Shroud of Turin

[Philip]

As for the reference to a cloak in 2 Timothy 4:13, I find it very difficult to believe that Paul would refer so casually to such an important connection to Jesus. Note also that within his same instructions he seems to indicate that the "parchments" are of even greater importance. Notice when referencing the "parchments," he doesn't say "writings," and thus it sounds like he's possibly referring only to writing materials. Also, I would think that the shroud would have been kept in a permanent and very safe location, likely within a church which was under the Apostles' authority. Traveling around with it would risk weather and other damage, not to mention it could fall into the wrong hands. And here's the other thing, Paul may not have even been aware of who had the shroud or of its remaining existence. To have such an important piece of evidence in hand, it is virtually inconceivable that scripture does not directly reference it or that there is not a strong stream of oral tradition about it.

[PaulSacramento]

As for the reference to a cloak in 2 Timothy 4:13, I find it very difficult to believe that Paul would refer so casually to such an important connection to Jesus. Note also that within his same instructions he seems to indicate that the "parchments" are of even greater importance. Notice when referencing the "parchments," he doesn't say "writings," and thus it sounds like he's possibly referring only to writing materials. Also, I would think that the shroud would have been kept in a permanent and very safe location, likely within a church which was under the Apostles' authority. Traveling around with it would risk weather and other damage, not to mention it could fall into the wrong hands. And here's the other thing, Paul may not have even been aware of who had the shroud or of its remaining existence. To have such an important piece of evidence in hand, it is virtually inconceivable that scripture does not directly reference it or that there is not a strong stream of oral tradition about it.

Paul was not what you would call a "sticklier" for the WHOLE of tradition, note that he never mentions ANY of the Women that were the first witnesees to Christ.

[bippy123]

I find this odd that it hasn't been bigger news. Am I missing something here? Found on the Turin.

The three letters were identified, reading from right to left as one does in Hebrew or Aramaic, as:
AYIN- ALEPH- NUN.
Calligraphy used to be my hobby, and as the letters of these alphabets are written in calligraphic form, I
used them many times to exercise my calligraphic skills, so I was very familiar with the shape of the
letters. However, I do not read Hebrew or Aramaic, so I consulted experts in old Hebrew and Aramaic.
They showed me the two most consulted Hebrew and Aramaic dictionaries: “A Comprehensive
Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English”, by Ernest Klein, and, “A
Dictionary of the Targum, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature”, by Marcus
Jastrow.
Here the Hebrew word is translated as: “small cattle, sheep, goats”. Meaning: A flock of little animals.
In the translation from Hebrew to Aramaic of Psalm 119:176, ibn Ezra translates this word as AN,
meaning the Lamb (research: Bishop Jacob Barclay).

Swimny, that is actually big news, but you really wont see it publicized in the media. Notice how the media went buckwild when a scientist allegedly recreated the shroud image, but the media went totally silent as soon as scientists determined that this recreation had none of the unique characteristics of the real shroud.

The AYIN- ALEPH- NUN reference was found on an ammulette that was placed below the chin on the image.
This is mentioned in the documentary "the fabric of time" by Doctor Petrus Soons.

Guys the documentary is on veoh, but im not sure its ok to post all 3 parts here. I cant stress how important it is to watch it, and if u can get the full dvd on amazon as it has additional special sections including more info on the sudarium of Oviedo where they actually show with a live person how it would have been wrapped around Jesus. There is also a thumb mark found on the sudarium (not a thumb print). Could this mark belong to Joseph of Arimathea?:)

[Swimmy]

I don't mind the skepticism. I mean has any relic to date been proven as divine or unexplainable?

What does bug me and I put it right in their face in every argument afterwards is when they claim they had the technology to forge it. Which is absurd.The technology did not exist 2000 years ago. I ask them how did they know what radiation was ? How did they know how to use it? What machines did they build? What computers were they using? A Apple Comp? If they had access to this technology wouldn't we be far more advanced than we are now? Even if we go by the medieval dates the tech still did not exist.

[bippy123]

I don't mind the skepticism. I mean has any relic to date been proven as divine or unexplainable?

What does bug me and I put it right in their face in every argument afterwards is when they claim they had the technology to forge it. Which is absurd.The technology did not exist 2000 years ago. I ask them how did they know what radiation was ? How did they know how to use it? What machines did they build? What computers were they using? A Apple Comp? If they had access to this technology wouldn't we be far more advanced than we are now? Even if we go by the medieval dates the tech still did not exist.

Swim this is exactly why I believe the shroud was created by the divine resurrection of our Lord and Savior. Not only was the technology not available in the middle ages or before, but the technology to recreate the shroud is not even available today.

This is why the shroud when studied thoroughly is a major thorn in the skeptics side, and it exposes their worldview as biased, antiscientific and anti reason. It forces them to abandon science and reason because when applied to the shroud it leads to the only reasonable explanation and that is the resurrection.

When I used to corner them on this science and reason goes flying out the door, and they will resort to the "it's only some dumb piece of cloth" and then they will bring up the image of Jesus on a peanut butter sandwich.
Every excuse but to look at the evidence.

Swim, the difference between the shroud and all the other relics is like comparing a one celled bacteria to a human being.
Over 300,000 man hours of research by the top scientists and experts in many different fields makes it the most studied relic on this planet. Nothing even comes close, and they are so obsessed with it that it made one medical doctor even swallow nuclear radioactive material to try to get closer to an answer.


The shroud is kryptonite to them hehe
Remember we still don't have the technology today to recreate it.

[DRDS]

Something else interesting I was going to share with you Bippy is the rather interesting channel on youtube. The user is called "goodshepard007" and some of his videos are informative like these...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMKFdp55KsQ&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okBY7sxAVQw&feature=plcp

And others are kinda weird. At least in the sense he claims in the videos of a "test" he is doing, he claims that God directly intervened on his technical instruments to give him a certain reading. You'll see what I mean in this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e81EysPQeRQ&feature=plcp

And there are a few others like this one, but more are basically informative ones like the first two that I posted. One more thing, regardless of whether or not he's faking miracles I really do love the Ben Hurr chariot race type music he uses in his videos. But anyway, let me know you take on this guy Bippy. Take care.

[bippy123]

Something else interesting I was going to share with you Bippy is the rather interesting channel on youtube. The user is called "goodshepard007" and some of his videos are informative like these...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMKFdp55KsQ&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okBY7sxAVQw&feature=plcp

And others are kinda weird. At least in the sense he claims in the videos of a "test" he is doing, he claims that God directly intervened on his technical instruments to give him a certain reading. You'll see what I mean in this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e81EysPQeRQ&feature=plcp

And there are a few others like this one, but more are basically informative ones like the first two that I posted. One more thing, regardless of whether or not he's faking miracles I really do love the Ben Hurr chariot race type music he uses in his videos. But anyway, let me know you take on this guy Bippy. Take care.

Hey DRDS, cool find. Just went through the first 2 videos . Its a very interesting case for the image being made from the myrrh, but fails to account for the xray properties on the shroud image. I would like to see someone present peer reviewed research on his theory. IM trying to find more information on this, because from I have read the image is not made from any substance. He does present an interesting case though and I havent found much on this .

The last video is beyond my understanding, but its also fascinating that he would be able to receive a signal in a certain hertz range. There is nothing in the shroud research literature about this kind of frequenzy signal, but this is good stuff. This is completely new territory for me, and thats what makes it interesting.
Gotta research this more, as I think it has to do more with the paranormal.

DRDS you gotta show me your search techniques man

[bippy123]

Facinating stuff, truly.
I must say that the more I read up on this the more I am becoming a believer.
Can I ask something?
Is there a detailed website to pdf or anything that I can get that shows the skeptics issues and what they are using to show that it is a fake and how these viewes and "evidence" have been shown to be false?
In other words, a detailed summary of answers to the critics?

Hey Paul I found another link to a 24 page pdf that deals mainly with answering the skeptics about the shroud.

You guys will really love this one

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sorensen2.pdf

[Swimmy]

Something else interesting I was going to share with you Bippy is the rather interesting channel on youtube. The user is called "goodshepard007" and some of his videos are informative like these...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMKFdp55KsQ&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okBY7sxAVQw&feature=plcp

And others are kinda weird. At least in the sense he claims in the videos of a "test" he is doing, he claims that God directly intervened on his technical instruments to give him a certain reading. You'll see what I mean in this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e81EysPQeRQ&feature=plcp

And there are a few others like this one, but more are basically informative ones like the first two that I posted. One more thing, regardless of whether or not he's faking miracles I really do love the Ben Hurr chariot race type music he uses in his videos. But anyway, let me know you take on this guy Bippy. Take care.

The myrrh doesn't explain as what bippy said. Also it leaves a simple explanation for the shrouds creation. This would only support the skeptics view and diminish its authenticity.

[PaulSacramento]

Facinating stuff, truly.
I must say that the more I read up on this the more I am becoming a believer.
Can I ask something?
Is there a detailed website to pdf or anything that I can get that shows the skeptics issues and what they are using to show that it is a fake and how these viewes and "evidence" have been shown to be false?
In other words, a detailed summary of answers to the critics?

Hey Paul I found another link to a 24 page pdf that deals mainly with answering the skeptics about the shroud.

You guys will really love this one

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sorensen2.pdf

You DA MAN dude !

[bippy123]

Facinating stuff, truly.
I must say that the more I read up on this the more I am becoming a believer.
Can I ask something?
Is there a detailed website to pdf or anything that I can get that shows the skeptics issues and what they are using to show that it is a fake and how these viewes and "evidence" have been shown to be false?
In other words, a detailed summary of answers to the critics?

Hey Paul I found another link to a 24 page pdf that deals mainly with answering the skeptics about the shroud.

You guys will really love this one

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sorensen2.pdf

You DA MAN dude !

Jesus is da Man, Im just a very willing follower

[bippy123]

Something else interesting I was going to share with you Bippy is the rather interesting channel on youtube. The user is called "goodshepard007" and some of his videos are informative like these...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMKFdp55KsQ&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okBY7sxAVQw&feature=plcp

And others are kinda weird. At least in the sense he claims in the videos of a "test" he is doing, he claims that God directly intervened on his technical instruments to give him a certain reading. You'll see what I mean in this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e81EysPQeRQ&feature=plcp

And there are a few others like this one, but more are basically informative ones like the first two that I posted. One more thing, regardless of whether or not he's faking miracles I really do love the Ben Hurr chariot race type music he uses in his videos. But anyway, let me know you take on this guy Bippy. Take care.

Ok DRDS, I was doing some late research (cant sleep cause my younger bro blasts his tv high at night in order for him to sleep, hes nuts lol). and I found the answer and it debunks the myrrh theory completely.

It is from another multi page article (Paul , this is another gem that you can tuck away for skeptics )

Ill quote just from the part that debunks the Myrrh theory

One of the most publicized attempts to do this was by Joe Nickell, an experimenter at the University of Kentucky and former magician who made a name for himself when he wrote about his experiment in the magazine "Popular Photography." He theorized that the Turin image was the result of a dry powder of myrrh and aloes brushed onto cloth stretched over a bas-relief figure, He was able to show that, indeed, a kind of image can be produced on cloth by this method, simulating some characteristics of the Turin Shroud, But there are several striking dissimilarities between his results and the actual Shroud image.

First, Nickell’s technique requires significant build-up of particles in the image area-something which microscopic inspection does not show on the Shroud of Turin. Additionally, the fire and water that came into contact with the Shroud during the fire of 1532 "would have affected an image formed with organic substances." [15] This did not happen with the Turin cloth, although it otherwise shows clear evidence of heat scorching and water marks. Secondly, there are serious aesthetic objections to the image produced by Nickell. His image, limited to the face, shows "nothing of the clarity and resolution of the image on the Turin Shroud" [16] but is crude and blurred. Nor does Nickell’s creation conform to the 3-D computer image of the Shroud-which provides one of the most striking arguments against its being a fraud. Furthermore, Nickell claims the rubbing technique he tried to duplicate was common in the art of the Middle Ages, and yet research in art history has yet to produce a single specimen hearing any appreciable degree of similarity to the characteristics of the Shroud.

No one who thinks scientifically will deny the authenticity of the Shroud.. P. Scotti Chairman of the 1939 Sindonology Congress


Although Nickeli's theory, like McCrone' s, is often used as prime evidence against the Shroud's authenticity, it is significant that neither of these theories have been supported by any respected scientific journal. And while the casual reader may be convinced by Nickel’s arguments, those abreast of sindonological research are appalled by the unscientific approach of Nickell, who misquotes or quotes out of context from various scientific and scholarly investigations.




This quote from the article "Additionally, the fire and water that came into contact with the Shroud during the fire of 1532 "would have affected an image formed with organic substances" Totally debunks this guys Myrhh theory because if the image was formed with myrrh it would have been effected by the fire and water that came into contact with the shroud during the 1532 fire. I knew there was areason why this guys theory wasnt taken seriously by any of the scientists or even atheists out there.

[Icthus]

Blippy, I have a Shroud question for you, or rather a series. I was browsing around when I found an article by Mark Antonacci and Patrick Byrne at http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/an ... 5-2012.htm. Like Sorensen, whose article you posted earlier, they think the Shroud is authentic, correct? I noticed that Sorensen finds it unlikely that radiation caused the image, preferring Roger's idea of a chemical reaction with the body. However, Antonacci and Byrne seem to consider Roger's explanation to be drivel. If I'm reading this correctly, what exactly does it mean?

On a similar note, Antonacci and Byrne seem skeptical of much of Roger's work, going so far as to claim that he is mistaken in identifying the pieces of the Shroud used in the 1988 carbon dating as unlike the rest of the Shroud. Am I reading that correctly? They claim:

"Significantly, when scientists at the University of Arizona’s radiocarbon laboratory examined samples remaining from their 1988 dating of the Shroud by UV fluorescence and photomicrographic analysis they found no evidence of any coatings or dyes as indicated by Rogers. They also found no evidence to support Rogers’ or the author’s position that their radiocarbon sample did not derive from the main part of the Shroud. When Italian scientists examined Shroud samples removed from the same area as Rogers’ samples, they too found the samples resembled those taken from the rest of the Shroud. Similarly, the detailed, close-up inspections of the front and back sides of the Shroud by textile and other experts also refute the views of Rogers, the authors and others who suggest the Shroud samples tested in 1988 came from an invisibly repaired region or were not taken from the main part of the cloth."

If this is their opinion, how do they deal with the radiocarbon test results? Any ideas?

On an unrelated note, I find it interesting that the man on the Shroud was apparently 9'11" - 6'1". Not that it's important, but I had imagined that Jesus would be shorter than that. If it's really him, he was quite tall for the first century (taller than I am in 2012). Anyway, I'd appreciate the input of one more familiar with the sources than I am.

[bippy123]

Icthus, this is why in my earlier post I told you guys that there was some infighting even between people that are pro authenticity. Antonacci I think ( but don't quote me on this) believes that whatever radiation hit the shroud caused it to be flooded with neutrinos, but the phenomena as so advanced in technology that it's beyond what we understand today. It's antonacci's theory.

Remember when I said that Rogers is an agnostic who stated on video that he doesn't believe in miracles.
But to me Rogers did get his work peer reviewed and he also shares his work with the rest of the sturp tram and the world.
But as I said before antonacci and Rogers went "no holds barred on each other" in a series of emails.
Remember also that the head of the c-14 testing was an atheist and they found an email or message of his where he asked a curator of another museum to supply him with another shroud that had been dated from the middle ages.

He denies it at first but when the message was supplies he later admitted it. For me I'd rather stick by what could be proven and there were also textile experts that showed that the area of that part that was tested was indeed dyed.
Like I also said in my previous post, the fact that when they went off camera at the precise point of the c14 testing and went into a separate room that cameras weren't allowed causes suspicion.

The one fact that was accepted by the sturp team was that the main part of the cloth is much much older that the part that was tested. The rest is just conspiracy right now and I'd rather stick to the facts.

There was one interesting tidbit that I was reading about a few years back, and that there was another rumor of another piece of the cloth separate from the c14 test cloth that was the actually tested to be from the time of Christ and one of the testers from that lab was later found dead of an apparent suicide.

Interesting isn't it

But like I said, I'd rather stick to what the actual scientists found from peer reviewed research.

My belief is somewhere in the middle and research is pointing in that direction, that the c14 testing was of a different sample then the rest of the image, but that a brilliant burst of radiation hit that cloth from the resurrection.
The most current 5 year tests of the ENEA showed that they were able to create a 2centimeter piece of the image that is very superficial and resembled that shroud image in thinness but that is only a few of the incredibly unique qualities on that shroud image and the rest of those qualities we haven't even come close to duplicating.

The technology on that shroud is still so far away from us that it seems to come from another dimension, but it's interesting that the research is starting to lead us towards some form of light and information.

what was it that was said in genesis?
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word(information) is God
And what else does it say in scripture? God is LIGHT

It's also very interesting that some people are going back to the transfiguration of Jesus on the mountain where be communicated with Elijah and Moses where the disciples saw Jesus's body shining with the brightness of the sun.

[bippy123]

Icthus, from my research that has come mainly from peer reviews articles, it was found that the height of Jesus in that image was between 5'9" and 5'11" inches which is still pretty tall for someone of that time, and all of the other sites where it's claimed that he was 6'10" and over had no credible evidence to back this up.