Turin shroud 'older than thought'

CVX · Post by **CVX** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:28 am

What is your reaction to this new evidence?

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

The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal.

A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.

The author dismisses 1988 carbon-14 dating tests which concluded that the linen sheet was a medieval fake.

The shroud, which bears the faint image of a blood-covered man, is believed by some to be Christ's burial cloth.

Raymond Rogers says his research and chemical tests show the material used in the 1988 radiocarbon analysis was cut from a medieval patch woven into the shroud to repair fire damage.

This was responsible for an invalid date being assigned to the original shroud cloth, he argues.

"The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic," said Mr Rogers, who is a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, US.

Fire damage

He says he was originally dubious of untested claims that the 1988 sample was taken from a re-weave.

"It was embarrassing to have to agree with them," Mr Rogers told the BBC News website.

The 4m-long linen sheet was damaged in several fires since its existence was first recorded in France in 1357, including a church blaze in 1532.

It is said to have been restored by nuns who patched the holes and stitched the shroud to a reinforcing material known as the Holland cloth.

" has obvious painting medium, a dye and a mordant that doesn't show anywhere else," Mr Rogers explained.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm

Attached files

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:36 am

Another Fix-it-job by the Roman Church

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:38 pm

It would be interesting to see the peer review of the latest testing and assertions. I'll wait.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:53 pm

Food for thought:

Why would a God who said "Thou shalt have no graven images" leave one of Himself? I say He wouldnt.

"By faith alone shall ye be saved" faith, to me, means no proof given. To me, it's clear that you just have to believe what He says.

The shroud has already been attributed to 'miracles'. Kinda encourages folk to go to a piece of cloth for their ills instead of God.

Post by **kensloft** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:45 am

It would be nice to see if the face on the burnt toast that was recently sold on the ebay and the Turin shroud are the same.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:14 pm

Soemething else to build a shrine to. Another red herring.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:33 pm

Clint :-6

What's wrong with a shrine?

Shalom

Ted :-6

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:46 pm

I bet they (Romans) bring the Blessed Virgin on tap soon. Don't hear about these people seeing wonders and hearing voices today:D

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:42 pm

Ted wrote: Clint :-6

What's wrong with a shrine?

Shalom

Ted :-6
They are red herrings. They draw people into worshiping what is enshrined. Preserving history is great and I think it should be done. The problem is that the history is lost in the effort and Ã¢â‚¬Å“high placesÃ¢â‚¬Â are erected and worshiped instead.

In Israel, the well meaning Roman church has obliterated history with their shrines. You canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even tell what was there in some cases.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:40 pm

Clint :-6

The shrine has two purposes. One is to venerate or honour the object or person who is the object of the shrine. The second is to act as an aid in focussing their attention on God. A shrine properly understood is not the object of the worship but merely and aid to worship.

Some Christians have fallen into the trap and idolatry of worshiping the Bible rather then the God to whom the Bible attests. That is not the purpose of a shrine.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Post by **kensloft** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:18 pm

Ted wrote: Clint :-6

The shrine has two purposes. One is to venerate or honour the object or person who is the object of the shrine. The second is to act as an aid in focussing their attention on God. A shrine properly understood is not the object of the worship but merely and aid to worship.

Some Christians have fallen into the trap and idolatry of worshiping the Bible rather then the God to whom the Bible attests. That is not the purpose of a shrine.

Shalom

Ted :-6

So what you are saying is that the shrine nor the relics or the person for whom the shrine is dedicated are the focus of the worship but it is a tool to remind the believers that it is a reminder of the Living God's presence?

N'est ce pas?

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:26 pm

kensloft wrote: So what you are saying is that the shrine nor the relics or the person for whom the shrine is dedicated are the focus of the worship but it is a tool to remind the believers that it is a reminder of the Living God's presence?

N'est ce pas?A Load of Crap

Post by **kensloft** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:22 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: A Load of Crap

Sounds like a lot of the stuff that you post.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:41 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: A Load of Crap

It is no "crappier" than the photographs you have in your home.

The photos are not the people you love, the are an image that reminds you of them and reminds you of the love you feel for them.

Same thing.

Post by **kensloft** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:19 am

koan wrote: It is no "crappier" than the photographs you have in your home.

The photos are not the people you love, the are an image that reminds you of them and reminds you of the love you feel for them.

Same thing.
:yh_worshp :yh_worshp :yh_worshp

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:20 am

Ted wrote: Clint :-6

The shrine has two purposes. One is to venerate or honour the object or person who is the object of the shrine. The second is to act as an aid in focussing their attention on God. A shrine properly understood is not the object of the worship but merely and aid to worship.

Some Christians have fallen into the trap and idolatry of worshiping the Bible rather then the God to whom the Bible attests. That is not the purpose of a shrine.

Shalom

Ted :-6
Good point. It's not the purpose of the Bible either. It can be taken to an extreme in either direction. Some deminish the value of the Bible in their effort to avoid worshiping it.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:32 am

Ted wrote: Clint :-6

The shrine has two purposes. One is to venerate or honour the object or person who is the object of the shrine. The second is to act as an aid in focussing their attention on God. A shrine properly understood is not the object of the worship but merely and aid to worship.

Some Christians have fallen into the trap and idolatry of worshiping the Bible rather then the God to whom the Bible attests. That is not the purpose of a shrine.

Shalom

Ted :-6
Bollocks, I say. It all falls to people who need 'visual' confirmation that their faith is not misplaced.

The God I know, expressly forbid the 'high' places. He spent alot of the old testament tearing them down.

Most 'relics' are fossilized remains of some person who the catholic church calls a saint. 99% of the time, they dont even come close to the biblical definition.

Christ didnt wear a name tag to alert people to who He was. His actions did that. He didnt go to worship God on any shrine! He didnt go to a priest to have prayers said for Him! He just lifted His face and spoke. And God heard Him! That was the point. Because of Him, we can do that too! He even taught us how. We keep forgetting the apostle Thomas. Christ had him with him for a REASON. How many times in the new testament, did Christ sigh and say "O ye of little faith"? How many times did He tell us that the kingdom of Heaven doesnt come with the visual?

Mind you, I'm just speaking as a christian. Other faiths may require shrines and idols, but mine does not. According to the book I read, most shiny and whitewashed things contain nothing but corruption. So to put it mildly, I try to avoid shrines. My heart is what God requires of me, to venerate Him. My obediance is the sign that I have heard what He says. My God wont be found among fossils. LOL! He wont be found in alot of churches either! But the church is His, so He alone can fix it. As a matter of fact, it's in the last bit, where he says the church makes Him sick!

Post by **kensloft** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:42 am

Raven wrote: Bollocks, I say. It all falls to people who need 'visual' confirmation that their faith is not misplaced.

The God I know, expressly forbid the 'high' places. He spent alot of the old testament tearing them down.

Most 'relics' are fossilized remains of some person who the catholic church calls a saint. 99% of the time, they dont even come close to the biblical definition.

Christ didnt wear a name tag to alert people to who He was. His actions did that. He didnt go to worship God on any shrine! He didnt go to a priest to have prayers said for Him! He just lifted His face and spoke. And God heard Him! That was the point. Because of Him, we can do that too! He even taught us how. We keep forgetting the apostle Thomas. Christ had him with him for a REASON. How many times in the new testament, did Christ sigh and say "O ye of little faith"? How many times did He tell us that the kingdom of Heaven doesnt come with the visual?

Mind you, I'm just speaking as a christian. Other faiths may require shrines and idols, but mine does not. According to the book I read, most shiny and whitewashed things contain nothing but corruption. So to put it mildly, I try to avoid shrines. My heart is what God requires of me, to venerate Him. My obediance is the sign that I have heard what He says. My God wont be found among fossils. LOL! He wont be found in alot of churches either! But the church is His, so He alone can fix it. As a matter of fact, it's in the last bit, where he says the church makes Him sick!

Hear! Hear!I'm a Bhuddist and I hear you loud and clear.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:13 am

Raven,

Very well. For you. And well spoken, indeed.

But....

Some people need something physical to get them to a nonphysical height. I consider myself lucky that I do not but do not consider them lesser that they do.

I have looked into many religions and learned from many of them. I have not "been" anything but myself. Wiccans need physical items in their rituals to focus on. Buddhists have their symbols. Christians have their relics. etc. Not all Wiccans like the ritual aspects. Not all Buddhists need a mandala to meditate on. Not all Christians need the shroud of Turin. But if having these things helps them to achieve spirituality that, without, they would not be able to attain then I think they are good.

As I said, I feel lucky I do not need them but am glad that these tools exist for others.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:26 pm

kensloft :-6

Yes that is exactly what I meant. koan added a nice touch with the photos.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:29 pm

Raven :-6

Good for you.

However, you clearly do not understand, nor I think are you interested in, shrines or relics. You are wrong though concerning either or both. But if your desire is to remain in ignorance I have no problem with that.

I too am a Christian a Christian Pluralist.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Post by **kensloft** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:56 pm

Ted wrote: kensloft :-6

Yes that is exactly what I meant. koan added a nice touch with the photos.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Didn't she do just that!!!!!!

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:59 pm

Ted wrote: Raven :-6

Good for you.

However, you clearly do not understand, nor I think are you interested in, shrines or relics. You are wrong though concerning either or both. But if your desire is to remain in ignorance I have no problem with that.

I too am a Christian a Christian Pluralist.

Shalom

Ted :-6
I'm sorry you feel I'm ignorant. I assure you I am not.

I just dont choose to compromise my beliefs with that of the world view of what I ought to be.

I dont apologise for my belief. Me, I'm just a Christian. I put actions to my faith. I dont wear a nametag telling the world who I am. I follow the Lords example. Let me be judged by the fruit I produce, thanks. :-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:13 pm

I dislike the word ignorance. It may be used to imply there is more to learn but it has this ring of finality to it.

I find religion is similar to physical healing. Where accupuncture may be a miracle cure to one person another may have no success with it. That is why there are different methods of healing. For the spirit there are different systems of religion. What works for one may not work for another. If someone said chiropractics didn't work for them would there be the same level of anger coming from the avid chiropractic patient whose body was saved by it? I think not.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:52 pm

Raven :-6

There was no intent on my part to imply you were ignorant in any negative sense. But I find it difficult to accept ones comments on things like shrines and relics until one understands how they came to be and their purpose. When I discovered this I took a far less negative view of them. I do not have to accept either but now that I understand I have no problem with those who do.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Post by **kensloft** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:50 pm

Ted wrote: Raven :-6

There was no intent on my part to imply you were ignorant in any negative sense. But I find it difficult to accept ones comments on things like shrines and relics until one understands how they came to be and their purpose. When I discovered this I took a far less negative view of them. I do not have to accept either but now that I understand I have no problem with those who do.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Just so that I am clear on the word ignorant. In the context that people use it in, it is meant to signify a form of close-minded stupidity. When it gets bandied about there are usually hard feelings and tempers that erupt.

That is why I don't use the word often. When I use the word I like to think that the person that is listening realizes that I am saying that they are IGNORING a fact. It has nothing to do with how smart or dumb they may be. Just the fact that they aren't addressing the issue by not listening to or looking at all that is on the table.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 5:21 pm

kensloft :-6

I use "ignorant" as being unaware or not knowledgeable about a particular topic. However, I take your point and will try to refrain from using in the future.

Thanks

Shalom

Ted :-6

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:41 pm

Same here,

Post by **kensloft** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:53 pm

Ted wrote: kensloft :-6

I use "ignorant" as being unaware or not knowledgeable about a particular topic. However, I take your point and will try to refrain from using in the future.

Thanks

Shalom

Ted :-6

Thanks Ted, Buzz.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:41 am

Ted wrote: Raven :-6

There was no intent on my part to imply you were ignorant in any negative sense. But I find it difficult to accept ones comments on things like shrines and relics until one understands how they came to be and their purpose. When I discovered this I took a far less negative view of them. I do not have to accept either but now that I understand I have no problem with those who do.

