PadmaVonSamba wrote:even if it is the closth Christ was wrapped in, for that image on it to be his face, his head would have had to been about 2" wide.
So they dated it somewhere between some 300 years before Jesus was born and some 400 years after his death, and based on this they claim it is real??? That's a pretty weak basis isn't it?Nosta wrote:...The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.
gregkavarnos wrote:So they dated it somewhere between some 300 years before Jesus was born and some 400 years after his death, and based on this they claim it is real??? That's a pretty weak basis isn't it?Nosta wrote:...The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.
From the link below, here is part of the new:
Scientists, including Prof Fanti, used infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths – to analyse fibres from the shroud, which is kept in a special climate-controlled case in Turin.
The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.
The experiments were carried out on fibres taken from the Shroud during a previous study, in 1988, when they were subjected to carbon-14 dating.
Those tests, conducted by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona, appeared to back up the theory that the shroud was a clever medieval fake, suggesting that it dated from 1260 to 1390.
But those results were in turn disputed on the basis that they may have been skewed by contamination by fibres from cloth that was used to repair the relic when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages.
GrahamR wrote:I don't really know why people need to have relics to bolster their faith so much.
I used to work in Constantinople (Istanbul) and love it's history. In medieval times it was creaking at the seams with faked artefacts. It made the monasteries very rich and was an early for of tourist industry I suppose, but does it really help faith?
Buddhism also has this problem. Teeth and other relics are venerated. In Thailand even monks bodies are displaced and revered. Personally I find this distasteful.
To me the Dharma stands on it's own as a path with or without any proof of a historic Buddha. Either the teaching is valid or it isn't, however it may have come to us.
steveb1 wrote:History cannot tell us if the Shroud is a fake, forgery, or hoax, unless the artist(s) responsible left behind records which would expose their motivations - decent or nefarious - in creating the Shroud image. Piety is, to my way of thinking, a much more plausible motive for human Shroud creation than is a spiteful wish to deceive. My "act of faith" regarding the Shroud is that even if it is a human creation (as opposed to a natural or paranormal effect), it is probably a work of profound devotion rather than a mean-spirited artifact of deliberate deception.
steveb1 wrote:Shroud authenticity is not dependent on religious faith or non-religious debunkery.
Some other sources:
... an "artistic fake/new duplication" attempt debunked:
People tend to substantiate or reject the Shroud from their own deeply-embedded anti-or-pro religious biases.
randomseb wrote:Well, we always say things like "science has a bias", but this is true of the other side has a very strong bias in this being "real", so this claim of bias is a non-argument
Users browsing this forum: rory and 6 guests