Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
azzthom said:
Yes. The image on the shroud is an idealised, iconic image of Jesus that did not start to take shape until about 600AD, and didn't reach the form on the shroud until about 800AD. In addition, Tertullian and Josephus left physical descriptions of Jesus in their writings (as did some of the 'other' gospels). Those descriptions match each other quite well. They do not match the image on the shroud...
Click to expand...
azzthom,
- Can you point me to the Tertullian and Josephus descriptions?
 
azzthom said:
The crucifixion marks on the image are incorrect. 1) The Romans may have varied their methods regarding the hands, but the feet were always dealt with in the same way, which is not the method shown on the shroud. 2) The carbon dating was performed on 4 distinct samples from the shroud, and 3) all 4 showed a date of between 1200 and 1390...
Click to expand...
azzthom,
- I numbered your statements for easy referral.
- Re #1, I don't think that's true. Can you point me to your source. I'll look for mine...
- Re #2, unless I'm forgetting one, the carbon dating was done at only three laboratories -- Oxford, U of Ariz and the Institut für Mittelenergiephysik in Zurich -- and on only three samples. In addition, the samples were not especially distinct -- together, they comprised one small corner of the Shroud. I can't remember the size of the corner, but each sample took up only a few square centimeters.
-Re #3, I'm pretty sure that all the peer reviewed articles on the carbon dating since the original Nature article in 1988 have concluded that the dating was invalid.
 
Jabba said:
azzthom,
- I numbered your statements for easy referral.
- Re #1, I don't think that's true. Can you point me to your source. I'll look for mine...
- Re #2, unless I'm forgetting one, the carbon dating was done at only three laboratories -- Oxford, U of Ariz and the Institut für Mittelenergiephysik in Zurich -- and on only three samples. In addition, the samples were not especially distinct -- together, they comprised one small corner of the Shroud. I can't remember the size of the corner, but each sample took up only a few square centimeters.
-Re #3, I'm pretty sure that all the peer reviewed articles on the carbon dating since the original Nature article in 1988 have concluded that the dating was invalid.
Click to expand...

Here is a summary of Crucifixion evidence from the same website as the physical descriptions of Jesus. http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=15

Here is a paper on experiments done with crucifixion, concentrating on the hands.
http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/experimental_studies_in_crucifix.htm

Apologies on the dating samples. It was one sample from the shroud, and three control samples. Memory failed me:o The strip taken from the shroud was cut into three smaller samples as you said. This link describes the dating process and the results.
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Recent research has suggested that the area tested was a medieval repair, and so the results are of the dating were invalid. Apologies again, I'm working from memory (it's been a long time since I did my checking) Here's another link which summarises and explains the situation.
http://shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html

It agrees that the shroud is much older, but gives a range of 1300-3000 years. The date is still open, but earlier than medieval.
 
I recall - dimly - a TV program of a few years ago where they tried to reproduce the shroud image.

Apparently, when you wrap a cloth around a face, the resulting image looks distorted.

I wish I could remember it more clearly...
 
Rincewind said:
I recall - dimly - a TV program of a few years ago where they tried to reproduce the shroud image.

Apparently, when you wrap a cloth around a face, the resulting image looks distorted.

I wish I could remember it more clearly...
Click to expand...

Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

I wish it were a joke.

Ward

P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time.
 
yy2bggggs said:
Citation?
Click to expand...
A number of groups claim that the area of the shroud sampled for 14C analysis was a medieval patch1 or otherwise contaminated2; this supposition is not generally accepted, nor is there significant scientific dispute on the dating itself.
Ray Rogers is the most often cited doubter of the dating; he published a paper in Thermochimica Acta in 2005 alleging the sampled area was such a patch. However there are a number of utterly unsupported claims in his paper regarding alleged chemical differences between the majority of the cloth and the sample and the cotton content.
Likewise while there are various conspiratorial allegations (financial donations, mysterious deaths et cetera) there is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing.
The CSICOP article is a good start for such claims.



1 This is despite the panel of experts selected to decide the sampling area carefully examining the cloth and avoiding any such patches.

2A figure of an additional contamination 2% is often cited by believers in the shroud's authenticity as sufficient to lead to an error of fourteen centuries; however this is utter nonsense, the correct figure being in the range of ~60-70%
 
wardenclyffe said:
Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

I wish it were a joke.

Ward

P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time.
Click to expand...

So Jesus was a black hole.
I don't think he was a Russian.
He had anti-grav. as well as soul
and left his mark on some old linen.
As he left this mortal coil
I'm sure I heard him say:
Energise and make it so, YAHWEH
 
azzthom said:
Yes indeed. Josephus' description is in the Slavonic edition of 'The Capture of Jerusalem'. You can find a summary here:- http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=13

It also includes other descriptions I had forgotten about, and quotes Tertullian.
Click to expand...
azzthom, are you seriously treating the material in the Slavonic Josephus, where it is additional to the content of the Greek text, as a reliable source of information about anything, let alone the physical appearance of Jesus?

Even the two sparse references to Jesus in the "standard" Josephus, Antiquities Chs 18 and 20, are quite clearly interpolated by a later hand. But the Slavonic ... Dear God!
 
The only miracle of the Shroud I see is its incredible ability to continue to suck money from the pockets of morons 700 years after it was painted.

Most medieval relics have long since lost their ability to extract cash, but the Shroud just keeps on fleecing that flock.

Amazing!
 
Brainache said:
The only miracle of the Shroud I see is its incredible ability to continue to suck money from the pockets of morons 700 years after it was painted.

Most medieval relics have long since lost their ability to extract cash, but the Shroud just keeps on fleecing that flock.

Amazing!
Click to expand...



What about the Vatican? :D
 
Craig B said:
azzthom, are you seriously treating the material in the Slavonic Josephus, where it is additional to the content of the Greek text, as a reliable source of information about anything, let alone the physical appearance of Jesus?

Even the two sparse references to Jesus in the "standard" Josephus, Antiquities Chs 18 and 20, are quite clearly interpolated by a later hand. But the Slavonic ... Dear God!
Click to expand...

If it were the only description of Jesus, you may have a point. It isn't. The man on the Turin shroud is not Jesus. He does not match any of the descriptions and bears no resemblance to the people of the region at that time. I can accept that Jesus was a real man, but the Turin shroud does not show his image.
 
azzthom said:
If it were the only description of Jesus, you may have a point. It isn't. The man on the Turin shroud is not Jesus. He does not match any of the descriptions and bears no resemblance to the people of the region at that time. I can accept that Jesus was a real man, but the Turin shroud does not show his image.
Click to expand...
Could you direct me to the other descriptions of Jesus? I mean descriptions which might have originated directly or indirectly with people who knew him, and not those derived from visions vouchsafed unto Theresa of Avila, Catherine Emmerich or their like.
 
Craig B said:
Could you direct me to the other descriptions of Jesus? I mean descriptions which might have originated directly or indirectly with people who knew him, and not those derived from visions vouchsafed unto Theresa of Avila, Catherine Emmerich or their like.
Click to expand...

My post that you quoted has a link to a page with a collection of such descriptions. For convenience, here it is again:-
http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=13

Can you find a description, following the same rules, which matches the Turin shroud?
 
azzthom said:
If it were the only description of Jesus, you may have a point. It isn't. The man on the Turin shroud is not Jesus. He does not match any of the descriptions and bears no resemblance to the people of the region at that time. I can accept that Jesus was a real man, but the Turin shroud does not show his image.
Click to expand...



I must be getting "good" at "thinking" like a theist maybe due to being exposed to the posts of some people in this thread.


But here is a solution to the dilemma from a theistic twisted point of view....

Jesus when he was in Israel looked like a common place guy in the society of Israel of the epoch.

However, when he got resurrected he deliberately changed his looks to look like a European guy in anticipation of his future role as an inveigler of Europeans.

This also explains why the Disciples did not recognize him when he appeared to them after the resurrection..... he was European looking by then and not at all like the Guy who taught them how to huckster fish for Jewish men. Mark 16:12, Luke 24:18, Luke 24:36-37, John 20:14

Accordingly the shroud would have the image of his new manifestation.

See..... anything is possible for the theistic warped mental gymnastics of casuistry.....reality is what they wish it to be.

I felt conflicted writing this post. On the one hand I did not want to give the casuists more material, and on the other I wanted to beat them to it in order to demonstrate to them that an atheist can beat them at their game.
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
I must be getting "good" at "thinking" like a theist maybe due to being exposed to the posts of some people in this thread.


But here is a solution to the dilemma from a theistic twisted point of view....

Jesus when he was in Israel looked like a common place guy in the society of Israel of the epoch.

However, when he got resurrected he deliberately changed his looks to look like a European guy in anticipation of his future role as an inveigler of Europeans.

This also explains why the Disciples did not recognize him when he appeared to them after the resurrection..... he was European looking by then and not at all like the Guy who taught them how to huckster fish for Jewish men. Mark 16:12, Luke 24:18, Luke 24:36-37, John 20:14

Accordingly the shroud would have the image of his new manifestation.

See..... anything is possible for the theistic warped mental gymnastics of casuistry.....reality is what they wish it to be.

I felt conflicted writing this post. On the one hand I did not want to give the casuists more material, and on the other I wanted to beat them to it in order to demonstrate to them that an atheist can beat them at their game.
Click to expand...

I just laughed out loud at your post, thanks! But I know what you mean. I've given evidence that the physical image is wrong, that the crucifixion marks are wrong... others have brought up the lack of distortion, refuted the claims on the dating being wrong, there's also the problems with the weave not being found anywhere at the right time, the differences between the shroud and actual burials of the time... The list goes on and still they put faith in an object ... well, you know what I mean.
 
azzthom said:
My post that you quoted has a link to a page with a collection of such descriptions. For convenience, here it is again:- http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=13 Can you find a description, following the same rules, which matches the Turin shroud?
Click to expand...
No, because I think the Shroud is a mediaeval forgery. But your linked page is most unimpressive as a source about Jesus' physical appearance. It contains NO "descriptions", according to any rules whatsoever.
More than 1500 years ago, St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) lamented that: “we have absolutely no knowledge of His appearance”
Click to expand...
Quite so.
When Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and found it empty, she inquired of the “gardener”, where is Jesus? and promised to lift Jesus’ body up if he told her where he was. Obviously if Mary were capable of lifting Jesus up, he can’t have been very large.
Click to expand...
I gasp in amazement at this being presented as a "description" of Jesus, or even as an indication of his stature, for these reasons:

The account is from John, and is not confirmed in the other gospels. John is not historical.

The "gardener" was Jesus and Mary didn't recognise him! In such circumstances her mental condition doesn't inspire confidence as regards the practicality of her intentions, or her ability to describe the Jesus she couldn't even recognise.

As to "lifting up", NIV renders this passage as "Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” Which doesn't mean she intended to lug his body away by herself without assistance.

Angels are present too. Enough said. Pity they didn't leave us a description.
The Gospel of Luke (19:3) describes Zaccheus’ attempt to see Jesus while he preached in a crowd: “And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and he could not for the crowd, because he was low of stature.” Of course, Luke may be referring to Zaccheus rather than Jesus.
Click to expand...
For sure. In the other case almost nobody at all in the crowd would have seen Jesus.
We have another clue to Jesus’ appearance in the Qur’an. One night, a winged snow-white beast takes the prophet Muhammad to Jerusalem to the Temple where he meets Moses and Jesus, and Jesus is the smaller of the two.
Click to expand...
I abstain from making any comment on the use of this as a source; and I have already ruled out the Slavonic Josephus interpolations.
Jesus Had Short Hair and was Clean Shaven Imagine Jesus as your prototypical Marine - short hair, clean-shaven. Hard to imagine, yet that seems to be our best evidence. Freke and Gandy (2001) note: “the earliest representations of Jesus actually portray him beardless, with short hair….(p. 56).” We can see this in our survey of the earliest Christian art…
Click to expand...
All the early representations cited are Roman frescos, in which he was of course depicted as a Roman. That he actually was a clean shaven toga wearer is quite impossible, and this image indicates that the Roman Christians had indeed no idea of his real appearance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom