Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Peter i]

Slowvehicle,
- I have read, and reviewed, her article.
- The following quote summarizes her, and my, considerations: "The study of the support, ground, the paint mediums and their related techniques and decay, handedness, style, directionality, light focus, art anatomy and geometrical perspective and experimental art all exclude that the object called "the Shroud of Turin" could be a painting."

All that aside: How old is it?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I have read, and reviewed, her article.
- The following quote summarizes her, and my, considerations: "The study of the support, ground, the paint mediums and their related techniques and decay, handedness, style, directionality, light focus, art anatomy and geometrical perspective and experimental art all exclude that the object called "the Shroud of Turin" could be a painting."

1. What about the ubiquitouscalcium carbonate, indicating gesso?

2. What about the anatomical impossibilities (including, for instance, the chisel-shaped head)?

3. What about the flat representation of a rounded object on a flat surface, showing no sign of the cloth ever having been draped, or wrapped, around an object?

(To say nothing of the other ludicrous claims...do you actually believe that a burst of "resurrection energy" suspended the chisel-pointed body of Jesus in zero gravity while is image was magically transferred to a piece of 780-year-old linen?)

 

[John Jones]

Slowvehicle,
- I have read, and reviewed, her article.
- The following quote summarizes her, and my, considerations: "The study of the support, ground, the paint mediums and their related techniques and decay, handedness, style, directionality, light focus, art anatomy and geometrical perspective and experimental art all exclude that the object called "the Shroud of Turin" could be a painting."

It's not 2000 years old though, is it?

 

[catsmate]

Your hypothesis is: "This rag is the burial cloth of Jeebus"

This implies, that it has to be 2000 years old.

If it can be shown, that it is not 2000 years old, your hypothesis is falsified.


C14 clearly shows, that it is not 2000 years old, your hypothesis is falsified.



You can now either show the rest of the world in general and the scientific community in particular, that C14 tests have no use, or you can accept that The Rag Of Turin is not, and never has been the burial shroud of anyone living 2000 years ago.
In which case it does not matter, who you claim to have been wrapped in it.


But you have been told this a zillion times already.

Why do you want to be "scientific" and "prove" anything?
You fail each and every time.

"I am a believer, my faith is central and I ignore anything but my faith" would be much easier for all involved, and would spare you defeat after defeat.

It also implies that Jesus existed and was crucified.

 

[Loss Leader]

Slowvehicle,
- I have read, and reviewed, her article.
- The following quote summarizes her, and my, considerations: "The study of the support, ground, the paint mediums and their related techniques and decay, handedness, style, directionality, light focus, art anatomy and geometrical perspective and experimental art all exclude that the object called "the Shroud of Turin" could be a painting."

Ah, how refreshing: talking about paint.

You promised to present your evidence that the shroud was 2000 years old. Then you posted about paint. Now you're posting about paint again.

The opposite of painted is not "the burial shroud of Jesus." The opposite of painted is "anything other than painted."

In order for this to be the burial shroud of Jesus, it must be at least 2000 years old. What is your evidence of that?


n.b. I don't really expect you to have any evidence. On your own website, with nobody to get in your way and all the time in the world to write your argument, you repeat several times that the shroud can be definitively dated only back to the middle ages.

 

[HighRiser]

The metaphorical capstone conclusion is floating in mid-air: suspended by mysticism and buoyed by flatus hot air.

 

[Mojo]

So, when you ask me for my alleged evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old, or that it's the burial cloth of the biblical Jesus, I need to first show how the evidence relates to the ultimate conclusion -- the capstone of my pyramid.

How can you possibly do this without first identifying the evidence?

ETA: Unless, of course, you are going to admit that your "ultimate conclusion" is unrelated to any evidence.

 

[Peter i]

It also implies that Jesus existed and was crucified.

It does indeed, and I'm fully aware, that that argument is Jabba's real reason for loving the rag.


But I prefer to keep it simple, and just eliminate the cloth, not worrying about the rest of the myth.

 

[Dinwar]

As I said before, the shroud and the Bible are mutually contradictory. So logically nothing said about the shroud has any bearing on any other aspect of Christianity or any other religion based on the Bible.

 

[Jabba]

Painting?/Gesso?

1. What about the ubiquitouscalcium carbonate, indicating gesso?
2. What about the anatomical impossibilities (including, for instance, the chisel-shaped head)?

3. What about the flat representation of a rounded object on a flat surface, showing no sign of the cloth ever having been draped, or wrapped, around an object?

(To say nothing of the other ludicrous claims...do you actually believe that a burst of "resurrection energy" suspended the chisel-pointed body of Jesus in zero gravity while is image was magically transferred to a piece of 780-year-old linen?)

