Scientists Say Shroud of Turin Shows Jesus Was Crucified in 'Very Painful' Position

reply to post by windword


A few more points about your assertion that the bible states the earthquake destroyed the temple:

Again from Matthew, after Christ is inturned:

The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.”

Why would the pharisees not make any mention of the destroyed temple? Why wouldn't the author of matthew make any mention of it?

And finally, the smoking gun from Luke:

Luke 24:50-53
New International Version (NIV)
The Ascension of Jesus

50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.


Wait... What was that last part? I thought you were saying the bible claimed the earthquake razed the temple?

reply to post by DeadSeraph

This will be my last reply to you, since you are either being intentionally obtuse, or your reading comprehension is severely lacking.

There is no reason to rude and insulting. You're the one who started a thread to discuss the topic of the Shroud of Turin, not me. If you can't stand the heat........

You said:

I never claimed I believed the earthquake was responsible for the image on the shroud, only that the earthquake itself occurred. I suppose it's possible that an aftershock could have had the same effect, but I am no geologist so you would have to ask Alberto Carpinteri.

And, that's what I was discussing, not just with you, but with other members of the thread. The idea that the earthquake was responsible was made by you.

Whether or not the temple was destroyed or just damaged by the earthquake isn't a non issue, the point is that the the earthquake wasn't an 8.2 as one member wrongly cited. I corrected that assumption to make the point that the eathquake couldn't have generated that kind of energy. Get it?

You obviously didn't read the source material

I read the source material.

Varves, which are annual layers of deposition in the sediments, reveal that at least two major earthquakes affected the core: a widespread earthquake in 31 B.C. and an early first century seismic event that happened sometime between 26 A.D. and 36 A.D.

I don't see anything here that backs up an earthquake the day of the crucifixion.

Did you even take a glance at the link from the National Geophysical Data Center's website that I provided for you?

Did you? Again, from the NOAA page you cited as evidence.

33 A.D. Jerusalem. This earthquake(s), which is said to have occurred during the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ in Jerusalem, caused darkness over all the land, tombs to open and the ground to split open.

The source for this information is the Gospel according to St Matthew, who mentions two earthquakes. The first, which occurred at the lime of the Crucifixion, caused the rock tombs to break open, revealing the bodies of the Just, who then rose after Christ's resurrection. The earthquake symbolises both Nature's response to Christ's death and a foretelling of the Resurrection. The second earthquake occurred after the Resurrection and thus permitted the women to enter into the tomb and veriify the absence of Christ's body.

Identification of the year these events occurred is problematic insofar as it is incompatible with certain chronological elements concerning the life and passion of Jesus. Researchers can only narrow the possible years down to AD 33 and 34, the former being more probable (Pratt 1991; Firpo 1989).

These earthquakes arc mentioned only by one Evangelist and by chroniclers who used St Matthew as their sole source. It seems that St Matthew was more interested than any of the other Evangelists in Old Testament precedents, and he probably recorded these events because he had Amos's earthquake in mind. It would also be consistent with St Matthew's style for these two earthquakes to be in fact two accounts of the same event from different witnesses, both included for their theological significance (12, 13].

Later writers seem to opt for the Crucifixion earthquakes in order to symbolise the cosmic proportions of Christ's death, but they link these events, which occurred in Jerusalem, to an earthquake and eclipse of the Sun that, in fact, occurred a year earlier in Ol.202/Tib.18 (AD 32-33), not in Jerusalem but in Nicaea in Bithynia (Oppolzer 1962). The earthquake in Nicaea is also mentioned by St Jerome, who, however, does not mention Jerusalem. Eusebius does not mention the solar eclipse, but he does notice, in passing, the earthquake at Christ's crucifixion, which he dates to the 19th year of Tiberius (33 AD). The account of Orosius (early fifth century), who also does not mention Jerusalem, is very similar to Eusebius's [16], adding only that Emperor Tiberius exempted the damaged cities in Bithynia in Asia Minor from tribute and gave generous donations towards repairs.

The fact that these earthquakes in Jerusalem are not mentioned by contemporary pagan writers, or by three out of the four Evangelists, suggests that they may have been inspired by the topos of Nature's reflecting events of great importance, and hence must not be considered to refer to historical earthquakes.

Thallus wrote folk lore/oral "history" from the Trojan War

Didn't see this coming at all. No really. Not at all predictable.

Thallus:
He wrote a three-volume history of the Mediterranean world from before the Trojan War to the 167th Olympiad, c. 112-109 BC. Most of his work, like the vast majority of ancient literature, perished, but not before parts of his writings were repeated by Sextus Julius Africanus in his History of the World
en.wikipedia.org...(historian)

I don't think that I would take much of his Trojan War history, as it must have come from Homer, who first wrote about the Trojan War around 1200 BCE. What am I supposed to do with his Jesus mythology? After all, he did get the eclipse wrong, right?

reply to post by DeadSeraph

What was that last part? I thought you were saying the bible claimed the earthquake razed the temple?

No, I said the temple was destroyed in 69 AD, during the Siege of Jerusalem, not during an 8.2 earthquake!

Reading comprehension?

reply to post by windword

windword

There is no reason to rude and insulting. You're the one who started a thread to discuss the topic of the Shroud of Turin, not me. If you can't stand the heat........

Yes, and I merely linked to the earthquake/shroud theory in passing. You're the one who claimed the earthquake the gospels report never happened, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

windword

And, that's what I was discussing, not just with you, but with other members of the thread. The idea that the earthquake was responsible was made by you.

No, it wasn't. It's not my theory and I never claimed the earthquake created the image on the shroud. I never even claimed the shroud was authentic. Go quote me where I said any of the following:

-The shroud is 100% authentic
-The earthquake reported in the gospels was the cause of the image on the shroud
-Said earthquake destroyed the temple in Jerusalem

You'll be looking for awhile, because I never said any of those things. I've merely refuted your erroneous claims, and presented other opinions, theories, and information on the shroud.

windword

Whether or not the temple was destroyed or just damaged by the earthquake isn't a non issue, the point is that the the earthquake wasn't an 8.2 as one member wrongly cited. I corrected that assumption to make the point that the eathquake couldn't have generated that kind of energy. Get it?

You claimed the earthquake discussed in the gospels never happened:

windword

There is no record of an earthquake that tore the temple

I proved you wrong. There are records of an earthquake at the corresponding time.

windword

An 8.2 is a pretty big earth quake! However there is no written record of such an event.

You were wrong here as well, and disregarded the written records as well as the geological evidence.

windword

But we have no evidence that an 8.2 earthquake happened while Jesus was hanging on the cross, or while Jesus was entombed, that created a flash of light that caused the negative image of Jesus on the shroud, just as he was rising from the dead!

Again, the evidence has been provided to you that such an earthquake did in fact occur. In regards to it causing the image on the shroud, I have no idea and certainly it's a wild theory, but the evidence is clear the earthquake happened.

windword

I don't see anything here that backs up an earthquake the day of the crucifixion.

From the discovery source:

When data about the Jewish calendar and astronomical calculations are factored in, a handful of possible dates result, with Friday April 3, 33 A.D. being the best match, according to the researchers.

windword

Did you? Again, from the NOAA page you cited as evidence.

Yes, if the shoe fits...

windword

No, I said the temple was destroyed in 69 AD, during the Siege of Jerusalem, not during an 8.2 earthquake!

No, you said this:

Jewish historians mark no disaster, that an 8.2 earthquake would cause, that tore the temple apart around 33 AD

That's because no earthquake tore the temple apart, and the bible makes no such claims. YOU made the claim. Once you were proven wrong about what the bible actually says, you shifted the goal posts. Nobody in this thread (or the authors of the gospels for that matter) claimed the temple was destroyed by a magnitude 8.2 earthquake, and anyone with a high school education in history would agree with you that it was destroyed during the siege of Jerusalem.

So lets try this one more time:

-Do you still deny that an earthquake occurred around the time Christ is said to have died?

-Do you admit that the bible does not claim said earthquake destroyed the temple?

No, it wasn't. It's not my theory and I never claimed the earthquake created the image on the shroud. I never even claimed the shroud was authentic.

Okay, fine.

Whether or not the temple was destroyed or just damaged by the earthquake isn't a non issue, the point is that the the earthquake wasn't an 8.2 as one member wrongly cited. I corrected that assumption to make the point that the earthquake couldn't have generated that kind of energy. Get it?

You claimed the earthquake discussed in the gospels never happened:
There is no record of an earthquake that tore the temple

I didn't say that an earthquake never happened. I claimed that an 8.2 didn't happen. I was answering this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I proved you wrong. There are records of an earthquake at the corresponding time.

No. You showed that there's at least a 10 year window of an earthquake event, not exactly when an earthquake happened. There's been a lot of seismic and volcanic activity on and around the Sinai Peninsula for millenia!

An 8.2 is a pretty big earth quake! However there is no written record of such an event.

You were wrong here as well, and disregarded the written records as well as the geological evidence.

What written record? The vague account in Matthew? The geological evidence isn't definitive! Let me rephrase. There is no secular, collaborative record of such an earthquake, especially an 8.2, taking place during the 1st century.

But we have no evidence that an 8.2 earthquake happened while Jesus was hanging on the cross, or while Jesus was entombed, that created a flash of light that caused the negative image of Jesus on the shroud, just as he was rising from the dead!

Again, the evidence has been provided to you that such an earthquake did in fact occur. In regards to it causing the image on the shroud, I have no idea and certainly it's a wild theory, but the evidence is clear the earthquake happened.

No you didn't! There isn't evidence of an earthquake happening in 33 AD.

From the discovery source:

When data about the Jewish calendar and astronomical calculations are factored in, a handful of possible dates result, with Friday April 3, 33 A.D. being the best match, according to the researchers.

Being the best match when you shoe horn in Christian mythology and known Jewish Holy days into a large and vague window of seismic activity.

No, I said the temple was destroyed in 69 AD, during the Siege of Jerusalem, not during an 8.2 earthquake!

No, you said this:

Jewish historians mark no disaster, that an 8.2 earthquake would cause, that tore the temple apart around 33 AD

No. I said this:

Jewish historians mark no disaster, that an 8.2 earthquake would cause, that tore the temple apart around 33 AD. We do have a record of the temple being destroyed around 69 AD, during the Siege of Jerusalem.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So lets try this one more time:

-Do you still deny that an earthquake occurred around the time Christ is said to have died?

There is no definitive evidence of an earthquake in 33 AD, let alone on Friday the 3rd of April.

Do you admit that the bible does not claim said earthquake destroyed the temple?

The text is unclear. Do you believe the veil was ripped by magic?

"In the fourth year, however, of Olympiad 202,* an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour, day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea. These things [are according to] the aforementioned man."
Phlegon of Tralles

* Id est, year 32/33.

I don't know that this actually occurred, as I was not there. But it was written about outside of the Bible. Also, Calvary Rock, at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, has a huge crack in it. It is supposedly where Yeshua was crucified. The Shroud of Turin is an interesting artifact for certain. It also is something that many people would have a vested interest of explaining away. This makes me overjoyed when it constantly confounds them. Is it from Yeshua? Maybe. Is it interesting? Definitely. Good thread.

For those trying to make comments about it never happened, or is unprovable, consider that you probably also believe that you came from a monkey that jumped out of a puddle of murky water that got struck by lightning. There are literally no historical writings I am aware of from these monkeys. If you can find one though, that would be the thread to end all threads.

tinner07
That is interesting and I would like to believe it is the shroud. That being said, think about gravity for a second. If you were nailed to cross without your arms and torso being supported your body would fall away from the cross with your hands attached and your arms pointing slightly down.

The blood running down the arms suggesting they were over his head reminded me of what we call the old indian rope trick.

A lot of time on building sites we get water running in through the roof, sometimes in existing occupied buildings. You find where the water is dripping down and put a rope there. The water travels down the rope to where you would rather have it go. So while blood is heavier than water, if Jesus was placed on the cross as is normally depicted, it would stand to reason he didnt stay in that position long. His body would have succumbed to gravity and created a pathway for blood to run down his arms as opposed to just falling straight down to the ground

Exactly, that was the point of crucifixion. His own body weight would be pulling him down causing the diapraghm to rise leading to death by asphixiation. Thats why normally they broke the legs of the victim, so he couldn't support himself and death would be quicker. However they never broke Christs legs.

ScareCro
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

I know the bible reads that Jesus was hung by a tree, I don't recall anywhere it says he was nailed to a wooden cross. Yes crosses were made out of wood, so were lots of other things but it says hung by a tree. To me, that means rope around your neck attached to a branch. Who knows. Anyone got a time machine that doesn't cost like 17 billion?

It's difficult to fake a public hanging..a public crucifixion is better. On the cross you know he'll last at least a couple of hours if you don't break his legs while hanging by a rope would last a few seconds.

However, 'wood' could simply be a euphemism for cross.

reply to post by ScareCro


Where exactly does the Bible say he was hung by a tree anywhere in reference to Yeshua? I believe what you are referring to is Judas. These two individuals could not be more different than one another. It makes multiple references to Yeshua being murdered on a cross, not a tree. Which would you like me to show you?

DeadSeraph

This will no doubt fail to convince the skeptics (I'm not sure if any evidence would be sufficient to convince them)

You do realise the same can be said for the 'faithful'? No matter how much proof is there that this is one of many medieval fakes!

To believe this is to believe the Turin Shroud is nothing more than a hiswork of art. Now looking at it as a work of art, perhaps this tells us the artist knew a little about Roman crucifixion techniques...

~Lucidity
Some Christian sects believe there was no such thing as the cross (T- or Y-shaped) but that the punishment in those times was carried out on a spike/pole.

Some also refuse to wear crucifixes for this and other reasons (like reject false icons).

doesn't look very Y to me.

more like an O.

please observe my AV and my siggy thread if you want to know about the real working cross
and its history

I wonder, and this is a general question to all of you, since the authenticity of the shroud is up for debate in this thread, what you think of the Sudarium of Oviedo?

Let me say, I am a Christian. I believe the bible is the word of God. I believe Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, my saviour, walked this earth 2000 years ago. I believe he was crucified under Pilate, died, and ressurected and in doing so paid the price for my selfishness and sin. I DO NOT NEED THE SHROUD TO BE REAL TO BELIEVE ANY OF THAT.

Having said that, I am still utterly fascinated by the shroud. I think the carbon 14 dating is a major drawaback, but not the final word on authenticity. I think there is much evidence that the shroud is indeed older than the 1300s. The correlation between markings on its face and on the background and known earlier art has been demonstrated almost, IMO, unarguably. The three circular defects apparent on the shroud are also visible in artwork known to be significantly older than the shroud has been carbon dated to. It's compelling evidence that the C-14 dating is inaccurate. (If I could find the reference, I'd link it. I'll look around, once I do I will put it here. Been a while since I read it.)

The Sudarium matches up eerily well with the shroud. It, too, has been dated to an earlier period than the Shroud (though only about 150 years if I recall correctly, and if one chooses to accept the C14 dating as inarguable).

What I also find quite interesting is that the Gospel mentions the apostles seeing the items in the tomb. One burial cloth (shroud) and one item that covered the face (sudarium). Why mention both of these things? There is, of course, no mention of any image....but clearly, someone thought them significant. Keep in mind, in Jewish culture these items would have been considered unclean. But yet, the Gospel of John makes note of them. Why did they take on significance? The way they're mentioned makes sense to me. Notable, but not venerable. Since most non-catholic Christians have the mindset that only Christ is to be adored and worshiped, we do not ascribe anything holy to the objects themselves associated with him. Yet, they ARE fascinating. This same attitude seems to be present when these items are first mentioned; interesting, but not holy.

Then there is the question of - if it IS a forgery, then HOW did it come to be? Most forgeries are readily apparent. Look at the supposed Veronica's veil. One glance at that and we know. And yet, the shroud presents us with mystery even IF we choose to believe that it is medieval.

So...thoughts on the correlation between the Shroud and Sudarium? Do skeptics believe that the markings match so well merely by coincidence?

I didn't read the entire thread so this may have been covered. Anyway, there's no way it's real. His beard was ripped off of his face and he was so horribly disfigured you couldn't recognize him. Also he didn't have one nail through his feet either. How people were crucified back then was by having their legs stretched straight down and their feet nailed to the side of the cross through the heel.

Crucifixation is "very painful".

Would be such a party pooper if it wasn't.

For your consideration. The "Pray Codex". Dated 1192-1195 - notably before the earliest possible date for the shroud given by C14 dating. See the similarities. The "L" shaped holes in the material, the similar weave, and the way the body is being placed in the shroud. I think one would be hard pressed to state that this illustration was not, in fact, referencing what we know now as the Shroud of Turin. If that is the case, the C14 dating HAS to be wrong. Again, things to note:

- The burn marks

- The crossed hands, especially the long fingers and the notable absence of thumbs

- The specific pattern of the weave of the cloth illustrated in the codex

- The similarity of the face



Detail of the "L" shaped defects:

I'll also throw this out there. We would all agree that we still do not yet know for certain what exactly caused the image on the shroud. That in itself is remarkable.

Several scientists associated with shroud research have come to accept a theory that somehow raditation was a major cause of the markings. If, in fact, there was some sort of radioactive event, this event would most certainly skew any scientific tests involving the half life of its materials. Additionally....where would such radiation come from? Is it mere coincidence that the cloth in question has an almost inexplicable image markd onto it, and the person who may have been buried in this cloth is also said to have been.....ressurected while buried in it.

Again. My faith does not rest on the shroud being real. However, because I absolutely believe in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, I have no trouble accepting that such an event could produce some sort of radiation/energy/power that is not known to modern science. I have no trouble believing that said energy could have left a marking on anything near it. It is BECAUSE of my faith that I can wonder IF the shroud might be real. What if, just what IF, when the Lord came back to life, it DID leave a marking on the cloth he was buried in, and we have that cloth today? Certainly that resurrection event could have thrown off any carbon 14 levels. Clearly it could have left a mark. We dont know what happens when God...well, does things that only God can do.

Ultimately, while I ponder he objective, scientific evidence of the shroud....no matter what, it still does come down to faith. If one accepts that the shroud is genuine, then one must also accept that Jesus Christ is real and that of cours eleads to some big decisions for ones-self. One, I think, cannot actually BE objective about the shroud due to its very nature and the very issues that are intrinsically represented by it.

djz3ro

DeadSeraph

This will no doubt fail to convince the skeptics (I'm not sure if any evidence would be sufficient to convince them)

You do realise the same can be said for the 'faithful'? No matter how much proof is there that this is one of many medieval fakes!

To believe this is to believe the Turin Shroud is nothing more than a hiswork of art. Now looking at it as a work of art, perhaps this tells us the artist knew a little about Roman crucifixion techniques...

Yes, I do realize that. However, there are people like me who are still on the fence primarily because there is no proof it's a medieval fake.

I'm not sure why so many people keep coming into this thread throwing the term "proven fake" around when no such proof exists. The carbon dating performed on the shroud has been called into question because it appears to have been taken from a patch that was sewn onto the shroud to repair it.

People keep screaming "science! science!" yet you can't see that a bad sample invalidates the results? Does bad science not matter if it confirms your bias?

This is an older article but it does a good job of describing why the original carbon dating results are not indicative of the age of the shroud:

national geographic

In December 2003 Rogers received a sample of the shroud from a physicist colleague who had collaborated on STURP. The sample was taken from the same strip of cloth distributed for carbon dating in 1988.

Using chemical and microscopic analysis, Rogers revealed that a madder dye and mordant and gum mixture had been wiped onto yarn used on that particular corner of the shroud—indicating that the cloth had been repaired. (The mordant gum would have been used to bind the dye to the fibers. Madder dye is derived from the root of the madder plant.)

What's more, these ruby colored madder dye-mordant mixtures did not reach France or England until the 16th century.

"The cotton fibers look like they have been wiped with fuzzy cherry Jell-O, and the linen fibers a little less so," Rogers said. "The area is certainly dyed to match the sepia color of the old [original] cloth. There is ample chemical and microscopic proof of that."

Rogers also found evidence of a "splice site," suggesting that this patch of the cloth had not only been dyed but also repaired and rewoven. He suspects that the dye and repair job was probably done in the Near East during the Middle Ages, coinciding with the carbon dating results.

"The 1988 date was undoubtedly accurate for the sample supplied. However, there is no question that the radiocarbon sampling area has a completely different chemical composition than the main part of the shroud," Rogers said. "The published date for the sample was not the time at which the cloth was produced."

This reinforces the earlier finding of STURP scientists who, using ultraviolet fluorescence, also revealed that the sampled corner was unlike any other region of the shroud and had been excessively handled over the years.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


All your citation says is that what scientists tested was a piece that was a later patch on the shroud, and not part of the original piece. It doesn't say anything about the main area of the shroud, that was NOT tested.

What am I missing?

windword
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

All your citation says is that what scientists tested was a piece that was a later patch on the shroud, and not part of the original piece. It doesn't say anything about the main area of the shroud, that was NOT tested.

What am I missing?

Apparently, the entirety of my reply to djz3ro.