Shroud of Turin - New Findings!!!!!

[Teachin'Mine]

"Italian researchers at the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development say they believe the image was created by an ultraviolet "flash of light.""

 

This is big!!!

 

Here's the article from Yahoo News:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/scientists-turin-shroud-image-created-ultraviolet-lasers-182107870.html

 

Merry Christmas!!! :)

 

 

[Iucounu]

Unless there's something more to the story, they should all turn in their scientist cards:

'The results show a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,' the scientists said.

Where did they rule out all other causes for the coloration? :confused:

[Teachin'Mine]

For years, scientists have claimed that it's a fake - that it's painted or whatever. This is the first time that they've found that this image can be produced by an intense burst of light - like that from lasers. This is hundreds of years old, long before that technology was available. Believers have long since known that it was from the burst of light at Jesus' resurrection that the image was formed. This is the first time that finding is supported by scientific evidence.

 

If you're interested in further information about the carbon dating, this link has some information on that.

 

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/textevid.pdf

[Virg]

I read that yesterday! So cool.

[ravinlunachick]

Doesn't the image of the man on the Shroud of Turin have nail holes in the palms of his hands? I thought I'd read somewhere that Romans nailed through the wrists, so the nails didn't rip out.

[Teachin'Mine]

Here's a blog about this:

 

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/12/shroud_of_turin_--_working.php

 

Scroll down to the end - interesting. :)

[Mama2Many4]

:D

[ravinlunachick]

Wait, wait, wait. According to wikipedia, there's blood on the shroud. Why not DNA test it? If it's Jesus, then it ought to be amazingly unique, right? What would a person's DNA look like if they had no earthly father?

 

 

I think the shroud is a really ingenious medieval fake. In the end, it's doing what all good relics are supposed to do, right? Giving the faithful a physical connection to the divine?

[littleWMN]

Awesome! Thanks for sharing!

[Teachin'Mine]

Doesn't the image of the man on the Shroud of Turin have nail holes in the palms of his hands? I thought I'd read somewhere that Romans nailed through the wrists, so the nails didn't rip out.

 

Actually I believe it does show the wounds through the wrists.

 

Here's a site with some good information:

 

http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm

[cathmom]

Doesn't the image of the man on the Shroud of Turin have nail holes in the palms of his hands? I thought I'd read somewhere that Romans nailed through the wrists, so the nails didn't rip out.

 

Nope, they're on the wrists. I just watched Samantha Brown's Passport to Europe where she visited Turin, and she specifically pointed that out. :D

[Mama2Many4]

Wait, wait, wait. According to wikipedia, there's blood on the shroud. Why not DNA test it? If it's Jesus, then it ought to be amazingly unique, right? What would a person's DNA look like if they had no earthly father?

 

 

I think the shroud is a really ingenious medieval fake. In the end, it's doing what all good relics are supposed to do, right? Giving the faithful a physical connection to the divine?

 

 

That's just it. It doesn't matter what you think. You're not a research scientist who has been at this for years. Jesus also MOST CERTAINLY had "normal" blood. He was fully divine AND fully human.

[Teachin'Mine]

Wait, wait, wait. According to wikipedia, there's blood on the shroud. Why not DNA test it? If it's Jesus, then it ought to be amazingly unique, right? What would a person's DNA look like if they had no earthly father?

 

 

I think the shroud is a really ingenious medieval fake. In the end, it's doing what all good relics are supposed to do, right? Giving the faithful a physical connection to the divine?

 

They have type tested. It's AB - the same as that of the Eucharist of Lanciano which changed from bread into the heart muscle of Jesus. :)

 

No idea about DNA testing ... off to Google.

[littleWMN]

The blood type is AB. From what I read, old blood often types AB but it's not inconsistent with the fact that this could be from Christ.

 

The DNA is too old and fragmented to be helpful (from what I've read).

 

If you believed it was forged, what do you make of the latest findings?

[Iucounu]

This is the first time that they've found that this image can be produced by an intense burst of light - like that from lasers. This is hundreds of years old' date=' long before that technology was available.[/quote']

The fact that lasers weren't available in medieval times doesn't mean that the Shroud of Turin's not a fake. Nothing in the news article shows that the Shroud was created with a laser, or by any intense burst of light; instead it contains a claim that the scientists were able to approximate certain results with a laser.

 

Again, a finding that lasers "can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics" is not compelling evidence of anything. There are certainly other causes which can color a linen cloth, and note that these researchers don't even claim to have reproduced all of the characteristics of the Shroud of Turin, just "many".

 

This just isn't proof of how the Shroud of Turin was made, and it's not even close. It's excitement over being able to produce similar results with a laser. It's going to take actual evidence to refute the actual evidence (carbon dating, etc.) which shows it's a fake.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Iucounu

[ravinlunachick]

That's just it. It doesn't matter what you think. You're not a research scientist who has been at this for years. Jesus also MOST CERTAINLY had "normal" blood. He was fully divine AND fully human.

 

Well, that was rude. :confused:

 

I never said my opinion was THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY. I just stated what I think about the shroud. Geez.

 

As far as the DNA, I don't understand. I fully admit my understanding of genetics is pretty weak, but don't we get genetic info from both our mother and our father? If there's no earthly father to donate that Y chromosome, where would that genetic material come from?

 

I don't mean to offend anyone. I just like to ask questions. I should have learned my lesson when I got kicked out of Sunday School for 2 weeks as a kid for asking too many questions about Noah's Ark. :lol:

[Teachin'Mine]

The fact that lasers weren't available in medieval times doesn't mean that the Shroud of Turin's not a fake. Nothing in the news article shows that the Shroud was created with a laser, or by any intense burst of light; instead it contains a claim that the scientists were able to approximate certain results with a laser.

 

Again, a finding that lasers "can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics" is not compelling evidence of anything. There are certainly other causes which can color a linen cloth, and note that these researchers don't even claim to have reproduced all of the characteristics of the Shroud of Turin, just "many".

 

This just isn't proof of how the Shroud of Turin was made, and it's not even close. It's excitement over being able to produce similar results with a laser. It's going to take actual evidence to refute the actual evidence (carbon dating, etc.) which shows it's a fake.

 

Despite many scientists having tried, they haven't found any which are consistent with the Shroud. This is the first.

[Mynyel]

Well, that was rude. :confused:

 

I never said my opinion was THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY. I just stated what I think about the shroud. Geez.

 

As far as the DNA, I don't understand. I fully admit my understanding of genetics is pretty weak, but don't we get genetic info from both our mother and our father? If there's no earthly father to donate that Y chromosome, where would that genetic material come from?

 

I don't mean to offend anyone. I just like to ask questions. I should have learned my lesson when I got kicked out of Sunday School for 2 weeks as a kid for asking too many questions about Noah's Ark. :lol:

 

 

Because after all that time the DNA is to degraded to test. They wouldn't be able to get good DNA from it.

[Teachin'Mine]

The blood type is AB. From what I read, old blood often types AB but it's not inconsistent with the fact that this could be from Christ.

 

The DNA is too old and fragmented to be helpful (from what I've read).

 

If you believed it was forged, what do you make of the latest findings?

 

Yes, in searching about the DNA, I found the same.

 

This is from shroud.com:

 

"

Q: Has DNA testing ever been performed on the Shroud, assuming the blood stains still have traces of DNA?

A: Several years ago, some Texas researchers did a DNA study of supposed Shroud bloodstains, but the provenance of the samples they used was questionable and their results have not been officially recognized. Nonetheless, their findings concluded that the blood on the Shroud is from a male human. They also stated that the blood is so old and degraded that very few DNA segments were found, eliminating any possibility of "cloning" anything from the blood found on the cloth. Other DNA experts argue however, that so much contamination exists on the Shroud that no DNA test, no matter how carefully done, could ever be considered definitive. During the 1978 exhibition and scientific examination, the cloth was handled by many people, including most members of STURP, the Church authorities who prepared it for display, the Poor Clare nuns who unstitched portions of it, visiting dignitaries (including the Archbishop of Turin and the emissary of King Umberto) and countless others. During the five days and nights of the 1978 examination, the Shroud was continuously exposed to contamination as it lay unprotected on the support table. Every member of our research team, including myself, left DNA on the cloth. And remember, the cloth has been displayed and handled thousands of times throughout its history. Once again, the Shroud presens us with an enigma that even DNA evidence may not definitively unravel.

