Cloning

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-18-2015, 23:02

Originally Posted by Brenus

"It's doubtful you could extract any usable DNA from that." Not from Jesus for sure.

That's genuinely debatable - the Shoud and the face cloth certainly come from the same man and both appear to be genuine 1st century artefacts. Whether they were what Jesus was buried in is a separate question.

Just a point of order.

**Brenus** · 10-19-2015, 07:58

"That's genuinely debatable - the Shoud and the face cloth certainly come from the same man and both appear to be genuine 1st century artefacts": "In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three independent sources--Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology--and each of them dated the cloth as originating in medieval times, around 1350"
In http://skepdic.com/shroud.html
Just a point of order.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-19-2015, 23:35

Originally Posted by Brenus

"That's genuinely debatable - the Shoud and the face cloth certainly come from the same man and both appear to be genuine 1st century artefacts": "In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three independent sources--Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology--and each of them dated the cloth as originating in medieval times, around 1350"
In http://skepdic.com/shroud.html
Just a point of order.

I knew you'd bring that up - three things.

1# It's virtually impossible for it to be a medieval fake, unless it was created from the original by an artist with unheard of skill. In particular - the shroud depicts a man crucified in the manner appropriate to the 1st century AD, not in the manner the medieval Christians believed Christ was crucified. Also, there's the problem of the blood-spatter matching exactly to the face cloth which is known to be older.

2# The Shroud is reported in Constantinople at least a century before 1350.

3# It's now believed the carbon-dated strands were erroneously taken from a medieval repair to the cloth, contaminating the results.

**Papewaio** · 10-20-2015, 01:59

2# Is it the same shroud?

There was quite a lot of holy relic counterfeiting in the past. If all of them where true holy relics I wonder why we don't have more reports of six fingered saints or three legged ones. Oh look the 5th little toe of Saint Toealot.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-20-2015, 04:26

Originally Posted by Papewaio

2# Is it the same shroud?

There was quite a lot of holy relic counterfeiting in the past. If all of them where true holy relics I wonder why we don't have more reports of six fingered saints or three legged ones. Oh look the 5th little toe of Saint Toealot.

Well, if it's a fake they broke into a Jewish tomb in Jerusalem and stole some dirt and pollen and deliberately inpregnated the modern cloth which, by the way, they wove using a 1st Century Syrian method.

**CrossLOPER** · 10-20-2015, 06:27

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, if it's a fake they broke into a Jewish tomb in Jerusalem and stole some dirt and pollen and deliberately inpregnated the modern cloth which, by the way, they wove using a 1st Century Syrian method.

That shroud is as real as the other 6 shrouds, 400 spears and who knows how many pieces of wood.