Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: loco on January 02, 2008, 07:47:19 PM
-
The Shroud of Turin (or Turin Shroud) is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.
The shroud is the subject of intense debate among some scientists, people of faith, historians, and writers regarding where, when, and how the shroud and its images were created. Many believe it is the cloth that covered Jesus of Nazareth when he was placed in his tomb and that his image was recorded on its fibers at the time of his proclaimed resurrection, probably by a powerful flash of light irradiating from his body. Skeptics contend the shroud is a medieval hoax, forgery, or the result of natural processes that are not yet understood. As of today, no scientist can explain how the image was recorded unto the shroud or what method or technology was used. And, though some skeptics have tried, nobody as of today has been able to replicate it using any method or technology.
(http://home.hetnet.nl/~shroud-enhanced/000ShroudPosx.JPG)
The image on the cloth has many peculiar and closely studied characteristics, for example, it is entirely superficial, not penetrating into the cloth fibers under the surface, so that the flax and cotton fibers are not colored; the image yarn is composed of discolored fibers placed side by side with non-discolored fibers so many striations appear. Thus the cloth is not simply dyed, though many other explanations, natural and otherwise, have been suggested for the image formation.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf
Many believers have hypothesized that the image on the shroud was produced by a side effect of the Resurrection of Jesus, purposely left intact as a rare physical aid to understanding and believing in Jesus' dual nature as man and God. Some have asserted that the shroud collapsed through the glorified body of Jesus, pointing to certain X-ray-like impressions of the teeth and the finger bones. Others assert that radiation streaming from every point of the revivifying body struck and discolored every opposite point of the cloth, forming the complete image through a kind of supernatural pointillism using inverted shades of blue-gray rather than primary colors.
From http://www.shroud2000.com/FastFacts.html :
1353: The Shroud's fully documented history began in Western Europe when it was revealed by Geoffrey DeCharney in Lirey, France.
1532: The burial linen was severely damaged by fire in Chambery, France.
1534: The Shroud was repaired by the Poor Claire Nuns who were skilled in making textile repairs. The holes from the fire were patched and the entire cloth was attached to a backing cloth for support.
1898: The Shroud was photographed for the first time by Secondo Pia. These first pictures led to the discovery that the image on the cloth is actually a negative. In other words, the image becomes positive only when the light values are reversed in a photographic negative. This discovery startled the scientific community and stimulated worldwide interest.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Shroud_of_Turin_001.jpg/800px-Shroud_of_Turin_001.jpg)
1975: Air Force scientists John Jackson and Eric Jumper, using a sophisticated image enhancement analyzer (VP-8) designed for the space program, discovered the Shroud image contained encoded 3-D data not found in ordinary reflected light photographs. This discovery indicated that the cloth must have wrapped a real human figure at the time the image was formed.
(http://factsplusfacts.com/images/3dexamples.jpg)
1978: The Shroud was on public exhibit for the first time since 1933 and was displayed for six weeks. Over 3 million people passed through the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist to view it behind bullet proof glass. At the close of the exhibition, 40 scientists comprising the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), mostly from the United States, analyzed the Shroud for five continuous days (122 hours) working in shifts around the clock.
Tests performed in 1978 include:
Particle analysis
Chemical analysis
Blood analysis
Photo microscopy
Spectroscopy
X-ray radiography
Infra-red thermography
X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
Scanning photography from infra-red to ultra violet
And others
1980: This same year, microscopist Walter McCrone who was not part of the Shroud Project was given several fibers to analyze. After finding iron oxide particles and a single particle of vermillion paint, he broke ranks with the Shroud scientists who had agreed to make all findings public the following year. McCrone proposed that the Shroud was a painting of red ochre paint created from iron oxide particles suspended in a thin binder solution. However McCrone's findings in no way agreed with any of the highly sophisticated tests conducted by two dozen other scientists. McCrone jumped the gun for the sake of getting his own publicity. His claims have all been dismissed.
1981: After three years analyzing the data The Shroud of Turn Research Project (STURP) made their findings public at an international conference in New London, CT. All the scientists agreed upon the following statement: "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and give a positive test for serum albumin."
1988: The Shroud was carbon dated by three laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona. They indcated a date range from between 1260 to 1390 making the cloth only about 700 years old. This earth shattering news seemed to contradict the conclusions of STURP which gave support to the Shroud's possible authenticity. This new data posed a great dilemma for proponents of the Shroud and further complicates an explanation for the Shroud's existence.
The Shroud cannot be explained in a medieval context because it demonstrates medical knowledge and artistic expertise unknown until centuries later. If it was not made by an artist then what is it? Was it a custom crucifixion performed to mimic that of Jesus? Knowledge of Roman crucifixion practices was totally unknown in the Middle Ages. There are dozens of reasons why a medieval date doesn't fit the evidence.
1997: Noted Israeli Botanist and a professor at Hebrew University, Avinoam Danin confirmed Dr. Alan Whanger's discovery of flower images on the Shroud. He also verified that several pollen were from plants that grow only around Jerusalem.
Sci/Tech - Plants shed light on Turin Shroud
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/411366.stm
2004: Discovery of the Shroud's double face image. Italian scientists, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolio of Padova University were able to analyze scans of the backside of the Shroud after it was removed from the backing cloth. This had never been done before. The previous backing cloth had been attached since 1534 as part of the restoration following the fire of 1532. Examining the scans revealed faint superficial images of the face and hands. The image occurs only on the top surface of the fibers, similar to the front side of the Shroud but there is no coloring of the threads in between. This enhances the mystery of image formation and makes it that much more difficult to ascribe the Shroud to the work of an artist.
2005: Thermal Chemist, Dr. Raymond Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory proves using samples from the area cut for carbon 14 dating and samples from the main body of the Shroud that the sample cut in 1988 for C-14 dating was in fact a medieval reweave confirming Marino and Benford's hypothesis presented in 2000. Rogers also determined the evidence of a madder root dye used to blend in the color of newer threads with the more yellowed threads of the original Shroud. He also found cotton in the C-14 sample but not from the main body of the Shroud indicating both cotton and flax were used in the repair. Lastly and most importantly, he found that 37% of the vanillin remained intact in the lignon from the C-14 fibers whereas the vanillin content from the main body of the Shroud had decayed to 0%, similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not only does this new evidence show that the carbon dating tests were severely flawed by dating an erroneous sample, but that the evidence also shows the main body of the Shroud is much older as indicated by the lack of vanillin. This critical research is precisely the kind of micro-chemical analysis the carbon dating labs were supposed to do in 1988, prior to taking the sample according to the original protocol, but failed to follow.
The carbon dating tests of 1988 have been thoroughly and completely invalidated by good science rather than the shoddy and arrogant effort demonstrated by the carbon labs in 1988. The cloud has been lifted.
Turin shroud 'older than thought'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
2007: "The Fabric of Time" is released on DVD
Product Description
We live in a world where science and religion have often been on opposing sides. But is all that changing? For the first time, science and religion have come together to uncover an age-old mystery. Who was Jesus Christ? What did he actually look like? And can the story of his death and resurrection now be proven as true? Viewers around the world are in the jury box as newly found scientific discoveries are presented by scholars, scientists, and historians in an unflinching search for evidence -- nothing has been held back. Could it be that actual documentation of this amazing story is still available today? See the evidence and decide for yourself in THE FABRIC OF TIME.
http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Time-Shroud-Turin/dp/B000MTEFNM/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1199330994&sr=8-1
What skeptics say:
"The debate over the origin and authenticity of the shroud steadily increased over the years. Many scientific investigations were carried out to get to the heart of the matter. Moreover, many scientific papers were written on the subject relating to the different theories concerning the structural make-up and image on the shroud. Most scientists took one of three prominent views; they either believed that the shroud was a "divine" creation or that the image was man made or that it was a natural phenomenon. The Shroud of Turin was without a doubt a mystery that challenged faith, science and understanding, one that rekindled man's inquisitive nature in a search for an explanation."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/5.html
"Interestingly, Barbet also noticed that some of the blood stains flowed in unusual, almost unnatural directions on the arms. However, he realized that the stains were consistent with one's arms being outstretched and than lowered, much like someone's arms who had been crucified and then let down. If the blood flow was an artist's representation, it was masterfully conceived and skillfully carried out."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/6.html
"Amazingly, no one has yet been able to successfully explain how the unique 3-D negative-like image on the shroud was constructed. In actuality that remains the biggest mystery."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/9.html
(http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics/photos/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/9-1-3-D-image-of-Shroud.jpg)
"Rogers was further quoted in the article saying, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder reported fort his time." Pliny the Elder was an ancient Roman scientist and author who lived between 23 and 79 AD. Based on Rogers' research and historical data, the shroud has been accurately dated to around the time of Christ. The discovery rekindled the age-old debate of whether the shroud was or was not the actual burial cloth used to wrap Jesus' body. Chances are we will never know."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/10.html
What Loco says:
Christianity rests on Faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose again. Christianity does not rest on relics. If you already have faith in Jesus, then you do not need the shroud. If you do not have faith, then you probably will not believe even if presented with proof that the shroud is authentic. However, the Shroud of Turin is real, scientists have studied it, and scientists have no other explanation.
Nobody witnessed the actual resurrection. Jesus' followers witnessed the empty tomb, the angels at the tomb, and later the risen Jesus himself. Since nobody witnessed the resurrection itself, could God have left us a photograph of the event itself? Maybe so. The evidence is there. Is the Shroud of Turin the the cloth that covered Jesus of Nazareth or is it the greatest forgery ever made, during the middle ages, using technology unknown to us even today? You decide.
More:
http://factsplusfacts.com/theed.htm
http://www.shroudstory.com/
http://www.shroud.com/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud.html
http://e-forensicmedicine.net/Washed.htm
-
Haha...
Carbon dating has shown conclusively that the shroud is a 13th century forgery.
When three independent laboratories in three different countries arrived at this conclusion the Chuch was so pissed that they refused to allow further investigation. One of the universities was Oxford university.
Hysterical and yet it people like you keep on believing. Funny.
-
Haha...
Carbon dating has shown conclusively that the shroud is a 13th century forgery.
When three independent laboratories in three different countries arrived at this conclusion the Chuch was so pissed that they refused to allow further investigation. One of the universities was Oxford university.
Hysterical.
You did not read the whole thing. That was in 1988. Read the latest research.
Turin shroud 'older than thought'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
Besides, even in the middle ages nobody had the knowledge or technology to create such a forgery. Even skeptic scientists who believe that it is a 13th century forgery can't explain how in the world it was created, and they can't duplicate it.
The Shroud cannot be explained in a medieval context because it demonstrates medical knowledge and artistic expertise unknown until centuries later. If it was not made by an artist then what is it? Was it a custom crucifixion performed to mimic that of Jesus? Knowledge of Roman crucifixion practices was totally unknown in the Middle Ages. There are dozens of reasons why a medieval date doesn't fit the evidence.
2005: Thermal Chemist, Dr. Raymond Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory proves using samples from the area cut for carbon 14 dating and samples from the main body of the Shroud that the sample cut in 1988 for C-14 dating was in fact a medieval reweave confirming Marino and Benford's hypothesis presented in 2000. Rogers also determined the evidence of a madder root dye used to blend in the color of newer threads with the more yellowed threads of the original Shroud. He also found cotton in the C-14 sample but not from the main body of the Shroud indicating both cotton and flax were used in the repair. Lastly and most importantly, he found that 37% of the vanillin remained intact in the lignon from the C-14 fibers whereas the vanillin content from the main body of the Shroud had decayed to 0%, similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not only does this new evidence show that the carbon dating tests were severely flawed by dating an erroneous sample, but that the evidence also shows the main body of the Shroud is much older as indicated by the lack of vanillin. This critical research is precisely the kind of micro-chemical analysis the carbon dating labs were supposed to do in 1988, prior to taking the sample according to the original protocol, but failed to follow.
The carbon dating tests of 1988 have been thoroughly and completely invalidated by good science rather than the shoddy and arrogant effort demonstrated by the carbon labs in 1988. The cloud has been lifted.
By the way, the Catholic Church's position on the shroud is that it is not up to the church to say whether the shroud is authentic or a forgery. That is up to the scientists and historians to determine, they say.
-
Maybe they beamed the body up into the big spaceship in the sky? ???
-
Shroud Of Turin Mystery - Part #1 Of 4
Shroud Of Turin Mystery - Part #2 Of 4
&feature=related
Shroud Of Turin Mystery - Part #3 Of 4
&feature=related
Shroud Of Turin Mystery - Part #4 Of 4
&feature=related
-
What Loco says:
Christianity rests on Faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose again. Christianity does not rest on relics. If you already have faith in Jesus, then you do not need the shroud. If you do not have faith, then you probably will not believe even if presented with proof that the shroud is authentic. However, the Shroud of Turin is real, scientists have studied it, and scientists have no other explanation.
Nobody witnessed the actual resurrection. Jesus' followers witnessed the empty tomb, the angels at the tomb, and later the risen Jesus himself. Since nobody witnessed the resurrection itself, could God have left us a photograph of the event itself? Maybe so. The evidence is there. Is the Shroud of Turin the the cloth that covered Jesus of Nazareth or is it the greatest forgery ever made, during the middle ages, using technology unknown to us even today? You decide.
I think it's interesting subject and a good form of debate but from the info i have read and the times i seen it on TV it all pointed to it not being old enough.
Like you stated above, I don't need it to be real.
-
The Shroud needs to be subjected to further carbon dating, every last bit of it.
However, let us assume that it is pinpointed to exactly 33 CE, what exactly does this prove? Nothing. It is a gross and blind assumption that a burial shroud with a human image simply must be the alleged Jesus of Nazareth; it is nothing more than wishful thinking at it's worst, desiring it to be something without the necessary evidence.
-
I think it's interesting subject and a good form of debate but from the info i have read and the times i seen it on TV it all pointed to it not being old enough.
Like you stated above, I don't need it to be real.
Our new resident fundy as it were (or should I say old as you have been here a while).
Fight the Christian fight against the evil secularists, no?!
-
I think it's interesting subject and a good form of debate but from the info i have read and the times i seen it on TV it all pointed to it not being old enough.
Like you stated above, I don't need it to be real.
mightymouse72,
It dates back to the time of Jesus Christ. What you have read and what you have seen on TV is old news. Read my entire post above. I have links to the latest research and the latest news.
But the amazing thing is that even if it wasn't old enough to be the cloth that wrapped the body of Jesus, scientists cannot explain how in the world the image got photographed on the cloth fibers, they can't explain the negative image, the 3D encoding, the double face image, etc. Nobody has been able to duplicate it as of today, though many have tried. Nobody had the knowledge or the technology to do such a forgery in the middle ages. Even if it's a forgery, what did the 13th century artist use, an atomic laser?
Another interesting thing is that neither Catholics nor Protestants care if the shroud is ever found to be, without a doubt, a 13th century artist's forgery. It is science that has shown so far that it is not a forgery, but a mystery.
-
mightymouse72,
It dates back to the time of Jesus Christ. What you have read and what you have seen on TV is old news. Read my entire post above. I have links to the latest research and the latest news.
But the amazing thing is that even if it wasn't old enough to be the cloth that wrapped the body of Jesus, scientists cannot explain how in the world the image got photographed on the cloth fibers, they can't explain the negative image, the 3D encoding, the double face image, etc. Nobody has been able to duplicate it as of today, though many have tried. Nobody had the knowledge or the technology to do such a forgery in the middle ages. Even if it's a forgery, what did the 13th century artist use, an atomic laser?
Another interesting thing is that neither Catholics nor Protestants care if the shroud is ever found to be, without a doubt, a 13th century artist's forgery. It is science that has shown so far that it is not a forgery, but a mistery.
Okay, I see now that some of the info you posted is more recent.
I'll find the time to read into. It's difficult being at work and finding the time though.
Thanks Loco
-
Okay, I see now that some of the info you posted is more recent.
I'll find the time to read into. It's difficult being at work and finding the time though.
Thanks Loco
You are welcome! If you have time, watch these YouTube videos. They are great. I think that they are clips from the DVD "Jesus & the Shroud of Turin" (2003), but I have seen a more recent one: "Fabric of Time: Shroud of Turin" (2007). They are both great. They are interviews of scientists and experts, both proponents of the shroud and skeptics too. It includes a number of scientists from the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) who actually analyzed it back in 1978 and today, with technology not available 29 years ago, have updated their findings & opinions. One thing is true, proponents and skeptics alike agree it's a mystery.
Shroud Of Turin Mystery - Part #1 Of 4
Shroud Of Turin Mystery - Part #2 Of 4
&feature=related
Shroud Of Turin Mystery - Part #3 Of 4
&feature=related
Shroud Of Turin Mystery - Part #4 Of 4
&feature=related
-
This may amaze you...it may disgust you...it may do both!
I have created a shroud of Turin on my bed sheets. My wife was not upset...in fact, she laughed about how much my image resembled that on the Shroud. We saw a special on PBS about it and she pointed out that the Shroud looked like my side of the bed. My wife washes our sheets all the time but I still burned the image through the sheets and pillow case permanently.
-
This is amazing information, Loco. Thanks for posting.
-
This is amazing information, Loco. Thanks for posting.
You are welcome, Colossus_500!
-
Why should that image be of Christ?
Weren't a lot of people crucified?
We don't know what christ looked like? We have the anglicized image--the hippy long hair and full beard and mustache with european good looks.
To state that this dropcloth is the shroud of christ is sort of a leap of faith.
How does anyone know that that image is of Christ?
Answer: no one knows. That is, if knowledge as a concept means anything at all.
-
Why should that image be of Christ?
Weren't a lot of people crucified?
We don't know what christ looked like? We have the anglicized image--the hippy long hair and full beard and mustache with european good looks.
To state that this dropcloth is the shroud of christ is sort of a leap of faith.
How does anyone know that that image is of Christ?
Answer: no one knows. That is, if knowledge as a concept means anything at all.
Hair like sheep's wool and dark skin.
The guy was from the Middle East... of course he didn't look like a hippy.
It's crap.
-
Hair like sheep's wool and dark skin.
The guy was from the Middle East... of course he didn't look like a hippy.
It's crap.
Exactly. Christ likely resembled a black guy rather than a white guy.
-
The person on the shroud looks middle eastern. Look at the size and shape of his nose. You can't tell the color of his skin, so what are you talking about he look white? Middle Eastern men don't look like black men. They may look Hispanic or Indian, but not like black men.
From the middle ages? Then why the nail wound on the wrist and not the palm of the hand? In the middle ages, Jesus is depicted with nails through the palms of his hands.
"Nailing a crucifixion victim through his wrists is more historically and medically plausible. Early in the 20th century, medical experts first realized that nails driven through a man’s palms would not support a his weight even if his feet were nailed or supported. The nails would tear out. The Romans did crucify victims by driving nails through the wrist area of the forearm has been confirmed by the 1968 archaeological discovery of a crucifixion victim, named Johanan ben Ha-galgol, found near Jerusalem at Givat ha-Mivtar"
Why would we think that this is the Biblical Jesus of Nazareth?
A stab wound near the fifth rib, areas of bleeding in the feet and on the left wrist (the right wrist being covered by the left), a pattern of blood dotting the scalp, and a mass of small slashes on the front and back. the stab wound in the side is consistent with the biblical description of Jesus being speared on the cross to check if he was dead. The wound in the left wrist is the area where the Romans nailed the victims of Crucifixion by the arms, something not known in the Middle Ages as artists always depict nails through the palms of the hands. The scalps wounds could be where the crown of thorns was placed; and the streaks of blood across the body exactly match the shape of the Roman flagrum. The legs are not broken. Romans normally broke the legs of crucified victims. Crucified bodies were usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved, or trowing in mass graves with their legs broken. The shroud material is of high quality. Joseph of Arimathea, a man of wealth was the man who donated his own prepared tomb for the burial of Jesus after Jesus was crucified. It is very likely that he also donated the shroud.
The Forensic Pathology of the Images on the Man on the Shroud of Turin
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/pathology.htm
-
loco, many people were crucified.
Why is this image that of christ?
-
The person in the shroud looks middle eastern?
By what measure?
-
loco, many people were crucified.
Why is this image that of christ?
Decker,
read my post above.
-
loco, many people were crucified.
Why is this image that of christ?
because of the markings/blood stains around the forehead and hand
-
What of this?
"There are many objective reasons for rejecting the Shroud of Turin. For one, the image on the Shroud depicts a longhaired man. This could not possibly be the Lord Jesus Christ, according to 1 Corinthians 11, which says it is a shame for a man to have long hair."
http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/relics/shroud-of-turin/
-
Decker,
read my post above.
I did. Thousands and thousands of people were crucified. The story you provide as evidence re Joseph is interesting but probably not unique.
The nose and face look european to me. The hair is long and straight--european again.
-
What of this?
"There are many objective reasons for rejecting the Shroud of Turin. For one, the image on the Shroud depicts a longhaired man. This could not possibly be the Lord Jesus Christ, according to 1 Corinthians 11, which says it is a shame for a man to have long hair."
http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/relics/shroud-of-turin/
How long is long?
Decker,
Why the nail wound on the wrist and not on the palm of the hand as depicted during the middle ages?
What technology was used to create the image on the shroud, the negative image, the 3D encoding and the double face image?
-
This is really interesting.
However, after reading the first link, i would approach this like many of the conspiracy theories posted in the politics board.
Have they done a carbon 14 on the main part of the shroud yet since they found the carbon 14 test done in '88 were on a medevil repair?
Why is this the shroud of Jesus? Are the only real supporting evidence the location of cuts and such?
If so how does that prove it was Jesus?
Is it possible that someone could have duplicated it unintentionally? Or even intentionally? I remember seeing a festival in Philippines where people mimic the suffering of Jesus. Very bloody thing. Could this have happened 200 years afterwards in some weird ritual?
My point is even, if the age fits, and the markings fit, it doesn't prove it's Jesus. And even it was proven it was the Jesus in the Bible it doesn't prove Jesus's divinity and powers claimed in the bible. It still could be, just a man, embroiled in a political power struggle between the house of David and the house of Herod.
And at what point is Carbon Dating reliable? When we talk about evolution? Or when we talk about the shroud? Or when we talk about something that doesn't challenge the WOG in the bible?
I'd be real interested to see more about this however, becuase all the facts haven't come to light. I would just say now, it's not near enough.
-
I did. Thousands and thousands of people were crucified. The story you provide as evidence re Joseph is interesting but probably not unique.
Then why has only a single crucified body ever been found by archaeologists? I already told you:
Crucified bodies were usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved, or they were thrown in mass graves, their legs usually broken.
The nose and face look european to me. The hair is long and straight--european again.
By what measure?
I guess the appearance is subjective. I was more interested in discussing the science and history of it.
Decker,
So you believe that many first century crucifixion victims were flogged, wore a crown of thorns, were speared through the side, were then taken down the cross without their legs being broken, were wrapped in a high quality shroud and put in an individual tomb?
-
This is really interesting.
However, after reading the first link, i would approach this like many of the conspiracy theories posted in the politics board.
Have they done a carbon 14 on the main part of the shroud yet since they found the carbon 14 test done in '88 were on a medevil repair?
Why is this the shroud of Jesus? Are the only real supporting evidence the location of cuts and such?
If so how does that prove it was Jesus?
Is it possible that someone could have duplicated it unintentionally? Or even intentionally? I remember seeing a festival in Philippines where people mimic the suffering of Jesus. Very bloody thing. Could this have happened 200 years afterwards in some weird ritual?
My point is even, if the age fits, and the markings fit, it doesn't prove it's Jesus. And even it was proven it was the Jesus in the Bible it doesn't prove Jesus's divinity and powers claimed in the bible. It still could be, just a man, embroiled in a political power struggle between the house of David and the house of Herod.
And at what point is Carbon Dating reliable? When we talk about evolution? Or when we talk about the shroud? Or when we talk about something that doesn't challenge the WOG in the bible?
I'd be real interested to see more about this however, becuase all the facts haven't come to light. I would just say now, it's not near enough.
OzmO, I can see you didn't bother to read half the stuff I posted. We can discuss whether or not the man in the shroud is Jesus later, but this is no conspiracy theory. These are real modern scientists who analyzed the shroud, using real science and we are talking about recent discoveries here. Nobody can explain it and nobody knows how the image got on the shroud, whether it is from the first century or from the middle ages.
1978: The Shroud was on public exhibit for the first time since 1933 and was displayed for six weeks. Over 3 million people passed through the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist to view it behind bullet proof glass. At the close of the exhibition, 40 scientists comprising the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), mostly from the United States, analyzed the Shroud for five continuous days (122 hours) working in shifts around the clock.
Tests performed in 1978 include:
Particle analysis
Chemical analysis
Blood analysis
Photo microscopy
Spectroscopy
X-ray radiography
Infra-red thermography
X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
Scanning photography from infra-red to ultra violet
And others
1981: After three years analyzing the data The Shroud of Turn Research Project (STURP) made their findings public at an international conference in New London, CT. All the scientists agreed upon the following statement: "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and give a positive test for serum albumin."
OzmO,
Even if the image on the shroud is not that of Jesus, the Shroud of Turin is a mystery and it's very important to science and history.
If you don't have time to read all of my post and the other links I posted, at least read this and then watch the videos below:
What skeptics say:
"The debate over the origin and authenticity of the shroud steadily increased over the years. Many scientific investigations were carried out to get to the heart of the matter. Moreover, many scientific papers were written on the subject relating to the different theories concerning the structural make-up and image on the shroud. Most scientists took one of three prominent views; they either believed that the shroud was a "divine" creation or that the image was man made or that it was a natural phenomenon. The Shroud of Turin was without a doubt a mystery that challenged faith, science and understanding, one that rekindled man's inquisitive nature in a search for an explanation."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/5.html
"Interestingly, Barbet also noticed that some of the blood stains flowed in unusual, almost unnatural directions on the arms. However, he realized that the stains were consistent with one's arms being outstretched and than lowered, much like someone's arms who had been crucified and then let down. If the blood flow was an artist's representation, it was masterfully conceived and skillfully carried out."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/6.html
"Amazingly, no one has yet been able to successfully explain how the unique 3-D negative-like image on the shroud was constructed. In actuality that remains the biggest mystery."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/9.html
(http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics/photos/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/9-1-3-D-image-of-Shroud.jpg)
"Rogers was further quoted in the article saying, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder reported fort his time." Pliny the Elder was an ancient Roman scientist and author who lived between 23 and 79 AD. Based on Rogers' research and historical data, the shroud has been accurately dated to around the time of Christ. The discovery rekindled the age-old debate of whether the shroud was or was not the actual burial cloth used to wrap Jesus' body. Chances are we will never know."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/10.html
Shroud Of Turin Mystery - Part #1 Of 4
Shroud Of Turin Mystery - Part #2 Of 4
&feature=related
Shroud Of Turin Mystery - Part #3 Of 4
&feature=related
Shroud Of Turin Mystery - Part #4 Of 4
&feature=related
-
Then why has only a single crucified body ever been found by archaeologists? I already told you:
Crucified bodies were usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved, or they were thrown in mass graves, their legs usually broken.
