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 ...
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.
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.
And their baseline for what Jesus actually looked like is...?
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.
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)...
Perhaps. Coulda been one of those tough wiry squirts...
That's a very good point I hadn't heard before. There must have been nothing unusual about His appearance.
Isn't there something just a little tiny bit incongruous here?
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.
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.
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.
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. ]
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.
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.
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.
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.