Its a fake

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-06-18 10:22am

Jesus brother`s box.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-18 10:41am

Shocking.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-18 10:43am

[nelson]Ha ha![/nelson]

Remember: lying for God is OK.

Though the guy who owned the box was an Israeli. Christian, or Jewish?

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-06-18 10:45am

At least the Shroud of Turin is real.

We've still got that.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2003-06-18 11:10am

Tsyroc wrote:At least the Shroud of Turin is real. We've still got that.

Of course.

*COUGH*SIXTEENTH CENTURY*COUGH*

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-06-18 11:17am

Tsyroc wrote:At least the Shroud of Turin is real. We've still got that.

Indeed, it is a real fake.

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-06-18 12:52pm

Indiana Jones and the casket of John!<g> *Starts writing to Spielberg, but realizes it's too late*

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-06-18 01:28pm

Shroud of Turin was found to be far older than 16th century. Recently discovered plant residue on the fibers skewed the carbon-dating to give a much younger age than it actually had.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-06-18 02:07pm

Regardless of its age, it is a fake. Any shrowd placed over a face would be distorted. The real shrowd is not distorted and projects a perfect face. That alone is proof that it never burried anyone.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2003-06-18 05:36pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Shroud of Turin was found to be far older than 16th century. Recently discovered plant residue on the fibers skewed the carbon-dating to give a much younger age than it actually had.

Ok, so it's Byzantine.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-18 06:44pm

I'm slightly surprised by the use of a box that was authentic. As for the rest, no shit comes to mind.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-18 06:51pm

Doesn't bug me. My faith didn't hinge on the authenticity of a stone box.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-06-18 07:13pm

StarshipTitanic wrote:
Ok, so it's Byzantine.

Also, no known mechanism exists for creating an image on fabric that is only one fiber deep. You can actually push aside a stained fiber and see no stain on the ones underneath. That sort of delicacy is beyond human capacity.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-06-18 07:17pm

I'm with the people who are saying "So what?"

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2003-06-18 07:28pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
StarshipTitanic wrote:
Ok, so it's Byzantine.
Also, no known mechanism exists for creating an image on fabric that is only one fiber deep. You can actually push aside a stained fiber and see no stain on the ones underneath. That sort of delicacy is beyond human capacity.

No known Egyptian mechanism can complete the Great Pyramid in 23 years, therefore God did it.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-06-18 07:30pm

StarshipTitanic wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:
StarshipTitanic wrote:
Ok, so it's Byzantine.
Also, no known mechanism exists for creating an image on fabric that is only one fiber deep. You can actually push aside a stained fiber and see no stain on the ones underneath. That sort of delicacy is beyond human capacity.
No known Egyptian mechanism can complete the Great Pyramid in 23 years, therefore God did it.

NO NO NO the aliens did it.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-06-18 07:37pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
StarshipTitanic wrote:
Ok, so it's Byzantine.
Also, no known mechanism exists for creating an image on fabric that is only one fiber deep. You can actually push aside a stained fiber and see no stain on the ones underneath. That sort of delicacy is beyond human capacity.

Actualy they have been able to recreate the making of the shrowd. You still ignore the fact that it is clearly fake because of the image of the face. That alone proves the entire thing is a forgery.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-06-18 07:48pm

What's wrong with the face?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-18 07:50pm

Maybe the cross tipped over and crushed Jesus flat.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-06-18 07:52pm

Alyeska wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:
StarshipTitanic wrote:
Ok, so it's Byzantine.
Also, no known mechanism exists for creating an image on fabric that is only one fiber deep. You can actually push aside a stained fiber and see no stain on the ones underneath. That sort of delicacy is beyond human capacity.
Actualy they have been able to recreate the making of the shrowd. You still ignore the fact that it is clearly fake because of the image of the face. That alone proves the entire thing is a forgery.

I'm going to ask a probably silly question, but did they recreate it with modern technology, or with technology available at the time the shroud was made?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-18 07:55pm

There's also the fact that the image on the Shroud is six feet long. If Jesus Christ had been six feet tall, a height which was quite rare in his time, his height would have been referred to somewhere, perhaps as proof of his divinity.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-06-18 08:02pm

Don't have the passage with me, but Jesus was described as both an unusually tall and strong man. Coulda been 6 feet.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-18 08:03pm

StarshipTitanic wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Shroud of Turin was found to be far older than 16th century. Recently discovered plant residue on the fibers skewed the carbon-dating to give a much younger age than it actually had.
Ok, so it's Byzantine.

It's actually from the mid 13th to late 14th century. This was verified by three independant labs in three different countries. The dating was done by professional scientists and the samples were taken by a textile expert, they wouldn't fuck up over a little contamination. For the date to be skewed by 1200 years there would have to be contamination weighing twice as much as the shroud itself.

The first historical evidence of the Shroud of Turin dates back to 1389, where it is first written about in a letter from the bishop of Troyes, France to Pope Clement VII. The bishop complains of a piece of linen, approximately 14 feet long and 3 feet wide with the front and back images of a crucified man, being falsely displayed in the village of Lirey since the year 1355 as the true burial shroud of Christ. The bishop continued, stating that the image was “cunningly painted” and that he had already received a confession from the artist. In a time when forgery of relics was common due to the great money brought in by pilgrimages, the shroud was determined to be a hoax for monetary gain. Pope Clement VII permitted the continued exhibition of the shroud with the stipulation that an announcement was continually made which denounced the authenticity of the shroud as Christ’s burial cloth, referring to it as an artist’s rendition of the crucifixion.

From here

thecreech · Post by **thecreech** » 2003-06-18 08:15pm

wasn't this already posted in SLAM?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-06-18 08:17pm

theheap wrote:wasn't this already posted in SLAM?

I posted the story long before it was posted in SLAM.