Wow, I don't even know what to do when that happens. :)ScottAndrews
July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Well Scott,
Though I have never been tempted to kiss the toes of a statue, you very well may have a point in the ability of man's imagination to create "false idols". This fact is well testified to by the fact that evolutionists will draw on practically any conjecture of imagination in place of what sober analysis of the evidence in screaming at us...So yes Scott, I am afraid you indeed may have a valid point, though I admit this point grudgingly.bornagain77
July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
BA77,
I'm going to tread carefully because I don't like getting into scriptural discussions on the internet.
But wasn't there already substantial evidence of the resurrection before the late 19th century?
As for the tendency to venerate objects, consider the statue of St. Peter in Rome - some of its toes are worn away from people kissing them. Think about it - men and women, created in God's image, told to guard against idolatry, sucking the toes off a man-made statue. Why would God give them something else to venerate?ScottAndrews
July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Well Scott,
I find that since God places such a high importance of our salvation in us actually believing and accepting the atoning sacrifice of Christ and that He actually rose from the dead and is alive forevermore, (which is a VERY fantastic claim at first glance) then it is very likely God would provide substantial evidence of the resurrection so as to solidify this necessary foundation of faith He requires for such a fantastic claim.
As to worshiping the shroud, I think it is very self evident that the Shroud is not actually the body of Christ and am thus very perplexed that you would even confuse it with idol worship and suggest that it be as such.bornagain77
July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
Here's a totally non-scientific point to consider: Christians were to worship by faith, not using artifacts or the like. That was the nature of the preceding and surrounding pagan religions.
Why then, would God deliberately create exactly the sort of artifact that men would be inclined to venerate?
Didn't the apostles already consider the resurrection already well established without such a shroud?
I don't know the answer to this one, but if everyone was buried that way, where are the other shrouds with face imprints?
There's a lot of evidence already cited against it, and we have no need for it to be real.ScottAndrews
July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
That is rich!!! An atheist, or maybe a VERY dubious Christian, suddenly finds religion when he needs it to refute the Resurrection of Christ!!!
So riddick, what do you make of this blowing a hole in your multiple strips argument:
"Q. Doesn't the Shroud conflict with Scripture? a) John 20:5-7 mentions linens and at the very least implies there were a minimum of two cloths. Many have suggested that the linens were `strips,' however the Shroud is merely one piece of cloth. ...
http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/05/bogus-shroud-of-turin-1.html
Shroud Was Sewn Together From Two Pieces Of Linen - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXHn8BvGlLc
Excerpt:
The cloth measures 4.35 metres by 1.09 metres.
It is made from two pieces, one wide, the other very narrow, sewn together edgewise. The wide piece, (92 % of the surface) measures 4.35 by 1.00 metres. The narrow piece, shown in yellow in the diagram below, (8 percent of the surface), is a strip 4 metres by 9 cms. The date that the two pieces were sewn together is unknown. Certainly it was before 1357, because the join is already visible in the representation of the Shroud at Lirey at that time.
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/gira.cadouarn/english/closer_examination/general/general_look.htm
as well I repeat:
BURIAL CONSISTENT WITH ANCIENT JEWISH BURIAL CUSTOM
The burial is consistent with ancient Jewish burial customs in all respects, including the use of cave-tombs, attitude of the body (hands folded over loins), and types of burial cloths. The Sindon (Shroud) enveloped the body. The Sudarium was a face-cloth used to cover the face out of respect, from removal from the cross to entombment. It was then removed and placed to one side. There was also a chin-band holding the mouth closed. The Othonia were bandages used to bind the wrists and legs. All are mentioned in the New Testament and evidenced on the Cloth. Such cloths are mentioned in the New Testament and are spoken of in the Misnah - oral traditions of the Rabbis written down in the second and third century. The Cave-Tombs were carved out of sides of limestone hills. The presence of Calcium Carbonate (limestone dust) was noted by Dr. Eugenia Nitowski (Utah archaeologist) in her studies of the cave tombs of Jerusalem on the Cloth. Optical Engineer Sam Pellicori noted in 1978 the presence of dirt particles on the nose as well as on the left knee and heel. Prof. Giovanni Riggi noted burial mites. Dr. Garza-Valdes discovered oak tubules (microscopic splinters) in the blood of the occipital area (back of the head) as well as natron salts. Traces of aloe and myrrh have also been identified on the Cloth. All of these are consistent with Jewish burial customs of antiquity.
