• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Giordano said:
I believe that we have been ignoring an important point: if Jesus was magically reborn, but the burial shroud remained behind, did he reappear nude?
Click to expand...

I just had a mental picture of Jesus wearing a cloth with his own image on it. Fits well with the narcissist god that he's made out to be.
 
His image on the front and "I'm with the band" stenciled on the back. Can't get to my daddy except through me is a wee bit narcissistic.
 
Last edited:
The reweave theory was always a desperate one. It was the brainchild of one Sue Benford who believed in the special energy of pyramids and her husband Joe Marino a former monk. Neither could show the slightest experience or knowledge of ancient textiles or weaving methods. They claimed that the corner of the Shroud from which the r-c sample was taken had been rewoven in medieval times. What they never explained was why there should be meticulous reweaving in this obscure corner of the Shroud when areas closer to the images which were in desperate need to reweaving were left untouched.
They believed that they had the support of Raymond Rogers who, working only from threads and not an actual weave, claimed that he had evidence that cotton had been placed in a reweave. Cotton there certainly was but only in small fibres that had already been noticed in 1973 and attributed by a Belgian expert Gilbert Raes to spinning or weaving of the flax(linen) in an atmosphere where there were drifting cotton fibres. After 1200 in particular, the enormous influx of raw cotton into Europe and the fact that spinners and weavers worked on both in the same work places made the presence of these small fibres hardly surprising. Inevitably the amount of cotton in each part of the Shroud would vary according to where the different skeins of yarn were spun and, as Raes suggested, the closeness of the weave to the edges of a loom which had previously been weaving cotton. It would be a long and tedious job to see which parts of the Shroud have cotton in it and which parts not as it is not easy to spot the fibres within the structure of the yarn. The presence of these cotton fibres certainly suggest a date after 1200 and if there is ever an intense examination of the Shroud for cotton fibres and they are found this would give supporting evidence for the spinning and/or weave of the Shroud in the medieval period.
When the Oxford lab checked out their sample of the weave before they tested it, they spotted a fibre of cotton which was removed, so there is no reason to suppose that the presence of cotton had anything to do with the dating or that the Oxford sample had been rewoven with cotton.
Although the authenticists do not mention this, Rogers, Benford and Marino were soon effectively challenged. John Jackson,a member of STURP, had photographic evidence of the different bandings of linen in the Shroud and these showed conclusively that they continued uninterrupted through the area where reweaving was supposed to have taken place.
Then in 2002, a restoration of the Shroud was out into the care of Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, an authority on ancient weaves. She was well aware of the claims of a reweave so she looked carefully at this corner and saw, like Jackson, that there was no sign of a reweave. Her article can easily be found online under Flury- Lemberg, 'The invisible Mending of the Shroud, the Theory and the Reality'. She makes the point that not a single textile expert who has examined this corner of the Shroud has ever been able to spot any sign of a reweave.
Still the reweavers simply go on their way, confusing the issue and deceiving the unwary.
 
hugh farey said:
"Et entre ches autres, en eut i. autre des moustiers que on apeloit medame Sainte Marie de Blakerne, où li sydoines, là où Nostres Sires fut envolepés i estoit, qui cascuns des venres se drechoit tous drois, si que on i pooit bien veir le figure Nostre Seigneur, ne ne seut on onques, ne Grieu, ne Franchois, que chis sydoines devint, quant le vile fu prise."
Click to expand...

Ouch, that is some old French, right there. I can barely read it.
 
Charles Freeman said:
...
Still the reweavers simply go on their way, confusing the issue and deceiving the unwary.
Click to expand...

I think this is the third time, at least, in the thread for the "invisible patch" theory. We've been through UV, Raman, and other sciency sounding analyses as well. Maybe third time is a charm for the authenticers.

I'd rather hear the story of Isabel Piczek again. The nuclear physics expert. A lot more fun.

 
Jabba said:
Whatever, at this point, I still think that the sample and surrounding area were repaired at some point, and that repair and contamination otherwise, might account for a medieval dating.
Click to expand...

Not only do they remain just as bad, but your arguments actually don't evolve to match new data. You just WANT the shroud to be authentic.
 
Shroud believers are grasping at straws cotton fibers.

I find the re-weave hypothesis especially fascinating:

The Medieval dating must be due to a re-weave.
But there is no indication of a re-weave at all at the location sampled. The piece of the Shroud chosen for testing was examined by multiple experts, including pro-authenticity advocates, and was closely inspected under a microscope precisely to eliminate the possibility that it was a re-weave

Then it was an invisible re-weave.
But that wasn't possible at the time, or even now. Plus the known repairs on the Shroud are both crude and highly visible.

They somehow had invisible re-weave technology that has been lost in history, and the Shroud owners somehow cared enough about this particular nondescript part of the Shroud that they used this technology by chance in the exact same place sampled for the dating.
Its current owners considered this region worthless enough to be willing to have destroyed it in testing.

Maybe the Medieval date is due to smoke from Medieval candles. Or handling by Medieval monks. A LOT of smoke or handling.
To give a Medieval date by radiocarbon dating would require the contamination by repair, soot, or dirt to be over half of the cloth.

Maybe the magic energy released by the rebirth altered the isotope ratio....

I find that the arguments in favor of authenticity represent a wish to retain a belief in the face of facts that reminds me of little kids trying to deny the death of a pet.
 
Last edited:
Charles Freeman said:
The reweave theory was always a desperate one. It was the brainchild of one Sue Benford who believed in the special energy of pyramids and her husband Joe Marino a former monk. Neither could show the slightest experience or knowledge of ancient textiles or weaving methods. They claimed that the corner of the Shroud from which the r-c sample was taken had been rewoven in medieval times. What they never explained was why there should be meticulous reweaving in this obscure corner of the Shroud when areas closer to the images which were in desperate need to reweaving were left untouched.
They believed that they had the support of Raymond Rogers who, working only from threads and not an actual weave, claimed that he had evidence that cotton had been placed in a reweave. Cotton there certainly was but only in small fibres that had already been noticed in 1973 and attributed by a Belgian expert Gilbert Raes to spinning or weaving of the flax(linen) in an atmosphere where there were drifting cotton fibres. After 1200 in particular, the enormous influx of raw cotton into Europe and the fact that spinners and weavers worked on both in the same work places made the presence of these small fibres hardly surprising. Inevitably the amount of cotton in each part of the Shroud would vary according to where the different skeins of yarn were spun and, as Raes suggested, the closeness of the weave to the edges of a loom which had previously been weaving cotton. It would be a long and tedious job to see which parts of the Shroud have cotton in it and which parts not as it is not easy to spot the fibres within the structure of the yarn. The presence of these cotton fibres certainly suggest a date after 1200 and if there is ever an intense examination of the Shroud for cotton fibres and they are found this would give supporting evidence for the spinning and/or weave of the Shroud in the medieval period.
When the Oxford lab checked out their sample of the weave before they tested it, they spotted a fibre of cotton which was removed, so there is no reason to suppose that the presence of cotton had anything to do with the dating or that the Oxford sample had been rewoven with cotton.
Although the authenticists do not mention this, Rogers, Benford and Marino were soon effectively challenged. John Jackson,a member of STURP, had photographic evidence of the different bandings of linen in the Shroud and these showed conclusively that they continued uninterrupted through the area where reweaving was supposed to have taken place.

Then in 2002, a restoration of the Shroud was out into the care of Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, an authority on ancient weaves. She was well aware of the claims of a reweave so she looked carefully at this corner and saw, like Jackson, that there was no sign of a reweave. Her article can easily be found online under Flury- Lemberg, 'The invisible Mending of the Shroud, the Theory and the Reality'. She makes the point that not a single textile expert who has examined this corner of the Shroud has ever been able to spot any sign of a reweave.
Still the reweavers simply go on their way, confusing the issue and deceiving the unwary.
Click to expand...

