|
Post by element771 on Aug 25, 2008 21:15:12 GMT
I sense some of you thinking....oh boy here we go with the crazy conspiracies and pseudoscience. Anyway, remain open minded and take a look at the following site. www.shroudstory.com/There are plausible errors that could have led the C14 dating to be obscured as well as other evidence to suggest that the shroud is about 2k years old that has been published is peer reviewed journals. shroudofturin.wordpress.com/fact-check/That being said, I am still skeptical but curious. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by element771 on Aug 28, 2008 12:31:52 GMT
No takers.....
Waste of time? or Not Interested? or Pseudoscience therefore Not Interested?
Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 28, 2008 13:33:58 GMT
I don't want you to feel ignored, so I'll just say I find it mildly interesting, but not of great importance. Mainly because I think it is an obscure scientific puzzle of little christian significance, because even if it was genuinely a 1st century image of unknown cause, I can't see how it can ever really be connected to Jesus with assurance. But what would I know?
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Aug 28, 2008 14:27:16 GMT
I just find the whole Turin Shroud thing wildly improbable. It lacks a reliable provenance. The best that has been suggested is that it was one of the Veronicas attesting the Constantinople and brought back by the fourth crusade. But that begs too many questions.
The science and the provencance both point in the same direction. If new tests do show a fairly conclusive first century date, I might perk up but otherwise, it is unlikely I'd care much.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by element771 on Aug 28, 2008 16:52:41 GMT
Cool...
Thanks a bunch for the input. Unfortunately I don't think that they will do anymore dating analysis.
Thanks for the replies....didn't mean to be a nuisance. : )
|
|
|
Post by TheistusMaximus on Aug 29, 2008 9:41:11 GMT
I was fairly swayed by the Shroud for the longest time.
I can't say definitely why this isn't the case anymore, but I find it peculiar that a relic can be so finely preserved for over 1100 years before finally being noticed.
Moreover, even if the Shroud was proven to be mysteriously difficult to reproduce by using Medeival technique, what would that prove in and of itself? It wouldn't explicitly prove the resurrection, and if it were debunked, Christianity would still have a strong foundation for believing God revealed himself throughout history.
I don't like the idea of laymen converting to Christianity only because of the Shroud, which is what tends to happen.
|
|