But this is all beside the point of you being on a science site practicing shoddy science,,,, quit playing stupid games and tell me HOW DID THE IMAGE FORM?bornagain77
July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
"I will take John's testimony of the events over your or anyone else's speculations. If John says that Jesus' body was prepared 'in accordance with Jewish burial customs' (John 19:40), then that's good enough for me"
This is rich. And what do you make of everything else he said about Jesus?Berceuse
July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
ba77@64:
"Are you trying to say a full compliment of burial practices is exactly how Jesus was placed in the tomb???? I thought it was commonly accepted that the setting of the sun, which signaled the beginning of the sabbath, was at hand, thus the inability to fully prepare the body."
ba, from whom do you get the idea that Jesus' body was not buried in the proper or complete way? The biblical record mitigates against this. I will take John's testimony of the events over your or anyone else's speculations. If John says that Jesus' body was prepared "in accordance with Jewish burial customs" (John 19: 40), then that's good enough for me.riddick
July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Riddick, I really don't know what to make of your comment, it doesn't seem to bare any weight at all as to relevance,,,Are you trying to say a full compliment of burial practices is exactly how Jesus was placed in the tomb???? I thought it was commonly accepted that the setting of the sun, which signaled the beginning of the sabbath, was at hand, thus the inability to fully prepare the body. In fact the reason the women went to the tomb was to finish the "proper Jewish burial";
Excerpt:
"There was heaviness in the hearts of several women who had risen early that morning to prepare burial spices. Jesus' body had been quickly removed from the cross before sundown and laid in a tomb without having been prepared for burial. So, on the first day of the week, before the sun had risen, these women made their way to the tomb."
http://www.faithclipart.com/guide/Christian-Holidays/resurrection-women-at-the-tomb.html
Anyway if you are very weakly trying to say a full burial practice took place, Then as to how a "congealed liquid" should have acted on the shroud, the blood indicates we are not dealing with a "normal" event.
"However, the act of removing the body, some parts of which would be stuck to the cloth by the dried blood, would tear the blood impregnated fibrils. The absence of torn fibrils suggests that the body was not taken out of the Shroud."
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/wiebe.pdf
The bloodstains, as forensic scientists and chemists now know, were created by real blood.
Blood on the Shroud of Turin
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of-turin-blood.htm
The blood residues on the Shroud are different than the color variations that form the main image, and these have high levels of bilirubin in them (Wilson 1998: 88-89). Bilirubin is a chemical that turns the bile pigments reddish-orange in color, and is indicative of severe jaundice. It is unlikely that a medieval forger thought of adding bilirubin, whose existence was only discovered in the twentieth century, to give the image a lifelike quality.
Yet this is all beside the point, and really is very dubious science on your part! Let's get to the issue you are trying your damnedest to dodge,,,HOW DID THE IMAGE FORM???bornagain77
July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
Brent:
This question should have been directed at me, not ba77.
Hmm. I could have sworn it was ba77 comment, but it does appear I was mistaken -- thanks for the correction.
It is a problem of rebellion. Sin is rebellion. Faith is willing submission. Willing submission is what we exercise to achieve communion with God and get into Heaven, and is what will be found throughout Heaven in order to sustain purity there.
Let's look at your original comment:
How could God create man with any meaningful ability to commune with Him if He didn’t allow them freedom; both to do good or evil?
This is your explanation for why God allows evil in the world and why people must be allowed the freedom to do evil things. Yet, within barely an instantaneous moment in time (as compared with eternity) that freedom is completely removed from them when they enter Heaven---removing the desire to sin obviously has the exact same effect as removing the ability to sin (unless they can still accidentally sin, of course!)
