Evidence for God from Science

I'm basically agnostic on The Shroud's origin and reality. It is, however, extremely intriguing and much of the evidence for its authenticity is very compelling. But given the long and sad history of bogus Christian relics, one should be extremely wary of ANY supposed relic. When we become riveted by objects and miracles not personally witnessed (not that miracles haven't happened), then our faith can be damaged or manipulated by whatever subsequent "truths" or debunking of such relics might bring. Our faith is in a risen Christ. An unreasonable or passionate interest in a remarkable piece of cloth - even one with such extraordinary attributes as those of The Shroud - should have some healthy cautions.

Perhaps very unlikely - but let's say someday The Shroud is proven to be totally unconnected to Christ - that it is undeniably from another time - what then? What might that do to those focused on looking for the miraculous experiences or relics to validate their faith - what negative impact would such a debunking have upon them? Ours is a relationship with a LIVING Lord! The truth or untruth of The Shroud should never even change that. But that's not to say that God hasn't given us great evidences to support a faith validated by history, or even that The Shroud isn't authentic - it may well be.

Of course, I'm not saying that Christianity is not historical or that genuine, supporting archaeological finds cant buttress its truths. But the truth of The Shroud may be never TOTALLY be learned. Perhaps The Shroud is from a mere mortal man, crucified much as Christ was - yet perhaps "tweaked" in some manner? How? Who knows? Yes, maybe that is technically impossible and highly unlikely. And maybe it IS the real deal. All I'm saying is that one should always be skeptical of claims of relics - especially as much of the past was virtually an "Age of Relics," in which they were bought, sold and traded, often for significant sums. And that our faith's MAIN focus needs to be in a risen Christ whose best evidence (for us) is that He lives within us, and that He has changed our lives FOREVER! And I hope that The Shroud evidence DOES prove, beyond all reasonable doubts, as to it being real.

My gosh, anonymous, can't you find out for yourself online? You're lazier than I am

I think the Shroud has a good chance of being real. For one thing it is known to have existed centuries before photography. I forget exactly why but I think a knowledge of photography would be needed to fake it. Something to do with positives and negatives, IIRC.

FYI: Shroud article today: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/ ... ever-hoax/ Article references Joe Nickell and Dr. Emily Craig, a forensic anthropologist and experienced medical illustrator.
It contends that Craig and Nickell have independently demonstrated that a medieval artist could have created the shroud's image with materials and techniques that were common to the 1300s.

Philip im surprised that after I posted all my evidences about the shroud that you would post an article from joe nickell.
Nickell is an amateur in this area at best. The shroud couldnt have been created by anything in that era for many reasons.
The 3 in one herringbone weave is one reason as it wasnt used in that era. A forger would need knowledge of the weave of the first century that they most likely didnt have in that era.

2nd reason: No one even with the knowledge we have now could create a 2d image with 3d information encoded on it, not just that but the lack of distortion is another problem.

3rd reason is the evidence of xray properties on the hands, femur and parts of the head.

These are just 3 reasons why the shroud couldnt have been replicated in the 1300's.

This is not even talking into account the hungarian pray codex in which a clear illustration of the shroud is found in the book complete with the poker holes and 3 way herringbone weave . The pray codex is dated to 1192. Plus the clear connection by forensic experts that have studied the shroud and the sudarium of oviedo which the evidence points to both being around the same body at very close time intervals of about an hour or less.

Ray rogers in his peer reviewed research in thermochemica acta showed that the image area is different than the c14 piece used in the c14 tests. In fact when Ray tested the pastes of the image areas vinillan tests came out negative, which means that the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old. Its vanillin test matches more closely with tests done on the dead sea scrolls than newer relics.

Joe nickell has a phd in history of english and doesnt possess expertise on any of the scientific fields necessary for shroud research. For Pete's sake he still used walter mccrone research saying there ispaint on the shroud on his website. Nickell doesnt use any peer review research for his conclusions.

I am not posting here much anymore as im staying on the catholic answers forum but i will post from time to time when I see false propaganda on the shroud being posted.

The shroud isnt for catholic christians only, its for all christians.

Wow Bippy that was some EPIC evidence PWNAGE!

