New research on the Shroud of Turin

a reply to: hangedman13

The best research does seem to indicate that this is a real burial shroud, from someone who fits the description we are given for Jesus, and what happened before and at His death. Now for me, I don't need this to be the "real deal" in regard to my faith, but I am curious. For some, if this was shown to be real, it might change what they believe.

The important thing is to focus on the Savior, though, not some possible relic from His life and death.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
For some, if this was shown to be real, it might change what they believe.

You don't see how huge jumps of logic between poorly defined concepts would have to be made for that to happen. It's hard for someone like myself to accept that a Man (God, whatever that is), Jesus Christ (no historical proof he even existed) was tortured and died and then was put in a tomb and covered loosely by a long cloth and he transitioned from being dead to being alive in a blast of heat and radiation that somehow imprinted the image on a cloth. To... create inconclusive proof of a confusing story in an old book? I don't get it.

People talk about this stuff all the time like it makes sense. It doesn't. It's just gibberish crafted into a ill-defined fantasy.

a reply to: Blue Shift

To be fair, you were attempting to recreate the whole story in a previous post to make sense of what you don't understand.
And sometimes the whole picture only appears after many facts are collected over a long period of time. Heck, some vital facts could be discovered once we are dead, so...

I don't know if the Shroud is the real deal, but there are enough "mysteries" to question for a while.

As for the OP, my daughter who studies to become a nurse, and I, learned something new about creatinine and ferritine. I wonder what kind of other nano-particles they found, if any.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I think value judgment you place on "miracle" is subjective. At least I do not have the same connotation when I hear the word. Also, you seem to have a huge amount of assumptions based on your value judgements, and most of them seem to be anti-christian. I also think your analogy falls down. When lots of things land in a tree during a storm and one happens to be a baby would be more equivalent if this were to only happen once in all of recorded history.

To say since we don't know how this happened doesn't mean it has a purpose is true if it happened in a vacuum. It happens to be associated with a person that huge swaths of people believe was divine.

Again, I don't believe he was anymore divine than you or I but I have an open mind about it. I don't have a new jerk reaction. I would find this as equally interesting if it were related to any other religious or spiritual figure.

If this had happened with L. Ron Hubbard I would scared as all get out.

This makes most everything about the shroud fit with it being draped around the leader of the knights templar, Jacques de Molay.

a reply to: hangedman13


I agree that it's an interesting twist that they were able to determine that nanoparticles of blood were present. But the ferretin doesn't add any credence to the nanoparticles being from someone buried in the shroud period, let alone someone being tortured prior to being placed in the shroud. Just trying to give a little perspective is all.

Also, here is a link to the actual paper so people may read through the methodology, results and the author should conclusions for themselves-
Turin Shroud Paper

a reply to: peter vlar

Ahh cool thanks for the link, going to go give it a read. Uh-oh Page not found

a reply to: hangedman13

Sorry about that. Link is fixed now. Give it a read through. Like I said, the methodology is solid, I couldn't find any errors in their work. I just think they went with mild confirmation bias for the end result. There are a lot of different reasons for the results and Occam's razor has me leaning towards a more benign medical condition as the more likely culprit. I'm open minded enough to entertain all sorts of crazy things though so I'm waiting to pass judgement.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
Again, I don't believe he was anymore divine than you or I but I have an open mind about it. I don't have a new jerk reaction.

I don't understand what people mean by "divine," anyway. It's a word with no useful meaning, as far as I can tell.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Blue Shift
...you seem to have a huge amount of assumptions based on your value judgements, and most of them seem to be anti-christian.

It only appears that way because the Christian position involves the miraculous, which will always have the burden of proof. Lacking that, the prevailing position will necessarily be that of natural non-miraculous causation.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: hangedman13


I think it's a bit of a leap of logic to claim that elevated creatinine levels are indicative of a person being tortured. It excludes all other possibilities and with occasion razor, the more likely scenario is elevated creatinine due to kidney disease than a victim of torture.

The methodology of the research is sound. It's the conclusions that I'm a little skeptical about.

I agree, the shroud could be authentic but 2,000 years is a long time for a piece of cloth to survive. I'll just marvel and remain sceptical.

Elevated serum creatinine could also be from necrotic infection or a metabolic disease like untreated diabetes or even prostate cancer.

Elevated serum ferritin could indicate haemochromatosis or liver failure perhaps from alcaholism or hepatitis.

Generally when one vital organ fails it sets off a cascade of failures so it isn't unreasonable to expect to find multiple organ failures. All of these are fairly common ailments so a conclusion of torture is not really the only conclusion one might draw.

If the researchers are confident that the substance is truly blood, I wonder if they can extract any DNA from it. In particular, the mitochondria would be inherited from Jesus' mother (whomever that may be).

And any paternal DNA would really be informative.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then, my friend.

a reply to: Monsieur Neary

The problem with that point of view is that there will never be enough proof for someone who doesn't believe. The answer will always be, "We can't explain it yet but eventually science will tell us how it happened." That's the nature of faith and it is not an inherently Christian point of view, it is a religious and/or spiritual point of view however.

originally posted by: Shadoefax
If the researchers are confident that the substance is truly blood, I wonder if they can extract any DNA from it. In particular, the mitochondria would be inherited from Jesus' mother (whomever that may be).

And any paternal DNA would really be informative.

DNA is far too fragile to have survived. Even if DNA compounds were found, the issue would be differentiating the human DNA from the pollens and plant substances on the cloth. It would most likely be impossible to get a sequence long enough to decode/type.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Blue Shift

I think value judgment you place on "miracle" is subjective. At least I do not have the same connotation when I hear the word. Also, you seem to have a huge amount of assumptions based on your value judgements, and most of them seem to be anti-christian. I also think your analogy falls down. When lots of things land in a tree during a storm and one happens to be a baby would be more equivalent if this were to only happen once in all of recorded history.

To say since we don't know how this happened doesn't mean it has a purpose is true if it happened in a vacuum. It happens to be associated with a person that huge swaths of people believe was divine.

Again, I don't believe he was anymore divine than you or I but I have an open mind about it. I don't have a new jerk reaction. I would find this as equally interesting if it were related to any other religious or spiritual figure.

If this had happened with L. Ron Hubbard I would scared as all get out.

But that's exactly the huge leap you're making. There is no association between the Shroud and Jesus, there is no factual evidence Jesus the son of god ever existed; I assure you, there have been countless people named Jesus though. So you took an item that someone found and couldn't explain, and then said, well because it cannot be explained and it seems to fit the story I read in a book, it must be Jesus' shroud. Like, what? It could be anybody, torture was common back then....

How is it associated with Jesus, that's the leap... that's the leap, man.

We're not anti-christian, we're pro-logic and sense, and as it happens, logic and sense sounds anti-christian, because it's illogical and doesn't make sense.

a reply to: SRPrime

I think you picked up the conversation in the middle. The discussion quoted wasn't about the shroud per se, it was about the person I was responding to use certain language.

To me, the fact that many, many people wrote contemporaneous stories about a man named "Jesus" is pretty good evidence that the historical man existed. What type of evidence would suffice on that issue? A corpse?

a reply to: chr0naut


I think the larger problem with obtaining a good genetic sample is the size of the same les we're dealing with. Nanoparticles just aren't going to have any viable genetics present. When we take samples from Neanderthal for example, we're using an entire tooth to get st the pulp and it's well protected by the enamel. So in addition to the degradation and additional material, like the pollen you brought up, the samples are just so small there isn't going to be anything to work with. This entire paper is based off of a single fiber obtained nearly 40 years ago so even if there was something large enough to work with, I would have serious concerns about how the fiber itself was stored all this time since nobody was worried about proper storage to secure DNA back then. It's a shame because while it still wouldn't tie this shroud to Xhridt, it would be interesting anecdotal information nonetheless.

originally posted by: dollukka
Shroud should have an image which should have been on 3 dimensional person, it is 2 dimensional picture. If you wrap a shroud around a person which has oiled body and unwrap it.. you will see a totally different image than what shroud has.

Catholic church has always been after peoples money, moving "relics" from town to another was successful business back then. There has been multiple fake relics and propably will be.


Sudden take off ? shroud like a negative which is left ? i am curious of course

Exactly! The Jewish burials were not conducted this way. It even states VERY CLEARLY in the bible the way that linen was used with the corpses.

John 19:38-42New International Version (NIV) The Burial of Jesus 38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[a] 40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. 42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

Can you read what John is telling you, people? Do you believe that lot or John? I know who I believe.

Strips of linen, it says. STRIPS it says. Yes, that is how they buried their people. Do you think that they used such expensive big pieces of cloth to bury? That is why they used strips.

You are so gullible, guys. The Money Grabbing Religious Organizations depend on your gullibility, lack of discernment and downright naivety.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
Again, I don't believe he was anymore divine than you or I but I have an open mind about it. I don't have a new jerk reaction.

I don't understand what people mean by "divine," anyway. It's a word with no useful meaning, as far as I can tell.

This is the dumbest...funniest...response I've read in a while! Thank you

As far as being on topic...I have nothing useful to add. I know what I believe...but who cares?