The Shroud of Turin...

[mikezila]

Relic or mere icon?

[Unforgiven]

Icon. Isn't it 600 years old according to carbon dating that piss some people off so they deny it?

[mikezila]

Icon. Isn't it 600 years old according to carbon dating that piss some people off so they deny it?

the carbon dating was done to rewoven/repaired section at the top.

http://shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html

[Unforgiven]

Well then let's get a proper test done and settle it once and for all. Any problems with that?

[mikezila]

Well then let's get a proper test done and settle it once and for all. Any problems with that?

i don't mind, but the folks taking care of it don't really care enough to let more of it be destroyed....and it having survived a fire would likely skew any accurate testing.

a better test would be comparing the DNA on the shroud with the DNA on the Sudarium of Oviedo.

[Unforgiven]

i don't mind, but the folks taking care of it don't really care enough to let more of it be destroyed....and it having survived a fire would likely skew any accurate testing.

a better test would be comparing the DNA on the shroud with the DNA on the Sudarium of Oviedo.

Not to mention that after that first little go round, the authenticity of it being a Holy relic was very much dashed. So anything to keep people guessing and this thing out of the hands of science which has the tendency to show things up for what they really are.

[El Barto]

http://books.google.ca/books?id=JV2F...snum=1#PPT1,M1

I have this book .
Good read. Lots of details and investigation.

[Unforgiven]

http://books.google.ca/books?id=JV2F...snum=1#PPT1,M1

I have this book .
Good read. Lots of details and investigation.

See, now I find that a little tricky. I don't know of anyone who said it wasn't a death shroud. Just that it wasn't some God who died 2000 years ago.

The significance is that it's supposed to be the Christ. Which it's been shown that it isn't.

As always it seems to boil down to having to believe what someone else thinks is true.

[El Barto]

See, now I find that a little tricky. I don't know of anyone who said it wasn't a death shroud. Just that it wasn't some God who died 2000 years ago.

The significance is that it's supposed to be the Christ. Which it's been shown that it isn't.

As always it seems to boil down to having to believe what someone else thinks is true.

What can I say :unknw:
the book was eye opening

[Holly Martins]

I think it's bogus but that doesn't diminish it as an historical item of interest worth preserving and testament to the artistic skills of the person/persons who created it.

A lot of supposed holy relics have been trotted around the globe for years. There have been umpteen holy crosses and holy spears and holy shrouds. It's been an historically lucrative business. It's probably going to continue to be.