The Shroud of Turin - Evidence it is authentic

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

Although radiocarbon dating done in 1988 placed the date at around 1300 (when the Christian artifacts trade was thriving), there is still plenty of evidence to go around if you want to still believe.

This article from 2015 addresses all the points of the OP's original post, and more.

http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/is-the-shroud-of-turin-really-jesus/

HH =)

Wikipedia is even more thorough at debunking:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Material_chemical_analysis

HH =)

I just checked the Wikipedia article and my take-away is that the evidence is very much mixed.

There was an excellent book a few years ago called The Second Messiah that addressed the shrouds provenance...seems templar leader was crucified for not believing in christ...made very good sense...and the timeline was right for when philip the fair and the catholic church raided the templars...great read...lots of testing...seemed to fit the timeline...give it a look...youll never see the shroud as christ related again...seems whatever the templars found in jerusalem...it didnt dause them to believe the jesus story..great rabbit hole to look into

I too have read the second messiah which claims the shroud belongs to jaques de molay who was the templar grandmaster when they were all arrested on friday 13th october 1307.

However, he was not crucified but was burned at the stake for heresy, so this shroud does not hail from his corpse.

The believers keep believing and paying their money to see it - the shroud owners love it. I don't see this changing any time soon.

"For the believers..."

Yep. 'Cause "belief" is the only way to hang onto some idea that the shroud is "magical." Facts show otherwise.

Your retort implies that there is nothing interesting or thought-provoking about the artifact-an opinion which flies in the face of fact.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 06:34PM by steve benson.

Catholics love their relics. Even many Catholics realize that there is a certain element of nuttiness to it.

I think the most telling evidence that it is a fake is the image itself. The image appears as a projection onto the flat cloth and not as if it was draped over a body. If some took a piece of cloth and laid it over a person's face covered with paint, the resulting image would be distorted appearing much wider than a normal face and ears on either side of the image facing forward. This is not how the image on the Shroud appears but more like if someone painted it on the cloth.

Puli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the resulting image would be distorted
> appearing much wider than a normal face and ears
> on either side of the image facing forward.

Case dismissed... the ears have it!

Your statement is the exact opposite of what actual evidence there is for it being the actual shroud.

At least get your facts straight before commenting.

My facts are solid.

Think about how a cloth drapes over a 3 dimensional object. Any impression would be where the cloth contacts the object (that's why it is in a negative image). The resulting image would not be a projection appearing as a painting, but would be distorted just as I have suggested when the draped cloth was flattened out again. It is a matter of geometry and gravity.

At one time in the Middle Ages, there were hundreds of shrouds each claimed to be the one that covered Jesus. Eventually, the Pope ordered that they all be destroyed and burned. The one in Turin was overlooked and missed. This one has about as much chance of being authentic as any of the hundreds of others that were destroyed.

Furthermore, the "evidence" you've given about there being "hundreds of shrouds" in the middle ages and the pope having ordered their burning is nonsense. (Unless you know something medievalists don't on the subject).

I can't say I accept the shroud as real but your writings here are nonsense. It's disingenuous for you to present things as known fact when you are clearly confused.

It is a matter of history. I don't recall the source of the account, but the fact is that dealing in religious relics - real or fake - was lucrative during the Middle Ages (when the Shroud of Turin is carbon dated). Plenty of Jesus relics circulated during this time and multiple relics of the same item such as shrouds with imprints on them were common.

As for your comment about the ears, I mentioned the ears to demonstrate the kind of distortion to the image made on a cloth draped over a 3D object. The ears on the Turin Shroud would be covered by the hair along the side of the head in the image, but why is the image only of the forward facing image of the hair and not an impression of the sides which the cloth would have draped along? Also, why would the hair of the image be hanging down as if the corpse were standing? If the body were lying down necessary for the cloth to drape across the face, the hair would have fallen back drawn by gravity toward the back of the head and the slab the body was lying on. This may very well have exposed the ears on the side of the head and the absence of ears in the image is a problem that casts doubt on the authenticity of the image.

I submit that you have not bothered to try to think about how a cloth contacts a face or body when draped over it and the kind of impression the contact would leave on the draped cloth. It would not be a photographic style image.

I recently ran across a book I bought some time ago but never read. It is "How We Believe" by Michael Shermer. Your insistence on refusing to logically question even the image on the Shroud has prompted and interest in starting this book.

Below are a couple links debunking the Turin Shrouds authenticity. Note the discussion of the strategic hand position of the image and how unnatural it is for a body - especially one that is lifeless or limp.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-shroud-of-turin-jesus-jerusalem-leprosy.html

http://paranormal.about.com/od/religiousmysteriesmiracle/a/Why-The-Shroud-Of-Turin-Is-Fake.htm

of relics during the middle ages. I also understand the why, how where and when. I called you on your statement about there being "hundreds of shrouds" and their papal demise because it was not factual.

My apologies. "Hundreds" is an exaggeration. The following is something I found where church historian Antonio Lombatti says that at least 40 shrouds each claimed to be the one covering Jesus in the tomb and were circulated during the Middle Ages.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157217/The-Turin-Shroud-fake-Eminent-historian-claims-40-similar-cloths-originated-1-300-years-AFTER-crucifixion.html

And my main point was that the photograph-like image on the cloth is not reflective of what would be produced by contact with the body of Jesus lying in the tomb. A cloth draped over a body lying in a tomb would have contact to more surface area of the body than would be evident in a photographic image and the resulting image from such contact would appear distorted in a particular way. We do not see this kind of distortion in the image on the Turin Shroud.

I hear you, but to true believers (not me) this is a feature, not a bug.

The photographic perspective of the image "proves" it was deposited by some sort of miraculous energy emanating from the body beneath it.

To a believer, nothing has to make sense so long as you believe and shut out everything thing else. Even a photographic image requires a pin hole to control the projection of the light onto the photographic plate; but with believers, no physics or natural principles need apply. The same is true with TBM's and so much of Mormonism especially where Joseph Smith's origin of the church stories are concerned. You have to believe against all logic and known principles. I suppose that is what qualifies the event as a "Miracle".

I testify that the shroud is every bit as authentic as the Book of Mormon.

The Shroud of Turin was all the rage thirty years ago. Nat Geo
did articles on it. There were TV specials, newspaper and
magazine articles. Then the Vatican (which never took a stand
on its authenticity) agreed to "destructive" C-14 dating of the
Shroud. A small piece of the shroud was cut off, cleaned and a
third of it sent to each of three different radiocarbon dating
labs. They were also sent similar pieces with known provenance
and were not told which of the pieces were from the shroud.

The labs:

(1) Dated the known pieces correctly.

(2) All, independently of each other, dated the shroud sample
to around 1200 AD or so, when it first was known to have existed.
That was the end of all the Shroud Hysteria. Then, about ten
years afterward--giving time for the carbon-dating results to
be forgotten by the general public, new shroud defenders
started cropping up. They dismissed the C-14 results with
made-up guesses of what COULD have gone wrong (without checking
if that actually had gone wrong), and then started in an all
the wonderful "correspondences." etc.

So it just goes to show that no matter what it is, if you WANT
to believe, you can find a way. Of course, as exmos, we
already are extremely well acquainted with this idea.

All labs tested fibers cut from the same sample taken from the shroud. It is conjectured that the sample was taken from a section of the shroud that was a repair done in the medieval period.

No surprise that all matched.

If the sample came from a part of the shroud that was not a part of the original textile then, of course, the date would be off.

Again, what is the point of commenting if you can't provide an accurate report of the facts?

From the link Happy Heretic posted above:

… Mechthild Flury-Lemberg[51] is an expert in the restoration of textiles, who headed the restoration and conservation of the Turin Shroud in 2002. She has written that it’s possible to repair a coarsely woven fabric in such a way as to be invisible, if the damage was not too severe and the original warp threads are still present, but that it is never possible to repair a fine fabric in a way which would be truly invisible, as the repair will always be “unequivocally visible on the reverse of the fabric.” She criticized the theory that the C14 tests were done on an invisible patch as “wishful thinking”.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf

"Equally lacking any trace of evidence on the shroud is the hypothesis that a patch fixed
onto the same minute spot which had been removed as a sample has falsified the result of
the analysis. Where exactly had the patch been attached? How big was it? Was it so small
that it covered only the sample area? Answers to these questions are lacking in the
hypothesis of Benford/Marino and Rogers. They can only be given in a competent way
by textile experts. One of them, who was present when the sample was taken, the late
Gabriel Vial, confirmed repeatedly that the sample was taken from the original cloth!
This affirmation seems to be unacceptable to a natural scientist even if it comes from
such an excellent textile scholar as Gabriel Vial who moreover made this judgment in his
very own field of expertise.
In any case, neither on the front nor on the back of the whole cloth is the slightest hint of
a mending operation, a patch or some kind of reinforcing darning, to be found, fig.17 and
18."

Notice these 2 statements:

"One of them, who was present when the sample was taken, the late Gabriel Vial, confirmed repeatedly that the sample was taken from the original cloth!"

and:

"In any case, neither on the front nor on the back of the whole cloth is the slightest hint of a mending operation, a patch or some kind of reinforcing darning, to be found, fig.17 and
18"

It IS possible to repair a textile not with a "patch" nor by "darning" but by invisibly re-weaving-a method that is virtually invisible.

Is there any evidence for the "sample taken from a repaired area" hypothesis, or is this just more "maybe, could be" apologetics.

(Researchers have looked into this and I already know the answer, but I'm wondering how willing you are to accept facts.)

It's been many years since I was up to speed on the latest research. But, since you asked:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040603104004745

I'd be grateful for any bibliographic references you can provide on the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Material_chemical_analysis

Link contains over 100 references.

Including this one:
http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

The second link is a direct response to Rogers.

It's a compelling story, although it doesn't pass the smell test. When there's a cash cow from antiquity and you know the narrative you want it to fit into, all bets are off. It's like FAIR on steroids.

Actually, it just an old hammer... My bad.

and noah's ark has been found lots of times.

And there are enough splinters from the "true cross" to build another ark.

I found an ark in Deseret Book just a few days ago. It was very small.

HH =)

When it comes to belief, facts don't matter.

What matters are internal states, warm fuzzies, burnings-in-the-bosoms, convictions.

In other words, internal states.

Faith trumps facts.

I have been a reader of RFM since its beginning. I am not LDS, but a philologist and student of religion and find that this board often brings up the most interesting topics. The question of the Knights Templar, Judaism, Christianity, the shroud, etc.., is very simple to answer if you look in the right places!

Despite popular opinion and even the opinion of leaders, True Judaism and True Christianity are not opposed to one another.

The split between Judaism and Christianity happened a few centuries before the appearance of the man we call Jesus Christ.

The split occurred when a large population of Jews no longer understood or used the Hebrew Language and instead used Greek and the Greek Translation of the Scriptures known as the Septuagint.

The bottom line is that Hebrew contains words and concepts not translatable in any language. The main purpose of Judaism in the world is to preserve this text with the encoded message in the text. There are rituals to enforce this. This gives an "extended language" to mystics who can put these words and actions together in symbolic language.

That is a LOT to be able to assimilate. The number of humans who can assimilate this concept will grow exponentially in time. Earlier times distorted the meaning of the code to be a literal true story. There were also mystic legends to the meanings of the stories. When the Hebrew writings were translated into Greek, they lost the code, but contained the mystic content. Hellenic Judaism becomes the recipient of the mystical Jewish Tradition, while Babylonian Judaism maintains the actual text code and drama instructions.

Put the two together and you can actually unravel the hidden history of the evolution of humanity in the Bible (Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament). These strains need to be kept separate because it is easier to preserve smaller parts and later put the two together.

Enter the Knights Templar. These were largely of the original Scots - which is the connection with free-masonry. They are likely of Hebrew origin, but lost the language and had the older pre-vatican transmission of Christianity. Upon arriving in the Holy Land, they see the truths of real Judaism and real Christianity combined (which lived in the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem).

One of the important icons of the Greek Church is the Holy Face of Christ. A bearded man with 3 section of beard appears only as a face. There is also a revered image of the dead body of Christ on the tomb.

