THE SHROUD OF TURIN !! THE TRUE BURIAL CLOTH OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST !! 1

[GoodShepard007]

The image on the shroud is MYRRH. This is a liquid resin that comes from a tree. When it dries it becomes hard, glossy, light reflective and sensitive.

Nicodemus brought 100 lbs of myrrh and aloes to Jesus by night. In doing this the burial cloth became saturated with this and became a virtual photographic film plate. Aloes contain cellulose and when exposed to light forms a latent invisible image. That is exactly what we have on the Shroud. A drawing with light, a photograph.

[Raezene]

The Shroud is not really that impressive. Couldn't a person just wrap a painted person or statue in a cloth, then bake it. Why is it so impressive? I may as well believe the Crystal Skull was made by aliens, and Jesus really feels the need to appear on a tortilla.

[NilDesperandum777]

@Raezene They've tried and the image/information doesnt come anywhere close to the Shroud's image/info. Cloth, linen, has to obey the chemistry and physics of paint, which always soaks several levels into it's medium. The image on the Shroud isn't made of paint, and only present on the top 1/100th on the top fibril, about the depth of a human hair. It's impressive because it contains an inverted photographic negative, and 3D information...Know any artists that can do that with a paint brush?

[NilDesperandum777]

@Raezene Also, the faint image that is visible, is dispersed in dots, like that of a photocopier. So you have to reconcile that a piece of 2000 year old cloth has one barely visible image created with laser precision, and which also contains a positive image seen only through the process of photography, and 3D information encoded in the 2D image, which can be measured (And its the only thing in existence that does this) and extracted by late 20th and 21st C tech...Impressed yet?

[Raezene]

@NilDesperandum777 At least that is a bit more to go on. I'm not so trusting of religious icons of this nature due the fact that so many turn out to be poorly understood effects, or pure fakes. What I have read of the shroud in the past showed that it failed the carbon dating test (I know this is in dispute), and other results (like what you mentioned) are based on understandably limited samples. I'm not a unreasonable skeptic, but I do believe more testing is in order. I'll read more on it.

[NilDesperandum777]

@Raezene Good to hear! The C- 14 testing is long since been proven erroneous, there's no real acadmeic dispute to speak of. The Shroud is also, likely the most test artifact from antiquity so there is certainly a lot of information already gathered. Unlike other artifacts, The Shroud is entirely mystifying given the information present. As one person noted, there is no test for "Christness" but in consideration of all the known evidence, it begs the question, if not Jesus Christ, then who is it?

[xxXXRitchieXXxx]

@NilDesperandum777 Dont really matter that still dont prove god exists its just a man whos name possibly could be jesus or tom who could have lived long ago. That dont mean he was the son of an all powerful being or force so just throwing that out there.

[NilDesperandum777]

@xxXXRitchieXXxx That G-d exists is a different focus altogether. That this is the burial cloth of Christ another focus still. The conversation should be about the exceptional, exclusive properties within The Shroud and those pieces of evidence that establish it as something exceptional and exclusive in history. Once that's understood, the question arises if not Christ, then who? And if this is the burial Christ, then the rest of his contentions in the Gospel become very very important for all.

[NilDesperandum777]

@NilDesperandum777 * "...burial cloth of Christ..."

[jerico641]

Sorry, but these images don't prove a thing. Suppose they were genuine, and were produced during the Bronze Age; what difference would that make? It's still not evidence that a god exists. Now if you could get him to open his eyes and sing a little something for us, then we might have something..

[NilDesperandum777]

@jerico641 What it proves is that a burial shroud from 2000 years ago, in almost certainty, came from Jerusalem, possessing a man bearing the wounds and forensic evidence detailed in The Holy Bible attributed to Christ, contains on it, an image that cant be reproduced by 21st cent. tech, nor can present day science account for the process by which 3D information exists IN a 2D image . Leaving the argument for the existence of God out of it, questions are still begged...

[jerico641]

@NilDesperandum777

Sure, it's interesting (but on one thing you're not correct; the date of the cloth has not been indisputably confirmed), but many people want to use it as some kind of talisman to uphold their version of the supernatural, i.e, the christian ressurection story. It certainly doesn't prove that, or come anywhere near proving it, and more than cave paintings prove that sun gods existed.

[NilDesperandum777]

@jerico641 What is certain are those other elements that compose a very, very unique -- as in exclusive -- artifact. There's nothing in existence like it. Nothing that defies art and science like it. There are legitimate reasons why Christians hold it up to be evidence of the Ressurrection. To say it "certainly" doesnt prove that dismisses those unique qualities as being unable to lend credibility to that end, and that's not true either. The cave painting analogy is comparable how exactly?

[jerico641]

@NilDesperandum777

It's comparable in that some neolithic cave art depicts things that look a lot like "spaceships" and/or fantastic animals which never existed in nature cohabitating with human figures. They're obviously not the same medium as the shroud, but don't prove their depictions either. I believe the shroud was created by a man or woman sometime during the 15th Century; it is unique, yes, but if scientists had more access to it, they could probably solve the mystery of it's creation.

[NilDesperandum777]

@jerico641 There acrually isn't another artifact on the planet which has been examined more. I understand the analogy, but would have to correct a point or two. No historian doubts Jesus's existence. Consensus is overwhelming in this regard. What some may have issue with are His claims, but His existence isn't in question. In order for the analogy to approach a degree of congruency, those neolithic pieces would also have to contain inverse photo negatives, and 3D encoded information. (Cont..)

[jerico641]

@NilDesperandum777

Well, as references to a person called "jesus" all date from years after his supposed death (and most are only from one source: the bible), I'm not prepared to even say for certain that such a person actually existed at all. And scientists constantly state that if they could study more of the cloth for a longer period, maybe they could determine something new about it. It's unique, yes, and interesting, yes, but it was made by a human being of course, and isn't a "miracle".

[NilDesperandum777]

@jerico641 Academically speaking, its an overwhelming consensus that Jesus, the person in history is a real person. But you're welcome to your personal feelings, certainly. And while, scientists stat they "might" find something new given more time, consensus again, is that with current tech. they dont have the means to interpret the information they already have. Said differently, the tech, has to catch up to the artifact. Interesting, right? Made by a human? That might be the bigger miracle.

[NilDesperandum777]

(From Cont...) And further to the claim to art, you would have to source a process, science hasn't and can't determine. Paint has certain properties as does the medium it's applied to. Nevermind the actual technological implications, but one would have to invent a method by which a nigh-invisible image is somehow transferred onto cloth at 1/100th the depth or it's top fibril, and then explain how a photo-negative exists "inside" along with 3D information. Truly remarkable. (Cont..2)

[NilDesperandum777]

(From Cont 2...) Now, you're right in that, The Church hasn't officially proclaimed the Shroud to bear the image of Jesus Christ. As another has said, there is no scientific test for Christness. However, there are several undeniable points of consideration and provenance that certainly advance the plausible theory which asks, "If not Jesus Christ, then who?" In other words, the Shroud would be more miraculous if a) it wasn't Christ and b) it was made by human hands. (Cont 3 - Last...)

[NilDesperandum777]

(Cont. Last...) Thanks for reading by the way ;)...Historically speaking, science already disproved the medieval claim. C-14 was from a repair. The Prey Manuscript predates evidence for the Shroud by several hundred years past the 15th C. The Cloth of Oviedo - in Spain since the 6th C.AD, and held as the face cloth of Christ, was tested and found positive for human blood. Same thing with the Shroud. And the connection? It's the same blood on both artifacts....

[jerico641]

@NilDesperandum777

Well, since there's no "test for christness" I guess we're never going to agree on the central issue; I for one will never accept anything other than valid scientific proof for any claim that outlandish. and also, the way I remember it, that piece of cloth was never verified as coming from a repaired area; the scientists would have noticed that, in my view. Lastly, I'd have to have extensive proof of blood matches and dating techniques before I'd buy the facecloth thing.

[NilDesperandum777]

@jerico641 Not the case at all. Enough pieces of evidence eventually point to an irrefutable conclusion. You should really investigate -honestly -the findings, including, Ray Rogers who published in Thermochemica Acta the findings that the '89 test pieces were in fact, pieces or repaired cloth. Of note, Rogers was on the initial team that tested said pieces. The initial 1989 test is actually under suspicion as having been purposefully deceptive. Interesting to say the least.

[jerico641]

@NilDesperandum777

Well, I think one thing we might agree upon is that more testing does need to be done, if for no other reason than scientific curiosity (or in my case, proof of what the thing actually is). Btw, I thought that test took place in 1978. Lastly, I wonder why anyone would purposely perform a deceptive test?

[NilDesperandum777]

@jerico641 More testing, I think at this point will simply add to the "mystery" in terms of mechanics, but all of it, still under an umbrella that asks, how does technology not yet invented find it's way into a 2000 year old relic with every hallmark of the recorded, historical account of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ? The C-14 test that mainstream media continues to refer to is the 1989 test, long since disproved. As for deceit, I think there's heavy implications involved...

[timespacesoul01]

what is the name of the song !? it's lovely ....