Shroud of Turin is not a fake, Vatican says

[Dexter Sinister]

Yep, and they made enough scientific errors to strongly suggest they were working from an another agenda.
Turin ?Shroud? Called ?Supernatural? | Center for Inquiry
Quite apart from that, the nature of the image is not consistent with Jewish burial practices, the shrouds are not wrapped the way that one was, if it is in fact a burial shroud at all, and there's a separate cloth over the face, so either there should be no image of the face or it should be strongly attenuated compared to the rest of the image. .

 

[Goober]

Yep, and they made enough scientific errors to strongly suggest they were working from an another agenda.
Turin ?Shroud? Called ?Supernatural? | Center for Inquiry
Quite apart from that, the nature of the image is not consistent with Jewish burial practices, the shrouds are not wrapped the way that one was, if it is in fact a burial shroud at all, and there's a separate cloth over the face, so either there should be no image of the face or it should be strongly attenuated compared to the rest of the image. .

Well that is the purpose of this - to learn. i would hope the Vatican would employ peer reviewed scientists to conduct tests. Random samples for carbon dating would be one. The rest well it could be defined beforehand so there would be an agreed upon process.

 

[Spade]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-shroud-of-turin-jesus-jerusalem-leprosy/

The shroud is a religious icon. It serves to focus belief. Authenticity is irrelevant.

 

[petros]

Jesus - you said it man... - YouTube

 

[Niflmir]

After five years of laser experiments, experts from the National Agency for New Technologies and Energy, concluded the imprint of a bearded man's face and crucified body could not be reproduced by modern scientific techniques.

Of course it can't be, scientists are not artists. I'm sure any art college graduate could reproduce it in a day if you were willing to pay them the millions the Vatican probably wasted on this and other studies. This is just a desperate attempt to get people to forget that the shroud has been radiocarbon dated to ~1300CE.

 

[gerryh]

Of course it can't be, scientists are not artists. I'm sure any art college graduate could reproduce it in a day if you were willing to pay them the millions the Vatican probably wasted on this and other studies. This is just a desperate attempt to get people to forget that the shroud has been radiocarbon dated to ~1300CE.

Did ya read the article? Didn't think so.

Plus, it appears the dating may be in question

"Rogers said that his analysis of other samples, based on levels of a chemical called vanillin that results from the decomposition of flax and other plants, showed the Shroud could be "between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."

 

[Niflmir]

Did ya read the article? Didn't think so.

Plus, it appears the dating may be in question

"Rogers said that his analysis of other samples, based on levels of a chemical called vanillin that results from the decomposition of flax and other plants, showed the Shroud could be "between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."

I've never heard of vanillin dating before you mentioned it. A cursory search through scientific literature shows that it is a chemical found in vanilla, and that dating of it proceeds through carbon dating. Also, that people use it only for the purposes of dating vanilla, unless they are dating the shroud of Turin. Which is a huge red flag. So I find it unsurprising that extracting trace amounts of a protein from linen where said protein should not occur and then carbon dating that protein is inconclusive.

Not all methods are created equal. Did you know that you can experimentally measure the mathematical constant pi by dropping pins on a sheet of paper? Can you imagine that this is much less accurate than just computing it using for instance arithmetic-geometric mean? If you can't imagine it, then just take my word for it, as I've done both.

Anyways, the whole thing is junk science as I've pointed out. It is in general possible to prove the non-existence of things (in this case they are trying to prove the non-existence of a method to produce the shroud) but not the sort of thing they are trying to disprove, not without knowledge of all the forms of human art. Knowledge which an artist might possess, but not a scientist.

 

[lone wolf]

I always thought it was kind of neat how the shroud even captured an image of hair. Methinks the Vatican may be a tad biased....

