Originally posted by King KandyThe reason the individual who did the study estimated it might be a lot older is because he compared the threads added in the medieval ages to the original threads and saw a huge difference in the levels of valetin (i'm probably spelling this wrong), like I said it doesn't prove anything but it makes it feasible that it could be 2,000 years old.
I did. I know what study you're talking about. And as far as I know, there is no reason at all to suspect this dates from Jesus's time. It only was first discovered in the middle ages so it stands to reason that's where its origins lie.
Originally posted by Trackz
The reason the individual who did the study estimated it might be a lot older is because he compared the threads added in the medieval ages to the original threads and saw a huge difference in the levels of valetin (i'm probably spelling this wrong), like I said it doesn't prove anything but it makes it feasible that it could be 2,000 years old.
It would also be relevant to know the background and allegiances, if any, of those funding or conducting the study. I don't know anything about either one at this point, but I've seen some obvious bias in studies many, many times. And something like speculating that it's actually from the time of Jesus, if that speculation indeed came from the results, should raise eyebrows and prompt further investigation.
Personally, I don't think the shroud is relevant toward anything religious except as a historical bauble. That it comes up in any context as evidence (or even counter-evidence for those who think it's a fake) is mystifying to me.
Originally posted by Digiyou can read up on them, the person did the test in order to prove to skeptics (that thought carbon-dating was flawed) that there was no error in the inital testing and that in fact the shroud was medieval, however after he examined the sample he found that there wasn't a shadow of a doubt that the sample they had used had been corrupted and due to the differences in the threads the original was much older however the estimate range is large.
It would also be relevant to know the background and allegiances, if any, of those funding or conducting the study. I don't know anything about either one at this point, but I've seen some obvious bias in studies many, many times. And something like speculating that it's actually from the time of Jesus, if that speculation indeed came from the results, should raise eyebrows and prompt further investigation.Personally, I don't think the shroud is relevant toward anything religious except as a historical bauble. That it comes up in any context as evidence (or even counter-evidence for those who think it's a fake) is mystifying to me.
Other than the fact it's linked to Jesus, the real mystery behind it is how the perfect negative of a human face was put into the cloth.
Originally posted by King KandyI read the study, like I said, it's nothing conclusive but it's entirely feasible and plenty of evidence links it to that time period as well. they can make out the wounds of an individual crucified. Like you said before, plenty of fake relics have been brought forth yet this is the only one that has managed to stand the test of time.
What leads you to believe the shroud dates to those years, other than that it "could be" the case?
Originally posted by King Kandyit wasn't found by medieval scholars....it was initally in the position of the Templars I'm pretty sure, there are also accounts/legends that Jesus' burial shroud had been taken...like I said none of this is conclusive but that doesn't mean there's no mystery behind it.
"linked" by medieval scholars who had absolutely no way of substantiating it... The only "mystery" is the innovative techniques in its construction (in art history).
Originally posted by Trackz
I read the study, like I said, it's nothing conclusive but it's entirely feasible and plenty of evidence links it to that time period as well. they can make out the wounds of an individual crucified. Like you said before, plenty of fake relics have been brought forth yet this is the only one that has managed to stand the test of time.
Originally posted by King Kandy
What is this "plenty" of evidence? Bring up anything that actually links it to that time period. What link is there, in light of the fact that we have no records before the middle ages. For something you consider proof of christ, it sure doesn't seem to have been close to the early christians hearts.
I feel like you haven't been fully listening to me and are an assuming a bias that is non-existant...in all of my posts I've said it isn't conclusive but there's a possibility, scientific testing has said as much..
There are records prior to the middle ages, none of them conclusive though. A shroud possessing the face of Jesus is recorded throughout time, they're debated though because it's hard to know if they're talking about the Shroud of Turin specifically.
I can't find anything that suggests we have any idea about the age of the shroud. Any testing is going to be limited by two facts: it was exposed to a lot of stuff just in the recorded course of its existence and we know for certain that at least some parts of it aren't original because people tried to repair it.
That we don't know the age tells us nothing about its age. Could it be from the 1st century? We have yet to rule it out. Could it be from the 27th century? We have yet to rule it out. Weasel words like "it could be from the 1st century" have no place in a serious discussion. Next Deadline will be pointing out that "it could be psychic" and Deano saying "it could have been made by reptoids".
Originally posted by Trackz
A shroud possessing the face of Jesus is recorded throughout time
That doesn't strike me as a useful piece of information. Its also perfectly plausible an explanation that a medieval person made a shroud to match the stories.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can't find anything that suggests we have any idea about the age of the shroud. Any testing is going to be limited by two facts: it was exposed to a lot of stuff just in the recorded course of its existence and we know for certain that at least some parts of it aren't original because people tried to repair it.That we don't know the age tells us nothing about its age. Could it be from the 1st century? We have yet to rule it out. Could it be from the 27th century? We have yet to rule it out. Weasel words like "it could be from the 1st century" have no place in a serious discussion. Next Deadline will be pointing out that "it could be psychic" and Deano saying "it could have been made by reptoids".
That doesn't strike me as a useful piece of information. Its also perfectly plausible an explanation that a medieval person made a shroud to match the stories.
It's plausible, but not anymore plausible than it being legitimate...I'm not sure why people are much more likely to believe the former.
I hardly think any of us are qualified enough to have a serious discussion on the Shroud, I brought it up because it is an interesting topic though.
Originally posted by Trackz
It's plausible, but not anymore plausible than it being legitimate...I'm not sure why people are much more likely to believe the former.I hardly think any of us are qualified enough to have a serious discussion on the Shroud, I brought it up because it is an interesting topic though.
Did you not read the whole first half of my comment? To the best of my knowledge no one knows anything about the origins of the shroud with any real certainty. My position quite explicitly is not that "it must have been made in Medieval Times" or even it "our best guess is that...". My point with how it could have been made by a medieval person was to show that the existence of stories is not (as I said in the first part of the paragraph) not really very useful.
I do think it's faintly more plausible that it was made after the first century. The design is impressive, making later with more advanced knowledge is far easier.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI wasn't talking specifically to you, I was making a general statement about people being more willing to believe that it's fabricated.
Did you not read the whole first half of my comment? To the best of my knowledge no one knows anything about the origins of the shroud with any real certainty. My position quite explicitly is not that "it must have been made in Medieval Times" or even it "our best guess is that...". My point with how it could have been made by a medieval person was to show that the existence of stories is not (as I said in the first part of the paragraph) not really very useful.I do think it's faintly more plausible that it was made after the first century. The design is impressive, making later with more advanced knowledge is far easier.
What's impressive about the design? (other than the magical face in it haha)