New Evidence: Shroud of Turin Older Than Thought

[Mr. Nice Guy]

It's interesting that so many of you are completely ignoring the new evidence concerning the shroud that I linked to in the first post of this thread.

In one ear and out the other.

[Solomwi]

Looks instead like the new evidence was duly considered and found not nearly as convincing as you had hoped.

[Proteus_MST]

It would be more convincing if the article would say
"The shroud is between 1900 and 2100 years old"
instead of
"... suggests that the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old"

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Not one of the authors of the Gospels witnessed Jeshua's birth, his life, nor his crucifiction. They were all written well after his death.

just because they were written after His death does not make it true that none of the authors witnessed anything

for everything but the latest possible dates for writing the gospels it is possible that they were written by someone who had seen it in their youth

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

and the writers could all definitely talk to people who had seen Jesus (even at the latest dates)

Jon Miller

[Gibsie]

so you're arguing with che's assertion even though you don't actually know if it's correct or not. Nice!

[Jon Miller]

well, yes

what is wrong with that?

he doesn't know it is correct or not either

I am just pointing out that it isn't known

you do that with all sort of things, including this shroud of turin thing (yuo don't know whether it is correct or not, but you argue with Mr Nice Guy about it)

it is part of being critical, which is a key piece of enlightenment thought

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

in otherwords

I did what any other self-respecting intellectual would do

so stop being an ass

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
and the writers could all definitely talk to people who had seen Jesus (even at the latest dates)

Jon Miller

Yes, but that would mean they weren't witnesses. In any event, I can still state with absolute certainty that one, single, author witnessed Jeshua's birth.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
It's interesting that so many of you are completely ignoring the new evidence concerning the shroud that I linked to in the first post of this thread.

It's not relavent. The fact that the shroud could be that old in no way proves it is what is claimed, i.e., that it is the burial shroud of Jeshua ben Joseph. Next, you have the problem that the image is made of paint.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
well, yes

what is wrong with that?

he doesn't know it is correct or not either

I am just pointing out that it isn't known

you do that with all sort of things, including this shroud of turin thing (yuo don't know whether it is correct or not, but you argue with Mr Nice Guy about it)

it is part of being critical, which is a key piece of enlightenment thought

Jon Miller

Sorry, it's just one of my pet peeves when someone states something that they are fairly certain about and then someone else just guesses they were wrong with no real basis for thinking that. Nothing personal

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Heresson
As I've written before, the technique that would have to be needed to put this picture onto the shroud was not available in Middle Ages.

You have no way of knowing that.

This shroud is known since then, and is probably the same as Mandillion, an image of Christ (story of St Veronica etc), originally at Edessa (Sanliurfa today), later captured by Byzantines during their reconquista and led to Constantinople, from where it disappeared during IV crusade - some time before the shroud is witnessed in Western Europe...

This nothing more than utter speculation. As I said, multitudes of "shrouds" were roaming the Mediterranean region for centuries.

And then, people did not care for such details as modern forgers would.

And this is nonsense. Joe Nickell wrote a great article on medeival iconography that showed how artists of the time were often extremely meticulous in detail.

Moreover, the image on the shroud is much more akin to medeival art than it is to an actual human image. The head is disproportionately large for the body, the face overly long and the forehead overly bulbous. If this where the image of a real person, he would have had to have had an obviously distorted head.

Also, the image is not congruous at all with a piece of cloth wrapped around a body. Were such to be the case, the image should be distorted width-wise, much like the distortions in a world map that stretch out Greenland (putting a 3D spherical surface onto a 2D surface). So the shroud image could not be the result of something wrapped in it transferring an image to the cloth.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
People couldn't paint until modern times?
It's not relavent. The fact that the shroud could be that old in no way proves it is what is claimed, i.e., that it is the burial shroud of Jeshua ben Joseph. Next, you have the problem that the image is made of paint.

I've heard it is not.

Surely the relevant points are: The Vatican/organized church is hardly a newbie when it comes to falsifying evidence- the Donation of Constantine being a prime case.

But it was not a falsyfication of a matter of faith...
And no-one claims it is true today.

I've read a book that seriously claimed that the Turin Shroud was a hoax made by Leonardo Da Vinci

1) -
2) - the shroud and the picture on it is much much older than Leonardo.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
This is an honest question, or couple of questions:

Do other religions put this kind of emphasis on substantiating the reality of their stories? AFAIK, Jews aren't running around looking for the staff of Moses; Buddhists haven't made a fetishistic shrine out of the original tree under which Buddha achieved enlightenment; Hindu temples do not contain Actual Nail Clippings from the Many Fingers of Vishnu. The only other religion I know of that puts this kind of emphasis on its own historical/material basis is, interestingly enough, Islam.

Why is that?

Is it so, or we just don't know anything about it because we're living in different cultural area?
Also, some of this may come from that Jesus and Muhammad are historical figures, unlike Hindu gods.

[Solomwi]

The Buddha is also a historical figure, Heresson.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Solomwi
The Buddha is also a historical figure, Heresson.

As is Moses.