Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Ah Another Shroud of (Turin) Sudarium ?

68 views
Skip to first unread message

Don Winslow

unread,
Apr 30, 2011, 1:09:06 PM4/30/11
to

Exhaustive Tests Show Sacred Cloth Much Older Than Carbon-14 date
OVIEDO, Spain -- Scientists and forensic specialists gathered in Oviedo,
Spain, this week to examine an obscure relic that many have claimed
authenticates the Shroud of Turin -- believed by many to be the burial
cloth of Jesus Christ.

The Sudarium of Oviedo is reportedly the other linen cloth found in the
tomb of Christ, as described in the Gospel of John. The relic, whose
dramatic history is intertwined with the Knights Templar, Moors, El Cid,
saints and bishops, has been in Spain since 631 A.D. Meanwhile, in
Turin, Italy, the last pilgrims of the Jubilee Year are winding their
way past the Shroud of Turin before the exhibit closes on October 23.

Verses 5-8 of the 20th chapter of "The Gospel According to St. John"
records, "... he went into the tomb and saw the burial cloths there and
the cloth that had covered his head, not with the burial cloths, but
rolled up in a separate place." This head cloth, the Sudarium, has
become the focus of increasing debates over the validity of the
carbon-14 tests on the Shroud of Turin. The carbon-dating tests set the
age of the shroud in the 13th century, which would make the Shroud of
Turin a pious icon at best, a clever fraud at worst.

However, the scientific community is divided over the shroud dates
because -- with the exception of the carbon dating tests -- medical,
artistic, forensic and botanical evidence favors the authenticity of the
shroud of Turin as the burial cloth of Jesus.

One example of microscopic testing that supports the Shroud as authentic
is the 1978 sample of dirt taken from the foot region of the burial
linen. The dirt was analyzed at the Hercules Aerospace Laboratory in
Salt Lake, Utah, where experts identified crystals of travertine
argonite, a relatively rare form of calcite found near the Damascus Gate
in Jerusalem. It is a stretch, say researchers, that a 13th century
forger would have known to take the trouble to impregnate the linen with
marble dust found near Golgotha in order to fool scientists six hundred
years later.

The debate over the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is elevated by
the new discoveries resulting from the studies on the Sudarium of
Oviedo. Unlike the Shroud, the Sudarium, which covered the face of
Christ for a short time before the body was wrapped in the longer burial
cloth, does not carry an image of a man. Instead, the cloth, held
against a face of a man who had been beaten about the head, shows a
distinct facial impression and pattern of stains. The cloth is
impregnated with blood and lymph stains that match the blood type on the
Shroud of Turin. The pattern and measurements of stains indicate the
placement of the cloth over the face.

These patterns have been extensively mapped to enable researchers to
compare the markings and measurements with those of the Shroud of Turin.
These measurements and calculations, digitized videos and other forensic
evidence indicate that the Sudarium of Oviedo covered the same head
whose image is found on the Shroud of Turin.

Part of Jewish burial custom was to cover the face of the dead, sparing
the family further distress. The sudarium, from the Latin for "face
cloth," would have been wrapped over the head of the crucified Christ
awaiting permission from Pontius Pilate to remove the body. Stains made
at that time indicate a vertical position with the head at an angle.
There are stains from deep puncture wounds on the portion of the cloth
covering the back of the head, consistent with those puncture marks
found on the Shroud of Turin, theoretically made by the caplet of thorns.

A separate set of stains, superimposed upon the first set, was made when
the crucified man was laid horizontally and lymph flowed out from the
nostrils. The composition of the stains, say the Investigation Team from
the Spanish Centre for Sindology, who began the first sudarium studies
in 1989, is one part blood -- type AB -- and six parts pulmonary oedema
fluid. This fluid is significant, say researchers, because it indicates
that the man died from asphyxiation, the cause of death for victims of
crucifixion.

Recently, Dr. Alan Whanger, professor emeritus of Duke University,
employed his Polarized Image Overlay Technique to study correlations
between the Shroud and the Sudarium. Dr. Whanger found 70 points of
correlation on the front of the Sudarium and 50 on the back.

"The only reasonable conclusion," says Mark Guscin, author of "The
Oviedo Cloth," "is that the Sudarium of Oviedo covered the same head as
that found on the Shroud of Turin." Guscin, a British scholar whose
study is the only English language book on the Sudarium, told
WorldNetDaily, "This can be uncomfortable for scientists with a
predetermined viewpoint; I mean, the evidence grows that this cloth and
the Shroud covered the same tortured man."

Guscin also points to pollen studies done by Max Frei of Switzerland.
Specific pollens from Palestine are found in both relics, while the
Sudarium has pollen from Egypt and Spain that is not found on the
Shroud. Conversely, pollen grains from plant species indigenous to
Turkey are imbedded in the Shroud, but not the Sudarium, supporting the
theory of their different histories after leaving Jerusalem.

The significance of the Sudarium to the Shroud, in addition to the
forensic evidence, is that the history of the Sudarium is undisputed.
While the history of the Shroud is veiled in the mists of the Middle
Ages, the Sudarium was a revered relic preserved from the days of the
crucifixion.

A simple cloth of little value, other than that it contained the Blood
of Christ, the Sudarium accompanied a presbyter named Philip and other
Christians fleeing Palestine in 616 A.D. ahead of the Persian invasion.
Passing through Alexandria, Egypt, and into Spain at Cartegena, the oak
chest containing the Sudarium was entrusted to Leandro, bishop of
Seville. In 657 it was moved to Toledo, then in 718 on to northern Spain
to escape the advancing Moors. The Sudarium was hidden in the mountains
of Asturias in a cave known as Montesacro until king Alfonso II, having
battled back the Moors, built a chapel in Oviedo to house it in 840 AD.
The most riveting date in the Sudarium's history is March 14, 1075. On
this date, King Alfonso VI, his sister and Rodrigo Diaz Vivar (El Cid)
opened the chest after days of fasting. This official act of the king
was recorded and the document is preserved in the Capitular Archives at
the Cathedral of San Salvador in Oviedo. The King had the oak chest
covered in silver and an inscription added which reads, "The Sacred
Sudarium of Our Lord Jesus Christ." Juan Ignacio Moreno, a Spanish
magistrate based in Burgos, Spain, asks the critical question. "The
scientific and medical studies on the Sudarium prove that it was the
covering for the same man whose image is [on] the Shroud of Turin. We
know that the Sudarium has been in Spain since the 600s. How, then, can
the radio carbon dating claiming the Shroud is only from the 13th
century be accurate?"

