People have also seen Jesus on toast, walls, and even a dog's anus. I'm not trying to discount the authenticity of the shroud I'm just agreeing that sometimes, like Antonio Lombatti mentioned, people are trying too hard and read (pun intended) into things too much.

FTFA "proving"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

She asserts the words include the name "Jesus Nazarene" in Greek, proving the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have labeled Jesus a Nazarene without referring to his divinity.

Yes, because forgers are NEVER clever. Ever. They never spend any sort of effort on their hoax either.

Isn't that the plot of Foucault's Pendulum?

DRTFA

61 clicks & the link's farked?

So, wait...let me get this straight: a Vatican "researcher" claims to have found evidence that backs up their claims of a holy artifact being legitimate, and she's done it in such a way that reinforces their dogmatic and ideological standpoint? Color me shocked. Next you'll tell me that a study sponsored by Phillip Morris has proven that cigarettes have actually been GOOD for you all along.

And as long as I'm on the subject, I just love how religious types are all ready to embrace science when a "conclusion" you have to look at sideways and over-interpret to within an inch of its life supposedly "proves" one of their claims, but then turn around and wave off mountains of irrefutable data that counteracts the other 98%.

I've always felt the same way about science that the fundamentalists feel about religion: no, you don't get to pick and choose which parts you believe and don't based on your personal agenda. All or nothing. I refuse to tolerate you only using the scientific reasoning that's convenient to your argument just as much as you'd refuse to tolerate me picking out two easy-to-live-with commandments, and blowing off the rest because they don't mesh with my lifestyle.

MaxxLarge: So, wait...let me get this straight: a Vatican "researcher" claims to have found evidence that backs up their claims of a holy artifact being legitimate, and she's done it in such a way that reinforces their dogmatic and ideological standpoint?

Actually, I don't think the Vatican has an official standpoint on the shrine, other than "we have no standpoint."

"Dry Clean Only"

"Hang to Dry"

Treygreen13: "Hang to Dry"

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwinarrrrrrrrrr!

Use only non-chlorine bleach.

"stain guard expiration date; 32 AD"

Shroud of Ceiling Tile?



This was in the office next to me, but it got replaced before I could grab it.

Ancient Chinese secret, huh?

impaler: MaxxLarge: So, wait...let me get this straight: a Vatican "researcher" claims to have found evidence that backs up their claims of a holy artifact being legitimate, and she's done it in such a way that reinforces their dogmatic and ideological standpoint?

Actually, I don't think the Vatican has an official standpoint on the shrine, other than "we have no standpoint."

She's an historian who has access to vatican "secret archives", of which there are about 1000. She wrote a book about gay templars, too. Or something. She's not somebody who works for them so far as I can see.

vudukungfu: Treygreen13: "Hang to Dry"

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwinarrrrrrrrrr!

He nailed it.

Yeah, I mean, even if the cape is legitimate in this context, it doesn't prove that Mario ascended into the sky with a racoon tail, shot fireballs at lizards to restore the Kingdom, or rode on a dinosaur, or came back from the dead with a 1up. it just backs up some peopl's assertion that the cape came from Jersey, sometime in the early 80's. It still may be some other Mario's. We don't know. So, look, whether your overalls or red OR green, no one should be getting bent out of shape.

I thought the Shroud of Turin was officially proclaimed a hoax a couple months ago...FINALLY

As I understand it, the shroud was carbon dated in the 1980's, and dated to the 13th century. Everyone figured it was a fake. Then they had a conservator come in to repair some damage, and the conservator, after looking at the weave, basically said, "You should have just asked me first - this weave isn't from the thirteenth century - it is from far earlier- probably arond the time of Christ."

Turns out they had carbon dated a repair patch.

They have some fairly decent evidence that this was a burial cloth from a man that died around the time of Christ. They will NEVER be able to prove that it was the burial cloth of Jesus.

Popped in for Jebus in a dogs butt, leaving now without said prize.

Ozarkhawk: You should have just asked me first - this weave isn't from the thirteenth century - it is from far earlier- probably arond the time of Christ.

See above about forgers and effort put forth. It's impossible to accurately date an object by judging its construction technique -- once that technique is invented, it can be used at any time thereafter.

R.A.Danny: vudukungfu: Treygreen13: "Hang to Dry"

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwinarrrrrrrrrr!

He nailed it.

I was gonna take a stab at it...