 

[damngrumpy]

Petros, think of how much money could have been made had they discovered the
sleeping bag. Oh and even more had they made blue jeans back then.
Science is going to lose out when it confronts faith. Science deals with the facts
in front of us, faith it that intangible thing that outstrips what is real.
Even so the Shroud has confounded the world for centuries and it matters not
anyway. We have a shroud with an imprint even if it is real it doesn't mean it was
Christ. There were a lot of people crucified by the Romans. and it went one for a
long time. As for it could only come from using lasers, that doesn't hold water
either, as we don't know what they had for imprinting back then. All we know is
that there was no common business putting imprints on shrouds like they now do
on T Shirts.

 

[gerryh]

I always thought it was kind of neat how the shroud even captured an image of hair. Methinks the Vatican may be a tad biased....

Despite the misleading head line, the Vatican is NOT saying the shroud is not a fake.

 

[lone wolf]

Despite the misleading head line, the Vatican is NOT saying the shroud is not a fake.

Given the "prove it" nature of today's society I suspect the Vatican is quite hopeful the shroud proves to be exactly what it's believed to be. Seems to me that would be about the same as a bias - NOT a negative thing....

 

[gerryh]

Given the "prove it" nature of today's society I suspect the Vatican is quite hopeful the shroud proves to be exactly what it's believed to be. Seems to me that would be about the same as a bias - NOT a negative thing....

I am sure there are many that would like to see the shroud to be proven to be Christs, just like there are many that would like to see the opposite. The Vatican itself, on the other hand, has taken the entire controversy from the beginning with more than a grain of salt. Despite what it's detractors would like one to believe, the Catholic Church has, for the most part, been vary wary about what it endorses as being "genuine".

 

[Omicron]

The Vatican has always taken the shroud with a grain of salt in as much as it also analyzes reports of new saints.

The way the Vatican got into this way of thinking was because in the fourth to sixth centuries new saints were being reported a dime a dozen.

It has been determined that the shroud was painted in the 11th century, and the only thing stumping moderns is how the ancient artist knew that nails were put through the wrist.

 

[petros]

Whatever it is, it's neat.

 

[gopher]

We had a thread on this many moons ago. As I indicated previously, Jews did not put shrouds on the deceased upon burial. That was a Roman, not Judaic, practice. The New Testament clearly states that Yahshuah was ''wrapped in linen cloth'' in John 19:40. The term used is G3608 in Strong's Concordance or othonion. These are trips of linen cloth for swathing the dead such as in mummification. Bear in mind that Jews lived in or near Africa for many centuries and did not adopt Roman customs until a much later time. Therefore, the Shroud of Turin could not possibly have been used in Yahshuah's burial.

 

[gerryh]

We had a thread on this many moons ago. As I indicated previously, Jews did not put shrouds on the deceased upon burial. That was a Roman, not Judaic, practice. The New Testament clearly states that Yahshuah was ''wrapped in linen cloth'' in John 19:40. The term used is G3608 in Strong's Concordance or othonion. These are trips of linen cloth for swathing the dead such as in mummification. Bear in mind that Jews lived in or near Africa for many centuries and did not adopt Roman customs until a much later time. Therefore, the Shroud of Turin could not possibly have been used in Yahshuah's burial.

Well, there ya's go. The almighty gopher has spoken. The controversy has been answered.

 

[petros]

We had a thread on this many moons ago. As I indicated previously, Jews did not put shrouds on the deceased upon burial. That was a Roman, not Judaic, practice. The New Testament clearly states that Yahshuah was ''wrapped in linen cloth'' in John 19:40. The term used is G3608 in Strong's Concordance or othonion. These are trips of linen cloth for swathing the dead such as in mummification. Bear in mind that Jews lived in or near Africa for many centuries and did not adopt Roman customs until a much later time. Therefore, the Shroud of Turin could not possibly have been used in Yahshuah's burial.

Jesus wasn't a Judean (Jew) so why make the guy something he wasn't? Israelites used burial shouds all the way back to Egypt days.
.

