Posted on 03/25/2010 12:58:38 PM PDT by TaraP
The world will have an extraordinary opportunity to look upon an undistorted, never-before-seen, moving 3-D portrait of a man who many think is the crucified Jesus Christ.
In just one week, graphic experts will bring to life an imprint on the holy relic known as the Shroud of Turin, believed by millions to be the burial shroud of Christ.
The Shroud of Turin bears the full-body, back-and-front image of a crucified man that is said to closely resemble the New Testament description of the passion and death of Christ. The 14-foot cloth long has posed mysteries because of its age and its negative image of a bloodstained and battered man who had been crucified. Believers claim it to be the miraculous image of Jesus, formed as he rose from the dead.
The History Channel will air "The Real Face of Jesus?," a special two-hour event that premieres March 30 at 9 p.m. EST. It aims to bring the world as close as it has ever come to seeing what Jesus may have actually looked like.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Then do some research on the people Right is defending, you will find he is telling you the truth. By their fruits you will know them. The fact is that he is who he claims to be, just as I am who I claim to be. Both of us have backed up our statements with documented science from peer reviewed articles in known scientific journals with track records, such as Thermochimica Acta and Nature, not the popular press or skeptics' vanity magazines.
However we are reminded by YHvH:
Exodus 20:4
good point, however, ask yourself: if this was left behind by Jesus in the empty tomb WHO made it? Us, or God?
If it is real then we are blessed as we will recognize Yah'shua The caution I raise is for some christian cults who worshipAll the scientific inquiries seem to suggest that it is real.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
when He comes to claim His bride during the snatching away.
slivers of wood and bone and any cloth which is claimed
to have touched some select people.
Heavens, marstegreg......I don’t think I ever responded to your question here, and I apologize for that.
Here’s the answer, as short as I can make it:
The radiocarbon dating tests (they were conducted at several locations) in 1988 have all been royally and completely shot down......YEARS ago. Here’s why.
In short, the section that they cut the test sample(s) from was later shown to be “rewoven”, as you remember. It was done using a methodology known as “invisible weave”. What I think is so cool about this, is that the person who first brought this invisible weave technique (a technique known and used from the middle ages forward) was what I like to refer to, respectfully, as a “talented amateur”. The Shroud has been studied by top people in their disciplines from across many fields, from around the world....but some amazing work has been done by such “talented amateurs”.
In this case, it was one Sue Benford. She and her husband researched this and presented a paper on invisible weaving. That..........got the attention of one Ray Rogers.
Now, Ray was one of the original STURP team members. Genius, really. He was a muckity-muck at Los Alamos. When it comes to textiles, understanding how they react when burned, and countless other things related to textiles...Ray had no peer. Crusty as hell, but he was the man and everyone knew it.
Ray had pulled back from STURP (don’t ask me why, because I’d rather not go into it here; involved personalities...). However, he heard of Sue’s work years after he had withdrawn from Shroud study, and it re-invigorated him.
He got the scientific juices flowing and dug into what Sue found, and sure as hell....complete with microscopic examination....he confirmed that the area of the Shroud that had been cut for radiocarbon testing was, in fact, rewoven.
Masterfully so. You see it clearly with microscopy. The naked eye? You can’t see it.
Ray published a paper (I have it....) in a refereed scientific journal. His findings were verified by other scientists around the world (Russia, France, etc.).
The issue was laid to rest. The samples were taken from a rewoven area from the middle ages, NOT from original Shroud material.
Now....the media and the skeptics don’t exactly go out of their way to point all this out, do they? That ticks me off, but it’s typical.
Anyway, hope this helps answer your question.
Well honestly.....that part about the radiocarbon 14 dating being screwed up by people holding it there (occasionally) for hundreds of years....was nonsense. Doesn’t work that way.
When something is to be tested using radiocarbon dating, it is CLEANED. Thoroughly. So no, that part was nonsense.
The area was rewoven. Ray Rogers put that to rest years ago.
That aside...I liked the show for its main message: the Shroud is no fraud or fake.
Thanks for writing back! Someone else replied to my e-mails,too, and he seems to have quite a bit of knowlege on the subject. He wrote me this when I asked if there was any information that we may not have heard about, I think you will like this:
An unauthorized C-14 test was done prior to the 1988 test from a thread pulled from the center of the Shroud... and the age reported from that admittedly small sample was 1st Century, give or take 100 years (due to the small sample). That test has never been published and is only whispered about among Shroud scholars because it was unauthorized and the researcher who did it was wrong to have done it without permission. However, it’s results fly in the face of the later results of the authorized test... along with a lot of other scholarship that show the provenance of the shroud to be older than the earliest date of the 1988 test results
By the way, did you see the show...it was incredible. I thought it most telling that some of the original STURP members seem so interested in the shroud to this day, don’t you?
I saw the show. It was.........ok. Lots of things wrong that the typical viewer wouldn’t know or catch. That said, it did a good job of getting across the larger point: it’s no medieval fraud.
There were two original STURP members in the video (Schwortz, Jackson), but not the leader. He declined to work on this project.
What did you see that was not right? I am clearly not as knowlegable as a number of people here, so I really appreciate your expertise. I really love Mr. Scwortz, he has a very easy way of getting his point across, and I find it remarkable that someone of another faith is such a believer in the authenticity of the Shroud. When I google The Shroud of Turin, the first information that comes up is that its a fraud, a fake, can be reproduced, etc. I gets me upset that there is all this misinformation that seems to come up first.(There I go Babbling again, Sorry).
Well, quite a few things. Isabel Piczek’s recent work (much of which is highlighted in “The Fabric of Time”; a very decent film) was totally ignored. Jackson’s theory about the “strip” on the side being used to wrap the shroud/body and then sewn back onto the Shroud....utter nonsense. On many levels.
They also ignored Ray Rogers’ work that totally debunked the ‘88 radiocarbon 14 dating results. That was a ridiculous oversight.
Schwortz is a good guy. Has a great Web site: www.shroud.com
They also ignored the prevailing theory (mentioned above; Piczek’s work, along with another) that the image was formed when the body was elevated off the stone slab in the tomb, the Shroud completely taut....not draped over the body. That would have changed their “projections”, etc. rather dramatically in creating their 3D image.
Also....completely ignored the work done by Dr. Peter Soons and the Dutch Holographic Lab in creating holograms. Been around for several years now.
I could go on, but a lot of this is somewhat “inside baseball”. They did do a good job of getting across the fact that Shroud is legit; not a fraud or fake. For that, I applaud them.
Oh...one more thing. They got one other key thing wrong: who organized and led the STURP team. Let’s just say it wasn’t the guy in the film, although he was a key player.
Could you send me a list of sites/books/movies that would bring me up to speed on the Shroud. I am so incredibly interested, but I know there is a lot of garbage floating around too. I am going to google “The Fabric of Time” and buy it now, and also take a look at the holographic work you mentioned. If there is anything else out there please let me know, I thirst for knowlege...Thank you so much for writing to me, I really appreciate the information!
So, you are saying that since the quote may have predated Lincoln, Rightonline is either gullible or naive? You are someone who must always win the argument, and folks like you are frustrating to the max. When someone successfully counters your arguments, as RO has done time and again, you change the subject.
I have found that so-called “skeptics” can be among the most obtuse of people. IMO, anyone who is not utterly fascinated by the Holy Shroud lacks curiosity. Yesterday, I discussed the Shroud with a man who was convinced that the subject in question is Leonardo da Vinci. Only problem is that old Leonardo was born in 1452, a century AFTER the Shroud is known to exist! And of course, he knew all about a light pigment which was laid down before all the splatterings of blood, and that the Shroud has been successfully reproduced. He claimed to remain open-minded, so I suggested that he watch the special. Let us see...... Bob
Facts? What “facts” have you offered?
First place I’d start, and it can keep you busy (in a good way) for a long time, is Barrie Schwortz’ Web site. He has spent 14 years building it, populating it. It is superb:
www.shroud.com
Another thing. I’ve made it clear: you want to challenge the science? Well bring it. Let’s see your scientific refutation.
I welcome that. We welcome that. Just bring your best game. You’re competing with some of the finest scientific minds on the planet; recognized authorities in their respective fields.
So...the gauntlet is before you. Let’s see it. Enough chatter.
I believe your question,
“Facts? What “facts” have you offered?”
should perhaps be directed at alstewartfan. In post 297 here, awf mentions “facts which challenge pre-conceived notions”. You may be attempting to respond to his(her?) post.
"You're not saying that Flowerplough is stupid, BUT are saying closed-mindedness and unwillingness to accept any facts which challenge pre-conceived notions is almost as bad?"
So I'll repeat the question: What "facts" have you put forth that challenged a darned thing? What "facts" have you offered, or can you offer, to refute decades of scientific research?
What I HAVE seen is a lot of sarcasm, condescension, and hateful words about Catholics. That hardly passes for "facts", friend.
Some people around here do not seem to understand that when they say, in essence, “I hate the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church is involved in this, so I’m right,” that all they have done is proclaim their BIAS, they have not stated any facts.
Thanks! I will begin with that. Thanks again for the information. This site has the best people on it! :)
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.