These images are particularly holy on the Great and Holy Sabbath of the Orthodox Church that commemorates the illusion of the dead Christ and the actions of Christ outside of this world. These images teach a reality to not believe outward appearances. They display a portion (but not the whole) of what is really true. These images in Latin are called "Veronica = true image." The problem is that the images are only partly true and this is the mistake that the Latin West gets wrong over and over again.

These sacred images today are on the altars in the Orthodox Churches. The current media stir on Russia is yet another attack on this true didactic imagery.

Judaism also believes similar things, the real Judaism it is. Unbeknownst to one another real Judaism and real Christianity are in complete agreement. The misinterpretation is that the Hebrew word "Messiah" is equivalent to the Greek translation "Christ."

A Christ is NOT a Messiah and the Messiah is not the Christ.

They are two separate stages in the enlightenment of Man.


Christ comes to prepare those around the world who have no knowledge of the Hebrew Language code. Jews spread the code around the world...Christ redeems from fear of death, while Messiah redeems Zion. Zion requires a Christ. They are mutually dependent upon one another.

The Templars understood the world beyond supposed opposites. They were able to comprehend the unity in seeming contradictions. They were true Christians AND true Jews. A very dangerous combination that the world wasn't ready for yet.

This is why the Vatican made a campaign first against Eastern Christianity (disguised as a war against Islam, which was NOT oppressing Orthodox Christianity) and then waged war on the Templars who figured out that they were fighting the wrong war and that the Vatican was the true enemy of both Christianity and Judaism.

Back to the shroud - it is an example of the ritual burial cloth used in Eastern Orthodox Holy Week Services. The same is true with the veil of Veronica. These two images are also what is behind the so-called satanic image of the Baphomet.

Baphomet is the English transformation of the Hebrew phrase Bat Emet. It means a Bat (a measurement of water) of Emet, or Truth. In other words, what you see is deceptive, but nevertheless instructive of something true. Once one comprehends the nature of the "beast," one becomes BeT Emet - or a house/temple of Truth. Creating this temple is both the goal of real Christianity and Judaism.

The West has been out to destroy true gnosis by fighting Jews and Orthodox Christians for the past 1000 years. This same war continued to be fought in Russia after the fall of Byzantium. It is a representation of a battle for blind faith and man as eternal slave at the mercy of an all powerful being as one where faith is obtained by experience and love and man become equal to the all-powerful? This battle pervades what is behind geo-politics. It is as old as civilization itself. One side wants absolute control and enslavement of the masses and the other wants freedom and evolution of the masses.

In the end, the "anti-Christ" (the original Greek word does NOT mean against Christ, but instead of/before Christ) of the Christians is the "Messiah ben Joseph" of the Jews, who is a military King and rather merciless. This is also the Dajjal of Islam. The 2nd coming of Christ, is the actual expected Jewish Messiah of David. and Mahdi of Islam. They are one and the same and really on the same page but not aware of it until this consummation and re connection.

This is just a theory, but the pieces fit...

I find your hypothesis fascinating and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. What is your blog addy?

HH =)

Bat Emet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is just a theory, but the pieces fit...

Actually, it's an hypothesis.
And a wacky, unsupportable one at that.
But hey, if "believing" it makes you happy, enjoy.
Just don't expect reasonable people to take it seriously.

Very interesting, whatever the hell it was you just said. ;)

Being both a Christian and a Jew, I've found myself at odds with the world, and my own conflicting religious points of view.

In your philosophy they're joined as one, to bring about the same or similar enlightenment.

Interesting

I wonder what you have done to test this hypothesis. What data led you to believe this might be the case? What are the constructs you use to qualify the data?

It's not that I dis believe what you are saying, it's just that you haven't given me any reason to believe it.

Finally, in my fallacious manner, why are you the only one on this green earth that has the knowledge and access to information to uncover this momentous idea?

