Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[JabbaPapa]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/20878515a2baa837c3.jpg[/qimg]

Seems that Frank Zappa has magical 3D info encoded into his pictures also. Compliments of CorelDraw (Emboss).

Here's a 14th century icon of Christ :

https://www.hermitage.nl/static/media/img/objecten/glans_en_glorie/02.jpg

-- can you kindly extract a 3D model of a human body out of it for me, if it's so easy ? cheers

 

[JabbaPapa]

Your words speak for themselves.

I am truly grateful for these pointless and empty attacks upon my integrity.

 

[JabbaPapa]

There's a reason for that assumption: your arguments are arguments used by those who believe the Shroud to be the miraculous burial shroud of Christ. The origin of most, if not all, of those arguments is with believers trying to discredit the medieval dating (Rogers, for instance, was part of a pro-Shroud group and had a vested interest in getting a 1st century date when he performed his tests).

I have explicitly, clearly, and plainly explained that I am interested in seeing answers to questions brought up by those parties.

In return, I have been accused of believing some gigantic pile of RUBBISH, as well as accused of being a liar.

And sorry -- given the tone of the thread as I've seen it so far, it would be masochistic to voluntarily subject myself to an extra 130 pages of it -- needlessly, given that a summary of arguments has been posted on a recent page.

If you're really not biased toward a particular response I'd recommend calming down your posts a bit. If you think someone is trolling or attacking you then report them, but don't respond in kind. The calmer your posts are, the less people will continue to mistake you for a Believer.

What about the other members calming down their own exaggerated rhetoric and gratuitous personal attacks ?

What sort of image of them do you think these conjure up in my own mind ? (hint : NOT a positive one)

 

[JabbaPapa]

Actually common sense is BS. I'm talking about logic.

Thought patterns conducive to a practical correspondance between words and pertinence, then, if you really want to be pedantic about even THAT microscopic detail of the conversation...

 

[JabbaPapa]

Why is their competence any more dubious than yours?

????

Strange comparative ; though the snide undertone is noted, and gratefully received from your generous keyboard.

There is a qualitative difference between an outsider's point of view regarding the relative expertise of various employees in a certain field of research, pursuant to multiple conversations with several such employees in three countries, and your odd suggestion.

This does not mean that the outsider is always going to be blind to certain blatant dysfunctions in that field, particularly when the majority of those dysfunctions are not caused by any individual failings nor any straightforward personal flaws at all ; but by a massive lack of funding, leading to the impossibility to provide a fully functional research environment, nor even for the proper dissemination of skills and techniques.

The brain drain towards TV, cinema, and fashion is real ; though I obviously cannot empirically demonstrate what several professionals working in the field have told me in plain words.

The nepotism in much of Italian Academia is OTOH fairly notorious.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Jeshua ben Ioseph, if he even existed

So, no bias there then ?

"ben Ioseph" is a modern fabrication -- there is no contemporary record of Jesus ever having used that name.

As for "Jeshua", the lingua franca of 1st century Palestine was Greek, not Hebrew nor Aramaic.

It is possible that Jesus' mother tongue was Aramaic, but it is also possible that it was Greek ; it's also possible that Jesus was given a Hebrew name.

As for "if he even existed", his historical existence is attested by the largest number and the oldest copies of texts than any other individual of the early 1st century.

 

[JabbaPapa]

You seem to believe that the pictures in middle-class American churches have some relationship to reality

Well, at least this one was so ridiculous that it gave me the giggles.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Exactly. the Shroud of Chippewa Falls^TM was, in fact, wrapped around a 3-D (roughly hemispherical) surface. Do take a look at the orthographic distortion that is an innate characteristic of wrapping or draping a flat cloth on a rounded surface...see where the ears are? Now have a squint at the TS.

ergo, your methodology inaccurately reproduces the creation of the Shroud image ; ergo why do you bother talking about it ?