The intimation has been made, in this thread, that Mme. F-L was at once incompetent, dishonest, or invincibly biased--if not a combination of the three.
 
Slowvehicle. So have you read her article? Why would the Turin/Vatican authorities have put her in charge of the restoration if she was 'incompetent, dishonest or invincibly biassed'? Were they so naive that they did not check out her long years of experience in this field before appointing her?

Biased in which direction? against the authenticity of the Shroud?

It is certainly true that there was originally an outcry from some against the restoration but Flury-Lemberg seems to have won over her critics by explaining what needed to be done to prevent further deterioration of the Shroud. She comes across in her writings as very through and balanced and she has had backing from other textile experts. ( From what you say you would expect other experts to have long since ostracised her.) When you place her expertise against Benford and Marino there is simply no contest, especially when they had not even seen the Shroud close-up and would not have had the experience to analyse the weaves if they had done so.
Do look up 'Sue Benford pyramids' and you will see what I mean.
 
Slowvehicle was saying that it was Jabba who had intimated "that Mme. F-L was at once incompetent, dishonest, or invincibly biased--if not a combination of the three," not that he (Slowvehicle) had any doubt about her expertise.
 
Charles Freeman said:
Slowvehicle. So have you read her article? Why would the Turin/Vatican authorities have put her in charge of the restoration if she was 'incompetent, dishonest or invincibly biassed'? Were they so naive that they did not check out her long years of experience in this field before appointing her?

Biased in which direction? against the authenticity of the Shroud?

It is certainly true that there was originally an outcry from some against the restoration but Flury-Lemberg seems to have won over her critics by explaining what needed to be done to prevent further deterioration of the Shroud. She comes across in her writings as very through and balanced and she has had backing from other textile experts. ( From what you say you would expect other experts to have long since ostracised her.) When you place her expertise against Benford and Marino there is simply no contest, especially when they had not even seen the Shroud close-up and would not have had the experience to analyse the weaves if they had done so.
Do look up 'Sue Benford pyramids' and you will see what I mean.
Click to expand...

Mr. Freeman:

Woah.

This is me, being the wrong tree; this is your post, barking.

I have been in this thread (and its progenitor) nearly from the beginning. I have been patiently, patiently, responding to Mr. Savage through much high comedy, low drama, and interminable pastiche de pantaloon. Mmm. F-L was the target of much aspersion cast by Mr. Savage; he was insistent that her own offhand opinion (from an interview, IIRC) that she "did not know much" about 14C dating was evidence that the dating was "wrong"; while her published statements that it was 99.99% likely that the CIQ had not ever been "invisibly patched", and that she herself, had never seen, felt, or detected a patch, made it "very likely" that she had missed "some patching" either from bias, dishonesty, coercion, or outright incompetence.

An amateur weaver, I have enjoyed Mme. F-L's writings on the CIQ and other fabric issues, and would trust her over myriad kitchen chemists and authentipologists. She has, after all, actually seen the linen; she has handled it, held it up to the light, looked at the back side, and inspected it with the care and professionalism one would expect of an actual expert.

No harm, no foul; you can't be expected to tell the players without a program.

Ain't we got fun?
 
Last edited:
I have never figured out the whole argument about the shroud, to me it's cut and dried.

If you accept the Bible (which believers in the Shroud probably should) then it is worth looking to see what it says on the matter.

The linens are mentioned two of the gospels, Luke and John. Luke says (NIV)....

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24%3A9-12&version=NIV]Luke 24:9-12[/url] said:
9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.
Click to expand...

So it talks about "strips" of linen. Other translations say "linen clothes" but it is clear that the writer is speaking of multiple linens. If we look in John the author makes it clearer what these are...

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20%3A3-8&version=NIV]John 20:3-8[/url] said:
3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.
Click to expand...

So the writer is saying that no one was Jesus wrapped in strips of linen, but that he had a separate cloth about his head. It's clear from the Bible than that a single Shroud was not used on him but rather was wrapped in strips of linen and a separate head cloth. If you accept what the Bible says, then you can't accept the Shroud. Simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom