they have done more test on the shroud of turam and they said that some fungas had been what they tested and that the shroud was from 30 to 70 ad which means that it could be jesus’s cloth. And thanks to you that could have made some people non believers.
Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment.
Please include a link to Cecil’s column if it’s on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).
Cecil’s column can be found on-line at this link:
Did Jesus really exist? And what’s with the Shroud of Turin?
The column (including Slug Signorino’s illustration) can also be found on pages 275-281 of Cecil Adams’ book “More of the Straight Dope”.
The books can be purchased here:
Welcome to the Straight Dope Store
(edited to add mention of book)
(this message has been edited by Arnold Winkelried)
Billy, can you provide us with some documentation or scientific support for your claim of authenticity for the shroud of Turin. A simple bald statement like that is no way to bolster your argument.
If you are interested in reading reports from scientific studies conducted by skeptical organizations, here are a couple links. They provide some pretty conclusive evidence against your claim. The first is from CSICOP’s Joe Nickell. This next one will take you to the Skeptic’s Dictionary.
And just for a bit of humor, I think Cecil should have looked at this link for Jesus’s personal identification papers.
Well Billy, you’ve read Cecil’s article about the conclusions of scientific testing. If you refuse to accept the word the, admittedly skeptical scientists, how about some religious evidence?
Shortly after the shroud’s first appearance in 1357, a local bishop denounced it as a fake. Jump to 1389, Pope Clement VII also declares it to be a forgery, calling it a “painted representation.” These facts were conveniently forgotten in 1453 when the shroud was sold to the Duke of Savoy.
On to the biblical evidence, specifically: John 20:5-7 (English-NIV)
5: He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.
6: Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,
7: as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.
The bible passage above makes the claim that Jesus was buried in several cloths with a wholly separate piece about his head. This directly contradicts the whole body image depicted on the shroud of Turin.
Additionally, there have been similar claims of legitimacy for dozens of shrouds over the years. What makes you believe this is the correct one? And even the shroud of Turin is legitimately the death cloth of Christ, so what? It doesn’t prove resurrection; it merely shows he was buried in a herringbone weave cloth.
I have heard about 2 more claims to “authenticate” the Shroud.
After the carbon 14 testing occurred, showing dates in the late 1300’s, someone (can’t remember) claims to have discovered pollen on the shroud. He also sees patterns of plants in the stains on the cloth. He compared the shapes of the plant patterns and tried to identify the pollen and plants to those native to the middle east. He found a particular plant that is native only to the region, that is known for having large thorns. Thus he claims it is the plant used for the crown of thorns. He claims the shroud would have to have come from that region to get the pollen on it.
The second claim is the dating. Someone else came along and proposed that the cloth is empregnated by a layer of fungus that is growing in the cloth, feeding off the linen. This fungus would have supposedly thrown off the carbon 14 dating, and accounts for the middle ages date found by the dating method, as an average of the fungus date (new living in 1990’s) and the linen (30 CE).
Both claims are unconvincing. The plant patterns supposedly visible are very faint and hard to make out - rather like playing games finding patterns in clouds. The pollen is evidently on the shroud, but that does not prove the shroud’s origin, only indicates it had been in the Middle East at some time.
The fungal claim was reviewed, and … oh, I just checked and is mentioned in the CSICOP link.
One other comment about the shroud. Apparently some DNA was recovered from the shroud. What is ignored is the fact that the Shroud has only recently been such a protected icon of the church. Historically it was available to all the pilgrims who visited to see it in hopes of getting some special attention from god for visiting it. It has been handled and cried on and otherwise had contact with people. So recovering DNA from the shroud is no mystery.
And by the way Billy, how does disproving the shroud make anyone a disbeliever (I assume you mean in god)? Many christians are entirely faithful without requiring any proof, such as the shroud being authentic. And I hardly think any atheist relies purely on the veracity of the shroud for whether they believe or not.
I don’t think Billy is coming back to discuss this further; you’re probably wasting your time here, Irishman. Unless of course, you like to read vituperative e-mail. I have some from Billy I can forward if you like.
I think it’s a shame that the shroud of Turin gets all the publicity, and the leisure suit of Florence gets totally ignored.
The leisure suit (white polyester) dates from around 30 AD, and has the initials “JC” (in ancient Aramaic) embroidered on the pocket. There are bloodstains around the edge of the sleeves and the ankles, and also over the chest where the spear wound was made. There is a ring around the collar, but no scientific analysis has determined what it is, it looks like burn marks, such as might come from a too-bright halo.
Furthermore, in the pocket of the jacket, there are some crumbs of bread … and no matter how many crumbs the scientists take out, still some crumbs remain! This is evidently left over from the episode of loaves and fishes, although no fish scales have yet been found.
There are reddish stains on the pants, that look very much like wine stains to the naked eye, but when these wine stains are analyzed by scientists, they turn out to be simply water! No satisfactory explanation for the reddish colour has been provided.
In addition to the blood around the ankles, there are also salt water stains, as though someone had been wading in the sea.
Furthermore, in the inside jacket packet, there is a handwritten list (in ancient Aramaic), most of which is too faded with time for ample translation, but the heading is “To Do This Week” and some of the items appear to include:
- Kick Judas off the team
- Get white loincloth back from laundry
- Discuss menu for last supper with Mary, no more fish
- Remind them to leave tomb door open so it doesn’t get too stuffy
- Have plenty of tylenol with codeine for painkiller
And with this evidence in our faces, all the attention goes to a crummy shroud. Hmpf.
You know, CK, that would probably be a whole lot funnier if you weren’t a Jew.
Uncle beer i am still repling and i didn’t mean disporving the shroud would make people disbealive i meant the web site he posted would i mean come on jesus ss number. Oh and i like that jew come back.
Okay, where is the scientific report that says that additional tests have proven the shroud was from 30 to 70 AD? List the URL of a scientific or educational website that includes that information. Post the title and author of a book that supports it. Post the title, article name and author from the scientific journal that announced the discover.
What website are you talking about? The one that UncleBeer posted over an hour after you posted that “And thanks to you that could have made some people non believers.” So you can see the future and knew UncleBeer was going to post that site? (I’m guessing, because that site takes me to a Cannot find server page.)
I’m a little puzzled, Mips… What does my race, religion, gender, or nationable origin have to do with whether what I said is funny?
mipsman said
Strange. I showed CK’s post to a panel of Jews and non-Jews. The one’s with a sense of humor laughed. The one’s who weren’t Jewish did NOT laugh louder or longer.
Interesting experiment, sam. But my puzzlement is the reverse. I can understand that one ethnic group might find a certain joke funnier than another ethnic group (whether the grouping by race, creed, religion, gender, or nationable origin)… at the simplest level, a French/English pun would be appreciated more by people of French background than by (say) people of Japanese background. So I can understand someone thinking that my comments were funnier to one group over another… That is to say, different jokes appeal to different listeners.
However, what I don’t understand is what the ethnicity of the teller has to do with the appeal of a joke.
<< flips switch for Sarcasm Enabler and peers into crystal ball >>
Possible Mindset #1: Only Catholics are allowed to joke about Catholic things such as the Shroud of Turin.
Subset of Possible Mindset #1: Jews especially are not allowed to joke about Catholic things, because everybody knows they killed Jesus!
Possible Mindset #2: Only people who actually wear leisure suits are allowed to make jokes about them, e.g. WASPs.
Subset of Possible Mindset #2: Jews never wear leisure suits, everybody knows they only wear well-tailored three-piece suits, so a Jew making a joke about leisure suits just isn’t funny.
<< gives up trying to make a living with crystal ball, returns Sarcasm Enabler to “Ready”, and buys into a car wash franchise instead >>
I am sorry that this has been such a big matter i have now found new ivedintes to make me not to belive in the shroud i have found out that the have not found a single grain of olive pollin which if you know Iserel has lots of olive that is one of the main food. And as for the site that said the date was from 30 70 ad it was on TLC so you can search there to find it sorry.
“Sarcasm enabler”
I knew I forgot something in my post. Thanks Duck, er, Goose, er, uh…
I don’t get to use the N word though my homies and bro’s can. I could probably tell a funny story using the N word but the presumption would be that I am using it out of some ethnic disparagement. From your posts and enquiries directed to you, you are some kind of Jewish ethnicity expert. Anti-Christian comments from atheists and agnostics are to be expected. They find any religion ridiculous and fair game to be the butt of jokes. If a high profile Jew makes a similar comment, it smells of religous bigotry.
I am NOT Jewish and will retell the joke to see if it is any funnier as told by me–
"The liesure suit of Florence…<snip>
Get a life.
almost forgot–<sarcasm enabler off>
Y’know, just the other day, I heard a joke about an Irish priest, it was told to me by a Methodist. I probably shouldn’t have laughed, eh? And Whoopie Goldberg once made a joke about a white person, I probably shouldn’t have laughed at that either.
Damn, there was that joke about the kangeroo that comes into the bar… IT WAS TOLD BY A HUMAN BEAN, NOT BY A KANGEROO. Damn, shouldn’t have laughed at that one, either.
I gotta recalibrate my laugh-meter.
Come on folks: don’t you realise that billiethekid and mipsman also have their “sarcasm enablers” on. Surely. Indeed, I thought the OP was a nasty piece of bigotry disguised as humour.
picmr