Shroud of Turin = world's most famous pareidolia (new window)

Link FAIL

sulco: Shroud of Ceiling Tile?



This was in the office next to me, but it got replaced before I could grab it.

Dude, that's Jesus with one hell of a rack.

I saw jesus in my poop once. Then I flushed and he was gone. I like to think that he is hanging out with Mr Hanky now.

Wait, I thought the real Jesus wouldn't even have looked like a tall white Caucasian.

madcharlie: People have also seen Jesus on toast, walls, and even a dog's anus. I'm not trying to discount the authenticity of the shroud I'm just agreeing that sometimes, like Antonio Lombatti mentioned, people are trying too hard and read (pun intended) into things too much.

Here's the bottom line:

We will NEVER know and it's time to stop speculating.

Radio-carbon dating says its a fake, an usually that' be good enough for me, except that the shroud damn nearly burned up in a big smoky cathedral fire about 100 years ago, which totally screws up the accuracy of such dating

And against the dating there is the fact that the pollen grains found int he cloth are consitent with species you would expect to be in bloom in Jerusalem in springtime,

But against that is that fact that baking bronze statute to about 800 degrees and wrapping a wet linen cloth around it makes an image nearly identical to the Shroud image

But then you have this whacky writing discovery

but against that you have the highly unlikely idea that Jesus' name was actually Jesus (as opposed to Joshua or some other variant) and that in his lifetime anyone called him "Jesus of Nazereth" as opposed to something like Jesus bar Joseph or Jesus bar David or somesuch

Bottom line: It doesn't matter. No object will ever "prove" Jesus' existance, nor disprove it, so the shroud is what it has always been: An interesting object of religious art. Nothing more or less.

Ozarkhawk: They have some fairly decent evidence that this was a burial cloth from a man that died around the time of Christ. They will NEVER be able to prove that it was the burial cloth of Jesus.

The sad thing is that anyone cares if it is. It's just an object. Research is better spent on cures for diseases than "proving" the Bible. We've got sufficient evidence to say there was a dude called Jesus who claimed to be a prophet and lead a group that turned into a large social movement. Whether or not you believe what he says is a matter of faith, and doesn't need validation. That's like chapter one of basic science, limitations of the scientific method. Science tests how, and must be repeatable and testable. Divinity isn't a matter of science.

You can tell from looking at the image that it is a fake. If the cloth had been draped over a persons head, it "impression" would have the guy's whole face in a wrap-around. It wouldn't look like a photograph.
Or were 1st Century Hebrew burial shrouds strung on frames to act like awnings over the body?

Magorn:

Bottom line: It doesn't matter. No object will ever "prove" Jesus' existance, nor disprove it, so the shroud is what it has always been: An interesting object of religious art. Nothing more or less.

That's not true. A time machine is an object and could prove that he didn't exist.

venerant: Wait, I thought the real Jesus wouldn't even have looked like a tall white Caucasian.

Only tall, attractive white people are divine. Didn't you learn anything from greek statuary?

That doesn't look anything like a raptor. This is bull crap.

But when she cut out the words from photos of the shroud and showed them to experts they concurred the writing style was typical of the Middle East in the first century - Jesus' time.

So, if someone today knows how they wrote in "Jesus' time," isn't it just possible that someone in 13th-14th century also knew how they wrote in "Jesus' time," especially if they were trying to make a convincing forgery?

Or just read this (new window).

MaxxLarge: So, wait...let me get this straight: a Vatican "researcher" claims to have found evidence that backs up their claims of a holy artifact being legitimate, and she's done it in such a way that reinforces their dogmatic and ideological standpoint? Color me shocked. Next you'll tell me that a study sponsored by Phillip Morris has proven that cigarettes have actually been GOOD for you all along.

And as long as I'm on the subject, I just love how religious types are all ready to embrace science when a "conclusion" you have to look at sideways and over-interpret to within an inch of its life supposedly "proves" one of their claims, but then turn around and wave off mountains of irrefutable data that counteracts the other 98%.

I've always felt the same way about science that the fundamentalists feel about religion: no, you don't get to pick and choose which parts you believe and don't based on your personal agenda. All or nothing. I refuse to tolerate you only using the scientific reasoning that's convenient to your argument just as much as you'd refuse to tolerate me picking out two easy-to-live-with commandments, and blowing off the rest because they don't mesh with my lifestyle.

The Vatican, to its credit, has never taken a postion on the authenticity of The Shroud and has actually cooperated with scientists investigating it. In fact, in general, The Vatican's position of sueprnatural events is pretty close to the Amazing Randi's; and they send out teams of scientists to investigate and usually debunk any claims of miraculous occurances

Just for those looking for this.

Magorn: madcharlie: People have also seen Jesus on toast, walls, and even a dog's anus. I'm not trying to discount the authenticity of the shroud I'm just agreeing that sometimes, like Antonio Lombatti mentioned, people are trying too hard and read (pun intended) into things too much.

Here's the bottom line:

We will NEVER know and it's time to stop speculating.

Radio-carbon dating says its a fake, an usually that' be good enough for me, except that the shroud damn nearly burned up in a big smoky cathedral fire about 100 years ago, which totally screws up the accuracy of such dating

And against the dating there is the fact that the pollen grains found int he cloth are consitent with species you would expect to be in bloom in Jerusalem in springtime,

But against that is that fact that baking bronze statute to about 800 degrees and wrapping a wet linen cloth around it makes an image nearly identical to the Shroud image

But then you have this whacky writing discovery

but against that you have the highly unlikely idea that Jesus' name was actually Jesus (as opposed to Joshua or some other variant) and that in his lifetime anyone called him "Jesus of Nazereth" as opposed to something like Jesus bar Joseph or Jesus bar David or somesuch


Actually, Jesus's name in his native tongue is Yeshua. There is no j in the Hebrew alphabet.

Billzebub: R.A.Danny: vudukungfu: Treygreen13: "Hang to Dry"

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwinarrrrrrrrrr!

He nailed it.

I was gonna take a stab at it...

This article left me quite cross.

"She asserts the words include the name "Jesus Nazarene" in Greek, proving the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have labeled Jesus a Nazarene without referring to his divinity."

Well, that's irrefutable.

You hear that everyone? Now we have irrefutable proof that Jesus was real. Yay! Proof! No more need for faith. Faith is irrelevant. We have proof.

What makes me suspicious is the name of the company on the shroud's "Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law" tag: Lazarus and Sons Weavers, Founded 22 B.C.

MaxxLarge: ...me picking out two easy-to-live-with commandments, and blowing off the rest because they don't mesh with my lifestyle.

I'm interested in hearing which two.

Face of Jesus appears on Miracle Hippie

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32430

Shround of Turin? Tested multiple times, no evidence of blood or human tissue. Lots of evidence of paint and pigments though. Explained away as "Cosmetic Repairs" and such by the true believers.

They finally were allowed to do radiocarbon dating back in the early 90's from which the results definitively showed the cloth itself is about 400 years old. That little tidbit nailed the coffin shut rather effectively for me. It's a fake and that's that.

The true believers (of course) cried bullshiat, so they did it a second time at a different lab, same results within the margins of error.

The true belivers cried bullshiat once again.

If Jesus returned and met them in person to tell them it was a fake, they'd call him a liar to his face, and how dare he question their faith. That's how stubborn the shroud groupies are.

Since it's been debunked for what... 20 years now? Someone should grab that fake rag and burn it to ash once and for all, since the nutjobs won't let it go, and I'm totally sick of the inane back and forth.

impaler: FTFA "proving"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

She asserts the words include the name "Jesus Nazarene" in Greek, proving the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have labeled Jesus a Nazarene without referring to his divinity.

Yes, because forgers are NEVER clever. Ever. They never spend any sort of effort on their hoax either.

(added underlining to highlight TFA's quote)

Yeah, that made me facepalm. It's the old, "No-one from that time period would ever have possibly thought to write it that way in the forger's time, ergo it must be real" theory.

Yeah, and the pyramids couldn't have been built by hand so it must be aliens, and erosion couldn't possibly explain the depth of the Grand Canyon so it must have been built by a lazy Paul Bunyan dragging his axe.

give me doughnuts: You can tell from looking at the image that it is a fake. If the cloth had been draped over a persons head, it "impression" would have the guy's whole face in a wrap-around. It wouldn't look like a photograph.
Or were 1st Century Hebrew burial shrouds strung on frames to act like awnings over the body?

There's always arguments against... http://player2000gi.host-ed.net/turin.htm

It's probably real. My bedsheets have the outline of me on them, and upon careful examination, you can see where some of my bodily fluids have leaked out. This dates back to approximately 2001 A.D. which is the last time I did laundry.
Don't wash the shroud!