another hit for the Cs : Shroud of Turin date

Maat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Session 11-03-94

Q: (L) I would like to know if the Shroud of Turin was ever
wrapped around Jesus.
A: No.
Q: (L) Was it wrapped around somebody who was
crucified?
A: No.
Q: (L) How was it made?
A: Wrapped around Roman worker.
Q: (L) What caused the image on the shroud?
A: Body oils, hormones and other physiological chemicals.

Session 11-14-98

Q: (L) Okay, forget that. Now, I am reading this book
called "The Jesus Conspiracy" about the Shroud of Turin.
Now, we once asked about this and you said that the image
was of a Roman worker. Apparently this worker was
crucified. Was this individual who was crucified, done so in
the specific manner as was described for Jesus, with
deliberate intent to create the illusion that the image on the
Shroud HAD to be of Jesus, since Jesus was the only
person who could have possibly suffered all these exact
wounds as described in the Gospels?
A: No. Crucifixion was once a "popular" punishment
method.
Q: (L) Can you tell us approximately what year this Roman
worker was crucified who left his image on this shroud?
A: 399 A.D.

and this news
Shroud dates from 1st century: New study
New scientific experiments carried out at the University of Padua have apparently confirmed that the Shroud Turin can be dated back to the 1st century AD, Vatican Insider reports.

This makes its compatible with the tradition which claims that the cloth with the image of the crucified man imprinted on it is the very one Jesus’ body was wrapped in when he was taken off the cross. The news will be published in a book by Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua’s Engineering Faculty, and journalist Saverio Gaeta, out tomorrow. “Il Mistero della Sindone” (The Mystery of the Shroud) is edited by Rizzoli (240 pp, 18 Euro).

What’s new about this book are Fanti’s recent findings, which are also about to be published in a specialist magazine and assessed by a scientific committee. The research includes three new tests, two chemical ones and one mechanical one. The first two were carried out with an FT-IR system, so using infra-red light, and the other using Raman spectroscopy. The third was a multi-parametric mechanical test based on five different mechanical parameters linked to the voltage of the wire.

The new tests carried out in the University of Padua labs were carried out by a number of university professors from various Italian universities and agree that the Shroud dates back to the period when Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem.

Final results show that the Shroud fibres examined produced the following dates, all of which are 95% certain and centuries away from the medieval dating obtained with Carbon-14 testing in 1988: the dates given to the Shroud after FT-IR testing, is 300 BC ±400, 200 BC ±500 after Raman testing and 400 AD ±400 after multi-parametric mechanical testing.

The average of all three dates is 33 BC ±250 years. The book’s authors observed that the uncertainty of this date is less than the single uncertainties and the date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus’ death on the cross, which historians claim occurred in 30 AD.
_http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=35495
 
No, I don't think that counts as a Hit for the Cs; that's a hit for the other Cs - the Catholics!

Vatican-sponsored report said:
the date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus’ death on the cross, which historians claim occurred in 30 AD.

That's the great thing about 'science' as it's generally practised today - it'll produce whatever results you want it to!
 
The two responses are rather contradictory-in the 1994 session the C's said the shroud was NOT wrapped around someone who was crucified and in the later session they give the date as 399 AD in response to the question about the Roman worker who was CRUCIFIED...with the adjoiner crucifixion was once a "popular" punishment-so was the Roman worker crucified or not?

The markings on the shroud would seem to indicate whom ever it was was beaten and then crucified. Or were the markings added at a later date to "match" the supposed suffering of Christ so the Church would have yet another rallying point (Added to other "relics" such as pieces of the cross upon which he was alledgedly crucifed etc.) That seems plausible although it still does not clear up the different responses. Have I read incorrectly? :huh:
 
Back
Top Bottom