..

Mark Isaak

unread,
Apr 30, 2011, 8:08:30 PM4/30/11
to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 13:09:06 -0400, Don Winslow wrote:

> Exhaustive Tests Show Sacred Cloth Much Older Than Carbon-14 date
> OVIEDO, Spain -- Scientists and forensic specialists gathered in Oviedo,
> Spain, this week to examine an obscure relic that many have claimed

> authenticates the Shroud of Turin ...

By "authenticate", I assume you mean "supporting the church's original
assessment", i.e., that the cloth is a forgery.

> -- believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

And there is the real miracle -- that people's minds are so readily
twisted to make them believe obvious falsehoods.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume


Randy C

unread,
Apr 30, 2011, 9:22:55 PM4/30/11
to
> And there is the real miracle -- that people's minds are so readily
> twisted to make them believe obvious falsehoods.

Unfortunately the miracle would be if ALL people trusted the evidence
rather than their preconceptions.

Of course, in that event, there wouldn't be any creationists.

It is also quite likely that everyone would be an atheist.

Don Winslow

unread,
Apr 30, 2011, 10:30:26 PM4/30/11
to
On 04/30/2011 08:08 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 13:09:06 -0400, Don Winslow wrote:
>
>> Exhaustive Tests Show Sacred Cloth Much Older Than Carbon-14 date
>> OVIEDO, Spain -- Scientists and forensic specialists gathered in Oviedo,
>> Spain, this week to examine an obscure relic that many have claimed
>> authenticates the Shroud of Turin ...
>
> By "authenticate", I assume you mean "supporting the church's original
> assessment", i.e., that the cloth is a forgery.
>
Are we talking about ie the the Shroud of Sudarium?

>
>> -- believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
>

I believe the Shroud of Sudarium was a face cloth.


>
> And there is the real miracle -- that people's minds are so readily
> twisted to make them believe obvious falsehoods.
>


There was a program on History this week on the Shroud of Turin. I won't
say I concerned, but I am interested. I cannot just take it on faith
that either is fraudulent. Based upon new evidence it seems the carbon
14 test was valid, but the sample was not. It was taken from a repaired
section of the cloth.

For the record, I was raised Jewish. So, my familiarity with the
Biblical Jesus is limited at best. The artist concepts show Jesus
having nails driven through his hands and feet. But the man in
the cloth shows nails through his wrist, not his hands. How important
is this? The image shows a 'photographic' negative. Could age cause the
image to appear to be a negative? The man in the shroud had wounds in
his side. And wounds about his head, back and chest. The man in the
cloth seems to have had coins on his eyes, is there reference to
this in the Bible? I guess my question
is this: How consistent is the Biblical crucifixion of Jesus with
the wounded image of the man in the cloth: and how consistent was this
with other crucifixions by the Romans?

www.shroudstory.com/forensics.htm

Nashton

unread,
May 1, 2011, 6:43:42 AM5/1/11
to
On 4/30/11 2:09 PM, Don Winslow wrote:
>
> Exhaustive Tests Show Sacred Cloth Much Older Than Carbon-14 date
> OVIEDO, Spain -- Scientists and forensic specialists gathered in Oviedo,
> Spain, this week to examine an obscure relic that many have claimed
> authenticates the Shroud of Turin -- believed by many to be the burial
> cloth of Jesus Christ.
>


<yawn>

1. Is this really the place to discuss this?
2. Who cares if this is the real thing?
3. There is nothing in the Christian faith that has anything to do with
magical properties attributed to objects related to Jesus, his mother or
any other persona in the faith.

The approach of sola scripture sure kicks derriere in this instance.

Grace through faith alone....


Nashton

unread,
May 1, 2011, 6:47:21 AM5/1/11
to
On 4/30/11 11:30 PM, Don Winslow wrote:

> For the record, I was raised Jewish. So, my familiarity with the
> Biblical Jesus is limited at best. The artist concepts show Jesus
> having nails driven through his hands and feet. But the man in
> the cloth shows nails through his wrist, not his hands. How important
> is this? The image shows a 'photographic' negative. Could age cause the
> image to appear to be a negative? The man in the shroud had wounds in
> his side. And wounds about his head, back and chest. The man in the
> cloth seems to have had coins on his eyes, is there reference to
> this in the Bible? I guess my question
> is this: How consistent is the Biblical crucifixion of Jesus with
> the wounded image of the man in the cloth: and how consistent was this
> with other crucifixions by the Romans?
>
> www.shroudstory.com/forensics.htm
>


How consistent was Piltdown Man with the utterly useless ToE and how
many other frauds are there out there waiting to be exposed?

RAM

unread,
May 1, 2011, 10:37:47 AM5/1/11
to

Nashie Poo you are the fraud who pretends to know science well enough
to be critical of it.

Your paranoid and empirically silly statement is clear evidence of
your own fraudulency.

Additionally your support of Pags the plagiarizer needs to be
addressed given your morally correct stand against YOO. What is it
going to be? Continued fraudulency or becoming a mensch.

Don Winslow

unread,
May 1, 2011, 11:19:02 AM5/1/11
to
I have no idea what Nashie poo means nor do I know who or what Pags
the plagiarizer is/means. I'm sorry, none of this makes sense. I
would appreciate answers to my questions.

Paul J Gans

unread,
May 1, 2011, 11:47:32 AM5/1/11
to

Except that we are all looking for justice from our pack leaders
and, not finding it here on earth, many take comfort by imagining
that it is in the sky.

'Tis in our genes, I fear.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

RAM

unread,
May 1, 2011, 12:01:41 PM5/1/11
to

Nashie Poo is my diminutive for Nashton because he is so child like in
his logic and petulance.

Here is the evidence provide by Ilas for Pags' (Pagano) plagiarizing
(that Nashton refuses to respond to):

BGIN POST

27.  Ilas  View
profile  More
options Apr 4, 7:04 am

T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote in
news:apagano-bi2fp6ddbg6ks...@4ax.com:

> Notice that Thompson fails to substantiate his accusation that I
> plagiarized.  What a surprise.