Slowvehicle,
- So far, to my knowledge, the calcium carbonate referred to in papers about the shroud seem to have only to do with dust from the mid-east, and found only in very specific locations on the image.
- And then, according to Wikipedia, gesso is made up of calcium sulfate, rather than calcium carbonate.
- Can you direct me to your references?

 

[John Jones]

Slowvehicle,
- So far, to my knowledge, the calcium carbonate referred to in papers about the shroud seem to have only to do with dust from the mid-east, and found only in very specific locations on the image.
- And then, according to Wikipedia, gesso is made up of calcium sulfate, rather than calcium carbonate.- Can you direct me to your references?

Wiki says no such thing. It says gesso is paint mixed with chalk (CaCO3), gypsum (CaSO4), pigment or any combination of these.

Why is their such a discrepancy between what wiki says, and what you claim wiki says?

Where is your evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old? You assured us you would present some.

 

[zooterkin]

Slowvehicle,
- So far, to my knowledge, the calcium carbonate referred to in papers about the shroud seem to have only to do with dust from the mid-east, and found only in very specific locations on the image.
- And then, according to Wikipedia, gesso is made up of calcium sulfate, rather than calcium carbonate.

Er, no. You clearly misunderstand.

Gesso (Italian pronunciation: [ˈdʒɛsːo] "chalk," from the Latin: gypsum, from Greek: γύψος) is a white paint mixture consisting of a binder mixed with chalk, gypsum, pigment, or any combination of these

Chalk is calcium carbonate.

You seem to have misread this part:

In geology, the Italian "gesso" corresponds to the English "gypsum", as it is a calcium sulfate mineral (CaSO4·2H2O).

We're not talking about geology.

Since you feel you can demand answers, would be so kind as to reciprocate by providing evidence for the cloth being 2000 years old?

 

[Loss Leader]

Slowvehicle,
- So far, to my knowledge, the calcium carbonate referred to in papers about the shroud seem to have only to do with dust from the mid-east, and found only in very specific locations on the image.
- And then, according to Wikipedia, gesso is made up of calcium sulfate, rather than calcium carbonate.
- Can you direct me to your references?

Hey, Jabba! You wrote a post about paint! What evidence do you have that the shroud is 2000 years old?

 

[Rincewind]

Hey, Jabba! You wrote a post about paint! What evidence do you have that the shroud is 2000 years old?

+1

PLEASE!!!

 

[Monza]

- OK. You win.
- I'll do my best to present the significant evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
<snip>
- My next post re the age of the shroud will be something specific.

- My ultimate goal here is not to show that the shroud is 2000 years old.

Well, that didn't take long.

Now that latest posts are no longer about the blood (assuming that people in the mid-15th century did not have blood) but are about the absence of a painting (assuming that people in the mid-15th century did not not paint art objects).

 

[Nonpareil]

- My ultimate goal here is not to show that the shroud is 2000 years old.

Then we don't care.

 

[carlitos]

Well, that didn't take long.

He said that he would "do his best." You can see the results.

 

[Dinwar]

Well, that didn't take long.

No, now, let's be fair. Jabba's ultimate goal (at least, as far as I can tell from his statements) is to convince us that the Christ is the risen Lord. Proving the shroud to be authentic would, in and of itself, be an intermediate goal--ie, it's one of the links in his chain of reasoning to establish this ultimate conclusion.

Given Jabba's actions, his ultimate goal here is to establish straw men he can attack on his blog. And providing evidence would hurt that goal--as soon as he says something factual, folks can check it, rather than merely looking at mined quotes intended to make us look bad.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- So far, to my knowledge, the calcium carbonate referred to in papers about the shroud seem to have only to do with dust from the mid-east, and found only in very specific locations on the image.
- And then, according to Wikipedia, gesso is made up of calcium sulfate, rather than calcium carbonate.
- Can you direct me to your references?

Your knowledge is, as has been pointed out to you, incorrect.

Modern gesso may be any of a number of calcium salts...medieval gesso was almost always marble dust (calcium carbonate) or bone dust (calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate) suspended in rabbit skin glue.

There is an entire chapter on gesso in Bright Earth--which would also explain to you how gesso (particularly animal glue gesso) will spall, or powder, off of a fabric when it is folded, rolled, or flexed. Alternatively, you could come to my studio and I could show you my gesso, and my gesso recipes...and some spalled canvas and linen.

You also appear to be continuing to gloss over the cartoon quality of the image...

Now, how does this waffling indicate that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

 

[Craig4]

Slowvehicle,
- So far, to my knowledge, the calcium carbonate referred to in papers about the shroud seem to have only to do with dust from the mid-east, and found only in very specific locations on the image.
- And then, according to Wikipedia, gesso is made up of calcium sulfate, rather than calcium carbonate.
- Can you direct me to your references?

Doesn't matter if the cloth is from the 13th century. Maybe try to keep your eye on the ball.