Page 79 of 116
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:25 pm
by Susan
bippy123 wrote:Rob wrote:Susan wrote:Remember several years ago the Catholic Church allowed several companies to TEST the cloth of the Shroud of Turin to see how old it is? Well, the findings came back and all three samples taken from the cloth were concluded that it was not old enough to have held Jesus. The cloth only tested 600 or so years old. Jesus was cruxified 2000 years old. Making the Shroud a forgery.
Thoughts??
I realize that this is a long thread, but I'm fairly certain this issue has been addressed already.
IIRC, the piece of cloth they took to test was from the bottom corner. The shroud was rescued from a fire and parts of it got burned, so it had to be patched up. The piece they tested was one of these patched pieces and I believe it was verified as such by observing that the section they pulled from had indeed been sewn on. I'm sure bippy will correct me here, but I don't remember the exact details of it.
Pretty much correct Rob. The 1988 c14 tests were pretty much refuted by agnostic thermal chemist ray Rogers from Los alamos labs in his peer reviewed chemical analysis in thermochimica acta .
Rogers had a piece of the corner area that was c14 tested and he found spliced cotton interwoven into regular shroud material . He also found madder dye in the corner area . No spliced cotton or madder dye was found in any other area of the shroud . Rogers also tested the c14 corner area for vanillin and found that it came back 37% positive for vanillin while the first of the shroud tested negative for vanillin.
The team in charge of the c 14 testing broke 15 standard protocols , including nit doing a standard microchemical analysis to make sure that the corner piece was chemically the same as the test of the shroud. Rogers however did and chemical analysis proved that it was not chemically the same as the rest of the shroud.
It was one of the most sloppy c14 tests ever done.
Also to correct Susan , there weren't 3 different tests done on the shroud. It was basically one pice from one area that was then divided into 3 with one piece given to each if the 3 labs.
Another protocol violation was the chi squared number . Any chi squared number over 6 indicates a non homologous number. The number for the 1988 c14 test was 6.4 and when done by computer it came out to the high 8''s.
Thank you bippy. Why wasn't this information released the way the Orignial results were released? I don't know a single person who knows this but sure do know about the first test results. I watched the documentary on CNN called Finding Jesus fact, faith and forgery. The shroud story was 1 st episode. I hope they get permission to redo the test, hoping to prove the shroud is 2000 years old.
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:20 pm
by Philip
Welcome to the forum, Susan. Please introduce yourself here:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... start=1635
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:30 pm
by bippy123
Hello Susan , welcome to the forum and your very welcome.
Your question is a very important one and the answer is that the media is very strong negative bias against the shroud's authenticity and anything go that is against the shroud's authenticity will be magnified in the media while anything for the shroud's authenticity will be downplayed .
What I showed you Susan were just 2 of the 15 protocols that were violated on the shroud . The other thirteen are available on this thread . There are quite a few pages to go through though.
This was shown when the Luigi replica made headlines in 2009 when they claimed to have replicated the shroud , and yet when that replica was refuted a few months later almost no one outside of shroud circles knew that it was debunked . This is why atheists and even some Christians who are against the shroud's authenticity use it in their debate against the shroud . It's very easy to debunk if your willing to do the homework .
Now about the cnn documentary finding Jesus , Barrie Schwortz was extremely disappointed in that documentary for many reasons
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/cnnreview.pdf
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:49 pm
by 1over137
Thanks Bip for the link.
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:55 pm
by bippy123
1over137 wrote:Thanks Bip for the link.
Welcome my friend, God bless you
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:10 am
by Rob
I stumbled across a review of Finding Jesus on IMDB and read it. Obviously the viewpoint came from a skeptical person, but there were several eyebrow raising inaccuracies in his review.
He said the gospel of John was written hundreds of years after Jesus, which just isn't true since we have much earlier fragments and other factors which put it between 50-80 AD.
He also cited the 1988 c14 test as proving the shroud was a medieval forgery and mentioned that Pilate wouldn't have allowed Jesus or any other Jew to be taken down before sunset.
He clearly hadn't done his homework.
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:42 am
by bippy123
Rob wrote:I stumbled across a review of Finding Jesus on IMDB and read it. Obviously the viewpoint came from a skeptical person, but there were several eyebrow raising inaccuracies in his review.
He said the gospel of John was written hundreds of years after Jesus, which just isn't true since we have much earlier fragments and other factors which put it between 50-80 AD.
He also cited the 1988 c14 test as proving the shroud was a medieval forgery and mentioned that Pilate wouldn't have allowed Jesus or any other Jew to be taken down before sunset.
He clearly hadn't done his homework.
Or rob he clearly did his homework in the way that made him and the producers of that show comfortable
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:25 pm
by EssentialSacrifice
Or rob he clearly did his homework in the way that made him and the producers of that show comfortable
bips ... took the words right out of my mouth after seeing last link for STURP photographer. I feel like it's somewhere between liar liar pants on fire and deliberate attempt to make cash on known incorrect information. If there isn't a law against it there should be. Promoting information that is not corroborated
is a sin
If nothing else , he's at the very least insincerely
at the expense of misinforming people with ragged info.
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:44 am
by EssentialSacrifice
Bippy,
found this in support of claims that scientific community is torn, but observational science is regarding Shroud as potentially that of Jesus.
Latest update I could find ...
https://www.academia.edu/8841978/Profes ... ud_studies
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:50 pm
by bippy123
Excellent find , essential, I skimmed throigh it a bit . Curious , Fanti disagrees with a 16th century reweave and believes that the reweave could be from the 13th century. Will check it on a Deeper level when I have a bit more time .
Again excellent find. I didn't even know about this paper
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:15 pm
by Storyteller
Love the comment at the end about it being the only 'photograph' Christ left us then showed us, with a burst of energy that there is life after death.
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:26 pm
by bippy123
Storyteller wrote:Love the comment at the end about it being the only 'photograph' Christ left us then showed us, with a burst of energy that there is life after death.
Yea Annette , amazing isn't it just to think that this could be a literal snapshot of the resurrection .
Wish I could go and see it when it's gonna be on display in may .
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 4:58 am
by Storyteller
It`s going to be on display?? Where?
It would be just so awesome to see it in the flesh, so to speak.
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 5:23 am
by RickD
Storyteller wrote:It`s going to be on display?? Where?
It would be just so awesome to see it in the flesh, so to speak.
http://www.romereports.com/pg154976-the ... f-turin-en
Re: Shroud of Turin
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 5:29 am
by Storyteller
Thanks Rick
Alas, it`s too far for me