I don't consider most of what bippy said as "evidence." First, attacking credentials means nothing. If he has valid points, it doesn't matter if he's a commoner or a PhD scientist and theologian. Especially when as far as I know you have no credentials above his.

The 3 in one herringbone weave is one reason as it wasnt used in that era. A forger would need knowledge of the weave of the first century that they most likely didnt have in that era.

So you're saying that no one in Europe could possibly have known how to stitch like an ancient Hebrew? First, an expert (possibly career) forger would probably look into a basic detail like that. Second, unless absolutely no woven material from 1st century middle eastern culture was still in existence, there would definitely be examples of this stitch within reach. Are there any reasons why one couldn't have known the weave style?

3rd reason is the evidence of xray properties on the hands, femur and parts of the head.

Why is this evidence? Are you saying that no one knew what our bones looked like in the 13th century? I assure you, part of my human anatomy course last semester covered the history of anatomical study, and educated people certainly had our skeleton mapped out at that point.

Plus the clear connection by forensic experts that have studied the shroud and the sudarium of oviedo which the evidence points to both being around the same body at very close time intervals of about an hour or less.

Please point me in the direction of this evidence. As far as I can tell from my limited research, these items have never been dated to the same time frame and there is no evidence to support them being linked other than faith and the word of some monks.

In fact when Ray tested the pastes of the image areas vinillan tests came out negative, which means that the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old.

A 1700-year span is fairly inconclusive. All that tells me is "it could be a forgery or it could be real." But we already knew that.

Ivellious wrote:

In fact when Ray tested the pastes of the image areas vinillan tests came out negative, which means that the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old.

A 1700-year span is fairly inconclusive. All that tells me is "it could be a forgery or it could be real." But we already knew that.

It tells quite a lot more than that. It tells us that it is much older then 700 or so years and therefore could not possibly be a forgery of the 1300s, an era most notorious for religious forgeries. It also tells us that if it is indeed a forgery, it is at the earliest a 1,300 year old forgery, in an era not known at all for any significant religious forgeries, which casts serious doubt that it is a forgery to begin with. I'm sure bippy will have much more to say on that but this will suffice for now.

cubeus19 wrote:Wow Bippy that was some EPIC evidence PWNAGE!

Thanks Cubeus

Ivellious no need to attack credentials as Nickell has no credentials and anyone who takes shroud research seriously has debunked nickell a long time ago. The fact that Nickell still uses Walter Mccrone's research should tell any reasonable shroud researcher about the extreme bias Nickell has against real shroud research. Mccrone to this day couldnt pass peer review on any of his papers on the shroud. Why is your champion Nickell not commenting on this part? Instead he respects Mccrones non peer review research and says the peer review board was biased against Mccrone. Ivellious, now that ive spoonfed you a bit more (for the 5th time), lets hear your opinion again


You still have not looked at the peer reviewed research and still expect me to spoon feed you the info for that even though I have posted this info time and time again.

The 1700 year time gap shows that at minimum this was at least from the early 700's and this puts your skepticism in a very bad spot because now the forger had to have known about all this stuff from at least the 700's and possibly from the time of Christ.

Mark Guscin of Spain is the worlds foremost expert on the sudarium of Oviedo who has spent a good part of his life studying and researching it. He is well known in shroud study circles (unlike Nickell who keeps the research of the totally debunked Walter Mccrone on his skeptic-atheist site and ignores the many peer reviewed research articles on the shroud).

The sudarium's history is indisputable despite what you say and that is a fact even skeptics wont argue against.

http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

The stains on the sudarium show that when the cloth was placed on the dead man's face, it was folded over, although not in the middle. Counting both sides of the cloth, there is therefore a fourfold stain in a logical order of decreasing intensity.

From the composition of the main stains, it is evident that the man whose face the sudarium covered died in an upright position. The stains consist of one part blood and six parts fluid from a pleural oedema. This liquid collects in the lungs when a crucified person dies of asphyxiation, and if the body subsequently suffers jolting movements, can come out through the nostrils. These are in fact the main stains visible on the sudarium.

These stains in the nasal area are also superimposed on each other, with the different outlines clearly visible. This means that the first stain had already dried when the second stain was formed, and so on.