 

 

And as I ask all to be mindful of their posts as I'd hate to see this thread disappear. ; )

Edited December 22, 2011 by Teachin'Mine

[ma23peas]

The world was round since the beginning of time, God knew it was, took man thousands of years to confirm it. God knows if the shroud is authentic, it could take thousands more years to confirm it. Althought I majored in Chemistry, I do not give a lot of credence to the folly of many scientists...give me the laws and leave the theories on the table.

[Iucounu]

Despite many scientists having tried' date=' they haven't found any which are consistent with the Shroud. This is the first.[/quote']

Actually, there have been many claims over the years to have duplicated the image on the Shroud using techniques available during medieval times. Other scientists (and, of course, religious people) have disagreed, and debate continues. These new findings are also not consistent with the Shroud of Turin, unless I'm unaware of ultraviolet lasers being discussed in the Bible as occurring during the resurrection.

[Teachin'Mine]

Actually, there have been many claims over the years to have duplicated the image on the Shroud using techniques available during medieval times. Other scientists (and, of course, religious people) have disagreed, and debate continues. These new findings are also not consistent with the Shroud of Turin, unless I'm unaware of ultraviolet lasers being discussed in the Bible as occurring during the resurrection.

 

I'd love to read the article about these duplicated images along with evidence of these same materials existing in the Shroud. I would ask for the same proof of those who dispute this being Jesus' burial cloth as you require from those who say it is, or could be. :D :)

 

It's interesting that many scientists who have worked on claiming the Shroud to be a fake, some of whom were atheists, came to believe after doing their research.

 

No lasers. The intense flash of light was from Jesus Himself at the time of His resurrection.

[Iucounu]

I'd love to read the article about these duplicated images along with evidence of these same materials existing in the Shroud. I would ask for the same proof of those who dispute this being Jesus' burial cloth as you require from those who say it is' date=' or could be. :D :)[/quote']

Wikipedia's actually a good start-- I checked a while back. Unfortunately, someone asserting that the Shroud of Turin was created with an ultraviolet blast of coherent light bears the burden of proof, not a skeptic. That means that if you're asserting that the Shroud was created that way, I can ask for proof without needing to prove it was created in some other way, or proving that it wasn't created that way. The linked news article is not proof, and doesn't seem to indicate that there is proof.

 

(ETA: The Shroud is certainly a highly interesting object, and merits its status as the most-studied artifact created by human hands. I certainly can't prove personally one way or the other whether it was around at the time of Jesus, about whom we'd certainly agree was a real living human being. I'm just skeptical of pseudoscientific claims, and I've seen in the past how the blogosphere and even bona fide journalists can distort reports from other sources. That said, if these Italian scientists are "real" ones, i.e. publish in peer-reviewed journals etc., and have really reported that they've ruled out all other possible explanations besides laser light, then the article would be accurate. I believe I can tell it's not, but hopefully we'll get confirmation as more results develop.)

 

And note that the scientists from the study haven't actually gone so far as to say they've proven the Shroud was created with a blast of light; they've merely said that they believe they can replicate many properties of the Turin Shroud using laser light. That's perfectly acceptable for them to claim, and now I imagine other scientists will attempt to replicate their results.

 

However, it seems to be over-reaching to state at this point that their work is proof of how the Shroud of Turin was created-- and it doesn't agree with any biblical version I've heard, either. It would be fallacious to suggest that because scientists feel they can replicate many effects of the Shroud a certain way, it must have been created that way.

 

ETA: I think we're the victims of shoddy reporting. The English reporter uses the word "only", but not in a quote from the scientists themselves. Let's wait and see what other news reports say as the story unfolds.

 

It's interesting that many scientists who have worked on claiming the Shroud to be a fake' date=' some of whom were atheists, came to believe after doing their research.[/quote']

I don't think so. I've seen the water so muddied regarding theistic science vs. actual science that it's not worth a debate, IMHO. There are certainly always going to be people with scientific degrees, even some doing real scientific research, that hold religious views and even speak out in support of of religious ideas that are at odds with the scientific evidence. They're typically in a small minority. In that vein, I'm sure (without needing to check) that there must be at least one person with a scientific degree who came to religion during a study of the Shroud of Turin; but that's far from any sort of evidence as to its authenticity.