What exactly would you call this, if not plagarism? From the post in
question (there's more, but this will do):
-----------
Pagano:
it has perching feet,
Gish:
It had perching feet
-----------
Pagano:
possessed the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing with
modern-like feathers; the primary fearthers of non flying birds are
distinctly different.  there is little reason to suppose that the
Archeopteryx was not capable of and engaged in powered flight.
Gish:
The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly different
from 
those of flying birds. Archaeopteryx had the feathers of flying
birds, 
had the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing, and
an 
especially robust furcula (wishbone). Furthermore, there was
nothing in 
the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would have prevented it
being a powered 
flyer.
-----------
Pagano:
a robust furcula,
Gish:
an especially robust furcula
-----------
Pagano:
the quadrate of the Eichastatt specimen of the Archeopteryx was
double-headed and thus similar in condition to that of the modern
bird.
Gish:
the quadrate of the Eichstatt specimen of Archaepoteryx was double-
headed 
and thus similar to the condition of modern birds
-----------
Pagano:
 it has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized
characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Research on various
anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so,
however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in
question 
is bird-like, not reptile-like.
Gish:
It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized
characters 
with coelurosaurian dinosaurs.4 Research on various
anatomical features 
of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so,
however, has shown, in 
every case, that the characteristic in
question is bird-like, not 
reptile-like
-----------
Pagano:
 it has been reasonably established that neither the teeth nor the
ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod
dinosaurs-the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later)
toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of
dinosaurs.
Gish:
L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth
nor 
the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod
dinosaurs—the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later)
toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of
dinosaurs

END POST

HTH

jillery

unread,
May 1, 2011, 2:29:13 PM5/1/11
to
On May 1, 11:47 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> And there is the real miracle -- that people's minds are so readily
> >> twisted to make them believe obvious falsehoods.
> >Unfortunately the miracle would be if ALL people trusted the evidence
> >rather than their preconceptions.
> >Of course, in that event, there wouldn't be any creationists.
> >It is also quite likely that everyone would be an atheist.
>
> Except that we are all looking for justice from our pack leaders
> and, not finding it here on earth, many take comfort by imagining
> that it is in the sky.


If that is what it takes for them to cope with said injustice, why
should anybody take that away from them?

iaoua iaoua

unread,
May 1, 2011, 2:42:18 PM5/1/11
to

Interesting. I've been meaning to go check out the shroud for a while
now. Interesting, the research you quote about this face cloth. Do you
have any links to the research that I can read? I guess I'll have to
put this face cloth on my list of places to go and visit and check
out. Thanks a lot. Interesting post.

JC

Don Winslow

unread,
May 1, 2011, 6:00:34 PM5/1/11
to
I don't know about any of this. I was raised by Jewish Parents.
So, I do not have any desire of finding anything about to Jesus
or pertaining to the crucifixion of the man. But this past week
there was piece about the Shroud of Turin shown several times
on History Channel.
I watched this. I knew of this cloth, but I also knew the
cloth was shown, by carbon dating, to be a 13/th century fraud.
But it turns out, according to the latest findings that the test
was invalid, because the sample tested turned out to be from
a repaired portion of the cloth. They know because the material
is not the same.

www.shroudstory.com/forensics.htm

For my part, as a middle aged Jewish man, this doesn't set
well. I think of my children, my parents, grand parents who
rejected the claims of this man. I also think about the
historical relationship between Christianity and my people.
I would like this matter resolved. But based upon new data,
The validity of the Shroud cannot be dismissed with a wave of
the hand.

Don Winslow

unread,
May 1, 2011, 6:22:47 PM5/1/11
to

Burkhard

unread,
May 1, 2011, 6:31:13 PM5/1/11
to


Why? Even giving the most ambitious reading, the shroud would only be
evidence that there was indeed a leader of small group within Judaism
who got into trouble with the authorities and crucified as a result. As
far as I know, a sizeable number of Jews has no problem with the _mere
historicity_ of Christ. As far as hie other claims are concerned, the
shroud is neither here nor there.

Bruce Stephens

unread,
May 1, 2011, 6:40:37 PM5/1/11
to
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes:

[...]

> Why? Even giving the most ambitious reading, the shroud would only
> be evidence that there was indeed a leader of small group within
> Judaism who got into trouble with the authorities and crucified as a

> result. [...]

I thought the extreme pro-shroud view was that there was no natural
explanation for the image, so it must have been produced magically (by
Jesus being resurrected, I guess)?

Burkhard

unread,
May 1, 2011, 6:49:36 PM5/1/11
to
In that case, even trying to argue if it is real blood, or the date of
the textile, would of course be futile - just as with creationism in
general, once you allow this explanation in, any need to look for
physical evidence disappears.

As for the theological argument - I'd say if you read it like this,
Calvin dealt with it adequately. A major miracle nobody found worth
mentioning? So much the worse for the bible.

Mark Isaak

unread,
May 1, 2011, 8:48:20 PM5/1/11
to

For my part, I find it easier to believe that a television program would
play fast and loose with the truth for ratings, than that competent
curators would not have known for centuries which parts of the cloth were
original.

Also, there was a discovery some few years back of another burial cloth
from nearly the same time and place as Jesus would have been buried, and
the weave was entirely different.

Also, there is record of the original forger having confessed.

This matter was resolved more than 500 years ago. But, like creationism,
enough people do not want the simple truth to be true, so the matter will
never *stay* resolved.

Paul J Gans

unread,
May 1, 2011, 9:31:04 PM5/1/11
to

You will havce noted that governments don't take it away from
them. In fact they push it. If folks have troubles, blame
Zeus, not the government. It is a useful technique well-known
well before Marx made it popular.

Indeed, the Protestant Reformation was in major part about who
was going to control religion in a given nation.

Free Lunch

unread,
May 1, 2011, 10:51:06 PM5/1/11
to
On Mon, 2 May 2011 01:31:04 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>
wrote in talk.origins:

And that little dustup about a century later.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
May 2, 2011, 2:17:27 AM5/2/11
to
[snip]

The Talmud, to my knowledge, treats Jesus as having been a real person.

Mitchell Coffey

Stuart

unread,
May 2, 2011, 4:11:39 AM5/2/11
to
On May 1, 12:00 pm, Don Winslow <"Don Winslow"@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 05/01/2011 11:47 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> > Randy C<randyec...@gmail.com>  wrote:


Douche bag.

Stuart

Burkhard

unread,
May 2, 2011, 5:41:20 AM5/2/11
to
On May 2, 1:48 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:00:34 -0400, Don Winslow wrote:
> > On 05/01/2011 11:47 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> Randy C<randyec...@gmail.com>  wrote:

Depends, really. On the method used for reparation and its quality and
extend on the one hand, and on the tools available for the curator on
the other (e.g. is it permissible to use destructive testing?) Modern
conservators (who typically go for preservation rather than
restoration) would make changes that are visible with the naked eye,
but that is a very modern approach.

And you always have jillery's conspiracy theory according to which
the curator chose intentionally a repaired piece to have deniability
if the results are bad.

Personally, I don't think that Rogers and others _prove_ that the
dating was incorrect, or that it came from a repaired part of the
cloth. Personally, I think it probably was correct. But they do raise
some reasonable doubt as to the reliability of the test. In modern
forensic terms: you would not get it past a competent judge in a
Daubert hearing

>
> Also, there was a discovery some few years back of another burial cloth
> from nearly the same time and place as Jesus would have been buried, and
> the weave was entirely different.

True, but the evidential value of this is very low - just think of
what you'd find if you excavated a modern cemetery - top of the range
oak coffins with silk lining and two way radio (just in case) next
to cheap plywood boxes - and that despite modern manufacturing methods
that aim for consistency.

There are two types of argument to be made a) if the type of weave
was known at all at that time and b) how common it was for the region
and the time.

My understanding is that it is "consistent with" a first century,
upmarket Syrian weave (according to Mechthild Flury-Lemberg as
domain expert) which is again the least interesting result you could
get - and both she and Raes who did the initial analysis point out
that the same type of weave could come from the middle ages. Now if
you wanted to go "full Bayesian" on the evidence evaluation, you'd
need data about the relative distribution of this type of weave across
the centuries, for which there is not sufficient data.

>
> Also, there is record of the original forger having confessed.

Well, a bit more complicated than that. There is a report from one
Bishop that says his predecessor has investigated the claim, and had
come to the conclusion it was a forgery, based also on a confession.
There is no independent record of that confession, and the name of the
forger is unknown. Despite a note in the report that the guilty were
prosecuted, no evidence for this exists either (OK, that is weak
"absence of evidence" but an issue nonetheless) .

While the confession of the forger is mentioned in just one half
sentence, most of the report deals with the reason why said
predecessor was suspicious: the image is not mentioned in the Bible
(essentially the some argument Calving would make later) - from a
secular perspective, this is not a strong piece of evidence, I'd say.
There also seems to have been an element of class snobbery and envy -
the aristocrat in possession of the alleged shroud was from the lower
nobility, but making a killing, financially. Throw in that confession
evidence is less reliable than people think it is, especially if there
are interrogation methods used that are more focussed on getting a
result than the right one, I'd say this "double hearsay" confession
is at beast weak evidence against authenticity.

>
> This matter was resolved more than 500 years ago.

As above: the reason why contemporaries dismissed it are not reasons a
secular historian woudl fidn necessarily compelling

John S. Wilkins

unread,
May 2, 2011, 9:28:46 AM5/2/11
to
Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:

But much later, around 200 years I think. They are responding to the
burgeoning Christianist movement.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Don Winslow

unread,
May 2, 2011, 11:55:06 AM5/2/11
to
"Why?" Why did they reject this man? I think their Judaism had something
to do with it. For me that is part of the issue.
He did get into trouble with authorities and was crucified.
I've concluded this is what the evidence shows.
>
As far as his other claims are concerned, the shroud is neither here
nor there.
>
Maybe, but that's an opinion, not an explanation.

Don Winslow

unread,
May 2, 2011, 11:56:44 AM5/2/11
to
Why would you sign off in this manner?

Don Winslow

unread,
May 2, 2011, 12:13:26 PM5/2/11
to
On 05/01/2011 08:48 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:00:34 -0400, Don Winslow wrote:
>
>> On 05/01/2011 11:47 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Randy C<randy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> And there is the real miracle -- that people's minds are so readily
>>>>> twisted to make them believe obvious falsehoods.
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately the miracle would be if ALL people trusted the evidence
>>>> rather than their preconceptions.
>>>
>>>> Of course, in that event, there wouldn't be any creationists.
>>>
>>>> It is also quite likely that everyone would be an atheist.
>>>
>>> Except that we are all looking for justice from our pack leaders and,
>>> not finding it here on earth, many take comfort by imagining that it is
>>> in the sky.
>>>
>>> 'Tis in our genes, I fear.
>>>
>> I don't know about any of this. I was raised by Jewish Parents. So, I
>> do not have any desire of finding anything about Jesus or pertaining

>> to the crucifixion of the man. But this past week there was piece about
>> the Shroud of Turin shown several times on History Channel. I watched
>> this. I knew of this cloth, but I also knew the cloth was shown, by
>> carbon dating, to be a 13/th century fraud. But it turns out, according
>> to the latest findings that the test was invalid, because the sample
>> tested turned out to be from a repaired portion of the cloth. They know
>> because the material is not the same.
>>
>> www.shroudstory.com/forensics.htm
>>
>> For my part, as a middle aged Jewish man, this doesn't set well. I
>> think of my children, my parents, grand parents who rejected the claims
>> of this man. I also think about the historical relationship between
>> Christianity and my people. I would like this matter resolved. But
>> based upon new data, The validity of the Shroud cannot be dismissed
>> with a wave of the hand.
>
> For my part, I find it easier to believe that a television program would
> play fast and loose with the truth for ratings, than that competent
> curators would not have known for centuries which parts of the cloth were
> original.
>
That maybe. But I don't know that. I also searched the web for
confirmation or a critique of the "latest findings" regarding this
cloth. Mind you, as a person with deep roots in Judaism, I'm not looking
for verification. However, I do search for the truth, whatever, it might
be.

>
> Also, there was a discovery some few years back of another burial cloth
> from nearly the same time and place as Jesus would have been buried, and
> the weave was entirely different.
>
> Also, there is record of the original forger having confessed.
>
Good! When did the forger live? If here's confirmation what is it?

>
> This matter was resolved more than 500 years ago. But, like creationism,
> enough people do not want the simple truth to be true, so the matter will
> never *stay* resolved.
>
Maybe this satisfies you, but it doesn't resolve anything for me. And
that my only interest at the present time.

Don Winslow

unread,
May 2, 2011, 12:30:46 PM5/2/11
to
How do you explain the forensic reports?

www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm

www.shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Article-MedicalForensics.html

www.skepticalspectacle.com/inquirer/shroud-Sudarium-Forensic.htm

www.shroudforum.com/sudarium.htm

Because of my Jewish background, my familiarity with the


Biblical Jesus is limited at best. The artist concepts show Jesus
having nails driven through his hands and feet. But the man in
the cloth shows nails through his wrist, not his hands. How important

is this Bibical or not? The image shows a 'photographic' negative. Could

age cause the image to "appear" to be a negative?
The man in the shroud had wounds in his side. And wounds about his head,
back and chest. The man in the cloth seems to have had coins on his
eyes, is there reference to this in the Bible? I guess my question
is this: How consistent is the Biblical crucifixion of Jesus with
the wounded image of the man in the cloth: and how consistent was this
with other crucifixions by the Romans?

There is hardly any room for denial that someone was tortured and died
by crucifixion. The only remaining question is who and how close does
the evidence conform to story of Jesus of the Christian Bible.

Burkhard

unread,
May 2, 2011, 12:38:00 PM5/2/11
to
On May 2, 4:55 pm, Don Winslow <"Don Winslow"@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 05/01/2011 06:31 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>
> > On 01/05/2011 23:00, Don Winslow wrote:
> >> On 05/01/2011 11:47 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:

Because if you believe everyone who claims to be a deity or the son of
one, you never get any work done? But what has this to do with the
shroud?


>I think their Judaism had something
> to do with it.

ehh, yes?

>For me that is part of the issue.
> He did get into trouble with authorities and was crucified.
> I've concluded this is what the evidence shows.

So? I can't still see what the religious position has to do with the
evidence of the shroud, whether you believe it or not.


>
> As far as his other claims are concerned, the shroud is neither here
> nor there.
>  >
> Maybe, but that's an opinion, not an explanation.

Explanation of what? The shroud , even _if_ it were provably
Christ's, would only show that some chap died 2000 years ago in a
rather unpleasant way, as described in a contemporaneous document.
There are quite a number of dyed in the wool atheists who have no
problems with the historicity of Christ, and neither do many observant
Jews. So the shroud does not change a bit the landscape.

iaoua iaoua

unread,
May 2, 2011, 3:02:28 PM5/2/11
to
On May 2, 5:30 pm, Don Winslow <"Don Winslow"@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 05/02/2011 09:28 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mitchell Coffey<mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>  wrote:

>
> >> On 5/1/2011 6:31 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> >>> On 01/05/2011 23:00, Don Winslow wrote:
> >>>> On 05/01/2011 11:47 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>>>> Randy C<randyec...@gmail.com>  wrote:

Hi,

I'm a Christian convert and like you have spent some considerable time
searching for understanding.

> Biblical Jesus is limited at best. The artist concepts show Jesus
> having nails driven through his hands and feet. But the man in
> the cloth shows nails through his wrist, not his hands. How important
> is this Bibical or not?

I wouldn't pay much attention to artistic impressions. They were made
a long time after the execution. The Greek word translated as hands
does not map exactly to the English concept of hands and definitely
includes the forearms as well. In fact, it is quite hard to believe
that if executions were performed with nails through hands that the
hands would not tear off with the weight of the body.

> The image shows a 'photographic' negative. Could
> age cause the image to "appear" to be a negative?

This is the big mystery about the shroud as far as my research leads
me to see. Pretty much all attempts to reproduce similar results have
been failures.

> The man in the shroud had wounds in his side. And wounds about his head,
> back and chest. The man in the cloth seems to have had coins on his
> eyes, is there reference to this in the Bible? I guess my question

Coins on eyes was an ancient burial tradition but no statements in the
NT directly support such a view of Jewish burial. Wounds on the head
are to be expected if a crown of thorns was put on his head and then
beaten down with a reed. Wounds on the back are to be expected as the
NT reports that Pilate had Jesus flogged hoping his opposers would be
satisfied with the punishment and stop demanding his death. A wound in
the chest is to be expected as the NT reports that a soldier pierced
his chest with a spear and water and blood came out confirming that he
was already dead.

> is this: How consistent is the Biblical crucifixion of Jesus with
> the wounded image of the man in the cloth:

Pretty consistent. If the shroud is a forgery it is a very good one.

> and how consistent was this
> with other crucifixions by the Romans?

Very little is known about Roman crucifixions. We are not even sure
about the shape of the instrument used. Was it a simple upright stake
as the Greek stauros implies? Was it a T shape as the letter of
Barnabas purports? Was it a cross shape as later iconography depicts?

> There is hardly any room for denial that someone was tortured and died
> by crucifixion. The only remaining question is who and how close does
> the evidence conform to story of Jesus of the Christian Bible.

Pretty close. The only real problem is the dating. But you seem to
have provided ample evidence that the dating is questionable.

JC

SkyEyes

unread,
May 2, 2011, 3:39:24 PM5/2/11
to
On May 2, 8:55 am, Don Winslow <"Don Winslow"@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 05/01/2011 06:31 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 01/05/2011 23:00, Don Winslow wrote:
> >> On 05/01/2011 11:47 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:

I would submit that this is the wrong newsgroup for this discussion.
Take it to one of the christian newsgroups, or to alt.atheism if you
feel like having your ass handed to you.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

Don Winslow

unread,
May 2, 2011, 5:11:34 PM5/2/11
to
I did, it seems Christians especially Protestants have almost no
interest in the subject. Neither did anyone on talk atheism. Not one
person on the atheist NG responded. But I thought T.O. would be more
likely to be inhabited by people who are less to have a biased or an
agenda to defend.

<accidently snipped>

Burkhard

unread,
May 2, 2011, 5:44:12 PM5/2/11
to

I find it rather educational myself. There is a strong analogy:
science is used in the debate to decide about a unique historical
event, with a scarcity of data. This is of course pretty much what
evolutionary accounts do. So it woudl be particularly interesting to
see what creationists who often deny the very possibility to decide
about such statements about the past unless "you were there to observe
them" make of it when it gets into their own territory.

Don Winslow

unread,
May 2, 2011, 6:25:48 PM5/2/11
to
I would suggest, this is one place where science and religion meet.
Science can test a religious object and either verify or falsify
it.

Burkhard

unread,
May 2, 2011, 7:07:28 PM5/2/11
to
For a certain value of religion (religion as sociological fact) sure,
but not that surprising, or unusual. As far as science is concerned,
it just dates an object. That this object has a specific significance
for one religious group or the other is another issue and does not
really affect the science. It's a similar problem to say the great
Shakespeare authorship debate - and you can easily imagine one group
declaring him a deity, too. The scientific side of the issue remains
the same ner both scenarios


Paul J Gans

unread,
May 2, 2011, 9:11:51 PM5/2/11
to

Yeah, that was part of it.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
May 2, 2011, 10:57:47 PM5/2/11
to

There would be no reason to express much of an opinion regarding Jesus
until then. In any case, I'm referring to his comment "a sizeable number
of Jews has no problem with the _mere historicity_ of Christ." I think
that misses that the more-or-less official assumption in Judaism has
been that Jesus was a real person. (In fact, the claim that Jesus was
fathered by a Roman centurion originated in the Talmud, as I recall.)

Mitchell

Don Winslow

unread,
May 2, 2011, 11:44:36 PM5/2/11
to

So, what you are saying is this is strictly a scientific endeavour: the
religious aspect is only an incidental part of the matter, and then only
because of the religious claims of some for the artefact?

It's conclusive, science has actually shown that the Shroud of Turin is a
genuine article. And medical science has proven that a actual human
being was tortured, crucified and wrapped in this cloth. But science
cannot identify the crucified person. If true, then science cannot state
empirically that this was not Jesus. So, considering, the wounds
of the man wrapped in the cloth, closely mirror the Biblical account
or the cricifixion of Jesus, why is it unreasonable to think of this as
evidence of the Biblical Jesus?

I would really like a rational answer.

>

Burkhard

unread,
May 3, 2011, 3:06:32 AM5/3/11
to

Yep, pretty much so. in the same way in which Schlieman at Troy
excavated religious artefacts


>
> It's conclusive, science has actually shown that the Shroud of Turin is a
> genuine article.

Is there an "if" somewhere? I'd say science has shown it probably
isn't, but science has also shown that this result is at present not
totally conclusive

> And medical science has proven that a actual human
> being was tortured, crucified and wrapped in this cloth.

No, medical science has not shown that it is inconsistent with an
actual human being was tortured etc, a much weaker claim

> But science
> cannot identify the crucified person. If true, then science cannot state
> empirically that this was not Jesus. So, considering, the wounds
> of the man wrapped in the cloth, closely mirror the Biblical account
> or the cricifixion of Jesus, why is it unreasonable to think of this as
> evidence of the Biblical Jesus?


Depends on what you mean with "unreasonable". I'd say it can't be
ruled out.
I've given the reasons in my other posts. Mere consistency is not very
interesting, we would need to know how unusual for a crucifixion these
consistent features are, and the answer looks as if it is : not
very" (i.e we should expect to find them anyway, regardless of whether
it was Christ or someone else crucified, a forgery or the real thing)
The evidential weight of a piece of evidence is the ratio between the
conditional probability of finding the evidence if the hypothesis is
true, and the conditional probability of the alternative is true -
and in this case they seem close to identical.

There are several prima facie inconsistencies with both the biblical
account and what we know about the culture at the time (the coins are
one oft them), but for each of them it is possible to construct a not
totally implausible explanation (the coins aren't really there, John
was wrong in the details; the geometrical distortions are the result
of lifting the body in a complicated shape; the reported confession of
the forger was obtained under torture; the cloth, against possibly the
will of the deceased, was an upmarket import etc)

One of the most glaring gaps is the "chain of custody issue". No
report of what would have been a major issue in the bible, then more
than a millennia of absolutely nothing, and then, a a time when fake
relics where all over the place, its discovery - in a supremely well
preserved state. we would struggle today, with our conservation
science and infrastructure, to keep items that long - let alone
secret.

so i'd say the medieval church authorities got it probably right when
they denounced it as fake, but it is not totally impossible they were
wrong. Parts of the assesment depend on your (subjective) prior
probabilities, and hence rational disagreement is possible - e.g how
complete and accurate do you expect the biblical account to be? if
your answer is "very", the shroud is out, if your answer is: not a
lot, really", it is in, but the consistencies also become trivial.
This just as one example.

As I said, ultimately nothing that interesting depends on it, which I
suppose is why you did nor get much replies from either Christians or
atheists. The impact on their belief, in either case (confirmation or
disproving authenticity) is pretty much zero. It is an interesting
case study for forensics, and possibly of relevance to historians and
archeologists.

Burkhard

unread,
May 3, 2011, 3:12:50 AM5/3/11
to
On May 3, 3:57 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/2011 9:28 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mitchell Coffey<mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>  wrote:

>
> >> On 5/1/2011 6:31 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> >>> On 01/05/2011 23:00, Don Winslow wrote:
> >>>> On 05/01/2011 11:47 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>>>> Randy C<randyec...@gmail.com>  wrote:


Not my intention, but I did put this badly. Maybe I should have said
"majority" rather than "sizeable". I came to it from the other end and
wanted to include those Jews who in the debate around the historicity
of Christ for academic reason are amongst the doubters .

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
May 3, 2011, 11:21:25 AM5/3/11
to

There's a certain class of Christian who rushes to claim some kind of
authority based on his assertion that he was once Jewish. Whatever one
thinks of Jesus, based on what was reported in the New Testament it's a
slam-dunk that he wasn't the Jewish Messiah. Your messiah, if you wish,
but not the Jewish Messiah.

Mitchell Coffey


Paul J Gans

unread,
May 3, 2011, 11:54:43 AM5/3/11
to

Well, there are problems. Exactly what is being considered historical?
That there were people in Palestine back then named Joshua? That there
were a number of self-proclaimed religious leaders going about the
country? That the Romans executed people by crucifixion?

IIRC what was being allowed is the possibility that there was some
lay preacher named Joshua executed for some minor crime about whom
all sorts of stories grew up?