In your defense, I've never read any ancient texts, in their original language. I imagine in your roll as a philologist you have profiency in many languages and have studied most of those languages historical texts. It really could be that you are the only one with the exact skills to discover this.

there are many with this, or a similar, view, and in fact a lot of renaissance art can be interpreted with a 'mystic' or 'occult' view to be representations of these very themes: apotheosis, man-christ, the descent of the soul to the physical plane/world, as above so below, the ascent of the soul, etc.

Of course, 'official' explanations of these pieces of art merely reference the classical myth being referred to, when in fact these same classical myths are claimed by some to be ancient tellings of the same themes. Take for example the tale of hercules: his father was zeus and he defeated the serpent as a child. As an adult a madness took him (he became a beast/animal) and he killed his wife (his soul) and child (rational thought) and as retribution was set some labours to perform before his apotheosis: he was accepted as a god with the other immortals up high on mount olympus.

And between them and some leftover road rage, I'm forced to say to those who believe this claim by "Bat Emet," that I've still got that beach front property north of here on the Great Salt Lake. It's ideal for development, and right next to the duck club, honest.

>The original Scots - which is the connection with free-masonry... are likely of Hebrew origin, but lost the language and had the older pre-vatican transmission of Christianity.

Sorry, that's pure curelom dung, and the simple way to debunk this is to point out the separation between the Knights Templar (a 12th Century Catholic sect) and Scottish freemasonry, which had its origins in trade guilds several centuries later. Stories of freemasonry dating back to Solomon's time are on par with Sasquatch, seriously.

The Scottish people were a mixture of Picts, Scots from Ireland, and Anglo-Saxon Celtic people... The Picts were probably the original inhabitants; sparse evidence exists that they were there around 300 A.D.

http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/picts/

>Before the Romans arrived in Britain, these northern peoples were probably fragmented tribes who spent much of their time fighting among themselves.

>The Roman threat from the south, however, appears to have forced them together in an embryonic Pictish state. This allowed the tribes to resist the continental invaders as well as take advantage of the opportunity for plunder.

>This forced co-operation in the face of the Roman invaders developed over time. By the time the empire abandoned Britannia in the fifth century AD, the northern tribes had begun to form into what would later become the Pictish Kingdom.

Incidentally, for someone who claims to have "been a reader of RFM" since the beginning (I only go back to 1999 when I was researching the unearthing of MMM victims in Southern Utah), poster "Bat Emet" lacks any posting history to back up these specious claims.

SLC
Headed back to Costco for more bullchip filters

A few of your 'facts' are, I am afraid, incorrect:

the 'original' scots, ie the people who first called themselves scots were actually irish. Not all irish were scots, but all scots were irish. After some emigrated to dal riada (modern oban in the west of scotland) in around the 4th & 5th centuries there is a distinction in historical writings between irish scots (from modern scotland) and scots irish (from the north of ireland: a bigger area than current Ulster).

Anglo Saxons were germanic, NOT celtic.

There were 2 pictish kingdoms north of the rivers forth and clyde long before the romans arrived, however they were based more in the east of the country. In the remainder of what is now modern scotland (south of the rivers forth and clyde all the way down to the tweed and the western coast and isles) was actually populated by brythonic celts, ie the people who became the welsh, manx, cornish, bretons and the galwegians (from galloway) and a few angle tribes in what is now north east england.

There was no complete kingdom as such in scotland until kenneth mcalpin united the scots and picts in the late 9th century, and killed anyone with an opposing claim. The country was known as alba at this time and the language was still pictish: the assimilation into scots' culture was quite quick since picts followed a matriarchal line for inheritance and scots followed the male line.

NO Saxons were established in the UK until the 6th century.

The orkney islands, which used to be attached to the european mainland like the other scottish islands, show evidence of continual habitation over 6 thousand years, some sites in ireland can be dated to over 8 thousand years old.

Saxons arrived long after the romans left, they were invited to england by the romanised brits as mercenaries to fight the danes but they stayed around and took over running the smaller kingdoms in england.

There are many authors and a couple of politicians over the years who have considered the celtic tribes of the UK to be part of the fabled lost tribes. Their reasons are many: the older celts (everyone except the irish) were matriarchal and did not eat pork until the romans arrived. Religious festivals were timed by the moon, and finally, the new day began at sundown and continued through the night and all the hours of daylight, just like the hebrews are some of the better known reasons.

I only correct your mistakes as I love my country and want people to understand it's true history, not the official, streamlined and misleading version they may have been told or read somewhere.

I'll plead guilty to a typo where the sentence made it look like I was unaware of the difference between the Celts and the Germanic Angles and Saxons, but that's the only correction I'll offer. The sentence should've read: "The Scottish people were a mixture of Picts, Scots from Ireland, Celtic, and Anglo-Saxon people."

I'll also plead guilty to overlooking French Norman contributions to the gene pool. My own middle name--from a great-great grandfather--stems from that source. Please note, however, that I did include Irish ancestry for the "Scots" people. They appear to be latecomers, however, arriving at the same time as other Gaelic (Celtic) peoples as well as Anglo Saxons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland

>The groups of settlers began building the first known permanent houses on Scottish soil around 9,500 years ago, and the first villages around 6,000 years ago. The well-preserved village of Skara Brae on the mainland of Orkney dates from this period. Neolithic habitation, burial and ritual sites are particularly common and well preserved in the Northern Isles and Western Isles, where a lack of trees led to most structures being built of local stone.

Cabdriver Remedial English Lesson: The word "few" means more than one...

Avanced expository writing lesson: The word "hyperbole" seems apropos, and one wonders why you didn't address the main theme of my post, which is that "Bat Emet's" claim of Hebrew ancestry for Scottish folks is utter nonsense.

Here you go, folks, feel free to sort this one out. My take is the Scottish people--of a number of different origins--were, indeed, very bright, clever, and capable people. The most talented among them emigrated to places that offered even more opportunities.

http://www.historyireland.com/medieval-history-pre-1500/medieval-scotland-ireland-overcoming-the-amnesia/

http://aboutaberdeen.com/Scottish-Inventions-and-Inventors-Poem-Words

On that claim about the invention of the television, I once got into a friendly argument with a Scotsman (possibly a relative since we had the same last name; he sent me this piece on a tapestry I've since framed). I tracked down the actual history: John Logie Baird invented the "mechanical television"; Jack-Mormon Philo T. Farnsworth invented the electronic television tube (CRW), and he and Baird collaborated for a time.

'Nuff...

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll plead guilty to a typo where the sentence
> made it look like I was unaware of the difference
> between the Celts and the Germanic Angles and
> Saxons, but that's the only correction I'll offer.
> The sentence should've read: "The Scottish people
> were a mixture of Picts, Scots from Ireland,
> Celtic, and Anglo-Saxon people."
>
> I'll also plead guilty to overlooking French
> Norman contributions to the gene pool. My own
> middle name--from a great-great grandfather--stems
> from that source. Please note, however, that I did
> include Irish ancestry for the "Scots" people.


I accept your admissions without prejudice :)


>
> Avanced expository writing lesson: The word
> "hyperbole" seems apropos, and one wonders why you
> didn't address the main theme of my post, which is
> that "Bat Emet's" claim of Hebrew ancestry for
> Scottish folks is utter nonsense.
>
>
I did address this: more than a few authors and a couple of politicians, one fairly recently in northern ireland, claim all celts from the british isles from the first older 'brythonic' language celts to the later 'goedelic' language scots were of hebrew origin.

There even is an older theory that the druids were hebrew 'travelling priests & judges' throughout the entire european continent, before the westward expansion of the germanic tribes. There is even another author who claims some of the alleged 'biblical' locations were actually in and around the area now called 'the lothians' where edinburgh is situted, amongst other ancients sites.

Finally, for believers, beore the creation of the protestant church in england under king henry the eighth, the vatican readily accepted that christianity was first establshed in the UK, before the crucifixon. Are you aware that joseph of arimathea was an alleged metal trader and did business with the biggest tin mine (tin was essential for roman metals) in europe at the time which was located in cornwall? Are you also aware of the legend that pontius pilate was from the lothians? Look it up, it is fascinating but very well hidden.

