Re: Radiocarbon dating of Shroud of Turin wrong?

From: I.E_Johansson (inger_e.xjohansson_at_telia.xcom)
Date: 01/30/05 

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:41:32 GMT

<bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:1107072053.557398.145960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> I.E_Johansson wrote:
> > "Bernardz" <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:MPG.1c66f9f147bf8364989c06@news...
> > > In article <IBVKd.15618$d5.130812@newsb.telia.net>,
> > > inger_e.xjohansson@telia.xcom says...
> > > >
> > > > "Bernardz" <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
> > > > news:MPG.1c66c8eb1f1838ab989c02@news...
> > > > > In article <2eUKd.5090$7w5.872@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>,
> > > > > martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net says...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, we have to ask the question - where is the real one? Any
> ideas?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The real one is not a question but a challenge to prove that
> it is
> > > > > medieval or not!
> > > >
> > > > Bernardz,
> > > > isn't this one of the most common problems. While we might prove
> that
> > it's
> > > > not medieval that doesn't say more than that the cloths might be
> older,
> > > > which btw I have a slight memory having seen a dating which might
> > suggest.
> > > > That's not the same as saying that it's more the time of Christ.
> The
> > cloth
> > > > might be from those days but how can we possibly say that the
> 'picture'
> > is
> > > > even if it was/will be possible to establish that the cloth isn't
> > medieval?
> > > > Hope I am not expressing myself in a cryptic way.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think you have the problem here with the added problem that it is
> very
> > > hard to disprove a negative eg how do you disprove that there is no
> > > black forest cake on the moon!
> >
> > Sorry but that's one of the thing I meant but of course I didn't
> express me
> > very well. Ok once more: Even if the shroud itself turned out to be
> older
> > than Medieval no matter if it was shown to be from the time of
> Christ, that
> > neither makes the 'photo' from same time nor does it directly imply
> that the
> > 'photo' can't be medieval. Thus if the shroud could be called A and A
> was
> > shown to be medieval that doesn't say anything about the 'photo' here
> called
> > B. The impact of this would be that it's almost impossible to prove
> that B
> > is a forgery no matter that B is to be found on A. Which leads to
> what you
> > wrote that proving the combination of B on A (from a theoretical view
> B is a
> > part of A) to be non-genuine. The reasons for this are two: problems
> to
> > prove a negative conclusion as well as problems to prove when an
> added part
> > of a 'dated' artifact was added.
> > >
> > > One theory maybe that some old burial site was dug up, say in
> medieval
> > > times with its ancient prayer shawl relatively intact. Parts of it
> were
> > > fixed and a new picture placed on it.
> >
> > That's general the case in areas where the plough turned up and
> changed the
> > strata-layers in the humus part of the ground. I totally agree.
> > >
> > > Another might be that some ancient picture of a person was etched
> on the
> > > shawl and it was *fixed* up in medieval times.
> >
> > One of the early Madonna paintings comes to mind. Don't remember who
> it is
> > supposed to have been painted of. Anyhow up in the upper right corner
> there
> > is a piece added to a tree. That is according to the scholar we had
> for the
> > course of picture-analyses a symbol which wasn't used until 1200's.
> > Many cherubs are also said to have had their cloth added later on
> when the
> > Medieval Church took the stand that nude persons were sin.
> > The list can be as long as we want.
> > I totally agree with your points.
> > >
> > > In both cases C-14 tests will come up with different results
> depending
> > > on which parts are being tested.
> > >
> > That's true. What I had in mind was if there could be an additative
> result
> > due to the combination. Can that be the case? In other word could a
> possible
> > contimination occur of close or around such added part.
> >
> > Inger E
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > If you give people more money, they can spend it
> > >
> > > Observations of Bernard - No 71
> > >
> > >
>
> Three separate samples were sent to different Physics laboratories. All
> three proved conclusively that the shroud was medieval.

You are probably right, but one question remains and that is why a weed
found in one are the threads in articles I have read have been said to
provide other dating?
>
> Superstitious Crusaders were sold " relics" by wily Muslim merchants.

Most definitely but that didn't start then. There is a note, I think it's in
Zosimus but I don't have him at hand for the moment, of a situation where
Egyptian merchandisers sell 'relics' to a 'Christian' Goth. Why wouldn't
there be people interested in such thing in Medieval Age as well as before
and after.
>
> As Jesus was raised bodily into Heaven, the only relic of him was his
> foreskin removed at the time of his circumcision. It disappeared from
> an Italian monastery in Italy ca 1970.
> Presumably it rose into Heaven to be reunited with the rest of the
> heavenly body of Jesus.
>
That I never heard of. I had our present Bishop of Gothenburg and Bohuslän,
Carl-Axel Aurelius when I studied that part in Religion. He spoke about a
lot but that he missed.

Inger E
> Bernard Connor
>