Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Belz...]

I've seen this analytical fallacy multiple times -- you are assuming a priori that the Shroud must have been tightly wrapped around the corpse, rather than loosely -- except that the image on the Shroud belies this assumption. ergo the assumption is wrong.

It's been explained to you already that it doesn't need to be tightly wrapped.

I don't know why, but I see a pattern emerging.

 

[godless dave]

The Shroud of Turin IS a strip of linen ...

It's one big continuous piece, not narrow band that would be wrapped around the body.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/“behold...and-ossuaries-first-century-jewish-burial-pra

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_03747.html

Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19:40&version=KJV

 

[Belz...]

I'm more liable to believe the word of someone having made an actual 3D reconstruction of the Shroud Man, and having seen an explanation of the methodology he used and its end results.

Link, please.

I think I resent that insult.

Take it as you will, but C14 dating is hard evidence, and for some reason (we all know what that is, don't we ?) you seem very willing to doubt this hard evidence, no matter which argument you have to cling to to make that work.

The Shroud of Turin IS a strip of linen ...

Not sure I'd call that a strip.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Do you understand the concept of special pleading?
The image is not distorted by wrapping.
Assume the "Shroud Slouch^TM; observe the position of your hands.

...not to mention, all of these have been dealt with on this thread.

Despite what others have said, you really might want to read the whole, tiresome thing.

reconstruction of the wrapping based on the evidence from the Shroud itself, rather than from modern guesswork :

http://www.raydowning.com/_Media/crossectionfinallayerdd2-2.jpg

(though it's WRONG as concerns contact with the top of the head, it does depict the general fold of the fabric as evidenced in the Shroud image)

reconstruction of the Shroud Man based on that image and the 3D imaging, distortions removed :

http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/image35.png

(the evidence of wounding is pretty horrendous)

 

[JabbaPapa]

The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.

I heard this today and looked up a link here....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...8/Turin-Shroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.html

Hopefully someone competent will analyse the findings -- without pre-conceptions nor any agenda.

 

[JabbaPapa]

The sidetrack into pollen is interesting, but I am sure that anyone here can come up with a feasible method whereby a piece of cloth which was stored with other religious artefacts and regularly handled over the last 700 odd years by faithful (even fanatic) religious adherents, could contain pollen samples or trace mineral elements which may have originated from Israel.

Why is this a "sidetrack" -- is this thread about the radiocarbon dating exclusively ???

Otherwise, your scenario strikes me as being farfetched and unlikely.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Loose wrappings causes short hair to grow long, fingers and arms to elongate, and blood to flow against gravity?

No -- distortions as compared to what a photograph would depict are likely when the image of a corpse is imprinted onto a linen cloth in physical contact with that body.

 

[Akri]

reconstruction of the wrapping based on the evidence from the Shroud itself, rather than from modern guesswork :

http://www.raydowning.com/_Media/crossectionfinallayerdd2-2.jpg

(though it's WRONG as concerns contact with the top of the head, it does depict the general fold of the fabric as evidenced in the Shroud image)

reconstruction of the Shroud Man based on that image and the 3D imaging, distortions removed :

http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/image35.png

(the evidence of wounding is pretty horrendous)

OK, so these images are supposed to demonstrate what, exactly?

 

[JabbaPapa]

As is the a priori assumption that the shroud was wrapped around a corpse at all.

This is not an a priori assumption -- it is a conclusion based on biological remains on the surface of the Shroud.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I've seen this analytical fallacy multiple times -- you are assuming a priori that the Shroud must have been tightly wrapped around the corpse, rather than loosely -- except that the image on the Shroud belies this assumption. ergo the assumption is wrong.

We've seen this kind of had-waving before.

The issue is not "tightly" wrapped. but "wrapped" at all. The image shows none of the orthographic distortion that happens when a cylindrical object is inked onto a flat surface. Seriously--do the mannequin demo.

The fact that the "image belies the assumption" that the cloth was wrapped is, in fact, another argument against authenticity.

Second, the analysis states that the blood stains are not those that were on the body -- but those that ARE on the surface of the Shroud itself. It is TOTALLY UNSURPRISING that blood stains on a fabric from contact with wounds will not resemble blood stains on either a living body or a corpse.

And how does this explain the anti-gravity blood rivulets flowing along (historically incorrect) hair in a gravitationally impossible direction, after the dead body (and hair) had been washed?

