Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Painting?/Gesso?
- I had looked for shroud articles that mention calcium carbonate in connection with gesso, and didn't find any -- the articles I found were talking about specific deposits on the nose and elsewhere... Looking further however, I found an article by our own Hugh Carey, that does in fact state that the shroud is covered with calcium carbonate -- http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n80part7.pdf.
He (Charles Freeman) next turns his attention to the Shroud itself, and the scientific
evidence discovered by the STuRP team and others in the last 40 years or
so. Sadly, although paintings on linen are referred to in abundance
throughout the medieval period, they are now vanishingly rare, so there is
little to compare it to, but the evidence stands on its own. Both Walter
McCrone and the STuRP team found traces of paint, and the Shroud is uniformly covered in ‘calcium’, mostly as calcium carbonate, which was the principal component of northern European gesso (the other being a proteinaceous binder such as rabbit skin collagen) which was thinly applied to linen as a base. Furthermore, the linen itself, with its Z-twisted thread and its requirement for a four-heddle loom to produce the 3/1 herringbone weave, fits far better into the cloth-making industry of medieval Europe than the 1st century Middle East.
- But then,
Another problem with the painting hypothesis is not simply that
so much of the original pigment seems to have completely disappeared,
but also that it seems to have done so extremely uniformly, which seems
too good to be true. Although an even coating of gesso (if the calcium
carbonate can be so explained) seems to have remained, there is no trace
of the rabbit skin collagen binder which should have accompanied it, as
only the blood stains gave positive tests for protein when examined by the
STuRP team in 1978. As evidence of the fragility of painted linen, Freeman
mentions the huge ‘lenten veil’ at Zittau (left), eight metres high and seven
wide, which was badly damaged during the Second World War when it
had been cut up and used to line the walls of a sauna. Parts of the veil
have been almost completely lost, leaving only suggestive stains behind,
but this is a far cry from the complete removal of observable pigment we
see in the Shroud.
- One problem that I have with, "another problem with the painting hypothesis," is that I didn't see what-Hugh-had-been-discussing as being a problem with the painting hypothesis...
Hugh,
- What are your thoughts on the painting issue?
Dinwar,
- I had looked for shroud articles that mention calcium carbonate in connection with gesso, and didn't find any -- the articles I found were talking about specific deposits on the nose and elsewhere... Looking further however, I found an article by our own Hugh Carey, that does in fact state that the shroud is covered with calcium carbonate -- http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n80part7.pdf.
He (Charles Freeman) next turns his attention to the Shroud itself, and the scientific
evidence discovered by the STuRP team and others in the last 40 years or
so. Sadly, although paintings on linen are referred to in abundance
throughout the medieval period, they are now vanishingly rare, so there is
little to compare it to, but the evidence stands on its own. Both Walter
McCrone and the STuRP team found traces of paint, and the Shroud is uniformly covered in ‘calcium’, mostly as calcium carbonate, which was the principal component of northern European gesso (the other being a proteinaceous binder such as rabbit skin collagen) which was thinly applied to linen as a base. Furthermore, the linen itself, with its Z-twisted thread and its requirement for a four-heddle loom to produce the 3/1 herringbone weave, fits far better into the cloth-making industry of medieval Europe than the 1st century Middle East.
- But then,
Another problem with the painting hypothesis is not simply that
so much of the original pigment seems to have completely disappeared,
but also that it seems to have done so extremely uniformly, which seems
too good to be true. Although an even coating of gesso (if the calcium
carbonate can be so explained) seems to have remained, there is no trace
of the rabbit skin collagen binder which should have accompanied it, as
only the blood stains gave positive tests for protein when examined by the
STuRP team in 1978. As evidence of the fragility of painted linen, Freeman
mentions the huge ‘lenten veil’ at Zittau (left), eight metres high and seven
wide, which was badly damaged during the Second World War when it
had been cut up and used to line the walls of a sauna. Parts of the veil
have been almost completely lost, leaving only suggestive stains behind,
but this is a far cry from the complete removal of observable pigment we
see in the Shroud.
- One problem that I have with, "another problem with the painting hypothesis," is that I didn't see what-Hugh-had-been-discussing as being a problem with the painting hypothesis...
Hugh,
- What are your thoughts on the painting issue?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good morning, Mr. Savage:
What has any of that to do with presenting evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old?
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Hey, another post about paint!
Once more: The presence of blood - even blood as the only medium - would be conclusive of nothing regarding the shroud's origin.
Since there is so much evidence that the shroud was in existence in the middle-ages and so little evidence that it existed any time before that, you must explain how the shroud could be 2,000 years old.
Incidentally, you promised to do this. Why don't you keep your promise? Is that what Jesus would do?
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Well, to be fair, Jesus did promise to return within the lifetimes of those present...
So, can I assume you DON'T know anything about the carbonates in the Middle East? That's unfortunate; it's quite an interesting story. Well, you know, for us rock jocks, anyway.
If you can't name this mineral, it means that you know nothing about Middle Eastern carbonates and therefore cannot make any claims regarding the origin of the stuff on the shroud. Period. Thus, all of this nonsense about paint is pure fantasy.
So we've successfully put to rest any notion that you have any better understanding of the paint than you do of reweaving. Therefore no opinion of yours on either topic--and that includes any conclusions you may draw--has any weight whatever. It's no more likely to be right than random chance.
So let's get back to the real issue: You said there were clues to the shroud being ~2,000 years old. What are they?
If you can't name this mineral, it means that you know nothing about Middle Eastern carbonates and therefore cannot make any claims regarding the origin of the stuff on the shroud. Period. Thus, all of this nonsense about paint is pure fantasy.
So we've successfully put to rest any notion that you have any better understanding of the paint than you do of reweaving. Therefore no opinion of yours on either topic--and that includes any conclusions you may draw--has any weight whatever. It's no more likely to be right than random chance.
So let's get back to the real issue: You said there were clues to the shroud being ~2,000 years old. What are they?
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,366
The Book of Jabba's Colossal Heroic Failures?
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
1. Who is Hugh Carey?
2. What evidence do you have that the shroud is ~2000 years old?
2. What evidence do you have that the shroud is ~2000 years old?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
2000 Yrs?
- My ultimate conclusion -- that the shroud is 2000 years old -- is based upon intermediate conclusions.
- That the shroud was not painted is one of those intermediate conclusions.
- If the shroud was not painted, I conclude that a real, dead, body produced the image via some kind of imprint.
- From other evidence, I also believe that the wounds and the posture are, in fact, appropriate for the biblical Jesus, and also amazingly well-defined.
- From the above, and other evidence, my best guess is that the carbon dating is wrong.
- If all of the above is true, the body that produced the imprint must have been Jesus, and the shroud must be about 2000 years old...
- At this point, I'm just trying to put together my reasons for believing that the shroud was not painted...
Slowvehicle,
- My ultimate conclusion -- that the shroud is 2000 years old -- is based upon intermediate conclusions.
- That the shroud was not painted is one of those intermediate conclusions.
- If the shroud was not painted, I conclude that a real, dead, body produced the image via some kind of imprint.
- From other evidence, I also believe that the wounds and the posture are, in fact, appropriate for the biblical Jesus, and also amazingly well-defined.
- From the above, and other evidence, my best guess is that the carbon dating is wrong.
- If all of the above is true, the body that produced the imprint must have been Jesus, and the shroud must be about 2000 years old...
- At this point, I'm just trying to put together my reasons for believing that the shroud was not painted...
Last edited:
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
Starting with the result you want, and desperately trying to twist the evidence to fit. It's a triumph of religion over science!
Belz...
Fiend God
Of course he can. That's all he does.
Belz...
Fiend God
No, it's based on a desire for it to be true.
Irrelevant. The carbon dating proves your ultimate conclusion wrong. Also, painted.
Non sequitur.
You must be joking. The body is disproportionate and not at all what you'd expect from a real human corpse.
What a dyslexic way to go about looking at evidence: the weaker aspects of the case aren't quite convincing for you, therefore the strongest one is false ?
Non sequitur. Even if ALL of the above were true, your conclusion does not follow AT ALL.
I can answer that: Christian faith.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
It is painted. See http://www.mcri.org.php53-15.dfw1-1...s/the_microscope__shroud_small-1422560933.pdf
The red image contains flecks of a pigment.
Even if it weren't, the image can't be older than the cloth which dates from the 13th century.
Even assuming all of Jabba's ideas (which run counter to all the facts) were somehow valid, wouldn't the conclusion based on the carbon dating be either:
1. The Bible and history has it wrong, and Jesus lived in the Middle Ages, or
2. A second mystical person, not Jesus, in the Middle Ages was buried in the Shroud of Turin and left the "magical" imprints? Mohammed perhaps? An obscure buddhist monk? One of the great Jewish scholars? Clyde the court magician?
1. The Bible and history has it wrong, and Jesus lived in the Middle Ages, or
2. A second mystical person, not Jesus, in the Middle Ages was buried in the Shroud of Turin and left the "magical" imprints? Mohammed perhaps? An obscure buddhist monk? One of the great Jewish scholars? Clyde the court magician?
That is neither what you promised nor people requested, for the reasons already cited here. Not painted does not in any way provide proof of your last conclusion.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
None of those intermediate conclusions support the notion that the CIQ is ~2000 years old. You need evidence. Why don't you present some?
This has been a 2+ year demonstration of the some of the least logical interlocution I have seen on a skeptical forum.
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
Your intermediate conclusions aren't based on facts in evidence. Your ultimate conclusion is therefore based on nothing tangible.
Rincewind
Philosopher
So there's some poor Israelite who's been kept alive for more than 2000 years? When will the agony end?
(This year isn't it? According to the Rupture thread...)
That's some kind of loving god you got there...
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No, it isn't. It's an unsupported claim.
Nope, false dilemma. It would just mean that the image was produced by some other means.
Seriously? After everything that has been posted here?
What "other evidence"? None of the above is evidence that the carbon dating is wrong.
And we're back to your perennial habit of begging the question. Obviously, if you are allowed to stick your desired conclusion into your premises, then evidence that contradictes your desired conclusion must be wrong. But you can't do that. It is circular reasoning.
Your "reason" seems to be that the "shroud" is authentic. Begging the question.
Last edited:
Obviously, but they should all relate to the ultimate conclusion.Jabba said:
You don't actually know how to structure an argument, do you?
Here's an example of what I mean. It's not an intermediate conclusion--it's a separate reason all together from the C14 sampling. The use of the term "conclusion" is a serious error here; the only conclusion in an argument is the answer to the issue.
False dichotomy.
"From other evidence". Meaning, for reasons you will never tell us. And you continue to ignore the fact that the Crucifixion Story is one of the best-known in history, and would have been universally known during the Middle Ages.
Either present the highlighted, or stop citing it.
Yeah....NONE of that follows from the stuff you posted.
After 2 years, this should have been done by now.
- Status