 

No lasers. The intense flash of light was from Jesus Himself at the time of His resurrection.

Note that this effect was created by lasers.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Iucounu

[Iucounu]

Here's another misleading article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2076443/Turin-Shroud-created-flash-supernatural-light.html

 

No scientist would assert the proof of a supernatural explanation for anything; that's wholly a creation of the journablogger. The big news outlets seem to be taking their time with a more accurate description of the study.

 

I snickered at the following comment at the foot of the page, and I think it neatly shows the fallacy of concluding that a failure to replicate something in the lab proves a supernatural origin. It's of course perfectly natural to remark with interest that something hasn't been scientifically explained or demonstrated yet.

 

A few years ago I baked a tortilla that had the image of Jesus on it. Try as I might, I could not get another tortilla to come out with that image. I invited several of my friends to try.... some of which had attended culinary school. They could not get Jesus on another tortilla. I invite any scientist to make a tortilla with the image of Jesus on it. You cannot replicate that kind of miracle. Man, I wish I had not eaten that tortilla. (Was great with beans and guacamole.)

 

- Tddrage, Nebraska, USA, 22/12/2011 06:58

Edited December 22, 2011 by Iucounu

[ravinlunachick]

That's too bad about the DNA. I suppose it might have put to rest once and for all questions of Jesus's divinity (or at the least, whoever was in the shroud). But then again, aren't such things *supposed* to be a matter of faith?

 

I, for one, surely don't have the answers. I am simply interested in the science behind the story.

[ravinlunachick]

Off topic, but Iucounu, how do you pronounce your username? I get tangue toungled every time I try to read it. :p

[Iucounu]

Off topic, but Iucounu, how do you pronounce your username? I get tangue toungled every time I try to read it. :p

I'm not sure. It's a creation of the writer Jack Vance. "EWE-cow-noo" would get unwieldy after a while, so if I discussed Vance often with others in person (which has rarely happened, as he's sort of a refined and relatively unknown taste) I would probably devolve to saying "EWE-canoe".

[Parrothead]

Yes' date=' in searching about the DNA, I found the same.

 

This is from shroud.com:

 

"

[b']Q: Has DNA testing ever been performed on the Shroud, assuming the blood stains still have traces of DNA?[/b]

A: Several years ago, some Texas researchers did a DNA study of supposed Shroud bloodstains, but the provenance of the samples they used was questionable and their results have not been officially recognized. Nonetheless, their findings concluded that the blood on the Shroud is from a male human. They also stated that the blood is so old and degraded that very few DNA segments were found, eliminating any possibility of "cloning" anything from the blood found on the cloth. Other DNA experts argue however, that so much contamination exists on the Shroud that no DNA test, no matter how carefully done, could ever be considered definitive. During the 1978 exhibition and scientific examination, the cloth was handled by many people, including most members of STURP, the Church authorities who prepared it for display, the Poor Clare nuns who unstitched portions of it, visiting dignitaries (including the Archbishop of Turin and the emissary of King Umberto) and countless others. During the five days and nights of the 1978 examination, the Shroud was continuously exposed to contamination as it lay unprotected on the support table. Every member of our research team, including myself, left DNA on the cloth. And remember, the cloth has been displayed and handled thousands of times throughout its history. Once again, the Shroud presens us with an enigma that even DNA evidence may not definitively unravel.

 

 

And as I ask all to be mindful of their posts as I'd hate to see this thread disappear. ; )

Oh, my! I never thought about cloning. It would be like some kind of wild sci-fi novel to clone Jesus. Thank goodness the DNA is too far gone. That poor clone's life would be a nightmare!

[WeeBeaks]

Actually I believe it does show the wounds through the wrists.

 

Here's a site with some good information:

 

http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm

 

Thanks for sharing this - interesting read this morning.