 

[JabbaPapa]

Impossible. You will have to provide evidence of this, because it's simply unfeasible. You do understand that you have to project a 3D object onto a 2D surface that is not flat, right ?

I've no need for you to explain to me something that I've witnessed, and you apparently have not.

Watch the History Channel special and decide for yourself.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hopefully someone competent will analyse the findings -- without pre-conceptions nor any agenda.

"Tests" performed on threads with no provenance? Right. No agenda in evidence there, at all...

 

[Olowkow]

It is time to read up on how the earth is portrayed on 2 dimensional maps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-area_projection#Equal-area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection

The Mercator projection portrays Greenland as larger than Australia; in actuality, Australia is more than three and a half times larger than Greenland.

When I wrap a paper towel around my face, my nose and mouth are in the middle, and my ears are, in a straight line, out to the sides. I would like to see the experiment that shows how the shroud was "wrapped" and winds up giving a portrait of the front of a face.

 

[Giordano]

The dating of vegetable matter (remember : linen is a vegetable matter) contradicting the radiocarbon dating was not a radiocarbon dating.

I *WILL* try and re-locate the study.



I have already pointed out myself that these early references are not confirmed.

Thanks for the correction as to the method. But you didn't address my main points (not the minor qualifications I included in parentheses); the dating of any vegetable matter on the shroud, and the possible existence of early references to a shroud, are irrelevant if the piece of cloth we now have is too young to be the burial shroud of Jesus. No doubt the display case currently around the shroud dates within the past few hundred years; I am not using the age of the case to undermine an ancient date for the shroud itself because it is irrelevant, whether the case age is accurate or not.

So, like Jabba, you need to directly address the carbon dating of the shroud itself. There is no point in bringing up the vegetable matter or references in old books.

I welcome you to the forum! I do urge you to spend some time to read the entire thread so we are not repeating points already adequately covered. Also if you vaguely cite some program or book you don't quite recall the name of, or some URLs you've lost, you should justifiably expect to be challenged to provide the actual reference so other people can look it up. A lot of the evidence cited for the Shroud turns out to be over-reaching interpretations of the original facts. It is remarkable how much of the "evidence" is in favor of the authenticity of the shroud evaporates once the actual data (publications, etc.) are examined (ask Jabba, he has learned this himself).

 

[Akri]

I've no need for you to explain to me something that I've witnessed, and you apparently have not.

You do if you want to convince anyone in this thread that the Shroud image was produced by wrapping the cloth around a body.

Of course, you may not care to convince anyone, and that's fine--but it does raise questions about why you are here.

Watch the History Channel special and decide for yourself.

Because if there's one thing the History Channel is known for, it's scientific accuracy.

 

[JabbaPapa]

It's one big continuous piece, not narrow band that would be wrapped around the body.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/“behold...and-ossuaries-first-century-jewish-burial-pra

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_03747.html

You're assuming particulars from generalities -- these descriptions are incompatible with the accounts of Christ's extremely hasty burial found in the Gospels (done in a great rush, because it was the Easter vigil).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19:40&version=KJV

Oh good grief bad KJV translations ...

ἔλαβον οὖν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸ ὀθονίοις μετὰ τῶν ἀρωμάτων, καθὼς ἔθος ἐστὶν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἐνταφιάζειν.

acceperunt ergo corpus Iesu et ligaverunt eum linteis cum aromatibus sicut mos Iudaeis est sepelire

"clothes" ? nope. Linen and vegetable matter ? yep.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

(though it's WRONG as concerns contact with the top of the head, it does depict the general fold of the fabric as evidenced in the Shroud image)

It's also wrong about the sides of the head, arms, and legs.

 

[Resume]

This is not an a priori assumption -- it is a conclusion based on biological remains on the surface of the Shroud.

Everything about the fraud of Turin is an assumption, an assertion . . . these could all be answered quite simply through further (though rendundant) testing and we both know why that's never going to happen.

 

[Resume]

Watch the History Channel special and decide for yourself.

Are you trying to deplete the internet of laughing dogs?

 

[JabbaPapa]

OK, so these images are supposed to demonstrate what, exactly?

That certain contributors' a priori views both concerning how they view the wrapping of linen around Christ's body, in relation to how they view the Shroud image, and their views on the realism of the image on the Shroud are biased and inaccurate.