Posted on 12/24/2004 12:18:11 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Very good, and they both often wore sandals.
"...the shroud was...exposed to a fire...in the 1300s..."
It is true that the shroud was exposed to high temperature in a fire, as you state. Russian scientists took a piece of cloth similar to that of the shroud, of 1st Century vintage, carbon dated it, exposed it to high temperature similar to what the shroud experienced, carbon dated it again.
The first dating by the Russians confirmed 1st Century, and after the high temp exposure the dating showed it to be much younger, like of recent vintage. With this data, we cannot say that the carbon dating of the shroud showing 13th Century proves it a fake. (Actually, I believe the dating shows the shroud to be 14th Century.)
The shroud has a history that predates the 13th or 14th Century. Early images of Jesus have been found that are similar to the image of the shroud, and appear to be copies of that image on the shroud. It has been determined that the image is not painted, nor inked onto the fabric. It is a photographic negative. It definitely appears to be the image of a crucified man who was scourged without mercy. The image shows that the man wore a crown of thorns (not a circular "crown" but a crown like a skull cap, pressed hard into his head. Residues on the shroud have been identified as human blood. The marks on his back indicate that he carried a beam, the cross-piece of a cross.
Fake? I do not know about the authenticity of the shroud. Is there enough evidence to claim with certainty that it is a fake? No, I do not believe that there is. I once thought so, but not now.
I do know one thing for sure - the man, Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God, is real. He was here on this earth, born in the flesh, he died on the cross nearly 2,000 years ago, and he rose and lives. He died for me. He died for you. He died that we all might live. The life He gives is there, freely given, we only have to accept that gift and it becomes ours.
Sometimes it's all about faith, and I believe this to be real.
"I think Jesus looked a little like his mother, and a little like his Father, of whose appearance we know little."
Jesus said to Phillip, in John 14:9; "The person who has seen me has seen the Father"
It was subjected to carbon dating and shown to be from around the 13th century. There was a cottage industry during that period in which relics such as pieces of the cross and the nails were turning up all over. If people want to believe it is real based on faith, that is legitimate, but from a scientific perspective it is not 2 thousand years old.
No, he claims that the ark was buried under the site of the crucifixion. A fissure in the rock at the base of the cross led to the chamber where the ark was held, the blood ran down...
Like I said, check it out for yourself.
Did you see my post #57? You can have your cake and eat it too! Santa is real, and it's the truth.
Don't know if you are on the up-and-up? But a darned good description!!
Not sure what you mean by scruffy lips, and I don't recall pocked skin--but He's just a regular Guy...One of us!
I know what he claims... but he PROVES nothing. In fact he claims that GOD told him not to provide any proof "until the time was right"... which cannot occur because Wyatt is now dead.
I might also point out he claims to have found the "cross hole" and then excavated the site. Strange, there are no records of anyone excavating in that area... I am certain the Church sitting atop the now destroyed location of Golgotha would know about it if Wyatt had been digging up their basement.
This is false. No amount of heating can change the isotopic content of the Carbon in anything. Even allowing for the collection of soot in the fibers would not skew the results of a first century cloth enough to give a date in the 13th Century. The reason for the erroneous C14 tests is now very well known and can, and has been, proved. The sample taken from the Shroud for the C14 tests was cut from an area that had been invisibly rewoven in the 16th Century with new, distinctly different threads.
So.... you're a skeptic? hehe
FYI: The original C14 tests by the Arizona, Zurich, and Oxford labs reported creation dates of 1260 - 1390, a time spanning both 13th and 14th centuries.
For some reason, I don't think that the nose is right on the Popular Mechanics face. Most of the people I have met who are natives of Israel/Palestine have had thinner, more angular features than this man's. Of course, over 2000 years, populations migrate, groups intermarry, etc., but I would never pre-suppose this man to be Jesus. (Of course, the deer-in-the-headlights look in his eyes and vacant expression through his mouth don't look exactly Jesus-like either.)
From a scientific perspective the Carbon 14 test are invalid.
Read a synopsis of the latest findings on the Shroud's Carbon 14 testing.
The question of the age of the Shroud has been returned to where it was BEFORE the C14 test because of a stupid mistake.
You bet I am. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof... and Wyatt provides none.
Perhaps, as I did for a certain E. Raymond Capt who also made extraordinary claims, I should do a deconstruction of Wyatt's qualifications to even make these claims...
If you think it's worth the effort, go ahead.
Personally, I wonder about the value of these 'ministries' that go around highlighting the error in other people's ministries.
If Wyatt was a quack, it's really no sweat to me or anyone else. If he was legit, or at least made some discoveries, okay. It's an interesting theory, but like you say, no proof.
Now the ark pictures, there was clearly some kind of logical structure there. If not a big boat, maybe a small village or military outpost?
The Last Supper is another example, instead of lounging around on couches or cushions they are seated – Renaissance European style, in a European style room. It fit the style of the times and the audience it was painted for.
It would have meant little to the people if it had been portrayed in the style of the Middle East of a millennia and a half earlier.
Thank you.
Barney is actually black, or the man who wears Barneys suit.
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.