xjwsforChrist

PSACRAMENTO SAID

Curious about some of your views in regards to the Shroud of Turin and the "head cloth" know as the sudarium of oviedo.

For those that don't knwo much about the sudarium:
http://www.shrouduniversity.com/videos/ ... n.wide.wmv

PSACRAMENTO SAID

I never gave the shroud much thought, simply because, well, I never gave it much thought !
LOL !

As a member of another website that tries to reconcile science with Christianity, I read a fascinating thread about it and it peaked my curiosity.

It was amazing to see that those that said the shroud was a forgery have not only NOT been able to replicate it at all, BUT most of the "tests" that showed it to be a forgery dated to the 1300's have been proven to have been seriously compromised AND called into question by peer reviewed studies on those tests.

1988 CARBON-14 TEST REFUTED

Several studies have challenged the validity of the 1988 Carbon-14 tests done at Oxford, Zurich and Arizona Labs.

1. A Jan 20, 2005 paper in the professional journal ThermoChimica Acta by Dr. Ray Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and lead chemist with the original science team STURP (the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project, involving approximately 35 scientists directly examining the Shroud for five days), has proven conclusively that the sample cut from The Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from an area of the cloth that was re-woven during the middle ages. Here are some excerpts:

"Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud."

"The shroud was badly damaged in a church fire in 1532 AD. Nuns patched burn holes and stitched the shroud to a reinforcing cloth that is now known as the Holland cloth." This probably occurred in 1534.

"As part of the shroud of turin research project (STURP), I took 32 adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud and associated textiles in 1978." "It enabled direct chemical testing on recovered linen fibers and particulates".

"If the shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1390 AD, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in 1260 AD would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978... The Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test [i.e. tested positive] for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."

"The fire of 1532 could not have greatly affected the vanillin content of lignin in all parts of the shroud equally. The thermal conductivity of linen is very low... therefore, the unscorched parts of the folded cloth could not have become very hot." "The cloth's center would not have heated at all in the time available. The rapid change in color from black to white at the margins of the scorches illustrates this fact." "Different amounts of vanillin would have been lost in different areas. No samples from any location on the shroud gave the vanillin test [i.e. tested positive]." "The lignin on shroud samples and on samples from the Dead Sea scrolls does not give the test [i.e. tests negative]."

"Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test [i.e. test negative], the cloth must be quite old." "A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years."

"A gum/dye/mordant [(for affixing dye)] coating is easy to observe on... radiocarbon [sample] yarns. No other part of the shroud shows such a coating." "The radiocarbon sample had been dyed. Dyeing was probably done intentionally on pristine replacement material to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth." "The dye found on the radiocarbon sample was not used in Europe before about 1291 AD and was not common until more than 100 years later." "Specifically, the color and distribution of the coating implies that repairs were made at an unknown time with foreign linen dyed to match the older original material." "The consequence of this conclusion is that the radiocarbon sample was not representative of the original cloth."

"The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud."

"A significant amount of charred cellulose was removed during a restoration of the shroud in 2002." "A new radiocarbon analysis should be done on the charred material retained from the 2002 restoration."

Raymond N. Rogers. 20 January 2005. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin. Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Issue 1-2, Pages 189-194.

AGUEST SAID

Here is something I posted on JWN as to the shroud, my dear brother (again, peace to you!):

"The shroud... and the image on it... may indeed be close to 2,000 years old (my Lord was put to death a little over 1981 years ago). It may have an image of some sort on it, although that it does was NOT a "natural" occurrence; rather, some shrouds actually carried depictions of their wearers. For the very same reason we put up photos of the deceased, today. It is not, however, my Lord... or his shroud. I will not expound on HOW I know this (you all know where I would go); rather, I will simply share WHAT I know of it (as a result of my asking many years ago).

