|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jun 29, 2006 12:02:21 GMT
The Shroud of Turin has engendered controversy since it's appearance in the 16th Century. Is it the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, miraculously burnished with his image during his resurrection or is it simply one of the many phony medieval religious relics? Why did it suddenly appear 16 centuries after Christ's death? Why has no one been able to duplicate the image on the cloth? Barry Schwortz, documenting photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project will present his case for authenticity of the Shroud while Joe Nickell, Senior Investigator for CSICOP offers a differing view. This is a rare opportunity to hear both sides in a debate that is four centuries old. Isn't it the paranormalists who say that skeptic's don't have an open mind? Click Here To Listen |
|
|
|
Post by mook on Jun 29, 2006 13:53:50 GMT
::)I thought they did tests on the shroud and said it was a fake?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jun 29, 2006 17:48:07 GMT
They did tests on part of the shroud that had been restored a few hundred years ago, which means that their tests were wrong as they didnt test a part of the original cloth, and so the controversy goes on
|
|
|
|
Post by maddie on Jun 29, 2006 18:48:38 GMT
I read that the Turin Shroud was the work of a medievel fake and this was proved back in the 90's when the Catholic Church finally allowed it to be carbon tested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jun 29, 2006 21:45:57 GMT
That was the theory, but not true, they now believe the shroud is 2000 years old
|
|
|
|
Post by skeptomatic on Jun 30, 2006 5:18:56 GMT
Doesn't really matter how old it is. It don't mean a thing!
|
|
|
|
Post by Juliette on Jul 3, 2006 0:54:36 GMT
Ohh it's one of the Templar knights ( damm ) need to go find name in my 'hiram' books.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jul 3, 2006 8:17:23 GMT
Doesn't really matter how old it is. It don't mean a thing! If it is indeed 2000 years old, it may also be the face of jesus. Again this doesnt prove Jesus was the son of god etc, but still historically this would be one of the greatest discoveries ever. A man, who is basically the head of the biggest religion on the planet! Even if a fraud, this is still a huge thing |
|
|
|
Post by Amaris on Jul 5, 2006 23:47:36 GMT
Realistically even if it were proven to be 2000 plus years old, it still could be anyone!  |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jul 6, 2006 8:10:49 GMT
Yes thats true, but if they could match some DNA on it, to another religious relic or something like that, it could be amazing
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaris on Jul 6, 2006 10:45:03 GMT
Yes thats true, but if they could match some DNA on it, to another religious relic or something like that, it could be amazing But still wouldn't prove Jesus ... you'd have to have his DNA in the first place wouldn't you? |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jul 6, 2006 11:19:28 GMT
No it wouldnt nessesarily prove Jesus, but if you found the same DNA on various religious artifacts it would lend to the whole story of this man crucified for his claims etc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2006 20:24:45 GMT
As a child, I remember a high-ranking priest coming to our congregation and delivering a lecture & slide-show about the shroud. Of course, being a catholic priest and gathering, the lecture was pitched entirely at this being the imprint of Christ's body. I recall that the atmosphere was filled with the combined awe of all present, and I didn't question the identity of the body until years later. Isn't one theory that of it being an early attempt at photography by Da Vinci or something? I read something which claimed the face was that of the man experimenting (Da vinci or not) and that the body was separate and added later. Wish I could remember more details...  Who knows eh? In truth, I imagine it is in fact the shroud of some unfortunate who was killed 2000 years ago. Just don't know who it was.  (Oh, btw, I didn't listen to the clip as my comp is so prehistoric, so apologies if I have mangled something already touched upon there...lol) |
|
|
|
Post by Amaris on Jul 15, 2006 1:10:00 GMT
No it wouldnt nessesarily prove Jesus, but if you found the same DNA on various religious artifacts it would lend to the whole story of this man crucified for his claims etc Yeah .... Spartacus  |
|
|
|
Post by antmania on Jul 16, 2006 8:27:05 GMT
Great download.Cheers for that. I think the believr plainly came of second best in this interview. Clutching at straws is the phrase that comes mind.
I found it funny that the guy who was adamant that the shroud is the real thing went on to say that he is a Jew and therefore a disbeliever in the ressurection of Christ but still, despite scientific evidence and documentation that proved the shroud to be a fake, he was still clinging on to the belief he was right.
|
|
|
|
Post by claire on Aug 28, 2006 11:09:58 GMT
I read in a newspaper recently that the jounalist derek jameson used to get a work experience employee to go and buy white tea towels and an iron when they had no front page, then used to make them scorch the towels until they came up with a "believable" shroud then if no front page was forthcoming..... made me laugh, no idea how true it is but i liked the mental picture!
|
|