I mean, jeez, according to Jewish tradition Mary wasn't even married
to Joseph and Joseph's ancestry was of zero relevence to anything.
No, I'm not making that up. In many societies, including Christian
ones, the marriage is not official until it is consumated. If it
isn't consumated, it ain't a marriage. Even the Pope agrees to that.

Don Winslow

unread,
May 3, 2011, 4:01:59 PM5/3/11
to
What I am finding out that his is not a manufactured artifact it is genuine.

>
but science has also shown that this result is at present not
> totally conclusive
>
Nothing in science can ever be proven.

>
>> And medical science has proven that a actual human
>> being was tortured, crucified and wrapped in this cloth.
>
> No, medical science has not shown that it is inconsistent with an
> actual human being was tortured etc, a much weaker claim
>
Evidence from modern forensics shows that it a live human being was
tortured, crucified and then wrapped in _this_ cloth. But scientist
cannot determine by the scientific method who the crucified person
was.

www.historian.net/shroud.htm


>
>
>> But science
>> cannot identify the crucified person. If true, then science cannot state
>> empirically that this was not Jesus. So, considering, the wounds
>> of the man wrapped in the cloth, closely mirror the Biblical account
>> or the cricifixion of Jesus, why is it unreasonable to think of this as
>> evidence of the Biblical Jesus?
>
>
> Depends on what you mean with "unreasonable". I'd say it can't be
> ruled out.
>
> I've given the reasons in my other posts. Mere consistency is not very
> interesting, we would need to know how unusual for a crucifixion these
> consistent features are, and the answer looks as if it is : not
> very" (i.e we should expect to find them anyway, regardless of whether
> it was Christ or someone else crucified, a forgery or the real thing)
>

I don't know about this. Why would Roman Solders duplicate the exact
wounds of those Jesus bore in his body on another person, given the
unique claims of and or Jesus? Sorry, I have problems with this.


>
> The evidential weight of a piece of evidence is the ratio between the
> conditional probability of finding the evidence if the hypothesis is
> true, and the conditional probability of the alternative is true -
> and in this case they seem close to identical.
>

No, I can't agree with this.


>
> There are several prima facie inconsistencies with both the biblical
> account and what we know about the culture at the time (the coins are
> one oft them), but for each of them it is possible to construct a not
> totally implausible explanation (the coins aren't really there, John
> was wrong in the details; the geometrical distortions are the result
> of lifting the body in a complicated shape; the reported confession of
> the forger was obtained under torture; the cloth, against possibly the
> will of the deceased, was an upmarket import etc)
>

I would like to see a list of the inconsistencies between the Bibical
story and the image of a man in the cloth.


>
> One of the most glaring gaps is the "chain of custody issue". No
> report of what would have been a major issue in the bible, then more
> than a millennia of absolutely nothing, and then, a a time when fake
> relics where all over the place, its discovery - in a supremely well
> preserved state. we would struggle today, with our conservation
> science and infrastructure, to keep items that long - let alone
> secret.
>

>
> so i'd say the medieval church authorities got it probably right when
> they denounced it as fake, but it is not totally impossible they were
> wrong. Parts of the assesment depend on your (subjective) prior
> probabilities, and hence rational disagreement is possible - e.g how
> complete and accurate do you expect the biblical account to be? if
> your answer is "very", the shroud is out, if your answer is: not a
> lot, really", it is in, but the consistencies also become trivial.
> This just as one example.
>

Being that I am a Jewish middle age man, my agenda certainly isn't
to vindicate the claims made for this cloth. But I am not so biased
that I cannot be objective in my desire to know the truth, as far as
it's possible. I don't know that any final conclusion will change me.


>
> As I said, ultimately nothing that interesting depends on it, which I
> suppose is why you did nor get much replies from either Christians or
> atheists. The impact on their belief, in either case (confirmation or
> disproving authenticity) is pretty much zero. It is an interesting
> case study for forensics, and possibly of relevance to historians and
> archeologists.
>

I am convinced that this is not a manufactured object, based upon what
I've read. It's a genuine artifact of a crucified man. But that is as
far as I can not go any further, given the inconsistencies between the
Biblical story of the crucifixion of Jesus and the crucifixion of the
man in the cloth.
>
shroud.com/bucklin.htm

Burkhard

unread,
May 3, 2011, 5:33:20 PM5/3/11
to

really? Nothing you posted so far supports this contention, as far as
i can see.


>  >
>   but science has also shown that this result is at present not> totally  conclusive
>
>  >
> Nothing in science can ever be proven.

I took that for granted. What I meant was more in terms of : it would
not be totally unreasonable/irrational to doubt it

>
> >> And medical science has proven that a actual human
> >> being was tortured, crucified and wrapped in this cloth.
>
> > No, medical science has not shown that it is inconsistent with an
> > actual human being was tortured etc, a much weaker claim
>
> Evidence from modern forensics shows that it a live human being was
> tortured, crucified and then wrapped in _this_ cloth. But scientist
> cannot determine by the scientific method who the crucified person
> was.
>
> www.historian.net/shroud.htm

any specific claim from that site that you think shows it was more
probably than not a human being? The one thing that gets reasonably
close to it is the Heller and Adler blood study. However, if you rad
the article most of it is again about flaws in a contradictory study
McCrone's) rather than positive evidence. The exception is that they
claim that they found substances that are more likely than not the
result of deteriorated blood. But that of course only shows that there
(probably) was some blood on the cloth - the same sampling/
contamination issue that is raised against the carbon dating applies
here too (that is, giving the quantities found, it is far from
unlikely that during its history, some contamination with blood
happened Not to mention th possibility that a forger used blood as
paint.


>  >
>  >
>
> >> But science
> >> cannot identify the crucified person. If true, then science cannot state
> >> empirically that this was not Jesus. So, considering, the wounds
> >> of the man wrapped in the cloth, closely mirror the Biblical account
> >> or the cricifixion of Jesus, why is it unreasonable to think of this as
> >> evidence of the Biblical Jesus?
>
> > Depends on what you mean with "unreasonable". I'd say it can't be
> > ruled out.
>
> > I've given the reasons in my other posts. Mere consistency is not very
> > interesting, we would need to know how unusual for a crucifixion these
> > consistent features are, and the answer looks as if it is : not
> > very" (i.e we should expect to find them anyway, regardless of whether
> > it was Christ or someone else crucified, a forgery or the real thing)
>
>  >
> I don't know about this. Why would Roman Solders duplicate the exact
> wounds of those Jesus bore in his body on another person, given the
> unique claims of and or Jesus?

