Posted on 08/30/2015 11:58:31 PM PDT by NRx
Not a single other test found what he claimed as pigments on the Shroud, including electron microscopy done by his own labs. He only published in his own vanity press, of which HE was the publisher and editor and what peer review it received was done "peer-reviewed" by his own employees.
I am very well read on the Shroud and I am not aware that McCrone ever ameliorated his stand on the Shroud's authenticity.
". . .cracked by the scientific sleuth work of Dr. John Holler (sic) and colleague, Prof. Alan Adler"
It was the work of the late Dr. John Heller, not Holler.
I believe in Jesus regardless of the shroud, but didn’t carbon dating show it was made in the middle ages.
I have saved the article as I got a little tired after 4 paragraphs. But I look forward to finishing it.
Could the carbon dating be fallible? I know nothing about the process.
Try using ARAMAIC and GREEK instead of the translated words in English and they might say something different. . . and the Jewish burial customs say your interpretation is wrong, not the words of the Gospel. Just the way it was TRANSLATED into English. Sorry, look to the original words for the real meaning. Even the Gospels don’t agree on this. In fact, the article above has a pretty good explanation of your confusion.
I have looked at the Greek and the NKJV is a reasonable representation of the Greek. There was a separate covering for the head that was set aside from the cloths that had been wrapped around the body.
The Shroud is the Mandylion, I tell you. Probably won’t ever be provable, but the timing fits.
The shroud had been damaged in a fire and repairs were made to it. IIRC, the test samples were taken from a repaired area and so reflected the age of the repairs, not the shroud.
thanks. I cant wait to read the whole article. If I read it now i wouldn’t remember anything lol.
My faith gets weak sometimes. Been through some very hard times and when you pray and pray and things get worse, it’s do hard to hold on to faith.
But I have started saying the Rosary again. I’m so naive I dont know if all denominations have a rosary or it’s just a catholic thing.
Either way, God bless all of us Christians, because we have many enemies as Jesus said we would.
I would to touch the shroud.
The strongest evidence is that even in this age of astonishing scientific and technological breakthroughs, nobody has ever figured out how to replicate the image on the Shroud.
Another strong piece of evidence is that the Shroud is basically a photographic negative. This is a critical point to remember; the images you see here in the main article are not true depictions of the Shroud. They are negatives that show all the detail you see ... which means the Shroud itself is a photographic negative. If it was a forgery, then it was allegedly produced hundreds of years before photography was even invented.
“Could the carbon dating be fallible?”
“The shroud had been damaged in a fire and repairs were made to it. IIRC, the test samples were taken from a repaired area and so reflected the age of the repairs, not the shroud.”
Also often overlooked or not addressed by reviewers/analysts is that the fire itself would have deposited free carbons from the combusted materials wherever the smoke reached.
It would therefore be the Carbon-14 of burned materials (the wooden box, frames, tapestries, church timbers, pews, altars, etc.) that was being traced, not the original fabric.
It is also utterly shocking that “scientists” would pull a sample for dating from a section that had been so obviously re-weaved. Are they that incompetent or did they have an agenda?
Please add me to the Shroud Ping list!
Thanks,
sneaks
Carbon 14 Dating Problems:
1988 C-14 Results: A tiny piece of the Shroud (.0014%) was Carbon-14-dated to the period 1260 - 1390 AD
There were Significant Flaws with the Process and with the Sample Area tested:
Inaccurate: Carbon dating of textiles in general has problems with accuracy: an Egyptian mummy-wrapping showed an age 700 years younger than the body.
Inconsistent: A Government test of 38 C-14 labs, which used both conventional dating method and the newer Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS) method, showed actual errors 3 times greater than claimed. Only 7 labs had satisfactory results, and the AMS method did badly.
Unscientific: Original agreement was to take cloth samples from multiple places, tested by 7 labs using 2 different methods. After political maneuvering, the Church changed it to only 3 labs, with the 3 samples to be taken from only one small area. Only AMS dating was used.
Secretive: The crucial moment of placing Test Samples and control samples into metal cylinders, observed by only 3 people, Dr. Tite of the British Museum, Cardinal Ballestro of Turin, and the Cardinal’s scientific advisor, Professor Gonella, was not filmed.
Invalid: The Test Sample was too small to be statistically valid. The 3 labs tested a postage-stamp-sized area that came from the worst-contaminated and most-repaired area of the Shroud (1 sq. inch out of total Shroud’s 7,400 sq. inches).
Non-Representative: Test Sample data did not pass the “Chi-Squared” statistical test, which shows how samples in a test relate. The Chi-Squared value must be lower than 6, but the Samples’ value was 6.4; therefore, the 3 sub-samples cannot be considered to be from the same overall sample.
Non-Representative: The Weight of the Test Samples was about 42 milligrams per square centimeter, almost double the normal Shroud linen weight of 25 milligrams per square centimeter, therefore the Test Sample pieces must have contained extra material in them.
Contaminated: The Test Sample Area had been dyed with Madder Root Dye applied in a plant-gum medium, to hide repairs made after the 1532 Fire; the gum-and-dye mixture is not found elsewhere on the Shroud.
Misleading: The Test Sample had significant amounts of cotton mixed with the linen to help dye adhere (from the 1532 AD repairs). However, the Main Body of the Shroud linen has only a very small trace of cotton impurity, and it is not part of the weave. If there was merging of cotton from the year 1532 into the Test Sample Area, it would definitely have skewed the carbon-dating towards the Middle Ages.
They tested a piece that had been seared in a fire and had been repaired.
I pray this verse will help you during your struggles:
James 1:12 “Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.”
Tests show it to be stained with blood of Blood Type AB which is the rarest of blood types making up some 2-3% of the population.
People were not aware of the existence of blood types until very recently and the chances of two medieval forgeries containing blood with the same AB type is vanishingly small
The samples were taken from the edges...the shroud was damaged by fire and the edges were rewoven...quite possible those were the sames that were taken...
The carbon dating is meaningless. IIRC, the part of the Shroud tested wasn’t even from the original material.
Anyone who denies the authenticity of the Shroud has to explain the unexplainable: The fact that the image exists only on the surface of the fibers. No pigment of any sort is present. The image is a negative. The image is composed entirely of distance information. The concept of a negative, and the concept of an image made of distance information (distance of the skin from the cloth), were both inconceivable to anyone in the 13th-14th century, and the Shroud’s exact whereabouts are known even before that.
It is simply preposterous to assert that the cloth was not wrapped around the corpse of Jesus of Nazareth, and that it does not bear (as a result of a mysterious event) an image of him, beaten with a Roman instrument, crowned with thorns, crucified, dead of asphyxiation caused by hanging on a cross, and pierced with a lance. It’s all there on the cloth.
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.