Usually. Usually is not always.
Decker,
So you believe that many first century crucifixion victims were flogged, wore a crown of thorns, were speared through the side, were then taken down the cross without their legs being broken, were wrapped in a high quality shroud and put in an individual tomb?
How on earth do you know that the alleged body wore a crown of thorns?
You don't know. That is your conclusion from the image. That, and it fits your biblical prejudice.
How do you know the that the shroud was found originally in an individual tomb?
What about this?:
The shroud of Turin is a woven cloth about 14 feet long and 3.5 feet wide with an image of a man on it. Actually, it has two images, one frontal and one rear, with the heads meeting in the middle. It has been noted that if the shroud were really wrapped over a body there should be a space where the two heads meet. And the head is 5% too large for its body, the nose is disproportionate, and the arms are too long. Nevertheless, the image is believed by many to be a negative image of the crucified Christ and the shroud is believed to be his burial shroud. Most skeptics think the image is a painting and a pious hoax. The shroud is kept in the cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.
http://skepdic.com/shroud.html
That web page above gives both pro and con arguments and might be worth your time to look at.
-
loco, i don't think it's any sort of conspiracy in that sense other than the common fraud of holy relics of the times(middle ages), I'm just approaching it the same way becuase in doing so, it keeps things more objective.
I only read the first original link you posted.
My question is, that if the first carbon dating wasn't on the actual fabric, but instead a repair, why not test the more towards the middle?
Also:
Then why has only a single crucified body ever been found by archaeologists? I already told you:
Crucified bodies were usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved, or they were thrown in mass graves, their legs usually broken.
This is speculation to think that becuase of this, this is Jesus. It's supporting information, but not concrete. That's the problem.
In the middle ages, the land was full of "holy relics". they were bought and sold, used to attract followers. I remember reading or watching something long ago, that some one estimated back then, that all the "pieces of wood" that were claimed to be from the cross would build a house.
I'm more inclined to believe that this is no different than the many holy relics of that time. Do we really think that Jesus was the only person ever crucified and then buried afterwards? doubt it.
But i am really interested in it, especially if more tests are done. they should do all those tests from 1978 now and what ever they have developed since then.
I wonder what blood type this person was?
Would you think Jesus blood, if he is GOD, be ordinary?
-
A lot of criticism and skepticism concerning the Shroud of Turin has come from Christians, both Catholics and Protestants. Protestants don't believe in relics, least of all relics coming from the Roman Catholic Church and specially one that surfaced during the middle ages. Many Christians believe that God would not have left behind an image of Jesus Christ which could easily become the object of idol worship.
I'm not claiming that the Shroud of Turin is the cloth that wrapped the dead body of Jesus. Notice the title of this thread is not a claim but a question.
That the Shroud of Turin is the cloth that covered the crucified, dead body of Jesus of Nazareth, and that the image was formed on the cloth as a side effect of his resurrection are simply hypothesis. These hypothesis are based on the scientific analysis of the shroud, what historians and archaeologists know of Roman crucifixion, and on what we know from the Gospels.
Personally, I always thought that the shroud was either a forgery by the Catholic Church or that it was really a cloth used to wrap the body of some dead man other than Jesus. But after looking more into it, I now believe that there is a possibility, as small as it may be, that this was the burial cloth used to wrap the dead, crucified body of Jesus of Nazareth.
-
loco, I'd be impressed if the Lord posted a video of his own resurrection on Youtube. Some shroud of dubious repute is hardly worth mentioning.
-
Some shroud of dubious repute is hardly worth mentioning.
I'm surprised that a man of science such as yourself would say something like that. Scientists, historians, archaeologists, photography experts, art experts and textile experts around the world would love to solve the mystery of the shroud, whether they believe in Jesus or not.
-
I'm not saying it ain't worth solving. I'm saying it's of dubious repute. That is due to its dubious origins. Didn't it show up in the Middle Ages? That's the age when Europe had a flourishing trade of relics including bones of Jesus and the saints, splinters from the cross, etc...
-
Didn't it show up in the Middle Ages? That's the age when Europe had a flourishing trade of relics including bones of Jesus and the saints, splinters from the cross, etc...
Here is the latest, this one from a shroud skeptic:
"Rogers was further quoted in the article saying, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder reported fort his time." Pliny the Elder was an ancient Roman scientist and author who lived between 23 and 79 AD. Based on Rogers' research and historical data, the shroud has been accurately dated to around the time of Christ. The discovery rekindled the age-old debate of whether the shroud was or was not the actual burial cloth used to wrap Jesus' body. Chances are we will never know."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/10.html
And this one from the BBC:
Turin shroud 'older than thought'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
-
mightymouse72,
It dates back to the time of Jesus Christ. What you have read and what you have seen on TV is old news. Read my entire post above. I have links to the latest research and the latest news.
But the amazing thing is that even if it wasn't old enough to be the cloth that wrapped the body of Jesus, scientists cannot explain how in the world the image got photographed on the cloth fibers, they can't explain the negative image, the 3D encoding, the double face image, etc. Nobody has been able to duplicate it as of today, though many have tried. Nobody had the knowledge or the technology to do such a forgery in the middle ages. Even if it's a forgery, what did the 13th century artist use, an atomic laser?
Another interesting thing is that neither Catholics nor Protestants care if the shroud is ever found to be, without a doubt, a 13th century artist's forgery. It is science that has shown so far that it is not a forgery, but a mystery.
Supposedly the cloth dates back to Medieval times. There was a experiment to do something that the people of the time were doing, using lights and a shroud around a dead body or manikin . It produce the same effect. I also think that the face and body look like that of a old man, instead of a 33 year old man
-
Supposedly the cloth dates back to Medieval times. There was a experiment to do something that the people of the time were doing, using lights and a shroud around a dead body or manikin . It produce the same effect. I also think that the face and body look like that of a old man, instead of a 33 year old man
Hey Parker! Do you have any references to this? I would think that any person capable of duplicating the shroud image, along with all of its many peculiar and closely studied characteristics, would be a very wealthy, very famous person.
By the way, as of today, the shroud dates back to the time of Christ. What dates back to medieval times is the section of the shroud which was carbon dated, which later turned out to be a reweave done during the middle ages to repair fire damage on the shroud. Read my previews posts and links on this.
-
Hey Parker! Do you have any references to this? I would think that any person capable of duplicating the shroud image, along with all of it's many peculiar and closely studied characteristics, would be a very wealthy, very famous person.
By the way, as of today, the shroud dates back to the time of Christ. What dates back to medieval times is the section of the shroud which was carbon dated, which later turned out to be a reweave done during the middle ages to repair fire damage on the shroud. Read my previews posts and links on this.
It was on the History or Discovery channel. They duplicated the the shroud using a medieval technique of "X-ray". It was know back then as a way of faking death shrouds. They were saying that weave of the fibers was a medieval weave, and one could buy old materials back then. They did go over the theory of a the sheet going right thru the body during resurrection as well. They were not trying to dispel the Shroud, just showing what it could be.
-
I'm not saying it ain't worth solving. I'm saying it's of dubious repute. That is due to its dubious origins. Didn't it show up in the Middle Ages? That's the age when Europe had a flourishing trade of relics including bones of Jesus and the saints, splinters from the cross, etc...
columbusdude82,
Relics including the bones of Jesus? Really? Not from the Catholic Church, right? Wouldn't such a relic make the church lose credibility and members instead?
-
If you believe the fairy tales of the New Testament then you will see in John 20:6-7, the cloth wrapped around Christ's head is clearly separate from the strips wound around his body, so any cloth showing both head and body (as the Turin shroud does) can't be the real thing. But as many have said, if it does indeed originate from the time of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth it could be one of thousands; however that doesn't stop religious nutcases from wish thinking.
-
If you believe the fairy tales of the New Testament then you will see in John 20:6-7, the cloth wrapped around Christ's head is clearly separate from the strips wound around his body, so any cloth showing both head and body (as the Turin shroud does) can't be the real thing. But as many have said, if it does indeed originate from the time of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth it could be one of thousands; however that doesn't stop religious nutcases from wish thinking.
Ah, I'm glad that you brought that up, Trapezkerl! This brings us to another very intersting artifact, The Sudarium of Oviedo - The Face Cloth.
(http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/images/sudariumrev.jpg)
John 20:6-7
"Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself."
In the city of Oviedo, in northern Spain, in a small chapel attached to the city’s cathedral, there is a small bloodstained dishcloth size piece of linen that some believe is one of the burial cloths mentioned in John’s Gospel. Tradition has it that this cloth, commonly known as the Sudarium of Oviedo, was used to cover Jesus’ bloodied face following his death on the cross.
Forensic analysis of the bloodstains suggests strongly that both the Sudarium and the Shroud covered the same human head at closely different times. Bloodstain patterns show that the Sudarium was placed about a man’s head while he was still in a vertical position, presumably before he was removed from the cross. It was then removed before the Shroud was placed over the man’s face.
If the Sudarium is related to the Shroud, the historical implications are dramatic. The Sudarium, unquestionably, has been in Oviedo since the 8th century and in Spain since the 7th century. It seems, according to various records, to have arrived from Jerusalem.
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/history04.htm
There is no image on this cloth. Only stains are visible to the naked eye, although more is visible under the microscope. The remarkable thing about this cloth is that both tradition and scientific studies claim that the cloth was used to cover and clean the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. We are going to present and look into these claims.
http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm
Sudarium of Oviedo (right), overlay of the Shroud of Turin (left) by Blandina Paschalis Schlömer
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Ovuedo_and_Turin_shroud.jpg/250px-Ovuedo_and_Turin_shroud.jpg)
In 1999, Mark Guscin, a member of the multidisciplinary Investigation Team of the Centro Español de Sindonología, issued a detailed forensic and historical report entitled, "Recent Historical Investigations on the Sudarium of Oviedo." Guscin's report detailed recent findings of the history, forensic pathology, blood chemistry, and stain patterns on the Sudarium. His conclusion: the Sudarium and the Shroud of Turin had been used to cover the same injured head at closely different times. Here are some highlights from Guscin's report:
It seems to be a funeral cloth that was probably placed over the head of the corpse of an adult male of normal constitution. The man whose face the Sudarium covered had a beard, moustache and long hair, tied up at the nape of his neck into a ponytail.
The man was dead. The mechanism that formed the stains is incompatible with any kind of breathing movement.
The man was wounded before death with something that made his scalp bleed and produced wounds on his neck, shoulders and upper part of the back.
The man suffered a pulmonary edema as a consequence of the terminal process. The main stains are one part blood and six parts fluid from the pulmonary fluid.
The only position compatible with the formation of the stains on the Oviedo cloth is both arms outstretched above the head and the feet in such a position as to make breathing very difficult, i.e. a position totally compatible with crucifixion. We can say that the man was wounded first (blood on the head, shoulders and back) and then 'crucified.'
On reaching the destination, the body was placed face up and for unknown reasons, the cloth was taken off the head.
The Sudarium contains pollen grains of Gundelia tournefortii, identical to that found of the Shroud that grows only east of the Mediterranean Sea as far north as Lebanon and as far south as Jerusalem.
The blood (stain symmetry, type and other indicators) on the Sudarium matches the blood on the Shroud.
In summary, Guscin wrote:
There are many points of coincidence between all these points and the Shroud of Turin - the blood group, the way the corpse was tortured and died, and the macroscopic overlay of the stains on each cloth. This is especially notable in that the blood on the Sudarium, shed in life as opposed to postmortem, corresponds exactly in blood group, blood type and surface area to those stains on the Shroud on the nape of the neck. If it is clear that the two cloths must have covered the same corpse, and this conclusion is inevitable from all the studies carried out up to date, and if the history of the Sudarium can be trustworthily extended back beyond the fourteenth century, which is often referred to as the Shroud's first documented historical appearance, then this would take the Shroud back to at least the earliest dates of the Sudarium's known history. The ark of relics and the Sudarium have without any doubt at all been in Spain since the beginning of the seventh century, and the history recorded in various manuscripts from various times and geographical areas take it all the way back to Jerusalem in the first century. The importance of this for Shroud history cannot be overstressed.
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-sudarium.htm
-
This seems so similar to this.
???
-
This seems so similar to this.
???
But it's not. Both the Shroud of Turin and the The Sudarium of Oviedo have been studied by scientists, forensic experts, art and photography experts, fabric experts, etc. These are both taken very seriously and they are so far mysteries that defy science and faith.
Also, notice that The Sudarium of Oviedo has no image, only blood stains and pulmonary fluid. All conclusions about it come from scientific studies and historical records.
-
But it's not. Both the Shroud of Turin and the The Sudarium of Oviedo have been studied by scientists, forensic experts, art and photography experts, fabric experts, etc. These are both taken very seriously and they are so far mysteries that defy science and faith.
To me, it's just like a person who sees The virgin mary in a grilled cheese sandwich
(http://www.cooltoast.com/image/Diana%20Duyser.jpg)
I see no difference.
-
To me, it's just like a person who sees The virgin mary in a grilled cheese sandwich
I see no difference.
You see no difference, but scientists and experts do see the difference. My reply to you still stands:
Both the Shroud of Turin and the The Sudarium of Oviedo have been studied by scientists, forensic experts, art and photography experts, fabric experts, etc. These are both taken very seriously and they are so far mysteries that defy science and faith.
Also, notice that The Sudarium of Oviedo has no image, only blood stains and pulmonary fluid. All conclusions about it come from scientific studies and historical records.
-
You see no difference, but scientists and experts do see the difference. My reply to you still stand:
If you say so.
-
If you say so.
Yes I do, and so do scientists and experts. Look into it youserlf if you'd like.
-
Oxford lab to revisit carbon dating of Shroud of Turin
Colorado Springs, May 23, 2008 / 05:01 am (CNA).- A physics professor has persuaded an Oxford laboratory to revisit the question of the age of the Shroud of Turin, the reputed burial shroud of Jesus Christ. The professor argues that carbon monoxide contaminating the shroud could have distorted its radiocarbon dating results by more than 1,000 years.
(http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/ppsudario220508.jpg)
In 1988 and 1989 scientists at three laboratories drew on the results of radiocarbon dating to conclude that the shroud was a medieval forgery. They dated its creation to between 1260 and 1390 AD.
The Denver Post reports that John Jackson, a physics lecturer at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, has hypothesized that even minimal contamination of the shroud by environmental carbon monoxide could have skewed the dating by 1,300 years.
Professor Christopher Ramsey, head of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, has agreed to test Jackson’s hypothesis. Ramsey said that other forensic and historical evidence indicates the shroud is much older than radiocarbon dating results initially indicated.
"Science still has much to tell us about the shroud," said Jackson, a devout Catholic who heads the Colorado Springs-based Shroud of Turin Center. "If we are dealing with the burial cloth of Christ, it is the witness to the birth of Christianity. But my faith doesn't depend on that outcome," he told the Denver Post.
Jackson must prove a viable pathway for carbon monoxide contamination. He is working with Oxford to test linen samples subjected to various conditions the shroud has experienced, including outdoor exhibitions and exposure to extreme heat during a fire in 1532.
In 1978, Jackson led a research team given unprecedented access to the shroud. The team determined that the shroud was not painted, dyed or stained.
The Shroud of Turin bears faint brown discolorations that form the negative image of a man. A positive image of the shroud was produced only with the arrival of modern photography.
Forensic data indicates the bloodstains on the shroud are real and were stained on the cloth before the image of the body appeared, the Denver Post reports. Stains around the head are consistent with punctures by thorns, while the scourge marks are consistent with those made by a Roman whip. A large puncture wound on the man’s side is also consistent with that made by a Roman spear.
Though medieval iconography portrays Jesus nailed to the cross through his palms and the front of his feet, archaeologists have found the bones of a Roman crucifixion victim nailed through the wrists and heels.
There is no consensus regarding what medieval methods, if any, could have created the shroud.
Though the Vatican keeps the shroud locked in a protective chamber at the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, the Catholic Church makes no claims about its authenticity.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12725
-
Pope says Shroud of Turin will go on display in 2010
June 02, 2008 08:35 EDT
VATICAN CITY (AP) -- The Shroud of Turin will go on rare public display again -- in two years.
The strip of linen that some believe was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ was last shown to the public in 2000.
Pope Benedict made the announcement today at a special audience for 7,000 pilgrims from Turin. He says he hopes to attend the display himself.
The shroud, which is kept in Turin's Roman Catholic cathedral, is about 14 feet long and 3-and-a-half feet wide. Believers say the image on the cloth was left by Christ's body after he was taken off the cross.
The shroud's age has long been a subject of debate. A carbon-dating test in 1988 declared that it came from medieval times. Another study says it originated around Jerusalem sometime before the eighth century.
http://www.kgan.com/template/inews_wire/wires.international/35d97d96-www.kgan.com.shtml
-
Pope says Shroud of Turin will go on display in 2010
June 02, 2008 08:35 EDT
VATICAN CITY (AP) -- The Shroud of Turin will go on rare public display again -- in two years.
The strip of linen that some believe was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ was last shown to the public in 2000.
Pope Benedict made the announcement today at a special audience for 7,000 pilgrims from Turin. He says he hopes to attend the display himself.
The shroud, which is kept in Turin's Roman Catholic cathedral, is about 14 feet long and 3-and-a-half feet wide. Believers say the image on the cloth was left by Christ's body after he was taken off the cross.
The shroud's age has long been a subject of debate. A carbon-dating test in 1988 declared that it came from medieval times. Another study says it originated around Jerusalem sometime before the eighth century.
http://www.kgan.com/template/inews_wire/wires.international/35d97d96-www.kgan.com.shtml
The very fact that the Gospels are fictional accounts at worst and pseudohistory at best speaks volumes as to the veracity of the socalled 'shroud'.
-
Shroud of Turin compels decades of study
By Sharon McBrayer | The News Herald
October 5, 2008
Valdese - Dr. Frank Steele has been studying the Shroud of Turin since the 1960s.
He first became interested in it after his brother handed him a book on the subject and told him to read three pages.
"I was hooked," Steele said.
The shroud is a linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. Many believe that man was Jesus of Nazareth and the cloth was placed on him at the time of his death.
Still others believe the cloth is a hoax; a fake that an artist or artists created.
A display on the shroud was opened on Sunday in one of the art galleries at the Old Rock School in Valdese as part of the Art of Science Exposition.
The Shroud of Turin is kept in the Cathedral of San Giovanni Battista in Turin, Italy. It was there in 1978, along with 3 million other people that Steele got a first-hand look at the shroud.
Steele is convinced the shroud is authentic.
Steele talked to folks at the Old Rock School on Sunday about the display and about his research and knowledge of the shroud.
With photos of the shroud hanging on the wall of the gallery, Steele points out various items on the photo, such as the wrist of the image. He said there is a separation in bone along the wrist that would be in line with a crucifixion. He also points out an area of the chest that suggests a hole.
Steele also points out two rows of teeth, which he says suggests a type of X-ray image. The shroud has been kept in Turin since the 1500s.
The person who was covered in the shroud, though, was only in it for four days, Steele said.
How, then, did an image of a person become imposed on the cloth?
Steele said all of the Biblical accounts of the resurrection of Christ differ in some ways but each one mentions bright light. That light or energy is what Steele believes produced the image.
So what is the significance of the shroud?
"It's information about Jesus," Steele said. "If it's real, then this man was real and he died exactly the way they said he did."
The shroud display will be at the Old Rock School for six weeks, said Elizabeth Furr, director of Rock School Arts Foundation.
Steele will give an in-depth lecture on the Shroud at 7 p.m. on Oct. 23 in Gallery II of the Old Rock School.
http://www2.morganton.com/content/2008/oct/05/051947/Shroud-of-Turin-compels-decades-of-study/
-
Lol, is it me or does the shroud emulate the look of white Jesus on crosses and pictures of today? Let's face it, Jesus wasn't a white man. With middle eastern decent, that should be the first tip off.
-
Lol, is it me or does the shroud emulate the look of white Jesus on crosses and pictures of today? Let's face it, Jesus wasn't a white man. With middle eastern decent, that should be the first tip off.
The shroud says nothing about the color of the skin of the corpse. And the Jesus on crosses and pictures in medieval art had nails through the hands and not through the wrists.
-
It was an early attempt at photograph from the 13th century. A shroud resting ontop of a human wouldn't have produced such a 3d appearing imprint on the cloth like the shroud has, it's just too perfect. The person depicted on the shroud is also of obvious European origin, which is obvious based on the facial features. A 1st century Jew living in Galilee would have looked nothing like the person on the shroud.
-
The shroud says nothing about the color of the skin of the corpse. And the Jesus on crosses and pictures in medieval art had nails through the hands and not through the wrists.
The resemblance is uncanny. Hold up the shroud and any of those pics and voila! Please. And I'm not talking medieval art, I'm talking the pictures and images that circulate today. Oh explain this one loco: if you claim that the nails are through the WRISTS, then why did he show doubting Thomas his HANDS? Or is that a mistranslation, which would make the Bible fallible?
Suddenly Jesus is standing there among us! “Peace be with you,” he said. As he spoke, he held out his hands and we saw his wounded side. Most of us were filled with joy when we saw our Lord but not you. Then Jesus walks over and says to you: “Thomas, put your finger here in my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!” (from John 20:20-27)
So um who's right here?
-
The resemblance is uncanny. Hold up the shroud and any of those pics and voila! Please. And I'm not talking medieval art, I'm talking the pictures and images that circulate today. Oh explain this one loco: if you claim that the nails are through the WRISTS, then why did he show doubting Thomas his HANDS? Or is that a mistranslation, which would make the Bible fallible?
Suddenly Jesus is standing there among us! “Peace be with you,” he said. As he spoke, he held out his hands and we saw his wounded side. Most of us were filled with joy when we saw our Lord but not you. Then Jesus walks over and says to you: “Thomas, put your finger here in my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!” (from John 20:20-27)
So um who's right here?
Anatomists, both modern and ancient, have always considered the wrists as part of the hand.
"The human hand consists of a broad palm (metacarpus) with 5 digits, attached to the forearm by a joint called the wrist (carpus)."
References:
"Nature Bulletin No. 611". Division of Educational Programs, Argonne National Laboratory (1960-10-01). Retrieved on 2007-12-24.
"hand". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2nd ed. 1989.
-
Anatomists, both modern and ancient, have always considered the wrists as part of the hand.
"The human hand consists of a broad palm (metacarpus) with 5 digits, attached to the forearm by a joint called the wrist (carpus)."
References:
"Nature Bulletin No. 611". Division of Educational Programs, Argonne National Laboratory (1960-10-01). Retrieved on 2007-12-24.
"hand". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2nd ed. 1989.
Many scientific studies have been done and there is no way that the human hand (palm) could support the weight of a human being.
-
Many scientific studies have been done and there is no way that the human hand (palm) could support the weight of a human being.
Right. The nails went through the wrists.
-
Anatomists, both modern and ancient, have always considered the wrists as part of the hand.
"The human hand consists of a broad palm (metacarpus) with 5 digits, attached to the forearm by a joint called the wrist (carpus)."
References:
"Nature Bulletin No. 611". Division of Educational Programs, Argonne National Laboratory (1960-10-01). Retrieved on 2007-12-24.
"hand". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2nd ed. 1989.
Who cares what anatomists think? In Greek there are separate words for wrist and hands. If they meant wrists, they would have said wrists.
More importantly, in Greek there are separate words for wrists and hands (just as there are in English), so one has to assume that when the Gospel of John refers to hands they are talking about hands and not wrists. For example, when the Gospel of John refers to fingers (20:25, 20:27) or being slapped with hands (19:3) different words were used, so had the Gospel writers intended to use the word for wrists, surely they would have used it.
http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=15
Not to mention he asked Thomas to touch him, but a contradicting verse before says NOT to touch him since he hasn't seen his father yet.
Jesus was crucified on the day of the Passover in AD 31, which fell that year on a Wednesday. God resurrected Him at the end of the weekly Sabbath (Saturday). He appeared to Mary Magdalene the next morning, the day after the weekly Sabbath during Unleavened Bread, when the priests presented the wavesheaf offering. He did not permit her to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father. Just as the High Priest had to wave the sheaf of grain before the spring harvest began, so our Savior had to ascend to the Father that day to be accepted before Him. Once this happened, He allowed His disciples to touch Him (cf. Matthew 28:9; John 20:20-28).
So how could he ask Thomas to touch him, when it was forbidden?
-
Who cares what anatomists think? In Greek there are separate words for wrist and hands. If they meant wrists, they would have said wrists.
More importantly, in Greek there are separate words for wrists and hands (just as there are in English), so one has to assume that when the Gospel of John refers to hands they are talking about hands and not wrists. For example, when the Gospel of John refers to fingers (20:25, 20:27) or being slapped with hands (19:3) different words were used, so had the Gospel writers intended to use the word for wrists, surely they would have used it.
http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=15
Oh really? And what is the ancient Greek word for "hand" and what is the ancient Greek word for "wrist"?
And what ancient Greek word exactly did the Bible use for "hand" right there in that Bible verse?
Not to mention he asked Thomas to touch him, but a contradicting verse before says NOT to touch him since he hasn't seen his father yet.
Jesus was crucified on the day of the Passover in AD 31, which fell that year on a Wednesday. God resurrected Him at the end of the weekly Sabbath (Saturday). He appeared to Mary Magdalene the next morning, the day after the weekly Sabbath during Unleavened Bread, when the priests presented the wavesheaf offering. He did not permit her to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father. Just as the High Priest had to wave the sheaf of grain before the spring harvest began, so our Savior had to ascend to the Father that day to be accepted before Him. Once this happened, He allowed His disciples to touch Him (cf. Matthew 28:9; John 20:20-28).
So how could he ask Thomas to touch him, when it was forbidden?
Please don't derail my thread. This has nothing to do with the Shroud of Turin. If you really want to discuss this one, then please start a new thread.
-
Oh really? And what is the ancient Greek word for "hand" and what is the ancient Greek word for "wrist"?
χέρι= hand
καρπό= wrist
http://www.stars21.com/translator/english_to_greek.html
And what ancient Greek word exactly did the Bible use for "hand" right there in that Bible verse?
καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἔδειξεν (καὶ) τὰς χεῖρας(hands) καὶ τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῖς· ἐχάρησαν οὖν οἱ μαθηταὶ ἰδόντες τὸν κύριον. John 20:20
Please don't derail my thread. This has nothing to do with the Shroud of Turin. If you really want to discuss this one, then please start a new thread.
