[CyberAnt]

Well .. it may be wonderful .. but I’ve never read anything from the Huffington Post that even closely related to the fact that JESUS was a real person.

Consequently, I would not waste my time reading anything from Huffington Post.

I’ve heard the argument before about it being too long after Jesus death .. or before Jesus death .. but the real date was proven by “The Face of Jesus”. One of the reasons for the date argument was the extra piece of cloth on one edge. It was purported to be a different date than the rest of the cloth. It turned out, there was documentation which proved the cloth had been damaged at some point, and when it was repaired, the cloth was (of course) slightly different than the original.

So, I’ll stick with “The Face of Jesus” .. but thank you anyway.

[GreyFriar]

It was in other sources other than the Huffington Post and also a tv documentary. Thus, to me, it is a rare case of where the HP is delivering a straight story. If I find another source I’ll post it. Also the HP story said it was quoting the London Telegraph.

[GreyFriar]

Here are stories about it from other sources: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/29/shroud-turin-dates-back-to-jesus-era-study-says/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9958678/Turin-Shroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.html In his recent book, "Il Mistero della Sindone," translated as "The Mystery of the Shroud," (Rizzoli, 2013), Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical engineering at Padua University, said his analysis proves the shroud dates from 280 B.C. to A.D. 220 ― meaning it existed during Jesus' lifetime, the Guardian reports. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/28/turin-shroud-tv-pope-francis

[Swordmaker]

I’ve heard the argument before about it being too long after Jesus death .. or before Jesus death .. but the real date was proven by “The Face of Jesus”. One of the reasons for the date argument was the extra piece of cloth on one edge. It was purported to be a different date than the rest of the cloth. It turned out, there was documentation which proved the cloth had been damaged at some point, and when it was repaired, the cloth was (of course) slightly different than the original.

More than "slightly different" . . . try 1500 years different. They think the patch was applied sometime in the late 1500s.