deadpool8578
New member
On April 10, 2009, the Telegraph reported that original Shroud investigator, Ray Rogers, acknowledged the radio carbon dating performed in 1988 was flawed.[108] The sample used for dating may have been taken from a section damaged by fire and repaired in the 16th century, which would not provide an estimate for the original material. Shortly before his death, Rogers said:
"The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken."[108] "It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate."[108] "...I am coming to the conclusion that it has a very good chance of being the piece of cloth that was used to bury the historic Jesus."[108]
Barbara Frale, a researcher at the Vatican archives, says in a new book that she used computer-enhanced images of the shroud to decipher faintly written words in Greek, Latin and Aramaic scattered across the cloth.
She asserts that the words include the name "(J)esu(s) Nazarene" — or Jesus of Nazareth — in Greek. That, she said, proves the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have mentioned Jesus without referring to his divinity. Failing to do so would risk being branded a heretic.
If an atheist still can't see any of this proof there is no hoe for them at all
if an dumbass atheist actually reads the question you can see the date was said before his death in 2005..
"The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken."[108] "It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate."[108] "...I am coming to the conclusion that it has a very good chance of being the piece of cloth that was used to bury the historic Jesus."[108]
Barbara Frale, a researcher at the Vatican archives, says in a new book that she used computer-enhanced images of the shroud to decipher faintly written words in Greek, Latin and Aramaic scattered across the cloth.
She asserts that the words include the name "(J)esu(s) Nazarene" — or Jesus of Nazareth — in Greek. That, she said, proves the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have mentioned Jesus without referring to his divinity. Failing to do so would risk being branded a heretic.
If an atheist still can't see any of this proof there is no hoe for them at all
if an dumbass atheist actually reads the question you can see the date was said before his death in 2005..