Proof of the resurrection

[McCartney]

youtube.com/watch?v=E_fSgPQYxkk

 

[undead_rat]

Thanks for the you-tube link. Sorry to say that it is outdated. In 2002 the Shroud was subjected to a (controversial) restoration process. The Sacred Linen was removed from its backing cloth.
Textile experts took this opportunity to carefully examine the area where the 1988 C-14 sample had been taken from. No evidence of a repair or “invisible reweaving” could be found.
Benford and Marino’s theory was a good one, but has been disproven.

The really amazing thing is that the 1988 Shroud C-14 sample was valid, and the Shroud is, nonetheless, 2000 years old. The labs did their work correctly, but did not report the youngest dates because these did not fit in with what they were trying to prove. The labs wanted to validate their procedures and gain publicity. The prospects of substantial grant funds motivated them, so they wanted all the dates to fall within the 5% plus or minus criterion.
Strangely, the dates from the area of the sample that was furthest away from the bottom edge of the Shroud turned out to be the youngest: 540 years old (1448 AD.)*

A new theory that explains this anomaly has been put forth: the historically consistent hypothesis.* The idea is that, when our Lord’s body disappeared from inside of His burial linen, a very small portion of His corpse did not enter an alternate dimension but instead dissolved into elemental particles: protons and neutrons. The proton radiation caused the image while the neutron flux made some of the nitrogen in the linen turn into carbon fourteen. The prediction is that, as one moves closer to the center of the Shroud, the C-14 dates will read younger (at a rate of about 100 years per inch.) That means that the C-14 date of a sample taken from the center of the Sacred Body image would be a future date! Perhaps thousands of years into the future!

BTW, the miraculous image on the Shroud of Turin only proves that our Lord’s corpse disappeared from inside of His cloth. That disappearance implies, but does not prove, His resurrection.

*TEST the SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015

 

[7_Sorrows]

How do you know it is outdated? How do you know when the program aired?

It seemed pretty convincing to me.

 

[undead_rat]

How do you know it is outdated? How do you know when the program aired?
.

You are right. I do not know when this program was produced. However, the program does not address the Historically Consistent Hypothesis, a recent theory that also explains the unexpected C-14 dating results.

In his 2015 book, “TEST THE SHROUD,” Mr. Antonacci devotes and entire chapter (19 pages) to addressing concerns about the “invisible reweaving” theory and about Ray Rogers’ paper of 2005.

Prof. Giuseppe Ghiberti, the Vatican Scientific Advisor for the Shroud states:
"The truth is that there is no patch and no darn. …in 2002, when we carried out restoration and cleaning operations, Dr. Mechthild Fluy-Lemberg (the leading world scholar on ancient textiles) examined the Shroud very carefully and concluded that there are no added threads. Beyond any doubt, there is no textile patch or darn in this linen…After 500 years, the backcloth was completely removed and we were able to see the backside: there is no darn at all. . . .I am astonished that a scholar such as Rogers has written so many inaccuracies in his article.

 

[MaryHelp777]

Thanks for the you-tube link. Sorry to say that it is outdated. In 2002 the Shroud was subjected to a (controversial) restoration process. The Sacred Linen was removed from its backing cloth.
Textile experts took this opportunity to carefully examine the area where the 1988 C-14 sample had been taken from. No evidence of a repair or “invisible reweaving” could be found.
Benford and Marino’s theory was a good one, but has been disproven.

The really amazing thing is that the 1988 Shroud C-14 sample was valid, and the Shroud is, nonetheless, 2000 years old. The labs did their work correctly, but did not report the youngest dates because these did not fit in with what they were trying to prove. The labs wanted to validate their procedures and gain publicity. The prospects of substantial grant funds motivated them, so they wanted all the dates to fall within the 5% plus or minus criterion.
Strangely, the dates from the area of the sample that was furthest away from the bottom edge of the Shroud turned out to be the youngest: 540 years old (1448 AD.)*

A new theory that explains this anomaly has been put forth: the historically consistent hypothesis.* The idea is that, when our Lord’s body disappeared from inside of His burial linen, a very small portion of His corpse did not enter an alternate dimension but instead dissolved into elemental particles: protons and neutrons. The proton radiation caused the image while the neutron flux made some of the nitrogen in the linen turn into carbon fourteen. The prediction is that, as one moves closer to the center of the Shroud, the C-14 dates will read younger (at a rate of about 100 years per inch.) That means that the C-14 date of a sample taken from the center of the Sacred Body image would be a future date! Perhaps thousands of years into the future!

BTW, the miraculous image on the Shroud of Turin only proves that our Lord’s corpse disappeared from inside of His cloth. That disappearance implies, but does not prove, His resurrection.

*TEST the SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015

The Shroud is proven to have human blood, lots of it, very strong coloured blood, indicating that the person dies under immense physical pain, and that the Blood type is AB, which is the exact same blood type as two Eucharistic Miracles where the bread and wine turned into Jesus own flesh and blood.

Also:

A forensic pollen analysis was done on the Shroud recently.
The evidence proves that the Shroud was in Jerusalem 2017 years ago, and was used at a Jewish Burial. And was in all the locations at the correct times in history (at the places that the Shroud History said the shroud was hidden throughout the years).

 

[undead_rat]

The Shroud is proven to have human blood, lots of it, very strong coloured blood, indicating that the person dies under immense physical pain, and that the Blood type is AB, which is the exact same blood type as two Eucharistic Miracles where the bread and wine turned into Jesus own flesh and blood.

A forensic pollen analysis was done on the Shroud recently.
The evidence proves that the Shroud was in Jerusalem 2017 years ago, and was used at a Jewish Burial. And was in all the locations at the correct times in history (at the places that the Shroud History said the shroud was hidden throughout the years).

Thank you, but I am not sure about the point of your post in relation to mine. I did state that our Lord’s Holy Burial Linen was 2000 years old, beyond any doubt.
The current debate seems to be about why the 1988 carbon dating produced such strange results. That is what the you-tube program is all about, but that program does not discuss the most recent theory, the Historically Consistent Hypothesis.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The Shroud is proven to have human blood, lots of it, very strong coloured blood, indicating that the person dies under immense physical pain, and that the Blood type is AB, which is the exact same blood type as two Eucharistic Miracles where the bread and wine turned into Jesus own flesh and blood.

Also:

A forensic pollen analysis was done on the Shroud recently.
The evidence proves that the Shroud was in Jerusalem 2017 years ago, and was used at a Jewish Burial. And was in all the locations at the correct times in history (at the places that the Shroud History said the shroud was hidden throughout the years).

the you tube video does address the pollen analysis so I know the program couldn’t be too old.

 

[undead_rat]

the you tube video does address the pollen analysis so I know the program couldn’t be too old.

Pollen studies on the Shroud of Turin began in earnest with the 1978 STURP scientific investigation. Results are included in most books about the Shroud.

 

[seagal]

the you tube video does address the pollen analysis so I know the program couldn’t be too old.

The video mentions that Pope Francis brought the shroud out for public display “last year” in 2015. So the video was created in 2016.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The video mentions that Pope Francis brought the shroud out for public display “last year” in 2015. So the video was created in 2016.

Thanks. I didn’t think it was that old. So I would not call it outdated.

 

[undead_rat]

The video mentions that Pope Francis brought the shroud out for public display “last year” in 2015. So the video was created in 2016.

Well then, I must stand corrected. It is not the you-tube video that is out of date, it is only the “invisible reweaving” theory.
After the results of the 1978 STURP were published in 1983 it was obvious to anyone who accepted those results with an unbiased mind that the Shroud was truly the 2000 year old burial linen of Jesus.
When the C-14 results were publicized the question was not “Is this Shroud a fake?” but rather why such a strange result was obtained. Joe Marino and Sue Benford were the first to postulate the “invisible repair” theory.
This was prior to 2002, and at that time it was the best theory available to explain the unexpected C-14 dates.
But there are several problems with Benford and Marino’s idea:

1. There is no historical record of this repair having been done.
2. A very old crease line runs right through the C-14 sample area and is undisturbed.
3. An ancient water mark is immediately adjacent to the sample and is also undisturbed.
4. Invisible reweaving is only “invisible” on the face side. The back side will show evidence of the process. No such evidence was found on the 1988 sample.
5. In 2002 the Shroud’s backing cloth was removed and the reverse side was carefully examined. No evidence of a reweaving repair could be found.
6. No evidence of any dye is to be found on the sample area.
7. The dates obtained by the three C-14 labs were not all the same. The dates on the parts of the sample closest to the edge of the Shroud are the oldest. These dates get younger as the part tested gets closer to the body image.
   This is the opposite of what would be expected if a foreign material had been woven into the Shroud.

I have previously quoted what Prof. Ghiberti wrote about the reweaving idea. Her is what Dr. Flury-Lemburg wrote after her examination of the reverse side of the Shroud in 2002:
“I would like to add here a note on the hypothetical ‘reweaving done in the 16th century.’ There is no doubt the Shroud does not contain any reweaving. The fabric is scattered with irregularities which are the result of faults made during the weaving process, and which could be mistaken for reweaving. But they are normal for fabrics of the early periods. Such irregularities are actually proof that a fabric has been woven on a hand-loom which points to an early date of origin of the fabric. . . .
Reweaving in the literal sense does not exist. Once the piece of fabric is taken off the loom the weaving process is finished. Afterwards one can only alter a fabric by using needle and thread. An example would be a hole which has been mended by imitating its weave structure. The process will always be recognizable as mending and in any case be visible on the reverse of the fabric.”

 

[seagal]

Well then, I must stand corrected. It is not the you-tube video that is out of date, it is only the “invisible reweaving” theory.

My apologies, somehow after clicking on the link in the OP I actually watched this video youtube.com/watch?v=zjCPZzJe4jI, which is the video that was produced in 2016. It also mentions the reweaving theory.

 

[thistle]

The Shroud is NOT proof of anything. I wish people would stop claiming that. Even the Church has not declared the Shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ.
People are free to believe or not believe it is but nobody can claim it is proof of the Resurrection. That is sheer speculation.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The Shroud is NOT proof of anything. I wish people would stop claiming that. Even the Church has not declared the Shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ.
People are free to believe or not believe it is but nobody can claim it is proof of the Resurrection. That is sheer speculation.

That is true.

 

[undead_rat]

The Shroud is NOT proof of anything. I wish people would stop claiming that. Even the Church has not declared the Shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ.
People are free to believe or not believe it is but nobody can claim it is proof of the Resurrection. That is sheer speculation.

Simply because the Catholic Church has not formally “declared the Shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ” does not mean that there is not sufficient scientific and historical proof that it is authentic.
The Shroud did not come to a Catholic Church until 1357. Other churches have had possession of Jesus’ burial linen*, and they have not been shy about proclaiming its image to be “made without hands,” i.e. miraculous.

Now we have the incredible negative photographic plates of the Shroud first taken by Secondo Pia in 1898 of which you are all familiar as well as the 1978 STRUP scientific investigation.
A wealth of data has been gathered all of which point to the authenticity of the Shroud.
If this undeniable evidence were to be presented in a court of law, the verdict would have to be “burial linen of Jesus beyond any reasonable doubt.”

Sir, with all due respect, the Image and evidence on the Shroud of Turin ARE proofs that Jesus was a real person, and I wish that people, especially Catholics, would stop trying to say that it is not proven.
But there is more. The only viable explanation for the Sacred Image on the Shroud and its strange carbon-14 dating result is the Historically Consistent Hypothesis.+
That theory holds that Jesus body vanished into an alternate dimension** except for a very small percentage of that body which dissolved into its elemental particles: protons and neutrons.
As the linen cloth collapsed into the vacuum left by the vanishing body, the proton radiation caused the formation of the Divine Image. The thermal neutron flux had a preservative effect on the linen and also caused some of the nitrogen in that linen to convert to carbon fourteen.
The prediction is that no part of the Shroud will date any older than about 800 years, and that age will only be obtained from samples taken from the corners of the Shroud. As samples move closer to the Image, their C-14 dates will get younger at a rate of about 100 years per inch, eventually yielding a present and then even a future date!

You are correct in saying that the Image and strange C-14 results are not proof of the Resurrection of Jesus. What these things are proof of is the disappearance of our Lord’s corpse from inside of His tomb and His burial linen.
That disappearance implies His Resurrection, but does not prove it.

Sir, and again with all due respect, you and 7 Sorrows should please look into this matter a little more closely. The books about the Shroud’s history and research results are there in great number.

*THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010
+TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015
**Gospel of Matthew

 

[7_Sorrows]

Simply because the Catholic Church has not formally “declared the Shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ” does not mean that there is not sufficient scientific and historical proof that it is authentic.
The Shroud did not come to a Catholic Church until 1357. Other churches have had possession of Jesus’ burial linen*, and they have not been shy about proclaiming its image to be “made without hands,” i.e. miraculous.

Now we have the incredible negative photographic plates of the Shroud first taken by Secondo Pia in 1898 of which you are all familiar as well as the 1978 STRUP scientific investigation.
A wealth of data has been gathered all of which point to the authenticity of the Shroud.
If this undeniable evidence were to be presented in a court of law, the verdict would have to be “burial linen of Jesus beyond any reasonable doubt.”

Sir, with all due respect, the Image and evidence on the Shroud of Turin ARE proofs that Jesus was a real person, and I wish that people, especially Catholics, would stop trying to say that it is not proven.
But there is more. The only viable explanation for the Sacred Image on the Shroud and its strange carbon-14 dating result is the Historically Consistent Hypothesis.+
That theory holds that Jesus body vanished into an alternate dimension** except for a very small percentage of that body which dissolved into its elemental particles: protons and neutrons.
As the linen cloth collapsed into the vacuum left by the vanishing body, the proton radiation caused the formation of the Divine Image. The thermal neutron flux had a preservative effect on the linen and also caused some of the nitrogen in that linen to convert to carbon fourteen.
The prediction is that no part of the Shroud will date any older than about 800 years, and that age will only be obtained from samples taken from the corners of the Shroud. As samples move closer to the Image, their C-14 dates will get younger at a rate of about 100 years per inch, eventually yielding a present and then even a future date!

You are correct in saying that the Image and strange C-14 results are not proof of the Resurrection of Jesus. What these things are proof of is the disappearance of our Lord’s corpse from inside of His tomb and His burial linen.
That disappearance implies His Resurrection, but does not prove it.

Sir, and again with all due respect, you and 7 Sorrows should please look into this matter a little more closely. The books about the Shroud’s history and research results are there in great number.

*THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010
+TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015
**Gospel of Matthew

I have never said I don’t believe in the Shroud of Turin as being the burial shroud of Jesus.

 

[undead_rat]

I have never said I don’t believe in the Shroud of Turin as being the burial shroud of Jesus.

My apologies. In reply to the assertion: “The Shroud is NOT proof of anything,” you answered: “That is true.”
Perhaps I misunderstood. Apparently you were referring to the latter part of that statement, that the Shroud is not proof of the Resurrection.

 

[7_Sorrows]

My apologies. In reply to the assertion: “The Shroud is NOT proof of anything,” you answered: “That is true.”
Perhaps I misunderstood. Apparently you were referring to the latter part of that statement, that the Shroud is not proof of the Resurrection.

For some people I don’t think it is proof. I am still undecided. I am fascinated by the Shroud and its history as well as all the theories.

 

[thistle]

Simply because the Catholic Church has not formally “declared the Shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ” does not mean that there is not sufficient scientific and historical proof that it is authentic.
The Shroud did not come to a Catholic Church until 1357. Other churches have had possession of Jesus’ burial linen*, and they have not been shy about proclaiming its image to be “made without hands,” i.e. miraculous.

Now we have the incredible negative photographic plates of the Shroud first taken by Secondo Pia in 1898 of which you are all familiar as well as the 1978 STRUP scientific investigation.
A wealth of data has been gathered all of which point to the authenticity of the Shroud.
If this undeniable evidence were to be presented in a court of law, the verdict would have to be “burial linen of Jesus beyond any reasonable doubt.”

Sir, with all due respect, the Image and evidence on the Shroud of Turin ARE proofs that Jesus was a real person, and I wish that people, especially Catholics, would stop trying to say that it is not proven.
But there is more. The only viable explanation for the Sacred Image on the Shroud and its strange carbon-14 dating result is the Historically Consistent Hypothesis.+
That theory holds that Jesus body vanished into an alternate dimension** except for a very small percentage of that body which dissolved into its elemental particles: protons and neutrons.
As the linen cloth collapsed into the vacuum left by the vanishing body, the proton radiation caused the formation of the Divine Image. The thermal neutron flux had a preservative effect on the linen and also caused some of the nitrogen in that linen to convert to carbon fourteen.
The prediction is that no part of the Shroud will date any older than about 800 years, and that age will only be obtained from samples taken from the corners of the Shroud. As samples move closer to the Image, their C-14 dates will get younger at a rate of about 100 years per inch, eventually yielding a present and then even a future date!

You are correct in saying that the Image and strange C-14 results are not proof of the Resurrection of Jesus. What these things are proof of is the disappearance of our Lord’s corpse from inside of His tomb and His burial linen.
That disappearance implies His Resurrection, but does not prove it.

Sir, and again with all due respect, you and 7 Sorrows should please look into this matter a little more closely. The books about the Shroud’s history and research results are there in great number.

*THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010
+TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015
**Gospel of Matthew

There is no scientific evidence to show the Shroud is authentic. It is not true to suggest otherwise. The cloth has not even been dated 2000 years old and its simply nonsense for people to say the piece of cloth tested must somehow have been corrupted. That is just an excuse for not having evidence.

Its amazing to me that supporters of the Shroud think they know better than the Church. The reason the Church does not declare it to be authentic is because it does not know. What do you know that the Church doesn’t??

 

[undead_rat]

There is no scientific evidence to show the Shroud is authentic. It is not true to suggest otherwise.

Sir, this statement is not correct. A great deal of scientific evidence indicates that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus.

1. On 28 May 1898 Secondo Pia took the first photograph showing that the image on the Shroud is actually a negative image of impeccable photographic qualities.
2. The blood markings on the Shroud are not paint. They are human blood.
3. The image of the Shroud is not composed of paint, dye, or any other substrate. It is composed an extremely superficial degradation of the surfaces of individual fibers of the linen threads.
   The thickness of this degradation is less than that of a wave-length of light. There is no variation in the color of the degradation between fibers; where the color on the Shroud is darker, more fibers are discolored.
4. Forensic pathologists have determined that the body image on the Shroud is that of a dead human.
5. Dirt samples from the foot area of the Shroud are travertine aragonite. Its chemical signature has been analyzed and found to match the travertine from Jerusalem and nowhere else.
6. Pollen studies prove that the Shroud was in all of the places that its history purports.
7. The body image depicts a corpse that has died by crucifixion, and in addition has a wound in the right side of its chest from which a great amount of blood and pericardial fluid has exited.
8. The weave and stitching of the linen cloth are known only from ancient times. More recent examples have not been found.

This is the STURP agreed upon statement of 1981:
“We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist.
The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and give a positive test for serum albumin.”

In addition to the science (the above list is by no means complete) the Shroud of Turin has a documented history going all the way back the sixth century in Edessa.
And it has a purported history to A.D. 33 when the disciple Thaddeus brought the Sacred Image to King Abgar V who was cured of his leprosy upon seeing that Image.

If the world had other burial shrouds with images of their dead bodies mysteriously imprinted on them, then we could not say for sure that the Shroud of Turin was the actual burial garment of Jesus. But there are none. The Shroud of Turin is unique.
Putting the scientific and historical evidence together, the conclusion is inescapable. The Shroud is authentic.
The question is not “Do the results of the C-14 date testing disprove the authenticity?” The authenticity has been proven way beyond any reasonable doubt.
No, the only legitimate question is: “Why are the dates of the C-14 tests so strange?”

The answer to that question is found in the Gospel of Matthew. Our Lord’s body disappeared from inside of a blockaded, sealed, and guarded tomb.
The undisturbed blood stains on His Shroud confirm that His corpse also vanished while still inside that piece of cloth.
I have said this before, but it bears repeating: when our Lord’s corpse disappeared into an alternate dimension, a very small percentage of His body did not vanish, but dissolved into its elemental particles: protons and neutrons.
As the linen cloth collapsed into the vacuum where the body had been, the thermal proton radiation degraded the surfaces of the linen fibers, and an image was produced. The thermal neutron flux caused some of the nitrogen in the linen to be converted into carbon 14. Parts of the linen closer to Our Lord’s body would have received more neutron radiation and, therefore, have a more enhanced carbon 14 content.

This is known as the “Historically Consistent Hypothesis” because it takes into account the events described in the Gospel of Matthew. This theory is the only one that accounts for both the image formation and the strange C-14 dating results.
It will be confirmed whenever a Shroud sample from the body image area is tested and found to have an impossible future date!
But until then, there is no need to withhold judgment. The great wealth of scientific and historical evidence proves the Shroud of Turin to be the burial cloth of Jesus beyond any reasonable doubt.

As to why the Catholic Church does not confirm the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, I do not know. I cannot pretend to speak for the Church, and no one else should either.
Perhaps the Church was waiting for the carbon 14 dating test as a final confirmation, and, when they didn’t get what they expected, were at a lose as to how to proceed.
But simply because the Catholic Church has not formally confirmed the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin does not mean that the Shroud is a fake. No one should believe that or even think for a minute that such is a possibility.

Ref:
THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, Vignon,1921
THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Wilson,1966
EDESSA ‘THE BLESSED CITY,’ Segal, 1970
REPORT ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Heller, 1983
THE BLOOD AND THE SHROUD, Wilson, 1998
THE SHROUD AND THE CONTROVERSEY, Stevenson/Habermas, 1990
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Wilcox, 2010
THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Whanger, 1998
THE TEMPLARS AND THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, Frale, 2011
THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Guerrea, 2001
FACE OF JESUS, Dollar, 2014
THE TURIN SHROUD, Wilson/Schwortz, 2000
THE IMAGE OF EDESSA, Guscin, 2009
THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Fanti/Malfi, 2015
UNLOCKING the SECRETS of the SHROUD, Lavoie, 1998
THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010
TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015