Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin

Yahoo ^ | 5 Oct 2009 | Philip Pullella

[Gamecock]

An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake. The shroud, measuring 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ. "We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud," Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday. A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs.

[Houghton M.]

I’ve known the word longer than you know. Your calvinism is showing. Does that word violate the FR religion forum rules? Did your personal accusation that I’m stupid make you feel good? I’m sure that in personalizing the matter of my intelligence you are following the posted FR religion forum rules.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“The carbon date shows this is from late 1200s.”

The history of the shroud indicates it was exposed to intense heat - tests on similar fabric from the first century show that exposure to similar intense heat changes the carbon dating results. The carbon dating of the shroud is reasonably suspect.

I do not know whether it has authenticity, but I, as a scientist, question...and in my studies I have reason to question the attempts to debunk the shroud. (I am not a Catholic, but I am a Christian.)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If an angel of God came to you (or millions of other women on the planet) do you think you or they would say "no?" lol.

"Sorry, God. I've got other plans. I have to wash my hair and the donkey needs feeding."

The most important part Roman Catholics do not understand in this "Mary consented" foolishness is that Mary's non-compliance was impossible because God ordained Christ's birth (and death) from before the foundation of the world.

Just so you can have a better, truer idea of Mary's frame of mind, let's see what really happened to Paul...

"And as he (Saul) journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." -- Acts 9:3-6

And he did.

"Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"

THAT is the reaction of both Paul and Mary.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Your calvinism is showing.

Thank you.

Did your personal accusation that I’m stupid make you feel good? I’m sure that in personalizing the matter of my intelligence you are following the posted FR religion forum rules.

I've been on this forum too long to continue discussions with someone who does not tell the truth about what's happened in a thread.

I made no "personal accusation that you're stupid" nor did I "personalize the matter of your intelligence." You've done that all on your own.

And your false accusations are likewise against the RF rules.

I can only conclude you don't know the rules of the religion forum or you're unable to abide by them. Thus it's not productive to discuss anything with someone who doesn't play by the rules. Please review them before any further conversation.

[jwalsh07]

COLUMBUS, Ohio, August 15, 2008 — "In his presentation today at The Ohio State University’s Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed startling new findings proving that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon-14 (C-14) date the Shroud of Turin, which categorized the cloth as a medieval fake, could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton. According to Villarreal, who lead the LANL team working on the project, thread samples they examined from directly adjacent to the C-14 sampling area were “definitely not linen” and, instead, matched cotton. Villarreal pointed out that “the [1988] age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.” Villarreal also revealed that, during testing, one of the threads came apart in the middle forming two separate pieces. A surface resin, that may have been holding the two pieces together, fell off and was analyzed. Surprisingly, the two ends of the thread had different chemical compositions, lending credence to the theory that the threads were spliced together during a repair." "LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. This hypothesis was presented by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino in Orvieto, Italy in 2000. Benford and Marino proposed that a 16th Century patch of cotton/linen material was skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original Shroud cloth in the region ultimately used for dating. The intermixed threads combined to give the dates found by the labs ranging between 1260 and 1390 AD. Benford and Marino contend that this expert repair was necessary to disguise an unauthorized relic taken from the corner of the cloth. A paper presented today at the conference by Benford and Marino, and to be published in the July/August issue of the international journal Chemistry Today, provided additional corroborating evidence for the repair theory."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

And yet you know that God holds Mary in no higher esteem than the rest of us believers. Can you tell us how both of these can be logically true or truthful statements?

Gladly.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of GOD" -- Romans 3:23

[jwalsh07]

Gladly.

Very funny!

[Houghton M.]

If an angel came to me and told me that X would happen and I did not believe it, I would say no, thanks, leave me alone.

If one says yes (which you do not deny Mary said), then it means one believes (what you call “understands”).

So, Mary was the first believer. I think we actually agree on this but you think you don’t.

The difference is that you think that belief is not free consent, that those who believe are made to believe by God.

Fine, but if that’s true, then God uses us like puppets.

Your proof-text is ludicrous. Sure, God decreed Christ’s birth and death from before the foundation of the earth. But that says nothing about whether Mary was free to refuse. You have another governing theory that says she was not, but your prooftext proves nothing in that regard. I have a governing theology that says she could say no or she was not really human.

Your opening sentences are predicated on Mary believing the angel to be from God and speaking truth. Sure, no one who believed that God had chosen her would say, “I have to wash my hair.” But your very statement proves my point: she didn’t say “I have to wash my hair, I have other plans” because SHE BELIEVED in the truth of the incarnation taking place right now.

So, we are back to where we started. She’s the first believer. You are not the first. She’s ahead of you in line. She’s not simply your equal. She’s the one whom God chose and who believed he had chosen her. She’s the first believer.

She’s the first believer.

She’s the first believer.

She’s the first believer.

You can’t wish this away. So you say, “she had no choice but to believe.” In which case, she was a puppet.

And since you believe you are a puppet too, I guess in your world, you two are equal. Equal in your puppetry.

But common sense shows that people can and do say no to God. If Mary was not really free to say no she was not really human and the Incarnation did not really take place because God became incarnate of a non-human. But that doesn’t faze you because you believe all humans are non-human, unfree.

I have to admit, Calvinism is rigorously logical. But absolutely contrary to fact. We are free to reject God. Mary was. She consented. We love her and honor her for it.

So did Jesus. What a religion you’ve created—in your religion Jesus has to diss his own mother in order to take her down to our level so that we won’t be guilty of blasphemy.

I’d rather go with a God Incarnate who honors his mother as his mother. And no other woman has ever been the mother of the Incarnate Word of God. So the Word of God, appropriately, honors her and so do I.

You could too if you just relaxed your monergistic obsessive-compulsive theology a tad. You don’t even have to become a Catholic. You could be Orthodox. Or Baptist or Lutheran. It wouldn’t hurt you to honor Jesus’ mother. A lot of Protestants do, increasingly so.

And a side-benefit. It’s very Scriptural.

[Houghton M.]

Just Roman blasphemy, I’m sorry to say.

[Houghton M.]

I’ll review them the way you review Scripture, perhaps. I’ll not consent to them but understand them. How’s that?

Look, your school-marmish self-righteousness does not become you, after you jumped into your thread with both “Roman blasphemy” guns blazing.

But you’re the rule-keeper. You yourself indignantly insist you are. And I’m the lawless rule-breaker.

And the Roman blasphemer. Do you really think you make friends and influence people with that stuff?

How can I ever thank you for the encomia with which you have crowned me in your kind and gentle rule-keeping.

[Religion Moderator]

Do not make the thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Houghton M.]

And accusing Catholics of blasphemy is acceptable?? Read this thread up to the point that Dr. Eckleburg jumped into it with anti-Catholic comments designed to stir up hostility. She hijacked this thread.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I didn’t see your post before I posted.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I was pinged to the thread by the FReeper who posted the thread.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You personalized this.

All evidence to the contrary.

[Religion Moderator]

This is an open thread in the Religion Forum. Posters may argue for or against beliefs. The debate can become contentious.

Posters who are not comfortable with town square style debate should ignore the open threads altogether and instead post to the RF threads labeled "prayer" "devotional" "caucus" or "ecumenical."

Also, when one belief spawns from another it is typical for both to condemn the other in the harshest terms possible, e.g. cult, anathema, heresy, blaspheme, apostacy. Such terms are often part of the official doctrines and should be expected in "open" debate in the Religion Forum.

For more guidelines to the Religion Forum, click on my profile page.

[Houghton M.]

“Your post shows exactly how Rome twists the clear meaning of Scripture into glorifying the creature intead of the creator.”

This is Dr. Eckleburg’s first post to me on this thread.

In this post she does exactly what she just now accused me of doing: using the personal pronoun “your” to link what I wrote to “Roman twisting.”

She did not simply disagree with Roman Catholic beliefs (and the Shroud of Turin issue is not a Catholic issue and the thread had avoided making it that because enough people on the thread understood that the Shroud has attracted supporters across the Christian spectrum.)

How is her personal linking of me to “Roman twisting” not a personalization of the issue? She protests her innocence but she did exactly what she accuses me of doing.

[Houghton M.]

It’s no. 338.