quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo

is there evidence that explicitly links this to Jesus?

Hard evidence, as in scientific evidence, no. And offhand, I don't have a clue how anyone could come up with any.

K.

Howz about when he comes back, we ask him for the claim stub?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

As to disputes over the C-14 date.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100125247/the-turin-shroud-is-fake-get-over-it/
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/080325.html

Anyway why would this cloth have an image of his head on it? The bible is explicit that a cloth was wound around his head when he was buried.

However, initial tests show that in normal conditions there is no contamination at the level needed to alter radiocarbon dates at all. The researchers conclude the original radiocarbon date of 14th century is correct, based on current evidence, but they have yet to test whether there is anything in the specific storage conditions of the shroud which might affect this conclusion.

Did they, ummm, "forget" it was in a fire?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo
Maybe a stupid question, but is there evidence that explicitly links this to Jesus? I'm not saying there isn't, but if received wisdom was that it was a forgery from the 15th century and it was proven to be closer to 30ish AD, would there not need to be another empirical step to link it to Christianity, or to Jesus specifically? If I accept totally the findings of the article then can I not just say it was a forgery from earlier than the fifteenth century?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo
Maybe a stupid question, but is there evidence that explicitly links this to Jesus? I'm not saying there isn't, but if received wisdom was that it was a forgery from the 15th century and it was proven to be closer to 30ish AD, would there not need to be another empirical step to link it to Christianity, or to Jesus specifically? If I accept totally the findings of the article then can I not just say it was a forgery from earlier than the fifteenth century?

doubt anything could link it to Jesus short of dna but if a forgery first appearing in medieval france then tha question of why it fits so neatly wit tha date for tha crucifiction is kinda odd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo
Maybe a stupid question, but is there evidence that explicitly links this to Jesus? I'm not saying there isn't, but if received wisdom was that it was a forgery from the 15th century and it was proven to be closer to 30ish AD, would there not need to be another empirical step to link it to Christianity, or to Jesus specifically? If I accept totally the findings of the article then can I not just say it was a forgery from earlier than the fifteenth century?

doubt anything could link it to Jesus short of dna but if a forgery first appearing in medieval france then tha question of why it fits so neatly wit tha date for tha crucifiction is kinda odd.

Okay, here is the rub, for it to be a forgery the artist making it would have had to use paint, dyes and pigments to create the illusion, as well as create a photo negative image.

There are no dyes, paints or pigments on the shroud, there are blood stains and other biologic deposits left by a man scourged and crucified.

By decree by Constantine, crucifixion as a form of execution was ended around 337AD. So by that standard, the shroud could date from the early fourth century and late third century.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

You missed the point, there are no dyes, pigments or paints on the shroud, the image was created with fluid loss that accompanies decomp.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo
This is why its pointless to try and argue religion on a scientific basis. If you have faith and you want the turin shroud to be a relic then that's absolutely great. It's never going to be any more than faith though, science and religion are two completely separate things. Maybe you can chip away at accepted wisdom, such as the date the turin shroud was made. All it changes is the point from which you make your leap of faith. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with doing that, it should just be recognised for what it is

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

You missed the point, there are no dyes, pigments or paints on the shroud, the image was created with fluid loss that accompanies decomp.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Hey, it's science speaking.


Turin Shroud 'is not a medieval forgery'

Experiments conducted by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy have dated the shroud to ancient times, a few centuries before and after the life of Christ.

The tests will revive the debate about the true origins of one of Christianity's most prized but mysterious relics and are likely to be hotly contested by sceptics.

It will be fun watching people who's ~religion is vaunted science get skeptical over this

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A fire would have no effect on C-14 dating.

We'll take your word for it, shall we?

Dr John Jackson, of the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado in the United States, put the new hypothesis forward. Dr Jackson suggests that the shroud might over time have been contaminated with carbon monoxide, which is naturally enriched in radiocarbon. What is significant in this particular hypothesis is that only a 2 per cent carbon contamination from carbon monoxide is needed to move the medieval radiocarbon date of the Shroud to the first century.

K.

quote:

Turin Shroud 'is not a medieval forgery'

quote:

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. [SNIP]

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
It will be fun watching people who's ~religion is vaunted science get skeptical over this