FYI there are many private collections of gaelic poetry, but only one real copy of the ballad of john the baptist which took me months of hunting online years ago to find a link that worked: it claims john the baptist was a gael and it took over a year for herod to find an executioner who would 'execute a fellow gael'. Hoohaa ands coddswallop I hear folks say, and I would have thought so too, until it became frustratingly difficult to find and I had given up hope of ever reading it. The link I once had to it is down now, the elderly owner of the collection may have passed, but it may well still be buried online somewhere as we all know nothing can be completely 'dissappeared' online, don't we?

Do a search, sift through the crazy and you will find the well presented evidence from reputable academics in amongst all the crap from crazies who have picked up on it. Fascinating stuff.

The hymn 'jerusalem' by william blake references the legend of jesus spending the years between ages 12-30 in europe - I was not aware of this until my 30s as mormons do not use that hymn, neither do catholics.


~Edit: forgot to re-asset that NO SAXONS were in scotland - they were a later expansion of more aggressive people than the more peaceful angles who had begun to expand into eastern north england and what is now part of the eastern scottish borders, before the roman invasion of england under julius caesar (probably wanted the tin mines for 'the glory of rome' but failed miserably). This was a century before the time of boudicca.

SAXONS were from a different expansion, from a much later germanic people and did not arrive IN ENGLAND ONLY until after the romans left. The romanised p*ssy brits could no longer defend themselves against aggressors: the vikings and other slavers, so they invited saxons to 'defend' them, but they just took over instead. Four centuries later the norman expansion began.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2017 08:24AM by anonuk.

Anonuk wrote:

>Do a search, sift through the crazy and you will find the well presented evidence from reputable academics in amongst all the crap from crazies who have picked up on it. Fascinating stuff.

I have enough on my plate with the likes of Dennis Stanford who insists Europeans migrated here circa 18,000 years ago and brought flint knapping technology across the Atlantic. Google "Solutreans Stanford Bradley" if you're interested. More nonsensical nationalism by reality challenged sorts, IMO, and an insult to the cultures of Native Americans...

There are a lot of other "respectable" academics who aren't necessarily credible in my book. I engaged another--also from the UK--on the discussion section of a blog hosted by a first-rate scientist, and I was underwhelmed. That was under my real name, so I can't link it here, but it was an area I have plenty of education and expertise, albeit without the advanced degree.

As for Blake, I adore his work (and it helped save my sanity back when). I'll invite you to look at the subtle "meditation on the nature of the Almighty" offered in "The Tyger," if you haven't looked at it. Wonderful stuff for those recovering from Mormonism...

There's also Blake's immortal "Those who restrain desire do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained."

SLC
A teetotaler who nevertheless believes there should be no "e" in whisky



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2017 03:52PM by SL Cabbie.

ah - whisky with the 'e' is irish

No worries if you do not have the time - a lot of information I have is from living in the areas where the legends were collected and finding out for myself about how the various authors came to their conclusions.

There is also a legend - which has a £1 million prize attached, offered to anyone who can disprove it -that King Arthur was indeed high king of the british, but HIS own home kingdom was that from what is now north england, up through the modern scottish borders as far as central scotland, encompassing the area of falkirkshire. In this respect, the river avalon is actually the river avon and camelot is actually where modern camelon is now. Of course, the english hate this as they claim he was king at tintagel which was a roman fort controlling the cornish tin mine I referenced in an earlier post.

In this legend, the extinct volcano in Edinburgh currently referred to as 'Arthur's Seat' is actually where the great councils of the entire country where held - the round table was situated at arthur's private residence, camelot (camelon?) as legend says. Perth in Scotland used to be called the fair maidens city - no-one knows why, unless we remember that Guinivere was reputed to be from near Perth.

Scots love to name places after the people who were there (as example, there is a 'wallace burn' in dundee with it's own legend attached of him making his first kill: 3 soldiers who wanted all his fish, not just a share of the fish he had caught at 17 years old).

Truly, hidden british history (everything not roman or catholic) is fascinating.

Even if it is the authentic shroud that "Jesus" was wrapped in....so what? It's still nothing more than cloth and stains and doesn't prove the divinity of Jesus.

Are people healed when they touch it? Does a dead body come back to life if you wrap it it in it?

