New Evidence: Shroud of Turin Older Than Thought

[Urban Ranger]

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.

You're getting that from Discovery, the same outfit that gave air time to Bauval's completely wacko ideas about the Great Pyramids and the Sphinx.

[Berzerker]

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

Very good point

[Urban Ranger]

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

Except for John, we have no idea who the authors of various Gospels were. So how can we tell if they witnessed anything?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heresson
I've heard it is not.

One test claimed it was AB negative blood, the others identified it as red pigment. A little thing you should know about blood. When it dries on cloth, it turns black, not red or brown.

BTW, it's also speculated thet the shroud was the shroud of Jac de Moley, though the proof is no more conclusive for that scenario, though it does better fit the time period.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Very good point

Not really. Two of the Gospels aren't even claimed to have been written by disciples, which means, they weren't witnesses. The issue of authenticty wasn't even settled until the time of Constantine, so it's highly unlikely that they were in a position to know who or when the Gospels were written. Plus, they tossed out a number of other Gospels, including two purported to be written by disciples, like the Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdelene. And then there's the missing "Q."

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Except for John, we have no idea who the authors of various Gospels were. So how can we tell if they witnessed anything?

I agree with that

I am just saying that we don't know

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

actually I don't beleive that the first three were written by witnesses

I think I already said that though

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

A relic of my X-ian past is that I'm fascinated by early X-ian history and writings.

[Jon Miller]

it was a really chaotic time

there were a lot of beleifs, which the catholic church really hammered when it came into being

the tamer ones were the Arians and Gnostics

Jon Miller

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Heresson

You should believe it. And as the shroud is supernatural...

why should a piece of cloth which may or may not have been wrapped around the body of christ be supernatural

of all things, i think we 've proven that jesus wasn't immortal.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by dannubis
why should a piece of cloth which may or may not have been wrapped around the body of christ be supernatural

of all things, i think we 've proven that jesus wasn't immortal.

Quite. The best the Shroud of Turin could do is to show that it was used to wrap a dead body at some point is history. It certainly doesn't make any connections to Jesus of Nazareth, let alone showing said person was what the bible said he was.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


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

No, but it was used to shore up a faith. Really, this is just excuse making at its worst.


The only reason noone 'believes' in the Decretals of Isidore and the Donation of Constantine is because they were shown to be fakes. The attitude of the Vatican towards rigorous examination of the cloth goes a long way towards explaining why it, too, has not been exploded as the money making mediaeval fake it is.

The various heads of 'John the Baptist', pieces of the 'True Cross' and the alleged icon painted by 'St Luke' have all been held up as being genuine. How many 'holy foreskins' is Jesus meant to have had I wonder, and how many forests must the 'true cross' have been composed of?


And isn't curious, given mystical, supernatural powers attached to legendary items such as the Grail, Christ's robe, the spear of Longinus, yadda yadda yadda, that the shroud hasn't been there to help Catholicism out when it was needed?

Funny how miracles seem to be in short supply in an age of forensic science, video cameras, and laboratory testing.


In any case, a faith which resides on as shallow a foundation as a piece of cloth or the alleged existence of its founder seems a very fragile belief. Algebra's effectiveness does not rest after all, on proving that its supposed originator was one person, or a group of people.

[Heresson]

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

I'm not denying that.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

As is Moses.

But they both lived centuries before Jesus... Perhaps none evidence was found. Or, as I've mentioned, we simply don't know about such cases.
Or contemporary spirituality differed from the one of early/medium Christianity

The various heads of 'John the Baptist', pieces of the 'True Cross' and the alleged icon painted by 'St Luke' have all been held up as being genuine. How many 'holy foreskins' is Jesus meant to have had I wonder, and how many forests must the 'true cross' have been composed of?

Seriously... in ME it was believed the holiness is kind of radiation, that emanates from a body of the holy person also after his death and from the things that this person used....

Also, it is one of the explanations why there were so many reliques. It was enough to put a bone on a bone of a saint for some time to make it a relique as well.

But, of course, another reason was greed and biasphemy of reliques-sellers.
But that doesn't mean every relique was fake. False adidas shoes...

Today, we have means to check if some relique is true or not, and we can use it. What's your point?

Originally posted by dannubis

why should a piece of cloth which may or may not have been wrapped around the body of christ be supernatural

Because it is, whether it is shroud of Jesus of not.

of all things, i think we 've proven that jesus wasn't immortal.

Christians are still more numerable than atheists, sorry.

So the shroud image could not be the result of something wrapped in it transferring an image to the cloth.

If Jesus was covered with paint and the shroud was put on Him, perhaps You'd have been right. But if it was a miracle, the things You say are irrelevant.

My first point was that I doubt someone would be looking for actually as old shroud to make a forgery. And in Medieval Europe, I don't know what his possibilities of getting one and precisely dating it would be.
Of course, it's possible, but these are just your assumptions.

that the shroud hasn't been there to help Catholicism out when it was needed?

Who says that it did not?

Algebra's effectiveness does not rest after all, on proving that its supposed originator was one person, or a group of people.

Religion is not algebra.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


Religion is not algebra.

I agree. But that wasn't the point. The point was, does the efficacy or test of algebra rest on proving that its supposed sole originator existed?


Trying to base an article of religious faith on the supposed existence of one person (especially given the lack of anything approaching real evidence, rather than propaganda, hearsay and so forth) seems to me a recipe for disaster. Extending this level of credulity to a piece of cloth which appeared in 14th Century France with a very dubious provenance seems to me to be inviting not dispelling scepticism.


Now we understand why the Catholic Church might have been so reluctant to have a holy relic tested.

[Whaleboy]

Talk about clutching at straws!! So it may have been older than originally determined? Isn't it the case that Christ's head was supposedly wrapped using separate strips from the piece used to wrap his body? John 20:6-7 Pwned!