S
SonofMonica
Guest
:hey_bud: The King of Pop is dead.No unveiling yet. Guess there was a bigger news story.
- Status
J
JohnT58
Guest
This I know, and I deliberately circumnavigated mentioning it, as a would have used a less reverential title for a person with dodgy relationships with kids.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
It’s dark in Ethiopia by now.
The Ark isn’t going to be revealed. As I suspected, a likely hoax.
We can all go back to our lives now people
The Ark isn’t going to be revealed. As I suspected, a likely hoax.
We can all go back to our lives now people
M
masterjedi747
Guest
…no offense, but I fail to see why the head of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia would care? Honestly?
Might not have been last year, but it might not have been a deja-vu moment either.I just remembered something.
This same story was reported on LAST YEAR.
And it didn’t mount to anything!
*
Andrea22:
- No, I don’t. But now I’m wondering if what I had was a deja-vu moment.
examiner.com/x-14795-SLO-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m6d26-Ark-of-the-Covenant-revealed
…and I suspect they’re probably right, unfortunately.
After all, it was supposed to have been announced at 8am this morning (EST).
OK maybe I’m not either, but IMHO the Shroud of Turin definitely is the real deal, not just hype.
M
masterjedi747
Guest
EDIT: …well, there goes that news story. 
wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102274
oh well, can’t say I’m too surprised really… it did seem just a little bit too good to be true.
wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102274
oh well, can’t say I’m too surprised really… it did seem just a little bit too good to be true.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/ethiopian-ark-of-the-covenant-not-to-be-revealed-after-all/
It seems there was some miscommunication.
Oh well. This isn’t the first time World Nut Daily reported, in near absolutist terms, that someone, somewhere had found the Ark.
It seems there was some miscommunication.
Oh well. This isn’t the first time World Nut Daily reported, in near absolutist terms, that someone, somewhere had found the Ark.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Suit yourself. All the evidence I’ve seen points to a 12th century creation. I’m not putting any stock into that “relic”.OK maybe I’m not either, but IMHO the Shroud of Turin definitely is the real deal, not just hype.
M
masterjedi747
Guest
well, seeing as how the original topic is mostly dead, I’ll continue the digression just a bit…
All I can really say is that I did a research project on this a couple years ago, and I was pretty much completely convinced that it’s the real deal… the laundry list of evidence I found in favor of it was huge, to say the least. Besides, devotion to the image is Vatican-approved, is it not? I could re-research the specific books/articles, if that’s worth anything to you? Honestly the biggest objection I ran into was the result of the 1988 carbon dating test, which has been more or less completely invalidated over the past four years.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
That’s the clincher for me and my skepticism of it.
web.archive.org/web/20070902202115/http:/www.mcri.org/Shroud_graph.html
skepdic.com/shroud.html
I am, of course, open to the possibility that it is legitimate. I’m just not putting any stock into it being so.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
J
JohnT58
Guest
The dodgy C-14 dating can’t be relied on. The samples taken for testing where the ones most contaminated throughout the ages the shroud has been displayed. 12th century contamination/material/DNA is in there along with 13thC 14thC 15thC 16thC 17thC…
"The experiments with the model head and the study of the stains also show that when the man died his head was tilted seventy degrees forward and twenty degrees to the right. This position further suggests that the man whose face the sudarium covered died crucified.
There are smaller bloodstains at the side of the main group. It would appear that the sudarium was pinned to the back of the dead man’s head, and that these spots of blood were from small sharp objects, which would logically be the thorns that caused this type of injury all over Jesus’ head.
The medical studies are not the only ones that have been carried out on the sudarium. Dr. Max Frei analysed pollen samples taken from the cloth, and found species typical of Oviedo, Toledo, North Africa and Jerusalem. This confirms the historical route described earlier. There was nothing relating the cloth to Constantinople, France, Italy or any other country in Europe.
An international congress was held in Oviedo in 1994, where various papers were presented about the sudarium. Dr. Frei’s work with pollen was confirmed, and enlarged on. Species of pollen called “quercus caliprimus” were found, both of which are limited to the area of Palestine.
Residues of what is most probably myrrh and aloe have also been discovered, mentioned directly in the gospel of john, 19:39-40, “Nicodemus came as well…and he brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes…They took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, following the Jewish burial custom.”
The stains were also studied from the point of view of anthropology. The conclusion was that the face that had been in contact with the sudarium had typically Jewish features, a prominent nose and pronounced cheekbones.
Finally, the very fact that the cloth was kept at all is a sign of its authenticity, as it has no artistic or monetary value at all. All the studies carried out so far point in one direction, with nothing to suggest the contrary the sudarium was used to cover the head of the dead body of Jesus of Nazareth from when he was taken down from the cross until he was buried.
3: Coincidence with the Shroud
The sudarium alone has revealed sufficient information to suggest that it was in contact with the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. However, the really fascinating evidence comes to light when this cloth is compared to the Shroud of Turin.
The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.
The length of the nose through which the pleural oedema fluid came onto the sudarium has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches. This is exactly the same length as the nose on the image of the Shroud.
If the face of the image on the Shroud is placed over the stains on the sudarium, perhaps the most obvious coincidence is the exact fit of the stains with the beard on the face. As the sudarium was used to clean the man’s face, it appears that it was simply placed on the face to absorb all the blood, but not used in any kind of wiping movement.
A small stain is also visible proceeding from the right hand side of the man’s mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the Shroud, but Dr. John Jackson, using the VP-8 and photo enhancements has confirmed its presence.
The thorn wounds on the nape of the neck also coincide perfectly with the bloodstains on the Shroud.
Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud.
4: The Temporal Aspect the sudarium before the Shroud
The sudarium has no image, and none of the facial stains of dried or drying blood visible on the Shroud, especially the stain on the forehead in the shape of an inverted three. The stains on the sudarium were made by a less viscous mixture.
This, together with the fact that the fingers which held the sudarium to Jesus’ nose have left their mark, point to a short temporal use of the cloth and eliminate the possibility of its contact with the body after burial.
Jewish tradition demands that if the face of a dead person was in any way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth to avoid people seeing this unpleasant sight. This would certainly have been the case with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood from the injuries produced by the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being struck.
It seems that the sudarium was first used before the dead body was taken down from the cross and discarded when it was buried.
This fits in with what we learn from John’s gospel, which tells us that the sudarium was rolled up in a place by itself.
5: Conclusions
The studies on the sudarium and the comparison of this cloth with the Shroud are just one of the many branches of science which point to both having covered the dead body of Jesus. The history of the Oviedo cloth is well documented, and the conclusions of this for the dating of the Shroud need no further comment."
I wasn’t questioning the veracity of the claims of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church’s claim to the relic, only disappointment, that the announcement didn’t happen. I have always been intrigued by the claims of ‘Our Lady Mary of Zion’, and so it appears, will continue to be intrigued.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Which raises a bigger problem. How did they create an artifact in the 12th century that would function as a photographic negative in the 20th?
M
masterjedi747
Guest
I was actually referring to the more recent announcements that the portion of the Shroud in question (on which the carbon dating tests were performed) was not actually a genuine portion of the Shroud… in their effort to avoid damaging the more central portion the Shroud, the sample that they cut off for testing in 1988 actually was from repair that was made around the 12th century. It’s not that the carbon dating was wrong, it’s that the sample tested was (in hindsight) a terrible sample.
:tiphat: Aha… that makes a bit more sense.
The “no offense” comment was actually directed towards Michael Jackson, though, not you.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
And that point is brought up in the two links I provided. It seems “original” parts were tested and they all came up with the same 14th century (sorry not 12th. I misspoke earlier) date.I was actually referring to the more recent announcements that the portion of the Shroud in question (on which the carbon dating tests were performed) was not actually a genuine portion of the Shroud… in their effort to avoid damaging the more central portion the Shroud, the sample that they cut off for testing in 1988 actually was from repair that was made around the 12th century. It’s not that the carbon dating was wrong, it’s that the sample tested was (in hindsight) a terrible sample.
:tiphat: Aha… that makes a bit more sense.
The “no offense” comment was actually directed towards Michael Jackson, though, not you.
I think what would make me actively accept the claims of Turin supporters would be some positive evidence. All that has been provided is negative evidence attempting to refute skepticism. That’s a good start, but without positive evidence (evidence that actually demonstrates a particular claim of the believers) the foundation is pretty shaky.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
since the topic is so far off as to be non-existent anymore I will suggest only that we limit our links to news stories to actual reputable news agencies, WND is not one them.
the reveal the Ark alert comes out about every 18 months (as does the debunk/support the Shroud alert)
in any case, none of this is appropriate to this forum which is supposed to be limited to Eastern Catholicism, and not one word of this useless thread is pertinent to that topic
why am I wasting my time, I am just going to watch MTV videos all evening, much more edifying
the reveal the Ark alert comes out about every 18 months (as does the debunk/support the Shroud alert)
in any case, none of this is appropriate to this forum which is supposed to be limited to Eastern Catholicism, and not one word of this useless thread is pertinent to that topic
why am I wasting my time, I am just going to watch MTV videos all evening, much more edifying
J
jimmy
Guest
There are no ethiopian Orthodox on the forum that I know of and no Oriental Orthodox even that I know of so really the only place to have it would be the Eastern Catholic forums because the Eastern Catholics are the only ones on the forums who would be interested in the actions of the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox. I think this is consequently the best place for it.
B
Benadam
Guest
I’m hoping for a statement by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedos explaining their motives.
I know someone who is ethiopian orthodox. I haven’t had the chance to ask him about this but he has told me that it isn’t made public because it is believed ( and apparently affirmed in the past) that you will fall dead if you look at it. That’s what the Patriarch meant when he said ‘only a few’ and ‘qualified’ have seen it.
I know someone who is ethiopian orthodox. I haven’t had the chance to ask him about this but he has told me that it isn’t made public because it is believed ( and apparently affirmed in the past) that you will fall dead if you look at it. That’s what the Patriarch meant when he said ‘only a few’ and ‘qualified’ have seen it.
M
masterjedi747
Guest
I definitely agree with what you’re saying… there’s no way I would be holding my position if I didn’t think there was a very significant amount of positive evidence out there. But (since I -]fear/-] respect the power of the moderators) I really don’t think we should dive into that level of detail right now. Suffice it to say that I definitely don’t think you’re being unreasonable.
sneaks in just a few sample links 01, 02, 03, 04]
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
You sneaky little antagonist you!I definitely agree with what you’re saying… there’s no way I would be holding my position if I didn’t think there was a very significant amount of positive evidence out there. But (since I -]fear/-] respect the power of the moderators) I really don’t think we should dive into that level of detail right now. Suffice it to say that I definitely don’t think you’re being unreasonable.
I’d be more than happy to continue discussing this… in another thread of course.
If you so desire, start one and give me a heads up, I’ll follow you in.
J
JohnT58
Guest
In summary, the Sudarium and the Turin Shroud have been forensically proven to be from the same victim. The the Sudarium has been dated to at least the 6th century. So this put the Shroud in the same timeframe. Given that it has been proved that the C14 sample from the Shroud came from came from a restoration patch known as “invisible weaving” from some time around the 14th century, coupled with the organic evidence proving that it is 1st century Jeruslamem.
- Status