August 21, 2016 — Paul Davids

[Walter Bosley]

Similar to how you 'responded' to Alejandro Rojas on 8/14 Ep then I guess...
How admirable.

Not clear on your point here.

You do realize that I take most conversation here in the forum less serious as time goes on, right?
I like when people express thoughts or ideas, but not so much the other stuff.

 

[AlanValiant]

When I set about answering the question of whether or not Jesus actually existed, I had, like most others raised in a Christian nation, been taking it for granted that he did. Upon trying to verify that however, I began running into problems almost immediately, and after weaving my way through documents all the way back to the Dead Sea Scrolls in an effort to find one shred of verifiable material evidence, like a scroll Jesus actually wrote, or something he as a carpenter actually made, or anything at all, I found nothing ... zero evidence.

I even looked into the so-called Shroud of Turin claim, and within an hour or so was able to deduce that it was either a hoax or a false claim. That was interesting because at the time there was a huge debate about it and nobody had hit upon the key ( that I know of ). I also ran into stories and myths, none of them particularly well documented from a historical perspective, but some were created before the story of Jesus, and on top of that I ran into all kinds of other people who had concluded that like other ancient religious mythology, the stories about Jesus were conjured up by story tellers well after his ascendance had supposedly taken place.

Ultimately I was forced to conclude that although Jesus may have been real, it's not very likely, and that there are actually better explanations. That doesn't mean those explanations are true. But IMO the most reasonable line of inquiry regarding the question is to pursue the anthropomorphized deification ( Euhemerizing ) thread rather than assume there was actually a Poseidon, Shango, Quetzalcoatl, Droshalla, whatever you're into. Maybe they're all just Vorlons ... .

​

The Turin Shroud is in fact genuine. The image was produced on the shroud by a means of spiritual radiation which altered it at the atomic level. This is the reason the carbon dating makes it appear from a much later date. A Course In Spiritual Philosophy explains the reasons for the shroud and the truth behind the life of Jesus. This explanation is consistent with modern scientific findings: Turin Shroud 'was created by flash of supernatural light' | Daily Mail Online

 

[marduk]

The Turin Shroud is in fact genuine. The image was produced on the shroud by a means of spiritual radiation which altered it at the atomic level. This is the reason the carbon dating makes it appear from a much later date. A Course In Spiritual Philosophy explains the reasons for the shroud and the truth behind the life of Jesus. This explanation is consistent with modern scientific findings: Turin Shroud 'was created by flash of supernatural light' | Daily Mail Online

The shroud has conclusively been dated to between 1260 and 1390, which coincides with the first record of it's existence in France in 1357.

Even the church does not claim it's real, only that it is 'an object of devotion'.

The only thing mysterious about it is how it was created. By a human.

 

[AlanValiant]

The carbon dating is not accurate in this case, for the reason given above. The Sudarium of Oviedo, the cloth that covered his face, is also genuine, yet has been carbon dated to around 700AD. There is good evidence that the cloth and the shroud covered the same person, despite this discrepancy: New Study: The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Covered the Same Person

No human could have created the image on the shroud. The image is only 1/100th of a hair thick and, remarkably, shows up as a three dimensional holographic image when put under the VP8 analyser. Shroud Of Turin - An Imprint Of The Soul, Apparition Or Quantum Bio-Hologram

 

[marduk]

The carbon dating is not accurate in this case, for the reason given above. The Sudarium of Oviedo, the cloth that covered his face, is also genuine, yet has been carbon dated to around 700AD. There is good evidence that the cloth and the shroud covered the same person, despite this discrepancy: New Study: The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Covered the Same Person

No human could have created the image on the shroud. The image is only 1/100th of a hair thick and, remarkably, shows up as a three dimensional holographic image when put under the VP8 analyser. Shroud Of Turin - An Imprint Of The Soul, Apparition Or Quantum Bio-Hologram

Nope.

Every single assertion for a date older than 700 years has been decisively tested and rejected.

It is a medieval construction. A clever one.

Unless you think Jesus died 700 years ago?

(Ps the blood is pigment)

 

[AlanValiant]

There is definitely blood on the shroud. There are traces of pigment on the shroud added by an artist, but that has nothing to do with the original formation of the image. Elsevier: Article Locator

No painting or photograph can produce a three dimensional holographic image. Fact. Just saying its a 'clever forgery' doesn't remotely explain how it was possibly done, let alone in the 14th century.

