Skip to comments.Turin Shroud may be genuine after all
Posted on 10/10/2002 2:14:50 AM PDT by SteveHEdited 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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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".
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.
Nothing could be further from the truth. 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.
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.
Yes. Look at #53 and you'll find some.
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.
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.