It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Dead bodies do no react in the same way that living bodies do, so, given the medical evidences, that is not a valid conclusion.
In addition, you're missing the main point, which is that if one "whacks up the body according to the bible," one would not get a body that is evidenced on the shroud. The Bible doesn't say anything about multiple scourgers. It doesn't say anything about crucifixion nails going through the wrists, rather than the hands. It doesn't say anything about the hair and beard styles of 1st Century Jews.
There are things in the shroud which are only evidenced by modern forensic techniques -- now one might say that a forger could have made the shroud with the characteristics that only 20th Century technology could uncover, but why would they do that? It's one thing to say that, 500 years later, we know that there is dirt and pollen consistent with Jerusalem embedded in the shroud, but as there was no way to make that determination in 1500, why would the forger bother?
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by adjensen
Dead bodies do no react in the same way that living bodies do, so, given the medical evidences, that is not a valid conclusion.
Are you certain that is true for the tests that were done?
So you're saying that the forger took license to do whatever they thought was appropriate.
All you are saying is that some of the techniques used to analyze the shroud do not show it to be a Medieval forgery, yet other techniques do.
Originally posted by DetectiveT
What I always find amazing about news that uses science to prove or disprove a spiritual belief are the reactions.
If the news supports the belief: See we told you it is true. This is great news. Even science confirms it.
If the news does not support the belief: You can't believe science. Dating techniques are faulty. It's a deception. It's what they want you to believe.
I never understood how in one instance you could mistrust science so much and then wave it around like a banner when it supports a specific cause. You can't have it both ways. Either recognize the validity in the research or throw it all out. I think only special circumstances would allow you to nitpick.
If you want to cite evidence that dead bodies can produce heightened levels of bilirubin, please do.
Again, the issue is whether a 16th Century forger would take steps in the production of their item that would not have any bearing on its authenticity for 500 years. If aspects of this relic could not even be contemplated until the 19th or 20th century, why would a forger have the idea to incorporate them? You suggest that they did whatever they thought was appropriate, but the problem is that they couldn't have thought some of it appropriate in their time.
That's the question, and I don't think that there is an easy answer to it.
Then point out to them that the universe is not cyclical -- it had a discrete starting point, it is expanding at an accelerating rate, and it will have a discrete end, because accelerating expansion cannot be reversed. See what they have to say about science then -- my experience has been that they reject those observations, because their beliefs are predicated on a cyclical universe.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by adjensen
If you want to cite evidence that dead bodies can produce heightened levels of bilirubin, please do.
I didn't claim it had to be a dead body. You did.
You are over thinking the problem. It's simple. You get a body. Maybe its a criminal or someone who died of disease or a victim of war or whatever. You whack up the body according to the bible.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by syrinx high priest
Can you provide the name of the Roman historian and text involved?
Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [4] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.
Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
I personally believe the shroud is real, but I know that this world is so full of disingenuous hoaxes, liars and charlatans, that the rational minded folk of the modern age don't trust even the most convincing evidence if it seems that a particular 'myth' is in any way supported by the facts arising from a believer's inquiry.
Originally posted by TheComte
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by syrinx high priestCan you provide the name of the Roman historian and text involved?
Josephus was a 1st Century historian who wrote about Jesus and the origins of Christianity.
Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [4] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.
en.wikipedia.org...