Joey Chive1 March 2009 at 3:36amPosts: 180 (0 today)Status: offline
Synnie1 March 2009 at 1:46pmPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
1. no date in this link. . .
2. a "believed to be" is no proof at all.
And particularly not, that this is Jesus or God.
3. Digital works can very easily include according digital manipulations.
4. Have you seen the Jesus toast? LOL
5. Again, please go to science forums, also about this.
It is known there, for long.
Synnie1 March 2009 at 6:41pmPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
"The only controversy about the Shroud of Turin is, who fabricated it. The best hypothesis is, Leonardo da Vinci (uncanny resemblence to the face on the shroud) using a camera lucida. In the payment of Cosimo Medici who being the ruler of Tuscany wanted the very best religious relic money and power can buy."
So far this theme. . .from test-informed scientists
Joey Chive2 March 2009 at 6:04pmPosts: 180 (0 today)Status: offline
If the scientists from the sturp team would read your statements Syn, they would know that you are not speaking from knowledge. They have already determined that the Shroud has no human origin. You just refuse to believe Syn. Be careful because this verse may apply to you. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 & 12
Synnie2 March 2009 at 11:10pmPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
If the scientists from that team would read all the other ones, they would also know.
How old and outdated is it, actually?
Maybe you google abit, and not only in religious threads.
And stop warning, I do not fear. You behave like the typical catholics this way.
It is you, who refuses to wake up, sorry to say.
Synnie2 March 2009 at 11:12pmPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
And the shroud is a simple shroud, lol.
There are many of this kind, for similar purposes, power of the ruling church, and thats all.
Joey Chive3 March 2009 at 10:25pmPosts: 180 (0 today)Status: offline
No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography. The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific concensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.
Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.
Synnie3 March 2009 at 10:44pmPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
They now anyhow extracted something to find out about the DNA, and can confirm, that its a simple human one.
Which only prooves, that it might have been a human, at best.
But not from when, nor where, nor who. coulod still be anything, but not your kind of wanted proof.
If you wish, I can explain you the walking on the water, by the way, its simple and can be done by anybody. The locals there know this very well, but would not necessarily tell, because of the tourists. . .
I was on the original place, even during according weather. We could have made a foto from us, to show you.
Anybody can, again and again.
If you need to, just ask me, lol.
I am well aware, how legends grow and mutate/morph and are used etc.
I have nothing against legends though, as long as they are seen for what they are. :-]
Listener4 March 2009 at 7:30pmPosts: 199 (0 today)Status: offline
Nice link JC (no relation i take it I love listening to lectures like this, it opens up debate and provokes thought, im starting to prefer these links then the ones in the general threads which can get quite tedious and clicky at times. keep it up amigo.
Synnie5 March 2009 at 12:50amPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
I prefer creative ideas and new visions, as this place was meant for. . .
Listener5 March 2009 at 6:28pmPosts: 199 (0 today)Status: offline
Do you feel that this link is an old idea regurgitated too many times, I mean I've never heard of the shroud detecting coins on the eyes (which he never went into)or the letters below the beard or the flowers which were detected, all new stuff to me but interesting none the less. you may of meant it in the context you said it as a new idea or do you think its old hat as it were?
Joey Chive5 March 2009 at 9:23pmPosts: 180 (0 today)Status: offline
he Shroud began to "surprise" a century ago when it was photographed for the first time by Secondo Pia, in 1898.
The negative of that photograph revealed in detail, and with even greater clarity than the positive image, all the "wounds" that the Shroud preserved.
How was the image on the Shroud formed?
Science has not yet come up with any plausible explanations. Below is a list of definitive results from research carried out this century:
the image is not a painting, and it was left by the corpse of a man who was beaten and crucified. Computer processing has shown that the image has three-dimensional properties, something which neither paintings nor standard photographs possess.
Pollens have been found on the cloth, strongly supporting the view that the Shroud spent time not only in Europe but also in the Near East.
Tests on traces of blood from the Shroud have revealed the presence of human blood from blood group AB.
In 1988, carbon-14 dating was carried out on a fragment of the Shroud. The results date the fabric to between 1260 and 1390 A.D.
The scientific community itself now questions these results, and more recent experimental studies have reopened the debate.
Modern science is still investigating how the image was formed, its date, and how best to preserve it.
Listener5 March 2009 at 10:28pmPosts: 199 (0 today)Status: offline
yes Joey I did look at the lectures you so kindly provided.
Synnie6 March 2009 at 1:31amPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
I mean the way this topic was meant, listener.
And for sure in relation to music or other creative ideas, that might be of interest not only for Peter.
But he has a creaive father, and thus got a lot of interest in news from there, some, that can be made real, for example.
For other things there are loads of science and religion forums anywhere else, even far more important, international and frequented ones (I can only advise Joey, to go there).
From there I know most of Joey's themes anyhow, (including long discussions and added links and fresh(!) news). This is not such a forum, nor a church.
I do bridge news from the other forums at times though, if I feel, they might be of practical interest here or add to some understandings about Peter, who once was very much into the whole Earth Catalogue from the 70ties(and so was I, many of us near him were, thus I know, what he often is speaking about), if that rings a bell.
Just some make this place their own personal blog, which overruns other's creative inputs/suggestions, which surely was not the idea, if you get my point.
Not to mention, that Peter definitely can't, nor will read, if there are too long unrelated threads in between. It is wasted time, to try to catch his interest this way. Particularly, if he for sure even knows as much if not more. . .
Listener6 March 2009 at 11:45pmPosts: 199 (0 today)Status: offline
Synnie7 March 2009 at 12:07amPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
As for the title of this thread, there is no proof for what Joey wishes, only maybe, just maybe and at best, for s.o., a human one, who may have been tortured, any which time. And that happened a lot and to many.
They are still in the dark even about acccording caves etc., although for tourism's sake, they "found" some, of course.
Next they try to proove, that a christ was really born on the 24th of December, or things like that. They changed their scedules so often and mistranslated/manipulated so many things, that the whole thing is more than questionable, but nevertheless an interesting one, like man others in other countries and cultures around the world too. But the only one? lol.
They have to hurry up anyhow, because the creationist fraction does believe, that the earth is not even old enough for some of their own tales, lol.
To name only one of their curiosities, where they keep on stepping onto their own feet, wondering, why so many laugh about them. In that wake, even this "proof" is a stepping onto their own feet, see?
No harm meant, but really. . . :-]