The Shroud of Turin [BBC]

The Shroud of Turin [BBC]

YouTube&feature=fvwp&NR=1

NEW EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE CARBON DATING OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=cLNo5_o9Q64

Originally posted by RJHinds
NEW EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE CARBON DATING OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=cLNo5_o9Q64

The problem with this 'new' evidence is the second sample. There was one sample taken and if that dating is flawed, they need more samples and that is not going to be forthcoming. Taking from the corner like that reveals at least two different threads which was probably a repair and such but they couldn't have known that at the time so more samples are needed by the scientific community and it sounds like the Vatican will not let that happen.

One thing they could do is to separate the cotton from the linen in the original sample.

Then when they get enough linen samples they could retest. That would be a test that would not be contaminated by the bug killer they used when they saw parasites in the shroud box.

But even if the new dating shows it to be from 1 century AD, that data by itself does not prove it was Jesus.

It would be nice if they could recover DNA from the sites they say are blood or serum.

That would be another data path to proof.

However, even if all that was said and done, and the answer was yes, it was Jesus, crucified on the cross and put in the shroud, that alone does not prove he was resurrected 3 days later.

As the story goes, the Romans were surprised Jesus was cut down early and so that opens up the tale for the book "Jesus lived in India" which postulates Jesus did not die on the cross but survived.

One line of evidence in that direction is in the bible itself, the fact he was annointed with aloe and other healing herbs.

If he was truly dead they would not have bothered with healing ointments.

So it could very well be the 'resurrection' was just him surviving the crucifixion BECAUSE he was cut down early, a step probably a bribe to whoever was watching. A few shekels pass hands and the guard looks the other way while they get him off the cross, still alive.

Scientifically that is a LOT more believable to anyone not entranced by fairy tales.

So in that scene, he survives and three days later is able to stand up on his own and realizing he would have a much better chance at surviving was to just skip town.

That instead of the magical taking into heaven scene in the fairy tale version.

That make MUCH MUCH more sense to me than the fairy tale of the bible.

Another line of evidence in that scenario is the christian monasteries built up by some mysterious stranger on the silk road, built by persons unknown to this day but they are real nonetheless.

There is a gravesite in Kashmir that shows a burial of a person with marks on ankles, an indication someone was buried there with holes in his ankles and that was not very probably to have happened in Kashmir and could be taken as evidence of the real burial place of Jesus. Kashmir is one city on that same silk road.

The problem there is Kashmir is a battleground and no scientist will be allowed in there for fear of their lives until the wars are over and that does not seem to be any time soon.

Another potential problem with that is the grave, which has photo's from an early expedition, is very wet and muddy. Even if they were to properly exhume the body there may be not enough left to identify, for instance bones in the hands and feet showing puncture wounds.

So all that is just speculation for now but at some point in the future, those bones will be examined and the story told once again.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The problem with this 'new' evidence is the second sample. There was one sample taken and if that dating is flawed, they need more samples and that is not going to be forthcoming. Taking from the corner like that reveals at least two different threads which was probably a repair and such but they couldn't have known that at the time so more samples are need ...[text shortened]... at some point in the future, those bones will be examined and the story told once again.

I believe I remember hearing that the scientist had proof that the man that was covered by the shroud was dead. I don't know how they determined that but if it was Jesus then those other rumors about being healed by aloe and going to India have to be false.

I know there is no way to actually prove the man was Jesus, but all the indications of how this man was crucified and tortured seem to fit exactly with the account mentioned in the Holy bible. Possibly just a coincidence, but I don't think so.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe I remember hearing that the scientist had proof that the man that was covered by the shroud was dead. I don't know how they determined that but if it was Jesus then those other rumors about being healed by aloe and going to India have to be false.

I know there is no way to actually prove the man was Jesus, but all the indications of how this man ...[text shortened]... h the account mentioned in the Holy bible. Possibly just a coincidence, but I don't think so.

One way to add negative evidence: He was never supposed to have children. But if there is actual blood on the cloth and we can sniff out the DNA, we could see how close the DNA is to people who live there now. Maybe not, but its another check.

The Aloe thing is not rumor, it is in the bible. There is no reason to put aloe on a dead man.

They put aloe and other healing herbs on someone alive but needing help as he no doubt would have if he had been cut down early off the cross. They also didn't break his legs which was a common practice in those days when being crucified. That also may have been the result of a few shekels passing hands.

Originally posted by sonhouse
One way to add negative evidence: He was never supposed to have children. But if there is actual blood on the cloth and we can sniff out the DNA, we could see how close the DNA is to people who live there now. Maybe not, but its another check.

The Aloe thing is not rumor, it is in the bible. There is no reason to put aloe on a dead man.

They put aloe e days when being crucified. That also may have been the result of a few shekels passing hands.

The rumor is aloe healedd a dead man. There is no evidence that a dead man has ever been healed by aloe. If he was dead, which the scientist say he was, then no amount of aloe is going to heal him. You need to read about the burial customs of the Jews of putting spices on the body back then before you jump to conclusions about dead men being healed by aloe. Sounds pretty stupid to me.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3842-burial

Spices and Plants at the Burial.
Embalming, practised in Egypt (Gen. 1. 2, 26) and in the case of Aristobulus in Rome (Josephus, "Ant." xiv. 7, § 4), was unknown, or at least exceedingly rare, in Judea. But—undoubtedly with the view of removing the odor—spices were put on the coffin or otherwise used at funerals (Ber. viii. 6; John xii. 7, xix. 39), and myrtles and aloes (in liquid state) were carried in the procession (Bezah 6a; John xix. 39). In honor of dead kings "sweet odors and diverse kinds of spices" were burned (Jer. xxxiv. 5; II Chron. xvi. 14, xxi. 19), together with the bier and the armor (see 'Ab. Zarah 11a), or carried along in the procession (Josephus, "Ant." xv. 3, § 4; xvii. 83; idem, "B. J." i. 33, § 9). Onkelos (Aquila), the proselyte, burned 80 manehs of balsam in honor of R. Gamaliel the Elder (Sem. viii.; 'Ab. Zarah 11a). Later practise added an infusion of the spices to the water with which the dead was washed (see Taharah).

Originally posted by RJHinds
The rumor is aloe healedd a dead man. There is no evidence that a dead man has ever been healed by aloe. If he was dead, which the scientist say he was, then no amount of aloe is going to heal him. You need to read about the burial customs of the Jews of putting spices on the body back then before you jump to conclusions about dead men being healed by alo d an infusion of the spices to the water with which the dead was washed (see Taharah).

You are making my point. That Jesus was not dead, therefore that body depicted was NOT Jesus but some other hapless dude. The bible clearly states Jesus was covered in aloe, which by your own admission is not put on a dead man.

The evidence in your favor might go up if the cloth could be shown to have the residue resulting from those healing herbs but otherwise.....

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are making my point. That Jesus was not dead, therefore that body depicted was NOT Jesus but some other hapless dude. The bible clearly states Jesus was covered in aloe, which by your own admission is not put on a dead man.

The evidence in your favor might go up if the cloth could be shown to have the residue resulting from those healing herbs but otherwise.....

The account in the Holy Bible is John 19:31-42. This is what is written:

Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.

(John 19:39-40 NASB)

It does not actually say the body was covered with aloe, as you claim. It said the burial was done according to the burial custom of the Jews.

The information I quoted says nothing about the custom of the Jews was to cover the body with aloe. But even if they did, my point is that Jesus was declared dead by the Roman soldiers, who made sure by piercing his body with a spear and blood and water came out, which is also medical proof he was dead. I am sure that the Roman soldiers had seen enough dead bodies to know if Jesus was dead or not.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The account in the Holy Bible is John 19:31-42. This is what is written:

Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.

(John 19:39-40 NASB)

It does no ...[text shortened]... I am sure that the Roman soldiers had seen enough dead bodies to know if Jesus was dead or not.

It sure looks to me like he was covered in aloe, it says wrapped with the 'spices'.

I never heard of them covering the body with aloe as a burial custom.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It sure looks to me like he was covered in aloe, it says wrapped with the 'spices'.

I never heard of them covering the body with aloe as a burial custom.

But— undoubtedly with the view of removing the odor—spices were put on the coffin or otherwise used at funerals (Ber. viii. 6; John xii. 7, xix. 39), and myrtles and aloes (in liquid state) were carried in the procession (Bezah 6a; John xix. 39).In honor of dead kings "sweet odors and diverse kinds of spices" were burned (Jer. xxxiv. 5; II Chron. xvi. 14, xxi. 19), together with the bier and the armor (see 'Ab. Zarah 11a), or carried along in the procession (Josephus, "Ant." xv. 3, § 4; xvii. 83; idem, "B. J." i. 33, § 9).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3842-burial

Perhaps aloes where not part of the spices. It says linen wrappings.

P.S. Some have suggested that the 100 pounds is a mistranslation and does not indicate the weight of the myrrh and aloes but some money value instead.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But— [b]undoubtedly with the view of removing the odor—spices were put on the coffin or otherwise used at funerals (Ber. viii. 6; John xii. 7, xix. 39), and myrtles and aloes (in liquid state) were carried in the procession (Bezah 6a; John xix. 39).In honor of dead kings "sweet odors and diverse kinds of spices" were burned (Jer. xxxiv. 5; II Chron. xvi. 14, ...[text shortened]... ion and does not indicate the weight of the myrrh and aloes but some money value instead.

You know, we can debate the in's and out's of this all day but the bottom line is there was no resurrection, he either died or didn't but there was no ascension into heaven.

Think about it: Why would a god do that and only for a few people around him?

Leaving out what now is billions of people who never even heard the name of Jesus, live out their entire lives in isolation but maybe numbering in the millions in Asia or the north country.

If this god was so moved to off his own 'son', why didn't that happen where nobody ever heard of JC and the boys and haven't to this day thousands of years later.

It just does not make any sense for something like that to have happened ONCE.

What was wrong with all those nomads in Mongolia that they should never EVER have heard the great news?

Or the Aborigines in Australia? Only a few hundred years ago to have even seen white men so 1500 odd years go by where they never heard of JC. Why didn't your god come down to them and do the same?

Why? Because it NEVER HAPPENED.

Nobody gets reborn, not me, not you, not Jesus.

Not Aborigines, not Mongolian nomads, not Ainu in Japan.

Your god, being omniscient and all, would surely have know about all the isolated tribes around the planet and could have sent an emissary of some sort but that never happened not in 2000 years in some cases.

That tells me all your nicey nice stories are just that: Fairy tales designed by men to control other men and subjugate women which has worked REALLY well.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You know, we can debate the in's and out's of this all day but the bottom line is there was no resurrection, he either died or didn't but there was no ascension into heaven.

Think about it: Why would a god do that and only for a few people around him?

Leaving out what now is billions of people who never even heard the name of Jesus, live out their ent s designed by men to control other men and subjugate women which has worked REALLY well.

Okay, if that is what you want to believe; but I what to believe something else.

P.S. By the way, I am not interested in controlling anyone, so you can go on about your business.