Yes of course the forger was a world reknowned expert in making the stain one part blood and 6 parts fluid. This was a well known method by the top doctors back then , Ivellious I know, Maybe a doctor from recent times knew about time travel and travelled back to the 7th century to perform this forgery to foll the whole world. Hmm Maybe it was those sneaky grey aliens from alpha centurai


Dr. Villalaín had a specially modelled head made to reconstruct the process of staining and drying, and was thus able to calculate the time that elapsed between the formation of each stain.

The cloth was not wrapped entirely round the head because the right cheek was almost touching the right shoulder. This suggests that the sudarium was put into place while the body was still on the cross. The second stain was made about an hour later, when the body was taken down. The third stain was made when the body was lifted from the ground about forty five minutes later. The body was lying at the foot of the cross for about forty-five minutes before being buried. The marks (not fingerprints) of the fingers that held the cloth to the nose are also visible.

I say we bring this forger back to life and make him a world reknowned doctor and futuristic photographer

The experiments with the model head and the study of the stains also show that when the man died his head was tilted seventy degrees forward and twenty degrees to the right. This position further suggests that the man whose face the sudarium covered died crucified.

There are smaller bloodstains at the side of the main group. It would appear that the sudarium was pinned to the back of the dead man's head, and that these spots of blood were from small sharp objects, which would logically be the thorns that caused this type of injury all over Jesus' head.

The medical studies are not the only ones that have been carried out on the sudarium. Dr. Max Frei analysed pollen samples taken from the cloth, and found species typical of Oviedo, Toledo, North Africa and Jerusalem. This confirms the historical route described earlier. There was nothing relating the cloth to Constantinople, France, Italy or any other country in Europe.

An international congress was held in Oviedo in 1994, where various papers were presented about the sudarium. Dr. Frei's work with pollen was confirmed, and enlarged on. Species of pollen called "quercus caliprimus" were found, both of which are limited to the area of Palestine.

Residues of what is most probably myrrh and aloe have also been discovered, mentioned directly in the gospel of john, 19:39-40, "Nicodemus came as well...and he brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes...They took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, following the Jewish burial custom."

The stains were also studied from the point of view of anthropology. The conclusion was that the face that had been in contact with the sudarium had typically Jewish features, a prominent nose and pronounced cheekbones.

Finally, the very fact that the cloth was kept at all is a sign of its authenticity, as it has no artistic or monetary value at all. All the studies carried out so far point in one direction, with nothing to suggest the contrary the sudarium was used to cover the head of the dead body of Jesus of Nazareth from when he was taken down from the cross until he was buried.

5: Conclusions

The studies on the sudarium and the comparison of this cloth with the Shroud are just one of the many branches of science which point to both having covered the dead body of Jesus. The history of the Oviedo cloth is well documented, and the conclusions of this for the dating of the Shroud need no further comment.
EXcept to Ivellious of course

continued and onto the connection between the shroud and sudarium

First clue (follow along Ivellious, as I wont repeat this again no matter how many times you nag me this time )

3: Coincidence with the Shroud

The sudarium alone has revealed sufficient information to suggest that it was in contact with the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. However, the really fascinating evidence comes to light when this cloth is compared to the Shroud of Turin.

The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.

Here is the second clue Ivellious . Please keep up buddy

The length of the nose through which the pleural oedema fluid came onto the sudarium has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches. This is exactly the same length as the nose on the image of the Shroud.

3rd Clue Ivellious, dont forget the no 2 pencil

If the face of the image on the Shroud is placed over the stains on the sudarium, perhaps the most obvious coincidence is the exact fit of the stains with the beard on the face. As the sudarium was used to clean the man's face, it appears that it was simply placed on the face to absorb all the blood, but not used in any kind of wiping movement.
A small stain is also visible proceeding from the right hand side of the man's mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the Shroud, but Dr. John Jackson, using the VP-8 and photo enhancements has confirmed its presence.


4th Clue, Ivellious remember to drink some water, as this is probably very depressing info for u:(

The thorn wounds on the nape of the neck also coincide perfectly with the bloodstains on the Shroud.


5th clue :Moving like a butterfly, stinging like me beeeee--- Eye of the Tiger Ivellious Eye of the tiger!!!!!


Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud.


Next is the shoud images many congruent points to the Orthodox Christian Icons used in the 6th to 7th century

Ivellious if you want to ignore the evidence (of which I gave u just a few breadcrumbs to go on), I would understand

The whole shroud thing facinates me.
Faith-wise I am indifferent to whether it is found to be the shroud of a 1st century Jew ( possibly Jesus, not sure if THAT can ever be proven) or a fake of some sort.
Nevertheless, the sheer possibility that it COULD have belong to Jesus is, well, enough to give one goosebumbs.

I do recall on skeptic saying that IF it proves to be Jesus' it only means that he lived and was crucified, just like many other Jews.
Obviously the resurrection is a different matter, YET SOMETHING caused these imprints, something that could not have been caused by any know means to man 2000 years ago.

PaulSacramento wrote:The whole shroud thing facinates me.
Faith-wise I am indifferent to whether it is found to be the shroud of a 1st century Jew ( possibly Jesus, not sure if THAT can ever be proven) or a fake of some sort.
Nevertheless, the sheer possibility that it COULD have belong to Jesus is, well, enough to give one goosebumbs.

I do recall on skeptic saying that IF it proves to be Jesus' it only means that he lived and was crucified, just like many other Jews.
Obviously the resurrection is a different matter, YET SOMETHING caused these imprints, something that could not have been caused by any know means to man 2000 years ago.

This is the key Paul, the image that still to this day cannot be replicated even with the science of today, how the heck could someone create this back then.The enea 5 year research results show that only with a UV laser the size of a 5 story building pulsating at once could just a few of the unique charcteristics of the shroud be formed. The image is not a painting or a vaporgraph. Since we dont have the technology today to recreate this how the heck could sicentists back then recreate it. The chances of that are virtually zero.

This is when we start looking back at the empty tomb and start thinking about what else but the resurrection could have possessed the apostles turn from scared little wimps hiding out in their homes, afraid from death, to suddenly preaching the gospel with lion like courage in the very town that Jesus was crucified in front of the same sanheedren that had their lord and savior crucified. A reasonable person will rightly assume that this is all starting to piece together.

Ivellious on the other hand is another story, but hey, its his right to not be reasonable:).no problem

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The whole shroud thing facinates me.
Faith-wise I am indifferent to whether it is found to be the shroud of a 1st century Jew ( possibly Jesus, not sure if THAT can ever be proven) or a fake of some sort.
Nevertheless, the sheer possibility that it COULD have belong to Jesus is, well, enough to give one goosebumbs.

I do recall on skeptic saying that IF it proves to be Jesus' it only means that he lived and was crucified, just like many other Jews.
Obviously the resurrection is a different matter, YET SOMETHING caused these imprints, something that could not have been caused by any know means to man 2000 years ago.

This is the key Paul, the image that still to this day cannot be replicated even with the science of today, how the heck could someone create this back then.The enea 5 year research results show that only with a UV laser the size of a 5 story building pulsating at once could just a few of the unique charcteristics of the shroud be formed. The image is not a painting or a vaporgraph. Since we dont have the technology today to recreate this how the heck could sicentists back then recreate it. The chances of that are virtually zero.

This is when we start looking back at the empty tomb and start thinking about what else but the resurrection could have possessed the apostles turn from scared little wimps hiding out in their homes, afraid from death, to suddenly preaching the gospel with lion like courage in the very town that Jesus was crucified in front of the same sanheedren that had their lord and savior crucified. A reasonable person will rightly assume that this is all starting to piece together.

Ivellious on the other hand is another story, but hey, its his right to not be reasonable:).no problem

So this CAN'T be replicate TODAY by what was available to forgers in the past?

http://shroud2000.com/Iconography.html

The study of Iconography looks at how the Shroud image, rediscovered in Edessa in 525 AD was the progenitor of all the images of Christ that followed. Some of the common characteristics between the Shroud and many icon images are: the large hollow eyes, forked beard, a sprock of hair in the middle of forehead, a flattened nose, raised cheeks, and most pronounced is a double line across the neck which corresponds with a fold line on the Shroud. Not all Icons have all the same characteristics but the pattern is clear.

Iconography is just one area of research that clearly contradicts a medieval carbon date. Ian Wilson's book, Holy Faces Secret Places is an excellent in depth study.