Shalom

Ted :-6
As one of my main courses of study has been ancient history, and one of my favourite pastimes is studying archaeology, I'm fully aware of how shrines came to be. I'm paticularly interested in the asian variety. Just so you understand, I'm not ignorant in ANY sense of the word. I wouldnt embark on any discussion of this type had I not been well versed in the subject matter.

Post by **kensloft** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:00 pm

Raven wrote: As one of my main courses of study has been ancient history, and one of my favourite pastimes is studying archaeology, I'm fully aware of how shrines came to be. I'm paticularly interested in the asian variety. Just so you understand, I'm not ignorant in ANY sense of the word. I wouldnt embark on any discussion of this type had I not been well versed in the subject matter.
Edgar must be rollin' over? I am glad to hear that. Did you hear that they found beautiful well crafted tools that were made by the miq'mac indians in diggings that dated 8,000 years ago.

Awesome. The tools(arrowheads, barbed fishing points) Totally awesome.

I enjoy geology, paleontology etc. From soup to nuts.(heh-heh)

Love Archaeology and the findings.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:35 pm

Art experts and conservative clerics were holding a mock "trial'' in the homtown of Leonardo da Vinci last night aimed at sorting out fact from fiction in Dan Browne's bestselling book 'The Da Vinci Code".

The event in Vinci, just outside Florence, was to begin with an opening statement by Alessando Vezzosi, director of Leonardo museum, who said he will produce photographs and documents as evidence of mistakes and historical inaccuracles contained in Dan Browne's book.

"Leonardo is misrepresented and belittled", Vezzosi said in a telephone call interview. "His importance is misunderstood, and he was a man full of fantasy, inventions and genius.

Vezzosi said he will produce evidence through 120 photographs based on documents and paintings with the aim of ''reassessing and disclaiming the mystical thriller, a mix of code-breaking, art history, secret societies, religion and lore.

Organisers said there will be nobody speaking in the book's defence and the ''verdict'' would be contained within the presentions of the speakers.

But that didn't mean the book would be completely hung out to dry, hundreds of the book's fans, many also from the US and Canada were expected to attend the trial at Vinci's Palazzina Uzielli.

Monsignor Renato Bellini, the vicar of Vinci, said 'This book depicts Opus Dei as a mysterious centre of political and economic power that tries to hide the truth about Jesus and Magdalene, which is absurd'.

Bellini also said that a representative of Opus Dei would also be in attendence, but would not answer any questions.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:22 pm

Many false Gods will appear and turn many astray,even the elect says Jesus Christ.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:26 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: Many false Gods will appear and turn many astray,even the elect says Jesus Christ.
So you're saying the shroud is a fake? Damn!

David813 · Post by **David813** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:40 pm

I read recently that the shroud is a replica/fake made in the Middle Ages. This was in the Yahoo NewsBriefs a couple weeks ago.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:41 pm

OK now I have 190 posts. I'm gettin a Coke.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:50 pm

David813 wrote: OK now I have 190 posts. I'm gettin a Coke.

You're counting already? You got a long way to go. But you didn't get "booted" yet, so that's a good thing.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:54 pm

I was SURE I'd be exiled from The Garden! It just took me awhile to get the vibes of this unique group. Every other board I've been to is a battleground! I think for one month I've learned a bit more of the ways of the Garden and hope to post many more times! BUT! If I sent one sentence posts back to back every day my numbers would jump significantly! :guitarist

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:59 pm

i really don't get this obsession with numbers. i don't care one whit. david IS an annoying cop-hater, but strangely i like him, and am winning him over. i would have some rum with that coke.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:01 am

Sounds Great L.C!!! It's quittin time Thank Mary the Virgin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We should swap jobs for one day. Would be interesting! Till Tuesday.................Love Cop-Hatin David :driving:

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:05 am

David813 wrote: Sounds Great L.C!!! It's quittin time Thank Mary the Virgin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We should swap jobs for one day. Would be interesting! Till Tuesday.................Love Cop-Hatin David :driving: baby, you couldn't do my job! it takes steel cajones.

Post by **kensloft** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:04 am

lady cop wrote: baby, you couldn't do my job! it takes steel cajones.

In Canada we call that a jock strap.