Claiming that people in Heaven still have the ability to do evil is simply wordplay. If there is no sin in Heaven (not one single sin, ever, at all) then there is no ability to sin or to rebel. Yet obviously communing with God is entirely possible, and while I grant that the creator of the Universe (assuming there is one) can do whatever he pleases, if in fact communing with God without the freedom to sin is possible in Heaven, it's simply not true to say that you can't commune with God without the ability to do sin.
Willing submission is only freedom for as long as you are making a conscious decision to submit. That's not what's happening in Heaven. They have willingly submitted, once, and then for the rest of eternity they are slaves to that decision. (Willing slaves, to be sure.) The desire to sin, and hence the ability to sin, has been removed from them, forever.
There are plenty of sins/evils that I have absolutely no desire to commit, even though I know I could get away with them. I assume you don't believe that in any way reduces my ability to commune with God.
I have no desire to abuse alcohol, for example. Other people have a terrible time staying off the drink, having both a genetic disposition and parents who were alcoholics. Is my ability to commune with God impaired in any way because I do not desire to commit the sin of drunkenness?
If not, then God could easily ratchet down the desire to sin to a bare minimum (or zero, as in Heaven) and still allow us the ability to have free will. It's just that we wouldn't be as evil as often, and many people's lives would be much better as a result.
If God rules the show and created everything that does exist and ever has existed, there is no ground-state, no absence of intervention that is the ultimate freedom to do what we will, it's all an intervention. So even the freedom to sin is just one of the rules of the game God set up, a rule that could be different, and we would be none the wiser if it were.tyke
July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
In heaven, the ‘freedom’ to sin is always there. It is the ‘desire’ to sin that is lacking.
I understand that's the explanation, but if it's possible to have free will without committing sin in Heaven then it's not true that to be able to commune with God there must be evil in the world (as a direct consequence of free will) as bornagain77 claims, right?tyke
July 29, 2009
July
07
Jul
29
29
2009
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT
Brent, riddick, BA77,
All or most of the authors mentioned by riddick are Protestants, who might not put much weight in the authenticity of the shroud, since it is overseen by Catholics. Morison did not live to see the evidence.
McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" was written more than 20 years ago (with a recent update of course), as was his "More Than A Carpenter." The shroud evidence is relatively recent.CannuckianYankee
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT
riddick,
I really don't know much about this subject, but one thing that must not be forgotten is that the "burial" of Jesus was a hasty one so as not to violate the Sabbath. One would have to assume too much to simply attach the traditional burial procedure to Jesus in that situation. Although, I assume that the authors you are citing would have taken these things into account, so...Brent
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
riddick,
While a lot of the evidence surrounding the shroud is "shrouded" in myth, there is evidence that a face cloth associated with the shroud - the Sudarium may be authentic and have scientifically verified ties to the shroud. I, like you am still skeptical. I don't rest my faith on a religious relic.
I think the shroud is the most fascinating relic in the history of the church. I think it is the one closest to being authenticated, because it fits so well with the crucifixion and burial accounts, and it's image is so striking and yet mysterious. I think the most convincing evidence is the photographic image. We can't explain it. It violates what we know about our understanding of photography at that time.
Other Christian relics, like the "true cross," and various supposed grails are not so convincing.CannuckianYankee
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
ba77,
Consider the following description, and note the absence of a shroud of any kind.
At Jesus' burial, 75 pounds of spices mixed with a gummy substance made from myrrh and aloes were used in between the folds of the linen cloths which were wrapped around His body (John 19:39-40). According to Jewish custom, the body was washed and straightened, then wrapped tightly from the armpits to the ankles in strips of linen about a foot wide. The gummy aromatic spices were placed between the wrappings or folds of the linen partly as a preservative and partly as a cement to glue the linen cloths into a solid covering which adhered so closely to the body that it would not easily be removed. The aloes were a fragrant wood which was pounded to a dry dust, and the myrrh was an aromatic gum which was mixed in with the dry aloes. The powder immediately around the myrrh would become sticky and would cement the linen cloths to each other and to the body, but the bulk of the aloe powder would most likely remain dry. The face was covered with a cloth napkin or handkerchief which was sometimes wrapped fully around the head.
Sources:
The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell
Who Moved The Stone? by Frank Morison
Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection by John Ankerberg and John Weldon
Evidence That Demands A Verdict - Vol. I by Josh McDowell
He Walked Among Us by Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson
More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell
Who Is This Jesus? by Michael Green
Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maierriddick
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
tyke,
“Anyway, how about answering why you believe it’s necessary to have the freedom to commit sin to commune with God when there is no such necessity once you get to Heaven?”
This question should have been directed at me, not ba77.
It is a problem of rebellion. Sin is rebellion. Faith is willing submission. Willing submission is what we exercise to achieve communion with God and get into Heaven, and is what will be found throughout Heaven in order to sustain purity there.
The purity which will be found in Heaven hasn't anything to do with freedom to rebel or the lack thereof, it's that those who have made the journey have decided to stop rebelling and willingly give the right of their lives over to Christ. In heaven it becomes a moot point. It's like saying to a sane person, "Hey, you are fee to jump off this building. Why don't you?" They would just look at you as if you were nuts.
C.S. Lewis touches on this idea in, I think, The Screwtape Letters.
Willing submission. Truly a hard concept for the Western mind.Brent
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
Riddick and what is your point?
BURIAL CONSISTENT WITH ANCIENT JEWISH BURIAL CUSTOM
The burial is consistent with ancient Jewish burial customs in all respects, including the use of cave-tombs, attitude of the body (hands folded over loins), and types of burial cloths. The Sindon (Shroud) enveloped the body. The Sudarium was a face-cloth used to cover the face out of respect, from removal from the cross to entombment. It was then removed and placed to one side. There was also a chin-band holding the mouth closed. The Othonia were bandages used to bind the wrists and legs. All are mentioned in the New Testament and evidenced on the Cloth. Such cloths are mentioned in the New Testament and are spoken of in the Misnah - oral traditions of the Rabbis written down in the second and third century. The Cave-Tombs were carved out of sides of limestone hills. The presence of Calcium Carbonate (limestone dust) was noted by Dr. Eugenia Nitowski (Utah archaeologist) in her studies of the cave tombs of Jerusalem on the Cloth. Optical Engineer Sam Pellicori noted in 1978 the presence of dirt particles on the nose as well as on the left knee and heel. Prof. Giovanni Riggi noted burial mites. Dr. Garza-Valdes discovered oak tubules (microscopic splinters) in the blood of the occipital area (back of the head) as well as natron salts. Traces of aloe and myrrh have also been identified on the Cloth. All of these are consistent with Jewish burial customs of antiquity.bornagain77
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Tyke,
In heaven, the 'freedom' to sin is always there. It is the 'desire' to sin that is lacking.
Hell is the inability to 'give up' on that desire. It's like addiction. You wanna give it up so bad, but in the end it consumes you.
Sin is a worm program. Christ's Mercy is the only anti-virus program that can restore your spiritual software to its original state.
Anyway, how about answering why you believe it’s necessary to have the freedom to commit sin to commune with God when there is no such necessity once you get to Heaven?
Oramus
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
I repeat, for the 4th time:
Anyway, how about answering why you believe it’s necessary to have the freedom to commit sin to commune with God when there is no such necessity once you get to Heaven?
tyke
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
Just in case some of you don't have a Bible handy, I'll quote one of the "outside 'historical' sources" which bornagain77 claims I have wrongly appealed to for my heretical thoughts.
Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus at night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. John 19: 39-40riddick
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
The following is the Lecture Video, from a Scientist, on the recent work that was done at Los Alamos National Laboratory to overturn the flawed carbon dating of 1989:
Shroud of Turin Ohio State University - Robert Villarreal:
Part 1 of 5 - 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OGWPO41qzI
Part 2 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG4ODAB8sXs
Part 3 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kBpplTK044
Part 4 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfITmjQZHv4
Part 5 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMord0YLlLEbornagain77
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Here Are Some Excellent Shroud Books That Covers The Remarkable History, and Much Of The Science, That Has Surrounded The Shroud:
Portrait of Jesus?: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin: by Frank C. Tribbe - 2006
http://www.amazon.com/Portrait-Jesus-Illustrated-Story-Shroud/dp/1557788545
The Blood and the Shroud - New Evidence That the World's Most Sacred Relic Is Real by Ian Wilson - 1999
http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Shroud-Evidence-Worlds-Sacred/dp/0684855291/ref=sip_rech_dp_4
The Shroud Of Turin: An Adventure Of Discovery by Mary and Alan Whagner - 1998
http://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Turin-Adventure-Discovery/dp/1577360796
The Turin Shroud by Ian Wilson - 1979
All the expert evidence gathered by the official research team is pretty much presented in this text....also,, presentation of the evidence that traces the Shroud back to the 1st Century.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Turin-Shroud-Ian-Wilson/dp/0140050647bornagain77
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Tyke, Do you want to go through the peer reviewed papers o the shroud one by one?
