![]() "It was embarrassing to have to agree with them," Mr Rogers told the BBC News website. He says he was originally dubious of untested claims that the 1988 sample was taken from a re-weave. "The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic," said Mr Rogers, who is a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, US. It was this material that was responsible for an invalid date being assigned to the original shroud cloth, he argues. Not even one miracle is allowed.Raymond Rogers says his research and chemical tests show the material used in the 1988 radiocarbon analysis was cut from a medieval patch woven into the shroud to repair fire damage. Why? Because an atheist must insist on the natural world being a closed system. I think the Shroud of Turin is the most convincing evidence available if they want scientific, archeological, historical, physical proof. This is what Fanti’s research has done and proven that the 1987 tests were faulty.Ītheists often ask for evidence for the existence of God. When considering evidence and you have nine items which fit with the known facts and fit with each other, but you have one piece of evidence which does not fit, it is common sense to challenge that one piece of evidence and reject it or try again to see why it doesn’t fit. The only piece of evidence from the shroud which doesn’t match up is the 1987 carbon-14 testing. Go here for news of Professor Fanti’s test in 2013. The latest technology and testing suggests a date for the shroud between 200 BC and AD 200. The age of the cloth. The 1987 carbon-14 tests are now believed to have been taken from an area of the cloth that was not simply patched in the middle ages but patched with a difficult to detect interweaving and the carbon-14 tests were therefore compromised. A forger would have had to not only forge the image in some as yet undiscovered way, but would have had to have detailed knowledge of linen weaves of the first century and then not only reproduce it, but age it convincingly. The type of cloth. The cloth is consistent with fabrics from first century Israel, but not with medieval Europe. If it was painted (there is not evidence of paint anywhere) the two would be part of the same faked image The blood and the image. The blood was on the shroud first. There are even microscopic traces of the flower that would have been used in the burial flowers that grew locally and were known to be used for burial. The accuracy to Jewish burial customs. The shroud shows details perfectly consistent with first century Jewish burial customs. Geographical accuracy. Pollen from the shroud is not only from the Jerusalem area, but from Turkey and the other places the shroud is supposed to have resided, dust from the area on the shroud by the knees and feet is from the area of Jerusalem Not only can they not reproduce the image using medieval technologies, they can’t reproduce it with modern technology. Instead it is an image seared on to the cloth with some technology that has yet to be explained. It is not burned on in a conventional manner. Here are some of the basic points shroud doubters have to answer: It’s that last line, “The shroud appears to bear the image of a man who resembles paintings of Christ.” Not only is it badly written but it reveals that the writer knows next to nothing about the shroud itself-which is one of the most extensively researched relics of Christianity. ![]() Some time ago a mainstream media outlet reported on the Shroud of Turin and said, “Pope Francis prayed Sunday before the Shroud of Turin, a strip of cloth that some believe was used for the burial of Jesus Christ. The shroud appears to bear the image of a man who resembles paintings of Christ.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |