also atypical), nail holes, wound in side.

Other than that he must have had a very ordinary appearance for people of that time and place, Otherwise Judas wouldn't have needed to betray him with a kiss, he coulda just said "Go get the really tall guy with the big nose, blond hair, small ears, and a limp."

In other words, the shroud shows an image of a corpse that matches what little the Bible describes about his physical appearance. (If we were supposed to worship his image he would be described in vivid detail)...

60 posted on 10/10/2002 9:20:06 AM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Perhaps. Coulda been one of those tough wiry squirts...

61 posted on 10/10/2002 9:22:46 AM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

I Believe

62 posted on 10/10/2002 9:26:16 AM PDT by Mat_Helm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Otherwise Judas wouldn't have needed to betray him...

That's a very good point I hadn't heard before. There must have been nothing unusual about His appearance.

63 posted on 10/10/2002 10:06:00 AM PDT by Steve1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Now here's an interesting thing. You talk about Christian faith, but refer to people's beliefs (based on quite a bit of evidence) that the Shroud of Turin just might have been the cloth Jesus was buried in as "crap." You publicly denigrate others, referring to me, for example, as a "rag worshipper" simply because I find it useful to have historical evidence for faith. Not even because I necessarily believe differently than you, but just because I find that historical evidence might be a useful thing.

Isn't there something just a little tiny bit incongruous here?

64 posted on 10/10/2002 10:07:48 AM PDT by john in missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Thanks. You saved me from doing the calculations myself. This brings back memories of the nuclear chemical engineering course I took in grad school.
65 posted on 10/10/2002 10:56:05 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: john in missouri
On my part or yours?
66 posted on 10/10/2002 1:10:59 PM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
I'm with you.
67 posted on 10/10/2002 5:10:00 PM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Yeah, just you watch. Next thing you know "eternity futures" will go into the toilet, then where will you be with your nifty portfolio?
68 posted on 10/10/2002 5:11:19 PM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Your comment to me indicates that you think me ignorant of scripture. Since you have chosen to flame me based on YOUR ignorance of me, I suggest you take it back, or find yourself on the receiving end of a little flaming yourself.

And for your information, Jesus Christ, Risen Son of the Almighty God, is Lord. Not you. YOU are no authority.
69 posted on 10/10/2002 5:13:14 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Looks like you are the flamer. Calm down. Does the bible say to freak out?
70 posted on 10/10/2002 6:23:23 PM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
As an agnostic, the shroud intrigues and fascinates me. I have followed this story for many years with an open mind. St Paul said that the literal resurrection of Christ was a necessary element of Christian faith, and that has always seemed to me to be unarguably true.

If in fact Jesus were the Son of God, who rose from the dead, it is necessarily believable that His burial shroud should be divinely preserved and presented to a later age, as a logical proof of the central fact of Christianity. What more stunning evidence than the meticulous scientific study of that fact, in the age of sceptical science?

The implications of the shroud, given the uniqueness of the shroud, deserve respectful attention.

71 posted on 10/10/2002 6:40:41 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Interesting--you get called on your remark, then tell me to calm down. And you know I'm not calm, because....?

I'm interested in the shroud. So are a lot of people. You've made several remarks to me and other posters indicating that such an interest is tantamount to being anti-Christian, and you support those remarks with....? Evidence? No. Actual scripture? No.

Why don't you post on another thread, where at least you have some genuine knowledge? It would make you look better....
72 posted on 10/10/2002 7:02:19 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Because I read your last reply and you insist on calling those who refuse to worship Baal/rags, "anti-christian".
Shouldn't you be posting over in the needlework thread?
73 posted on 10/10/2002 9:47:52 PM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ALS; Admin Moderator
You know something, ALS? I can't even figure out what you're trying to say--nobody is talking about worshipping Baal/rags here--this is just an interesting thread about the Shroud of Turin.
74 posted on 10/11/2002 2:06:53 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: M. T. Cicero II
My current thinking is that it is a type of painting where a clay statue is made and then covered with paint. The cloth is layed over the statue and then made to conform to the statue with felt hammers. This accounts for the image being only on the surface and the almost photographic nature of the image.

There are several problems with this scenario... first, there is NO PAINT on the shroud. There are no pigments at all. Secondly, the blood stains are human blood, type AB... and the image does NOT exist beneath the blood stains which means the blood was placed beforethe image was created... without disturbing the blood.

75 posted on 10/11/2002 2:13:39 AM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Budge
Flury-Lemberg questioned the relevance of findings by other researchers who discovered pollen and dust traceable to the Middle Ages on the cloth.

"Of course it had such particles on it," she said, "after all, the Shroud was exhibited a great deal in those days."

This is a straw man argument... it is the wrong question and a non-sequitur.

It is NOT that there were "pollen and dust traceable to the Middle Ages on the cloth"... that is not unexpected... but rather that there were pollen and dust from the Middle EAST on the shroud... a place it could NEVER have been if it were a 13th Century forgery.

76 posted on 10/11/2002 2:19:11 AM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
"Nuff said"? Hardly.

Say the word, and I'll FReepmail you the contact info for Dr. Tom D'Muhala, the physicist who led the STURP team in '78 and has been actively involved in Shroud research since.

Tell Tom how you have it all figured out without all the facts. I'll go pop some corn.........

[HINTS: You ignore things like: from what point on the Shroud was the sample taken for carbon dating (.....the one spot the team told 'em to avoid.......); anything resembling calibration among carbon dating labs at the time of the testing, the difference between "precision" and "accuracy", etc. ]

77 posted on 10/11/2002 2:24:12 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; HiTech RedNeck; Don Joe; Young Werther; RightWhale; SMEDLEYBUTLER; mjp; M. Thatcher; ...
Ping the list...

Alamo-Girl;
HiTech RedNeck;
Don Joe;
Young Werther;
RightWhale;
SMEDLEYBUTLER;
mjp;
M. Thatcher;
MHGinTN;
my_pointy_head_is_sharp;
Fred Mertz;
reformed_democrat;
AnalogReigns;
not-an-ostrich;
Justa; NYer;
Stavka2;
Ann Archy;
gPal;
SkyPilot;
AnAmericanMother;
Prodigal Son;
justsomedude;
Cap'n Crunch;
gcruse;
aruanan;
lodwick;
Asmodeus;
Freakazoid;
RightOnline;
two23;
Chemnitz;
Virginia-American;
Bloody Sam Roberts;
BoomerBob;
Dan Day;
js1138;
patent;
Desdemona;
Straight Vermonter;
Theresa;
BlackVeil;
polemikos;
Catholicguy;
eastsider;
ALS;
siobhan
78 posted on 10/11/2002 2:25:10 AM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
That's it? That's the rebuttal of the radiocarbon dating?

No... that is not "it". There is much more evidence invalidating the carbon-14 testing. The sample was taken contrary to the agreed protocols; the area it was cut from was an area that had been rewoven in medieval times (threads on half of the sample are righthand twist while the main body of the shroud is left hand twist); and a large body of information shows that linen is inherently un-carbondatable with numerous samples of Egyptian linens from mummy wrappings dating hundreds or thousands of years YOUNGER than the body they wrap... yet clearly they are contemporary with the body.

79 posted on 10/11/2002 2:34:59 AM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
It was estimated that if you combined all the pieces of wood from the cross that different churches claimed to have, you would have enough material to build a house.

That estimate was merely a facetious means of pointing out the absurdities of relic worship. However a recent survey of "pieces of the true cross" was done and found that when the total volume of all the pieces venerated in Catholic churches is tabulated, there is approximately enough to make 2/3rds of the patibulum, the cross piece.

80 posted on 10/11/2002 2:42:34 AM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: aShepard
I've often wondered that since the shroud was involved in a fire in the 1500's, that resulted in burning portions of the cloth, whether the carbon based smoke from the building materials involved in the fire could have permeanated the shroud with a few hundred year old wood carbon tracings, thus masking the true date of the underlying cloth.

If, as this article states, spoonfuls of soot were removed from the surface, my thoughts may have some validity.

The protocols agreed on by the laboratories involved in the Carbon-14 tests included cleaning the samples by a method that should have removed the soot. It would not have touched the bioplastic residue adhered to the fibers by generations and centuries of micro-organisms.

81 posted on 10/11/2002 2:46:10 AM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: lepton
This is certainly a circular argument on the part of the speaker...as the image on the shroud was well known enought that painters have certainly long used the image to derive their view of Christ from it.

However, the iconography of Jesus that resembles the man on the shroud, predates the earliest possible date for a forgery as established by the C-14 tests by almost a thousand years. Therefor, if the image of Christ we all accept is based on the shroud... and the paintings and icons of Christ are basically the same since the 5th Century, then the shroud must have existed at least that far back.

82 posted on 10/11/2002 2:50:12 AM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
In that case have a great day!
83 posted on 10/11/2002 4:20:41 AM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
Tell Tom how you have it all figured out without all the facts.

If he's not claiming that contamination skewed the results, then the above calculation--which I stand by--won't interest him. Clearly it doesn't cover every conceivable objection (even Flat Earthers have an "out"), but the lion's share of the objections raise the issue of contamination. I've shown such arguments to be invalid, for what it's worth. Obviously, to a true believer, no argument is worth anything.

84 posted on 10/11/2002 4:55:33 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
A carpenter before power tools were invented would tend toward the burly side, methinks, and not much resemble the rather willowy traditional representations.

