Has anyone ever seen the Shroud of Turin in Italy, I would
love to see it. I truly believe its the authentic cloth
laid on Jesus' body. I've heard a lot of stories about it,
good and bad but the evidence seems to say that its
authentic. What do you think?
[There are 41 posts - the latest was added on Wed 26 May, 5:37]
Use the form at the end of this page to add your own post.
Topics
| Thorn Tree
| Home
I think it was a cloth a Palestenian used to wipe off a
gravy stain.
it looks like a car mechanic's bath towel
I also believe it is authentic based on the scientific
proof. But not to many people have seen the Shroud of
Turin, in fact I think it was about 21 years ago when it was
last on display. The reasons for the Shroud being locked
away seem to vary, its probably because the Shroud would be
exposed to polluted air and UV light, thus damaging the
Shroud. But I believe also that it is because of security
reasons, officals in Turin still strongly believe that the
fire of 1997 was an attempt to destroy the Shroud. When you
think of the millions of people who want to see the Shroud
then you can understand why they have it locked up for now.
During a 5 week display in 1978 about 3.5 million people
came to see the Shroud. I can't wait for more scientific
research though! No other artifact has been examined more
then the Shroud of Turin, I believe the evidence is great
and it is the real thing(the Bible describes it). Its been
in Turin since 1578 and has lasted through a few fires and
other attempts to destroy it, hmmm, divine protection?
I read your other post student, I believe in Noah's Ark too.
The process is on hold for now but I hope Archeologists will
soon have the chance to do some digs. I don't understand
why people reject the story of Noah's Ark in the Bible,
there is nothing that hinders my believe in it.
There were tests done some tears ago that showed the fabric
was from the Middle ages, as was the manufacturing style.
We think that it may have been a type of death mask,
unintentionally made ( it may have been a chemical reaction
on a cloth placed over a face). The face probably belongs
to the leader of the Templars Guy deMourcey.
I'd like to.
Your right about the tests, however the Shroud of Turin
survived a fire in 1532 so the carbon dating tests today
would bring us to aprrox. this date in time. This explains
the middle age thing, actually you can still see the burn
marks on the cloth today.
When we're done with the Ark and the Shroud, I'd like my
piece of the True Cross authenticated. Was it really made
from cedar 4x4's? Why would a priest lie?
It is nothing but another fable dreamed up by the Catholic
church to inspire mith and fable to add to their collection
of dogma. Just like them all grovelling in front of the
plaster casts of Mary. What can a plaster cast do "for
Christ's sake"?
"No man cometh to me except through the Lord Jesus Christ"
or something like that if my memory hasn't dimmed
completely. So why do they clutch at images and icons??
Because the Catholic church likes to keep their patriots
and zealots in fear and awe and absolute
obedience.......but more
importantly.............SUPERSTITION. Easier to control
the masses when you take away their need to think for
themselves. Give yourselves a little test. Ask a Catholic
to look up something in the Bible for you. They claim
undying love for their church, but their "church" forbids
them to read the Bible because they might discover all the
heresies of the Catholic religion!!
But better a dopey Catholic than a dirty heathen, eh!! ???
I found a really old looking one last time I was in
Palestine. If anybody here knows of some-one who may have
lost it, please tell them to contact me.
which indicate that the Shroud was a manufactured relic
produced by the family of templar Geoffrey du Charnay to
encourage pilgrims to fill the family coffers? The evidence
was pretty compelling.
Amigo, although you believe the Shroud to be authentic you
cannot say, as you have indicated in brackets, that the
Bible describes it. The Bible only mentions in Mark and Luke
that Jesus was wrapped in fine linen, as was customary for
an upper middle-class burial at the time (paid for by Joseph
of Arimathea). The writings do not exactly describe the
burial shroud any more than that. It is faith alone that
ties the two together at this point in time.
One thing that puzzles me is why an object would be
venerated as a means of worship when this seems so contrary
to Jesus lifestyle and teachings concerning idolatry.
Sorry I have to disagree, you say that the Bible mentions
the linen burial cloths only in Mark and Luke, however you
will find it also in Matthew(27:59) and John(19:40), in all
the Gospel.
Sure the Bible describes the Shroud, it clearly says that
Jesus' body was bound in linen burial cloths, what more
description do we need? There is alot of evidence for the
Shroud of Turin to be authentic but your right we still need
faith. I believe it is the real thing based on faith and
evidence.
About the last part of your post, I don't speak for the
Catholics of Turin or any Catholic but for true Biblical
Christianity the Shroud is a reminder of Jesus our Lord who
died for our sins to be forgiven, not a object of worship in
itself.
One either believes because of faith, or does not. No
artifact or scientific "proof" will make any difference,
ever.
I find it amazing how faith tends to develop over time
based on man made myths. I'm curious to know if the
immaculate conception was a product of Mary's parents
trying to protect her reputation or whether the idea was
promoted by a later generation of preists. As for the
shroud I have to admit that it is a funky piece of art. Who
knows if it was deliberate or just coincidence?
Amigo I'm suprised at you! Taking the Catholic line and you
a good Baptist boy! Surely even you know that the
manufacture and claiming of relics was big business in the
middle ages and was the equivalent today of a town building
a giant fibreglass banana to attract visitors and donating
pilgrims. Europe and the the Middle East are scattered with
such 'relics'. I have personally seen the right arm of John
the Baptist in 3 different places.
Actually buddy, as B&B say, the shroud has been carbon dated
(about 10 yaers ago?) and the fibres are no more ancient
than the middle ages. Your staement of a 'fire bringing the
date to the present day' (or some other confused gabble)
doesn't wash. It's not some sort of carbon deposit they test
but rather the fibres themselves, which are pulverised in
the process. The ostensible reason that the church wouldn't
allow carbon dating for so long was that a portion of the
shroud would need to be destroyed. When they finally
relented it was conclusively shown by the carbon dating and
examination of the fibre manufacturing and weaving technique
that the piece of linen was not 2000 years old.
Anyway Amigo I'm glad to see you have such faith in carbon
dating. It's that same isotopic decay that proves things
like dinosaur bones and cave paintings are much older than
the few thousand years you believe the Earth has been around
for. A point that you have singularly failed to address.
I also think that the description in the Bible of Jesus'
shroud being a piece of fine linen cloth DOESN'T make the
Turin shroud the one. there are plenty of bits of cloth in
the world.
'
'
'
Ahhh, good ole Mr. A, hows it goin?
About the carbon dating, I have no faith in it at all, but
faith in God almighty. I believe carbon dating can give us
an estimate of the correct date but I also believe that
carbon dating is in itself 'not very reliable'. There are
many examples were carbon dating has been "way off the
mark". And in this case, I believe that the carbon dating
of the Shroud of Turin is not accurate.
You mentioned 10 years ago, yes thats right, in the 1988
carbon dating of the Shroud, the results said the Shroud
dated back to 1260-1390 AD., thus too new to be Jesus'
burial linen. After this, the date and other Shroud
controversies came under intense scrutiny. A team of
experts took the challange to examine the Shroud, this team
was led by Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, MD, adjunct professor of
microbiology, and Stephen J. Mattingly, PhD, professor of
microbiology (Dr. Garza is a pediatrician from San Antonio
and an Archeologist noted for expertise in pre-Columbian
artifacts, Dr. Mattingly, president of the Texas branch of
the American Society for Microbiology is widely respected
for his research on group B streptococci and neonatal
disease).
After months of examining microscopic samples, this team
concluded that the Shroud of Turin is centuries 'older' than
its carbon date. Dr. Gaza said the Shroud's fibers are
coated with bacteria and fungi that have grown for
centuries. Carbon dating, he said, had sampled the
contaminants as well as the fiber's cellulose.
Hmmm, I wouldn't put your faith in carbon dating Mr.
Apostrophe, it has already been proven wrong. And those
dinosaur bones and cave paintings you talk about, its seems
their dating is wrong as well, hmmm who knows?
My friend this is no man made relic, there is lots of
evidence to show that. For example Pollens have been found
on the cloth, strongly supporting the view that the Shroud
spent time not only in Europe but the Far East, tests on
traces of blood from the Shroud have revealed the presence
of blood from a human male (group AB).
So, just like the date of the Shroud of Turin needs to be
further studied and questioned, so does the bones and cave
paintings you talk about, they prove nothing in themselves.
The Bible has yet to be and never will be proven
Scientifically wrong.
you will never go anywhere in the ALP with that attitude
boy . . .
So let me get this right......
.
Carbon dating is unreliable and doesn't prove anything.
.
Carbon dating conclusively proves that the shroud is of a
certain age.
.
Evidence conclusively demonstrates that this is not a
man-made object.
>
Remarkable logic flips even by your standards Amigo.
Regarding the pollen angle, I would suggest that the fibres
showing traces of Middle Eastern flora is something that
should be expected rather than marvelled at. Where do you
think European medieval textiles came from? They harvested
their own wool but cotton and flax were grown in Egypt and
the Middle East. Sometimes this fibre would have been
shipped raw, but more usually it would have been processed
somewhere in that locale before being onward shipped to
Europe.
(Nowadays 'linen' means just flax derived fabrics with those
distinctive slubs, however in old usage it also refers to
cotton textiles or indeed any cloth produced from vegetable
fibres.) Whichever way you cut it ('scuse the pun) the
shroud's fabric almost certainly hails from the Holy Lands,
but that does not mean it is the same one that Jesus' body
was wrapped in.
Come on Amigo, even you have to admit that the Catholic
church has had some very suspicious saints, miracles and
relics in the past. The Shroud is just one of the more
famous.
By the way, I was reading last month or so that some British
(?) archaeologists think they have found the site of the
tower that inspired the Babel legend. I'm not sure what
reserach trail they were following but they claim it's
actually on the coast of the Black Sea rather than down in
Sumeria.
'
'
'
'
-----
..because Egyptian mummies appear to have the same
contamination on their wrappings, Egyptologists are are
eager to learn whether the mummies are correctly dated. The
Manchester Museum, for example, has supplied samples from
its mysterious mummy No. 1770 for carbon testing. British
experts cannot fully explain why carbon dating of No. 1770's
wrappings indicate they are 1,000 years younger than the
bones. I'm not so sure that carbon dating is 100% correct
all the time either.
First to student, EXACTLY my point! Mr. Apostrophe failed
to comment on the work of Dr. Garza and Dr. Mattingly, they
together show the carbon dating of the Shroud is wrong.
Second to Mr. Apostrophe, well, at least you realize that
the Shroud came from the Near East or Middle East.
My logic is not flipped upside down here, whats wrong with
my statements? I merely said that carbon dating is not
trustworthy all the time, I said I believe that it gives us
an "estimate" of the correct date and I mentioned we should
not put our faith in something thats not always reliable.
And about the evdience of it not being your ordinary relic,
answer this question for me, the Shroud has been
investigated for many many years now, (it was first
photographed in 1898 by Secondo Pia) why is modern science
still investigating the Shroud if it is an ordinary
relic(you'd think they would have the answers by now)? But
the fact remains that there are many mysteries of the Shroud
yet to be understood, think about it.
By the Way, when I say "its not a man made" relic, I think
you understand that I mean the imprint of Christ not the
fabric itself(I hope you do?).
They say Jesus was between 5'11 and 6'1 tall based on the
shroud, he was pretty tall, eh?
Does the Bible mention them?
seems to refer to dinosaurs in a number of places in the
Scriptures. Ahhhhhh, off the top of my head I can only
think of one right now but I know there are more, for
example Job 40:15 and on, seems to describe a dinosaur even
though the creature is not called a dinosaur. Hope that
helps.
.?
he he
Mr. A, where are you? Why did you run away?
I think that the shroud still attracts so much attention
because it purports to show the true image of a Christ
figure. That is more dramatic and interesting than a golden
box with St Paul's left testicle. Just because it is a hoax
doesn't mean it can't capture the publics' imagination. I
put it in the same category as Bigfoot, Nessie and Roswell.
>
Amigo you really don't understand the conventions of debate
do you? I affirm that the shroud comes from the Middle East
not because I grudgingly have to agree with you about it's
divine origin but rather to rebut your idea that foreign
pollen samples do not prove the uniqueness of the cloth; far
from it. They make it more mundane.
Likewise finding one person who'll support a part of your
theories does not make you right. If we use that yardstick
then I'm about a hundred times more right than you are if
you count the numbers of supporting posts that have occurred
over our various disagreements.
>
If you're going to say that carbon dating is prone to error
over short (chemical) time periods then that only reinforces
the concept that carbon dating over much longer durations is
more accurate due to the averaging out of readings. Remember
that to disprove your idea of the world's age, ALL carbon
dating operations carried out on samples of pre-Biblical
samples would have to be wrong not by a factor of 4 or 5
percent, but by about 99.9%. (We're talking about billions,
not hundreds of years.)
>
I wasn't challenging you over the definition of man-made
(let's say supernatural or divine instead). I was
challenging the leap that "Because carbon dating may not be
accurate that is conclusive proof that this shroud wrapped
the body of Chris
It was infinately more interesting than this crap.
Amigo I haven't run away. Just remember that the world is
round and on this side it's work time. I post when I can
between tasks.
>
For Stir Crazy: I guess the old adage rings true. If you
don't like it, don't read it. There are still a few of us
here who couldn't give a rat's arse about lists and all the
rest. We use small threads to disagree with each other about
topics that interest (or infuriate!) us. Much as I think
that Amigo is a wrong-headed ignoramus, I'd rather debate
with him than read pages of 'you impostered me in the
onelist trauma' bullshit.
'
'
'
'
'
-------------
are all of you homosexuals?
I look forward to the next one.
Skeptic, where do you get the idea that the Catholic
church "forbids people to read the bible"?
As a former Catholic who went to a catholic school, and who
read the bible as a lector in Mass for years, I can assure
you Catholics read the bible.
On the shroud - interestingly, the church's official
position has always been that the shroud should not be seen
as "authentic" in the sense of the church saying "This is
part of what we believe". Rather, the church sees the
shroud as an interesting historical relic, and while some
recent official statements say something along the lines
of "looks like its a fake" they also reserve a bit of "who
knows".
All I would like to say is "don't put your faith in carbon
dating". Carbon dating is not always 100% correct just like
student said. Mr. Apostrophe you have dismissed the
Shroud already as a fake(even against the evidence which you
have no knowledge of) but about our last discussions, you
never once refuted my statements but only challenged me by
asking me further questions, I may or may not have answered
everybodies questions but I still think my posts have stood
up to all attacks. I'm sure not because of myself but
because of God's Word(Bible), it cannot be wrong, even in
science.
I strongly agree with student about this carbon dating thing
that you so thightly cling to, it seems to be your # 1 proof
of an old earth, but like I already said, it has been proven
that carbon dating is not always accurate and maybe your
dinosaur bones and cave paintings are within 6 thousand
years ago not millions of years ago as you assume.
For example to add to students example about certain errors
of carbon dating, on a discovery of an ancient Mayan carved
jade called the Itzamna Tun, examiners found on it 'biogenic
varnishes'. Carbon dating failed to come close to the
carved stone's true age, they identified masses of varnish
that prevented accurate dating, thus upholding the jade's
authenticity. The varnishes, they learned are a
plastic-like coating that is a byproduct of bacteria and
fungi. In the Itzamna Tun's case, this bioplastic coating
threw off the carbon date of ancient blood on the artifact
by about 600 years. Once again you see Mr. Apostrophe,
carbon dating is not all its 'cracked up' to be all the
time. There are many facters and many things that can go
wrong when carbon testing is in process I'm sure, and who's
to say that we mere humans who conduct these carbon tests
are not wrong most of the time(only God knows)? I don't
know about you, but I refuse to put my faith in carbon
dating or any other scientific method that is and has been
proven to be inaccurate at times. On the contrary I will
trust the Bible as the Word of God, which cannot be wrong
ALL THE TIME. If the Bible(God's Word) says the world is
was created about 6 thousand years ago and a cabon test
conducted by a 'mad scientist' says it was billions of years
ago, the result of a big explosion, who do you think I'm
going to believe? Surely the intelligent mind will not pick
the erroneous carbon test but "the book" that has stood the
test for thousands of years, God's Word, the Bible.
Mr. A, you wanted to talk about carbon dating before, so I
hope you are happy with this discussion? Let me ask you
this question, you failed to answer my last question about
the Shroud, but why don't you believe the Bible? Or why
don't you believe God's Word when it says that God created
us and the world and all that exists? I have to say, I
admire your faith, I really do because it takes much more
faith to believe in the weak Big Bang and evolution theories
rather than the creation theory the Bible gives us. Thats
right, your putting your trust in man rather than the
creator of man, who can never be wrong. It takes faith to
believe in what you believe.
?
Sorry Christians, but your religion is a farce and you've
all been sucked in big time.
Firstly your religion started out as a political movement
not a theological one. Jesus was a social worker and he was
a Jew. He himself would condemn this cultish following of
himself as he did not believe he was manifested in God but
worshipped the God which the Jews worship. Christianity was
inextricably tied to armies and government leaders of
various empires, none of whom ever met Jesus himself (heck,
neither did the people who wrote the so-called 'New
Testament').
Secondly, the reason the world is full of Christians and
Catholics is because your anscestors' governments went and
invaded half the world and killed people who were not
willing to convert. Spain, Britain, Italy, and many others
although these are the most murderous ones which spring to
mind. See, I am a history student and if I went and killed
everybody except five of my best friends we would tell our
kids that I did it for the good of humanity and who would
there be to argue!! The victor writes history how ever they
want and the vanquished are condemned to silence, never to
be heard. Historical 'truth' from more than 100 years ago
is just the victors' perspective of how they won and why
they think they should have won. You can think that
missionising the 'primitive savages last century was for
their own good but if they were alive today they'd tell a
different story. Not only that, but they'd still believe
their philosophies of life were legitimate, as Christians
believe totally.
?
Sorry but I'm afraid your "slightly" confused! First of
all, Jesus was no social worker and secondly Jesus did claim
to be God in human form. You evidently have no kowledge of
the Written Word of God Almighty. In the Bible you will
read that Jesus not only accepted worship and followers, but
claimed repeatedly to be the Messiah. A true historian
would have knowledge of this undeniable fact but I guess you
have'nt finished your studies yet? Your above post bears
little truth at best and I suggest you study a little more,
good day and God bless your enthusiasm.
Princess, you say that the New Testament writers never met
Jesus, excuse my laughter but are you sure your a history
student, just checking again? I don't know what college or
university your attending but the facts have seemed to evade
you. The truth is that almost all the New Testament writers
knew Jesus Christ or met Him as you say. Any true stury of
the subject at hand would show you this, I have studied
Christology and know something on the matter. This might be
over your head a little but even some of the Old Testament
writers had knowledge of Jesus Christ! Amazing!
go see.
from the Bible.