Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'll do my best to fill in the pieces, but if we can collaborate, we might actually get somewhere.

Given that it's been three years and "we" have not gotten anywhere, given that you're still going over the same arguments again and again and again, and given that you now apparently can't even remember what arguments you've had or what those arguments might have been, I think you're being incredibly optimistic here.

 

[Garrette]

Given that it's been three years and "we" have not gotten anywhere, given that you're still going over the same arguments again and again and again, and given that you now apparently can't even remember what arguments you've had or what those arguments might have been, I think you're being incredibly optimistic here.

Actually, we have gotten somewhere. For those following the course where it leads, we have traveled from the base of the mountain to the summit and back multiple times. Jabba will continue to insist that no progress has been made until he can start up the slopes of Kilimanjaro and find himself atop K2.

 

[rakovsky]

Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html

After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.

However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.

Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.

"The results show that 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," they said.

I am uncertain of claims that the Turin shroud was made by a burst of light. Couldn't it have been made by natural oils from the corpse?

I don't believe the story that the Italian DaVinci made it up, since it came to Italy from a Crusader church in northeast France. That Crusader in turn had participated in the sacking of Constantinople, which had a similar shroud with an image of Jesus.

However, are there any photos of any attempted replicas of the shroud made from scratch? One TV program used a bas relief method with a solid bust, IIRC, but I didn't find the finished product from that effort particularly persuasive.

 

[abaddon]

I am uncertain of claims that the Turin shroud was made by a burst of light. Couldn't it have been made by natural oils from the corpse?

If the corpse was made of cardboard and had impossible anatomical features and gravity defying blood and the bible is flat out wrong and jebus had cartoon byzantine features which no human ever had before and... Do I have to go on? We have been through all of this.

I don't believe the story that the Italian DaVinci made it up, since it came to Italy from a Crusader church in northeast France. That Crusader in turn had participated in the sacking of Constantinople, which had a similar shroud with an image of Jesus.

I don't believe DaVinci did it either, but you are the only one suggesting here that he might have. Strawman and red herring all in one.

However, are there any photos of any attempted replicas of the shroud made from scratch? One TV program used a bas relief method with a solid bust, IIRC, but I didn't find the finished product from that effort particularly persuasive.

Yup. And that is just one example.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I am uncertain of claims that the Turin shroud was made by a burst of light. Couldn't it have been made by natural oils from the corpse?

I don't believe the story that the Italian DaVinci made it up, since it came to Italy from a Crusader church in northeast France. That Crusader in turn had participated in the sacking of Constantinople, which had a similar shroud with an image of Jesus.

However, are there any photos of any attempted replicas of the shroud made from scratch? One TV program used a bas relief method with a solid bust, IIRC, but I didn't find the finished product from that effort particularly persuasive.

Overlooking the fact that such an effort presupposes duplicating the image on the CIQ as it appears now; ignoring the evidence that it has faded significantly in the 700 years since its production.

 

[pgwenthold]

However, are there any photos of any attempted replicas of the shroud made from scratch?

The problem with this is that any replica made today would have to look like the shroud did when it was first made, and we don't know exactly that that was (although we know it looked different than it does now, with a bright red image).

In order to determine if the replica made today looks like the shroud today, we have to wait 700 years.

 

[Olowkow]

...

In order to determine if the replica made today looks like the shroud today, we have to wait 700 years.

At the rate this thread has gone, that should be little problem.

I'm pretty sure that if this piece of linen were really seriously believed by a significant number of powerful Christian leaders to contain the actual DNA of the earthly son of the creator of the universe, those who are currently its guardians wouldn't hesitate to move Heaven and earth to have it tested anew with the latest 21st century dating and DNA sequencing technology. The Shroud of Turin, of dubious medieval origins, has become a modern day hook for a few dedicated hobbyist rubes to try to catch just enough fish to feed the multitudes.

It appears that the use of the concept of belief in a deeply religious context, such as that promoted by authenticists, is more often than not what most of us would consider to be "envisioning or imagining".

 

[tsig]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Why is it that you continue to ignore my posts?

Their points are too sharp and he is afraid of impalement.

 

[Degeneve]

I don't believe the story that the Italian DaVinci made it up, since it came to Italy from a Crusader church in northeast France. That Crusader in turn had participated in the sacking of Constantinople, which had a similar shroud with an image of Jesus.

There is no undisputable historic document which provides clear evidence that the shroud kept in Constantinople was similar to the shroud of Turin. It has been told that the relic kept in Constantinople was the image of Edessa. But this relic was apparently a icone showing a living man and not a dead man.

 

[Craig B]

I don't believe the story that the Italian DaVinci made it up, since it came to Italy from a Crusader church in northeast France. That Crusader in turn had participated in the sacking of Constantinople, which had a similar shroud with an image of Jesus.

No. Different person. See these Wiki articles

This article is about the Knight Templar, for the French knight who died in 1356 at the Battle of Poitiers and who may or may not have been his nephew, see Geoffroi de Charny.

The Crusader one (if indeed he was present at the Sack of Constantinople; I'm not sure that he was) was very famously executed in 1314 alongside Jacques de Molay, last Master of the Knights Templar. The later one was killed at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356, as noted above.

ETA I must have had a brainstorm while writing the above. The elder de Charny was most certainly not at the Sack of Constantinople. That incident took place in 1204, a century before the suppression of the Templars and the execution of the elder de Charney or Charny. The link between the Crusades and the Shroud is therefore much more tenuous than your post would indicate.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Dirty teatowel to go back on display. Mealy mouthed BBC use the word "suggests" when they actually mean "prove beyond any, let alone reasonable, doubt."

