ADVERTISEMENT

New evidence suggests burial cloth ‘showing imprint of Jesus’ is REAL

NoleATL

NoleATL

HB Legend
Gold Member
Jul 11, 2007
34,479
37,079
113
I believe Jesus was a real person. I just don't believe the fantasy around being the son of God etc...

www.the-sun.com

Shock evidence suggests burial cloth 'showing imprint of Jesus' is REAL

SCIENTISTS have made a shocking new discovery which may reveal how Jesus was buried after he was crucified. The famed Shroud of Turin – a piece of linen cloth – has been a mystery to re…
www.the-sun.com www.the-sun.com

But the latest scientific revelation has revealed the cloth was first made around 2,000 years ago. The same time as when Jesus was said to be alive and ultimately crucified. Italian researchers used specialist x-ray technology to examine the linen sheet so they could place a date on when it was first manufactured. The Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council studied eight small samples of fabric to uncover tiny details of the linen's structure and cellulose patterns. They used specific ageing metrics such as temperature and humidity to conclude the results. Most predictions say Jesus was crucified on Friday, April 3, AD 33 based on the Julian calendar, Bible passages and gospels from the time. Meaning if the cloth was used for Jesus it would have been needed around 1,991 years ago. Leading people to believe the timelines may be accurate to determine the importance of the Shroud of Turin.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: pjhawk, Joes Place, FormerlyCyberCy and 1 other person
NoleATL said:
I believe Jesus was a real person. I just don't believe the fantasy around being the son of God etc...

www.the-sun.com

Shock evidence suggests burial cloth 'showing imprint of Jesus' is REAL

SCIENTISTS have made a shocking new discovery which may reveal how Jesus was buried after he was crucified. The famed Shroud of Turin – a piece of linen cloth – has been a mystery to re…
www.the-sun.com www.the-sun.com

But the latest scientific revelation has revealed the cloth was first made around 2,000 years ago. The same time as when Jesus was said to be alive and ultimately crucified. Italian researchers used specialist x-ray technology to examine the linen sheet so they could place a date on when it was first manufactured. The Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council studied eight small samples of fabric to uncover tiny details of the linen's structure and cellulose patterns. They used specific ageing metrics such as temperature and humidity to conclude the results. Most predictions say Jesus was crucified on Friday, April 3, AD 33 based on the Julian calendar, Bible passages and gospels from the time. Meaning if the cloth was used for Jesus it would have been needed around 1,991 years ago. Leading people to believe the timelines may be accurate to determine the importance of the Shroud of Turin.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I remember reading at one point that they though the imprint was significantly newer than the fabric, or something to that effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h-hawk, thewop and NoleATL
uTD8v_.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: torbee
Don't want to hijack the thread but...

Heard an interesting sermon a couple weeks ago. Basically the pastor was arguing that the new testament (everything post Jesus) should be the basis for everything regarding Christianity. Unfortunately the old testament was combined with the new testament for, at the time, basically political reasons to make "Christianity" more palitable for the masses at the time way back when.

He just was saying, in a nut shell, that a lot of the old testament conflicts with the teachings of Jesus.

At least that's what I got out of it...makes sense to me.

Christianity would be a lot different now if it was strictly based off the new testament and wasn't combined with the old testament. At the time he argued it was to assuage believers in the old testament and make Christianity more palatable to them. Interesting sermon...

(edit: By embracing the old testament, Paul and others were trying to find a path to avoid persecution and give their movement authenticity...this is my interpretation)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mphawk, cigaretteman, FlickShagwell and 2 others
binsfeldcyhawk2 said:
Don't want to hijack the thread but...

Heard an interesting sermon a couple weeks ago. Basically the pastor was arguing that the new testament (everything post Jesus) should be the basis for everything regarding Christianity. Unfortunately the old testament was combined with the new testament for, at the time, basically political reasons to make "Christianity" more palitable for the masses at the time way back when.

He just was saying, in a nut shell, that a lot of the old testament conflicts with the teachings of Jesus.

At least that's what I got out of it...makes sense to me.

Christianity would be a lot different now if it was strictly based off the new testament and wasn't combined with the old testament. At the time he argued it was to assuage believers in the old testament and make Christianity more palatable to them. Interesting sermon...
Click to expand...
Agree. The New Testament overall is a very enlightened document and one could argue perhaps the best evidence that perhaps it was divine in origination.

Funny enough in this timeline but it is absolutely a liberal manifesto including such ideals of the meek inheriting the earth, loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, being tolerant and helping the sinners and poor, and biggest of all: hoarding of wealth is a sure way to not go to heaven.

The Old Testament is a bunch of ancient myths, much appropriated from other nearby polytheistic religions.

Regarding the original topic, one intriguing thing about Jesus is how little if any is recorded by historians in Roman Empire and Middle East of him…virtually no account of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman, nelly02, FlickShagwell and 1 other person
binsfeldcyhawk2 said:
Don't want to hijack the thread but...

Heard an interesting sermon a couple weeks ago. Basically the pastor was arguing that the new testament (everything post Jesus) should be the basis for everything regarding Christianity. Unfortunately the old testament was combined with the new testament for, at the time, basically political reasons to make "Christianity" more palitable for the masses at the time way back when.

He just was saying, in a nut shell, that a lot of the old testament conflicts with the teachings of Jesus.

At least that's what I got out of it...makes sense to me.

Christianity would be a lot different now if it was strictly based off the new testament and wasn't combined with the old testament. At the time he argued it was to assuage believers in the old testament and make Christianity more palatable to them. Interesting sermon...

(edit: By embracing the old testament, Paul and others we're trying to find a path to avoid persecution and give their movement authenticity...this is my interpretation)
Click to expand...
To be sure, in the earliest days of Christianity, there was a very long - and very robust - debate about what the relationship was between Christianity and Judaism (the same? completely new? chapter 2?), as well as (for that matter) the relationship between Christianty and Greek philosophy. I don't think it's quite fair to say that where we ended up (on both questions) was simply a matter of evangelical appeal. I also think it understates how much early Christians believed it to be a distinct break from Judaism. (For example, Acts 10 might suggest that the "explotiable market" wasn't in Judaism but rather in "gentilism", and that's actually how it played out eventually, and the (slightly later, per Augustine) Christian concept of original sin is not how Judaism interprets the Genesis story.) But in both cases - and for different reasons - a fair reading would be that Christianity sort of engaged in a little bit of "first draw the curves, then plot the data", and 'picked and chose' some elements of Judaism and Greek philosophy in developing early doctrine. In the case of the relationship to Judaism, one of the reasons that happened was because Judaism was in a fair bit of disarray post-Roman exile, and thus not in a particularly good position to 'defend' its own interpretation of its own scripture. For my part, I think they got it right as a consistent soteriological history, and there are so many base elements of core Christian doctrine that flow from it. But more importantly, people of the time took this stuff much more seriously as a theological matter than simply crafting a marketing message -- getting it right was actually a matter of life and death to them.

For a more in depth overview, if this sort of stuff interests you, I recommend reading the first chapter of the first volume of the great historian Jaroslav Pelikan's "The Christian Tradition" (which chapter, ironically enough, I just finished rereading last night), or for a somewhat lighter and quicker touch considering the issue through the 'prism" of the historical Mary, take a look at the beginning of his "Mary Through the Centuries."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyetraveler and binsfeldcyhawk2
Seems the more they set out to prove the Bible wrong, the more it's proven plausible.

In the case of Jesus, there were many eyewitnesses, which is why the story has and will endure forever.

I believe it unlikely the shroud is really the shroud of Jesus. I'm more inclined to believe it's a revenue generator for the Catholic Church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelbybirth
fredjr82 said:
Whatever it takes for religious people starting to include Science in their reasoning.
Click to expand...
The whole world of relics is fascinating. Having actually gone to a shroud lecture a few years back, it struck me as fair to say that (I) you hear some good science that is 'consistent' with the tradition of the relic, and (ii) you hear some science that you know is just intuitively bad. In some ways, I suppose, it's a perfect illustration of the problem of science insisting on its methods to prove theology, and vice versa. In both cases, you're never going to quite get there.

Because to me, what's actually more interesting than whether it's "real" or not is seeing people of faith as they contemplate a relic. Again, some of them are 'simple,' and some are among the most complex thinkers on real world questions that I know. Yet in both cases, the relic evokes a contemplation of the underlying story that is emotionally and spiritually compelling. So like rituals, relics are not magical, but the tradition associated with them serves a much bigger purpose of stimulating and reinforcing those more important things believed to be true by reason and faith. In its own way, the "Weeping Madonna" scene from "We're No Angels" was a pretty nice reflection of this.
 
Last edited:
Funky Bunch said:
I'm no scientist, but I would think the shroud would need to be on the body for years for the imprints to be there and last 2,000 years. But his body was gone after 3 days, right?
Click to expand...
i'm not up on all the details of the shroud, but what supposed caused the imprint/markings in the first place?

you can lay a piece of linen on a face, body, or any other object and it doesn't automatically develop an image of the thing it's draped over

so what supposedly caused the image to appear?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
jneffer said:
i'm not up on all the details of the shroud, but what supposed caused the imprint/markings in the first place?

you can lay a piece of linen on a face, body, or any other object and it doesn't automatically develop an image of the thing it's draped over

so what supposedly caused the image to appear?
Click to expand...
there's actually a 'theory' (generously described) behind this that struck me as part of the intuitively bad science that I referenced above, so I won't try to reiterate it here. but other parts of the shroud apparently have things like blood, etc. that has been tested in various ways and found directionally consistent with (or at least not directionally inconsistent with) the shroud tradition.
 
jneffer said:
i'm not up on all the details of the shroud, but what supposed caused the imprint/markings in the first place?

you can lay a piece of linen on a face, body, or any other object and it doesn't automatically develop an image of the thing it's draped over

so what supposedly caused the image to appear?
Click to expand...

Jesus juice. Paul talked about in one of the Corinthians I think.
 
I don't suspect it's actually Jesus's burial cloth but I'm also not a person that depends on relics for my faith.

Would be cool if it was but I don't know how one would ever prove that.
 
Hoosierhawkeye said:
I don't suspect it's actually Jesus's burial cloth but I'm also not a person that depends on relics for my faith.

Would be cool if it was but I don't know how one would ever prove that.
Click to expand...
The Shroud of Turin has been around for a long time. It has already been debunked as the burial cloth of Jesus. It first showed up in France in the 1300s. The pope even rejected its authenticity. Modern scientists studied it and are inconclusive on the date, original estimates were late Middle Ages, but deem the blood stains could not have actually come from Jesus.

The authenticity of the cloth neither proves nor disproves the resurrection of Jesus, so it’s much ado about nothing regardless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h-hawk, HawkBall23 and tarheelbybirth
RagnarLothbrok said:
Your god rules; his non god drools. CSB.

As much of a piece of shit as you are on here, you don’t represent your god very well.
Click to expand...
If you think I'm a pos, then I'm headed down the right path. You are nothing but a fraud who claims he was a Republican but is obviously a full throated liberal. I guess in your mind that makes you open to new ideas and shows your ability to evolve. It actually just proves you are a liar and easily swayed by the liberal media and the "feel good" crowd rather than by the truth and facts. Now please try your schtick on someone more easily swayed.
 
abby97 said:
If you think I'm a pos, then I'm headed down the right path. You are nothing but a fraud who claims he was a Republican but is obviously a full throated liberal. I guess in your mind that makes you open to new ideas and shows your ability to evolve. It actually just proves you are a liar and easily swayed by the liberal media and the "feel good" crowd rather than by the truth and facts. Now please try your schtick on someone more easily swayed.
Click to expand...

You are really f@cking unlikeable and weird.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: hawkeyetraveler, This_Hawk_Abides, Bierhalter and 2 others
abby97 said:
If you think I'm a pos, then I'm headed down the right path. You are nothing but a fraud who claims he was a Republican but is obviously a full throated liberal. I guess in your mind that makes you open to new ideas and shows your ability to evolve. It actually just proves you are a liar and easily swayed by the liberal media and the "feel good" crowd rather than by the truth and facts. Now please try your schtick on someone more easily swayed.
Click to expand...
Instant validation of my point.

Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AuroraHawk
binsfeldcyhawk2 said:
Almost all of it in the old testament.
Click to expand...
And New Testament.

Jesus was a failed prophet, for one. And none of the gospel accounts of his resurrection story can get their facts straight. It’s also interesting that the first gospel, Mark, ended his gospel with the crucifixion of Jesus in the early manuscripts. The ending of Mark as we know it today was added later. Same with the story of the woman caught in adultery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2
Aardvark86 said:
To be sure, in the earliest days of Christianity, there was a very long - and very robust - debate about what the relationship was between Christianity and Judaism (the same? completely new? chapter 2?), as well as (for that matter) the relationship between Christianty and Greek philosophy. I don't think it's quite fair to say that where we ended up (on both questions) was simply a matter of evangelical appeal. I also think it understates how much early Christians believed it to be a distinct break from Judaism. (For example, Acts 10 might suggest that the "explotiable market" wasn't in Judaism but rather in "gentilism", and that's actually how it played out eventually, and the (slightly later, per Augustine) Christian concept of original sin is not how Judaism interprets the Genesis story.) But in both cases - and for different reasons - a fair reading would be that Christianity sort of engaged in a little bit of "first draw the curves, then plot the data", and 'picked and chose' some elements of Judaism and Greek philosophy in developing early doctrine. In the case of the relationship to Judaism, one of the reasons that happened was because Judaism was in a fair bit of disarray post-Roman exile, and thus not in a particularly good position to 'defend' its own interpretation of its own scripture. For my part, I think they got it right as a consistent soteriological history, and there are so many base elements of core Christian doctrine that flow from it. But more importantly, people of the time took this stuff much more seriously as a theological matter than simply crafting a marketing message -- getting it right was actually a matter of life and death to them.

For a more in depth overview, if this sort of stuff interests you, I recommend reading the first chapter of the first volume of the great historian Jaroslav Pelikan's "The Christian Tradition" (which chapter, ironically enough, I just finished rereading last night), or for a somewhat lighter and quicker touch considering the issue through the 'prism" of the historical Mary, take a look at the beginning of his "Mary Through the Centuries."
Click to expand...
Good take.

Lately, I’ve been reading and contemplating a lot on what the disciples and early church members must have been thinking. The struggle to forego their old Jewish ways but keep their culture probably rattled their brains.

I keep thinking to God’s pattern of preparation and how this was likely a “don’t overthink it” moment for God but humans of course, humans had to over-think.

The foreshadowing and Old Testament fulfillment should have been more than obvious to them. But I often think the role John the Baptist played. Jesus’s cuz and a man they all were familiar with literally paved the way for Jesus AND his purpose. Of course, I understand how they could have been rattled. I think Paul’s conversion and ministry helps us, the reader here. But in those early years before Paul - I can’t imagine.

Of course, to go along with the pattern of preparation, I think the Greeks in Asia Minor benefitted from Platoism as a framework to accept the Gospel message. I do not think that is any accident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aardvark86
Flie said:
Interesting. I remember reading at one point that they though the imprint was significantly newer than the fabric, or something to that effect.
Click to expand...
This seems like a pretty significant assumption.

" The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition, under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 C— and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe. To make the present result compatible with that of the 1988 radiocarbon test, the TS should have been conserved during its hypothetical seven centuries of life at a secular room temperature very close to the maximum values
registered on the earth."

It is reasonable to be skeptical of an experimental dating method particularly when a more established one has a different date. Additionally it would only identify the age of the material. People reuse materials all of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cigaretteman

Why Trump Is Promoting Conspiracy Theories About Harris’s Crowds

Replies
1
Views
199
Off Topic
sober_teacher
S
H

J6 Pipebomb

Replies
25
Views
632
Off Topic
nelly02
nelly02
cigaretteman

A trio of silly, false claims that JD Vance makes about Kamala Harris

Replies
1
Views
103
Off Topic
Scruddy
Scruddy
Colonoscopy

A Legendary American Photograph

Replies
1
Views
187
Off Topic
Hawki97
Hawki97
cigaretteman

Opinion New York judge’s ruling on evidence couldn’t have gone worse for Trump

Replies
2
Views
265
Off Topic
ft254
ft254
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back