Five Reasons Why the Shroud of Turin Could Be Authentic

 

[marduk]

There is definitely blood on the shroud. There are traces of pigment on the shroud added by an artist, but that has nothing to do with the original formation of the image. Elsevier: Article Locator

No painting or photograph can produce a three dimensional holographic image. Fact. Just saying its a 'clever forgery' doesn't remotely explain how it was possibly done, let alone in the 14th century.

Five Reasons Why the Shroud of Turin Could Be Authentic

Blood on the shroud means nothing. It is readily available. Pigment proves it was screwed with.

And it has reasonably been replicated via different means such as acid pigmentation, bas relief, and other means such as a medieval version of photography. Besides, the figure is horribly unrealistic, with many features vastly out of proportion with an anatomically correct human being.

It is not a hologram. Holograms cannot be made out of fabric.

Even if you were right about it not being replicated, that in no way implies it is mystical in origin.

Lots of things haven't been replicated that are just clever. Like many stone walls in Peru. The works of Shakespeare. Godzilla vs Mothra.

None of those imply divine intervention just because we haven't replicated their genius.

 

[Randall]

The Turin Shroud is in fact genuine. The image was produced on the shroud by a means of spiritual radiation which altered it at the atomic level. This is the reason the carbon dating makes it appear from a much later date. A Course In Spiritual Philosophy explains the reasons for the shroud and the truth behind the life of Jesus. This explanation is consistent with modern scientific findings: Turin Shroud 'was created by flash of supernatural light' | Daily Mail Online

A later date has nothing to do with the reason the shroud is fake. It's that the type of cloth used didn't exist at the time.

 

[marduk]

A later date has nothing to do with the reason the shroud is fake. It's that the type of cloth used didn't exist at the time.

Does it not imply that it wasn't Jesus?

 

[Randall]

Does it not imply that it wasn't Jesus?

It ( the later date ) certainly does imply it ( the image on the shroud ) isn't Jesus, just not with respect to the context of my reply, which was that the reason I had come up with from my own research had nothing to do with the later date, which is what AV seemed to have been incorrectly assuming was my reason ( when it wasn't ).

 

[AlanValiant]

Regarding the type of cloth used, a little research shows it is not the case that it didn't exist at the time:

'Linda Wooley of the Victoria and Albert Museum claimed to know of only two linen samples in the
herringbone weave from the first century and both these were to be found in Israel'.
http://www.reviewofreligions.org/2242/the-turin-shroud-–-a-genuine-article/

It contains fibers of cotton. 'Gilbert Raes, a textile expert, identified the cotton as Gossipium herbaceum, a variety unique to the middle east'

'The late John Tyrer, a chartered textile technologist who worked in the field for twenty five years as an associate of the Textile Institute of Manchester, England, discovered that while Middle East linens similar to the Shroud exist as far back as 3600BC, not much medieval linen has survived. He states that 'it would be reasonable to conclude that linen textiles with Z-twist yarns and woven 3-1 reversing twill similar to the Turin Shroud could have been produced in the first-century Syria-Palestine'.
Raes Corner

'German textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemburg found that a seam in the cloth corresponds to a fabric found at the fortress of Masada near The Dead Sea, which dated to the 1st century and is consistent with first century Syrian design'
Shroud of Turin – 1st century relic, or medieval forgery? 10 arguments for and against | Abroad in the Yard

I think there's enough evidence to suggest that you cannot dismiss the Shroud as a fake based on the type of cloth. And, in fact, there is only one known example of that type of weave from medieval times.