You're right it doesn't. But it's funny that it contradicts itself.
-
χέρι= hand
καρπό= wrist
http://www.stars21.com/translator/english_to_greek.htmlκαὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἔδειξεν (καὶ) τὰς χεῖρας(hands) καὶ τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῖς· ἐχάρησαν οὖν οἱ μαθηταὶ ἰδόντες τὸν κύριον. John 20:20
And is that Proto-Greek, Mycenaean, Ancient Greek, Koine Greek, Medieval Greek, Modern Greek? Cool text translator by the way!
You're right it doesn't. But it's funny that it contradicts itself.
It doesn't contradict itself.
-
And is that Proto-Greek, Mycenaean, Ancient Greek, Koine Greek, Medieval Greek, Modern Greek? Cool text translator by the way!
It's the greek that I copied the scripture from.
It doesn't contradict itself.
Let's try again:
King James Bible
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
So if he hasn't ascended, which he hadn't, then why allow touching?
-
It's the greek that I copied the scripture from.
From where? Did you not paste the English text in the text area and had the website translate it for you? Again, is it Proto-Greek, Mycenaean, Ancient Greek, Koine Greek, Medieval Greek, Modern Greek?
Let's try again:
King James Bible
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
So if he hasn't ascended, which he hadn't, then why allow touching?
Let's try again:
Create your own thread if you really want to debate this.
-
From where? Did you not paste the English text in the text area and had the website translate it for you? Again, is it Proto-Greek, Mycenaean, Ancient Greek, Koine Greek, Medieval Greek, Modern Greek?
Here's the site.
http://biblos.com/john/20-20.htm
Let's try again:
Create your own thread if you really want to debate this.
Oh man, another thread on contradictions of the Bible. Hmmmm, I'll think about it. But it pretty much says what it says. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
-
Right. The nails went through the wrists.
Loco. It is a fucking fictional story. Wake up.
-
Some of the people on this site know about my being a hobby-adventurer in my spare time (Sasquatch; Loch Ness; lost treasure; Templar sites; Masonic buildings etc etc)... so in my capacity as a Knower of Secrets, I'll let everyone in on the real skinny regarding the Turin Shroud.
Bare with me, I'm working from memory without Google-fu (it's 3am here):
After the first few Crusades, supposedly "genuine" relics from Jesus' homeland (a historical Jesus never existed, he is an adaption of the common mystery religion dying/resurrecting God-man) became big business all across Christendom. For example, Charlamagne carried the (supposed) actual Roman pilum (Legionary infantry spear) believed to have pierced Christ's side... which was manufactured to order for Charlemagne by the Church to solidify his claim to the throne of Christendom. Add to this the Grail Romances that furthered the Sangraal heresies... the Johannite; Templar; Mandean heresies based upon John the Baptist's finger; severed head; secret gospel respectively etc etc
Rumours of miraculous healing relics spread throughout Europe, often originating with the churches/cathedrals/families manufacturing the relics themselves. One such relic was the Odessa Shroud, a folded shroud bearing the ethereal image of a mans face famous as a healing relic across the Muslim lands (some Muslims attributed the Odessa Shroud to Issa, the Kashmiri Buddhist/Muslim version of Jesus).
The Lirey family (now known as the Charney family) manufactured a copy of the Odessa Shroud but didn't openly market it as a Muslim relic, instead they hinted that the image MIGHT be that of Jesus... they couldn't openly make such a claim without the Church's consent: better to establish the relic as a centre of pilgrimage first then have the Church ratify it for a cut of the profits later on.
Unfortunately, the local bishop had the new relic boiled twice then further boiled in oil washing out most of the paint... convinced of the fraudulence of the shroud, he also obtained a confession from a local artist who apparently had painted the shroud on commission from the Lirey family.
Rather than have the Church officially denounce the relic, the Lirey family simply withdrew it from the public for the next seventy years (long enough for everyone who had seen it to die).
What happened next is what has made the Turin Shroud such an enduring mystery:
The Lirey family hired a young aspiring artist named Leonardo from the town of Vinci (yes, that Leonardo "da" Vinci) who set to work re-engineering the shroud as an unassailable, irrefutable miracle.
He did this by using a "camera obscura" to photographically imprint a three-dimensional image of an actual scourged body (supposedly that of a Christian Knight crucified in Odessa) onto a piece of herringbone weave Jewish style burial cloth with three exposures (one for the front, one for the back, and a double exposure on the face... using his own face) and fixed the silver nitrate with urine: locking in the exposed image.
This "piss-picture" is easily reproducible and explains many of the problems with the Turin Shroud:
-the front image is 6% larger than the back image (different focal distances)
-the face is somewhat double exposed (Da Vinci added his own face)
-the cloth is chemically singed to produce the image (no paint)
-the image is three dimensional
-the blood on the cloth is bovine (cow blood) mixed with red ochre (to keep it red)
-there is no space between the front and back images (the cloth can't be wrapped over and under a body while maintaining the image alignments unless Jesus was two dimensional)
This "new" version of the Shroud displayed by the Lirey family is no longer considered a crude forgery like it's counterpart 70 years previous... suddenly everyone who sees it is astounded by it's miraculous image. This "new" Shroud was similarly washed and boiled without ever losing its image, this convinced the Medieval populace sufficiently that the Church had no choice but to ratify the Shroud as a genuine miraculous relic.
All of this is common knowledge among those in the know.
Some evidence:
-Da Vinci remained a favourite of the Lirey family for his entire life
-the Church never prosecuted Da Vinci for heresy despite his hobby of dissecting human bodies
-the Church never prosecuted Da Vinci for blasphemy despite him being an outspoken atheist
-the Church never prosecuted Da Vinci for perversion despite his (somewhat) open homosexual lifestyle, yet they did prosecute Michelangelo
-the Church never prosecuted Da Vinci for harbouring his mother (Catherina) a Cathar heretic ("old believer")
-in his old age (80+) Da Vinci was taken in by the Lirey family
-Da Vinci died in the arms of the head of the Lirey family
-upon his death, Da Vinci's heir/apprentice/lover sold all of the masters codices (notebooks), the Lirey family paid way over the odds to procure ONLY the codex covering the time he worked for them before the newly miraculous 3D Shroud was made public
-this codex; now worth hundreds of millions has NEVER been seen again
Some modern evidence:
-among the many pollens discovered on the Shroud, olive tree pollen is conspicuously absent
-the Shroud's radiocarbon dating hasn't faltered: instead it is centering in more and more on Da Vinci's lifetime
-identical shrouds have been produced using a mannequin; camera obscura room; silver nitrate and urine... every Shroud believer should try this, it makes a great science project
But the most damning evidence of all?:
The Church has consistently ruled out any testing for the presence of silver... THEY KNOW it's a urine-fixed silver nitrate proto-photograph: Islamic manuscripts detailing the development of such technology by Muslim scientists during the Middle Ages (probably the same sources used by Da Vinci) are abundant in the Vatican archives.
So... it's a fake... but as a Da Vinci masterpiece, it's an absolutely priceless awe-inspiring fake.
The Luke (Knower of Secrets)
-
PS... end of thread.
The Luke
-
Just had a check on my late night posting regarding the Turin Shroud and must admit I'm very impressed by my coherence at 4am.
Maybe I should make all my posts in the wee hours of the morning.
The Luke
PS-...still end of thread.
-
Some of the people on this site know about my being a hobby-adventurer in my spare time (Sasquatch; Loch Ness; lost treasure; Templar sites; Masonic buildings etc etc)... so in my capacity as a Knower of Secrets, I'll let everyone in on the real skinny regarding the Turin Shroud.
Bare with me, I'm working from memory without Google-fu (it's 3am here):
After the first few Crusades, supposedly "genuine" relics from Jesus' homeland (a historical Jesus never existed, he is an adaption of the common mystery religion dying/resurrecting God-man) became big business all across Christendom. For example, Charlamagne carried the (supposed) actual Roman pilum (Legionary infantry spear) believed to have pierced Christ's side... which was manufactured to order for Charlemagne by the Church to solidify his claim to the throne of Christendom. Add to this the Grail Romances that furthered the Sangraal heresies... the Johannite; Templar; Mandean heresies based upon John the Baptist's finger; severed head; secret gospel respectively etc etc
Rumours of miraculous healing relics spread throughout Europe, often originating with the churches/cathedrals/families manufacturing the relics themselves. One such relic was the Odessa Shroud, a folded shroud bearing the ethereal image of a mans face famous as a healing relic across the Muslim lands (some Muslims attributed the Odessa Shroud to Issa, the Kashmiri Buddhist/Muslim version of Jesus).
The Lirey family (now known as the Charney family) manufactured a copy of the Odessa Shroud but didn't openly market it as a Muslim relic, instead they hinted that the image MIGHT be that of Jesus... they couldn't openly make such a claim without the Church's consent: better to establish the relic as a centre of pilgrimage first then have the Church ratify it for a cut of the profits later on.
Unfortunately, the local bishop had the new relic boiled twice then further boiled in oil washing out most of the paint... convinced of the fraudulence of the shroud, he also obtained a confession from a local artist who apparently had painted the shroud on commission from the Lirey family.
Rather than have the Church officially denounce the relic, the Lirey family simply withdrew it from the public for the next seventy years (long enough for everyone who had seen it to die).
What happened next is what has made the Turin Shroud such an enduring mystery:
The Lirey family hired a young aspiring artist named Leonardo from the town of Vinci (yes, that Leonardo "da" Vinci) who set to work re-engineering the shroud as an unassailable, irrefutable miracle.
He did this by using a "camera obscura" to photographically imprint a three-dimensional image of an actual scourged body (supposedly that of a Christian Knight crucified in Odessa) onto a piece of herringbone weave Jewish style burial cloth with three exposures (one for the front, one for the back, and a double exposure on the face... using his own face) and fixed the silver nitrate with urine: locking in the exposed image.
This "piss-picture" is easily reproducible and explains many of the problems with the Turin Shroud:
-the front image is 6% larger than the back image (different focal distances)
-the face is somewhat double exposed (Da Vinci added his own face)
-the cloth is chemically singed to produce the image (no paint)
-the image is three dimensional
-the blood on the cloth is bovine (cow blood) mixed with red ochre (to keep it red)
-there is no space between the front and back images (the cloth can't be wrapped over and under a body while maintaining the image alignments unless Jesus was two dimensional)
This "new" version of the Shroud displayed by the Lirey family is no longer considered a crude forgery like it's counterpart 70 years previous... suddenly everyone who sees it is astounded by it's miraculous image. This "new" Shroud was similarly washed and boiled without ever losing its image, this convinced the Medieval populace sufficiently that the Church had no choice but to ratify the Shroud as a genuine miraculous relic.
All of this is common knowledge among those in the know.
Some evidence:
-Da Vinci remained a favourite of the Lirey family for his entire life
-the Church never prosecuted Da Vinci for heresy despite his hobby of dissecting human bodies
-the Church never prosecuted Da Vinci for blasphemy despite him being an outspoken atheist
-the Church never prosecuted Da Vinci for perversion despite his (somewhat) open homosexual lifestyle, yet they did prosecute Michelangelo
-the Church never prosecuted Da Vinci for harbouring his mother (Catherina) a Cathar heretic ("old believer")
-in his old age (80+) Da Vinci was taken in by the Lirey family
-Da Vinci died in the arms of the head of the Lirey family
-upon his death, Da Vinci's heir/apprentice/lover sold all of the masters codices (notebooks), the Lirey family paid way over the odds to procure ONLY the codex covering the time he worked for them before the newly miraculous 3D Shroud was made public
-this codex; now worth hundreds of millions has NEVER been seen again
Some modern evidence:
-among the many pollens discovered on the Shroud, olive tree pollen is conspicuously absent
-the Shroud's radiocarbon dating hasn't faltered: instead it is centering in more and more on Da Vinci's lifetime
-identical shrouds have been produced using a mannequin; camera obscura room; silver nitrate and urine... every Shroud believer should try this, it makes a great science project
But the most damning evidence of all?:
The Church has consistently ruled out any testing for the presence of silver... THEY KNOW it's a urine-fixed silver nitrate proto-photograph: Islamic manuscripts detailing the development of such technology by Muslim scientists during the Middle Ages (probably the same sources used by Da Vinci) are abundant in the Vatican archives.
So... it's a fake... but as a Da Vinci masterpiece, it's an absolutely priceless awe-inspiring fake.
The Luke (Knower of Secrets)
The Luke as usual, spewing nonsense with no references, sources, links or anything. He just makes it up as he goes.
-
The Luke as usual, spewing nonsense with no references, sources, links or anything. He just makes it up as he goes.
...I don't post references because you delusional true-believers won't believe it till you do your own research.
Most of Christian/religious ignorance comes from their insistence on only ever reading ONE book.
Check out any of the things I posted... this is all common knowledge among competent researchers interested in such phenomena.
Find an error in anything I posted. Dismissal is just lazy self-assurance.
The Luke
-
...I don't post references because you delusional true-believers won't believe it till you do your own research.
Most of Christian/religious ignorance comes from their insistence on only ever reading ONE book.
Check out any of the things I posted... this is all common knowledge among competent researchers interested in such phenomena.
Find an error in anything I posted. Dismissal is just lazy self-assurance.
The Luke
I won't believe you until you post your sources.
What skeptics say:
"The debate over the origin and authenticity of the shroud steadily increased over the years. Many scientific investigations were carried out to get to the heart of the matter. Moreover, many scientific papers were written on the subject relating to the different theories concerning the structural make-up and image on the shroud. Most scientists took one of three prominent views; they either believed that the shroud was a "divine" creation or that the image was man made or that it was a natural phenomenon. The Shroud of Turin was without a doubt a mystery that challenged faith, science and understanding, one that rekindled man's inquisitive nature in a search for an explanation."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/5.html
"Interestingly, Barbet also noticed that some of the blood stains flowed in unusual, almost unnatural directions on the arms. However, he realized that the stains were consistent with one's arms being outstretched and than lowered, much like someone's arms who had been crucified and then let down. If the blood flow was an artist's representation, it was masterfully conceived and skillfully carried out."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/6.html
"Amazingly, no one has yet been able to successfully explain how the unique 3-D negative-like image on the shroud was constructed. In actuality that remains the biggest mystery."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/9.html
(http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics/photos/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/9-1-3-D-image-of-Shroud.jpg)
"Rogers was further quoted in the article saying, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder reported fort his time." Pliny the Elder was an ancient Roman scientist and author who lived between 23 and 79 AD. Based on Rogers' research and historical data, the shroud has been accurately dated to around the time of Christ. The discovery rekindled the age-old debate of whether the shroud was or was not the actual burial cloth used to wrap Jesus' body. Chances are we will never know."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/10.html
-
Stop getting your info from pro-shroud websites and pro-mystery sites...
Loco, please do a little research... I've been reading about the Turin Shroud for more than twenty years now. I'm right... trust me.
You can quote someone claiming that no one has ever demonstrated a method by which the Shroud could have been faked... but that doesn't change the fact that such a process has been demonstrated hundreds of times.
Let me give you an analogy...
Most people think the Giza pyramids are mysterious buildings that have never been explained. There is a huge cottage industry writing pyramid-mystery books (I've read most of them), and dozens of misguided archaeologists arguing various construction methods at symposia all over the world.
None of this changes the FACT that the Giza pyramids (like most Cyclopean architecture worldwide) are made of CONCRETE.
Simple, CONCRETE... end of discussion. Similarly, my post regarding the origins of the Turin Shroud should be end-of-thread material here.
The Luke
-
Stop getting your info from pro-shroud websites and pro-mystery sites...
Loco, please do a little research... I've been reading about the Turin Shroud for more than twenty years now. I'm right... trust me.
You can quote someone claiming that no one has ever demonstrated a method by which the Shroud could have been faked... but that doesn't change the fact that such a process has been demonstrated hundreds of times.
Let me give you an analogy...
Most people think the Giza pyramids are mysterious buildings that have never been explained. There is a huge cottage industry writing pyramid-mystery books (I've read most of them), and dozens of misguided archaeologists arguing various construction methods at symposia all over the world.
None of this changes the FACT that the Giza pyramids (like most Cyclopean architecture worldwide) are made of CONCRETE.
Simple, CONCRETE... end of discussion. Similarly, my post regarding the origins of the Turin Shroud should be end-of-thread material here.
The Luke
Crimelibrary.com is not a pro-shroud website.
-
Crimelibrary.com is not a pro-shroud website.
...then the author is simply misinformed.
The Luke
-
...then the author is simply misinformed.
The Luke
The author is skeptical of the shroud as you are, as I am. I don't trust relics, especially those coming out of the Roman Catholic Church. Bu I know that the Shroud of Turin has been analyzed and tested by many modern scientists using modern methods and instruments, and it still remains a mystery today.
-
The author is skeptical of the shroud as you are, as I am. I don't trust relics, especially those coming out of the Roman Catholic Church. Bu I know that the Shroud of Turin has been analyzed and tested by many modern scientists using modern methods and instruments, and it still remains a mystery today.
Bollocks... kids here in Ireland have made copies of the Shroud as science projects.
There are dozens of documentaries that have exposed both this fake, and the process da Vinci used to make it.
The only mystery is among the uninformed... or the willfully ignorant (religious).
For Christ's sake, I can make one of these shrouds myself. It's basic chemistry.
The Luke
-
Bollocks... kids here in Ireland have made copies of the Shroud as science projects.
There are dozens of documentaries that have exposed both this fake, and the process da Vinci used to make it.
Leonardo Da Vinci was born in 1452, which is 100 years after what is supposedly the time the Shroud originated.
The Shroud's fully documented history began in 1353 in Western Europe when it was revealed by Geoffrey DeCharney in Lirey, France.
The only mystery is among the uninformed... or the willfully ignorant (religious).
For Christ's sake, I can make one of these shrouds myself. It's basic chemistry.
The Luke
So all the STURP team scientists are idiots according to you.
I won't believe you until you post your sources.
-
So all the STURP team scientists are idiots according to you.
I won't believe you until you post your sources.
1- The STURP guys were all vetted to assure the Catholic Church that they had not made any presumptions regarding the Shroud (ie: only religious leaning or religiously sympathetic scientists/academics were chosen). That's important, especially when you consider that they never mentioned the (continuing) ban on testing for silver. Any savvy scientist should have guessed the forgery mechanism once that ban was insisted upon.
2- You won't believe me no matter what sources I post.
You could always type "Turin Shroud" and "photograph" and maybe "silver nitrate" into Youtube and see what happens. Instead you'll just keep arguing the toss with this long disproved bullshi t hoping that no one reads my previous post regarding the Shroud's origins (which I might repeat if you keep posting just to turn the page over so no one notices it).
The Luke
-
1- The STURP guys were all vetted to assure the Catholic Church that they had not made any presumptions regarding the Shroud (ie: only religious leaning or religiously sympathetic scientists/academics were chosen). That's important, especially when you consider that they never mentioned the (continuing) ban on testing for silver. Any savvy scientist should have guessed the forgery mechanism once that ban was insisted upon.
2- You won't believe me no matter what sources I post.
You could always type "Turin Shroud" and "photograph" and maybe "silver nitrate" into Youtube and see what happens. Instead you'll just keep arguing the toss with this long disproved bullshi t hoping that no one reads my previous post regarding the Shroud's origins (which I might repeat if you keep posting just to turn the page over so no one notices it).
The Luke
At least I post my sources, both supporting and skeptic of the Shroud. You've got nothing.
-
At least I post my sources, both supporting and skeptic of the Shroud. You've got nothing.
...what a lazy ignorant moron you are.
The Luke
-
...what a lazy ignorant moron you are.
Lazy? And this is coming from the one who would not lift a finger to post a mere link. ::)
Ignorant? And this is coming from the one who did not know that Leonardo Da Vinci was born 100 years after what is supposedly the time the Shroud originated. ::)
And you are a hard working, very intelligent person! ;D
The Luke
There, was that too hard? Now sit down, rest and catch your breath.
Thanks for the video. I'll watch it when I get home from work. I don't watch videos at work.
-
Ignorant? And this is coming from the one who did not know that Leonardo Da Vinci was born 100 years after what is supposedly the time the Shroud originated. ::)
...I already explained this in detail. Epic reading comprehension.
The Lirey family tried the Shroud hoax twice... the first was exposed, 70 years later Da Vinci made the second "miraculous" one.
Read my posts before you disagree.
Loco, why can't you just admit that as a religious nutbar you WANT the Shroud to be genuine... or failing that, at least inexplicable.
The REALITY is that the Shroud is a fake perpetrated on the ignorant Christian sheeple by a clever homosexual atheist. Da Vinci is laughing in his grave.
The Luke
-
...I already explained this in detail. Epic reading comprehension.
The Lirey family tried the Shroud hoax twice... the first was exposed, 70 years later Da Vinci made the second "miraculous" one.
Read my posts before you disagree.
Loco, why can't you just admit that as a religious nutbar you WANT the Shroud to be genuine... or failing that, at least inexplicable.
The REALITY is that the Shroud is a fake perpetrated on the ignorant Christian sheeple by a clever homosexual atheist. Da Vinci is laughing in his grave.
The Luke
Meltdown.
So what if it is a fake? I don't care.
A lot of criticism and skepticism concerning the Shroud of Turin has come from Christians, both Catholics and Protestants. Protestants don't believe in relics, least of all relics coming from the Roman Catholic Church and specially one that surfaced during the middle ages. Many Christians believe that God would not have left behind an image of Jesus Christ which could easily become the object of idol worship.
I'm not claiming that the Shroud of Turin is the cloth that wrapped the dead body of Jesus. Notice the title of this thread is not a claim but a question.
That the Shroud of Turin is the cloth that covered the crucified, dead body of Jesus of Nazareth, and that the image was formed on the cloth as a side effect of his resurrection are simply hypothesis. These hypothesis are based on the scientific analysis of the shroud, what historians and archaeologists know of Roman crucifixion, and on what we know from the Gospels.
Personally, I always thought that the shroud was either a forgery by the Catholic Church or that it was really a cloth used to wrap the body of some dead man other than Jesus. But after looking more into it, I now believe that there is a possibility, as small as it may be, that this was the burial cloth used to wrap the dead, crucified body of Jesus of Nazareth.
Christianity rests on Faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose again. Christianity does not rest on relics. If you already have faith in Jesus, then you do not need the shroud. If you do not have faith, then you probably will not believe even if presented with proof that the shroud is authentic.
-
Meltdown.
So what if it is a fake? I don't care.
...you should be ashamed that you questioned my posts on this subject. Ignorance is not a virtue... and willful ignorance such as you displayed here is most assuredly a pernicious and odious vice.
Is this what "faith" constitutes in this day and age...? The denial of reality?
Do these so-called Christians really think that reality itself is subject to their whims and delusions?
Why can't these people simply dismiss Jebus the same way that they dismiss Mithras; Apollo; Dionysus; Hercules; Quetzlcaotl; Gilgamesh and science itself.
FACTS are FACTS:
-the Shroud is a FAKE
-Da Vinci forged it
-it's a silver nitrate proto-photograph fixed with urine
-radio carbon dating confirms this
-the history confirms this
-the Shroud confirms this
-the Church itself has confirmed this (tacitly, by allowing all testing except testing for silver)
END OF THREAD!
The Luke
-
...you should be ashamed that you questioned my posts on this subject. Ignorance is not a virtue... and willful ignorance such as you displayed here is most assuredly a pernicious and odious vice.
Is this what "faith" constitutes in this day and age...? The denial of reality?
Do these so-called Christians really think that reality itself is subject to their whims and delusions?
Why can't these people simply dismiss Jebus the same way that they dismiss Mithras; Apollo; Dionysus; Hercules; Quetzlcaotl; Gilgamesh and science itself.
FACTS are FACTS:
-the Shroud is a FAKE
-Da Vinci forged it
-it's a silver nitrate proto-photograph fixed with urine
-radio carbon dating confirms this
-the history confirms this
-the Shroud confirms this
-the Church itself has confirmed this (tacitly, by allowing all testing except testing for silver)
END OF THREAD!
The Luke
I started this thread. Your nonsense has no end, and neither does this thread. :)
-
Bump for the truth!
Down with religion!
Some of the people on this site know about my being a hobby-adventurer in my spare time (Sasquatch; Loch Ness; lost treasure; Templar sites; Masonic buildings etc etc)... so in my capacity as a Knower of Secrets, I'll let everyone in on the real skinny regarding the Turin Shroud.
Bare with me, I'm working from memory without Google-fu (it's 3am here):
After the first few Crusades, supposedly "genuine" relics from Jesus' homeland (a historical Jesus never existed, he is an adaption of the common mystery religion dying/resurrecting God-man) became big business all across Christendom. For example, Charlamagne carried the (supposed) actual Roman pilum (Legionary infantry spear) believed to have pierced Christ's side... which was manufactured to order for Charlemagne by the Church to solidify his claim to the throne of Christendom. Add to this the Grail Romances that furthered the Sangraal heresies... the Johannite; Templar; Mandean heresies based upon John the Baptist's finger; severed head; secret gospel respectively etc etc
Rumours of miraculous healing relics spread throughout Europe, often originating with the churches/cathedrals/families manufacturing the relics themselves. One such relic was the Odessa Shroud, a folded shroud bearing the ethereal image of a mans face famous as a healing relic across the Muslim lands (some Muslims attributed the Odessa Shroud to Issa, the Kashmiri Buddhist/Muslim version of Jesus).
The Lirey family (now known as the Charney family) manufactured a copy of the Odessa Shroud but didn't openly market it as a Muslim relic, instead they hinted that the image MIGHT be that of Jesus... they couldn't openly make such a claim without the Church's consent: better to establish the relic as a centre of pilgrimage first then have the Church ratify it for a cut of the profits later on.
Unfortunately, the local bishop had the new relic boiled twice then further boiled in oil washing out most of the paint... convinced of the fraudulence of the shroud, he also obtained a confession from a local artist who apparently had painted the shroud on commission from the Lirey family.
Rather than have the Church officially denounce the relic, the Lirey family simply withdrew it from the public for the next seventy years (long enough for everyone who had seen it to die).
What happened next is what has made the Turin Shroud such an enduring mystery:
The Lirey family hired a young aspiring artist named Leonardo from the town of Vinci (yes, that Leonardo "da" Vinci) who set to work re-engineering the shroud as an unassailable, irrefutable miracle.
He did this by using a "camera obscura" to photographically imprint a three-dimensional image of an actual scourged body (supposedly that of a Christian Knight crucified in Odessa) onto a piece of herringbone weave Jewish style burial cloth with three exposures (one for the front, one for the back, and a double exposure on the face... using his own face) and fixed the silver nitrate with urine: locking in the exposed image.