During those days people were hired to MAKE such images on the burial "receptacle" of the deceased. If those who "know" bothered to think about it... they would recall that many burial "receptacles" (i.e., coffins, sarcophagus, urns, etc.) had depictions of the deceased carved into and/or painted on them. The rich could afford wood or metal containers on which they had carved and/or painted the image of the deceased. This was done as far back as... wait for it... Egypt (think, King Tut). The poor, however, could only afford an image painted... or "stained"... on the cloth the body was wrapped in. They couldn't afford such opulent burial receptacles. My Lord was very poor.

In the flesh my Lord resided in a very small (tiny, by today's standards), diseased (to the point of oozing and losing flesh) body. His face was severely ravaged by leprosy. Which is why he often covered it. By the time they came to arrest him, he appeared SO "afflicted"... that some literally gasped and fell back when they saw him. In addition, he was in great pain when he died.

The figure on the shroud, however, depicts a man who, although dead, was of pretty sound flesh. And there are no stains... which there would have been had it been my Lord: stains from his illnesses... as well as stains from the oils, greases, and other items used to "prepare" his body. It depicts one who appears to be oeacefully sleeping. Which my Lord did (sleep), yes; however, the depiction is as if the man's death was merely the result of "natural" causes... and not the agonizing events that his flesh underwent prior to.

His robe WAS mentioned... because of the prophecy pertaining to it (the casting of lots over it); his burial shroud... not so much. By anyone. Understandably. Because there was nothing significant about it; it was merely a pile of cloths... that ONCE held the body of a dead man. Since that man was no longer dead... his shroud was of no importance to his followers. If it WERE his shroud (and I apologize but it's taking a lot for me to refrain from rolling my eyes, here)... and had his image on it... someone would have mentioned/made reference to it. For the very fact that his image WAS on it. It wasn't... on this or any other shroud.

So, what is this all about? Just another "golden calf," dear ones... for those who cannot walk by faith... but still walk by sight. It is something to "see"... so as to have [faith] in Christ... because they can't see him. Unfortunately, looking at it won't change a thing: they're still blind. Perhaps even more so just by means OF looking at/to it.

I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

A slave of Christ,

SA, who doesn't mean to "heave sighs," but... well... dang: c'mon, people... the walk is according to FAITH... NOT sight..."

You can find the comment, dear one, at:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchto ... f-Turin-is

I hope this helps here, as well... and again, peace to you!

Your servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,

SA

PSACRAMENTO SAID

The issue is that NO one has been able to replicate the image on the shroud.
All the theories of how it COULD have gotten there have been disproven.

What has been shown is that:
It was a crucified male.
The injuries and evidence of trauma is consistent to what happened to Our Lord before, during and after the crucifixion.
None of that = it being the shroud of Our Lord and as will all things, our faith is in HIM not in any "it".
Until I started doing so research on it I had not realized how much studies HAVE been done on it and it is quite interesting, IMO.

AGUEST SAID



Yes, dear one (the greatest of love and peace to you!), but does that actually speak to anything more than perhaps a "unique" technique known only to the original preparer up to now? All kinds of craftsmen have techniques that can't be replicated... without having knowledge of some particular "key" ingredient (that replicators may not have even dreamed of, let alone thought of).



ALL of the theories, dear one? Or all that have come thus far to those trying to figure it out?

I totally hear what you're saying, dear one, I do. I just get a little... well, nervous... for US... when folks get all twitterpated over artifacts and relics and such. Toast, glass... shrouds... none of which are actually connected to our Lord... or will assist us in knowing him. Rather, they are used to dupe seekers into revering, following physical "images" touted as authentic... and make someone a lot of money.

SOME person, museum, news show/paper, magazine, city, research foundation... whathaveyou... benefits from these. Don't you think otherwise.

But, I hear you. Interesting stuff, can be sometimes.

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shel

PSACRAMENTO SAID

Oh I hear you my dear sister and that is one of the reasons that this shroud never interested me.
Faith is based on Our Lord and not ANY "thing" else.
Again, I just find the while thing quite fascinating.
They have come close to what they THINK may have imprinted the image on that shroud.
Human radiation.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/accett2.pdf

AGain, fascinating stuff.