Scientific View of The Shroud of Turin

Hi RJ.

I don't follow or look at links. If you cannot put forward a case without
asking us to toddle off to another site to get someone else's point of view
and let them do the discussing or arguing for you then it's pointless.

It's a bit like getting a chess computer to make your moves for you. 😉

The Turin Shroud:

You like quoting bits from the bible, read the bit about the buriel according to John.
Jesus was wrapped up in muliple layers of cloth including a small cloth coverng his face.

According to Mark, Jesus was taken down from cross and washed.
They never did a very good job of it, there is what they call blood all over that shroud.
Of course if he was still bleeding that will explain it, but that also means he
was not dead, therefore no resurrecton.....and out the window goes life after death.

So either the shroud is a fake or the bible is wrong. (your choice.)

Nobody knew about this shroud until it appeared in the 1300's.

Carbon dating by various sources have all placed it between 1200-1300.
Carbon dating is a proven scientific fact, if you argue against it or blank it's findings
then further discussion is meaningless.

It is not a 3d image. It will not fit around a man It implies that Jesus was flat.
(cannot recall reading that bit in the bible, Jesus was 2 inches thick.)

It is not blood on the shroud but a red pigment used by artists of that period.
Which is a pity. If they found blood they could have obtained the DNA of Jesus.
It would have been fun to comparing God's DNA with ours.

Nobody knows what Jesus looked like yet this face appears in artworks
prior to the discovery of the shroud. It's an artists impression of what we
think Jesus looked like.

But don't let these facts get in the way of your faith RJ.

Again remember your bible: (it's somewhere in The Corinthians.)

"For we [Christians] walk by faith, not by sight."

Which to me tranlates to:

Believe in what you want to believe in and ignore what you see.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi RJ.

I don't follow or look at links. If you cannot put forward a case without
asking us to toddle off to another site to get someone else's point of view
and let them do the discussing or arguing for you then it's pointless.

It's a bit like getting a chess computer to make your moves for you. 😉

The Turin Shroud:

You like quoting bits fr me tranlates to:

Believe in what you want to believe in and ignore what you see.

It is up to you what you are willing to do. But I was not the one examining the shroud like tha man in the video. I would be just giving you hearsay information. What good is that to you? Now, if you could not understand the information, then I might be able give my understanding. But unless, you are willing to look and listen to the actual eyewitness, your opinion on the subject is useless.

P.S. By the way, what you are speaking of are not facts according to the eyewitnesses. They are misrepresentations and rumors only. The investigating photographer has made a website because of the erroneous information that is being circulated about it. I have not been there yet but as I remember it is simply www.shroud.com.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is up to you what you are willing to do. But I was not the one examining the shroud like tha man in the video. I would be just giving you hearsay information. What good is that to you? Now, if you could not understand the information, then I might be able give my understanding. But unless, you are willing to look and listen to the actual eyewitness, ...[text shortened]... g circulated about it. I have not been there yet but as I remember it is simply www.shroud.com.

The bottom line for you is no matter what scientific information comes in, if it refutes the age of the shroud, you will deny the authenticity of the work. Like the carbon dating putting it around the year 1300 and the fact that the fluid supposed to be blood is actually paint. Pesky facts which you ignore in your unbiased search for the truth.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The bottom line for you is no matter what scientific information comes in, if it refutes the age of the shroud, you will deny the authenticity of the work. Like the carbon dating putting it around the year 1300 and the fact that the fluid supposed to be blood is actually paint. Pesky facts which you ignore in your unbiased search for the truth.

It has already been determined that the area on the edge where the sample was cut for carbon 14 dating was a repair by inter-weaving cotton fibers with the orginal linen and the cotton was dyed to match the color of the linen. The following is a copy of the orignal official report issued to the media concerning the main part of the shroud, which I have cut and pasted from www.shroud.com:

A Summary of STURP's Conclusions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor's Note: After years of exhaustive study and evaluation of the data, STURP issued its Final Report in 1981. The following official summary of their conclusions was distributed at the press conference held after their final meeting in October 1981:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.

The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific concensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

We can have a battle of links.
Your Scientists v Mine.

Mine have proved beyond a shadow of doubt it is a fake.

You are quoting data from 1981....in 1988 the Shroud was totally debunked as a fake.
That is not blood on that piece of cloth.

Mine have moved onto more interesting and meaningful things.
(usually figuring out new ways to kill fellow humans beings.)

Your lot are clinging to some aggrogant dream that a god
built this entire universe all around you.

Apparently there were (maybe still are) 40 odd of these shrouds
all over Europe. All showing the the same image.

Just how many sons of god did the Romans crucify that day?

People will see what they want to see and deisregard the rest.
What they don't want to listen to, they won't hear.
What they cannot answer they will not speak about.

No comment I see about....

.....according to John. Jesus was wrapped up in muliple layers of cloth
including a small cloth coverng his face.

According to Mark, Jesus was taken down from the cross and washed.

So the shroud is a fake or the bible is wrong.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
We can have a battle of links.
Your Scientists v Mine.

Mine have proved beyond a shadow of doubt it is a fake.

You are quoting data from 1981....in 1988 the Shroud was totally debunked as a fake.
That is not blood on that piece of cloth.

Mine have moved onto more interesting and meaningful things.
(usually figuring out new ways to kill fellow s was taken down from the cross and washed.

So the shroud is a fake or the bible is wrong.

Yes, I did quote the information on the orignal report. However, essentially nothing in that report has changed, because the resulting Carbon 14 dating turns out to have NOT been done on a sample of the main linen only. The carbon 14 dating has been nullified because the sample taken has been proved to have been taken from an edge of the shroud that was repaired by being rewoven with cotton threads and dyed to match the linen threads. All other data supports the authenticity of the shroud. The dating was the only thing that suggested it was not authentic. Now that dating is going to have to be redone because of the error.

P.S. I have not saw anything reported in the Holy Bible that contradicts anything about the shroud being a burial cloth that covered the body of Jesus or the other cloth that is in Spain. Your source on the blood on the shroud just happens to be wrong and is one of those spreading false rumors, which is the reason the website www.shroud.com was created by the investigating photographer from the orignal scientific examining team in order to provide a place that the true facts would be revealed rather than rumors.

I've no idea why Oxford University to name but one should indulge
in spreading false rumours about the shroud.

We must have different versions of the bible, it appears mine is spreading
false rumours as well.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I've no idea why Oxford University to name but one should indulge
in spreading false rumours about the shroud.

We must have different versions of the bible, it appears mine is spreading
false rumours as well.

I am not referring to Biblical false rumors but scientific false rumers like this:

"...in 1988 the Shroud was totally debunked as a fake.
That is not blood on that piece of cloth."

😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I did quote the information on the orignal report. However, essentially nothing in that report has changed, because the resulting Carbon 14 dating turns out to have NOT been done on a sample of the main linen only. The carbon 14 dating has been nullified because the sample taken has been proved to have been taken from an edge of the shroud that was re ...[text shortened]... ining team in order to provide a place that the true facts would be revealed rather than rumors.

Why is it when we talk about carbon dating you poo poo carbon dating when it comes to artifacts that show ancient times but you are ok with carbon dating 2000 years old? It couldn't be because you are somehow, oh, lets see...... BIASED by your religious beliefs?

The rumours were facts quoted by Oxford University.
Go to their website and take it up with them.

Still waiting on an explanation for the discrepanicies in the Bible....

...never mind RJ sweep it under the carpet, forget it. I have.
If it does not fit into your tiny world of make believe.....it never happened.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi RJ.

I don't follow or look at links. If you cannot put forward a case without
asking us to toddle off to another site to get someone else's point of view
and let them do the discussing or arguing for you then it's pointless.

It's a bit like getting a chess computer to make your moves for you. 😉

The Turin Shroud:

You like quoting bits fr ...[text shortened]... me tranlates to:

Believe in what you want to believe in and ignore what you see.

this has been explained to him before. but given that rjhinds is just an atheist troll muddying christianity for chits and giggles, it would make sense that he would bring it up again, completely ignoring his education.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
this has been explained to him before. but given that rjhinds is just an atheist troll muddying christianity for chits and giggles, it would make sense that he would bring it up again, completely ignoring his education.

His half education you mean. He only has 2 years of college, same as me. I, however, have the luxury of having 50 years of continuous high level technology work which has led me down many different technological paths in the last 50 years.

Of course, he has already said everything I have ever done is just boring to him.

So much for wonder and excitement, eh.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
The rumours were facts quoted by Oxford University.
Go to their website and take it up with them.

Still waiting on an explanation for the discrepanicies in the Bible....

...never mind RJ sweep it under the carpet, forget it. I have.
If it does not fit into your tiny world of make believe.....it never happened.

I think you should stick to Chess Only and leave matters like this to the spiritually minded. The natural mind can not understand the things of the spirit.

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:14)

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
this has been explained to him before. but given that rjhinds is just an atheist troll muddying christianity for chits and giggles, it would make sense that he would bring it up again, completely ignoring his education.

You are the atheist troll. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think you should stick to Chess Only and leave matters like this to the spiritually minded. The natural mind can not understand the things of the spirit.

[b]The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:14)[/b]

As if anyone has a choice about whether or not one has a spirit. Pure bunk. You argue about personal hallucination.