What's fascinating is the collective ability to argue two totally contradictory points simultaneously :

1) the Shroud has been completely faithfully reproduced using a sheet of linen, a statue/volunteer and some paint/chemicals

and

2) The Shroud cannot have been reproduced by wrapping a cloth around the body, because when I try that at home I get utterly different results

 

[JabbaPapa]

So: what evidence do you offer to substantiate your implication that Mme. Fleury-Lemburg is incompetent, or that your expertise allows you to cast aspersions upon hers?

I implied no such thing, and I cast no aspersions against her -- these are your own inferences.

I expressed doubts, NOT directed at her personally, about the state of the discipline and its chronic lack of funding.

 

[JabbaPapa]

And then there are Egyptian papyri.

Sorry, I should have excepted papyrus manuscripts, stone inscriptions, and other such texts that are more durable ; Dead Sea Scrolls & etc.

But what's true for most mediaeval manuscripts is also generally true for those from Ancient Rome, Greece, and the Middle East according to information provided to me by colleagues of yours.

I probably stressed "maximum" too much LOL

------------

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that's me up to date on the thread, sorry for monopolising the past two half-pages of it

 

[AdMan]

erm, memory's a bit hazy -- and there are only a bare handful of potential pre-14th century sources IIRC

There's a 10th century (?) iconographic representation in a book (I think ?) of an item very much resembling the Shroud -- but the image is also very small, therefore poorly detailed.

There are a couple of literary accounts describing a Shroud-like object, but their lack of descriptive detail is insufficient for any properly comparative purposes.

And there is *one* mention in Antiquity of a relic held somewhere in the Middle East that could be interpreted as being the Shroud.

Ring any bells ?

No -- I've simply mislaid the URL references to the scientific analysis for the time being.

(I'll try and find links supporting this various stuff later on)

Now that I think about it, I've only ever seen them in a video -- I'd have to do some digging.

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 do NOT understand any of the Chemistry, nor do I pretend so -- but at least I've remembered now that it is the age of the vanillin that is referred to in his dating.

I'm on the trail of it now anyway, and hopefully will be able to link you to the paper in question in the fairly near future.

How is all this searching for actual citations coming along, JP?

 

[Slowvehicle]

So, no bias there then ?

I am of the opinion that, while there likely was an historical person, or several, named ישוע (rendered in Greek as Ἰησοῦς in the NT) the miracle-working son o'god"messiah" (so different from the One prophesied in the OT) is a redaction. There are several threads on the subject here on JREF--you might check them out. Does my opinion constitute "bias"? Gee--I dunno--everyone who could judge how biased I am is working in TV, where the real money is.

"ben Ioseph" is a modern fabrication -- there is no contemporary record of Jesus ever having used that name.

Actually, "ben Ioseph" ( as "son-of Joseph") was in use at least as early as 200 BCE; see משיח בן יוסף. There is no "contemporary record" of Ἰησοῦς using any name.

As for "Jeshua", the lingua franca of 1st century Palestine was Greek, not Hebrew nor Aramaic.

Perhaps you would be so good as to provide sources for this interestingly non-traditional claim.

It is possible that Jesus' mother tongue was Aramaic, but it is also possible that it was Greek ; it's also possible that Jesus was given a Hebrew name.

See above, Ἰησοῦς/ישוע in the NT. Perhaps you do not realize that neither Aramaic nor Greek employed a "J"...

As for "if he even existed", his historical existence is attested by the largest number and the oldest copies of texts than any other individual of the early 1st century.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222141, or any other thread started by DOC...
That horse has been beat to death. While I am prepared to accept that there was likely at least one person who could arguably be referred to as "the historical Ἰησοῦς/ישוע", I find no reason to believe he, or any of them, was/were the 'son' of a 'god' in which I do not believe.

Why is what you believe support for your position, but what I do not believe is "bias"?

If you practice that superstition, so be it--but do not expect me to grant your belief the status of evidence.

 

[Slowvehicle]

ergo, your methodology inaccurately reproduces the creation of the Shroud image ; ergo why do you bother talking about it ?

