Death certificate is imprinted on the Shroud of Turin, says Vatican scholar

[kancer kid]

Look; if you want to believe that the Shroud is 2,000 years old, and if it helps you with your faith, then please believe as you will.

As I have stated before I am an atheist. Just because I am an atheist, however, does not mean I am going to automatically come to the conclusion the Shroud has to be fake. I am an atheist because I am a skeptic. I am a sketpic because I base my beliefs on FACTS, not on conjecture.

I'm not buying it. I too have read the materials that state it was made during the Renaissance. The work was done something like 20 years ago. There was supporting evidence that it was made sometime around 1500. (I can't recall the date exactly.)

Could you please cite this evidence because the only information I have seen that dates it to that time is based on the carbon dating, which is flawed.

I support people who are religious; unless they are fanatical Muslims. But the Shroud is meaningless to me.

If the Shroud was so meaningless to you, quit posting. I don't support religious people of any kind, they are delusion. I don't see what you are trying to say.

[textfestival]

The shroud is something like 500 years old. I've read the exact date, or a bracket of them. It has been tested several times and it's just not the shroud that covered Christ's body.

It's okay if you want to believe it, as it does no harm. If it makes you feel good to believe that the shroud is real, then have at it. Fact is, however; it's not.

The Shroud as, as far as I understand the matter, been only tested once, using more or less the same portion of fabric, at three separate radiocarbon dating laboratories. However, the section used to date date the Turin Shroud to its 1260-1390AD bracket is widely criticized in not its methodology but its presumably unrepresentative sample belonging to the 1978 Raes corner. Evidence has been amassed, I've seen, to overturn the skeptical idea tracing it to this Medieval period. This includes starch dyes found on the threads, and independently confirmed inconsistent reweaving patterns at the split between the original linen and the Medieval patch applied seamlessly after a 1532 fire where it was kept. One of the original researchers had in fact recanted his skepticism in favor of the Shroud's authenticity in light of this recent finding annulling the 1988 C 14 dating. It then would, in my mind, pay to withhold precarious judgment of something so obviously complex that, after 250,000 + hours of scientific study, the jury is still out.

Auxiliary to this, I am an atheist who would simply like to the Shroud to be proven a true historical remnant of Jesus' crucifixion, although I don't see how the age of the Shroud would prove that.

[grandpa]

The Shroud as, as far as I understand the matter,
been only tested once, using more or less the same
portion of fabric, at three separate radiocarbon dating laboratories.
However, the section used to date date the Turin Shroud
to its 1260-1390AD bracket is widely criticized in not
its methodology but its presumably unrepresentative sample belonging to the
1978 Raes corner.

The Shroud may be genuine, and butterflies may fly out of my butt. But maybe that's just my feeling (or the butterflies tickling...who knows?). I've heard that the Shroud is the result of some sort of rubbing technique. I doubt it's been given weight and credibility by anyone who didn't already believe.

Grandpa h.

[Deadeye]

The Shroud may be genuine, and butterflies may fly out of my butt.

Grandpa h.

Wipe them off will ya please?

[Deadeye]

The Shroud as, as far as I understand the matter, been only tested once, using more or less the same portion of fabric, at three separate radiocarbon dating laboratories. However, the section used to date date the Turin Shroud to its 1260-1390AD bracket is widely criticized in not its methodology but its presumably unrepresentative sample belonging to the 1978 Raes corner. Evidence has been amassed, I've seen, to overturn the skeptical idea tracing it to this Medieval period. This includes starch dyes found on the threads, and independently confirmed inconsistent reweaving patterns at the split between the original linen and the Medieval patch applied seamlessly after a 1532 fire where it was kept. One of the original researchers had in fact recanted his skepticism in favor of the Shroud's authenticity in light of this recent finding annulling the 1988 C 14 dating. It then would, in my mind, pay to withhold precarious judgment of something so obviously complex that, after 250,000 + hours of scientific study, the jury is still out.

Auxiliary to this, I am an atheist who would simply like to the Shroud to be proven a true historical remnant of Jesus' crucifixion, although I don't see how the age of the Shroud would prove that.

I cannot recall my source, because I read it long ago. But the article said that the shroud tested to the era of the Renaissance and that the image was painted on. I can dig it.

[NoJingoLingo]

I think what has been released is merely a photocopy of a certificate of death.

I, for one, would like to see the original, long form of the death certificate.

Now that right there is funny, I don't care who you are...

[NoJingoLingo]

Xians don't believe in Carbon Dating anyway so why bother using that as any kind of proof?

Some people like to claim that something mysterious MUST be going on with the Shroud since no one, including science can verify or nullify anything reasonable in it's regard. The truth however is that you have a large piece of fabric that has been around for a considerable period of time (collecting airborn matter) and has been through at least one fire and the Church is unwilling to allow proper testing for fear of being proven a fake.

[Deadeye]

Now that right there is funny, I don't care who you are...

What? Someone has found Obama's death certificate? Whaaaaa? We can only pray.