The Greek language Bible describes Joseph as a "builder". European translators used the word carpenter. There were few wooden homes in ancient Israel, so it is much more likely that he was a stone mason. Just a bit of info.

85 posted on 10/11/2002 4:58:07 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
the area it was cut from was an area that had been rewoven in medieval times

The dog ate the carbon-12.

and a large body of information shows that linen is inherently un-carbondatable

"I wasn't there, Your Honor, and if I was there, I didn't steal anything."

86 posted on 10/11/2002 5:00:03 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
You ignored the "Hints" section.
87 posted on 10/11/2002 5:01:18 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
The protocols agreed on by the laboratories involved in the Carbon-14 tests included cleaning the samples by a method that should have removed the soot. It would not have touched the bioplastic residue adhered to the fibers by generations and centuries of micro-organisms.

Unless those residues outmass the rest of the Shroud by at least a factor of one and a half, they aren't sufficient to change the date of the Shroud by the amount observed.

88 posted on 10/11/2002 5:02:22 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
I guess I just have a problem with folks who, with limited information and an "I'm just THAT much smarter than the rest of you" attitude, make such absolute proclamations.......as you are given to doing.

Let's put your credentials up against those of the large array of experts from around the world.......and quite a few from the US "defense establishment".....who have devoted many, many years to the study of the Shroud. Their names aren't hard to find.

I know Dr. D'Muhala and his background (a physicist, as well, by the way). How 'bout yours?

89 posted on 10/11/2002 5:05:55 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
You ignored the "Hints" section.

I did. They are tantamount to saying that radiocarbon dating never works.

It is not logically possible for anyone to counter every conceivable argument (about anything, not just about this one quantitative question). There is always an "out".

90 posted on 10/11/2002 5:06:34 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: M. T. Cicero II
"I really wish it were the actual shroud."

It most certainly is the shroud of Christ, but God will never allow His existence to be captured proof positive in a jar like a lightning bug.

The true value of the shroud is that it causes such consternation amongst those that refuse to see. It is such willful ignorance that separates the goats from the lambs.

Christians don't require the shroud to be genuine to validate their faith; atheists on the other hand are presented w/ powerful evidence that their non/beliefs are absurd.

I admit to a guilty pleasure in watching them thrash about concocting theories of medeaval geniuses inventing photography merely to play a hoax and never replicating the process.

One can only approach God on one's knees, and never through arrogance.

91 posted on 10/11/2002 5:09:45 AM PDT by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
As a physics major, did you have to do, like, math and stuff?
92 posted on 10/11/2002 5:10:16 AM PDT by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Pietro
Actually, nothing is more irrelevent (to me) than whether or not this shroud is the shroud of Christ. Some seem to think that if they can discredit claims that Christ was buried in this shroud, they have discredited the claims of the Bible.

Nothing could be further from the truth. True faith has nothing to do with this piece of old cloth.

93 posted on 10/11/2002 5:14:45 AM PDT by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Skooz
"True faith has nothing to do with this piece of old cloth."

I agree 100%. That doesn't change the fact that this is a phenomenal object.

94 posted on 10/11/2002 5:26:08 AM PDT by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
You're weaseling.

You made a "pronouncement" and, thereby, insulted the incredibly thorough and detailed work of some prominent scientists that stretches decades. You get called on it........and whine about how "there's always an out".

Unbelievable. I thought scientists were supposed to do their homework before making public pronunciations. Try it sometime.

95 posted on 10/11/2002 5:28:55 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Skooz
As a physics major, did you have to do, like, math and stuff?

Yes. Look at #53 and you'll find some.

96 posted on 10/11/2002 5:31:47 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Mat_Helm
Tourist Guy?
97 posted on 10/11/2002 5:31:54 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
You made a "pronouncement" and, thereby, insulted the incredibly thorough and detailed work of some prominent scientists that stretches decades.

My pronouncement dealt with the contamination issue. If you can find a flaw in it, please be explicit. As for the "insult of prominent scientists," etc., it seems to me that the people attacking radiocarbon dating are the ones who are doing that.

You get called on it........and whine about how "there's always an out".

Broadly calling into question the entire enterprise of radiocarbon dating does not constitute calling me on anything.

98 posted on 10/11/2002 5:36:09 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Whoa. That's the kind of thing that made me a history major.
99 posted on 10/11/2002 5:44:41 AM PDT by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
"Looking exactly like Jesus",huh? Exactly how does this "unbiased expert" know what Jesus looked like?

She was there

It was here. The battlefield was here. The Carthaginians defending the city were attacked by three Roman Legions. Carthaginians were proud and brave but they couldn't hold. They were massacred. Arab women stripped them of their tunics and their swords and lances. The soldiers lay naked in the sun, two thousand years ago; and I was here.

100 posted on 10/11/2002 5:52:22 AM PDT by andy_card
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-211 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson