Just do another carbon dating on the Shroud already! What do you think?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There was zero chance Christ was still alive. Between the types of punishments described in the Bible, hanging for 3+ hours on the cross with massive trauma to major vein centers, and the lance to the side, there was almost no blood left in His body. Based ont eh descriptions we see in scripture, it would have been literally impossible (short of pure divine “you don’t need blood anymore” intervention) for someone to survive.
 
Jesus, of all people, would have had the ability to come back to life, which of course happened, although not as expected. Given his own prediction that he would rise in three days, I think his followers would have followed the burial customs to the letter.
 
You’re welcome to think that. I personally don’t.

Either way, my faith does not rest on the Shroud.
Loud-living-dogma said:
This is an interesting read. All about how the proportions are off if the Shroud is supposed to be an actual human…
Click to expand...
That’s a pretty big assertion on their part. I look at the shroud and it seems perfectly human to me. They also speak of the covering of the genitalia as though that someone proves it’s falseness, which is just nonsense.

They also completely ignore the fact that we barely understand how the image was made, and have only been able to replicate it on a small scale in the last couple years. Being able to produce something that looks similar is not the same as being able to produce something that is the same.
 
Last edited:
The Resurrection is the central belief of our faith, and no proof will ever surface that it is “authentic”.
So don’t get wired up about the shroud. If it aids your faith, great. If not fine too. One more test is not going to save Christianity.
 
No, don’t waste another dime on it. Let those who believe it is the real deal believe it on faith. Time to let the matter die a respectful death.
 
I saw on a documentary how the image on the shroud was made. It was apparently folded in a box which suffered water damage during a fire.
 
Oh, and Yoko Ono. She’s responsible for everything. 🤣
 
Last edited:
phoage said:
Personally, I think it is a forgery done by a conspiracy of the Vatican, space aliens and the New World Order. After all, they are the ones Responsible for all the other problems in the world.:crazy_face::crazy_face:

Patrick
AMDG
Click to expand...
*Dude, shh! What the heck!
 
This is an obsolete question for many reasons.

Carbon dating on the Shroud of Turin is no longer possible.
 
Here’s the best (and most revealing) method I have seen on the authenticity of the Shroud:
 
RealisticCatholic said:

The last carbon dating showed that the piece of cloth originated from the Middle Ages.​

Anyway, how can another dating be done? Who can request it? If there is much confidence of the Shroud’s authenticity, why can’t they just do another carbon dating test?
Click to expand...
Explanation of why the first radio carbon dating was a fail. It shows how cotton was mixed in with the flax weave, as timestamped below.


Explanation of why the shroud can no longer be carbon-dated. Thymol was used to treat the box in which the shroud is/was kept. The Thymol altered the cloth to protect it from bugs, but they say it also accidentally made the Shroud impossible to carbon-date, as timestamped below

 
That’s really interesting - thanks. Have you come across any commentary or articles on this, other than the paywalled journal itself?
 
You’re most welcome.

I’d love to hear opinions on the SpacerInstitute’s findings in the first video I mentioned.

I’ve tried to engage other folks here with a detailed discussion of it at times, but it’s kind of complex and hard to understand.

However, if you are an architect in real life, then you will likely understand the difference between the orthographic versus projected geometries, as well as what Guiseppe means by photographic restitution and the stroboscopic effects.

I’ve probably watched the video about 100X, and some of the images he points out are much clearer than others. So it may take awhile for some of it to sink in.

But, I think, it’s an astounding argument based upon photos that were taken so long ago…

Feel free to message me in private, if you would like to hold a more detailed discussion of it. I dont think the forums would really sustain a more lengthy discussion of such work.
 
I had to look up stroboscopic, but having done so, yes, I am aware of the differences. I’ll try to give it a watch tomorrow.

It will be nice to see an in-depth discussion that doesn’t just dismiss it outright.
 
Last edited:
If the carbon dating says 1st century, those who want to disbelieve would find another reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top