Ive no idea where this belongs on the forum, but science is as good as any.
So there are three holy cloths not one.
The shroud of turin,
The sudarium of oviedo (the facecloth )
The tunic of argentuille (less known is the tunic for which soldiers cast lots)
The science of all three is fascinating, particularly the forensic correspondence of shroud and sudarium which demonstrates the shroud really is the pre and post mortem pathology of a crucifixion victim and is way older that the fraudulent RC test claimed. A number of physical dating tests now show the shroud is first century.. Deposits on it( and the sudarium ) of travertine aragonite are consistent with jerusalem.
The tunic is less known, but that too has an ancient provenance, and there is a forensic correspondence on both blood and holy land location.
Even more fascinating is an unusual genetic anomaly in the blood of the tunic which is restricted to azkenhaze jews , so clearly in the right place!
My question is - what are peoples views on the cloths. What views do they hold and why?
how many realise theRC dating was literally fraudulent. It was fiddled. And AMS had failed equipment validation anyway the previous year, so could not be relied on. The protocols agreed were ignored. And the samples were chemically different from the rest of the shroud.
Since there is no test for "Jesus Christness" (yet, but watch this space) - it cant be actually stated as genuine, but if it is first century jerusalem showing all the unusual torture of Jesus with a non contact mark arguably created by radiation from the body, it is hard to argue against it.
Even those who botched the date, like Tite, ( they said someone faked it up and flogged it)
now admit it is a crucified man. And when they were offered a million to duplicate it, they turned it down. They know they cannot.
So there are three holy cloths not one.
The shroud of turin,
The sudarium of oviedo (the facecloth )
The tunic of argentuille (less known is the tunic for which soldiers cast lots)
The science of all three is fascinating, particularly the forensic correspondence of shroud and sudarium which demonstrates the shroud really is the pre and post mortem pathology of a crucifixion victim and is way older that the fraudulent RC test claimed. A number of physical dating tests now show the shroud is first century.. Deposits on it( and the sudarium ) of travertine aragonite are consistent with jerusalem.
The tunic is less known, but that too has an ancient provenance, and there is a forensic correspondence on both blood and holy land location.
Even more fascinating is an unusual genetic anomaly in the blood of the tunic which is restricted to azkenhaze jews , so clearly in the right place!
My question is - what are peoples views on the cloths. What views do they hold and why?
how many realise theRC dating was literally fraudulent. It was fiddled. And AMS had failed equipment validation anyway the previous year, so could not be relied on. The protocols agreed were ignored. And the samples were chemically different from the rest of the shroud.
Since there is no test for "Jesus Christness" (yet, but watch this space) - it cant be actually stated as genuine, but if it is first century jerusalem showing all the unusual torture of Jesus with a non contact mark arguably created by radiation from the body, it is hard to argue against it.
Even those who botched the date, like Tite, ( they said someone faked it up and flogged it)
now admit it is a crucified man. And when they were offered a million to duplicate it, they turned it down. They know they cannot.
Last edited:
