Posted on 01/26/2005 10:37:01 PM PST by neverdem
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.
"We're darned sure that part of the cloth was not original Shroud of Turin cloth," he said, adding that threads from the main part of the shroud were pure linen, which is spun from flax.
The threads in the patched portion contained cotton as well and had been dyed to match.
From other tests, he estimated that the shroud was between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.
I don't understand why this is so hard for people to follow.
The first chapter of John does not speak of "Jesus". It speaks of the second Person of the Trinity as the Word, eternally present with the Father, through whom all things were made. The Word became flesh at a specific moment in time. From this point onward, the Word has been both divine and human. Before the Incarnation, the Word was NOT human, had NO human name, No body, etc.
Jesus is fully divine and fully human, OK? His human and divine natures are inseparable, but this human nature came into being at the moment of his conception.
There was never a time when the Son did not exist. But there was certainly a time that Jesus did not exist. You cannot claim otherwise without calling the Incarnation a sham.
Then what is the Christological nature of Jesus in your view?
Yeah, you got me, maestro. How could I ever have hoped to fool you? I am so busted.
en arch hn o ihsous kai o ihsous hn pros ton qeon kai qeos hn o ihsous
Wrong again!
I'm sorry I interfered with your belief that this fraud hanky is holy and that it's remotely likely that it wiped God's face. I can understand being interested in the provenance of an historical object. However, this is not about that. It's about tangible proof of an intangible deity. You aren't going to get it, no matter how much fake science you buy. You still have to believe. A fraud hanky isn't going to make it more or less likely that Jesus was God's son. You still have to have faith, whether there's a holy hanky or not. I have faith in the carbon dating that says this wasn't around then, and I don't buy the 'they took the wrong part of the shroud' b.s. this guy is shilling. What's next--they didn't take enough? They needed to take the right corner instead? I don't think there will ever be enough proof for him...and worse, it doesn't matter if there is proof, because no matter what power is imagined in relics, faith is the real miracle worker.
I expressed myself just fine. Next time, read twice before posting.
LOL!!
How could Jesus exist before his mother?
Garbage in garbage out.
:-)
Thou has said it ...
Game, set, match.
....pros or meta
Errr...NO!
Why 'pros'.....?
Why Logos?
;-)
Say goodnight, Gracie : )
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.