Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JohnHuang2

Shroud was proven to be a 13th century fake several years ago.

Doesnt mean that Jesus was not the son of God, just that the Shroud was a very nice piece of art that got a reputation as something it was not.

It happens all the time.

There is a nice tagline around here that goes something like "Science answers how, Religion answers why".

The picture is not bad. It is what you would expect a Middle Eastern Jew to look like. But ultimately his physical appearance is irrelavant and bordering on idol worship.


3 posted on 12/24/2004 12:36:05 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (When you are driving toward a wall, you probably should not accelerate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

I think the importance in all of this is because we have only a limited amount of scripture. Those of us who love the Lord always hope to know a little more. If having an idea of what He may have looked like helps one to pray than there is certainly no harm in that.

Of course people should be careful not to base one's faith on things like the shroud but how can we resist the idea of being a little closer physically to him? Can you imagine how it must have been to walk beside him as the disciples did? Awesome.


4 posted on 12/24/2004 12:45:31 AM PST by Straight Vermonter (Liberalism: The irrational fear of self reliance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

So Jesus was Italian. You're right doing a computer rendering of Jesus based on a 13th century italian hoax is the ultimate in junk science.

Jesus was Jewish. He probably looked more like Jon Silver than a young italian kid from Florence.


9 posted on 12/24/2004 12:59:23 AM PST by beaver fever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
They have re-opened the debate on the Shroud.
13 posted on 12/24/2004 1:28:23 AM PST by Jay Howard Smith (Retired(25yrs)Military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
As I understand it, the shroud was in a wooden cask that was exposed to a fire in a monastery in the 1300s, that may be why the carbon date readings show that period, rather than the first millennium.
17 posted on 12/24/2004 2:19:07 AM PST by The Loan Arranger (The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Shroud was proven to be a 13th century fake several years ago.

That's exactly wrong. All the evidence suggests it is from the time period expected. As for the reverse-aged image, it's obviously a guess. The image on the shroud is of a Jewish rabbi, with beard. One would expect the boy to appear Jewish, as well. I suppose the image does. But to some it suggests another race.

21 posted on 12/24/2004 3:11:24 AM PST by sevry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

There is growing suspicion the swatch used in the carbon 14 analysis may have been taken from a part of the Shroud that had been repaired by nuns after a fire. There is too much evidence for authenticity to simply accept the theory that the Shroud is from the 13th century. For example, the weave of the cloth is first century. Pollen on the cloth derives from the environs of Jerusalem in the first century. The patterns of blood match the sudarium of Ovieto--which had been venerated long before the 13th century. The coins that show up covering the eyes of the shroud date back to the first century. There are also paintings depicting the Holy Shroud which date back to before the 13th century.


25 posted on 12/24/2004 3:42:09 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Check your facts, pal. It's called Google.


29 posted on 12/24/2004 4:04:37 AM PST by lp boonie (Been there, done that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
"Shroud was proven to be a 13th century fake several years ago."

Sigh............................no, it wasn't. I wish you people who say such things would actually get off your duffs and LEARN something before perpetuating falsehoods.

32 posted on 12/24/2004 4:10:12 AM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Shroud was proven to be a 13th century fake several years ago.

“The resulting image shows a fair-skinned child with blond, wavy hair and dark eyes.”

It does seem to be more like a European than a Semitic Jew.
52 posted on 12/24/2004 6:21:25 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Shroud was proven to be a 13th century fake several years ago.

All scientific evidence now demostrates that the section of the Shroud from which the 1989 Carbon 14 test sample was taken is NOT the same as the rest of the Shroud. Contrary to the agreed protocols, which called for seven samples taken from seven completely different areas of the Shroud, the sample that was tested was taken from only ONE area; an area adjacent to an already repaired area that all the scientists had agreed was not to be tested for reasons that will be made clear below. The change in protocol occured literally at the last hour. However, the sample "appeared" to the naked eye as similar to the rest of the Shroud. It was and is not.

The result of this change in protocol resulted in GIGO... Garbage In, Garbage Out... and invalidates the test.

Why the C14 Sample was the wrong sample to test.

The sample contains both original Shroud material AND added material from a 16th Century expert repair done by invisible reweaving. The added threads have an "S" twist while the Shroud threads have a "Z" twist. The added threads were retted by a technique totally different from the threads in the rest of the shroud... a technique that was not used in the 13th Century or the 1st Century but was common in the 16th. The section the sample was cut from floresces differently than the rest of the Shroud and X-ray Spectography of that section show a significantly different chemical profile than the rest ot the Shroud.

Statistical anomoly in the tests results

When the C14 test results were announced "triumphantly" in 1989, several people questioned why the results from the three labs ranged too far beyond the plus or minus 25 years degree of confidence expected for the singular sample. The three labs reported creation dates spanning 150 years, and even more remarkable was the fact that one lab, considered the most accurate and hence given TWO samples cut from the original, reported both the oldest and the youngest age for the Shroud samples USING THE EXACT SAME TECHNIQUE. Control samples from other ancient cloth were well within the expected degree of confidence from all three labs. Only the Shroud material showed considerable diverse dates.

There is an expanation.

The "new" threads of the 16th Century repair intermixed with the "original" Shroud threads with a change-over between the two occuring on a diagonal bias across the C14 sample. Assuming a 1st Century Provenance for the original threads and a 16th Century provenance for the new threads results in exactly the results the three C14 labs reported... with the spread in creation dates being directly proportional to the amount of original to repair threads in each piece of the sample.

Thus, the most accurate labs two samples reported dates 150 years apart because the samples came from each end of the original sample. The other two labs' samples came from between the oldest and youngest and their reported dates are proportional to position between the two and the percentage of rewoven material to original material.

The C14 tests are now considered invalid (even the inventor of the C14 test and Nobel laureate agrees). However, the statistical analysis of the content of the sample, vis-a-vis percentage of "old" to "new" threads, and the reported ages, are explicable IF, and only if, the old thread is 1st Century!

73 posted on 12/24/2004 4:05:37 PM PST by Swordmaker (Tagline now open, please ring bell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
I believe the carbon dating used was tainted by the burns from the fire (the diamond shaped holes) and they can not find any pigment. Additionally, the image is a negative and they could not have conceived that in the 13th century.

Sometimes it's all about faith, and I believe this to be real.

104 posted on 12/24/2004 10:25:38 PM PST by Former Dodger ("False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil. " - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
...Shroud was a very nice piece of art...

My impression and understanding is that there has been no determination as to 'how' the shroud image was produced this 'production' is still mystery.

A date even if correct does not preclude supernatural origin as your overeaching statement of 'art' would suggest.

132 posted on 12/25/2004 1:47:09 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson