Shroud of Turin

[bippy123]

From what I have gathered:
The skeptics have a series of objections that have ALL been dealt with in various forms, the scientific ones even by "peer reviewed" works.
The one thing that can put the KAIBOSH on the shroud is it being duplicated with ALL characteristics, using methods that were available in the 14th century.
That has not been done, not with 14th century methods OR modern methods.
That about sums it up, yes?

Exactly Paul and this is what ticks off atheists the most, and this is why I keep telling everyone that the shroud is Kryptonite to atheists. They claim that they love science but have completely abandoned it when it comes to the shroud.
I can just picture God having a chuckle as they get frustrated from explanation after explanation goes down the toilet in trying to debunk the shroud.
God does have a sense of humor hehe

[Philip]

Bippy, I've been reading your links as I have time. Great stuff! But given that the current Pope believes the Shroud to be authentic, and as the past C14 analysis has been said to have been taken from much more recent fibers (perhaps a repair after the fire), has there been any recent mention of plans by the church to submit it to further testing? And if not, why not? If confident in its authenticity, I would think the church hierarchy would want to confirm it - or at least as close as technically possible? Or is there perhaps a fear amongst some in the church, either as to its authenticity or as to doubts that ANY technology could ever truly authenticate it - even if is the real deal?

[PaulSacramento]

Bippy, I've been reading your links as I have time. Great stuff! But given that the current Pope believes the Shroud to be authentic, and as the past C14 analysis has been said to have been taken from much more recent fibers (perhaps a repair after the fire), has there been any recent mention of plans by the church to submit it to further testing? And if not, why not? If confident in its authenticity, I would think the church hierarchy would want to confirm it - or at least as close as technically possible? Or is there perhaps a fear amongst some in the church, either as to its authenticity or as to doubts that ANY technology could truly authenticate it even if the real deal?

I can't speak for the church of course, but considering what happened when they did allow for testing, why would they want to go through that crap again?
You need to remember that , for the church, the fact the Christ lived and died is a fact and doesn't need to be proven.
Faith has always been far more important than proof for the church.
I also submit this to you:
For the skeptic, nothing short of personal revelation TO HIM ( and then maybe even not), will ever be enough evidence.

[bippy123]

Bippy, I've been reading your links as I have time. Great stuff! But given that the current Pope believes the Shroud to be authentic, and as the past C14 analysis has been said to have been taken from much more recent fibers (perhaps a repair after the fire), has there been any recent mention of plans by the church to submit it to further testing? And if not, why not? If confident in its authenticity, I would think the church hierarchy would want to confirm it - or at least as close as technically possible? Or is there perhaps a fear amongst some in the church, either as to its authenticity or as to doubts that ANY technology could truly authenticate it even if the real deal?

There are few things here. From what I hear the church is waiting for the technology of carbon 14 testing to catch up to the point where the piece needed for testing is much smaller than the piece needed in the 1988 testing . Second the church is weary of having another debacle like the 88 testing happen again. For more on that look into the actions of the people in charge of the last testing and how the seculars rested ccontrol of the testing away from the sturp team( all that info wil be in the newly released documentary I talked about before. The actions of cardinal ballestrero are also confusing.

Another problem is that it has been allready shown that a biocoating has developed over the shroud that could make testing results erratic.
What we do have right now are Ray Rogers vanillin tests, and they show that the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old. The church has always been open to testing it as they were in 88 but would like a c14 process that is refined to the point where only a very tiny piece is taken out.

Ray Rogers obtained his material for the vanillin tests from lightly placing an adhesin sort of tape over the image part of the shroud, but those aren't sufficient for c14 testing. It would have to be a bigger piece and the church is very cautious of taking a chunk out of the main image area .

What I'm excitedly waiting for is the holographic research on the shroud currently being conducted in holland.
Once all of the holographic information is activated a full holographic image could be made from even a tiny piece of the image area. Not only that but it will activate information that we currently can't see.
This will be the discovery that could rock the world.
Expect this information to be fully unlocked sometime within our lifetime, thanks to doctor Petrus Soons.

There was a video on YouTube from the spokesperson of the sturp team DR. Kenneth Stevenson which I can't find now (so frustrating) as it didn't have his name on title of the video, where he gives a great initial lecture on the injuries and the image of the man on the shroud.

DRDS he was one of the baptists that was on the sturp team and he and Gary Habermas teamed together to write a book on the shroud. I forgot the name but I heard it's a good book.

[Philip]

Paul wrote: "for the church, the fact the Christ lived and died is a fact and doesn't need to be proven.
Faith has always been far more important than proof for the church.

Then I think the church needs to rethink what all that serious evangelism might include. Are we not commanded to provide evidences? Or does God just tell us to merely explain what the Bible says and and then exhort people to, "just believe it!" And yes, at the end of the day, there will be no belief without faith. But God did give us abundant evidences, certainly enough powerful examples that can move one towards true belief. But also, God did so many fantastic miracles through Jesus, and yet many still refused to believe in Him. God did astounding miracles to get Israel out of Egypt, wipes out the pursuing Egyptian army, parts the Red Sea, and then Moses is barely out of camp before the people were quickly building idols.

But here's the thing. Benedict could order that the shroud is re-tested, yet IN SECRET, and by those imminently qualified and trusted to do a thorough job. Then if the controls and science of the secret tests bear out its authenticity, the age seems correct, etc., THEN they could publicly submit it to rigorous independent tests, but with key controls, benchmarks, and qualified observers in place as to how it is all done.

The problem is that the Catholic Church has embraced so many past relics, appearances and miracles of the "Virgin" Mary, etc., that to many the Shroud seems to be just another Catholic scam. But even if everything that could be authenticated WAS authenticated, it would still take faith - as one could merely shrug their shoulders and say, "Remarkable, but I just don't really know. It's truly unknowable."

[Philip]

Bippy, I believe it is called, "The Shroud and the Controversy": http://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Controvers ... d+of+Turin

[PaulSacramento]

Re: Shroud of Turin

postby Philip » Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:26 pm

Then I think the church needs to rethink what all that serious evangelism might include. Are we not commanded to provide evidences? Or does God just tell us to merely explain what the Bible says and and then exhort people to, "just believe it!" And yes, at the end of the day, there will be no belief without faith. But God did give us abundant evidences, certainly enough powerful examples that can move one towards true belief. But also, God did so many fantastic miracles through Jesus, and yet many still refused to believe in Him. God did astounding miracles to get Israel out of Egypt, wipes out the pursuing Egyptian army, parts the Red Sea, and then Moses is barely out of camp before the people were quickly building idols.

Indeed, but evidence does NOT equal proof.
I agree that the RCC should put an end to the controversy, I just don't see HOW they can.
So why bother then?
As of right now we have a shroud that IS of a male that was crucified, quite possibly in Jesus' time and no one has been able to duplicate ALL the qualities it has, even in the 21st century. One can argue what more evidence does a person need?
C14 testing will NOT confirm anything other than narrowing a date that ANY skeptic will point out as NOT confirming anything at all.

But here's the thing. Benedict could order that the shroud is re-tested, yet IN SECRET, and by those imminently qualified and trusted to do a thorough job. Then if the controls and science of the secret tests bear out its authenticity, the age seems correct, etc., THEN they could publicly submit it to rigorous independent tests, but with key controls, benchmarks, and qualified observers in place as to how it is all done.

Indeed He could.

The problem is that the Catholic Church has embraced so many past relics, appearances and miracles of the "Virgin" Mary, etc., that to many the Shroud seems to be just another Catholic scam. But even if everything that could be authenticated WAS authenticated, it would still take faith - as one could merely shrug their shoulders and say, "Remarkable, but I just don't really know. It's truly unknowable."

And there you go.

[bippy123]

Bippy, I believe it is called, "The Shroud and the Controversy": http://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Controvers ... d+of+Turin

Philip im not sure, could be. It seems like they wrote a few books together on the shroud from what I saw on that amazon link.

Also dont discount the cap of thorns on that image as there is no recorded history of anyone ever being crucified with a cap of thorns. There is to much evidence for this not to be Jesus .

[bippy123]

Remember also Paul, that c14 has been wrong in dating other relics and in this situation archeologists go with the proponderence of evidence that leans heavily on authenticity, and in the case of the shroud it is massive. The church got played in 1988 by the secular atheists. They are very cautious to let it happen again

[PaulSacramento]

Remember also Paul, that c14 has been wrong in dating other relics and in this situation archeologists go with the proponderence of evidence that leans heavily on authenticity, and in the case of the shroud it is massive. The church got played in 1988 by the secular atheists. They are very cautious to let it happen again

It may be that because of all that has happened to it, that C14 is NOT a viable option.
I am surprised that there isn't a way to date the image/imprint without the possibility of damage to it.
This is the 21st century after all.
That said, as I stated before, I don't see the Shroud being a major factor in winning over skeptics.
Even IF SOMEHOW it could be proven that it is Jesus of Nazareth,all that means is that He lived and Died via crucifixion and the vast majority of skeptics already concede that, other than a very small minority that even Bart Ehrman calls out.

[bippy123]

Remember also Paul, that c14 has been wrong in dating other relics and in this situation archeologists go with the proponderence of evidence that leans heavily on authenticity, and in the case of the shroud it is massive. The church got played in 1988 by the secular atheists. They are very cautious to let it happen again

It may be that because of all that has happened to it, that C14 is NOT a viable option.
I am surprised that there isn't a way to date the image/imprint without the possibility of damage to it.
This is the 21st century after all.
That said, as I stated before, I don't see the Shroud being a major factor in winning over skeptics.
Even IF SOMEHOW it could be proven that it is Jesus of Nazareth,all that means is that He lived and Died via crucifixion and the vast majority of skeptics already concede that, other than a very small minority that even Bart Ehrman calls out.

Paul that is where common sense, detail and further research come in. The point is that the technology that was needed to cause the image is beyond even our technology today, plus the recent ENEA 5 year tests show that they could produce some of the unique characteristics of the shroud with an eximer uv laser such as the coloring and the thinness of the image, the seeming lack of gravity at the point of image formation (which seems to be the only explanation of no side image and no crushing of the muscles on the image). The only thing that makes sense when we put all of the evidence together plus the historical story of Jesus's resurrection that caused the change in the disciples is the resurrection of Christ.

This is what I mean by following the bread crumbs.

[bippy123]

As many of the scientists on the sturp team have said, how do u test for a resurrection. There has never been any precendence for it scientifically. All they can do is tell us that due to some momentus event beyond the technology of today or the technology of any time in the past that image was formed. The only thing that makes sense out of all this is the resurrection of Christ.

[Philip]

Does anyone know of a scientifically credible link that details problems with C 14 testing? All that I am coming across are typically tied to young earth organizations, that believe in a literal 6 days of creation, and which supposedly took place mere THOUSANDS of years ago.

[DRDS]

There was a video on YouTube from the spokesperson of the sturp team DR. Kenneth Stevenson which I can't find now (so frustrating) as it didn't have his name on title of the video, where he gives a great initial lecture on the injuries and the image of the man on the shroud.

DRDS he was one of the baptists that was on the sturp team and he and Gary Habermas teamed together to write a book on the shroud. I forgot the name but I heard it's a good book.

Let me know if this helps, I found this while searching on youtube for Dr. Kenneth Stevenson.

http://dingorex.xanga.com/videos/838881191558/

[sandy_mcd]

Does anyone know of a scientifically credible link that details problems with C 14 testing?

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm deals with RATE but has a lot of general information on errors.