Zone1 The Shroud

[DGS49]

Yesterday, I sat through a long and impressive presentation about the Shroud of Turin. It is a scientific marvel, reflecting an encyclopedic mass of information about the crucifixion of JC (hereinafter, the "victim"), much of it contrary to common beliefs held for centuries. Among the highlights:

• The victim did not carry a cross, but rather a cross-member - the horizontal bar on which his arms were to be impaled,
• There was not a "crown" of thorns, but rather a pack of thistles/thorns, covering the victims entire head,
• The victim was not nailed through the hands, but rather the wrists,
• The chemistry of the blood from the wound in the side is consistent with known physiology,
• It is possible to determine with certainty the exact nature of the whips with which the victim was scourged, and the fact that it was done from both sides, with one of the soldiers taller than the other,
• Lots more.

The "elephant in the room," however, was not addressed, and there was no question period (the time constraint was real; we had to evacuate the room). The elephant, of course, is carbon dating, by which findings the Shroud was considered "debunked" many years ago. When it was carbon dated, the conclusion by three different labs was an origin date between 1260 and 1390.

But how does this explain the presence of evidence in the shroud that is contrary to facts as they were known during the medieval period? How does it explain the fact that the image in the shroud is a NEGATIVE image, of which medieval people, regardless of how clever, had no knowledge.

Is it possible that some people in the middle ages REPLICATED the passion and crucifixion of Christ on some poor bastard, for the express purpose of creating this remarkable bit of cloth? What else could explain this?

 

[pknopp]

It's interesting but I imagine there will be no definitive answer in my lifetime so interesting is all it is.

 

[Votto]

Yesterday, I sat through a long and impressive presentation about the Shroud of Turin. It is a scientific marvel, reflecting an encyclopedic mass of information about the crucifixion of JC (hereinafter, the "victim"), much of it contrary to common beliefs held for centuries. Among the highlights:

• The victim did not carry a cross, but rather a cross-member - the horizontal bar on which his arms were to be impaled,
• There was not a "crown" of thorns, but rather a pack of thistles/thorns, covering the victims entire head,
• The victim was not nailed through the hands, but rather the wrists,
• The chemistry of the blood from the wound in the side is consistent with known physiology,
• It is possible to determine with certainty the exact nature of the whips with which the victim was scourged, and the fact that it was done from both sides, with one of the soldiers taller than the other,
• Lots more.

The "elephant in the room," however, was not addressed, and there was no question period (the time constraint was real; we had to evacuate the room). The elephant, of course, is carbon dating, by which findings the Shroud was considered "debunked" many years ago. When it was carbon dated, the conclusion by three different labs was an origin date between 1260 and 1390.

But how does this explain the presence of evidence in the shroud that is contrary to facts as they were known during the medieval period? How does it explain the fact that the image in the shroud is a NEGATIVE image, of which medieval people, regardless of how clever, had no knowledge.

Is it possible that some people in the middle ages REPLICATED the passion and crucifixion of Christ on some poor bastard, for the express purpose of creating this remarkable bit of cloth? What else could explain this?

Carbon dating can be thrown off by organisms that may have lived on the shroud.

 

[Meriweather]

The "elephant in the room," however, was not addressed, and there was no question period (the time constraint was real; we had to evacuate the room). The elephant, of course, is carbon dating, by which findings the Shroud was considered "debunked" many years ago. When it was carbon dated, the conclusion by three different labs was an origin date between 1260 and 1390.

Did your presentation include information on the weave of the shroud itself; that the pattern used was known only to have been used in Israel; that the material was expensive, and would have been owned by a person of wealth. Joseph of Arimathea was consider wealthy.

The presentation I saw noted that the shroud had been mended throughout time, and if carbon dating was used on the repaired portions, that would account for the medieval dates.

 

[BreezeWood]

impressive presentation .... Among the highlights:

is there a link ...

seems a bit much - from pilots offer of clemency to the described brutality by a country that did not even know who jesus was and needed judas to point him out.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

.

Here's a video that talks about studies done by forensic scientist, Dr. Frederick Zugibe, on the shroud. Dr. Zugibe's conclusion about how the Crown of Thorns was actually more like a "helmet" of thorns that covered more of Christ's head than the little wreath that we see usually depicted in artistic renderings is in tune with OP's point #2.



What deeply interests me is that Zugibe concluded that Christ suffered a symptom called trigeminal neuralgia, as the result of the thorns piercing his trigeminal nerve, which is the fifth cranial nerve and has three branches on each side of the head/face. Father Alar talks about this quite a bit in the above video. Trigeminal neuralgia is considered by many neurologists as the most painful thing a human being can experience. I have had TN for about 20 years and it is colloquially called "the Suicide Disease" because, by some reckoning, 50% of the people who have it commit suicide rather than live with the pain. My TN flare ups feel like someone is holding an electric cattle prod to my right cheekbone. Other sufferers describe the pain as akin to being tased in the face.

I can accept that Christ suffered TN, from as soon as the Roman soldiers placed the Crown of Thorns on His head until he died some estimated three hours later. I can't imagine Him suffering for over three hours, what I suffer for only seconds or minutes at a time. When I'm having a flare up, I can't open my eyes or speak, and can scarcely breathe, let alone carry a big chunk of wood

Interesting -- recently, I started talking to an acquaintance who correctly guessed that I have TN. She explained that she has it too, and then went on to explain experiences she has had with pain and inflammation in her wrists and feet. As a Catholic, I am very interested in anything people suffer that resembles the Wounds of Christ. I spend quite a bit of time reading about the saints and others who were known to have "stigmata", or the Wounds of Christ -- they're also known as stigmatists. I wonder what they would have to say about Christ's trigeminal neuralgia!

I pretty much agree with all the rest of your points, DGS49. You might be interested in studying Eucharistic Miracles, as well. All of them that have been scientifically studied have the same blood type as the blood on the Shroud.

Thanks for posting a good, thought provoking thread.


.

 

[westwall]

Yesterday, I sat through a long and impressive presentation about the Shroud of Turin. It is a scientific marvel, reflecting an encyclopedic mass of information about the crucifixion of JC (hereinafter, the "victim"), much of it contrary to common beliefs held for centuries. Among the highlights:

• The victim did not carry a cross, but rather a cross-member - the horizontal bar on which his arms were to be impaled,
• There was not a "crown" of thorns, but rather a pack of thistles/thorns, covering the victims entire head,
• The victim was not nailed through the hands, but rather the wrists,
• The chemistry of the blood from the wound in the side is consistent with known physiology,
• It is possible to determine with certainty the exact nature of the whips with which the victim was scourged, and the fact that it was done from both sides, with one of the soldiers taller than the other,
• Lots more.

The "elephant in the room," however, was not addressed, and there was no question period (the time constraint was real; we had to evacuate the room). The elephant, of course, is carbon dating, by which findings the Shroud was considered "debunked" many years ago. When it was carbon dated, the conclusion by three different labs was an origin date between 1260 and 1390.

But how does this explain the presence of evidence in the shroud that is contrary to facts as they were known during the medieval period? How does it explain the fact that the image in the shroud is a NEGATIVE image, of which medieval people, regardless of how clever, had no knowledge.

Is it possible that some people in the middle ages REPLICATED the passion and crucifixion of Christ on some poor bastard, for the express purpose of creating this remarkable bit of cloth? What else could explain this?

I believe the carbon dating to be faulty. I think they picked up material from the fire that burned it.

Many people have tried to replicate, none have come close. And the image is actually an X-Ray.

Is it Christ? I have no idea, but the image is very compelling.

 

[DGS49]

Did your presentation include information on the weave of the shroud itself; that the pattern used was known only to have been used in Israel; that the material was expensive, and would have been owned by a person of wealth. Joseph of Arimathea was consider wealthy.

The presentation I saw noted that the shroud had been mended throughout time, and if carbon dating was used on the repaired portions, that would account for the medieval dates.

Yes that was covered. It was a two-hour presentation and I could not include everything, from memory. Thanks for mentioning it.

 

[Blackrook]

The Shroud of Turin is a negative image of Christ. There is no way a "medieval forger" would think to put a negative image on cloth.

 

[luiza]

Yesterday, I sat through a long and impressive presentation about the Shroud of Turin. It is a scientific marvel, reflecting an encyclopedic mass of information about the crucifixion of JC (hereinafter, the "victim"), much of it contrary to common beliefs held for centuries. Among the highlights:

• The victim did not carry a cross, but rather a cross-member - the horizontal bar on which his arms were to be impaled,
• There was not a "crown" of thorns, but rather a pack of thistles/thorns, covering the victims entire head,
• The victim was not nailed through the hands, but rather the wrists,
• The chemistry of the blood from the wound in the side is consistent with known physiology,
• It is possible to determine with certainty the exact nature of the whips with which the victim was scourged, and the fact that it was done from both sides, with one of the soldiers taller than the other,
• Lots more.

The "elephant in the room," however, was not addressed, and there was no question period (the time constraint was real; we had to evacuate the room). The elephant, of course, is carbon dating, by which findings the Shroud was considered "debunked" many years ago. When it was carbon dated, the conclusion by three different labs was an origin date between 1260 and 1390.

But how does this explain the presence of evidence in the shroud that is contrary to facts as they were known during the medieval period? How does it explain the fact that the image in the shroud is a NEGATIVE image, of which medieval people, regardless of how clever, had no knowledge.

Is it possible that some people in the middle ages REPLICATED the passion and crucifixion of Christ on some poor bastard, for the express purpose of creating this remarkable bit of cloth? What else could explain this?

Read , The Turin Shroud by Picknett and Prince .
They show that the image was created 99.5% by Leonardo -- who detested organised Cult Christianity -- and they show exactly how he produced the negative image .
Of course the Vatican etc etc have tried desperately to suppress this finding and produced nonsense attempted refutations .
Naturally .
It has been promoted as a genuine relic and is worth huge money to the Church , and Vatican reputations would lie in tatters if the mainstream narrative is damaged .

 

[westwall]

Read , The Turin Shroud by Picknett and Prince .
They show that the image was created 99.5% by Leonardo -- who detested organised Cult Christianity -- and they show exactly how he produced the negative image .
Of course the Vatican etc etc have tried desperately to suppress this finding and produced nonsense attempted refutations .
Naturally .
It has been promoted as a genuine relic and is worth huge money to the Church , and Vatican reputations would lie in tatters if the mainstream narrative is damaged .

Only even with modern technology they couldn't get even remotely close to the detail, and their image wasn't an X-Ray.

 

[Moonglow]

Thye wrapped Jesus in cheese clothe?