 

[gopher]

Jesus wasn't a Judean (Jew) so why make the guy something he wasn't? Israelites used burial shouds all the way back to Egypt days.

Matthew 1:1 clearly shows Yahshuah's family line going back to Abraham. Verse three shows he was descended of Judas which makes him a Jew. If you looked up Strong's Concordance you would clearly see a shroud was not described in that quote from the New Testament. Instead, it was cloths made of linen used in mummification as Egyptians used. However, if you can show me where the words used were translatable as "shroud", I'd like to see some reference to that.

there ya's go. The almighty gopher has spoken. The controversy has been answered.

Thanks Gerry - but the credit goes to Strong's Concordance for its translation of the original Greek texts.

 

[petros]

Check your Strong's or even take the time to read Kings about how the Kingdom of Israel was split in two. Israelites and Judeans (Jews). Israelites never ever called themselves Jews.

 

[In Between Man]

Jesus wasn't a Judean (Jew) so why make the guy something he wasn't? Israelites used burial shouds all the way back to Egypt days.

Jesus was indeed a Jew. Your claim that he wasn't is absurd.

Jesus:

was circumcised as a Jew (Luke 2:21)

his parents we observant of the Torah and did everything that Jesus' birth required (Luke 2:39)

his other relatives like his aunt and uncle were observant Jews (Luke 1:6)

his parents made the 140 mile trip to every passover with him (Luke 2:41)

he stayed behind an extra 3 days to talk to the teachers at the Jewish temple (Luke 2:46)

he understood the Torah (Luke 2:47)

he respected the Jewish temple, and called it his father's (Luke 2:49)

his disciples were Jewish (John 1:47)

his disciples called him RABBI (John 4:31)

was called Rabbi by others, even crowds (John 3:2, John 6:25)

he spoke Hebrew (Matthew 27:46)

he affirmed the authority of the Torah and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17)

he attended the synagogue (Luke 4:16)

what he taught at the synagogue was respected (Luke 4:15)

he taught at the temple, if wasn't a Jew he wouldn't be allowed (Luke 21:37)

in addition to observing Passover (John 2:13) he observed Succot (John 7:2,10) and observed Hanukah (John 10:22)

when faced with temptation, he answered from the Hebrew scripture (Matthew 4:2-10)

when admonished, he quoted from Hebrew scripture (Mark 7:6-13)

he SELF-IDENTIFIED as a Jew (John 4:22)

his last supper was a Passover meal (Luke 22:14-15)

when taken into custody, he was delivered to the Jewish priests, (Mark 14:53) The arresting Roman soldiers wouldn't place him under Jewish jurisdiction if he wasn't Jewish.

he was charged with violating Jewish law (Matthew 26:65)

he was recognized as being under Jewish jurisdiction by Pilate (John 18:31)

he was mocked by the Roman soldiers as "The King of the Jews" (Mark 15:18 )

and when they crucified him, their charge was "King of the Jews" (Matthew 27:37)

he was buried according to Jewish custom (John 19:40)

he spoke Hebrew to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:14)

he is same yesterday, today and tomorrow (Hebrews 13:8 )

The evidence OVERWHELMINGLY proves that your claim that he was not a Jew is absurd. He was born a Jew. He lived a Jew. He died a Jew, and he was resurrected a Jew. He is alive and Jewish now, and forevermore the same.

Check your Strong's or even take the time to read Kings about how the Kingdom of Israel was split in two. Israelites and Judeans (Jews). Israelites never ever called themselves Jews.

*face palm*

The split between the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah happened *AFTER* they were unified as the 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL under Saul, and more strongly united under David, about 1000 b.c. (source)

They are RELATED by blood. They are BOTH JEWISH. BOTH kingdoms comprise of the 12 tribes of the Jewish people.

When the Judeans split from the rest of Israel, they were Jewish. Who did they split from? Their fellow Jews!

You simply don't know what you're talking about.