To: swilhelm73
The title's kind of misleading. Proving that the patch was medieval doesn't prove that the Shroud is "ancient". It just leaves the question open.
2 posted on
01/20/2005 3:28:46 PM PST by
Argus
To: swilhelm73
Can any Shroudies recommend a good recent book on this subject?
4 posted on
01/20/2005 3:44:21 PM PST by
Plutarch
To: swilhelm73
What if it is and what if it isn't? Is ones faith so dependent upon the authenticity of such relics? What if it is proven fake? Should that diminish the depth of ones faith? If proved authentic, would it deepen ones faith? I should hope not in either case.
5 posted on
01/20/2005 3:46:23 PM PST by
elbucko
(Feral Republican)
To: SunkenCiv
8 posted on
01/20/2005 3:49:34 PM PST by
solitas
(So what if I support a platform that has fewer flaws than yours? 'Mystic' dual 500 G4's, OSX.3.6)
To: swilhelm73
The thing is... even if the Shroud were precisely dated to 28AD and shown to be the product of no known technology, it would still be more parsimonious in terms of scientific materialism to suppose that 'believers' somewhere in our future had invented time travel and planted the evidence than it would be to suppose that a non-materialistic miracle had occurred.
9 posted on
01/20/2005 3:51:18 PM PST by
Grut
To: swilhelm73
Rogers' recent analysis of an authentic sample taken from the radiocarbon sampleA sample of the sample proves seems to back up the C-14 dating for that sample. That proves nothing about the rest of the cloth. The whole story strikes me as spin.
16 posted on
01/20/2005 4:10:53 PM PST by
PAR35
To: swilhelm73
To me the thing is merely a curiosity really. I have my faith, whether there is physical evidence or not.
I have no real opinion as to whether it is genuine, however, the carbon dating of the cloth seems likely to be inconclusive no matter what date it should return, given the fact that it was exposed to heat and smoke in a fire a few hundred years ago, and on a recent documentary they demonstrated how that can definitely throw off carbon dating. So what does it prove either way? And what is it with the catholic obsession with relics anyway? Some religious practices seem to "feel right" while others have more of a paganistc "feel" to them, like ritual cannibalism, religious tattooing, sacrifices, etc. This is, admittedly a personal sort of feeling about these things, and maybe others do not really relate to what I mean, I don't know. But anyway, the idea of keeping relics, some of which included body parts, as objects of religious adoration strikes me as a bit odd.
21 posted on
01/20/2005 4:38:00 PM PST by
WindOracle
(America is Great because America is good. When she ceases to be good, she shall cease to be Great.)
To: swilhelm73
That Today We Now Know The Shroud is much Older Than One swatch had Tested is Exciting!!!!And Sad That It Took 16 Years to Catch The Error. That It was So Painstakingly and Perfectly Rewoven Around 1290AD Adds to The reverance and Importance It Represented During Those dark Times. That We Today Can't Replicate Any Method to Create the Negative Image, makes Me a Believer in It Today.It Covered The SON of GOD In Death. AMEN.
To: swilhelm73
To All:
Read "The Second Messiah: Templars, the Shroud of Turin and the Great Secret of Freemasonary" by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas. The authors believe that the image on the Shroud of Turin is that of Jacques de Molay of the Knights Templar (1244 - 1314). They posit a reasonable explanation for the image. A good read!
24 posted on
01/20/2005 5:08:20 PM PST by
Joe Marine 76
(Peace through superior firepower and manuever!)
To: swilhelm73
I've been saying this since 1988. The shroud was damaged by fire in the middle ages, and there is quite a bit of patching material, especially at the corner where the sample was supposedly taken. I think it's understandable that the shroud's owners wouldn't want to destroy even a little bit of the actual cloth, but given the ramifications of the testing, every effort should have been made to ensure that the samples were from the actual relic and well-documented as to where they were taken from.
Incidentally, I believe the image on the shroud was created through the agency of ionizing radiation originating from a hard prototype (statuary) made of sedimentary rock containing moderate amounts of radioactive material.
31 posted on
01/20/2005 5:26:59 PM PST by
Mr Ramsbotham
(Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
To: swilhelm73
Don't forget about Doubting Thomas. He had to see the marks from the nails!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even then it was just to unbelievable to some. Blessed are those who have not seen and believe.
32 posted on
01/20/2005 6:05:00 PM PST by
therut
To: swilhelm73
The headline does not logically match the text. Nevermind that the article or a close relative was posted already.
35 posted on
01/21/2005 8:58:27 AM PST by
RightWhale
(Please correct if cosmic balance requires.)
To: swilhelm73
The Shroud is back in play -one can only wonder why sceptics will be coming out of the woodwork? The real question may be -what is gained by disproving it?
40 posted on
01/21/2005 4:06:05 PM PST by
DBeers
To: Alamo-Girl; HiTech RedNeck; Don Joe; Young Werther; RightWhale; SMEDLEYBUTLER; mjp; Jape; ...
SHROUD of TURIN PING!
More on the Carbon Dating error...
If you want on or off the Shroud Ping list, Freepmail me.
41 posted on
01/21/2005 11:48:30 PM PST by
Swordmaker
(Tagline now open, please ring bell.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson