Posted on 01/27/2005 12:28:12 PM PST by shroudie
Barrie Schwortz, Shroud Scholar and a Member of STURP that examined the Shroud in Turin in 1978, will appear on the O'Reilly Factor, Thursday, January 27, 2005 to discuss the Carbon 14 Dating. See foxnews.com for local schedule information.
This is a developing story. A January 20, 2005 article in the scholarly, peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425, pages 189-194, by Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) makes it perfectly clear: the carbon 14 dating sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 was not valid. In fact, the Shroud is much older than the carbon 14 tests suggested.
"bumping and getting the popcorn ready."
Pass me some. Apparently, there are more believers in this fake relic that I thought.
"Are you up to date on anything?"
Yep. Up to date on the numerous 'relics' used by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages to sucker dumb believers out of their money. They've all been found to be fake, or in the case of the 'incorruptible' mummies that were claimed to be 'saintly', a result of natural processes occurring in the geographic region around them.
I was raised Catholic, btw, so save your 'you're an anti-Catholic' bashing.
God isn't going to use a bunch of dumb trinkets to convey His message nor to prove His existence anyways. Sending his Son to be crucified and Resurrected was more than enough proof.
"There is almost NO reason to believe that the Shroud is anything but an authentic and miraculous image of Our Lord."
Except for all the money made off claiming its authenticity. All of that disappears (for the most part) if this is proven fake, which is why this myth is still being perpetuated. Lots of moolah to make from believing pilgrims!
Can you provide us with an example?
About a year ago, on the radio, O'reaallly said that the
only reliable (literal) part of the Bible was Matt, Mark, Luke and John.
He said that's why it's called the 'gospel'.
What jackass. He also said that he liked Bill Clinton personally, he just disagreed with his politics.
I wish that I had his $$$ and all that 'factor gear'...
I've tipped heavily toward believing it's the actual shroud of Christ, considering the facts of the Sudarium of Oviedo.
The King James translation, which has traditionally been treated by Protestants as telling the Gospel truth, reads as follows:
John 19:40
Then they took the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with spices, as the manner of Jews is to bury.
If you're going to trash the King James Bible, you're going to have to offer a little more than your prejudice against the Catholic Church to win many converts.
Guy on far left: "Toga! Toga! No wait...dang, I always mess this up."
"It was an expert job using an invisible weave that so closely resembled the original material..."
Does that make sense to you?
It doesn't to me, given the technology that was around in the 1400's and given the technology that examined the shroud in 1988.
That said, I concur that no one can determine how the image was formed.
The actual shroud would be a revered and honored cloth indeed as would any item associated with the crucifiction. I do not doubt that it would have been kept and protected thru the centuries. Other relics like the titulus crucis were hidden away as was the shroud for long periods. That certainly helped its survival.
So it is not unreasonable for it to have survived.
I just found it strange about testing a patched area....
When someone can explain to me how it was faked, I'll listen. In the meantime, knowing that it is not painted, that the images are a caramel-like substance 1/10th the width of a red blood cell and having a good sense of its history, I think it is real.
What that means, I'm not sure. And for all who make Catholic-bashing remarks, those are regrettable. Even so, I'm not Catholic. I'm Episcopalian. And neither is Barrie Schwortz, who will appear on O'Reilly. He's Jewish. And neither are some other proponents of authenticity such as Gary Habermas of Liberty University (the Falwell university). It is widely accepted by Catholic, Anglican, Protestant and Evangelical Christians (even some liberal ones).
Dan
Dan
I seem to remember reading that at one time the shroud had a cotton backing placed on it, then later removed.
Nothing like O'Reilly shouting someone down to give the Shroud the kind of discussion it deserves.
"Can you provide us with an example?"
An example of what?
"The Shroud is like most things Catholic - belief based on tradition rather than Scripture."
You left out "for profit" after the word 'belief'
"Has it occurred to you that the translation of the Bible you rely upon as inerrant is a less than accurate translation of the original?"
HERETIC!!!!
j/k :)
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.