 

[marduk]

Regarding the type of cloth used, a little research shows it is not the case that it didn't exist at the time:

'Linda Wooley of the Victoria and Albert Museum claimed to know of only two linen samples in the
herringbone weave from the first century and both these were to be found in Israel'.
http://www.reviewofreligions.org/2242/the-turin-shroud-–-a-genuine-article/

It contains fibers of cotton. 'Gilbert Raes, a textile expert, identified the cotton as Gossipium herbaceum, a variety unique to the middle east'

'The late John Tyrer, a chartered textile technologist who worked in the field for twenty five years as an associate of the Textile Institute of Manchester, England, discovered that while Middle East linens similar to the Shroud exist as far back as 3600BC, not much medieval linen has survived. He states that 'it would be reasonable to conclude that linen textiles with Z-twist yarns and woven 3-1 reversing twill similar to the Turin Shroud could have been produced in the first-century Syria-Palestine'.
Raes Corner

'German textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemburg found that a seam in the cloth corresponds to a fabric found at the fortress of Masada near The Dead Sea, which dated to the 1st century and is consistent with first century Syrian design'
Shroud of Turin – 1st century relic, or medieval forgery? 10 arguments for and against | Abroad in the Yard

I think there's enough evidence to suggest that you cannot dismiss the Shroud as a fake based on the type of cloth. And, in fact, there is only one known example of that type of weave from medieval times.

Sure. Three different groups all came up with the same date that happened to coincide with the first appearance of the shroud in medieval times.

So, let's see... three different groups would all have to give the same wrong answer which would coincide with the documented history of the object, which would also have to be wrong.

You're reaching to fabricate evidence because you want it to be divine. Admit it.

 

[AlanValiant]

Blood on the shroud means nothing. It is readily available. Pigment proves it was screwed with.

And it has reasonably been replicated via different means such as acid pigmentation, bas relief, and other means such as a medieval version of photography. Besides, the figure is horribly unrealistic, with many features vastly out of proportion with an anatomically correct human being.

It is not a hologram. Holograms cannot be made out of fabric.

Even if you were right about it not being replicated, that in no way implies it is mystical in origin.

Lots of things haven't been replicated that are just clever. Like many stone walls in Peru. The works of Shakespeare. Godzilla vs Mothra.

None of those imply divine intervention just because we haven't replicated their genius.

It's a bit more complicated than 'there's blood on it'. Firstly, the bloodstains have seeped through the linen and, more importantly, came BEFORE the image, which as I've said, is only 1/100th of a human hair thick and can be scraped off with a razor blade. So the blood and the superficial image are separate. How the blood appears on the shroud is a mystery in itself, let alone the image which is on both the front and back of the shroud:

"The mystery is related to the blood marks on the Shroud. Most of the blood would have dried on the body by the time that the body was placed into the Shroud in the tomb. Dried blood will not soak into a piece of cloth placed over the blood. In fact, blood that is dried on skin must be scrubbed off of the skin to remove it. Yet the blood marks on the Shroud are not only on the surface of the linen but often soak through it to the other side, and the dried surface of the blood marks on the cloth are pristine in appearance with no cracking or chipping on the outer edge. This indicates that the Shroud was not lifted off of a body from which it had soaked up the blood. So the third mystery is how the dried blood could have transferred from the body to the cloth and produce the blood marks that can be seen on the Shroud." Shroud Conference 2017 - The Shroud of Turin Facts

The blood is the rare type AB and shown to be that of a male. More interestingly, it matches the blood on the Sudarium of Oviedo, the facecloth used in the tomb, which can be dated back to existing at least to the fifth century, historically. There are more than 20 points of coincidence between the bloodstains on the shroud and the sudarium. New Study: The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Covered the Same Person

The bloodstains are completely consistent with someone who has been tortured and crucified. Each wound has a distinctive serum clot retraction ring, only visible under ultraviolet light. The various injuries and bloodflows are consistent with the Biblical account, including a crown of thorns and injuries from a Roman flagrum. The blood contains high amounts of bilirubin, consistent with someone who'd undergone severe shock and trauma: The Orphaned Manuscript and the Color of Blood

By the way, the blood contains XY chromosomes which isn't good news for any Christians who believe the Shroud is genuine and believe in the virgin birth. The Shroud of Turin

It wouldn't be correct to call it a hologram, and I did not, but you could say the image has holographic properties and properties of an x ray photograph too. As well as properties of a photographic negative.Image Qualities of The Shroud of Turin

NONE of the so called replications have been able to achieve this with TODAY'S technology, let alone the technology of the 14th century. As the evidence strongly points towards some form of radiation causing the image, that would most definitely affect the carbon dating.

I should make it clear I have absolutely no religious agenda or beliefs, before I'm accused of that bias. Quite the opposite. There is no way to prove the shroud is genuine but there is a way to prove that radiation was involved, by testing the shroud and the blood on it at the atomic and molecular level, which is something people are petitioning the Vatican to allow to be performed. But the idea that the shroud is a clever medieval forgery from the 14th century just simply doesn't add up when all the available evidence is taken into account.

 

[AlanValiant]

Sure. Three different groups all came up with the same date that happened to coincide with the first appearance of the shroud in medieval times.

So, let's see... three different groups would all have to give the same wrong answer which would coincide with the documented history of the object, which would also have to be wrong.

You're reaching to fabricate evidence because you want it to be divine. Admit it.

As I've detailed above, there's plenty of evidence to suggest there is more than meets the eye, quite literally, when it comes to the Turin Shroud and so no need to fabricate anything. And you are incorrect, the three carbon dating tests done did not come up with the same date, they all came up with different results. I think you mean they came up with a narrow enough time period (1260-1390) to coincide with the first known documented historical mention of the shroud. When the rest of the more recent evidence is brought to light, especially evidence backing up the hypothesis of radiation, this raises question marks to those with an open mind. Especially when carbon dating textiles has been known to be inaccurate anyway: ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING

For those convinced the shroud is simply a medieval forgery, this is a summary of points to bear in mind:

The two most common explanations of the Shroud are: 1) It is a forgery from the Middle Ages probably made in northern France, and 2) It is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus from about 33 AD. A forger would not have known to:

• Place invisible serum rings around the blood exudate of the scourge marks.
• Add pollen to the Shroud that is unique to the Jerusalem area.
• Add pollen around the head that is from a plant with long thorns.
• Put a microscopic amount of dirt in abrasions on the nose and one knee.
• Put bilirubin into the blood.
• Locate the nails in the wrists or fold the thumbs under, contrary to paintings from the Middle Ages.
• Put microscopic chips of limestone from Jerusalem into dirt near the feet.
• Use a stitch unique to the first century to sew the three-inch wide side strip to the main shroud.
• Create a negative image with 3D information content in the image.
• Create an image based on a change in the covalent bonding of the carbon atoms in the cellulose molecules.

The front and back (dorsal) images of the crucified man are negative images and contain 3D or topographical information content related to the distance of the cloth from the body. Of the 100 to 200 fibers in a thread, the images result from only the top one or two layers of fibers in a thread being discolored. The thickness of discoloration in a fiber is less than 0.4 microns, which is less than a wavelength of light. There is no indication of capillarity (soaking up of a liquid) between the fibers or the threads. The discolored regions of the fibers in the image result from a change in the covalent bonding of the carbon atoms that were originally in the cellulose molecules in the linen. This change in the covalent bonding of the carbon atoms is equivalent to a dehydration and oxidation of the cellulose molecule. The conclusion is that an artist or forger could not have produced the bizarre characteristics of the images in any era, either ancient or modern. Shroud Conference 2017 - The Shroud of Turin Facts

 

[William Strathmann]

By the way, the blood contains XY chromosomes which isn't good news for any Christians who believe the Shroud is genuine and believe in the virgin birth.

Would you care to elaborate on the purported problem Mr. Valiant?

I am also curious as to who you think the person in the shroud is meant to represent. I found this webpage with Alan Valiant on it. I assume it is your page, which has:

Ten facts taken from My Conversations With Jesus Christ by Alan Valiant:

I was not born of a virgin.

I was conceived in the normal way and born in the normal manner.

I did not die on the cross.

I did not die in atonement for the sins of others.

I did not found a religion.

I was not a saviour. There can be no such being except that he influence others by example.

I was not the Son of God.

I was a highly-gifted psychic.

I was a teacher of the facts about existence.

I tried to set an example to others.

Christianity was not founded by me. It is not endorsed by me. Christianity was created by men for their own ends under the guise of tending for the spiritual needs of their adherents.

The belief of many Christians that I suffered and died so as to take responsibility for their sins, even those they have not yet committed, is utterly false.​

So then, is the Shroud some kind of satanic deception, in your opinion?

As for myself, the Shroud lacks clear provenance, and the charge of the possibility that a clever person or group produced the Shroud, together with C14 datings to this point, leaves me ambivalent as to its authenticity as the first century burial cloth of the Nazarene. Intriguing it is, though.

 

[marduk]

As I've detailed above, there's plenty of evidence to suggest there is more than meets the eye, quite literally, when it comes to the Turin Shroud and so no need to fabricate anything. And you are incorrect, the three carbon dating tests done did not come up with the same date, they all came up with different results. I think you mean they came up with a narrow enough time period (1260-1390) to coincide with the first known documented historical mention of the shroud. When the rest of the more recent evidence is brought to light, especially evidence backing up the hypothesis of radiation, this raises question marks to those with an open mind. Especially when carbon dating textiles has been known to be inaccurate anyway: ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING

For those convinced the shroud is simply a medieval forgery, this is a summary of points to bear in mind:

The two most common explanations of the Shroud are: 1) It is a forgery from the Middle Ages probably made in northern France, and 2) It is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus from about 33 AD. A forger would not have known to:

• Place invisible serum rings around the blood exudate of the scourge marks.
• Add pollen to the Shroud that is unique to the Jerusalem area.
• Add pollen around the head that is from a plant with long thorns.
• Put a microscopic amount of dirt in abrasions on the nose and one knee.
• Put bilirubin into the blood.
• Locate the nails in the wrists or fold the thumbs under, contrary to paintings from the Middle Ages.
• Put microscopic chips of limestone from Jerusalem into dirt near the feet.
• Use a stitch unique to the first century to sew the three-inch wide side strip to the main shroud.
• Create a negative image with 3D information content in the image.
• Create an image based on a change in the covalent bonding of the carbon atoms in the cellulose molecules.

The front and back (dorsal) images of the crucified man are negative images and contain 3D or topographical information content related to the distance of the cloth from the body. Of the 100 to 200 fibers in a thread, the images result from only the top one or two layers of fibers in a thread being discolored. The thickness of discoloration in a fiber is less than 0.4 microns, which is less than a wavelength of light. There is no indication of capillarity (soaking up of a liquid) between the fibers or the threads. The discolored regions of the fibers in the image result from a change in the covalent bonding of the carbon atoms that were originally in the cellulose molecules in the linen. This change in the covalent bonding of the carbon atoms is equivalent to a dehydration and oxidation of the cellulose molecule. The conclusion is that an artist or forger could not have produced the bizarre characteristics of the images in any era, either ancient or modern. Shroud Conference 2017 - The Shroud of Turin Facts

All of that has been soundly refuted.

All three came back within the margin stated.

Carbon dating is actually very accurate.

Why do you want it to be what it is not? Even the church does not claim it to be the burial shroud of Christ.

It is a clever medieval forgery. Which was quite the fashion at the time.

 

[AlanValiant]

Would you care to elaborate on the purported problem Mr. Valiant?

I am also curious as to who you think the person in the shroud is meant to represent. I found this webpage with Alan Valiant on it. I assume it is your page, which has:

Ten facts taken from My Conversations With Jesus Christ by Alan Valiant:

I was not born of a virgin.

I was conceived in the normal way and born in the normal manner.

I did not die on the cross.

I did not die in atonement for the sins of others.

I did not found a religion.

I was not a saviour. There can be no such being except that he influence others by example.

I was not the Son of God.

I was a highly-gifted psychic.

I was a teacher of the facts about existence.

I tried to set an example to others.

Christianity was not founded by me. It is not endorsed by me. Christianity was created by men for their own ends under the guise of tending for the spiritual needs of their adherents.

The belief of many Christians that I suffered and died so as to take responsibility for their sins, even those they have not yet committed, is utterly false.​

So then, is the Shroud some kind of satanic deception, in your opinion?

As for myself, the Shroud lacks clear provenance, and the charge of the possibility that a clever person or group produced the Shroud, together with C14 datings to this point, leaves me ambivalent as to its authenticity as the first century burial cloth of the Nazarene. Intriguing it is, though.

William, generally speaking, people who believe the shroud is genuine are Christians who also believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected. They see the shroud as proof of his resurrection. My late wife and myself are/were both mediums and we were chosen to receive the truth, from the great man himself, precisely because our minds were completely free of religious indoctrination.

Also generally speaking, sceptics think the shroud a medieval forgery and some doubt, like some on this thread, that Jesus never in fact existed at all, but was a fabrication of already existing pagan myths of a saviour.

As is often the way, the truth lies somewhere halfway between these two opposing viewpoints/beliefs. Most in both camps have a closed mind, so few who read this will be open minded enough to deem it worthy of consideration.

As I stated in my first post, the shroud is genuinely that of Jesus Christ in the tomb, but the man needs to be separated from the myth and the false religion that has been built around him. After having reached a high state of spiritual evolution, he was asked to incarnate for a special mission, to try to spiritually educate the barbaric people of the era.

He was conceived and born in the normal manner, hence the presence of both X and Y chromosomes in the blood on the shroud. Taken from My Conversations With Jesus Christ: "It is biologically impossible for a man to be born of a virgin and I was an ordinary man, albeit endowed with special abilities to enable me to carry out my intended purpose. Virgin birth, parthenogenesis, can only produce a female child and this occurs extremely rarely, in the absence of male sperm, when the ovum is stimulated into cellular subdivision, mitosis, by an inert substance."

The book was written the year after the carbon dating was done on the shroud. He addresses this in his explanation of the image of the shroud:

"It is the actual shroud that covered my body as I lay unconscious in the tomb. I am aware thant modern scientists are very puzzled by the imprint on the shroud and this is not surprising as it was put there by the Lord God using a form of spiritual radiation. He was determined to recover as much as possible from my ruined mission so He impressed the features of my body on to the shroud.

Scientists have recently claimed that their carbon dating techniques show that the shroud is much younger than the time of my crucifixion. This is because when the Lord God "treated" the shroud He also rejuvenated it in order to extend its life beyond that of the cloth alone.

The Lord God is capable of altering matter at an atomic level and, by this means, was able to make the cloth more durable. The carbon dating system is not necessarily at fault but the shroud is unique.

No man could have faked the Turin shroud and the cause of the imprint will continue to baffle scientists. These people will one day realize that there are things in existence about which they know nothing."

Regarding the treatment of the cloth to make it last, its worth noting the following:

"The description given by the STURP team of the linen of the Shroud was that it was in remarkably good condition - " ... it was supple, strong and felt almost like a new expensive tablecloth ".

Regarding radiation:

"When the STURP team worked on the Shroud back in 1978 one of their problems was that they were unable to think up any mechanism that would account for the formation of the Shroud's image. This is a straw-yellow colour, on the surface of the fibres facing the body. Wherever a fibre crosses an underlying one the underlying fibre is unaffected. The fibrils from which the fibres were formed measure 15 microns in diameter. The colour of the image is confined to the surface fibrils. The colour change never affects more than one or two fibrils in depth, so that whatever caused the change can only have had very little depth of penetration. There are no obvious differences in the straw-yellow shade. It is merely the number of fibrils coloured that determine the intensity of the image. There are well-defined edges to the affected areas.

Another observation of considerable significance is that when blood was, or had been, present over the fibres, it also protected the underlying fibres from whatever caused the image. This means that the blood must have been in place before the image was formed.

Drs. Adler and Heller carried out exhaustive chemical tests, and found that the straw-yellow colour could be reproduced by "dehydrating acid oxidation" leading to the conjugated carbonyl groups that were responsible for the colour. But having got so far they were unable to find any "reasonable explanation as to how the image came to be on the cloth".

Now it seemed almost certain that the image must have been caused by some sort of radiation, but the various types of radiation that were suggested and tried did not produce the straw-yellow colour.". British Society for the Turin Shroud - Issue #46


Regarding his supposed resurrection, he was in fact rescued from the tomb and given powerful spiritual healing, which eventually allowed him to recover. So, rather than dying on the cross for everyone's sins, he actually lived till he was 72 and carried on spiritually educating people elsewhere. His tomb is in Srinigar, India. And there is evidence for that as well:

http://www.reviewofreligions.org/2727/rozabal-–-the-tomb-of-jesus-christas/

"The most significant piece of physical evidence linking the inhabitant of the Rozabal to Jesus Christ(as) are the carved footprints next to the tomb. These footprints show marks or scars on the feet. The scars are at different places on each foot, consistent with the scars of one who has been crucified with a single nail driven through both feet."

 

[marduk]

William, generally speaking, people who believe the shroud is genuine are Christians who also believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected. They see the shroud as proof of his resurrection. My late wife and myself are/were both mediums and we were chosen to receive the truth, from the great man himself, precisely because our minds were completely free of religious indoctrination.

How could anyone on earth be completely free of religious indoctrination?

Also generally speaking, sceptics think the shroud a medieval forgery and some doubt, like some on this thread, that Jesus never in fact existed at all, but was a fabrication of already existing pagan myths of a saviour.

I personally think it would be cool if he actually existed. There's actually some historical evidence.

Of which the shroud is not one.

As is often the way, the truth lies somewhere halfway between these two opposing viewpoints/beliefs. Most in both camps have a closed mind, so few who read this will be open minded enough to deem it worthy of consideration.

Oh, that's logical. Only people who could believe this nonsense are worthy to... well, believe in it?

As I stated in my first post, the shroud is genuinely that of Jesus Christ in the tomb, but the man needs to be separated from the myth and the false religion that has been built around him. After having reached a high state of spiritual evolution, he was asked to incarnate for a special mission, to try to spiritually educate the barbaric people of the era.

If that's the case then why didn't he say so?

He was conceived and born in the normal manner, hence the presence of both X and Y chromosomes in the blood on the shroud. Taken from My Conversations With Jesus Christ: "It is biologically impossible for a man to be born of a virgin and I was an ordinary man, albeit endowed with special abilities to enable me to carry out my intended purpose. Virgin birth, parthenogenesis, can only produce a female child and this occurs extremely rarely, in the absence of male sperm, when the ovum is stimulated into cellular subdivision, mitosis, by an inert substance."

The book was written the year after the carbon dating was done on the shroud. He addresses this in his explanation of the image of the shroud:

"It is the actual shroud that covered my body as I lay unconscious in the tomb. I am aware thant modern scientists are very puzzled by the imprint on the shroud and this is not surprising as it was put there by the Lord God using a form of spiritual radiation. He was determined to recover as much as possible from my ruined mission so He impressed the features of my body on to the shroud.

Oh, that settles it then. Oh, wait, it doesn't settle anything because you can't just make stuff up to try to prove your point.

Even if you did channel Christ, which I seriously doubt, how could he possibly know anything about biology or radiation?

Scientists have recently claimed that their carbon dating techniques show that the shroud is much younger than the time of my crucifixion. This is because when the Lord God "treated" the shroud He also rejuvenated it in order to extend its life beyond that of the cloth alone.

The Lord God is capable of altering matter at an atomic level and, by this means, was able to make the cloth more durable. The carbon dating system is not necessarily at fault but the shroud is unique.

No man could have faked the Turin shroud and the cause of the imprint will continue to baffle scientists. These people will one day realize that there are things in existence about which they know nothing."

You realize that you just said God faked the shroud, which makes it totally real. Right?

I give up. Go believe in all the linens you want.

 

[AlanValiant]

Yes, please give up. You are trying to twist my words like you try to twist the evidence to fit in with your sceptical position. First you claim there's no blood on the shroud, ignoring the evidence of blood chemistry experts, then claim the three carbon dating tests all gave the same date. If you're going to be a sceptic at least be a well informed one. As your comments prove, most sceptics simply have a closed mind so it's a waste of time attempting to discuss it. Even if the shroud were tested at the atomic level for radiation, and it was proved to show beyond doubt that radiation was involved, I doubt you would change your position. When Secondo Pia first took photographs of the shroud which revealed the image acted like a photographic negative he was accused of fraud and it all being a hoax by sceptics. Until further photographs were taken. If you can come up with substantial arguments that adequately address the nature of the bloodstains on the shroud, and how they match with the Sudarium, let alone how the image was formed, I might be inclined to listen to you. I still have an open mind.

"Any attempt to explain the formation of the body images must take the properties of the blood images into account. One simply cannot say the blood wounds were painted on afterwards. One would need a constant supply of fresh clot exudates from a traumatically wounded human to paint in all the forensically correct images in the non-stereo register and then finally paint a serum contraction ring round every wound. Logic suggests that this is not something a forger or artisan before the present century would not only know how to do, but even know it was required."

Taken from The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin by Dr. Alan D. Adler, attached.

 

[marduk]

Evidence is evidence.

They sampled the blood and found pigment. Also medieval.

If somebody else bled on the shroud on the past 700 years it means nothing.

Just like the shroud being a forgery doesn't mean that Christ wasn't historical.

Logic is logic. You are arguing from belief, not logic.