Peer Reviewed Articles on the Shroud:
Journal: Chemistry Today (Vol 26, Num 4, Jul/Aug 2008), “Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud”, Benford M.S., Marino J.G.
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/
“Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008)
Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case....... LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired.
Robert Villarreal
http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/
Thermochimica Acta - Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California (Volume 425 2005 Issue 1-2, pp 189-194). The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect® online information site.
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.
http://www.ntskeptics.org/issues/shroud/shroudold.htm
Carbon 14 Dating Mistakes with the Shroud of Turin (Updated in 2008):
It may well go down as the biggest radiocarbon dating mistake in history;
http://www.innoval.com/C14/
Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics - Fanti, Giulio and Maggiolo, Roberto. “The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud.” (2004: pp 491-503)
The face and probably also the hands are visible on the back of the Turin Shroud, but not features related to the dorsal image.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1464-4258/6/6/001/
New Analysis Confirms Second Face on Shroud of Turin and Raises Questions About Other Images:
Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo of the University of Padua in Italy, reported finding a faint second face on the backside of the cloth.
http://www.shroudstory.com/enhanced.htm
Journal of Imaging Science and Technology - Fanti, G. and Moroni, M. “Comparison of Luminance Between Face of Turin Shroud Man and Experimental Results.” 46: 142-154 (2002);
All the photographs except that of the Edessa Mandylion show some 3D characteristics and the Shroud photographs, although disturbed by many defects, seem to correlate well with the sheet-face distance.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13657013
Bibliography of Published STURP Papers
http://www.shroud.com/78papers.htm
More Shroud Peer Review references:
http://shroud.wikispaces.com/REFERENCESbornagain77
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Tyke,
Do you want to go through the peer reviewed papers one by one?
Peer Reviewed Articles on the Shroud:
Journal: Chemistry Today (Vol 26, Num 4, Jul/Aug 2008), “Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud”, Benford M.S., Marino J.G.
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/
“Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008)
Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case....... LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired.
Robert Villarreal
http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/
Thermochimica Acta - Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California (Volume 425 2005 Issue 1-2, pp 189-194). The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect® online information site.
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.
http://www.ntskeptics.org/issues/shroud/shroudold.htm
Carbon 14 Dating Mistakes with the Shroud of Turin (Updated in 2008):
It may well go down as the biggest radiocarbon dating mistake in history;
http://www.innoval.com/C14/
Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics - Fanti, Giulio and Maggiolo, Roberto. “The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud.” (2004: pp 491-503)
The face and probably also the hands are visible on the back of the Turin Shroud, but not features related to the dorsal image.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1464-4258/6/6/001/
New Analysis Confirms Second Face on Shroud of Turin and Raises Questions About Other Images:
Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo of the University of Padua in Italy, reported finding a faint second face on the backside of the cloth.
http://www.shroudstory.com/enhanced.htm
Journal of Imaging Science and Technology - Fanti, G. and Moroni, M. “Comparison of Luminance Between Face of Turin Shroud Man and Experimental Results.” 46: 142-154 (2002);
All the photographs except that of the Edessa Mandylion show some 3D characteristics and the Shroud photographs, although disturbed by many defects, seem to correlate well with the sheet-face distance.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13657013
Bibliography of Published STURP Papers
http://www.shroud.com/78papers.htm
More Shroud Peer Review references:
http://shroud.wikispaces.com/REFERENCES
Here Are Some Excellent Shroud Books That Covers The Remarkable History, and Much Of The Science, That Has Surrounded The Shroud:
Portrait of Jesus?: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin: by Frank C. Tribbe - 2006
http://www.amazon.com/Portrait-Jesus-Illustrated-Story-Shroud/dp/1557788545
The Blood and the Shroud - New Evidence That the World's Most Sacred Relic Is Real by Ian Wilson - 1999
http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Shroud-Evidence-Worlds-Sacred/dp/0684855291/ref=sip_rech_dp_4
The Shroud Of Turin: An Adventure Of Discovery by Mary and Alan Whagner - 1998
http://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Turin-Adventure-Discovery/dp/1577360796
The Turin Shroud by Ian Wilson - 1979
All the expert evidence gathered by the official research team is pretty much presented in this text....also,, presentation of the evidence that traces the Shroud back to the 1st Century.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Turin-Shroud-Ian-Wilson/dp/0140050647bornagain77
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Well, of course, if you select all the studies that support the shrouds authenticity and reject all the studies that cast it in doubt then you will not doubt believe that the shroud is the real thing, but empirical science doesn't work that way.
Am I given to believe there is going to be another carbon dating study on the shroud? If so, if it conclusively dates it to the Middle Ages, will you then accept the findings? (Somehow I doubt it.)
Anyway, talking of "dodging", you still are dodging the question I asked of you three times already:
Anyway, how about answering why you believe it’s necessary to have the freedom to commit sin to commune with God when there is no such necessity once you get to Heaven?
tyke
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Tyke,
Even though you are leaving pure empirical science and trying to mount atheistic defense against the authenticity of the shroud from historical evidence, even in this route you are defeated:
The Sudarium of Oviedo
http://www.shroudstory.com/sudarium.htm
Shroud Of Turin - Historical Proof And 1978 STURP Findings - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaDV_QmLre4
THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE - Evidence of Authenticity
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.htmlbornagain77
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
Tyke dodges again with:
"The known chain of custody only goes back to 1357 and, at best, there is still a period of over 900 years where there is nothing but rumor and unverifiable claims of a shroud"
You are outside of the empirical evidence once again.bornagain77
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
It doesn't matter even if the shroud was conclusively dated to 2000 years. The very best you could say was that it wouldn't rule out possibility that it was the funeral shroud of Jesus.
The known chain of custody only goes back to 1357 and, at best, there is still a period of over 900 years where there is nothing but rumor and unverifiable claims of a shroud (and none claiming to have a full body image imprinted upon it, which is notable given how remarkable it would have been).
So, you have a gap of almost 1,000 years (at best) with no conclusive evidence about the age of the cloth (even if the original carbon dating studies were flawed, there has not been a definitive study conducted since) or that the cloth's image is a genuine imprint of a body.
So, yes, it's hardly conclusive evidence. In fact, it's extremely shaky evidence that convinces no one but the true believer.
Anyway, how about answering why you believe it's necessary to have the freedom to commit sin to commune with God when there is no such necessity once you get to Heaven?tyke
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Riddick accuses:
"You use it (the shroud) as a litmus test for belief."
No Riddick, in this instance I am using the shroud as a litmus test for the ability to practice unbiased science on the evidence which is set in front of you, of which you have also failed to address the primary matter of what could be known for sure of the evidence, but instead have appealed to outside "historical" sources to discredit the hard empirical evidence set before you before you have even thoroughly examined it. You have clearly shown me you could care less what the truth of the matter is on this topic (no doubt because, for whatever severely misguided reason, you don't want it to be true that Christ defeated death), on top of the fact of showing me you know nothing of practicing pure science from empirics.bornagain77
July 28, 2009
July
07
Jul
28
28
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
bornagain77,
Okay, we get the point with the shroud. You use it as a litmus test for belief. Too bad it isn't mentioned in the Gospels or in the letters (indeed, it's presence is contradicted in John 20:5-7). Also, it wasn't the practice of the Jews to wrap their dead in shrouds (see same verses above and John 11:44). Corpses were washed, packed with 75 or so pounds or spices, and wrapped in strips like a mummy.riddick