A New Era for the Shroud of Turin.................

[nhboy]

"ROME, FEB. 15, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Leaked information about a BBC interview to air on Holy Saturday reports that Christopher Bronk Ramsey, director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, thinks the 1998 tests on the Shroud of Turin should be re-evaluated.

The 1988 carbon-14 tests -- done in the Oxford laboratories -- dated the shroud in the Middle Ages, thereby negating that it could be Christ's burial cloth.

ZENIT spoke with Capuchin Father Gianfranco Berbenni, professor of "Science and Theology Regarding the Holy Shroud" at Rome's Regina Apostolorum university. In this interview, he comments on the long history of research on the shroud, as well as photographic reproduction made for display at this summer's World Youth Day."

ZENIT - A New Era for the Shroud of Turin

 

[Marie]

"ROME, FEB. 15, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Leaked information about a BBC interview to air on Holy Saturday reports that Christopher Bronk Ramsey, director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, thinks the 1998 tests on the Shroud of Turin should be re-evaluated.

The 1988 carbon-14 tests -- done in the Oxford laboratories -- dated the shroud in the Middle Ages, thereby negating that it could be Christ's burial cloth.

ZENIT spoke with Capuchin Father Gianfranco Berbenni, professor of "Science and Theology Regarding the Holy Shroud" at Rome's Regina Apostolorum university. In this interview, he comments on the long history of research on the shroud, as well as photographic reproduction made for display at this summer's World Youth Day."

ZENIT - A New Era for the Shroud of Turin

I had actually heard before that what they had testrd preavious was a repair that had been made to it, and not the actual shroud its self and thats why the dating was off on it.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I find it incredulous that Christians revere relics. We are to live by faith.

 

[itsbob]

I had actually heard before that what they had testrd preavious was a repair that had been made to it, and not the actual shroud its self and thats why the dating was off on it.

DO your research.. THe church hired an independent scientist to do the testing, they had total faith in his ethics and his word. When he came back with the results they didn't want to hear, the church fired him and hired their OWN scientists to dispute his FACTS.

THe church came up with many alibis as to why the test did not give them the results they wanted, and all their claims have been proven to be false.

 

[Marie]

DO your research.. THe church hired an independent scientist to do the testing, they had total faith in his ethics and his word. When he came back with the results they didn't want to hear, the church fired him and hired their OWN scientists to dispute his FACTS.

THe church came up with many alibis as to why the test did not give them the results they wanted, and all their claims have been proven to be false.

Blame it on the history channel, just echoing what they presented!


As it turns out, those who suggested that the carbon 14 samples were from a rewoven area were right. This is what was reported in Thermochimica Acta on January 20, 2005.

Thermochimica Acta is not the sort of journal you will find in the reading room of public libraries. It’s a journal about thermoanalytical and calorimetric science. It is mainly for chemists. It is a peer reviewed journal which means that articles are carefully examined by other scientists to ensure that the science is true, methods are sound, and all explanations and conclusions are completely free of logical fallacies. Peer review, an exacting process of challenge and correction, is the normal way that scientists announce their findings. Rogers’ findings were that the samples were invalid and indeed the Shroud is significantly older than the carbon 14 dating suggested.

Carbon 14 Dating On Shroud of Turin Were Botched 2005

 

[itsbob]

Testing was done simultaneously at the University of Arizona, Britain's Oxford University and Switzerland's Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. Each laboratory received four unmarked samples: a shroud cutting and three control pieces, one of which dated from the 1st century. The samples were chemically cleaned, burned to produce carbon dioxide, catalytically converted into graphite and then tested for carbon 14 isotopes to fix the date by calculating the amount of radioactive decay. Only London's British Museum, which coordinated the testing, knew which samples were which.

Arizona's Physicist Douglas Donahue says that the three laboratories reached a "remarkable agreement," all estimating dates within 100 years of one another. Averaging of the data produced a 95% probability that the shroud originated between 1260 and 1380 and near absolute certainty that it dates from no earlier than 1200. However, some Catholics held out the slim hope that there was a scientific oversight and the shroud might be redated someday.


There were multiple cuttings from mutliple sites.

 

[Toxick]

I find it incredulous that Christians revere relics. We are to live by faith.

On the other hand, I've heard an interesting theory about the Shroud, having to do with the Ark of the Covenant.

I don't believe it, but it's interesting.

Supposedly, there are 3 items in the Ark right now... Aaron's staff, the Ten Commandments, and a jar of manna. These items are too big to all be in the Ark, so space inside must be "bent' somehow. Also no wooden staff - and definitely no manna - could last 4000-6000 years, so time must also be bent somehow.

So if the shroud was temporarily stored in the Ark, that could throw it's aging out of whack.


Like I said, I don't buy it, but it's kind of a cool theory.

 

[2ndAmendment]

On the other hand, I've heard an interesting theory about the Shroud, having to do with the Ark of the Covenant.

I don't believe it, but it's interesting.

Supposedly, there are 3 items in the Ark right now... Aaron's staff, the Ten Commandments, and a jar of manna. These items are too big to all be in the Ark, so space inside must be "bent' somehow. Also no wooden staff - and definitely no manna - could last 4000-6000 years, so time must also be bent somehow.

So if the shroud was temporarily stored in the Ark, that could throw it's aging out of whack.


Like I said, I don't buy it, but it's kind of a cool theory.

But why would Jews store the burial shroud of the Messiah in which they do not believe?