This "piss-picture" is easily reproducible and explains many of the problems with the Turin Shroud:
-the front image is 6% larger than the back image (different focal distances)
-the face is somewhat double exposed (Da Vinci added his own face)
-the cloth is chemically singed to produce the image (no paint)
-the image is three dimensional
-the blood on the cloth is bovine (cow blood) mixed with red ochre (to keep it red)
-there is no space between the front and back images (the cloth can't be wrapped over and under a body while maintaining the image alignments unless Jesus was two dimensional)
This "new" version of the Shroud displayed by the Lirey family is no longer considered a crude forgery like it's counterpart 70 years previous... suddenly everyone who sees it is astounded by it's miraculous image. This "new" Shroud was similarly washed and boiled without ever losing its image, this convinced the Medieval populace sufficiently that the Church had no choice but to ratify the Shroud as a genuine miraculous relic.
All of this is common knowledge among those in the know.
Some evidence:
-Da Vinci remained a favourite of the Lirey family for his entire life
-the Church never prosecuted Da Vinci for heresy despite his hobby of dissecting human bodies
-the Church never prosecuted Da Vinci for blasphemy despite him being an outspoken atheist
-the Church never prosecuted Da Vinci for perversion despite his (somewhat) open homosexual lifestyle, yet they did prosecute Michelangelo
-the Church never prosecuted Da Vinci for harbouring his mother (Catherina) a Cathar heretic ("old believer")
-in his old age (80+) Da Vinci was taken in by the Lirey family
-Da Vinci died in the arms of the head of the Lirey family
-upon his death, Da Vinci's heir/apprentice/lover sold all of the masters codices (notebooks), the Lirey family paid way over the odds to procure ONLY the codex covering the time he worked for them before the newly miraculous 3D Shroud was made public
-this codex; now worth hundreds of millions has NEVER been seen again
Some modern evidence:
-among the many pollens discovered on the Shroud, olive tree pollen is conspicuously absent
-the Shroud's radiocarbon dating hasn't faltered: instead it is centering in more and more on Da Vinci's lifetime
-identical shrouds have been produced using a mannequin; camera obscura room; silver nitrate and urine... every Shroud believer should try this, it makes a great science project
But the most damning evidence of all?:
The Church has consistently ruled out any testing for the presence of silver... THEY KNOW it's a urine-fixed silver nitrate proto-photograph: Islamic manuscripts detailing the development of such technology by Muslim scientists during the Middle Ages (probably the same sources used by Da Vinci) are abundant in the Vatican archives.
So... it's a fake... but as a Da Vinci masterpiece, it's an absolutely priceless awe-inspiring fake.
The Luke (Knower of Secrets)
-
...you should be ashamed that you questioned my posts on this subject. Ignorance is not a virtue... and willful ignorance such as you displayed here is most assuredly a pernicious and odious vice.
Is this what "faith" constitutes in this day and age...? The denial of reality?
Do these so-called Christians really think that reality itself is subject to their whims and delusions?
Why can't these people simply dismiss Jebus the same way that they dismiss Mithras; Apollo; Dionysus; Hercules; Quetzlcaotl; Gilgamesh and science itself.
FACTS are FACTS:
-the Shroud is a FAKE
-Da Vinci forged it
-it's a silver nitrate proto-photograph fixed with urine
-radio carbon dating confirms this
-the history confirms this
-the Shroud confirms this
-the Church itself has confirmed this (tacitly, by allowing all testing except testing for silver)
END OF THREAD!
The Luke
Word.
-
Bump for the truth!
Down with religion!
So you hate religion and you hate religious people. No bias there. ;D
You keep saying it's the end of the thread, but you keep posting too...all talk. ;D
-
So you hate religion and you hate religious people. No bias there. ;D
You keep saying it's the end of the thread, but you keep posting too...all talk. ;D
I thought you Christians nuthuggers were the all talk ones...
-
So you hate religion and you hate religious people. No bias there. ;D
Religious people are delusional morons...
For example, you Loco, would dismiss out of hand belief in every other god other than Jebus.
You wouldn't take seriously a belief in Horus; Mithras; Dionysus; Hercules or Attis... how dumb is that when the Jesus story is copied from these religions?
What are the odds that the Jesus is historical when every other version of the same story is recognized as astrological metaphor?
Come on Loco, you're an atheist too... at least with regard to the vast majority of gods. You've just got Jebus left to strike off the list. Millions down, just one to go.
The Luke
-
Religious people are delusional morons...
For example, you Loco, would dismiss out of hand belief in every other god other than Jebus.
You wouldn't take seriously a belief in Horus; Mithras; Dionysus; Hercules or Attis... how dumb is that when the Jesus story is copied from these religions?
What are the odds that the Jesus is historical when every other version of the same story is recognized as astrological metaphor?
Come on Loco, you're an atheist too... at least with regard to the vast majority of gods. You've just got Jebus left to strike off the list. Millions down, just one to go.
The Luke
It's a tough choice between Hades, Zeus and Ares...
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/Hades_by_TaekwondoNJ.jpg)
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/Zeus-1.jpg)
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/ares-0800.jpg)
-
I take it Loco won't be back to this thread...?
Not man enough to admit his own stupidity.
The Luke
-
I take it Loco won't be back to this thread...?
Not man enough to admit his own stupidity.
The Luke
You are one bitter little man!
The Luke,
What's your beef with me? Oh yes, you hate religious people.
Of course I will continue to add to my thread, as new information is released on the Shroud of Turin.
Have a nice day! ;D
-
Loco,
Admit my post regarding the Shroud's origins was both insightful and definitive.
Then admit you should have agreed it was an "End-of-thread" post, as I insisted.
The Luke
-
Loco,
Admit my post regarding the Shroud's origins was both insightful and definitive.
Then admit you should have agreed it was an "End-of-thread" post, as I insisted.
The Luke
You're funny! ;D
-
The Luke,
I haven't had a chance to watch the video that you posted for me. As I said, I don't watch videos at work, and after I get off work...I have a life. But I promise you I will watch it and comment on it. ;D
-
Admit!... Admit!... Admit!
The Luke
-
Good thread!!!
I like a good mystery (Loch Ness and Sasquatch are my personal faves) but the Shroud will always be fake in one way or another, due to 'Jesus' being nothing more than an illusionist, an ancient times' David Blaine, if you will. 8) People have always wanted something to believe in, and if a clever man could perform 'miracles' then he would soon have a decent following, and maybe when he died, they kept the Shroud to provide backup to the Bible.
Ever since the church was formed, they have used the Bible as a means of controlling the masses, telling people to be good, do as they were told, or they would go to Hell! When they were questioned, they called it blasphemy, and had people killed.
Unfortunately, all religion is based on people's faith in the unknown, rather than the known, and in a way, that is how it must be. If a time came when everyone's beliefs were proved to be entirely false, then whole society's would collapse.
If people want to believe, then let them. As long as they don't force any of it on me, I really couldn't care less. As far as the shroud goes, I would like it to be a mystery, but some of the things 'The Luke' brought up make me lean towards it being a well-engineered fake.
(I probably went a bit off-topic there, but oh well... ;D)
-
Jesus H Christ...! Where is my long overdue apology Loco?
It shouldn't take too long to apologise for questioning my amazing depth of knowledge considering the amount of times I've produced end-of-thread posts on this board alone.
The Luke
-
Jesus H Christ...! Where is my long overdue apology Loco?
It shouldn't take too long to apologise for questioning my amazing depth of knowledge considering the amount of times I've produced end-of-thread posts on this board alone.
The Luke
The long video that you posted is only 1/6. I'm on 3/6 and I have yet to see or hear any evidence that Leonardo Da Vinci faked the Shroud. They better start talking about the evidence soon or I'm giving up and you'll be apologizing to me. I don't have time for this nonsense. You should be thanking me for taking you seriously and actually watching this long, boring video that has no substance. I'll get back to you. I'm a long way from video 6/6.
-
Let me get this straight... if YOU don't bother watching the evidence that YOU demanded I provide then I should apologise to YOU?
Want me to proclaim that the Shroud is genuine too?
The Luke
-
Let me get this straight... if YOU don't bother watching the evidence that YOU demanded I provide then I should apologise to YOU?
Want me to proclaim that the Shroud is genuine too?
The Luke
Can you read English? I just told you that I'm on video 3/6. Why do you say I don't bother watching?
-
Can you read English? I just told you that I'm on video 3/6. Why do you say I don't bother watching?
...I can answer that with a quote:
They better start talking about the evidence soon or I'm giving up and you'll be apologizing to me. I don't have time for this nonsense.
...actually, being more serious, that's from a National Geographic documentary called "Leonardo: The Man Behind the Shroud", it's pretty long winded and far too inclusive of the shittier theories regarding the manufacture of the crowd. All that bullshit regarding "bas reliefs" and bacterial staining of cloth etc is totally pointless.
What you need to see is the BBC documentary "Double Exposure".
That goes very in-depth into the proto-photograph technique, even making a copy of the Shroud.
I've also seen a really damning documentary (although translated into Irish as part of the "Fiorsceal" ["true story"] series), in which a chemist produced dozens of versions of the Shroud using only technology and materials available in the 11th century. But I can't find either that or the BBC documentary online.
I'll see if I can dig up any of the old Equinox or Horizon documentaries, some of them are pretty convincing.
The Luke
-
Religious people are delusional morons...
You mean just like the guy that JUST GOT ELECTED PRESIDENT.....Oh wait!! You're going to bring up your ridiculous tirade about Obama being a closet atheist again. ::)
For example, you Loco, would dismiss out of hand belief in every other god other than Jebus.
You wouldn't take seriously a belief in Horus; Mithras; Dionysus; Hercules or Attis... how dumb is that when the Jesus story is copied from these religions?
What are the odds that the Jesus is historical when every other version of the same story is recognized as astrological metaphor?
Come on Loco, you're an atheist too... at least with regard to the vast majority of gods. You've just got Jebus left to strike off the list. Millions down, just one to go.
The Luke
First, your claim about the "Jesus story" being copied from those figures is just as WRONG now as it was, the last 15 times you brought it up. Or do I have to dismantle that mess for you, one more time.
Furthermore, An atheist believed that THERE IS NO GOD. Therefore, it doesn't matter how many deities Loco dismisses "out of hand". As long as he believes in just ONE (which he does), he's not an atheist.
-
MCWAY,
You are the only person here who thinks you can disprove FACTS by shouting down your opponent.
Even the early Church Fathers admitted the Jesus story was plagiarised from the Mystery Religion. Among Bible scholars this isn't even debated any longer, it's so obvious and so well documented only fundies disagree.
You only managed to prove your own poor reading comprehension with your "insights"... but if you want to quote the FOLKLORE associated with the many proto-Jesus-gods I mentioned somehow thinking that has some bearing on the MYSTERY RELIGION version of those same gods, then feel free to do so.
So long as you realise it's tantamount to denying history.
The Luke
-
MCWAY,
You are the only person here who thinks you can disprove FACTS by shouting down your opponent.
What you didn't post was facts. You posted gibberish, which I easily refuted by posting reference after reference and link after link, dissecting your claims line by line. If you call that "shouting down your opponent", then I'm guilty as charged. ;D
Even the early Church Fathers admitted the Jesus story was plagiarised from the Mystery Religion. Among Bible scholars this isn't even debated any longer, it's so obvious and so well documented only fundies disagree.
Which Bible scholars would those be?
Dr. D. James Kennedy
Dr. Gary Habermas
Dr. Sam Lamerson
Dr. Paul Meier
Dr. Bruce Metzger
Dr. N.T. Wright
Dr. D.A. Carson
Oops, they all carve that "Mystery Religion" canard to pieces (and that's just the short list).
You only managed to prove your own poor reading comprehension with your "insights"... but if you want to quote the FOLKLORE associated with the many proto-Jesus-gods I mentioned somehow thinking that has some bearing on the MYSTERY RELIGION version of those same gods, then feel free to do so.
So long as you realise it's tantamount to denying history.
The Luke
None the "Mystery Religion" versions match, either. What part of that don't you get? Of course, you keep flip-flopping between the two, when shown that your claims didn't add up. So, if anyone needs to brush up on his "Hooked on Phonics", it's you. Necrophillac bestiality and self-castration, driven by incestuous lust (how we got Horus and Attis, respecitively) have no bearing on the account of Jesus Christ.
-
MCWAY,
You are the only person here who thinks you can disprove FACTS by shouting down your opponent.
Even the early Church Fathers admitted the Jesus story was plagiarised from the Mystery Religion. Among Bible scholars this isn't even debated any longer, it's so obvious and so well documented only fundies disagree.
You only managed to prove your own poor reading comprehension with your "insights"... but if you want to quote the FOLKLORE associated with the many proto-Jesus-gods I mentioned somehow thinking that has some bearing on the MYSTERY RELIGION version of those same gods, then feel free to do so.
So long as you realise it's tantamount to denying history.
The Luke
Scholarly response to the Jesus Myth Hypothesis:
"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."
Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34.
The classical historian Michael Grant writes:
"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."
Michael Grant does not see the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions to be significant. Grant states that "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit."
Grant, Michael (1995). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 199. ISBN 978-0684818672 .
R.T. France points out that Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure. He argues that there is evidence in Pliny, Josephus and other sources of the Roman and Jewish approaches at the time, and none of them involved this suggestion.
In response to Jesus-myth proponents who argue the lack of early non-Christian sources, or question their authenticity, R. T. France counters that "even the great histories of Tacitus have survived in only two manuscripts, which together contain scarcely half of what he is believed to have written, the rest is lost" and that the life of Jesus, from a Roman point of view, was not a major
event.
R.T France disagrees with the notion that the Apostle Paul did not speak of Jesus as a physical being. He argues that arguments from silence are unreliable and that there are several references to historical facts about Jesus's life in Paul's letters, such as that Jesus "who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David" (Romans 1:3, TNIV).
France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing, 19-20. ISBN 0340381728.
Supporting a historical Jesus
Bovon, François (2006). The Last Days of Jesus, trans. Kristin Hennessy; Louisville: Westminster, John Knox. ISBN 0664230075.
Burridge, Richard A. (2006). Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading, 2nd edn., Grand Rapids:Eerdmans. ISBN 0802829805 .
Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ISBN 080284880X.
Grant, Michael [1977] (1999). Jesus. London: Phoenix. ISBN 0-75380-899-4.
Komoszewski, J. Ed ; et al (2006). Reinventing Jesus. Kregel Publications. ISBN 082542982X.
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols., New York: Doubleday.
(1991) The Roots of the Problem and the Person. ISBN 0-385-26425-9 .
(1994) Mentor, Message, and Miracles. ISBN 0-385-46992-6 .
(2001) Companions and Competitors. ISBN 0-385-46993-4 .
Sanders, E. P. (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9059-7.
Theissen, Gerd; and Annette Merz (1998). The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide , trans. John Bowden, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. ISBN 0-8006-3123-4.
Wright, NT (1996). The New Testament and the People of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. ISBN 0800626818.
-
Josephus on Jesus - Current state of the debate
Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.
Alice Whealey writes:
Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text's authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.
Alice Whealey: Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 36). Peter Lang Publishing (February 2003) ISBN-10: 0820452416
-
Dudes,
Every single detail in the Jesus story is an astrological metaphor lifted from one of the previous Mystery Religions. Every single one.
Just because you moron-believers find a few tidbits in these Mystery Religions that don't match backwards to the Jesus story doesn't discount the above statement. That's just Logic 101.
Sure you can find a few religious true-believer Bible scholars who disagree... but that is just the same filtered wishful thinking that has people still arguing over Da Vinci's Shroud (the original subject of this thread). Only Jebus-freaks like you two continue to buy into the bullshit agenda-driven research published by Evangelical think-tanks.
The Luke
-
Dudes,
Every single detail in the Jesus story is an astrological metaphor lifted from one of the previous Mystery Religions. Every single one.
Just because you moron-believers find a few tidbits in these Mystery Religions that don't match backwards to the Jesus story doesn't discount the above statement. That's just Logic 101.
Sure you can find a few religious true-believer Bible scholars who disagree... but that is just the same filtered wishful thinking that has people still arguing over Da Vinci's Shroud (the original subject of this thread). Only Jebus-freaks like you two continue to buy into the bullshit agenda-driven research published by Evangelical think-tanks.
The Luke
You are the one ignoring what I just posted, some of it from secular scholars.
And please don't compare Jesus Christ to the Shroud of Turin. We don't believe that the Shroud is authentic. I only created this thread because I find the mystery of it interesting, but I'm aware that it could be a hoax.
-
Dudes,
Every single detail in the Jesus story is an astrological metaphor lifted from one of the previous Mystery Religions. Every single one.
Just because you moron-believers find a few tidbits in these Mystery Religions that don't match backwards to the Jesus story doesn't discount the above statement. That's just Logic 101.
Sure you can find a few religious true-believer Bible scholars who disagree... but that is just the same filtered wishful thinking that has people still arguing over Da Vinci's Shroud (the original subject of this thread). Only Jebus-freaks like you two continue to buy into the bullshit agenda-driven research published by Evangelical think-tanks.
The Luke
The Luke please speak on this important matter
-
If Jesus was a historical person, then why was his life recorded only as a series of astrological metaphors?
Among the scrolls recovered in the last century (can't remember if it was the Nag Hamaddi Library; Dead Sea Scrolls or Quumran collection) was a copy of "The Wisdom of Plato"; a popular ancient manuscript listing assorted pronunciations by the great philosopher.
However, this particular version was titled "The Wisdom of Jesus" and each and every Plato quote was prefaced with the words: "Jesus said:". Had no other copies of Plato's works been retrieved, this obvious plagiarism would never have been exposed.
Similarly, why should we take the gospels at their word when each and every detail is lifted from the various Middle Eastern Mystery Religions?
Granted, no one Mystery Religion is identical to the Jesus story in every detail... but the fact remains that there is not one single significant detail in the Jesus story that isn't lifted from a previous Mystery Religion dying/resurrecting godman story.
AGAIN, I am referring to the astrological MYSTERY RELIGION VERSION of Mithras; Dionysus; Bacchus; Tammuz; Attis; Hercules etc etc... NOT the standard classical folklore versions of these stories. (before MCWAY makes a fool of himself again quoting them).
If you guys want to start a new thread I can easily explain these metaphors...?
The Luke
-
The Shroud of Turin (or Turin Shroud) is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.
The shroud is the subject of intense debate among some scientists, people of faith, historians, and writers regarding where, when, and how the shroud and its images were created. Many believe it is the cloth that covered Jesus of Nazareth when he was placed in his tomb and that his image was recorded on its fibers at the time of his proclaimed resurrection, probably by a powerful flash of light irradiating from his body. Skeptics contend the shroud is a medieval hoax, forgery, or the result of natural processes that are not yet understood. As of today, no scientist can explain how the image was recorded unto the shroud or what method or technology was used. And, though some skeptics have tried, nobody as of today has been able to replicate it using any method or technology.
(http://home.hetnet.nl/~shroud-enhanced/000ShroudPosx.JPG)
The image on the cloth has many peculiar and closely studied characteristics, for example, it is entirely superficial, not penetrating into the cloth fibers under the surface, so that the flax and cotton fibers are not colored; the image yarn is composed of discolored fibers placed side by side with non-discolored fibers so many striations appear. Thus the cloth is not simply dyed, though many other explanations, natural and otherwise, have been suggested for the image formation.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf
Many believers have hypothesized that the image on the shroud was produced by a side effect of the Resurrection of Jesus, purposely left intact as a rare physical aid to understanding and believing in Jesus' dual nature as man and God. Some have asserted that the shroud collapsed through the glorified body of Jesus, pointing to certain X-ray-like impressions of the teeth and the finger bones. Others assert that radiation streaming from every point of the revivifying body struck and discolored every opposite point of the cloth, forming the complete image through a kind of supernatural pointillism using inverted shades of blue-gray rather than primary colors.
From http://www.shroud2000.com/FastFacts.html :
1353: The Shroud's fully documented history began in Western Europe when it was revealed by Geoffrey DeCharney in Lirey, France.
1532: The burial linen was severely damaged by fire in Chambery, France.
1534: The Shroud was repaired by the Poor Claire Nuns who were skilled in making textile repairs. The holes from the fire were patched and the entire cloth was attached to a backing cloth for support.
1898: The Shroud was photographed for the first time by Secondo Pia. These first pictures led to the discovery that the image on the cloth is actually a negative. In other words, the image becomes positive only when the light values are reversed in a photographic negative. This discovery startled the scientific community and stimulated worldwide interest.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Shroud_of_Turin_001.jpg/800px-Shroud_of_Turin_001.jpg)
1975: Air Force scientists John Jackson and Eric Jumper, using a sophisticated image enhancement analyzer (VP-8) designed for the space program, discovered the Shroud image contained encoded 3-D data not found in ordinary reflected light photographs. This discovery indicated that the cloth must have wrapped a real human figure at the time the image was formed.
(http://factsplusfacts.com/images/3dexamples.jpg)
1978: The Shroud was on public exhibit for the first time since 1933 and was displayed for six weeks. Over 3 million people passed through the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist to view it behind bullet proof glass. At the close of the exhibition, 40 scientists comprising the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), mostly from the United States, analyzed the Shroud for five continuous days (122 hours) working in shifts around the clock.
Tests performed in 1978 include:
Particle analysis
Chemical analysis
Blood analysis
Photo microscopy
Spectroscopy
X-ray radiography
Infra-red thermography
X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
Scanning photography from infra-red to ultra violet
And others
1980: This same year, microscopist Walter McCrone who was not part of the Shroud Project was given several fibers to analyze. After finding iron oxide particles and a single particle of vermillion paint, he broke ranks with the Shroud scientists who had agreed to make all findings public the following year. McCrone proposed that the Shroud was a painting of red ochre paint created from iron oxide particles suspended in a thin binder solution. However McCrone's findings in no way agreed with any of the highly sophisticated tests conducted by two dozen other scientists. McCrone jumped the gun for the sake of getting his own publicity. His claims have all been dismissed.
1981: After three years analyzing the data The Shroud of Turn Research Project (STURP) made their findings public at an international conference in New London, CT. All the scientists agreed upon the following statement: "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and give a positive test for serum albumin."
1988: The Shroud was carbon dated by three laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona. They indcated a date range from between 1260 to 1390 making the cloth only about 700 years old. This earth shattering news seemed to contradict the conclusions of STURP which gave support to the Shroud's possible authenticity. This new data posed a great dilemma for proponents of the Shroud and further complicates an explanation for the Shroud's existence.
The Shroud cannot be explained in a medieval context because it demonstrates medical knowledge and artistic expertise unknown until centuries later. If it was not made by an artist then what is it? Was it a custom crucifixion performed to mimic that of Jesus? Knowledge of Roman crucifixion practices was totally unknown in the Middle Ages. There are dozens of reasons why a medieval date doesn't fit the evidence.
1997: Noted Israeli Botanist and a professor at Hebrew University, Avinoam Danin confirmed Dr. Alan Whanger's discovery of flower images on the Shroud. He also verified that several pollen were from plants that grow only around Jerusalem.
Sci/Tech - Plants shed light on Turin Shroud
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/411366.stm
2004: Discovery of the Shroud's double face image. Italian scientists, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolio of Padova University were able to analyze scans of the backside of the Shroud after it was removed from the backing cloth. This had never been done before. The previous backing cloth had been attached since 1534 as part of the restoration following the fire of 1532. Examining the scans revealed faint superficial images of the face and hands. The image occurs only on the top surface of the fibers, similar to the front side of the Shroud but there is no coloring of the threads in between. This enhances the mystery of image formation and makes it that much more difficult to ascribe the Shroud to the work of an artist.
2005: Thermal Chemist, Dr. Raymond Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory proves using samples from the area cut for carbon 14 dating and samples from the main body of the Shroud that the sample cut in 1988 for C-14 dating was in fact a medieval reweave confirming Marino and Benford's hypothesis presented in 2000. Rogers also determined the evidence of a madder root dye used to blend in the color of newer threads with the more yellowed threads of the original Shroud. He also found cotton in the C-14 sample but not from the main body of the Shroud indicating both cotton and flax were used in the repair. Lastly and most importantly, he found that 37% of the vanillin remained intact in the lignon from the C-14 fibers whereas the vanillin content from the main body of the Shroud had decayed to 0%, similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not only does this new evidence show that the carbon dating tests were severely flawed by dating an erroneous sample, but that the evidence also shows the main body of the Shroud is much older as indicated by the lack of vanillin. This critical research is precisely the kind of micro-chemical analysis the carbon dating labs were supposed to do in 1988, prior to taking the sample according to the original protocol, but failed to follow.
The carbon dating tests of 1988 have been thoroughly and completely invalidated by good science rather than the shoddy and arrogant effort demonstrated by the carbon labs in 1988. The cloud has been lifted.
Turin shroud 'older than thought'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
2007: "The Fabric of Time" is released on DVD
Product Description
We live in a world where science and religion have often been on opposing sides. But is all that changing? For the first time, science and religion have come together to uncover an age-old mystery. Who was Jesus Christ? What did he actually look like? And can the story of his death and resurrection now be proven as true? Viewers around the world are in the jury box as newly found scientific discoveries are presented by scholars, scientists, and historians in an unflinching search for evidence -- nothing has been held back. Could it be that actual documentation of this amazing story is still available today? See the evidence and decide for yourself in THE FABRIC OF TIME.
http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Time-Shroud-Turin/dp/B000MTEFNM/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1199330994&sr=8-1
What skeptics say:
"The debate over the origin and authenticity of the shroud steadily increased over the years. Many scientific investigations were carried out to get to the heart of the matter. Moreover, many scientific papers were written on the subject relating to the different theories concerning the structural make-up and image on the shroud. Most scientists took one of three prominent views; they either believed that the shroud was a "divine" creation or that the image was man made or that it was a natural phenomenon. The Shroud of Turin was without a doubt a mystery that challenged faith, science and understanding, one that rekindled man's inquisitive nature in a search for an explanation."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/5.html
"Interestingly, Barbet also noticed that some of the blood stains flowed in unusual, almost unnatural directions on the arms. However, he realized that the stains were consistent with one's arms being outstretched and than lowered, much like someone's arms who had been crucified and then let down. If the blood flow was an artist's representation, it was masterfully conceived and skillfully carried out."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/6.html
"Amazingly, no one has yet been able to successfully explain how the unique 3-D negative-like image on the shroud was constructed. In actuality that remains the biggest mystery."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/9.html
(http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics/photos/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/9-1-3-D-image-of-Shroud.jpg)
"Rogers was further quoted in the article saying, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder reported fort his time." Pliny the Elder was an ancient Roman scientist and author who lived between 23 and 79 AD. Based on Rogers' research and historical data, the shroud has been accurately dated to around the time of Christ. The discovery rekindled the age-old debate of whether the shroud was or was not the actual burial cloth used to wrap Jesus' body. Chances are we will never know."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/10.html
What Loco says:
Christianity rests on Faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose again. Christianity does not rest on relics. If you already have faith in Jesus, then you do not need the shroud. If you do not have faith, then you probably will not believe even if presented with proof that the shroud is authentic. However, the Shroud of Turin is real, scientists have studied it, and scientists have no other explanation.
Nobody witnessed the actual resurrection. Jesus' followers witnessed the empty tomb, the angels at the tomb, and later the risen Jesus himself. Since nobody witnessed the resurrection itself, could God have left us a photograph of the event itself? Maybe so. The evidence is there. Is the Shroud of Turin the the cloth that covered Jesus of Nazareth or is it the greatest forgery ever made, during the middle ages, using technology unknown to us even today? You decide.
More:
http://factsplusfacts.com/theed.htm
http://www.shroudstory.com/
http://www.shroud.com/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud.html
http://e-forensicmedicine.net/Washed.htm
Its not an old enough material, it was dated 13th century.... :'(
-
Its not an old enough material, it was dated 13th century.... :'(
...epic contribution.
I retract my previous assertion, the above post is "end-of-thread".
The Luke
-
...epic contribution.
I retract my previous assertion, the above post is "end-of-thread".
The Luke
Thank you Luke....."Sometimes less is More!!!
-
...epic contribution.
I retract my previous assertion, the above post is "end-of-thread".
The Luke
...sarcasm much?
The Luke
-
Its not an old enough material, it was dated 13th century.... :'(
2005: Thermal Chemist, Dr. Raymond Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory proves using samples from the area cut for carbon 14 dating and samples from the main body of the Shroud that the sample cut in 1988 for C-14 dating was in fact a medieval reweave confirming Marino and Benford's hypothesis presented in 2000. Rogers also determined the evidence of a madder root dye used to blend in the color of newer threads with the more yellowed threads of the original Shroud. He also found cotton in the C-14 sample but not from the main body of the Shroud indicating both cotton and flax were used in the repair. Lastly and most importantly, he found that 37% of the vanillin remained intact in the lignon from the C-14 fibers whereas the vanillin content from the main body of the Shroud had decayed to 0%, similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not only does this new evidence show that the carbon dating tests were severely flawed by dating an erroneous sample, but that the evidence also shows the main body of the Shroud is much older as indicated by the lack of vanillin. This critical research is precisely the kind of micro-chemical analysis the carbon dating labs were supposed to do in 1988, prior to taking the sample according to the original protocol, but failed to follow.
The carbon dating tests of 1988 have been thoroughly and completely invalidated by good science rather than the shoddy and arrogant effort demonstrated by the carbon labs in 1988. The cloud has been lifted.
Rogers found that the sample used in the 1988 investigation did indeed date to medieval times but the threads examined were from a patch, likely sewed on by nuns sometime around 1260 to 1390, in an effort to restore the shroud after it was damaged by fire. In fact, the rest of the shroud proved to be much older. According to a January 2005 Associated Press article, Rogers said he analyzed "the amount of vanillin, a chemical compound that is present in linen from the flax fibers used to weave it, " which is known to "slowly disappear from the fiber over time at a calculated rate." The samples he studied had hardly any vanillin on them, indicating that the shroud was between 1,300-3,000 years old rather than around 700 years old as previously purported.
"Rogers was further quoted in the article saying, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder reported fort his time." Pliny the Elder was an ancient Roman scientist and author who lived between 23 and 79 AD. Based on Rogers' research and historical data, the shroud has been accurately dated to around the time of Christ. The discovery rekindled the age-old debate of whether the shroud was or was not the actual burial cloth used to wrap Jesus' body. Chances are we will never know."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/10.html
BBC News
Turin shroud 'older than thought'
31 January, 2005
"The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal.
A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
-
Indirectly related, an oldy but goody by Ancient Historian Richard Carrier...lending further credence to the liklihood that Jebus never existed.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html
Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997)
Richard Carrier
We all have read the tales told of Jesus in the Gospels, but few people really have a good idea of their context. Yet it is quite enlightening to examine them against the background of the time and place in which they were written, and my goal here is to help you do just that. There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, even innocent men mistaken for divine, and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them. Placed in this context, the gospels no longer seem to be so remarkable, and this leads us to an important fact: when the Gospels were written, skeptics and informed or critical minds were a small minority. Although the gullible, the credulous, and those ready to believe or exaggerate stories of the supernatural are still abundant today, they were much more common in antiquity, and taken far more seriously.
If the people of that time were so gullible or credulous or superstitious, then we have to be very cautious when assessing the reliability of witnesses of Jesus. As Thomas Jefferson believed when he composed his own version of the gospels, Jesus may have been an entirely different person than the Gospels tell us, since the supernatural and other facts about him, even some of his parables or moral sayings, could easily have been added or exaggerated by unreliable witnesses or storytellers. Thus, this essay is not about whether Jesus was real or how much of what we are told about him is true. It is not even about Jesus. Rather, this essay is a warning and a standard, by which we can assess how likely or easily what we are told about Jesus may be false or exaggerated, and how little we can trust anyone who claims to be a witness of what he said and did. For if all of these other stories below could be told and believed, even by Christians themselves, it follows that the Gospels, being of entirely the same kind, can all too easily be inaccurate, tainted by the gullibility, credulity, or fondness for the spectacular which characterized most people of the time.
The Minor Evidence: Messiahs and Miracles Galore
Even in Acts, we get an idea of just how gullible people could be. Surviving a snake bite was evidently enough for the inhabitants of Malta to believe that Paul himself was a god (28:6). And Paul and his comrade Barnabas had to go to some lengths to convince the Lycaonians of Lystra that they were not deities. For the locals immediately sought to sacrifice to them as manifestations of Hermes and Zeus, simply because a man with bad feet stood up (14:8-18). These stories show how ready people were to believe that gods can take on human form and walk among them, and that a simple show was sufficient to convince them that mere men were such divine beings. And this evidence is in the bible itself.
Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (Jewish War, 2.259-60; Jewish Antiquities, 20.167), entrancing the masses and leading them like sheep, usually to their doom. The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers.
Twenty years later, a common weaver named Jonathan would attract a mob of the poor and needy, promising to show them many signs and portents (Jewish War, 7.437-8). Again, it took military intervention to disband the movement. Josephus also names a certain Theudas, another "trickster" who gathered an impressive following in Cyrene around 46 A.D., claiming he was a prophet and could part the river Jordan (Jewish Antiquities, 20.97). This could be the same Theudas mentioned in Acts 5:36. Stories like these also remind us of the faithful following that Simon was reported to have had in Acts 8:9-11, again showing how easy it was to make people believe you had "the power of god" at your disposal. Jesus was not unique in that respect.
Miracles were also a dime a dozen in this era. The biographer Plutarch, a contemporary of Josephus, engages in a lengthy digression to prove that a statue of Tyche did not really speak in the early Republic (Life of Coriolanus 37.3). He claims it must have been a hallucination inspired by the deep religious faith of the onlookers, since there were, he says, too many reliable witnesses to dismiss the story as an invention (38.1-3). He even digresses further to explain why other miracles such as weeping or bleeding--even moaning--statues could be explained as natural phenomena, showing a modest but refreshing degree of skeptical reasoning that would make the Amazing Randi proud. What is notable is not that Plutarch proves himself to have some good sense, but that he felt it was necessary to make such an argument at all. Clearly, such miracles were still reported and believed in his own time. I find this to be a particularly interesting passage, since we have thousands of believers flocking to weeping and bleeding statues even today. Certainly the pagan gods must also exist if they could make their statues weep and bleed as well!
Miraculous healings were also commonplace. Suetonius, another biographer writing a generation after Plutarch, reports that even the emperor Vespasian once cured the blind and lame (Life of Vespasian 7.13; this "power" being attributed to the god Serapis--incidentally the Egyptian counterpart to Asclepius; cf. also Tacitus, Histories 4.81). Likewise, statues with healing powers were common attractions for sick people of this era. Lucian mentions the famous healing powers of a statue of Polydamas, an athlete, at Olympia, as well as the statue of Theagenes at Thasos (Council of the Gods 12). Both are again mentioned by Pausanias, in his "tour guide" of the Roman world (6.5.4-9, 11.2-9). Lucian also mentions the curative powers of the statue of a certain General Pellichos (Philopseudes 18-20). And Athenagoras, in his Legatio pro Christianis (26), polemicizes against the commonplace belief in the healing powers of statues, mentioning, in addition to the statue of a certain Neryllinus, the statues of Proteus and Alexander, the same two men I discuss in detail below.
But above all these, the "pagans" had Asclepius, their own healing savior, centuries before, and after, the ministry of Christ. Surviving testimonies to his influence and healing power throughout the classical age are common enough to fill a two-volume book (Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, in two volumes, 1945--entries 423-450 contain the most vivid testimonials). Of greatest interest are the inscriptions set up for those healed at his temples. These give us almost first hand testimony, more reliable evidence than anything we have for the miracles of Jesus, of the blind, the lame, the mute, even the victims of kidney stones, paralytics, and one fellow with a spearhead stuck in his jaw (see the work cited above, p. 232), all being cured by this pagan "savior." And this testimony goes on for centuries. Inscriptions span from the 4th century B.C. to the 3rd century A.D. and later, all over the Roman Empire. Clearly, the people of this time were quite ready to believe such tales. They were not remarkable tales at all.
This more general evidence of credulity in the Roman Empire shows the prevalence of belief in divine miracle working of all kinds. I will now present you with three historical individuals who truly flesh out the picture.
The Major Evidence: Apollonius, Peregrinus, and Alexander
Apollonius, Peregrinus, and Alexander are three rather interesting religious founders about whom we know even more than we do of Jesus. The first, Apollonius of Tyana, is often called the "pagan Christ," since he also lived during the first century, and performed a similar ministry of miracle-working, preaching his own brand of ascetic Pythagoreanism--he was also viewed as the son of a god, resurrected the dead, ascended to heaven, performed various miracles, and criticized the authorities with pithy wisdom much like Jesus did.
Naturally, his story is one that no doubt grew into more and more fantastic legends over time, until he becomes an even more impressive miracle-worker than Jesus in the largest surviving work on him, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, written by Philostratus around 220 A.D. This work is available today in two volumes as part of the Loeb Classical Library, published by Harvard University Press, a set that also includes the surviving fragments of Apollonius' own writings (if only Jesus had bothered to write something!) as well as the Treatise against him by the Christian historian Eusebius. There were other books written about him immediately after his death, but none survive.
Even Eusebius, in his Treatise against Apollonius, does not question his existence, or the reality of many of his miracles--rather, he usually tries to attribute them to trickery or demons. This shows the credulity of the times, even among educated defenders of the Christian faith, but it also shows how easy it was to deceive. Since they readily believed in demons and magical powers, it should not surprise us that they believed in resurrections and transmutations of water to wine.
We also know that the cult that grew up around Apollonius survived for many centuries after his death. An inscription from as late as the 3rd century names him as a sort of pagan "absolver of sins," sent from heaven (Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed., 1996). The emperor Caracalla erected a shrine to him in Tyana around 215 A.D (Dio Cassius, 78.18; for a miraculous display of clairvoyance on the part of Apollonius, see 67.18). According to one account, the ghost of Apollonius even appeared to the emperor Aurelian to convince him to stop his siege of Tyana, whereupon he also erected a shrine to him around 274 A.D. (Historia Augusta: Vita Aureliani 24.2-6).
Later Arabic sources even discuss the fame and potency of certain relics associated with him, which remained in use well into the sixth and seventh centuries, the last of them apparently destroyed by crusaders in 1204 A.D. So popular was the belief in the power of these "talismans" that the Church was forced to accept their use, even while condemning Apollonius and his shrines as demonic (see sources below). And so, we see here an independent confirmation that blind belief in the divine status and miraculous powers of mere mortals easily captivated the people of this time, a fact that even modern Christians must admit.
An even more colorful story is that of a crazy fellow called Peregrinus, nicknamed "Proteus," who set himself on fire during the Olympic games in 165 A.D. to prove his faith in reincarnation. The notion of suicide as a proof of such faith was not new. Indian Brahmans had immolated themselves before Western audiences on several occasions before, the most famous being Calanus, at Susa, in front of Alexander the Great, and Zarmarus, at Athens, in front of Augustus (Plutarch, Alexander 69.8). What is most relevant, however, is the fascinating story told about him by the skeptic Lucian in his satirical work, "The Death of Peregrinus." Lucian knew Proteus personally, and he gives us a look at what the story of Jesus might have been had a skeptic been around to give us a different account.
While Aulus Gellius had also met this man in Athens, and was impressed enough to call him a man of "dignity and fortitude" (Attic Nights 11.1-7), Lucian had another point of view. He describes the vainglorious motivations of Proteus, and the duped mobs clamoring for a miracle. He also mentions the gullibility of Christians, who, he says, were easily duped by scam artists (13). Indeed, after the death of Peregrinus, people reported that he was, like Jesus, risen from the dead, wearing white raiment, and that he ascended to heaven in the form of a vulture (40). The punch line is that this latter story may have been a deliberate invention of Lucian himself (39), told to gullible followers, and later recounted to him as if it were fact, showing the effects of the rumor mill at work. Indeed, even people who were in the same city at the time were ready to believe that an earthquake accompanied his death, reminding us of the absurd miracles surrounding the death of Jesus recounted without a blush in Matthew 27:51-54. How easy it was for such stories to be believed! Even if this tale is filled with rhetoric on the part of Lucian, his criticism of gullibility would have no weight if it did not ring true.
Peregrinus also had a small cult following after his death. His staff was treated as a religious relic (Lucian, The Ignorant Book Collector 14), his disciples preached his doctrine (Lucian, Runaways), and his statue healed the sick and gave oracles (Athenagoras, cited above). But his bid for religious glory was not as successful as another man, Alexander of Abonuteichos. Lucian dedicates an even longer and more vicious account of his personal contacts with this man, whom he calls "the quack prophet." The account alone is detailed and entertaining, but for our present purpose it illustrates how easy it was to invent a god and watch the masses scurry to worship it. His scam began around 150 A.D. and lasted well beyond his death in 170 A.D., drawing the patronage of emperors and provincial governors as well as the commons. His cult may have even lasted into the 4th century, although the evidence is unclear.
The official story was that a snake-god with a human head was born as an incarnation of Asclepius, and Alexander was his keeper and intermediary. With this arrangement Alexander gave oracles, offered intercessory prayers, and even began his own mystery religion. Lucian tells us the inside story. Glycon was in fact a trained snake with a puppet head, and all the miracles surrounding him were either tall tales or the ingenious tricks of Alexander himself. But what might we think had there been no Lucian to tell us this? So credulous was the public as well as the government, that a petition to change the name of the town where the god lived, and to strike a special coin in his honor (Lucian, Alexander 58), was heeded, and we have direct confirmation of both facts: such coins have been found, dating from the reign of Antoninus Pius and continuing up into the 3rd century, bearing the unique image of a human-headed snake god. Likewise, the town of Abonuteichos was petitioned to be renamed Ionopolis, and the town is today known as Ineboli, a clear derivation. Even statues, inscriptions, and other carvings survive, attesting to this Alexander and his god Glycon and their ensuing cult (Culture and Society in Lucian, pp. 138, 143).
As for his influence, Lucian tells us that Severianus, the governor of Cappadocia, was killed in Armenia because he believed an oracle of Alexander's (27), and Rutilianus, the governor of Moesia and Asia, was also a devout follower, and even married Alexander's daughter. Indeed, Alexander's "god" was so popular that people rushed all the way from Rome to consult him (30), and even the emperor Marcus Aurelius sought his prophecy (48). From this it is all the more apparent that religious crazes were a dime a dozen in the time and place of the Gospels, helping to explain why a new and strange religion like Christianity could become so popular, and its claims--which to us sound absurd--could be so readily believed.
The final lesson from the case of Alexander and Peregrinus is that Lucian's skeptical debunking never persuaded any believers, showing that even the rare skeptic, no matter how convincing his arguments and evidence, could have no practical effect on the credulous. The vast majority would never read or hear anything he wrote, and most of those who did would dismiss it. Indeed, believers were hostile to critical thought and would shout the skeptics down and drive off even suspected doubters in their midst, as actually happened in the case of Alexander: before every ceremony, the congregation would cry "Away with the Epicureans! Away with the Christians!" (and atheists and unbelievers in general: 38) since these two groups had a reputation for trying to debunk popular religion (this hostility could even come to slander and violence: 25). In effect, this was like clamping their hands over their ears and humming, deliberately refusing even to hear reasonable arguments, much less to consider their force.
Conclusion
From all of this one thing should be apparent: the age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety. In light of this picture, the tales of the Gospels do not seem very remarkable. Even if they were false in every detail, there is no evidence that they would have been disbelieved or rejected as absurd by many people, who at the time had little in the way of education or critical thinking skills. They had no newspapers, telephones, photographs, or public documents to consult to check a story. If they were not a witness, all they had was a man's word. And even if they were a witness, the tales above tell us that even then their skills of critical reflection were lacking. Certainly, this age did not lack keen and educated skeptics--it is not that there were no skilled and skeptical observers. There were. Rather, the shouts of the credulous rabble overpowered their voice and seized the world from them, boldly leading them all into the darkness of a thousand years of chaos. Perhaps we should not repeat the same mistake. After all, the wise learn from history. The fool ignores it.
Glenn Miller has written a rebuttal to this essay ("Were the Miracles of Jesus invented by the Disciples/Evangelists?" 2002), in response to which I changed some of the language above so as not to give a mistaken impression of my meaning. Miller's title has little to do with my essay, since I am not arguing here (even if I do elsewhere) that anyone in particular "invented" the miracles of Jesus. Rather, I am merely presenting a survey of the social and intellectual context in which those miracles came to be believed.
As to the remainder of Miller's criticism of this essay specifically, I plan to respond in a future rebuttal (which will be announced here). But one simple point must be made even now: almost all of Miller's relevant evidence comes from the educated or even scholarly elite (like Lucian), and thus in no way represents the average man or woman in antiquity, who by their very circumstance wrote nothing for Miller to examine. I would guess that skilled skeptics and skeptical viewpoints like those Miller finds probably could not be found in much more than 10% of the population of the time, if even that--but whose existence I acknowledged even in the original draft of this essay.
-
Where is my apology...?
Come on Loco, give it up already.
The Luke
-
Where is my apology...?
Come on Loco, give it up already.
The Luke
I accept your apology! :)
BBC News
Turin shroud 'older than thought'
31 January, 2005
"The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal.
A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
-
I accept your apology! :)
BBC News
Turin shroud 'older than thought'
31 January, 2005
"The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal.
A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
...I'd be very suspicious of that research.
The continuous refusal by the Catholic Church to allow testing for the presence of silver along with continuous attempts to sponsor/promote agenda science aimed at re-mystifying the Shroud means the source of new evidence must be considered in conjunction with the actual science.
A few years ago (after the Shroud was exposed as a silver/urea-fixed proto-photograph) the Church attempted to denigrate the radiocarbon dating date by claiming (fraudulently) that the area of cloth sampled might have been the same area handled during balcony showings of the Shroud during the Middle Ages and the bacteria transferred to the cloth by human contact might have skewed the carbon dating result.
Now they've moved on to the "reweave" tactic.
Just grasping at straws...
The Luke
-
Dudes,
Every single detail in the Jesus story is an astrological metaphor lifted from one of the previous Mystery Religions. Every single one.
Just because you moron-believers find a few tidbits in these Mystery Religions that don't match backwards to the Jesus story doesn't discount the above statement. That's just Logic 101.
Sure you can find a few religious true-believer Bible scholars who disagree... but that is just the same filtered wishful thinking that has people still arguing over Da Vinci's Shroud (the original subject of this thread). Only Jebus-freaks like you two continue to buy into the bullshit agenda-driven research published by Evangelical think-tanks.
The Luke
Boy, are you shooting yourself in the foot!!!
First, you claim that " single detail in the Jesus story is an astrological metaphor.....".
Then, you say "because you moron-believers find a few tidbits in these Mystery Religions that don't match backwards ...."
Which is it, Luke? Does every single detail match or not (BTW, we've found WAY more than just a "few tidbits". There's plenty of that foolishness you posted that DOES NOT MATCH the Jesus account).
And for more toe-removal via firearm on your part, we have this:
1) "Sure you can find a few religious true-believer Bible scholars who disagree... "
That, of course, flies dead in the face of what you said earlier, "Among Bible scholars this isn't even debated any longer..."
And, as I said beforehand (that list of Bible scholars, as well as the one Loco listed, is HARDLY EXHAUSTIVE).
So which it is, Luke, is the alleged claim of the Jesus story being lifted from these other figures not even debated or it is still debated to this day?
If Jesus was a historical person, then why was his life recorded only as a series of astrological metaphors?
Among the scrolls recovered in the last century (can't remember if it was the Nag Hamaddi Library; Dead Sea Scrolls or Quumran collection) was a copy of "The Wisdom of Plato"; a popular ancient manuscript listing assorted pronunciations by the great philosopher.
However, this particular version was titled "The Wisdom of Jesus" and each and every Plato quote was prefaced with the words: "Jesus said:". Had no other copies of Plato's works been retrieved, this obvious plagiarism would never have been exposed.
Similarly, why should we take the gospels at their word when each and every detail is lifted from the various Middle Eastern Mystery Religions?
Granted, no one Mystery Religion is identical to the Jesus story in every detail... but the fact remains that there is not one single significant detail in the Jesus story that isn't lifted from a previous Mystery Religion dying/resurrecting godman story.
AGAIN, I am referring to the astrological MYSTERY RELIGION VERSION of Mithras; Dionysus; Bacchus; Tammuz; Attis; Hercules etc etc... NOT the standard classical folklore versions of these stories. (before MCWAY makes a fool of himself again quoting them).
If you guys want to start a new thread I can easily explain these metaphors...?
The Luke
I'm sorry! What astrological metaphors did Josephus and Tacitus use again?
And what are these "significant" details again that are supposedly identical, between the account of Jesus and the sefl-castrating Attis and the rest of these figures again?
-
I'm going to explain this the way I would explain it to a child...
The Jesus story is a lot like a spoof movie: "Not Another Teen movie"; "Meet the Spartans"; "Superhero Movie"; "Scary Movie"; "Epic Movie"... etc etc. None of these movies is a remake... and you couldn't find the writers of these movies guilty of blatant plagiarism.
But if you watched every popular Hollywood movie as they were released you would immediately know that these movies are rip-offs of other movies (I'm sure the directors/writers would prefer the term "homage" or "send-up").
Every single detail of the Jesus story is lifted from some other astrological Mystery Religion story.
Just because there isn't an exactly identical precursor version of the Jesus story doesn't invalidate this charge. Especially when early Church Fathers openly admitted this crude plagiarism (Google: "the doctrine of diabolical mimicry").
McWay's argument is:
"Epic Movie" is a completely original work without precedence because there was no previous movie which featured both the "The Hulk" and Captain Jack Sparrow, hence both the Hulk and Captain Jack Sparrow originated with "Epic Movie". Similarly, "Scary Movie" is completely original and without precedence because the videotape from "The Ring" movies was never before featured alongside the masked villain from the "Scream" movies. Hence, both the haunted videotape and masked knife wielder originate with "Scary Movie".
This of course means Roland Emmerich's 1998 "Godzilla" movie is completely original and totally unprecedented in human history as never before did a movie feature a monster named Godzilla trampling through New York pursued by Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno.
The raft of Japanese Godzilla movies released previous to Emmerich's completely original opus are in no way related. Roland Emmerich invented Godzilla, even if he denies this himself.
Rather than hijack this previously interesting thread, why don't some of you chronically ignorant Christian literalists start a new thread wherein you politely ask me to educate you regarding the symbolism of the Bible. If you can help me quote the relevant passages/verses and keep the discussion both civil and logical, I'm sure you would all come around to the truth eventually.
The Luke
-
Every single detail of the Jesus story is lifted from some other astrological Mystery Religion story.
Just because there isn't an exactly identical precursor version of the Jesus story doesn't invalidate this charge.
Contradiction.
Rather than hijack this previously interesting thread, why don't some of you chronically ignorant Christian literalists start a new thread wherein you politely ask me to educate you regarding the symbolism of the Bible. If you can help me quote the relevant passages/verses and keep the discussion both civil and logical, I'm sure you would all come around to the truth eventually.
Contradiction.
Oh, you actually watched those movies? Dang! :(
-
Contradiction.
Contradiction.
Oh, you actually watched those movies? Dang! :(
Read Robert Price's Essay...
-
Contradiction.
...How about you guys find a single major incident/detail in the Jesus story that is not either:
-lifted from an earlier god or historical figure
-an astrological allegory
Bet you can't.
The Luke
-
Actually, let's leave this thread for my incessant owning of Shroud believers.
I'll start a new thread.
The Luke
-
Actually, let's leave this thread for my incessant owning of Shroud believers.
I'll start a new thread.
The Luke
I'm not a Shroud believer, but okay. Thanks for starting a new thread!
-
Rather than hijack this previously interesting thread, why don't some of you chronically ignorant Christian literalists start a new thread wherein you politely ask me to educate you regarding the symbolism of the Bible.
Then...
I'm not a Shroud believer, but okay. Thanks for starting a new thread!
...so you admit to being a chronically ignorant Christian literalist?
The Luke
-
Then...
...so you admit to being a chronically ignorant Christian literalist?
The Luke
I don't get it. When did I admit to that?
-
Reading comprehension Loco, you just missed a good joke.
Re-read the previous post including the quotes.
The Luke
-
Reading comprehension Loco, you just missed a good joke.
Re-read the previous post including the quotes.
The Luke
Forgive me if I do not share your sense of humor!
Why are you wasting time here anyway? You should be busy reconstructing the four Biblical gospels from ancient mythical stories, as you claimed you are able to do. I can't wait to read what you come up with.
-
Forgive me if I do not share your sense of humor!
Why are you wasting time here anyway? You should be busy reconstructing the four Biblical gospels from ancient mythical stories, as you claimed you are able to do. I can't wait to read what you come up with.
Is the Bible entirely factual according to you?
-
Where is my apology?
This thread has been up for weeks... I've explained this mystery explicitly: every detail; every unexplained feature; even the name of the author.
Where is my goddamn apology...? Admit I was right! Admit I should not be questioned (with regard to Forteana)!
Admit! Admit! Admit!
The Luke
-
Hey, deity killer, I've asked you already, please take your obscene pictures to the porn board and keep them out of here.
-
Hey, deity killer, I've asked you already, please take your obscene pictures to the porn board and keep them out of here.
That is not an obscene picture. It is a work of art. No nudity, just a carved sculpture. Exceptionally well done. Nothing pornographic about it.
Am I 'blaspheming'? You know that imaginary crime that religious nutcases invented to control people?
-
That is not an obscene picture. It is a work of art. No nudity, just a carved sculpture. Exceptionally well done. Nothing pornographic about it.
That stuff isn't welcome on this board. Thanks for your cooperation.
-
That stuff isn't welcome on this board. Thanks for your cooperation.
Gracias STella! :)
-
That stuff isn't welcome on this board. Thanks for your cooperation.
Why not?
It was not pornographic.
This is a clear case of censorship.
You going to erase all this as well?
-
Why not?
It was not pornographic.
This is a clear case of censorship.
You going to erase all this as well?
What for?
Your prior picture was inappropriate. If you want to post pictures of dildos do it on the sex board.
-
Gracias STella! :)
I see when it comes to her fundamentalism, the nice act gets dropped and in comes the censorship mad tyrant...
There was no nudity involved. I demand an explanation why it was removed!
And I will keep posting until I get an answer.
-
I see when it comes to her fundamentalism, the nice act gets dropped and in comes the censorship mad tyrant...
There was no nudity involved. I demand an explanation why it was removed!
And I will keep posting until I get an answer.
A mad tyrant LOL! What was mean about my post?
In answer to your "demand" lol, your answer is if you want to post pictures of dildos, post them on the sex board.
You can talk to Ron about it.
-
A mad tyrant LOL! What was mean about my post?
In answer to your "demand" lol, your answer is if you want to post pictures of dildos, post them on the sex board.
You can talk to Ron about it.
So I see there is no balanced moderation here; if something offends Christian sensibilities, delete it, if something offends non-Christians by Christians, keep it. Way to go. ::)
-
So I see there is no balanced moderation here; if something offends Christian sensibilities, delete it, if something offends non-Christians by Christians, keep it. Way to go. ::)
Please, if everything here was deleted that could offend Christian sensibilities, this board would be about 2 pages long.
Why are you so upset you can't post dildo photos here? Go to the sex board or the alphabet boards. No biggie there!
-
Please, if everything here was deleted that could offend Christian sensibilities, this board would be about 2 pages long.
Ha ha ha. Great point STella! :)
Why are you so upset you can't post dildo photos here? Go to the sex board or the alphabet boards. No biggie there!
Right, Deicide, Ron has created a whole sex board on getbig where you can post your pictures.
-
Ha ha ha. Great point STella! :)
Right, Deicide, Ron has created a whole sex board on getbig where you can post your pictures.
I wasn't a sex picture fuckwad. ::)
-
I wasn't a sex picture fuckwad. ::)
It was a picture of a sex toy, genius!
And please quit hijacking my thread!
-
Where is my apology?
This thread has been up for weeks... I've explained this mystery explicitly: every detail; every unexplained feature; even the name of the author.
Where is my goddamn apology...? Admit I was right! Admit I should not be questioned (with regard to Forteana)!
Admit! Admit! Admit!
The Luke
The Luke, I accept your apology!
Some Say the Image on the Shroud of Turin is Leonardo da Vinci
Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, in their book Turin Shroud: In Whose Image (Harper Collins, NY, 1994) suggest that the Shroud is an early example of photography showing the portrait of its creator, Leonardo da Vinci. According to this speculative theory, the image was made using a magic lantern, a simple projector, and light-sensitive chromium salts in an egg white medium.
Because Leonardo (1452-1519) was born almost a full century after a documented appearance of the Shroud in western Europe, the authors propose that the original cloth was a poor fake and Leonardo superior a superior hoax version. It should be noted that there are no historical reports of a sudden change in the appearance of the image on the Shroud.
Their argument is based on little more than that . . .
da Vinci was a capable genius who understood the camera obscura (pin hole camera)
he understood something of the chemistry knowledge of his era
he was highly motivated to fool the church
the image on the Shroud has many facial characteristics similar to those on the Shroud
a sense that the picture could only have been made with a lens
The late Dr. Alan D. Adler, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut University, in an article,, “The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin,” comments:
In “Turin Shroud”, Picknett and Prince, assign the image on the Shroud to Leonardo. They propose a photochemical mechanism with sunlight reflected from a statue via optics to image on sheet of cloth charged with a mixture of egg white and chromium salts. As this is an albedo image, it will fail a VP-8 test and there is no chemical or spectroscopic evidence for their chemical sensitizers. They do not deal with the blood image problem. Leonardo may rest easily in his grave.
Adler's reference to "VP-8 correctly" refers to the ability to plot the relative lighter and darker areas seen in the images and produce a three-dimensional isometric drawing of the body.
The Leonardo speculation is moot because 1) the Shroud of Turin is from much earlier that Leonardo's time; 2) the image proposed will not produce a 3D image, 3) is based on presence of a chemical substance, a photographic emulsion, that is simply not found on the Shroud.
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/davinci.htm
-
Shroud of Turin astonishes chemist in a new test, inspires a Discovery Channel special
Nov 25, 2008
A dying chemist took another look at the Shroud of Turin -- and came to surprising conclusions.
His story will be detailed in a new Discovery Channel special with the working title "Unwrapping the Shroud: New Evidence." The program will premiere at 10 p.m. Dec. 14.
The chemist, Ray Rogers, had worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
In 1988, he took part in tests on the shroud. The results revealed that it came from the Middle Ages and couldn't be the burial cloth of Jesus. But Rogers took another look at the cloth after suggestions that the test had been skewed.
According to Discovery, "What he found astonished even himself. In his last days (he had been battling cancer), Rogers made a video -- which before now has never been seen -- detailing his conclusions."
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/11/shroud-of-turin.html
-
Discovery Channel's "UNWRAPPING THE SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE" Re-Opens One Of Christianity's Greatest Mysteries, December 14 At 10PM ET/PT
Nov 28, 2008
The Shroud of Turin is one of the great enduring mysteries of all time, with its authenticity debated for years. Many believe it's the burial cloth of Jesus and the only physical link to Him, while others maintain that it is nothing more than an elaborate hoax. In fact, in 1988, a team of scientists radiocarbon dated the Shroud and concluded it was fake, dating back to the Middle Ages (1290-1360), long after Jesus was crucified. And that's where the story stood, unchallenged -- until now.
Discovery Channel's one-hour original special UNWRAPPING THE SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE attempts to unravel the truth about the cloth on Sunday, December 14, 2008 from 10-11PM ET/PT.
The special event features the story of Ray Rogers, a respected chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and member of the original team of scientists who examined the Shroud. Rogers came across a paper written by a husband and wife from Columbus, Ohio that claimed the 1988 radiocarbon dating was inaccurate. According to the couple, the test sample that was used had been taken from a section of the Shroud that had been repaired in the 16th Century, skewing the results. Expecting to prove this couple wrong, Rogers went back to examine the sample of the Shroud he tested years earlier, and what he found astonished even himself. In his last days (he had been battling cancer), Rogers made a video -- which before now has never been seen -- detailing his conclusions.
Shot entirely in high-definition, UNWRAPPING THE SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE examines Rogers' findings and how they may unlock a mystery thousands of years in the making.
UNWRAPPING THE SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE is filled with twists and turns, science and faith, and iron-clad evidence that may turn out to be less than meets the eye. The special is produced for Discovery Channel by Darlow Smithson Productions. Brooke Runnette serves as Executive Producer from Discovery Channel.
http://realitytvwebsite.com/RealityTVNews/Discovery-Channel-s-UNWRAPPING-THE-SHROUD-NEW-EVIDENCE-Re-Opens-One-Of-Christianity-s-Greatest-Mysteries-December-14-At-10PM-ET-PT.html
-
Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin
Mon Oct 5, 2009
ROME (Reuters) – An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake.
The shroud, measuring 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ.
"We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud," Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday.
A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs.
The Shroud of Turin shows the back and front of a bearded man with long hair, his arms crossed on his chest, while the entire cloth is marked by what appears to be rivulets of blood from wounds in the wrists, feet and side.
Carbon dating tests by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Arizona in 1988 caused a sensation by dating it from between 1260 and 1390. Sceptics said it was a hoax, possibly made to attract the profitable medieval pilgrimage business.
But scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain how the image was left on the cloth.
Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.
They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.
PIGMENT, BLOODSTAINS AND SCORCHES
The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.
They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.
The Catholic Church does not claim the Shroud is authentic nor that it is a matter of faith, but says it should be a powerful reminder of Christ's passion.
One of Christianity's most disputed relics, it is locked away at Turin Cathedral in Italy and rarely exhibited. It was last on display in 2000 and is due to be shown again next year.
Garlaschelli expects people to contest his findings.
"If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories they certainly won't believe me," he said.
The accuracy of the 1988 tests was challenged by some hard-core believers who said restorations of the Shroud in past centuries had contaminated the results.
The history of the Shroud is long and controversial.
After surfacing in the Middle East and France, it was brought by Italy's former royal family, the Savoys, to their seat in Turin in 1578. In 1983 ex-King Umberto II bequeathed it to the late Pope John Paul.
The Shroud narrowly escaped destruction in 1997 when a fire ravaged the Guarini Chapel of the Turin cathedral where it is held. The cloth was saved by a fireman who risked his life.
Garlaschelli received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics but said it had no effect on his results.
"Money has no odor," he said. "This was done scientifically. If the Church wants to fund me in the future, here I am."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091005/sc_nm/us_italy_shroud
-
Its strange nobody figured out how to reproduce it for the past 800 years till this guy.
-
Most active adults don't give a crap enough to try really.
-
Its strange nobody figured out how to reproduce it for the past 800 years till this guy.
Da Vinci figured it out... he's the one who manufactured the Turin Shroud for the Lirey family.
The Luke
(PS ...Arab scientists first discovered image production via silver nitrate fixed with urea)
-
Most active adults don't give a crap enough to try really.
Actually, many have tried and failed.
And if "Most active adults don't give a crap enough to try really" then why did an Italian association of atheists and agnostics pay this scientist to try?
-
Da Vinci figured it out... he's the one who manufactured the Turin Shroud for the Lirey family.
The Luke
(PS ...Arab scientists first discovered image production via silver nitrate fixed with urea)
False! You and I have been over this. I'm still waiting for your evidence, which you claimed to have but failed to provide.
-
Traces of Aramaic on Shroud of Turin
July 29, 2009
A recent study by French scientist Thierry Castex has revealed that on the shroud are traces of words in Aramaic spelled with Hebrew letters.
A Vatican researcher, Barbara Frale, told Vatican Radio on July 26 that her own studies suggest the letters on the shroud were written more than 1,800 years ago.
She said that in 1978 a Latin professor in Milan noticed Aramaic writing on the shroud and in 1989 scholars discovered Hebrew characters that probably were portions of the phrase "The king of the Jews."
Castex's recent discovery of the word "found" with another word next to it, which still has to be deciphered, "together may mean 'because found' or 'we found'," she said.
What is interesting, she said, is that it recalls a passage in the Gospel of St Luke, "We found this man misleading our people," which was what several Jewish leaders told Pontius Pilate when they asked him to condemn Jesus.
She said it would not be unusual for something to be written on a burial cloth in order to indicate the identity of the deceased.
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=15419
-
False! You and I have been over this. I'm still waiting for your evidence, which you claimed to have but failed to provide.
...the ONLY test the Vatican will not allow on the Shroud of Turin is a silver assay. Is that proof enough that the Shroud is a silver nitrate photograph?
Let me give you some background...
The Lirey family first showed off the Shroud when the Lord of Lirey returned from the Crusades. The local bishop declared the Shroud an "obvious forgery" and claimed the artist commissioned to fake it was well known and had confessed, he boiled the Shroud twice in water and twice in oil effectively destroying the image.. then denied the Lirey family the right to declare the Shroud an official relic.
The Lirey family disagreed, and so chose to lock the Shroud away for seventy years (just long enough for everyone who saw it to die off).
Towards the very end of these seventy years the Lirey family hired a young artist to work for them... an artist named Leonardo, from the backwater town of Vinci.
Da Vinci worked away in secret, never producing enough commissioned works or family portraits to in any way justify the comfort and wealth his arrangement with his new patrons afforded him.
After a few years, the Lirey family decided to dust off their "obvious forgery" Shroud... but suddenly, low and behold, the Shroud is a wonder... it silences all critics: now neither boiling in oil nor water has any effect on the wondrous 3-D image... the Vatican declares the Shroud a relic, and the Lirey family become incredibly rich and influential via the pilgrimage trade.
Da Vinci, an atheist, spends the rest of his life thumbing his nose to the Vatican: adding heretical pagan/gnostic symbolism to his paintings; skipping out on Church commissions; performing autopsies and anatomical research in defiance of Church edict; harbouring his Cathar/Old-Believer mother for years; even openly practicing his unabashed homosexual lifestyle etc etc. ALL without rebuke or retaliation from the Church (whereas Michelangelo was tried for homosexuality with the threat of life with hard labour).
However, in his old age, Da Vinci went back to live with the Lirey family... they took him in and treated him well, even though he did no further work for them, a very cosy arrangement. Da Vinci even died in the arms of the Lord of Lirey.
After his death, all of Da Vinci's codices (workbooks) were left to his delinquent apprentice (boyfriend?).
The apprentice promptly auctioned them off to the highest bidder... the Lirey family paid way over the odds to buy ONE (and only one) of these codices: the codex covering the years when Da Vinci first came to work for them... the years just before the Shroud's miraculous rebirth.
This codex has NEVER been recovered.
So stop the silly debunking... there is more than enough information in this post alone to allow anyone interested to do all the research needed to confirm Da Vinci made the Shroud of Turin.
Skimming over single paragraph encyclopedia entries and culling dishonest articles from Christian apologist websites does NOT constitute proper research... NOR does it entitle uninformed ideologues to Hector those (like me) who have properly researched the subject.
The Luke
-
Turin Shroud 'could be genuine as carbon-dating was flawed'
10 Apr 2009
Radio carbon dating carried out in 1988 was performed on an area of the relic that was repaired in the 16th century, according to Ray Rogers, who helped lead the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STRP).
At the time he argued firmly that the shroud, which bears a Christlike image, was a clever forgery.
But in a video made shortly before his death three years ago, he said facts had come to light that indicated the shroud could be genuine.
Rogers, a chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, said: "I don't believe in miracles that defy the laws of nature. After the 1988 investigation I'd given up on the shroud.
"But now 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."
He came to his conclusion after re-examining a theory from two amateur scientists that he had earlier dismissed as being from "the lunatic fringe".
Sue Benford and Joe Marina, from Ohio, suspected the 1988 sample was from a damaged section of the linen shroud repaired in the 16th century after being damaged in a fire.
Rogers said: "I was irritated and determined to prove Sue and Joe wrong."
However, when he came to examine threads taken in 1978 - luckily from the same section as the 1988 sample - he found cotton in them.
He said: "The cotton fibres were fairly heavily coated with dye, suggesting they were changed to match the linen during a repair.
"I concluded that area of the shroud was manipulated by someone with great skill.
"Sue and Joe were right. The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken.
"It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate."
In the video, made shortly before he died of cancer in March 2005, he said: "I came very close to proving the shroud was used to bury the historic Jesus."
This latest evidence, to be broadcast in The Turin Shroud: New Evidence at 8pm on Sunday on the Discovery Channel, is the latest chapter in the shroud's history.
For the last 21 years most have considered it to be a medieval fake, after the 1988 tests dated it as being made between 1260 and 1390.
The result overturned 10 years of hope among Christians that it was real, after the first scientific tests found evidence of blood and serum stains.
The earliest documented sighting of the shroud is from 1353, but last week a historian claimed in the Vatican's newspaper that she had found a "missing link" in the Holy See's Secret Archives proving the Knights Templar had safeguarded it during the 13th century.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html
-
Loco,
What you are posting is Vatican propaganda... the Vatican knows right well that the Shroud is a Da Vinci fake, they've known it was such since the 14th century.
Ever since the public radio-carbon dating they have made a concerted effort to highlight every bullshit fanciful theory put forward by any Christian-minded "scientist" or researcher. Some of these professors and PhDs putting forward these pseudo-scientific theories are actually nothing more than professors and doctors of theology.
The policy has evolved over the decades...
-the radio-carbon dating isn't 100% accurate (bullshit)
-the resurrection of Jesus may have de-aged the carbon in the Shroud somehow (bullshit)
-the parts of the Shroud tested were Medieval re-weaves (not true and addressed in the original report)
-bacterial accumulation in the tested sections could have skewed the carbon dating (bullshit)
...it's all bullshit.
None of these supposedly scientific speculations are ever peer-reviewed or published in scientific journals, because they don't stand up to scrutiny.
The goal is not to PROVE the Shroud genuine, and never has been. The goal is to flood the debate with enough misinformation to allow Christians the luxury of deluding themselves into believing there is some sort of dissent in scientific circles regarding the Shroud: there isn't.
The simple fact remains, the Vatican has never and will never allow a simple non-intrusive silver assay of the Shroud... that is the ONLY test they will not allow.
Why?
Because the Vatican has done these tests in private and knows right well what the Shroud is: a urea-fixed silver nitrate proto-photograph... and who made it: Da Vinci.
(Read my previous post for more info)
The Luke
-
The Catholic Church does not claim the Shroud is authentic nor that it is a matter of faith.
-
The Catholic Church does not claim the Shroud is authentic nor that it is a matter of faith.
...not any more.
They were happy to take pilgrims money for 600+ years.
The Luke
-
The people most interested in the mystery of the shroud are not even religious, many of them scientists. Barrie M. Schwortz, for example, is one of the biggest proponents that the Shroud is everything but a fake, and he is Jewish. As you know, Jews don't believe in Jesus.
-
The people most interested in the mystery of the shroud are not even religious, many of them scientists. Barrie M. Schwortz, for example, is one of the biggest proponents that the Shroud is everything but a fake, and he is Jewish. As you know, Jews don't believe in Jesus.
...he's religious isn't he? Another fool willingly deluding himself with magical thinking.
Any rational atheists dismissing the weight of scientific evidence to indulge in this fanciful nonsense?
The Luke
-
...he's religious isn't he? Another fool willingly deluding himself with magical thinking.
Any rational atheists dismissing the weight of scientific evidence to indulge in this fanciful nonsense?
The Luke
I don't know if he is religious, probably not. But he did say that he is no Christian.
-
I don't know if he is religious, probably not. But he did say that he is no Christian.
...but he's a theist. He's infected with a belief in magical thinking.
The Luke
-
...but he's a theist. He's infected with a belief in magical thinking.
The Luke
So are most of the best scientists in our entire history. What's your point?
I don't know that Barrie M. Schwortz is even a theist. He's a Jew by ethnicity, not necessarily by faith.
-
I don't know that Barrie M. Schwortz is even a theist. He's a Jew by ethnicity, not necessarily by faith.
...I wouldn't bet on it.
Why else would he be arguing the Shroud is anything other than what it is?: a silver-nitrate proto-photograph most probably attributable to Da Vinci.
The Luke
-
...I wouldn't bet on it.
Why else would he be arguing the Shroud is anything other than what it is?: a silver-nitrate proto-photograph most probably attributable to Da Vinci.
The Luke
Aren't you the same guy who says the US has never won any wars?
-
Aren't you the same guy who says the US has never won any wars?
...well, I said "never really won a war" in reference to the futility of military conflict which never really achieves its stated objectives. (I gave examples, but once I showed I was willing to defend my position the maelstrom of furor kinda died down).
Only the Palin-voters took exception to that statement; poor reading comprehension.
But none of that has any relevance here... unless you are looking for a flimsy excuse to dismiss what I'm saying regarding the Shroud.
Religious sensibilities triggering a defensive dismissal reaction maybe?
The Luke
-
...well, I said "never really won a war" in reference to the futility of military conflict which never really achieves its stated objectives. (I gave examples, but once I showed I was willing to defend my position the maelstrom of furor kinda died down).
Only the Palin-voters took exception to that statement; poor reading comprehension.
But none of that has any relevance here... unless you are looking for a flimsy excuse to dismiss what I'm saying regarding the Shroud.
Religious sensibilities triggering a defensive dismissal reaction maybe?
The Luke
What has no relevance here is whether or not Barrie M. Schwortz is theist. He is only an example of many non-religious Shroud of Turin proponents. Contrary to your claims, neither the Catholic Church nor protestants claim that this is the shroud that covered Jesus' dead body. And contrary to your claims, it has yet to be proven a fake.
The fact is that the Shroud of Turin is still a mystery and of very much interest to modern scientists, historians, archeologists, textile experts, artists, etc.
-
What has no relevance here is whether or not Barrie M. Schwortz is theist. He is only an example of many non-religious Shroud of Turin proponents.
...now you know he's non-religious? How are you getting this information? Are you using the Force?
Contrary to your claims, neither the Catholic Church nor protestants claim that this is the shroud that covered Jesus' dead body. And contrary to your claims, it has yet to be proven a fake.
Point 1:
...did the Vatican collect tithes/donations from pilgrims visiting the Shroud for 600+ years or didn't they? Has the Vatican ever denied that the Shroud is the cloth that covered Jesus' body? This is a specious point of semantic argument, the upper-echelons of the Vatican hierarchy knew the Shroud was a fake ever since it first appeared. It is the supposed burial shroud of an imaginary person, the Vatican knows Jesus never existed... always have known.
The Shroud is a fake; Jesus is a hoax; religion is a scam. Accept it.
Point 2:
...it HAS been proven to be a fake. It's even been replicated exactly using only Medieval equipment. The front image and rear image have a 6% size discrepancy which immediately tell us not only that the image is a projected one (unless Jesus was 6% bigger from the front that he was from the back, by magic), but also the focal length of the lens used. Also, the face is double exposed for detail... it's probably Da Vinci's own face.
For fuck's sake... I could make one of these shrouds myself for about a thousand dollars.
However, I take your point... the actual Shroud of Turin itself has not been CONCLUSIVELY proven to be a fake... and it won't be, because the Vatican will not allow ANYONE to ever test the Shroud for silver.
But similarly, I have a copy of Van Gogh's "Sunflowers" in my living room and no one can prove it isn't a real $20m Van Gogh if I continuously refuse to allow anyone ever test it.
Get the logic?
The fact is that the Shroud of Turin is still a mystery and of very much interest to modern scientists, historians, archeologists, textile experts, artists, etc.
...it's only a mystery to those who cannot come to terms with it being a silver nitrate proto-photograph because of delusional religious sensibilities.
The fact remains that the Vatican will allow pretty much any inconclusive test to be done on the Shroud, but outright refuses to ever have the Shroud tested for silver or other heavy metals.
None of the Shroud-believers ever address the silver issue? Why is that?
If you WANT to believe... then believe... but don't try to pass off delusion for reality. Reality is independent of human neurological idiosyncrasies.
The Luke
-
Yeah, sure Luke, it has been proven to be a fake and it has been replicated. That is why an Italian association of atheists and agnostics just paid a scientist to try to replicate it. ::)
-
Yeah, sure Luke, it has been proven to be a fake and it has been replicated. That is why an Italian association of atheists and agnostics just paid a scientist to try to replicate it. ::)
...there are documentaries online in which you can watch a Shroud of Turin being replicated. It's not that difficult, teenage kids have done it for science fair projects.
I could do it myself (full real life scale) for about a thousand bucks.
You can do it small-scale with a Star Wars figurine for about fifty bucks worth of chemicals.
Picknett and Prince have even written a book explaining the method in detail and citing reams upon reams of historical evidence building the very strong (albeit circumstantial) case for Leonardo being the perpetrator of the hoax.
I guess this "association of agnostics and atheists" (most probably a front for religiously-minded delusionists eager to report the Shroud "Unfakable!" with the borrowed mantle of scientific authority)... I guess they just couldn't be bothered to do even a cursory Google search.
Is this how you guys become religious in the first place?
You just never grew out of the childhood gullibility inherent in humans?
Do you believe all those Big-Tobacco "scientists" who still can't find a link between smoking a cancer despite fifty years of continuous well-funded studies? What about Scientology? That's a "science-based" religion which claims to have lots of scientific evidence to back it up?
Ahh... why do I bother... Loco, you'll just read the first sentence of this post, scan the rest and spew some more ignornant dismissive emotional reactions. You don't comprehend, you can't understand and you like it that way.
The Luke
-
...there are documentaries online in which you can watch a Shroud of Turin being replicated. It's not that difficult, teenage kids have done it for science fair projects.
I could do it myself (full real life scale) for about a thousand bucks.
You can do it small-scale with a Star Wars figurine for about fifty bucks worth of chemicals.
Picknett and Prince have even written a book explaining the method in detail and citing reams upon reams of historical evidence building the very strong (albeit circumstantial) case for Leonardo being the perpetrator of the hoax.
I guess this "association of agnostics and atheists" (most probably a front for religiously-minded delusionists eager to report the Shroud "Unfakable!" with the borrowed mantle of scientific authority)... I guess they just couldn't be bothered to do even a cursory Google search.
Is this how you guys become religious in the first place?
You just never grew out of the childhood gullibility inherent in humans?
Do you believe all those Big-Tobacco "scientists" who still can't find a link between smoking a cancer despite fifty years of continuous well-funded studies? What about Scientology? That's a "science-based" religion which claims to have lots of scientific evidence to back it up?
Ahh... why do I bother... Loco, you'll just read the first sentence of this post, scan the rest and spew some more ignornant dismissive emotional reactions. You don't comprehend, you can't understand and you like it that way.
The Luke
Why keep beating a dead horse, Luke? Christians don't give one bit of care whether this shroud is the "real' deal or not. Christians (True) have and always will have solid evidence of God's existence without this nonsense. What's your point?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Why keep beating a dead horse, Luke? Christians don't give one bit of care whether this shroud is the "real' deal or not. Christians (True) have and always will have solid evidence of God's existence without this nonsense. What's your point?
GC/DEA_AGENT
I don't know what the deal is with Luke, but for some strange reason the Shroud of Turin seems to make certain agnostics and atheists such as Luke very nervous.
-
...there are documentaries online in which you can watch a Shroud of Turin being replicated. It's not that difficult, teenage kids have done it for science fair projects.
I could do it myself (full real life scale) for about a thousand bucks.
You can do it small-scale with a Star Wars figurine for about fifty bucks worth of chemicals.
Picknett and Prince have even written a book explaining the method in detail and citing reams upon reams of historical evidence building the very strong (albeit circumstantial) case for Leonardo being the perpetrator of the hoax.
I guess this "association of agnostics and atheists" (most probably a front for religiously-minded delusionists eager to report the Shroud "Unfakable!" with the borrowed mantle of scientific authority)... I guess they just couldn't be bothered to do even a cursory Google search.
Is this how you guys become religious in the first place?
You just never grew out of the childhood gullibility inherent in humans?
Do you believe all those Big-Tobacco "scientists" who still can't find a link between smoking a cancer despite fifty years of continuous well-funded studies? What about Scientology? That's a "science-based" religion which claims to have lots of scientific evidence to back it up?
Ahh... why do I bother... Loco, you'll just read the first sentence of this post, scan the rest and spew some more ignornant dismissive emotional reactions. You don't comprehend, you can't understand and you like it that way.
The Luke
Oh, now you can replicate the Shroud of Turin yourself? Then the association of atheists and agnostics should have given the money to you instead of giving it to this scientist. Oh, wait...this Italian association of atheists and agnostics is just a front for religiously-minded "delusionists." ::)
Not to mention your claim that the US has never won any wars.
What are you Luke, some kind of gimmick?
-
Oh, now you can replicate the Shroud of Turin yourself? Then the association of atheists and agnostics should have given the money to you instead of giving it to this scientist. Oh, wait...this Italian association of atheists and agnostics is just a front for religiously-minded "delusionists." ::)
Not to mention your claim that the US has never won any wars.
What are you Luke, some kind of gimmick?
He's apparently so cracked in the skull that he's now crediting Loco's statements to me.
Earth to Luke,
"Contrary to your claims, neither the Catholic Church nor protestants claim that this is the shroud that covered Jesus' dead body. And contrary to your claims, it has yet to be proven a fake."
That quote was from LOCO, not me. This is the first post that I've made on this thread today.
-
Why keep beating a dead horse, Luke? Christians don't give one bit of care whether this shroud is the "real' deal or not. Christians (True) have and always will have solid evidence of God's existence without this nonsense. What's your point?
GC/DEA_AGENT
He mentioned his point, earlier. It's same reason he keeps flapping about Jesus supposedly being crafted from pagan gods.
His point is, "the Vatican knows Jesus never existed... always have known. The Shroud is a fake; Jesus is a hoax; religion is a scam. Accept it.
Of course, that is utterly ridiculous and easily dissected with some simple and easily-accessible facts.
As Dr. Gary Habermas (author of "The Historical Jesus" and commentator on the TV special, "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?") indicates, Jesus' life is documented in about 20 NON-CHRISTIAN sources.
And, there's enough information about Him that, "you can get an outline of His life and never touch the New Testament".
-
"Contrary to your claims, neither the Catholic Church nor protestants claim that this is the shroud that covered Jesus' dead body. And contrary to your claims, it has yet to be proven a fake."
That quote was from LOCO, not me. This is the first post that I've made on this thread today.
...yep, sorry about that... didn't mean to misquote, accidental.
His point is, "the Vatican knows Jesus never existed... always have known. The Shroud is a fake; Jesus is a hoax; religion is a scam. Accept it.
Of course, that is utterly ridiculous and easily dissected with some simple and easily-accessible facts.
As Dr. Gary Habermas (author of "The Historical Jesus" and commentator on the TV special, "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?") indicates, Jesus' life is documented in about 20 NON-CHRISTIAN sources.
And, there's enough information about Him that, "you can get an outline of His life and never touch the New Testament".
...one word: interpolation.
There are NO primary sources for Christianity. There are NO contemporary sources referencing Jesus. There is NO historical evidence that Jesus ever existed.
This is a simple fact... only Christian apologists insist otherwise.
If I Google "Dr Gary Habermas" will I discover him to be a rational atheist historian? Or a Jeebus freak?
I think the best thing for this thread would be if I linked to one of the demo videos showing how the Shroud was made... I'll try and do that tomorrow (busy tonight).
The Luke
-
...yep, sorry about that... didn't mean to misquote, accidental.
...one word: interpolation.
There are NO primary sources for Christianity.
Wrong on that one. The source is Jesus Christ, along with the Gospels, as taught and spread by Jesus' disciples and the apostle Paul.
There are NO contemporary sources referencing Jesus. There is NO historical evidence that Jesus ever existed.
STRIKE TWO!!!
First, contemporary sources aren't necessary. Most information we have about historical figures come from sources, written centuries after their existence. Alexandar the Great is a prime example. The bulk of the data on him comes from Arrian's "Annabis of Alexandar", written at least two centuries after Alex died.
Second, as stated earlier, we have non-Christian sources, citing the existence of Christ: Lucian, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, just to name a few.
This is a simple fact... only Christian apologists insist otherwise.
If I Google "Dr Gary Habermas" will I discover him to be a rational atheist historian? Or a Jeebus freak?
You can google him all you want. The facts are there, regarding the existence of Jesus Christ, despite the claims of so-called rational atheist historians, who are so paranoid about Christ, that they must attempt to whitewash His entire existence.
I think the best thing for this thread would be if I linked to one of the demo videos showing how the Shroud was made... I'll try and do that tomorrow (busy tonight).
The Luke
Knock yourself out!! The Shroud hold no bearing on Christ's existence. At best, all it shows it that the aforementioned cloth ain't the one in which He was buried.
-
I'm still waiting for The Luke to back up his bold, baseless claims from other threads:
The Luke,
Produce a single version of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that does not mention Jesus Christ at all.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=247264.msg3545243#msg3545243
-
I'm still waiting for The Luke to back up his bold, baseless claims from other threads:
The Luke,
Produce a single version of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that does not mention Jesus Christ at all.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=247264.msg3545243#msg3545243
That's been nearly a year, hasn't it?
-
There are NO primary sources for Christianity. There are NO contemporary sources referencing Jesus. There is NO historical evidence that Jesus ever existed.
This is a simple fact... only Christian apologists insist otherwise.
The Luke
Just food for thought. Everyone knows about historian Will Durant, well here is a point he made about Jesus - “That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”
Also ask yourself: Would it be possible a person who never lived to have affected human history so singulary?
Another point to dwell on. Even calendars today are based on the year that Jesus was thought to have been born. The World Book Encyclopedia states, and I quote, Luke - "Dates after that year are listed as A.D., or anno Domini (in the year of our Lord). Dates before that year are listed as B.C., or before Christ,”
Isn't that odd that these well renowned sources disagree with you, Luke?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
That's been nearly a year, hasn't it?
...read the thread. I named it: the Slavonic Josephus... it mentions someone named "the Christ" but doesn't have the Jesus reference. So at least one of the Christian references is an interpolation and the other isn't specific to Jesus (Bar Kochba was actually officially installed as both "Christ" and "Messiah" by the Sanhedrin for example).
I swear, the reading comprehension on this board is atrocious.
The idea that Josephus, someone who actually believed in the imminent appearance of the "Logos" and even made reference to the miraculous ordained birth of Augustus, would forget to mention an historical character such as Jesus, if such existed, is ridiculous... instead we have Christian apologists defending obvious interpolations written in a different style despite the fact that the Christian Church made concerted efforts to eradicate all the versions of Josephus (and other texts) that lacked the interpolations.
What's next? Will you be defending the "Wisdom of Jesus" text, you know that one... a copy of "The Wisdom of Plato" wherein someone inserted "Jesus said:" before every paragraph? If the Vatican had managed to burn every copy of "The Wisdom of Plato" (like they did most of the gospels) you guys would be defending that as a primary source from Jesus too.
Like I said:
-There are NO primary sources for Christianity.
-There are NO contemporary sources referencing Jesus.
-There is NO historical evidence that Jesus ever existed (except that manufactured later by Christians).
...ALL the evidence insisted upon by apologists is faked or decidedly suspect in light of the very, very real evidence of Christians systematically faking such evidence ever since the founding of the Christian sect.
There is no debate on this... it is a matter of scholarly finding of long standing.
That's what makes this whole Shroud debate so laughable... Christians used to have thousands of "genuine" relics, hundreds of "genuine" historical references to an actual historical Christ and no good evidence of christs before Christ.
Now, well it's a different matter...
-every Christian relic has been exposed as a fake or a hoax
-the entire three tons of fragments of the True Cross have been exposed as fakes by dendochronology
-the entire Christian canon has been dated and traced, to centuries AFTER Jesus
-large sections of the Gnostic canon (at odds with Christian dogma) has been recovered
-the Gnostic writings have been shown to have equal, if not better provenance than their rivals
-archaeology has produced evidence of dozens of other Jesus characters predating Jesus
-every snippet of evidence for a historical Jesus has been shown to be interpolations or faked
But what has this resulted in? Bullshit arguments that accept the Canonical gospels while simultaneously dismissing the Gnostic gospels... with no rhyme or reason.
Bullshit arguments that dismiss all the precedent pagan versions of the Jesus story based on minute discrepancies, while simultaneously refusing to concede the plethora of exact similarities... justified only by hysterical blindness.
Here on this thread, we have three Christian literalists doing everything they can to defend the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin while hedging their bets with the caveat that their particular one and only true version of Christianity out of the 34,000 current Christian sects has never explicitly claimed the Shroud is Jesus' burial cloth.
You guys are hilarious.... it's a fake. Say it with me: FAKE!
A good fake, and immensely valuable both as an extant Da Vinci and an early proto-photograph... but a fake none the less.
The Luke
-
No. We already went over this, and you failed:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=247264.msg4305271#msg4305271
-
Okay, okay.... as promised:
Here is the first part of the Picknett and Prince documentary detailing the evidence for Leonardo as the hoaxer behind the Shroud and demonstrating exacty how such a proto-photograph is made using only Medieval technology:
...and here are the other parts:
&feature=related part 2
&feature=related part 3
&feature=related part 4
&feature=related part 5
&feature=related part 6
The art historian Nicholas Allen has also shown conclusively that the Shroud of Turin is fully reproducible using only Medieval technology and a basic understanding of the proto-photographic techniques detailed in the Arab-science inspired "Book of Optics" which was circulating in Europe at the time. He did his PhD thesis on the subject and has since published two scientific scholarly papers on the technique:
Allen, Nicholas P. L.(1993) Is the Shroud of Turin the first recorded photograph? The South African Journal of Art History, November 11, 23-32
Allen, Nicholas P. L.(1994)A reappraisal of late thirteenth-century responses to the Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin: encolpia of the Eucharist, vera eikon or supreme relic? The Southern African Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 4 (1),62-94
...which you can find referenced on Wikipedia's extensive "Shroud of Turin" page.
He also wrote a book:
Allen, Nicholas P. L.(1998)The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens. Empowerment Technologies Pty. Ltd., - Port Elizabeth, South Africa
Hopefully you Jeebus-freaks will take the time to look at the evidence, or would you like me to detail exactly how to reproduce the Turin Shroud in laymans terms?
The Luke
-
...read the thread. I named it: the Slavonic Josephus... it mentions someone named "the Christ" but doesn't have the Jesus reference. So at least one of the Christian references is an interpolation and the other isn't specific to Jesus (Bar Kochba was actually officially installed as both "Christ" and "Messiah" by the Sanhedrin for example).
I swear, the reading comprehension on this board is atrocious.
Yep, and nearly all of it comes from YOU! Loco already shot this claim of yours down. The Slavonic Josephus does, in fact, mention Jesus Christ.
Plus, there's the little matter that Slavonic Josephus is nearly 1000 years older than the Greek version, a fact you conveniently left out.
The idea that Josephus, someone who actually believed in the imminent appearance of the "Logos" and even made reference to the miraculous ordained birth of Augustus, would forget to mention an historical character such as Jesus, if such existed, is ridiculous... instead we have Christian apologists defending obvious interpolations written in a different style despite the fact that the Christian Church made concerted efforts to eradicate all the versions of Josephus (and other texts) that lacked the interpolations.
Jesus wasn't a "historical character" at the time Josephus wrote his works. Nonetheless, despite your silly claim to the contrary, Josephus did mention Him, as Loco clearly pointed out.
What's next? Will you be defending the "Wisdom of Jesus" text, you know that one... a copy of "The Wisdom of Plato" wherein someone inserted "Jesus said:" before every paragraph? If the Vatican had managed to burn every copy of "The Wisdom of Plato" (like they did most of the gospels) you guys would be defending that as a primary source from Jesus too.
Like I said:
-There are NO primary sources for Christianity.
-There are NO contemporary sources referencing Jesus.
-There is NO historical evidence that Jesus ever existed (except that manufactured later by Christians).
...ALL the evidence insisted upon by apologists is faked or decidedly suspect in light of the very, very real evidence of Christians systematically faking such evidence ever since the founding of the Christian sect.
And what you said is just as dumb and inaccurate as it was the last time you mentioned it. We have the non-Christian sources that mention Jesus Christ by name. They've been studied, examined, and found to be (for the most part) authentic.
So, you and your tired Jesus-myth routine (and old rehash from the "Enlightenment Period", that has been dismantled to the point of nauseum) will have to find a new routine.
But, don't take my word for it:
The sources for Jesus are better than those that deal with Alexander the Great. The original biographies of Alexander have all been lost, and they are known only because they were used by later - much later - writers. The primary sources for Jesus were written nearer his own lifetime..." .
"The Christian scribes probably only rewrote the text [Testimonium Flavianum]. It is highly likely that Josephus included Jesus in his account of the period.Josephus discussed John the Baptist and other prophetic figures, such as Theudas and the Egyptian. Further, the passage on Jesus is not adjacent to Josephus' account of John the Baptist, which is probably where a Christian scribe would have put it had he invented the whole paragraph. Thus, the author of the only surviving history of Palestinian Judaism in the first century thought that Jesus was important enough to merit a paragraph, no more, no less." - E.P. Sanders, "The Historical Figure of Jesus"
There is no debate on this... it is a matter of scholarly finding of long standing.
It sure is, and that's why your pathetic claims CONTINUE to get trounced.
That's what makes this whole Shroud debate so laughable... Christians used to have thousands of "genuine" relics, hundreds of "genuine" historical references to an actual historical Christ and no good evidence of christs before Christ.
Now, well it's a different matter...
-every Christian relic has been exposed as a fake or a hoax
-the entire three tons of fragments of the True Cross have been exposed as fakes by dendochronology
-the entire Christian canon has been dated and traced, to centuries AFTER Jesus
-large sections of the Gnostic canon (at odds with Christian dogma) has been recovered
-the Gnostic writings have been shown to have equal, if not better provenance than their rivals
-archaeology has produced evidence of dozens of other Jesus characters predating Jesus
-every snippet of evidence for a historical Jesus has been shown to be interpolations or faked
But what has this resulted in? Bullshit arguments that accept the Canonical gospels while simultaneously dismissing the Gnostic gospels... with no rhyme or reason.
Bullshit arguments that dismiss all the precedent pagan versions of the Jesus story based on minute discrepancies, while simultaneously refusing to concede the plethora of exact similarities... justified only by hysterical blindness.
PLEASE!!! I've asked you, point blank, to come up with the so-called "Mystery Religion" versions of those characters that mirror Jesus Christ. TO THIS DAY, you haven't produced a thing.
"Minute discrepancies"? Whatever!!! That's your pitiful and tired excuses, when you get shown in black-and-white that your claims about those figures are false.
Exact similarities!? Let's see. You claimed "virgin birth" for Attis....WRONG!!! You claim that he rose from the dead......WRONG!!!! And, when clearly shown that he didn't die via crucifixion (which you said he did earlier), you make the most MORONIC attempts to use vauge tree references to equate Attis' self-castration with Christ's crucifixion.
Same goes for Osiris! You claimed he was crucified; he got drowned!
"Exact similarities"? NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!
That reminds me!! You've also ducked and dodged the issue of your silly dying-resurrecting godman stuff, with regards to Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, among others. Those guys DO NOT RISE from the dead, thus squashing your spiel flat.
Here on this thread, we have three Christian literalists doing everything they can to defend the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin while hedging their bets with the caveat that their particular one and only true version of Christianity out of the 34,000 current Christian sects has never explicitly claimed the Shroud is Jesus' burial cloth.
We also have one Biblical skeptic, making utterly boneheaded claims, who runs like a scalded dog, when called to back up his statements. The fact that Loco asked you a question that YOU HAVE DUCKED AND DODGED FOR NEARLY A YEAR shows just how cracked your takes really are.
You guys are hilarious.... it's a fake. Say it with me: FAKE!
A good fake, and immensely valuable both as an extant Da Vinci and an early proto-photograph... but a fake none the less.
The Luke
Maybe you don't read or hear very well. The Shroud of Turin is basically irrelevant, as far as the existence of Jesus Christ is concerned. It's either the cloth in which Jesus was buried or it's not. Either way, that does nothing, with regards to the existence of Jesus Christ.
-
Okay, okay.... as promised:
Here is the first part of the Picknett and Prince documentary detailing the evidence for Leonardo as the hoaxer behind the Shroud and demonstrating exacty how such a proto-photograph is made using only Medieval technology:
...and here are the other parts:
&feature=related part 2
&feature=related part 3
&feature=related part 4
&feature=related part 5
&feature=related part 6
The art historian Nicholas Allen has also shown conclusively that the Shroud of Turin is fully reproducible using only Medieval technology and a basic understanding of the proto-photographic techniques detailed in the Arab-science inspired "Book of Optics" which was circulating in Europe at the time. He did his PhD thesis on the subject and has since published two scientific scholarly papers on the technique:
Allen, Nicholas P. L.(1993) Is the Shroud of Turin the first recorded photograph? The South African Journal of Art History, November 11, 23-32
Allen, Nicholas P. L.(1994)A reappraisal of late thirteenth-century responses to the Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin: encolpia of the Eucharist, vera eikon or supreme relic? The Southern African Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 4 (1),62-94
...which you can find referenced on Wikipedia's extensive "Shroud of Turin" page.
He also wrote a book:
Allen, Nicholas P. L.(1998)The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens. Empowerment Technologies Pty. Ltd., - Port Elizabeth, South Africa
Hopefully you Jeebus-freaks will take the time to look at the evidence, or would you like me to detail exactly how to reproduce the Turin Shroud in laymans terms?
The Luke
Luke,
You forget that you already made me watch all 6, long boring videos, and they show no evidence of such. It is nothing but theories with no evidence to back them up. In the video, they themselves admit that among the many many records Leonardo left behind, not a single one makes any mention of the Shroud or anything even close.
You yourself admitted to me that these are not the best videos to back up your claims. Why are you posting them again?
...I can answer that with a quote:
...actually, being more serious, that's from a National Geographic documentary called "Leonardo: The Man Behind the Shroud", it's pretty long winded and far too inclusive of the shittier theories regarding the manufacture of the crowd. All that bullshit regarding "bas reliefs" and bacterial staining of cloth etc is totally pointless.
What you need to see is the BBC documentary "Double Exposure".
That goes very in-depth into the proto-photograph technique, even making a copy of the Shroud.
I've also seen a really damning documentary (although translated into Irish as part of the "Fiorsceal" ["true story"] series), in which a chemist produced dozens of versions of the Shroud using only technology and materials available in the 11th century. But I can't find either that or the BBC documentary online.
I'll see if I can dig up any of the old Equinox or Horizon documentaries, some of them are pretty convincing.
The Luke
Furthermore:
Some Say the Image on the Shroud of Turin is Leonardo da Vinci
Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, in their book Turin Shroud: In Whose Image (Harper Collins, NY, 1994) suggest that the Shroud is an early example of photography showing the portrait of its creator, Leonardo da Vinci. According to this speculative theory, the image was made using a magic lantern, a simple projector, and light-sensitive chromium salts in an egg white medium.
Because Leonardo (1452-1519) was born almost a full century after a documented appearance of the Shroud in western Europe, the authors propose that the original cloth was a poor fake and Leonardo superior a superior hoax version. It should be noted that there are no historical reports of a sudden change in the appearance of the image on the Shroud.
Their argument is based on little more than that . . .
da Vinci was a capable genius who understood the camera obscura (pin hole camera)
he understood something of the chemistry knowledge of his era
he was highly motivated to fool the church
the image on the Shroud has many facial characteristics similar to those on the Shroud
a sense that the picture could only have been made with a lens
The late Dr. Alan D. Adler, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut University, in an article,, “The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin,” comments:
In “Turin Shroud”, Picknett and Prince, assign the image on the Shroud to Leonardo. They propose a photochemical mechanism with sunlight reflected from a statue via optics to image on sheet of cloth charged with a mixture of egg white and chromium salts. As this is an albedo image, it will fail a VP-8 test and there is no chemical or spectroscopic evidence for their chemical sensitizers. They do not deal with the blood image problem. Leonardo may rest easily in his grave.
Adler's reference to "VP-8 correctly" refers to the ability to plot the relative lighter and darker areas seen in the images and produce a three-dimensional isometric drawing of the body.
The Leonardo speculation is moot because
1) the Shroud of Turin is from much earlier than Leonardo's time
2) the image proposed will not produce a 3D image
3) is based on presence of a chemical substance, a photographic emulsion, that is simply not found on the Shroud.
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/davinci.htm
-
The Leonardo speculation is moot because
1) the Shroud of Turin is from much earlier than Leonardo's time
2) the image proposed will not produce a 3D image
3) is based on presence of a chemical substance, a photographic emulsion, that is simply not found on the Shroud.[/b]
...dude, you're not reading my posts. I've already addressed each and every one of these points in detail.
If you have read my posts then your argument is simply dishonest:
1) When the Shroud was first presented by the Lirey family, the only person to examine it (Bishop) declared it an "obvious forgery"; washed the image off the cloth (by boiling) and even got the local artist who painted it to confess. So there is a history of the Lirey family hiring painters to fae Shrouds attested to by the Vatica itself. The Lirey family locked the crappy Shroud away for seventy years, only AFTER they hired Da Vinci did the new Shroud suddenly woo everyone who saw it and resist every attempt to destroy the image (boiling and washing).
2) The camera-obscura method does indeed produce a 3-D image. All the reproductions made with this technique are 3 dimensional. Trust me on this, I've seen it done with a camera obscura and I've even done it myself with a lensed camera obscura. I have a degree in experimental physics and I know what I'm talking about here... the Shroud image is a lensed camera obscura image produced by de-hydrative oxidation of linen threads by means of a photo-reactive salt (most probably a silver salt) then fixed with urea (urine).
3) You are right that NO EVIDENCE of a photographic emulsion has ever been found on the Turin Shroud... but there is a simple reason for this. The Vatican will not allow any test for heavy metals on the Shroud. These tests are no-invasive and non-destructive but the Vatican will nevr allow them.
I addressed ALL of these points in explicit detail with one of my last posts. Read it again:
...the ONLY test the Vatican will not allow on the Shroud of Turin is a silver assay. Is that proof enough that the Shroud is a silver nitrate photograph?
Let me give you some background...
The Lirey family first showed off the Shroud when the Lord of Lirey returned from the Crusades. The local bishop declared the Shroud an "obvious forgery" and claimed the artist commissioned to fake it was well known and had confessed, he boiled the Shroud twice in water and twice in oil effectively destroying the image.. then denied the Lirey family the right to declare the Shroud an official relic.
The Lirey family disagreed, and so chose to lock the Shroud away for seventy years (just long enough for everyone who saw it to die off).
Towards the very end of these seventy years the Lirey family hired a young artist to work for them... an artist named Leonardo, from the backwater town of Vinci.
Da Vinci worked away in secret, never producing enough commissioned works or family portraits to in any way justify the comfort and wealth his arrangement with his new patrons afforded him.
After a few years, the Lirey family decided to dust off their "obvious forgery" Shroud... but suddenly, low and behold, the Shroud is a wonder... it silences all critics: now neither boiling in oil nor water has any effect on the wondrous 3-D image... the Vatican declares the Shroud a relic, and the Lirey family become incredibly rich and influential via the pilgrimage trade.
Da Vinci, an atheist, spends the rest of his life thumbing his nose to the Vatican: adding heretical pagan/gnostic symbolism to his paintings; skipping out on Church commissions; performing autopsies and anatomical research in defiance of Church edict; harbouring his Cathar/Old-Believer mother for years; even openly practicing his unabashed homosexual lifestyle etc etc. ALL without rebuke or retaliation from the Church (whereas Michelangelo was tried for homosexuality with the threat of life with hard labour).
However, in his old age, Da Vinci went back to live with the Lirey family... they took him in and treated him well, even though he did no further work for them, a very cosy arrangement. Da Vinci even died in the arms of the Lord of Lirey.
After his death, all of Da Vinci's codices (workbooks) were left to his delinquent apprentice (boyfriend?).
The apprentice promptly auctioned them off to the highest bidder... the Lirey family paid way over the odds to buy ONE (and only one) of these codices: the codex covering the years when Da Vinci first came to work for them... the years just before the Shroud's miraculous rebirth.
This codex has NEVER been recovered.
So stop the silly debunking... there is more than enough information in this post alone to allow anyone interested to do all the research needed to confirm Da Vinci made the Shroud of Turin.
Skimming over single paragraph encyclopedia entries and culling dishonest articles from Christian apologist websites does NOT constitute proper research... NOR does it entitle uninformed ideologues to Hector those (like me) who have properly researched the subject.
The Luke
-
Luke,
The Shroud of Turin has never been proved to be a hoax, and it has never been replicated.
Luigi Garlaschelli, the scientist who claims to have finally replicated it and whose research was funded by the Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics, said that he dabbled on the project for years, starting with handkerchief-size pieces of cloth and different combinations of acid and pigment, before making his shroud this summer. Now that he knows how to do it, he claims that he could make another one in about a week, he estimated.
It looks like you and all those other guys who claim to have replicated the Shroud years ago are the fakes and the hoax.
-
The Shroud of Turin has never been proved to be a hoax, and it has never been replicated.
...it can't be PROVEN to be a fake if the heavy metal assay test is never done.
Just like you can't PROVE my tea mug isn't the Holy Grail if you are never allowed to test it.
Luigi Garlaschelli, the scientist who claims to have finally replicated it and whose research was funded by the Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics, said that he dabbled on the project for years, starting with handkerchief-size pieces of cloth and different combinations of acid and pigment, before making his shroud this summer. Now that he knows how to do it, he could make another one in about a week, he estimated.
...he's using a bas relief method. It produces something akin to the Shroud, but lacks the 3D effect.
He's simpy wrong.
His method produces only a superficial likeness of the Shroud; there is no 3D information; no ability to resist washing and boiling; and the Shroud itself is chemically burned, not heat burned as in a bas relief etc etc I'm very skeptical of his research.
If you don't believe me maybe you should try making a Shroud yourself.
I can talk you through it if you like, it's not difficult. Once you accept the camera obscura as moot (available to Da Vinci) then you can just use a projector in a dark room incident upon a sheet treated with silver choride; silver iodide or silver nitrate. After a week of exposure, wash the sheet in stale urine (in the dark). Voila! A 3D Shroud of Turin replica.
Here's a link to a comparative photo of the negative of such a reproduction and the Shroud:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dTSEBZ7tOe0/RpdCnII3KdI/AAAAAAAAAEg/rIeGRI5y6Do/s320/Shroud%26Allen.JPG
The Luke
-
The Shroud of Turin (or Turin Shroud) is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.
The shroud is the subject of intense debate among some scientists, people of faith, historians, and writers regarding where, when, and how the shroud and its images were created. Many believe it is the cloth that covered Jesus of Nazareth when he was placed in his tomb and that his image was recorded on its fibers at the time of his proclaimed resurrection, probably by a powerful flash of light irradiating from his body. Skeptics contend the shroud is a medieval hoax, forgery, or the result of natural processes that are not yet understood. As of today, no scientist can explain how the image was recorded unto the shroud or what method or technology was used. And, though some skeptics have tried, nobody as of today has been able to replicate it using any method or technology.
(http://home.hetnet.nl/~shroud-enhanced/000ShroudPosx.JPG)
The image on the cloth has many peculiar and closely studied characteristics, for example, it is entirely superficial, not penetrating into the cloth fibers under the surface, so that the flax and cotton fibers are not colored; the image yarn is composed of discolored fibers placed side by side with non-discolored fibers so many striations appear. Thus the cloth is not simply dyed, though many other explanations, natural and otherwise, have been suggested for the image formation.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf
Many believers have hypothesized that the image on the shroud was produced by a side effect of the Resurrection of Jesus, purposely left intact as a rare physical aid to understanding and believing in Jesus' dual nature as man and God. Some have asserted that the shroud collapsed through the glorified body of Jesus, pointing to certain X-ray-like impressions of the teeth and the finger bones. Others assert that radiation streaming from every point of the revivifying body struck and discolored every opposite point of the cloth, forming the complete image through a kind of supernatural pointillism using inverted shades of blue-gray rather than primary colors.
From http://www.shroud2000.com/FastFacts.html :
1353: The Shroud's fully documented history began in Western Europe when it was revealed by Geoffrey DeCharney in Lirey, France.
1532: The burial linen was severely damaged by fire in Chambery, France.
1534: The Shroud was repaired by the Poor Claire Nuns who were skilled in making textile repairs. The holes from the fire were patched and the entire cloth was attached to a backing cloth for support.
1898: The Shroud was photographed for the first time by Secondo Pia. These first pictures led to the discovery that the image on the cloth is actually a negative. In other words, the image becomes positive only when the light values are reversed in a photographic negative. This discovery startled the scientific community and stimulated worldwide interest.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Shroud_of_Turin_001.jpg/800px-Shroud_of_Turin_001.jpg)
1975: Air Force scientists John Jackson and Eric Jumper, using a sophisticated image enhancement analyzer (VP-8) designed for the space program, discovered the Shroud image contained encoded 3-D data not found in ordinary reflected light photographs. This discovery indicated that the cloth must have wrapped a real human figure at the time the image was formed.
(http://factsplusfacts.com/images/3dexamples.jpg)
1978: The Shroud was on public exhibit for the first time since 1933 and was displayed for six weeks. Over 3 million people passed through the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist to view it behind bullet proof glass. At the close of the exhibition, 40 scientists comprising the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), mostly from the United States, analyzed the Shroud for five continuous days (122 hours) working in shifts around the clock.
Tests performed in 1978 include:
Particle analysis
Chemical analysis
Blood analysis
Photo microscopy
Spectroscopy
X-ray radiography
Infra-red thermography
X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
Scanning photography from infra-red to ultra violet
And others
1980: This same year, microscopist Walter McCrone who was not part of the Shroud Project was given several fibers to analyze. After finding iron oxide particles and a single particle of vermillion paint, he broke ranks with the Shroud scientists who had agreed to make all findings public the following year. McCrone proposed that the Shroud was a painting of red ochre paint created from iron oxide particles suspended in a thin binder solution. However McCrone's findings in no way agreed with any of the highly sophisticated tests conducted by two dozen other scientists. McCrone jumped the gun for the sake of getting his own publicity. His claims have all been dismissed.
1981: After three years analyzing the data The Shroud of Turn Research Project (STURP) made their findings public at an international conference in New London, CT. All the scientists agreed upon the following statement: "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and give a positive test for serum albumin."
1988: The Shroud was carbon dated by three laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona. They indcated a date range from between 1260 to 1390 making the cloth only about 700 years old. This earth shattering news seemed to contradict the conclusions of STURP which gave support to the Shroud's possible authenticity. This new data posed a great dilemma for proponents of the Shroud and further complicates an explanation for the Shroud's existence.
The Shroud cannot be explained in a medieval context because it demonstrates medical knowledge and artistic expertise unknown until centuries later. If it was not made by an artist then what is it? Was it a custom crucifixion performed to mimic that of Jesus? Knowledge of Roman crucifixion practices was totally unknown in the Middle Ages. There are dozens of reasons why a medieval date doesn't fit the evidence.
1997: Noted Israeli Botanist and a professor at Hebrew University, Avinoam Danin confirmed Dr. Alan Whanger's discovery of flower images on the Shroud. He also verified that several pollen were from plants that grow only around Jerusalem.
Sci/Tech - Plants shed light on Turin Shroud
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/411366.stm
2004: Discovery of the Shroud's double face image. Italian scientists, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolio of Padova University were able to analyze scans of the backside of the Shroud after it was removed from the backing cloth. This had never been done before. The previous backing cloth had been attached since 1534 as part of the restoration following the fire of 1532. Examining the scans revealed faint superficial images of the face and hands. The image occurs only on the top surface of the fibers, similar to the front side of the Shroud but there is no coloring of the threads in between. This enhances the mystery of image formation and makes it that much more difficult to ascribe the Shroud to the work of an artist.
2005: Thermal Chemist, Dr. Raymond Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory proves using samples from the area cut for carbon 14 dating and samples from the main body of the Shroud that the sample cut in 1988 for C-14 dating was in fact a medieval reweave confirming Marino and Benford's hypothesis presented in 2000. Rogers also determined the evidence of a madder root dye used to blend in the color of newer threads with the more yellowed threads of the original Shroud. He also found cotton in the C-14 sample but not from the main body of the Shroud indicating both cotton and flax were used in the repair. Lastly and most importantly, he found that 37% of the vanillin remained intact in the lignon from the C-14 fibers whereas the vanillin content from the main body of the Shroud had decayed to 0%, similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not only does this new evidence show that the carbon dating tests were severely flawed by dating an erroneous sample, but that the evidence also shows the main body of the Shroud is much older as indicated by the lack of vanillin. This critical research is precisely the kind of micro-chemical analysis the carbon dating labs were supposed to do in 1988, prior to taking the sample according to the original protocol, but failed to follow.
The carbon dating tests of 1988 have been thoroughly and completely invalidated by good science rather than the shoddy and arrogant effort demonstrated by the carbon labs in 1988. The cloud has been lifted.
Turin shroud 'older than thought'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
2007: "The Fabric of Time" is released on DVD
Product Description
We live in a world where science and religion have often been on opposing sides. But is all that changing? For the first time, science and religion have come together to uncover an age-old mystery. Who was Jesus Christ? What did he actually look like? And can the story of his death and resurrection now be proven as true? Viewers around the world are in the jury box as newly found scientific discoveries are presented by scholars, scientists, and historians in an unflinching search for evidence -- nothing has been held back. Could it be that actual documentation of this amazing story is still available today? See the evidence and decide for yourself in THE FABRIC OF TIME.
http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Time-Shroud-Turin/dp/B000MTEFNM/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1199330994&sr=8-1
What skeptics say:
"The debate over the origin and authenticity of the shroud steadily increased over the years. Many scientific investigations were carried out to get to the heart of the matter. Moreover, many scientific papers were written on the subject relating to the different theories concerning the structural make-up and image on the shroud. Most scientists took one of three prominent views; they either believed that the shroud was a "divine" creation or that the image was man made or that it was a natural phenomenon. The Shroud of Turin was without a doubt a mystery that challenged faith, science and understanding, one that rekindled man's inquisitive nature in a search for an explanation."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/5.html
"Interestingly, Barbet also noticed that some of the blood stains flowed in unusual, almost unnatural directions on the arms. However, he realized that the stains were consistent with one's arms being outstretched and than lowered, much like someone's arms who had been crucified and then let down. If the blood flow was an artist's representation, it was masterfully conceived and skillfully carried out."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/6.html
"Amazingly, no one has yet been able to successfully explain how the unique 3-D negative-like image on the shroud was constructed. In actuality that remains the biggest mystery."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/9.html
(http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics/photos/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/9-1-3-D-image-of-Shroud.jpg)
"Rogers was further quoted in the article saying, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder reported fort his time." Pliny the Elder was an ancient Roman scientist and author who lived between 23 and 79 AD. Based on Rogers' research and historical data, the shroud has been accurately dated to around the time of Christ. The discovery rekindled the age-old debate of whether the shroud was or was not the actual burial cloth used to wrap Jesus' body. Chances are we will never know."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/10.html
What Loco says:
Christianity rests on Faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose again. Christianity does not rest on relics. If you already have faith in Jesus, then you do not need the shroud. If you do not have faith, then you probably will not believe even if presented with proof that the shroud is authentic. However, the Shroud of Turin is real, scientists have studied it, and scientists have no other explanation.
Nobody witnessed the actual resurrection. Jesus' followers witnessed the empty tomb, the angels at the tomb, and later the risen Jesus himself. Since nobody witnessed the resurrection itself, could God have left us a photograph of the event itself? Maybe so. The evidence is there. Is the Shroud of Turin the the cloth that covered Jesus of Nazareth or is it the greatest forgery ever made, during the middle ages, using technology unknown to us even today? You decide.
More:
http://factsplusfacts.com/theed.htm
http://www.shroudstory.com/
http://www.shroud.com/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud.html
http://e-forensicmedicine.net/Washed.htm
Thanks, Loco! :-)
Your commentary on this topic is EXCELLENT!
-
I don't really understand this thread...
Can any of the Shroud-believers reading this explain why the front image and back images on the Shroud are different sizes?
Was Jesus 6% bigger from the front than he was from the back? The image on the Shroud is...
Also, why is the face double-exposed?
I know how I'd explain this: different objective distances for the two exposures and Da Vinci using a hooded figure front and then re-exposing with his own face (the face of "Jesus" on the Shroud is an exact match for ALL of Da Vinci's facial measurements)... but how do the true-believers explain this?
The Luke
-
I know how I'd explain this: different objective distances for the two exposures and Da Vinci using a hooded figure front and then re-exposing with his own face (the face of "Jesus" on the Shroud is an exact match for ALL of Da Vinci's facial measurements)... but how do the true-believers explain this?
The Luke
YOU dummy, haven't you ever heard of the ole saying "everyone gots a twin in this world". :-* ::)
-
YOU dummy, haven't you ever heard of the ole saying "everyone gots a twin in this world". :-* ::)
Do you know that Da Vinci had a habit of using is own face in many of his paintings... the Mona Lisa is a prime example.
The Luke
-
Do you know that Da Vinci had a habit of using is own face in many of his paintings... the Mona Lisa is a prime example.
The Luke
Well, that still doesn't mean Jesus couldn't have looked like him, eh?
-
Well, that still doesn't mean Jesus couldn't have looked like him, eh?
We're saying Jesus was a white guy and didn't look like he was from the middle east?
Long hair and everything huh?
-
We're saying Jesus was a white guy and didn't look like he was from the middle east?
Long hair and everything huh?
YOU are just about as dumb as your counterpart, huh? Didn't YOU KNOW THAT JEWS CAN BE BLOND HAIRED AND BLUE EYED? Sheesh! This must be the DUMBEST BUNCH of people lumped into one board I have ever seen!
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Well, that still doesn't mean Jesus couldn't have looked like him, eh?
Five foot ten from the front and five foot eight from the back? Sounds like an image projected onto a cloth with two different objective distances to me.
The average height in Jesus' time was abot 4'6''... I don't remember him being referred to as "Jesus the Giant".
The Luke
-
Five foot ten from the front and five foot eight from the back? Sounds like an image projected onto a cloth with two different objective distances to me.
The average height in Jesus' time was abot 4'6''... I don't remember him being referred to as "Jesus the Giant".
The Luke
You don't believe in Jesus, but you live in your parents basement so you can chase bigfoot.........your credibility is outstanding.
-
You don't believe in Jesus, but you live in your parents basement so you can chase bigfoot.........your credibility is outstanding.
Would I have credibility if I believed in Jeebus? Or a magic bedsheet?
The Luke
-
Would I have credibility if I believed in Jeebus? Or a magic bedsheet?
The Luke
You'd have just as much proof as you do about bigfoot.
-
You'd have just as much proof as you do about bigfoot.
I think you are forgetting which side of this argument you are on.
The Luke
-
I think you are forgetting which side of this argument you are on.
The Luke
I'm on no "side", I'm pointing out a fact. You believe that bigfoot exists without any solid proof, no body, bones, etc. But you come to the religious board and mock the people who believe in Jesus.
Hypocrit much?
-
I'm on no "side", I'm pointing out a fact. You believe that bigfoot exists without any solid proof, no body, bones, etc. But you come to the religious board and mock the people who believe in Jesus.
Hypocrit much?
...there's actual scientific evidence for the existence of clandestine hominids.
There are bones, it's a common misconception that no such fossils exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus
David Attenborough has openly admitted he believes such animals exist. Jane Goodall, pioneering chimp researcher, openly professed her belief in the existence of at least a half dozen extant hominid species during a radio interview.
The only academics actively researching the Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeren have made very strong cases for the existence of such animals. Dr Jeff Meldrum has even written an excellent book making the scientific case for "Bigfoot".
The main reason the scientific community hasn't yet made a case for the existence of Sasquatch is because a majority of Americans still believe in the Noah's Ark version of history.
End of thread hijack.
The Luke
-
...there's actual scientific evidence for the existence of clandestine hominids.
There are bones, it's a common misconception that no such fossils exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus
David Attenborough has openly admitted he believes such animals exist. Jane Goodall, pioneering chimp researcher, openly professed her belief in the existence of at least a half dozen extant hominid species during a radio interview.
The only academics actively researching the Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeren have made very strong cases for the existence of such animals. Dr Jeff Meldrum has even written an excellent book making the scientific case for "Bigfoot".
The main reason the scientific community hasn't yet made a case for the existence of Sasquatch is because a majority of Americans still believe in the Noah's Ark version of history.
End of thread hijack.
The Luke
Millions upon millions of people believe in Jesus and the bible, what's your point?
Now I just scanned your wiki article, but do you read what you post?
[edit] Classification
In the past, it had been thought that G. blacki was an ancestor of humans, on the basis of molar evidence; this is now regarded a result of convergent evolution. G. blacki is now placed in the subfamily Ponginae along with the orangutan.
-
Millions upon millions of people believe in Jesus and the bible, what's your point?
Now I just scanned your wiki article, but do you read what you post?
[edit] Classification
In the past, it had been thought that G. blacki was an ancestor of humans, on the basis of molar evidence; this is now regarded a result of convergent evolution. G. blacki is now placed in the subfamily Ponginae along with the orangutan.
...don't get either of your points?
The Luke
-
...don't get either of your points?
The Luke
My one and only point........you believe in something that has never been proven to exist.
WTF is your problem with other people believing in something if it makes them feel better about themselves or treat their neighbor a little better?
-
My one and only point........you believe in something that has never been proven to exist.
It has been proven (Gigantopithecus fossils), the question is whether they STILL exist... I think they do, as do almost all the scientists who have taken the time to examine the evidence. The fact that a majority of Americans can't even accept the theory of evolution has somewhat coloured the debate: the current evidence is conclusive, but not yet incontrovertible. Only a fresh body will do that.
WTF is your problem with other people believing in something if it makes them feel better about themselves or treat their neighbor a little better?
...one word: Crusades.
The Luke
-
It has been proven (Gigantopithecus fossils),
The Luke
Did you not read your wiki article, it clearly states they are in the same family as orangutans, and that they were not bipedal, so how is it proven?
-
Did you not read your wiki article, it clearly states they are in the same family as orangutans, not humans, so how is it proven?
...did I ever claim they were?
The Luke
-
...did I ever claim they were?
The Luke
Edited. ::)
Point is, you nor anyone else can prove they exist today, and you cannot disprove something that happened thousands of years ago (the bible).......so you are arguing and whining trying to change someones beliefs because you disagree with them, yet you won't change your about bigfoot.....get my point yet??
-
Edited. ::)
...the bipedalism argument is dependent on two lower jaws and some teeth, and Gigantopithecus was only ever ASSUMED to be a quadruped. I side with the latest research which infers bipedalism from the distinctive U-shape of the jaws (a trait only found in bipedal hominids).
You have to remember Wikipedia is open source and as such is open to tampering. It is also somewhat behind the times. When first discovered, the fossils were originally dubbed Giganthropus (the giant man) before being termed Gigantopithecus (the giant ape).
Point is, you nor anyone else can prove they exist today, and you cannot disprove something that happened thousands of years ago (the bible).......so you are arguing and whining trying to change someones beliefs because you disagree with them, yet you won't change your about bigfoot.....get my point yet??
They have been proven to exist from the hair; footprint and fingerprint evidence. It just won't receive public acceptance till there is a body or DNA (the hair found thus far is resistant to DNA extraction). This is because of the widespread belief in Creationism, and the uneducated belief of the public that random people somehow report detailed descriptions of an animal that did once exist according to the fossil record. And have somehow reported sighting such since long before the fossils were fond.
But you can PROVE that the Shrod of Turin is a fake, it's just that the public WANTS to believe in it.
I'm open to changing any of my beliefs based on proper scientific proof, as I never form a belief or opinion without properly assessing the evidence... that's the exact opposite to the faith-based approach.
The Luke
-
...the bipedalism argument is dependent on two lower jaws and some teeth, and Gigantopithecus was only ever ASSUMED to be a quadruped. I side with the latest research which infers bipedalism from the distinctive U-shape of the jaws (a trait only found in bipedal hominids).
You have to remember Wikipedia is open source and as such is open to tampering. It is also somewhat behind the times. When first discovered, the fossils were originally dubbed Giganthropus (the giant man) before being termed Gigantopithecus (the giant ape).
They have been proven to exist from the hair; footprint and fingerprint evidence. It just won't receive public acceptance till there is a body or DNA (the hair found thus far is resistant to DNA extraction). This is because of the widespread belief in Creationism, and the uneducated belief of the public that random people somehow report detailed descriptions of an animal that did once exist according to the fossil record. And have somehow reported sighting such since long before the fossils were fond.
But you can PROVE that the Shrod of Turin is a fake, it's just that the public WANTS to believe in it.
I'm open to changing any of my beliefs based on proper scientific proof, as I never form a belief or opinion without properly assessing the evidence... that's the exact opposite to the faith-based approach.
The Luke
*sigh*
You just don't get it. Typical of someone who wants to believe something without solid scientific proof.
-
The idiot: U comparing faith to a furry creature that sells beef jerky. Are u insane. If the Shroud is real or fake its a matter of faith, however ur a crytozoologist that chases a creature that hasn't proved to be real? Gimme a break.
-
If the Shroud is real or fake its a matter of faith, however ur a crytozoologist that chases a creature that hasn't proved to be real? Gimme a break.
The Shroud is a fake... that's not a matter of faith... it's a matter of scientific fact.
Like I said, the Bigfoot/Sasquatch issue has already been resolved conclusively... just not yet incontrovertibly. Science-minded people like me are busily attempting to collect such incontrovertible proof.
But an extant hominid is NOT impossible.
The Shroud IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Belief in one requires a familiarity with the collected scientific evidence, belief in the other requires a rejection of both science and reality.
The Luke
-
Luke believes in big foot, and he actually spends time and energy on trying to find big foot? Is this some kind of joke?
-
It has been proven (Gigantopithecus fossils), the question is whether they STILL exist... I think they do, as do almost all the scientists who have taken the time to examine the evidence. The fact that a majority of Americans can't even accept the theory of evolution has somewhat coloured the debate: the current evidence is conclusive, but not yet incontrovertible. Only a fresh body will do that.
...one word: Crusades.
The Luke
PLEASE!! You could resume the Crusades from the time it stopped until NOW, and you wouldn't come close the amount of bodies racked up by non-believing skeptics like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin (do those names ring a bell?). Atheists try to distance themselves from guys like this for DECADES. Based on their respective track records, it ain't hard to see why.
-
PLEASE!! You could resume the Crusades from the time it stopped until NOW, and you wouldn't come close the amount of bodies racked up by non-believing skeptics like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin (do those names ring a bell?). Atheists try to distance themselves from guys like this for DECADES. Based on their respective track records, it ain't hard to see why.
...Iraq and Afghanistan (maybe Iran soon) is another crusade, Bush (Evangelical Christian President voted into office by Evagelical Christian voting block) even said so himself.
Hitler, Mao and Stalin didn't kill people in the name of Atheism (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) but the Crusades were fought for religious reasons... and Jesus himself told George Dubya Bsh to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
All ideologies that give rise to delusional thinking (ie: religion and fundamentalism) are redundant... as an ideology is only ever a simplified model of reality.
But to get back on track... the Shroud of Turin is a fake; an easily demonstatable Medieval chemistry trick.
No amount of believing; no amount of hoping will ever change this.
Let's agree it belongs on the trash heap of history along with the 6 actual genuine foreskins of Jesus likewise worshipped as relics at one time.
The Luke
-
Luke believes in big foot, and he actually spends time and energy on trying to find big foot? Is this some kind of joke?
No joke, he lives in his parents basement so he can devote his time to finding bigfoot. :)
-
No joke, he lives in his parents basement so he can devote his time to finding bigfoot. :)
???
-
Researcher says text proves Shroud of Turin real
Nov. 20, 2009
ROME – A Vatican researcher claims a nearly invisible text on the Shroud of Turin proves the authenticity of the artifact revered as Jesus' burial cloth.
The claim made in a new book by historian Barbara Frale drew immediate skepticism from some scientists, who maintain the shroud is a medieval forgery.
Frale, a researcher at the Vatican archives, said Friday that she used computers to enhance images of faintly written words in Greek, Latin and Aramaic scattered across the shroud.
She asserts the words include the name "Jesus Nazarene" in Greek, proving the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have labeled Jesus a Nazarene without referring to his divinity.
The shroud bears the figure of a crucified man, complete with blood seeping out of nailed hands and feet, and believers say Christ's image was recorded on the linen fibers at the time of his resurrection.
The fragile artifact, owned by the Vatican, is kept locked in a special protective chamber in Turin's cathedral and is rarely shown.
Skeptics point out that radiocarbon dating conducted in 1988 determined it was made in the 13th or 14th century.
While faint letters scattered around the face on the shroud were seen decades ago, serious researchers dismissed them due to the test's results, Frale told The Associated Press.
But when she cut out the words from photos of the shroud and showed them to experts they concurred the writing style was typical of the Middle East in the first century — Jesus' time.
She believes the text was written on a document by a clerk and glued to the shroud over the face so the body could be identified by relatives and buried properly. Metals in the ink used at the time may have allowed the writing to transfer to the linen, Frale claimed.
Frale claimed the text also partially confirms the Gospels' account of Jesus' final moments. A fragment in Greek that can be read as "removed at the ninth hour" may refer to Christ's time of death reported in the holy texts, she said.
"I tried to be objective and leave religious issue aside," Frale told The AP. "What I studied was an ancient document that certifies the execution of a man, in a specific time and place."
Her book, titled "The Shroud of Jesus Nazarene" in Italian, raised doubts among some experts.
"People work on grainy photos and think they see things," said Antonio Lombatti, a church historian who has written books about the shroud. "It's all the result of imagination and computer software."
Lombatti said that artifacts bearing Greek and Aramaic texts were found in Jewish burials from the first century, but the use of Latin is unheard of.
He also rejected the idea that authorities would officially return the body of a crucified man to relatives after filling out some paperwork. Victims of the most cruel punishment used by the Romans would usually be left on the cross or were disposed of in a dump to add to the execution's deterring effect.
Lombatti said "the message was that you won't even have a tomb to cry over."
Unusual sightings in the shroud are common and are often proved false, said Luigi Garlaschelli, a professor of chemistry at the University of Pavia.
Garlaschelli recently led a team of experts that reproduced the shroud using materials and methods that were available in the 14th century, proof, they said, that it could have been made by a human hand in the Middle Ages.
Decades ago entire studies were published on coins that were purportedly seen on Jesus' closed eyes, but when high-definition images were taken during a 2002 restoration the artifacts were nowhere to be seen and the theory was dropped, Garlaschelli said.
He said any theory about ink and metals would have to checked by analysis of the shroud itself.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091120/ap_on_re_eu/eu_italy_shroud_of_turin
-
Scientists say Turin Shroud image created by ultraviolet lasers
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=193222.0;attach=224614;image) (http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/io9rRGD1eUyrZWcqpzd5TA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTE5MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thesideshow/TurinShroud.jpg)
December 22, 2011
The exact origins of the Turin Shroud remain a great mystery, but scientists are now disputing the long-held belief that the religious artifact is a medieval forgery.
Italian researchers at the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development say they believe the image was created by an ultraviolet "flash of light." However, if that theory is true, it remains a mystery as to exactly how that technology could have been implemented at the time of the Shroud's creation. While the technology is readily available in present day, it was far beyond the means of anyone around pre-20th Century.
The Turin Shroud is said to be the burial cloth of Jesus, but has long been believed to be a fake, created during medieval times. It is currently kept in a climate-controlled case in Turin cathedral. Scientists at the Italian agency have reportedly spent years attempting to recreate the Shroud's imagery. 'The results show a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,' the scientists said.
"When one talks about a flash of light being able to color a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud, discussion inevitably touches on things such as miracles," said Professor Paolo Di Lazzaro, who led the study. "But as scientists, we were concerned only with verifiable scientific processes. We hope our results can open up a philosophical and theological debate."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/scientists-turin-shroud-image-created-ultraviolet-lasers-182107870.html
-
...there's actual scientific evidence for the existence of clandestine hominids.
There are bones, it's a common misconception that no such fossils exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus
David Attenborough has openly admitted he believes such animals exist. Jane Goodall, pioneering chimp researcher, openly professed her belief in the existence of at least a half dozen extant hominid species during a radio interview.
The only academics actively researching the Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeren have made very strong cases for the existence of such animals. Dr Jeff Meldrum has even written an excellent book making the scientific case for "Bigfoot".
The main reason the scientific community hasn't yet made a case for the existence of Sasquatch is because a majority of Americans still believe in the Noah's Ark version of history.
End of thread hijack.
The Luke
Here's all the proof you'll ever need of the existence of the mighty Bigfoot -
It's a whole lot more believable than some really old bed cloth with an image scorched into it. And I'm an atheist, so only go there if you want to get mindfucked. Later. ;D