No, I’m not. I’m not sure why you think that, or even which part of my post you’re referring to.
At the time I said I wasn’t sure what you were saying. The idea of someone throwing soot on the shroud messing up the carbon dating gave me that idea.
In a fire, soot can go all over. It wouldn’t require someone throwing soot on the shroud.
The half-life of Carbon 14 is 5730 years, which is longer than I realized. That’s long compared to 700 years, and you’d only get an average age based on the proportion of new and old Carbon atoms. There probably wouldn’t be enough soot left on the cloth to affect the answer much.
If an item were several Carbon-14 half lives old, a little modern contamination could throw off the results by a disproportionately large amount. Wikipedia has a good description of this. I was imagining the C-14 half life being a lot shorter than it is, to where this might be a problem.
Ah so you are rationalizing. Those who want to believe something generally engage in that sort of argument.
The repair of the shroud would change the results, since they added medieval fabric to a much older garment. It’s quite possible the carbon dating was ‘correct’, the problem is that the portion they surveyed was not representative of the shroud.
He’s right though. We don’t have a lot of examples of resurrections (atheists would say we have none), so we can’t really pretend to know what would happen surrounding them.
All of which was taken into consideration by the testers, and why they took multiple samples from different parts of the cloth. All sample dates agreed within narrow error bars.
The ratio of soot:cloth needed to throw the dating of by 12 centuries is about 2:1.
http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin
This sort of thing has been examined, and found to be exactly what it sounded like - an ad-hoc hypothesis thrown up in an attempt to retain the object’s age. However, it doesn’t change the fact that there is no reason to believe that the object ever was younger than the middle ages. Sure, if it was that old, then maybe this sort of thing could explain the faulty date (except, of course, that it realistically could not have).
From the same link:
Lots of paint detected, no blood. In other words, the chemical content of the Mona Lisa. That about wraps up this piece of art.
I agree with this and I’m a Christian. The Shroud is an interesting piece of art, but it is no older than medieval.
Taking the shroud itself seriously? Nah. Taking people’s belief that it’s the burial shroud of Yeshua Ben Yosef? Yeah, I take that seriously.
As noted above, this was observed and accounted for.
The soot argument, too, fails, for reasons posted here.
Also, musicat pointed out that the coloration has been identified as paint.
Others have noted the depiction is clearly an illustration, not a transference, definitely not a photograph, and that other shrouds exist.
There’s also some evidence that shrouds, in Judea around 30 A.D. were wrapped around the body – the so-called “winding sheet” – and were not folded over the body lengthwise, only once.
If one is engaged in an argument to support the Bible, it is worth noting that the Bible says Jesus was wrapped in two cloths, one for the body and one for the head.
Wow. No, I’m not rationalizing. You seem to have an emotional response to this subject, to come up that response. I guess that’s to be expected when mentioning soot from a fire getting on something leads you to jump to “someone throwing soot”. At any rate, instead of playing coy, you could point out what part of the post you replied to you disagree with.
I already said that I was imagining the C-14 half life being a lot shorter than it is. And after looking up what the C-14 half-life is, I already said that there probably wouldn’t be enough soot left on the cloth to affect the answer much.
The one thing that stands out about the Shroud of Turin is the fact that according to the Bible account the head cover was folded and separate from the rest of the wraps, so the head part would be fainter than the rest, plus it didn’t bleed through the cloth. I also understood from a Jewish person the wrappings would be in strips, not like the Shroud is one big long cloth. Another thing I wonder about is why none of Jesus’s close family, friends, or apostles didn’t expect a resurrection. The Mary’s came to anoint a dead body, Mary Magdalene didn’t recognize him, and asked where he was buried, Peter and other apostles were surprised to hear he had risen and ran to the tomb.
I would think if they believed he would rise from the dead he would not hang around the tomb waiting for some one to show up, but would have gone directly to his mother and friends. en come in through a wall to where his apostles were hiding. plus the contradiction that Thomas had to put his fingers in the wounds before he believed, sounds like an after thought to try to convince others it was Jesus.
Why…it’s almost as if it’s not a real relic at all!!
While I’m sure you and I agree that the Shroud of Turin is not an authentic burial cloak of a 30AD corpse, let alone a god, I must point out that everything you are claiming happened (Mary came to the tomb, Peter was surprised, Thomas with wounds, etc.) is, as far as we know, a made-up, fictional story with no corroboration from independent sources and describes supernatural events that are unlikely to have happened.
In other words, saying that Mary came to anoint a dead body and found an empty tomb is tantamount to saying that St. George came to feed the dragon after rescuing Rapunzel, delivering a poison apple to Snow White’s witch, and petting the unicorn in the garden.
Piltdown Man was real though, right?
You just take all the fun out of everything! Thank goodness I’ve still got Santa Claus!
The Easter Bunny will get you for that.
Easy. It’s Bette Davis.