The Shroud of Turin - Authentic Again!!!

[Didz]

If I am not mistaken there is no real proof that Jesus died on the cross at all. Apart from the Bible of course

I thought there was evidence that he had been cruxified, but doubts are now being voiced as to whether he actually died on the cross.

Of course, it's difficult to prove anything when the Holy See will not allow samples of the shroud to be taken.

They did. Several years ago they allowed three samples to be cut from the shroud under controlled conditions and sent to three seperate laboratories for carbon dating. These three tests proved that the samples were dated from between 1260-1390, effectively proving that the shroud was a fake.

However, it seems that something odd happened during the process of taking the samples. The entire process was recorded on video to prove that the samples were genuine. However, the tape has since been studied and apparently there is a 30 minute blank spot in the recording which occurs after the samples were cut from the shroud until the presentation of the sealed samples for dispatch to the laboratories. In other words there is no proof that the samples sent to the labs were the ones cut from the shroud.

The Holy See claim that this was necessary to prevent the labs who were sent control samples being made aware that they a fake one. However, as was pointed out the control samples were completely different to real ones and no attempt was made to disquise them and so the labs would have known as soon as the opened the cannisters that they were in the control group.

Furthermore the Oxford lab which was sent one of the supposedly real samples, managed to preserve most of it and it yet it has been impossible to match the sample they were sent with the section of the shroud from which it was supposedly cut. Apparently the weave of the cloth is completely different.

The current conspiracy theory is that the Holy See deliberately swopped the samples before dispatch to the labs, their motive being that if the shroud proved geniune it would undermine the story of the resurrection of christ by proving that he was not actually dead when removed from the cross.

Also Didz don't forget, supposedly Hay-zeus was pretty worse for the wear to begin with when they stuck him on the cross. Barring that, a nice deep spear wound to the side would probably have finished him off in relatively short order, or at least mortally wounded him to the point where even though he might not have been 100% dead when they took him down, he probably was about 99.999% there.

Apparently, the Roman soldier who thrust his spear into the side of Christ, might have been a christain. It appears that when his group were sent to break the legs and finish off the three men on the cross they carried out their orders in respect of the two thieves, but this soldier stopped them doing so to Jesus pointing out that he was already dead and jabbed his spear into him just to prove it. Contempory accounts claim that the spear pierced Jesus' heart and resulted in a gush of blood and water. The fact that the wound resulted in any gush of blood or water merely proves that Jesus was not dead, as dead bloodies do not gush blood. However, the action appears to have convinced the other Romans who left without breaking his legs. Interestingly the the Roman soldier who stabbed Jesus became a Christian bishop soon afterwards.

Furthermore, if the shroud of Turin was proven to be geniune, it too shows evidence that when Jesus was wrapped in it the wound in his side along with his other wounds were still bleeding profusely and medical evidence suggests that this would not have been the case if he was dead and his heart had been pierced by a spear.

Clever or what?

Oh! the other interesting thing about the shroud is that the wounds in the image on the cloth are 100% historically accurate, both for the cruxifiction and for the scorging which occurred prior to it, and yet every medieival image of the cruxifiction is historically inaccurate. Suggesting that if the shroud was a medieval fake, the artist responsible would have needed extremely specialised knowledge of the intricate detail not only of the process through which a body would have been put, but also about the medical reaction of a body subjected to that process. I found that really fascinating as it means that whoever did it would have had to have been pretty damned special.