[Teachin'Mine]

Oh, my! I never thought about cloning. It would be like some kind of wild sci-fi novel to clone Jesus. Thank goodness the DNA is too far gone. That poor clone's life would be a nightmare!

 

I was actually glad that the DNA can't be used when I read the part about cloning. Thankfully my mind had never gone there.

[Teachin'Mine]

Iucounu, we can agree to disagree. :)

[Sputterduck]

Oh, my! I never thought about cloning. It would be like some kind of wild sci-fi novel to clone Jesus. Thank goodness the DNA is too far gone. That poor clone's life would be a nightmare!

 

Or perhaps that would be God's planned second coming of Jesus. Ha

God does throw a curve ball at times.

[ravinlunachick]

Or perhaps that would be God's planned second coming of Jesus. Ha

God does throw a curve ball at times.

 

:lol:

 

Thanks, Iucounu. You shall forevermore be YouCowNoo in my head. :)

[TXBeth]

I just don't get the excitement. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the shroud is not a fake and it really did cover Jesus' body while He was in the tomb...who cares? Does it really matter? Does it change anything? (conservative Christian here - I believe in the resurrection but really don't care about a piece of cloth that may or may not have touched Jesus' dead body)

 

Besides which, even if it were proven that the shroud came from the right time period and covered the body of a human male that was beaten and crucified, that would still be a long way from proving it was Jesus. There were more than a few others crucified and buried in that general time period.

[Parrothead]

Well for Catholics (and EO?) it would be the ultimate relic.

[Teachin'Mine]

I just don't get the excitement. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the shroud is not a fake and it really did cover Jesus' body while He was in the tomb...who cares? Does it really matter? Does it change anything? (conservative Christian here - I believe in the resurrection but really don't care about a piece of cloth that may or may not have touched Jesus' dead body)

 

Besides which, even if it were proven that the shroud came from the right time period and covered the body of a human male that was beaten and crucified, that would still be a long way from proving it was Jesus. There were more than a few others crucified and buried in that general time period.

 

It's the finding that the same type of image can be created with an explosion of light. I personally have no doubt that the Shroud is indeed Jesus' burial cloth. But can you see how this cloth being produced by an explosion of light - which had to come from within the cloth - from the body therein - had to be Jesus at the time of His resurrection? For those who believe, it's not necessary to have any scientific proof - but it's totally awesome anyway. And for me, it's exciting to think that maybe someone who had their doubts might begin to see that it's all true. There are those who believe that Jesus lived and was crucified, but this cloth is testament to his resurrection from the dead. To me, that's the part that counts. :)

[Iucounu]

But can you see how this cloth being produced by an explosion of light - which had to come from within the cloth - from the body therein - had to be Jesus at the time of His resurrection?

No, I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion.

 

Here's more balanced coverage:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/22/9636065-was-holy-shroud-created-in-a-flash-italian-researchers-resurrect-claim

[ktgrok]

Well, that was rude. :confused:

 

I never said my opinion was THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY. I just stated what I think about the shroud. Geez.

 

As far as the DNA, I don't understand. I fully admit my understanding of genetics is pretty weak, but don't we get genetic info from both our mother and our father? If there's no earthly father to donate that Y chromosome, where would that genetic material come from?

 

I don't mean to offend anyone. I just like to ask questions. I should have learned my lesson when I got kicked out of Sunday School for 2 weeks as a kid for asking too many questions about Noah's Ark. :lol:

 

I watched something once, I think on Nat Geo but maybe not, about how it could happen. It would take a combination of parthogenesis (basically Marry making a clone of herself) and her having a Y chromosome, which does happen sometimes to people that are by all accounts female.

[Teachin'Mine]

No, I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion.