If its real, it's still nothing more than an ordinary funeral shroud.....maybe with a unique history, but still, nothing more.

You're ignoring the science fiction. Supposedly, the body went off like a giant flash bulb at the moment of resurrection, causing a burst of ultraviolet radiation that burned the image into the shroud. The shroud is a total nerd magnet.

Still, there are many interesting aspects to it that deserve investigation.

That is the tack I am taking with it. I tend to think it is NOT the burial cross of Jesus of Nazareth. That being said, I am interested in the science (yes, the science) of trying to figure out how the image was made and why there is blood on the cloth the type of which matches to the Sudarium of Oviedo.

There are many interesting aspects of this object-all of which are clearly lost on those on the board who demand a total dismissal of anything related to religious belief whatsoever.

notmonotloggedin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Still, there are many interesting aspects to it
> that deserve investigation.

Sure.

> I am interested in the
> science (yes, the science) of trying to figure out
> how the image was made and why there is blood on
> the cloth the type of which matches to the
> Sudarium of Oviedo.

There are no stains on the shroud that have been confirmed as blood, and even a scientist who thinks they ARE blood has confirmed that no blood type can be determined from the stains, and that nothing about the nature or provenance of the stains (from a male, from the middle east, age, whether they're 'original' or from later handlers) can be determined. The claim that there is blood that "matches" the Sudarium of Oviedo is completely unsupportable.


> There are many interesting aspects of this
> object-all of which are clearly lost on those on
> the board who demand a total dismissal of anything
> related to religious belief whatsoever.

Your blanket dismissal is both untrue and insulting.
Don't confuse people who are interested in demonstrable *facts* with people who dismiss anything and everything. Those two things aren't the same. Most simply aren't gullible enough to accept undemonstrable nonsense, such as the blood claims above.

Wow, it seems christian apologetics are just as ridiculous as mormon apologetics. This "evidence" would make Tapir Dan proud.

... then that settles it, doesn't it?

Visitors Welcome Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... then that settles it, doesn't it?

No, actually, it doesn't. What they do or don't "believe," or state officially, is irrelevant.

It's what verifiable evidence shows that's relevant. Nothing else. Nobody's "beliefs," nobody's "testimony," nobody's official pr-approved statement.

And all verifiable evidence clearly shows it to be from the 14th century. That would still be the case even if the RC church said it was from the 1st century, or that they didn't know.

Since this thread has resurfaced, I'll add an additional thought.

The default position isn't that the Shroud of Turin is authentic and needs to be proved to be fake. The burden of proof lies with those claiming that Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus. So, even if we assume that the dating of the cloth places it in the first century CE, that the discoloration from the wound sites is indeed from blood, and that all other physical arguments against the Turin Shroud's authenticity are incorrect, those supporting the claim that the Shroud is from the tomb of Jesus still have not proved their case. The most that could be said is that the Shroud may be the one that covered Jesus. The final step of proving authenticity is not proven - that the assumed blood on the Shroud came from Jesus and not from someone else, that the image was in fact that made by contact with the body of Jesus, etc.

Occam's Razor (if I understand the concept correctly) says that the simplest explanation - requiring the least number and/or degree of assumptions - is usually the right one. The simplest explanation for the Shroud of Turin is that it is simply a cloth with an image on it of an unknown source and creation. Claims about the Shroud should be viewed in the context of the time when it was first mentioned in history which was a time when very many false claims of Christian relics were being made. This should be the default position concerning the Shroud of Turin and not that it is the burial shroud of Jesus. Evidence against the findings which debunk the claims against authenticity of the Shroud do not prove it is authentic but at best only move us back to this default position that we don't have enough information to definitively say it is authentic and that it is probably a fake given the events of similar items during the time it was first mentioned in history. We all know how many religious people regard the claims by scientists who say their evidence indicates something is "probably" true; they dismiss it out-of-hand because it is not definitive. The same standard is not evenly applied to the claims of the Shroud (or most other religious claims) which has no proof of its actual authenticity. Mere belief is enough for them to accept that it is.

Oh so the shroud is a genuine relic related to the NON existent new Testament messiah Jesus Christ....