What's fascinating is the collective ability to argue two totally contradictory points simultaneously :

1) the Shroud has been completely faithfully reproduced using a sheet of linen, a statue/volunteer and some paint/chemicals

and

2) The Shroud cannot have been reproduced by wrapping a cloth around the body, because when I try that at home I get utterly different results

I invite you to demonstrate where I have made either of these claims.
Alternatively, I invite you to accurately identify my position in re the demonstrably medieval artifact in question.

I am sorry for you, that you completely misunderstand the nature and purpose of the Shroud of Chippewa Falls^TM...

 

[Slowvehicle]

I implied no such thing, and I cast no aspersions against her -- these are your own inferences.

I expressed doubts, NOT directed at her personally, about the state of the discipline and its chronic lack of funding.

Your post, #5739:

Having spent some time in the outskirts of the specialist fashion, costume, and fabric University milieu, I have acquired the assumption that it is safer to assume that a specialist working in that field is of dubious competence.

In 90% of cases, the assumption will be accurate.

90%+ of those with ANY degree of skill in the discipline go and work in cinema or TV costume departments, or with the Fashion houses.

You know -- where they have something called money to pay people with.

The research discipline is plagued with microscopic funding, an almost complete lack of facilities, petty in-fighting, and petty jealousies.

In Italy, also, the research positions are provided almost exclusively through nepotism.

 

[AdMan]

Here's a 14th century icon of Christ :

https://www.hermitage.nl/static/media/img/objecten/glans_en_glorie/02.jpg

-- can you kindly extract a 3D model of a human body out of it for me, if it's so easy ? cheers

That is far too tiny an image to do much of anything with.

I'm just an amateur at computer graphics, but here is a 14th-century image of the Virgin napping and a quick-and-rough extraction of the 3D information that the medieval artist somehow managed to include in his painting:

Give me the budget for a History Channel "documentary" and I'll do the same with whatever crappy image you bring me.

 

[JabbaPapa]

How is all this searching for actual citations coming along, JP?

Who shall I listen to --- those clamouring for links, or those berating me because all of this was dealt with extensively between pages 37 and 86 of the thread, or those accusing me of a pile of RUBBISH for having posted some links ?

 

[JabbaPapa]

Your post, #5739:

Yep, see ?

No mention of her name.

Generals and particulars are different.

 

[Craig B]

So, no bias there then ?

"ben Ioseph" is a modern fabrication -- there is no contemporary record of Jesus ever having used that name.

As for "Jeshua", the lingua franca of 1st century Palestine was Greek, not Hebrew nor Aramaic.

It is possible that Jesus' mother tongue was Aramaic, but it is also possible that it was Greek ; it's also possible that Jesus was given a Hebrew name.

As for "if he even existed", his historical existence is attested by the largest number and the oldest copies of texts than any other individual of the early 1st century.

That last bit is fantastic. It's not the number of copies of a text that corroborate each other, but the number of independent sources. Jesus is not noticed by contemporary writers, like Philo or Justus. The reference in Josephus is almost unquestionably a later interpolation. The gospels disagree on the facts of his birth and death. He is in short very poorly attested, though he may have existed as a peripatetic apocalyptic preacher.

Whatever the lingua franca of the area may have been, the common local language was Aramaic, and the gospels make Jesus speak in that language, and quote Psalms 22:1 in the Aramaic version. He may have had some knowledge of Greek, but we are not explicitly told this in the gospels. And indeed he may not have existed at all, though I am inclined to believe he did.

 

[Humanzee]

How about just make your case?

 

[AdMan]

Who shall I listen to --- those clamouring for links, or those berating me because all of this was dealt with extensively between pages 37 and 86 of the thread, or those accusing me of a pile of RUBBISH for having posted some links ?

1. Read the thread.
2. Find and post the citations you promised, assuming they weren't dealt with earlier in the thread.
3. Also exclude the rubbish links (especially the History Channel).