 

[AdMan]

Dirty teatowel to go back on display. Mealy mouthed BBC use the word "suggests" when they actually mean "prove beyond any, let alone reasonable, doubt."

Archbishop of Turin Cesare Nosiglia said: "What counts the most is that this shroud... reflects in a clear and precise manner how the gospels describe the passion and death of Jesus.

Yeah, except it doesn't, not at all. There is no description of such a shroud anywhere in the gospels.

What utter BS.

 

[Pixel42]

Yeah, except it doesn't, not at all. There is no description of such a shroud anywhere in the gospels.

What utter BS.

He just means it shows the nail marks, thorn marks etc. I don't suppose for a moment that he believes it to be the actual shroud of Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

He just means it shows the nail marks, thorn marks etc. I don't suppose for a moment that he believes it to be the actual shroud of Jesus.

Agreed. He merely states that it "reflects ... how the gospels describe ... " So to him the gospels came first, and the shroud was inspired by them.

 

[Akhenaten]

isissxn,
- It's a long story. Here's the tip.

The tip is that you, and you alone, claim to have a discovered a new way to reveal the truth of the tablecloth's origins.

And, in fact, a method to reveal the truth about everything else.


It's a pretty big tip, alright.

- So far, I think that there is a lot more to the Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- though, not enough to make me actually "believe in" him.

It's almost as if we were witnessing the birth of agnosticism.

At least 10,000 years after it actually happened.

- I would like to believe in him

Compare and contrast the above statement with "I devote my efforts to an objective search for the truth".

Notice anything?

(I think it's a functional belief)

1. I believe that the Sun will rise tomorrow.
   
   
2. I believe that oxygen is necessary for my continued existence.
   
   
3. I believe that a supernatural being sacrificed himself to himself in order to prove his own infinite mercy.
   
   
4. I believe that poking a tiger in the eye will result in serious personal injury.

One of the above is NOT a functional belief.

Want to have a crack at guessing which one?

. . .and a scientific/rational consensus in the shrouds favor would go a long way towards that end...

It's gone all the way to that end.

It's a constant wonderment that you missed it.

- So far, I believe that mainstream science is missing at least a big piece of our puzzle.

There's no such thing as "our puzzle".

I think that "scientifically speaking," the world is "magical."

Srsly?

I don't think that mainstream science has a clue in regard to consciousness --and, especially, in regard to individual consciousness ("selves")...

Therefore the TOT is real?

I think you may have skipped a step or two.

 

[Jabba]

I still don't understand why the shroud's validity matters so much. It's such a little thing.

If you need Jesus to be real, swell. His existence isn't resting on the truth of the damn shroud. It's a mere folk story. It's definitely not worth the massive conspiracies and cover-ups that keep getting proposed. Plenty of Christians don't even give it a second thought. Why is it such a big deal here?

isissxn,
- It's a long story. Here's the tip.
- So far, I think that there is a lot more to the Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- though, not enough to make me actually "believe in" him.
- I would like to believe in him (I think it's a functional belief), and a scientific/rational consensus in the shroud's favor would go a long way towards that end...
- So far, I believe that mainstream science is missing at least a big piece of our puzzle. I think that "scientifically speaking," the world is "magical." I don't think that mainstream science has a clue in regard to consciousness --and, especially, in regard to individual consciousness ("selves")...

Yeah, I see what you're saying, but I also think you've got it backwards. It's my understanding that religion and whatever "magic" surrounds it is, by its very intrinsic nature, beyond science. It must be taken on faith. If there was a scientific consensus to reassure people, there wouldn't be so much god damn turmoil in the world over religion.

You're saying you want a scientific consensus so you can maybe get yourself to believe in something that can't be explained by science. That ain't happenin', whether Jesus was a real dude or not (and he probably wasn't).

Isissxn,
- I'm saying that current mainstream science and valid reasoning leads us to the conclusion that mainstream science cannot fully explain reality -- something critical is missing. Scientifically speaking, reality is "magical" -- scientifically speaking, it cannot be fully explained.

 

[Belz...]

- I'm saying that current mainstream science and valid reasoning leads us to the conclusion that mainstream science cannot fully explain reality

That's a tautology. You can always another "why ?", but that doesn't make the science we do have useless.

Scientifically speaking, reality is "magical"

Name one thing critical that isn't explained.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Isissxn,
- I'm saying that current mainstream science and valid reasoning leads us to the conclusion that mainstream science cannot fully explain reality -- something critical is missing. Scientifically speaking, reality is "magical" -- scientifically speaking, it cannot be fully explained.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Please explain how your lack of understanding about the nature of science in general supports your conclusion that the anatomically impossible, hydrodynamically incorrect, historically inaccurate, and scripturally indefensible byzantine image on a piece of sized, manifestly medieval linen can, in any way, be considered a candidate for the True Shroud^TM.

 

[pgwenthold]

Name one thing critical that isn't explained.

How a shroud from the time of Jesus can give a 13-14th century date by 14C dating methods, of course.

No one has been able to explain that.

Seriously, you have to work from within the framework of the believer. If black is white and white is black, then that means that my eyes have colors inverted.

 

[pgwenthold]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Please explain how your lack of understanding about the nature of science in general supports your conclusion that the anatomically impossible, hydrodynamically incorrect, historically inaccurate, and scripturally indefensible byzantine image on a piece of sized, manifestly medieval linen can, in any way, be considered a candidate for the True Shroud^TM.

He used to know the answer to that, or seems to remember that he had an answer to that, but has forgotten now.