This link below is also for my buddy ivellious who seems to be allergic to peer reviewed research when it comes to the shroud.

http://www.shroud.com/trenn.htm (gaziltite!!!!!!)

THE SHROUD OF TURIN:
A PARABLE FOR MODERN TIMES?

by Thaddeus J. Trenn
University of Toronto-Canada

Reprinted from the JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES - Vol. IX - No. 1/2 1997
Oskar Gruenwald, Ph.D., Editor and Publisher


It is this image which has been tracked by Wilson and others in terms of religious art history and iconography. The "Byzantine tradition dates such a cloth back to the fourth or fifth century, if not earlier," maintains the sindologist, Currer-Briggs, whatever the carbon dating determination of the Turin Shroud, previously considered to be one and the same cloth (1995: 142-43). Most of the early history of the Shroud was concerned with the facial image. One of the details which has been traced to pre-medieval times was the phylactery box. It appears on paintings as early as the sixth century (Wilson 1991:167-68). This rather unique iconographic feature is clearly present on the Shroud in both its negative and positive aspects.



http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.co ... crator.htm
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/resources ... ator01.htm

Christ Pantocrator from St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai (550 C.E.)

There really are no descriptions of Jesus' appearance in the New Testament; none whatsoever. Nor are there any meaningful descriptions in any known early Church sources. St. Augustine of Hippo made a point of this when he wrote his monumental works in the fifth century. But starting in the sixth century a new common appearance for Jesus emerged in Middle eastern art. We see it today in many pictures of Jesus: icons, paintings, mosaics and Byzantine coins. This common picture quality seems to have started in the Middle East about the same time that the Image of Edessa was discovered in 544 CE. Up until then, pictures of Jesus were mostly of a young, beardless man, often with short hair, often in story-like settings in which he was depicted as a shepherd.

Suddenly, throughout the Middle East, and eventually throughout Mediterranean Europe, pictures of Jesus became frontal portraits with distinctive facial characteristics. Jesus had shoulder length hair, an elongated thin nose, and a forked beard. Numerous other characteristics appeared in these pictures, and some of them were seemingly strange and of no particular artistic merit. Many portraits had two wisps of hair that dropped at an angle from a central parting of the hair. Many pictures showed Jesus with large "owlish" eyes. Paul Vignon, a French scholar, who first categorized these facial attributes in 1930, also described a square cornered U shape between the eyebrows, a downward pointing triangle on the bridge of the nose, a raised right eyebrow, accents on both cheeks with the accent on the right cheek being somewhat lower, an enlarged left nostril, an accent line below the nose, a gap in the beard below the lower lip, and hair on one side of the head that was shorter than on the other side.


http://www.shroud.com/bsts4704.htm

Iconographic images

The facial images are polytypic or complex in structure, and the forensic criteria for declaring two facial images to be the same is 45 to 60 points of congruence. (ivellious get a piece of chalk, buy a chalkboard and write this phrase down 100 times so that u dont need to ask me again.)

The reason for the incredible detail that we see in many of the early icons and some of the Byzantine coins (which are actually numismatic icons) is that the iconographers, who were among the most skilled artists of their day, were obliged by the strict rules of iconographic images of Christ to follow the model that they had, which they called "the image not made with hands," (extra credit chalkboard work for ivellious)

which was felt to be an image left directly by Jesus. They were required to follow their model as accurately as possible and hence we find many apparently extraneous features in many of the icons, such as flower images and a phylactery (the box just above the nose), which could only be explained by the Shroud face being the model since the comparisons are so exacting.

the Christ Pantocrator from St. Catherine's Monastery , has about 250 points of congruence.

Hmmm, the christ pantocrator from 550ad , This alone without all the evidence provided blows teh c14 testing away.

45 to 60 points of congruence for something to be considered a match. The Christ pantocrator has 250 congruent points.
Ivellious I wonder why the great Joe Nickell which you are defending doesnt mention all this on his website? Could it be that he doesnt have a clue to what he is talking about and is imply trying to disprove the shroud from a point of ignorance to try to trip up rookie shroud students. Like I said before ivellious, DO YOUR HOMEWORK and I pray that one day we can sit down and discuss the shroud from an open minded non-ignorant, non-scientific point of view