http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6925371.ece

I'd like for people to discuss what this discovery means for proving the life and death of Jesus.

Originally posted by LostSheep

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6925371.ece

I'd like for people to discuss what this discovery means for proving the life and death of Jesus.

Conclusions

The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

By matching and inserting words from three languages read in reversed script, a scholar has been able to read off a death certificate from the shroud that has already been dated to more than a thousand years after Jesus' death.

I think with a few more years of work, she might be able to find a map to the true location of Noah's ark in there. What do you think?

As ever, Jesse

Originally posted by lao tzu

Conclusions

The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

By matching and inserting words from three languages read in reversed script, a scholar has been able to read off a death certificate from the shroud that has already been dated to more than a thousand years after Jesus' death.

I think with a few more years of work, she might be able to find a map to the true location of Noah's ark in there. What do you think?

As ever, Jesse

According to your link:

The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each ~50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip. The samples were then taken to the adjacent Sala Capitolare where they were wrapped in aluminium foil and subsequently sealed inside numbered stainless-steel containers by the Archbishop of Turin and Dr Tite. Samples weighing 50 mg from two of the three controls were similarly packaged. The three containers containing the shroud (to be referred to as sample 1) and two control samples (samples 2 and 3) were then handed to representatives of each of the three laboratories together with a sample of the third control (sample 4), which was in the form of threads. All these operations, except for the wrapping of the samples in foil and their placing in containers, were fully documented by video film and photography.

How do we know there wasn't a swticharoo there? Why would they document everything but the actual sealing of samples?

How do we know this "conclusive evidence" of medieval dating isn't another case like Nixon's lost 18.5 minutes of Watergate tapes, perpetrated by some folks who would rather not reveal evidence of Jesus?

Originally posted by Rainbow Brite

How do we know there wasn't a swticharoo there?

Because we're not conspiracy nuts.

I’ve never been a big fan of the Shroud of Turin primarily because it seems incompatible with what we read in the Gospels and what we know about Jewish burial customs of the time.

The account in John twice refers in the plural to “linen cloths” that Jesus was buried in (19:40; 20:6-7). Luke 24:12 also makes reference to burial cloths in the plural sense. This indicates that multiple cloths were used to wrap Jesus’ body.

And distinct from the “linen cloths” was a “napkin” which was placed “about his [Jesus’] head” and was found by itself apart from the body wrappings That some sort of face covering or veil was meant is indicated by the account of the burial of Lazarus (Jn. 11:44) “his face was bound about with a napkin.” This face cloth was known to have been used in ancient Jewish burial practices and its use is specifically mentioned in the Mishnah.

In contrast, the Shroud of Turin represents a single, draped cloth (laid under and then over the body) clearly depicting a face on the sheet as well as the rest of the body.

Further, John states that his body was bound in the burial clothes “with the spices” (John specifically mentions a mixture of about 100lbs. of myrrh and aloes) which, if present, would have distorted any image left on the shroud. And IIRC there aren’t any traces of myrrh or aloes on the shroud which is downright bizarre considering the huge amount used.

Finally, the body was normally washed before being anointed with spices (and IIRC also shaved). Both the washing and the anointing are expressly mandated by the Mishnah (Acts 9:37 mentions a pre-burial washing of the deceased). They obviously would have had time to wash the body if they had time to anoint the body with over 100lbs. of spices. The image on the shroud is of a body that obviously hadn’t been washed or shaved.

It just appears that the shroud is simply not consistent with John’s account of Jesus’ burial. And if anyone wants to dismiss his account concerning these details then they can’t rely on him for others. For example, the piercing of the side with the lance is only mentioned in John.

And one other thing always bothered me; why didn’t any of the Gospels mention such an miraculous imprint being found on Jesus’ burial clothes if it existed?

Originally posted by lao tzu

Because we're not conspiracy nuts.

Or because faith and trust in lieu of verifiable documentation is ok when it comes to accepting evidence, depending on what it is?

Why should anyone just trust that they sealed up the correct sample if that's the only thing they failed to videotape? Why did they skip that part of the process?

Originally posted by Rainbow Brite

Originally posted by lao tzu

Because we're not conspiracy nuts.

Or because faith and trust in lieu of verifiable documentation is ok when it comes to accepting evidence, depending on what it is?

"We," in this case, does not include you. *another frakkin' nutter, why do I bother* You bolded it, did you read it?

"... they were wrapped in aluminium foil and subsequently sealed inside numbered stainless-steel containers by the Archbishop of Turin ..."

So, tell me, which member of the reptilian-directed illuminati do you think "got to" the archbishop? Dude, it's a fake. Deal with it. Or don't. I certainly have no objections to whack-job christians making their faith a laughing-stock.

Over to you, Rogue ... this one's on your side of the net.

As ever, Jesse

Originally posted by lao tzu

You bolded it, did you read it?

"... they were wrapped in aluminium foil and subsequently sealed inside numbered stainless-steel containers by the Archbishop of Turin ..."

Again, "All these operations, except for the wrapping of the samples in foil and their placing in containers, were fully documented by video film and photography."

Something was sealed up, but there is no video or photographic evidence to show what IT was. Samples were taken over to the adjacent Sala Capitolare, then sealed up, with no visual documentation of what exactly was sealed up.

If I was doing the testing I would have followed that sucker by videotape from cutting to sealing to testing, so there are no question marks. Now we still have one, regardless of whether or not you think possibility of switching is too wild to consider. It's not like tampering with scientific evidence hasn't ever happened before in history, wiki it.

Again, it boils down to your pleading for absolute trust, rather than offering an absolutely verifiable testing process in response to the OP.

So anyway, besides that fact...why do you think they would fail to videotape the sealing, but capture all other parts of the process on film?

My problem with the Turin shroud is the face 'imprinted' on the material.

It too closely resembles the exaggerated, heroic visages portrayed on centuries-old paintings.

Besides, holy relics were big business in medieval times.

Originally posted by MooseOnTheLoose

My problem with the Turin shroud is the face 'imprinted' on the material.

It too closely resembles the exaggerated, heroic visages portrayed on centuries-old paintings.

Besides, holy relics were big business in medieval times.

Looks to me like it could just be the face of a Jewish Rabbi.

Originally posted by Rainbow Brite

Looks to me like it could just be the face of a Jewish Rabbi.

That guy totally looks to be around 30.

Originally posted by Tickle Me Mercury

That guy totally looks to be around 30.

I didn't say they looked to be the same age, but if the Rabbi was thirty or forty years younger with the same facial hair I don't see a whole lot of difference in style and appearance. Unless maybe you throw a medieval knight costume on him or something, then I guess your imagination could run wild...

Update:

On another website (http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2...roud-of-turin/) I found out that the text that was deciphered from the Shroud reads, after translation and image reversal of course:

In the year 16 of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius Jesus the Nazarene, taken down in the early evening after having been condemned to death by a Roman judge because he was found guilty by a Hebrew authority, is hereby sent for burial with the obligation of being consigned to his family only after one full year.

Sheep, please tell me you're not swallowing that ... umm ... stuff.

Originally posted by lao tzu

Sheep, please tell me you're not swallowing that ... umm ... stuff.

But you want everyone to accept that they killed video just for the sealing, and that what was sealed was the correct sample.

Just have faith! Believe!

Originally posted by lao tzu

Sheep, please tell me you're not swallowing that ... umm ... stuff.

Starting to remind me of the reports of spotting barely detectable images of Roman coins over the eyes of the face on the shroud from several years back that are still being touted despite being based on flimsy evidence at best.