Yep, definitely another of Mel's weirdo branch of Catholicism, the "Veil of Veronica" story

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa060799.htm

Just wondering... Is all this stuff about Jesus, Christ or not, gonna subside some time soon?!

Of course it will. Right after Easter, just like it does every year.

Got beaten to pointing out the Veil of Veronica tidbit. Darnit.

Ah well. For those raving about the DaVinci Code, I wholeheartedly suggest reading some of the historical work it's based on, specifically Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Interesting stuff, never comes right and and says it's view is THE truth, but continually pulls "well, isn't THAT interesting. And look at THIS...." So much good info in there regarding lots of stuff.

whidbey65

Art Bell is still on the air, and still as unintentionally hillarious as ever.

aesc

The biggest reason to claim it is a forgery is the image itself. That Jesus looks awfully European to me and the physical descriptions from the bible certainly don't include long Bon Jovi hair.


Aesc: Where in the Bible are there descriptions of what jesus looked like?

In an exsquisite society based on deep science and high technology, of what import is this simple cloth?

oh...none...right.

/sad today for homosapiens

I watched this last night too. The expert on radioactivity seemed to be more than a little weird. First, he injected himself with some radioactive substance, then he claimed that the image on the shroud was made as it "passed through" the body of jebus when he rose from the dead.
Some of the other experts seemed believable- like the guy who figured out the water stain patterns. But then again, that doesn't prove the shroud is authentic.
It was an interesting program, all in all. I'll take this type of show over another jebus miniseries or movie anyday.
*The closest I'm going to come to seeing The Passion is last week's South Park.

Lord Marquis: Right on. Good Omens is a great book!

On a much earlier topic...As far as the Discover Channel's metallic elephant beating the metallic Rhino....I call B.S. An elephant would get worked by a rhino.

Aesc: Where in the Bible are there descriptions of what jesus looked like?

Snap, I wish I knew the answer to that. It's been a long time since I read the Bible.

And yet, I'm taking it on good faith that since Christ lived in early AD Israel, he probably wasn't white.

Frankly, I don't know why Christ's race, his burial shroud or other such nonsense are so important to people. I figured the part about him being a Messiah and his teachings would be the important matters.



Jesus was a Jew from the house of David. (as fortold by phrophecy) Since there is no physical description of him in the King James Bible. We could resoanable assume he looked like any other jew from the time. He would have had long hair, big nose, middle eastern camel jocky look.


/happy Pesach

rockthacasbah
Art Bell is still on the air, and still as unintentionally hillarious as ever.

Art Bell is not untintentionally hilarious. He is intentionally playing his stupid audience. He is good at it.

I cut open a cucumber once and saw the face of St. Looney up the cream bun and jam.

/used that joke earlier, apoligies.

I think it's great that so many like-minded intelligent people are so interested in the fact or fiction of the shroud. 100s of channels, and we chose PBS.

wow, am I on top of things or what?

/d'oh!

yah yah, give it another month or so, they'll launch a new investigation into the Ark because some farmer found some rotting wood somewhere. It must be the ark!

I'd rather follow the holy gourd.

loki see loki do

Yep, definitely another of Mel's weirdo branch of Catholicism, the "Veil of Veronica" story


I was raised Roman Catholic (now jewish), and the nuns in school told us the story of the veil of Veronica. I don't think Mels dad's sect has a monopoly on it.

and all of a sudden, religious conservatives say "hey, wait a minute... let's keep this 'PBS' thing around a little while longer... it's just getting good."

Jesus is a lie. If you believe in god, I have to automatically write you off as a simple-minded, possibly insane fool.

^
|

Maple sysrup....

Wow.

I would guess most people would right you off just as well.

/I assume you are just farking around. But wow.

DM
Yesh, but it's still a kind of obscure story. Not every Caholic has heard of it, dat fo sho.

i-likes-maple-syrup -- That's pretty bold! First, you can call it god or not, but no human being can admit to understanding the intricate workings of the universe and even cosmologically, there comes a point where all the science in the world fails and an answer can't be given to exactly how the universe started (i.e., where the stuff came from for the big bang, into what it expanded, what lies at the end of the universe, ad infinitum). So at the very least, even the most educated, studied people could only logically admit there's something at play here we can't fathom -- Called God, higher power, whatever, to make it easier to talk about at the very least.

Now organized religion is a whole other kettle of fish!

Um, who cares about the dumb Shroud of Turin? It's wholly irrelevant in everything. I agree with Danger Mouse. Just think what Christians would be like if they actually read the words of Jesus. They'd be tolerable! They would realize, as I do, that pride, self righteousness and judgement of others are expressly forbidden to us by God. They are our spiritual sins, no better than fornication or homosexuality. (Why do the sexual sins rate so high anyway, hmmmm?) How about prejudice and selfishness- I would think they would be worse since they infect your soul, don't just get your pee-pee dirty.

Anybody else notice that the people in this article who think the shroud is bullshiat are Jewish?

/flame on

ay-yie-yie! To anyone with an appreciation of art history, it's clearly a painting of Jesus, made during the renaissance. Whether the motive was to create a fake shroud or just a piece of art may never be known.

But by simple common sense you can tell it is a painting because when you WRAP anything, just like when you roll an inked fingerprint on a piece of paper, you get ALL SIDES of the image. The face on the shroud is a STRAIGHT ON image in which hair, nose, eyes, cheeks, and chin all get equal representation, and all from a perspective that any photographer would tell you looks like a portrait lens.

There are tortillas with more realistic images of Christ on them.

pulse2600


Do yo think the shroud is bullshiat?

It's Jaques De Molay... I read it in a book so you know it's true.

/second messiah

And lo, i-likes-maple-syrup said:
"Jesus is a lie. If you believe in god, I have to automatically write you off as a simple-minded, possibly insane fool."

These people, at some point, have expressed publicly that they believe in "god" (or that Jesus is a non-lie):
Alice Cooper
Robert Duvall
Tom Hanks
H.G. Heinz
Fred Rogers
Sam Walton
Elijah Wood
John Woo
C.S. Lewis
J.R.R. Tolkien
Johnny Cash
George Washington Carver
Samuel Morse
Isaac Newton
Louis Pasteur
Wilbur & Orville Wright
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
John Adams
Patrick Henry
Copernicus
Galileo Galilei
Blaise Pascal
Lord Kelvin

Yep, what a bunch of fools. Who would listen to any of these twits?

/bevetschu, I choose you!

Those of you who liked the Da Vinci Code might want to read the original novels it was plagiarised from.

No, I'm not kidding. Google is your friend.

--oberon

Hey man, I'm beettin' Jesus prolly wasn't a lie. Maybe the magic stuff is, but the words are pretty good stuff.

I know I'm missing some point there.

I'm simply wondering what interest certain of you have in asserting on one piece of evidence (carbon dating) that the shroud is no more than, oh, let's be generous, 800 years old?

OK, sure, carbon dating is wonderful and interesting. It also has limitations. The shroud was in a fire. It underwent temps upwards of 400 degrees Farenheit. It has burn holes where molten silver dripped through it. Maybe, just maybe, that could have screwed with the carbon ratios.

Back in the mid-80's when they did all the intensive testing on it, they tried to get artists to reproduce the shroud. Then they ran the reproductions and the original through imaging technology at JPL designed to interpret photos from space probes: it gives depth to 2-D images in proportion to brightness. The shroud image gave a credible human face in 3-D: none of the artists' efforts did. This could, of course, be coincidence.

Here is an attempt at a comprehensive listing of papers (and some articles) on the shroud. Note the papers "Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs" and "Concerning the Side Strip on the Shroud of Turin" which deal with suspected problems with the samples taken for carbon dating.

...and Alice should know, he went to Hell.

/sand dancer come on
(obscure album probably)

Why would a fire change the carbon dating figure? You aren't suggesting that a tiny bit of soot could affect a sample are you, when the greatest portion of hte sample would have to be from the cloth itself?

nicnicnic.

Why would a fire change the carbon dating figure? You aren't suggesting that a tiny bit of soot could affect a sample are you, when the greatest portion of hte sample would have to be from the cloth itself?

Did he say anything about soot? Did you read any of the linked articles he mentioned?

No, it was a question.

Question: If the Shroud of Turin were to be found true, would this then be proof of faith?

I watched that show last night, too. They didn't prove anything. All they said was it was a piece of cloth that *might* date to the first century.

Ok. So? That alone doesn't make it any more of a relic than my poo.

Just because something is old doesn't make it true. Just as something new isn't "better."

About the image: I liked the silver nitrate test personally. Nice. So we have a really old photo (sorta.) I've got some old photos too. One is my great, great, grandfather. Big deal. Hell, if that was a pic of some first century dead dude, that's still pretty cool.

Plus, just because the cloth might be old doesn't make it related to the mytholigical Jesus in any way. I can, for instance, buy an old Apple ][, that doesn't make it Woz'--even if I write his name on it.

The show proved nothing. One thing they should have done is tried a DNA analysis on the blood from the shroud and the face napkin. (If possible.) If they matched then at least they'd know they were related. (And we could clone the dude, Jurasic Park style! Talk about having your own personal Jesus!)

Let me get this straight:

Religious groups believe this shroud was used to wrap Jesus' body, based its appearance and other pieces of evidence. Thats fine, what interests me however is that they use carbon dating to backup their claim.

Isnt carbon dating the exact same science that religious groups vehemently deny because It proves the falseness of the creation theory? (ie, Stuff being dated WAYYYYYYY older than the supposed time of creation).

Therefore, I have now learned that:

If science can prove the existance of God, or "his" son, or anything else that was written about in the bible, Its good.

If science can dispel any "truths" told in the bible, it is pagan witchcraft.


I call shenanigans... Everyone get their brooms.

Religious groups believe this shroud was used to wrap Jesus' body, based its appearance and other pieces of evidence. Thats fine, what interests me however is that they use carbon dating to backup their claim.

Isnt carbon dating the exact same science that religious groups vehemently deny because It proves the falseness of the creation theory? (ie, Stuff being dated WAYYYYYYY older than the supposed time of creation).

In general, most Christians I know personally don't believe the shroud is real and have no problem with carbon dating. It's just the fundies who make all the noise who give religious groups a bad name.

Danger Mouse -

When I first heard about it years ago, I had my doubts. Then I read a shiatload about it from all sorts of sources and I believe it is real. That PBS show last night included some tests, viewpoints, etc I haven't read or heard anywhere. I thought the guy who tried to disprove it with his "ancient photograph" theory was pretty interesting.

Regardless, a fake/real verdict on the authenticity of the shroud will not change my religious views...when people start using stuff like this as a litmus test for the existance of God or Jesus, they are splitting hairs while missing the big picture of faith. Science can not explain religion, and religion can not explain science.

From the article:
Harvard's Joseph Greene:"They are not the results of serious scholarship."

Joe Zias of Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "Not only is it a forgery, but it's a bad forgery."

What burns me the most about this whole thing is when you hear about "scientists" protesting "proof" that a religious object is "real" and then notice that those "scientists" share a common socio-religious background that could influence their results. Give me a group combined of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, maybe even athiest scientists that protest or reinforce the results together instead and I will give them more credit. Because no matter what they say, their combined statement can not be blamed on religion or culture.

My girlfriend is a scientist (chemistry/biochemistry) and thought some of the tests described on the TV show last night were good, legitimate tests, although they do not conclusively prove or disprove the shroud. She agreed the Carbon 14 reading could be false, and that proteins and other biological materials on the shroud could skew the results. She said multiple tests from different areas of the shroud should have been done and was surprised that was not the approach they took. No hypothesis can be proven or disproven with only one test - the same test must be run many times and with different parameters. And although she is Christian, she questions a great many things about religion and takes nothing at face value.

2004-04-08 12:24:37 PM The Slush

Even if the shroud is proven to be ~2000 years old, how does that prove it belonged to Jesus? Am I missing something?

That is a good question. I am not saying it is authentic (I am more of an atheist than anything anyhow), but if you look at the shroud closely, you will see that there are some distinctive signs that point to it being Christ. In particular, wounds that correspond to the Crown of Thorns and the nail marks. Go here for examples (new window) and click on Image Diagram.

These don't prove it is authentic, but remember, they usually tied people to the cross, not nail them. There are other details that people use to claim it is real, but I don't know much about it. Google it if you are curious. I just find the whole controversy interesting.

I thought using quotation marks to effect sarcasm went out after Dr. Evil and his "laser" made it so yesterday.

Can't we all just get along?

But does this explain how Hellboy made the dead russian guy talk or what happened to Frank from the Larry Sanders show?

Diogenes, you took my follow-up question.

But then, should all faith remain unquestioned?

NathanAllen, saw Hellboy last night. Meh! Wasn't sure if the mythos of this movie was Lovecraftian, Biblical, or fullocrappian.

From the Turin FAQ.
Would God use evidence?
Why not? If the Shroud is authentic, then it must have a purpose. There are only two things that make sense.

It was left as a vehicle to strengthen the faith of those who already believe
(more edited out)

So if you really believe in God can you doubt or understand ANYTHING he does? And since God is all everything, can you understand or ask a reason for anything?
/bringing logic knife to a religious fight

......and I don't remember a shroud....although we were both naked most of the time.....

/hell?....boy I hope I'm right.