Don;t know what you mean with the unique claims of and or jesus.
forensically, the image shows someone who was possibly mistreated, as
prisoners often are (if the wounds are not even more accidental, from
friction on the cross. If you disagree, show your evidence that
victims of judicial crucifixion do not regularly show lacerations and
wounds as on the shroud

>Sorry, I have problems with this.
>  >> The evidential weight of a piece of evidence is the ratio between the
> > conditional probability of finding the evidence if the hypothesis is
> > true, and the conditional probability of the alternative is true -
> > and  in this case they seem close to identical.
>
>  >
> No, I can't agree with this.


Would be nice if you had any reasons apart form the assertion of your
disbelief

>
> > There are several prima facie inconsistencies with both the biblical
> > account and what we know about the culture at the time (the coins are
> > one oft them), but for each of them it is possible to construct a not
> > totally implausible explanation (the coins aren't really there, John
> > was wrong in the details; the geometrical  distortions are the result
> > of lifting the body in a complicated shape; the reported confession of
> > the forger was obtained under torture; the cloth, against possibly the
> > will of the deceased, was an upmarket import etc)
>
>  >
> I would like to see a list of the inconsistencies between the Bibical
> story and the image of a man in the cloth.

I have given them to you at least twice already, so far you failed to
respond to any of them

>
> > One of the most glaring gaps is the "chain of custody issue". No
> > report of what would have been a major issue in the bible, then more
> > than a millennia of absolutely nothing, and then, a a time when fake
> > relics where all over the place, its discovery - in a supremely well
> > preserved state. we would struggle today, with our conservation
> > science and infrastructure, to keep items that long - let alone
> > secret.
>
>  >
>
>
>
> > so i'd say the medieval church authorities got it probably right when
> > they denounced it as fake, but it is not totally impossible they were
> > wrong. Parts of the assesment depend on your (subjective) prior
> > probabilities, and hence rational disagreement is possible  - e.g how
> > complete and accurate do you expect the biblical account to be? if
> > your answer is "very", the shroud is out, if your answer is: not a
> > lot, really", it is in, but the consistencies also become trivial.
> > This just as one example.
>
>  >
> Being that I am a Jewish middle age man, my agenda certainly isn't
> to vindicate the claims made for this cloth. But I am not so biased
> that I cannot be objective in my desire to know the truth, as far as
> it's possible

Well, so far you have been rather shy on objective facts, and neither
have you addressed the substance of any of my points.

> I don't know that any final conclusion will change me.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

David Iain Greig

unread,
May 3, 2011, 11:11:25 PM5/3/11
to
Don Winslow <"Don Winslow"@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
> I would suggest, this is one place where science and religion meet.
> Science can test a religious object and either verify or falsify
> it.

But it has nothing to do with Creationism or Evolution.

--D.

--
david iain greig gr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum

Stuart

unread,
May 3, 2011, 11:50:57 PM5/3/11
to

That and its Xtians that need to reconcile their treatment of Jews
over the ages with
their professed beliefs.

Not the other way round.

I don't know why he's trolling t.o

Stuart

Don Winslow

unread,
May 4, 2011, 11:49:29 AM5/4/11
to
I'm not an advocate here, but I sense you are defensive. There is
no need to be. I certainly don't push something which I am
trying to find evidence one way or the other which satisfies me.

I don't wish to carry this any further on T.O. I just read something
David Iain Greig, whom I believe is the moderator informing me this
has nothing to do with creation or evolution: consequently, not
appropriate for T.O.

So, I appreciate your discussions with me.

Don Winslow

unread,
May 4, 2011, 9:15:39 PM5/4/11
to
On 05/03/2011 11:11 PM, David Iain Greig wrote:
> Don Winslow<"Don Winslow"@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>> I would suggest, this is one place where science and religion meet.
>> Science can test a religious object and either verify or falsify
>> it.
>
> But it has nothing to do with Creationism or Evolution.
>
Maybe it doesn't. But there are other topics that likewise,
have nothing to do with Evolution or Creationism such as:
1) People discussing the death of Bin Laden.
2) Others debating the whether the earth rotates on it's axis,
3) The earth as the center of the solar system.
4) One thread regarding the Big Bang.
5) There are some claiming that 9/11 was an inside job.
6) There is a thread on the Amityville Horror.
7) Several people demanding objective evidence of God.
8) Some asserting all Religions are fraudulent.
9) I've seen other's asserting that Jesus Christ never lived.


This should be enough, to make a point, but certainly not all.

Why do you say the Shroud of Turin has nothing to do with
creationism or evolution? The new evidence shows that the
carbon 14 test was invalid. So if it's not manufactured, then
it's real. If it's real it just might be the burial cloth
of Jesus. If it bears evidence of a real man with the marks
of a crucifixion which corresponds to the Biblical claims.
Forensics has shown that a human being was tortured, crucified


and wrapped in this cloth.

I believe, this if proven to be genuine cloth bearing a real image,
of a crucified man, as opposed to a painted image, then surely
it is as appropriate to T.O). as any of the above nine (9) topics I
offered above.


>
> --D.
>

Burkhard

unread,
May 5, 2011, 2:38:55 AM5/5/11
to


Then you sense wrong. But I do get increasingly irritated by your
failure to actualy engage in any debate, or adress the points that are
made.

> There is
> no need to be. I certainly don't push something which I am
> trying to find evidence one way or the other which satisfies me.

so you keep claiming, but is starts sounding rather stale and actions
do speak louder than words

111...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 27, 2017, 11:25:02 AM10/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The most dangerous image to this World.
Warning - GRAPHIC
The only way the image could be made is with the exact match of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo.
Let's get multi-dimensional. Also, please notice that the Lord is full of eyes. This may be how we interpret spirit in vision. If you can make the picture smaller, or just back away, more and more is revealed. Or, zoom in for specific detail on any item or symbol. Maybe you find yourself looking at his teeth. Be sure to examine.... oh, I find it necessary to remind you that you are looking at the image of, and created by the LORD! It never would or could have happened till now.
https://flic.kr/p/ZhetBm
https://flic.kr/p/YrrqSv

eridanus

unread,
Nov 18, 2017, 10:00:05 AM11/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Dangerous? Why?
Eri

0 new messages