 

 

 

I know you don't; that was in response to TxBeth. :)

[Teachin'Mine]

Luke 1: 26 - 38 26

 

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34 And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" 35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. 36 And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible." 38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

 

Merry Christmas to all! :)

[littleWMN]

It's the finding that the same type of image can be created with an explosion of light. I personally have no doubt that the Shroud is indeed Jesus' burial cloth. But can you see how this cloth being produced by an explosion of light - which had to come from within the cloth - from the body therein - had to be Jesus at the time of His resurrection? For those who believe' date=' it's not necessary to have any scientific proof - but it's totally awesome anyway. And for me, it's exciting to think that maybe someone who had their doubts might begin to see that it's all true. There are those who believe that Jesus lived and was crucified, but this cloth is testament to his resurrection from the dead. To me, that's the part that counts.[/b'] :)

 

:iagree:

[kalanamak]

Yet more evidence for the great power of science in our culture. I have no religious faith, but I'm just positive that if I did, the last place I would go to learn about it would be science. I actually find pursuing religion with science to be a bit insulting to both science and religion.

 

Just an opinion. No tomatoes thrown.

[Teachin'Mine]

IMO science should be approached with an open mind, and religion with an open heart.

[Myeightkiddies]

IMO science should be approached with an open mind' date=' and religion with an open heart.[/quote']

 

I love that.

[Amy Jo]

I love how the research was conducted 'off the clock' - I think that's what science should be, curiosity. I've never read much on the shroud, so thanks for the links and discussion. I find this quote interesting (from the msnbc article):

 

Nickell said Di Lazzaro and his colleagues started out with the assumption that the coloration on the Shroud couldn't have been created by applying pigment to the linen

 

Nickell is claiming they were 'out to prove' something because they started with a certain assumption. They then tested that assumption. Isn't that what science is supposed to do? Question, then test??? (At the article's end Lazzaro replies with a valid reason to doubt the painting theory, the depth of the impression.)

 

IMO science should be approached with an open mind' date=' and religion with an open heart.[/quote']

 

:iagree:

 

Thanks for posting this.

[m0mmaBuck]

Yet more evidence for the great power of science in our culture. I have no religious faith, but I'm just positive that if I did, the last place I would go to learn about it would be science. I actually find pursuing religion with science to be a bit insulting to both science and religion.

 

Just an opinion. No tomatoes thrown.

 

:iagree:

 

I think that religion relies on faith and the belief in things you cannot prove while science requires proof or at the very least the pursuit of it.

[Teachin'Mine]

Here's a quick video from Huffington Post:

 

http://www.5min.com/Video/Scientists-Claim-Shroud-of-Turin-Could-Not-Have-Been-Faked-517232561

 

The following was edited for clarity as I couldn't copy the wording on the video and didn't take the time to write it all down - which I've now done.

 

At the end of this clip, they give the following information:

 

"... in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy

needed to make such distinct marks, the ... report spells it out : 'This degree

of power can not be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.'"

 

About a year ago or so, we had watched an awesome DVD on the Shroud. I'm going to see if I can figure out which one it was. I highly recommend it - especially in light of this new finding. :)

 

I'm so glad to hear that others are enjoying this too! :)

Edited December 23, 2011 by Teachin'Mine

[justamouse]

Here's a quick video from Huffington Post:

 

http://www.5min.com/Video/Scientists-Claim-Shroud-of-Turin-Could-Not-Have-Been-Faked-517232561

 

At the end of this clip' date=' they give the information that the researchers said that[b'] as of today[/b], we don't have the ability to create a source of UV light strong enough to produce this image. :D

 

About a year ago or so, we had watched an awesome DVD on the Shroud. I'm going to see if I can figure out which one it was. I highly recommend it - especially in light of this new finding. :)

 

I'm so glad to hear that others are enjoying this too! :)

 

 

Now that is a Christmas present!

[cin]

Wait, wait, wait. According to wikipedia, there's blood on the shroud. Why not DNA test it? If it's Jesus, then it ought to be amazingly unique, right? What would a person's DNA look like if they had no earthly father?

 

 

Now THERE"S an interesting thought...

[*********]

I just don't get the excitement. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the shroud is not a fake and it really did cover Jesus' body while He was in the tomb...who cares? Does it really matter? Does it change anything? (conservative Christian here - I believe in the resurrection but really don't care about a piece of cloth that may or may not have touched Jesus' dead body)

 

Besides which, even if it were proven that the shroud came from the right time period and covered the body of a human male that was beaten and crucified, that would still be a long way from proving it was Jesus. There were more than a few others crucified and buried in that general time period.

 

I'm over here with Beth. Ducking the tomatoes. :D