Motoring15 mins ago
Jesus DNA
22 Answers
Would it be possible to find traces of DNA of Jesus?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by graemer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
His lack of descendants might be a problem... unless you believe Dan Brown. All those slivers of the True Cross owned by churches might have got some blood on them, I suppose, but the problem remains: you need something authentic to check them against, otherwise how will you know what you're looking for?
Several years ago, some Texas researchers did a DNA study of supposed Shroud bloodstains, but the origin of the samples they used was questionable and their results have not been officially recognized. Nonetheless, their findings concluded that the blood on the Shroud is from a male human. They also stated that the blood is so old and degraded that very few DNA segments were found, eliminating any possibility of "cloning" anything from the blood found on the cloth. Other DNA experts argue however, that so much contamination exists on the Shroud that no DNA test, no matter how carefully done, could ever be considered definitive...
Hmmm... a little touchy there Peter Pedant?
DALLAS, Jan. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- The American Shroud of Turin Association for Research (AMSTAR), a scientific organization dedicated to research on the enigmatic Shroud of Turin, thought by many to be the burial cloth of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, announced today that the 1988 Carbon-14 test was not done on the original burial cloth, but rather on a rewoven shroud patch creating an erroneous date for the actual age of the Shroud.
The Shroud of Turin is a large piece of linen cloth that shows the faint full-body image of a blood-covered man on its surface.
Because many believe it to be the burial cloth of Jesus, researchers have tried to determine its origin though numerous modern scientific methods, including Carbon-14 tests done at three radiocarbon labs which set the age of the artifact at between AD 1260 and 1390.
"Now conclusive evidence, gathered over the past two years, proves that the sample used to date the Shroud was actually taken from an expertly-done rewoven patch," says AMSTAR President, Tom D'Muhala.
"Chemical testing indicates that the linen Shroud is actually very old -- much older than the published 1988 radiocarbon date."
"As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud," reports chemist Raymond Rogers, a fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
Rogers' new findings are published in the current issue of Thermochimica Acta, a chemistry peer reviewed scientific journal... "The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic," explains Rogers. "The sample tested was dyed using technology that began to appear in Italy about the time the Crusaders' last bastion fell to the Mameluke Turks in AD 1291.
It's a remarkable artifact whatever it is but I think Rogers is on somewhat shaky ground:
Dr. Raymond Rogers, a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, claims that the part of the cloth tested and dated at around 1350 was not part of the original shroud. According to Rogers, the labs that dated the cloth to the 14th century tested a patch made to repair damage done by fire. How does he know this, since the patch was destroyed in the testing? According to shroud investigator Joe Nickell, Rogers "relied on two little threads allegedly left over from the sampling" and the word of "pro-authenticity researchers who guessed that the carbon-14 sample came from a 'rewoven area' of repair." According to Nickell, P.E. Damon's 1989 article published in Nature claims that "textile experts specifically made efforts to select a site for taking the radiocarbon sample that was away from patches and seams."
Says Nickell,
Rogers compared the threads with some small samples from elsewhere on the Shroud, claiming to find differences between the two sets of threads that �prove� the radiocarbon sample �was not part of the original cloth� of the Turin shroud.
The reported differences include the presence�allegedly only on the �radiocarbon sample��of cotton fibers and a coating of madder root dye in a binding medium that his tests �suggest� is gum Arabic....However, Rogers� assertions to the contrary, both the cotton and the madder have been found elsewhere on the shroud. Both were specifically reported by famed microanalyst Walter McCrone.
...
ctd...
Dr. Rogers estimates the actual date of the shroud to be between about 1,000 BCE. and 1700 CE. Still, all the evidence points toward the medieval forgery hypothesis. As Nickell notes, "no examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave" (1998: 35). "In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized�and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus�multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face."*
If the disputed Carbon 14 dating were the only evidence in contention then the authenticity of the relic would certianly be more in doubt. However, that's not the case. A great deal of evidence is available for inspection. I, personally, (not being Roman Catholic) have no need for relics. But I'm not sure the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo can be dismissed cavalierely. You can read this article if you wish:
Scientists: Relic authenticates Shroud of Turin
Exhaustive tests show sacred cloth much older than carbon-14 date.
Here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17660
Fully realizing that agnosticism and probably athiesm are on the ascendancy in the UK (at least evidenced by this site) I'm still a little surprised when posters like DavidUK, make such statements. One can believe or disbelieve anything they want, but is seems folly to me to base those beliefs on a lack of knowledge concerning the issues. I simply mean, DavidUK's statement doesn't withstand the light of evidence that is available to anyone wishing to comprehend all facets of any thing they wish to believe. Evidence provided by credentialed scholars of all stripes. Having said that, I fully understand that there are religious believers of all faiths that don't do the homework as well...
I think that what is on ascendancy right now is a lot of fundamentalist Christian web-sites hosting dodgy and highly partial material.
For example I just did a search on Josephus as a roughly contempory historical figure. Huge numbers of sites offer me the quote:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
Even to somebody of my limited knowlege this is clearly modified later. Josephus was a Jew he'd have sooner pulled his own eyes out than written that.
It either shows extreme gullability or a serious lack of critical thinking about any data that supports their point of view.
Very scary
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
What Did The Conservatives Achieve In...
Politics16 mins ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
The Mail On Sunday Prize Crossword
Crosswords30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.