Shroud of Turin: Old as Jesus? - new dating says yes!

[papau]

Shroud of Turin: Old as Jesus? - new dating says yes!


original science articke at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6THV-4DTBVHC-1&_user=10&_handle=B-WA-A-W-WE-MsSAYZA-UUW-AAUEBEVABC-AAUZEDVEBC-YYAZBUEYU-WE-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=01%2F20%2F2005&_rdoc=26&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235292%232005%23995749998%23553672!&_cdi=5292&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a3f80050595fad9ade8de7eb014a27b5

dating method is rate of loss of vanillin from lignin matrix (vanillin is apparently undetectable outside the patched material) -controls are the Dead Sea scrolls (don't show vanillin) and some of the patching material (does show vanillin).

Shroud of Turin: Old as Jesus?


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/science/27shroud.html

Shroud of Turin: Old as Jesus?

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Published: January 27, 2005

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.

<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/science/27shroud.html

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I always thought that the fire

where the Shroud was burned messed with the carbon dating. And no one could explain how somone could paint an image that would show up on xray like the Shroud does. That, plus the pollen on the cloth being something found in the Holy Land, made it plausible that it was indeed the burial cloth.

[lapfog_1]

2. Except for the computer model

that showed that if there was a body (3 D) in the shroud, whatever
transfer of the image would have left a much different image.

And there were some experiments done that showed that 13th
century artists could produce the image, even one that shows
up on modern xrays.

[ClintonTyree]

8. Yes, the shroud................

has been replicated in experiments. It's thought that Leonardo himself may have pulled this prank and that the image is actually his. Who the heck knows, but it's nothing upon which to base or verify a religion.

[papau]

12. nope - not replicated - the paint on one side of the fiber trick seems

hard to replicate

but the microscope view taken were of points - perhaps other areas not yet found in the shroud also show a paint like absorbtion.

Interesting how this frightens folks.

[trotsky]

15. Frightens?

If the shroud is genuinely from the proper timeframe, and if you disregard the lack of distortions one would expect from a shroud being draped across a body, and if you ignore for the moment that blood would either already be coagulated and unable to stain a cloth, or would definitely not drip "down" a face and body when the body is on its back, what do you have left?

A piece of stained cloth from about the timeframe when Christians think Jesus lived.

What it will never be, is proof of anyone's divinity, proof that anyone rose from the dead, proof that worshipping a man from the same timeframe is in any way justified. That's what shroud-believers desperately WANT, but unfortunately none of that reasonably follows.

[papau]

16. We agree! - and thank you for one of the few logical responses!

:toast:

:-)

Of course "shroud-believers" are not the same as all people of faith - or even people of faith in Jesus.

And if "shroud-believers" opinion is to believe the shroud authentic, folks who do not so believe should realize that so far it has not been shown to be otherwise!

Indeed why is there a need to show - to prove - otherwise... beyond intellectual curiosity - is beyond me.

So the amazing number of posts suugest Fear of GOD to me - but that is just my opinion.

[trotsky]

18. Because the faith-based charlatans

look at the shroud as "proof" of their deity, take power from that, and go on to make our lives miserable.

It's not fear of "god" that motivates your loyal opposition, but fear of his followers.

[papau]

19. I hope that is "some of his followers" ..... :-)

:-)

[papau]

13. image was not reproduced by 13th century production methods known

but the computer model - while I would like to read about it - is one I do not see the point of - as if GOD is bound by some rules that the model maker believes he has put into his model because he assumes body fluids produced the image.

[kcwayne]

3. The real miracle is the hard evidence that Paul had 250 fingers

You want proof? Go to any church in Europe and they have a display of one of Paul's finger bones. It is an amazingly under reported fact that Paul had so many fingers. No, it is a miracle, right in front of your face.

Oh, and how do we know that these bones really are Paul's? Because someone who wears funny hats and mumbles in Latin says so.

[RC]

4. There is a little problem with the weave of the Shroud...

The type of weave of the Shroud did not exists at the time of Christ. But it is consistent with the carbon dating.

Nice try, but there are no patches either, to the best of my knowledge.

[Francesca]

5. It seems hard to believe that they would pull a patched

area to use for testing... Even if there were in fact patches even a nominal expert on dating would no better...

[papau]

11. they pulled "edge" - and should have seen the patch

:-)

[SheilaT]

6. There are patches.

That were put there after the fire that damaged it. They show up clearly in any full-shroud view.

Here's a link. If it doesn't work, just Google "Shroud of Turin" and click on images.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.astralresearch.org/pax-turin.html&h=291&w=273&sz=19&tbnid=jMKb4ntHIaMJ:&tbnh=110&tbnw=103&start=4&prev=/images%3Fq%3DShroud%2Bof%2BTurin%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

[papau]

10. both wrong- the patch was there in the photos - the weave is fine

:-)

[ClintonTyree]

7. Those that want to believe.................

will believe. Rational thought is in full suspension when it comes to religious relics as well as the religion itself. Just my humble opinion.

[hlthe2b]

9. What I find fascinating....

and I don't have an opinion on the Shroud, either way....

but, I do find it fascinating that many of those who believe in creationism (and thus do not believe scientists who date the age of the earth, dinosaurs, and the remains of ancient man), now point to science's methods to "prove" to the skeptical the validity of the Shroud of Turin.

Just a thought... I do find the whole Shroud of Turin issue quite fascinating.

[trotsky]

14. Completely true.

Desperate for validation of faith, many people will cling to relics well beyond the point of reason.

Simple proof that the shroud is a fraud: if you lay a piece of cloth over a person's face, the cloth drapes over the face's contours. If there is a substance that will make an imprint (say, blood), the picture of the face that appears on the cloth, when laid flat, will be distorted.

But on the Shroud of Turin, there is no distortion. It looks like a normally proportioned face. If it's not an intentional fraud, it's a piece of artwork done by someone who was not aware of this effect.

[papau]

17. I agree - sort of - but the game of "God made" by definition doesn't limit

God as to method.

Indeed the fact of the normally proportioned face leads some to suggest radiation.

But the article was into just dating - and thanks for the response.

[trotsky]

20. Oh, of course not.

"Goddidit" is a remarkably versatile explanation, because it doesn't really have to explain anything. And, its strongest feature is that it can still be used despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As in, "Well, God MADE it look like it was a forgery, to test our faith!"

[papau]

21. True! - indeed my 101 logical arguements for God are likely to be

found illogical from a non-faith point of view.

Just the nature of the discussion!

:toast:

:-)

Prayer of St. Francis


Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
O, Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

[Stunster]

23. If God did something

why should it be necessary that we be able to understand how God did it? Wouldn't we kinda have to be God in order to understand precisely how God acts?

How is electromagnetic radiation capable of transmitting messages across the Internet? Well, it propagates at the speed of light through the electromagnetic field. But how does it manage to do that? Etc.

One can continue this scientific story, but in the end we will end up saying "It just does. That's just how it is. Things are just like that."

We get to the basic processes and laws of nature, and we stop.

But would it be in place to say, "But the basic processes and laws of nature (call it Nature for short) don't really explain anything anything, do they? I mean, essentially all you're saying is 'Nature diddit'"?

Ah, but at least we understand how Nature operates, using our mathematical reasoning powers. Leaving to one side where mathematical reason comes from, or why there should be such a thing, couldn't it be the case that the way God operates vastly transcends the abilities of finite mathematical reasoners to comprehend, using their finite mathematical powers of reasoning? It seems to me that it would be begging the question to insist that if God operates in some way, it must be in a way that our finite powers of mathematical reasoning (and other finite cognitive powers) must be able to comprehend. And in fact, it might be that Nature is like this too. It might be the case that there are some aspects of Nature the explanations for which are such that they are beyond our abilities to understand. (Some philosophers take this view with respect to consciousness itself, most prominently Colin McGinn and the New Mysterians).

So essentially, we come down to the following: there are a bunch of phenomena that our conscious minds are more or less aware of. These include, a mathematically intelligible physical world; consciousness; rationality; moral experience; religious experience; aesthetic experience; the experience of meaning, love, goodness, etc. And we ask the general question, How Come? And some people answer, Nature Diddit, by which they mean that blind, impersonal material processes obeying inexorable purposeless regularities did it, and that these processes just happen to exist and have the properties they do. That's just the way it is. Their abductive hypothesis is that the best explanation is 'matter in motion', or something like that. They take material process as basic.

Others say that mind/consciousness/reason/goodness is basic and transcends all material processes, and their abductive hypothesis is that all these phenomena can best be explained by the existence and creative action of a transcendent Mind.

Now it's not obvious to me that the materialist abductive hypothesis is clearly more reasonable than the theistic abductive hypothesis. But that's not my point. The point is that it's a poor argument to say that the theistic hypothesis doesn't explain anything. After all one might as well say that the materialist hypothesis doesn't explain anything, because within each hypothesis something is taken as explanatorily and causally and ontologically basic. The materialist may reply that only the materialist hypothesis allows for quantitative, mathematical explanations and sensory perceptual forms of evidence. But insisting that quantitative mathematics and sensory perception is the be-all and end-all of explanation and evidence is precisely what's at issue as between the two competing hypotheses. Hence that insistence is a systematic example of the logical fallacy of begging the question.

[Stunster]

22. That's absurd

If you think that's proof that it's a fraud, then you need to think a little bit harder.

You're assuming that the image, if the material upon which it appears is really the burial cloth of Jesus, would have been made by body fluids naturally transferring to the cloth, and since that would have created a distorted image, it wouldn't have produced the image we see on the Shroud of Turin.

But why make that assumption? Why do we have to assume that if it's really the burial cloth of Jesus, the process by which the image would have been produced has to be a natural one involving body fluids transferring to the cloth?

Well, the only reason we have to assume such a thing is if we have to assume that the means by which the image was created was a naturalistic process.

But of course, that is to assume that there is nothing supernatural going on with the shroud, even if it's really the burial cloth of Jesus. But why would a Christian have to accept such an assumption? Why would a Christian agree to you so systematically begging the question against the possibility that the Shroud image might have been generated supernaturally in association with the Resurrection of Jesus? And how does your so systematically begging the question against any possibility of the supernatural in any conceivable way prove that it's a fraud? I mean, if you rule out from the beginning the very possibility of anything supernatural being involved with the Shroud, then of course it's a forgery or well-intentioned artifact of some sort. Obviously. And, duh. But that's the question at issue, isn't it?

No, if you wish to prove that the shroud is a fraud or a well-intentioned artifact, then construct your proof and present it to the world.