• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Turin Shroud: The Image of Edessa created in c. 300-400 AD?

Slowvehicle said:
However, you really ought to read the "Miracle of the Shroud" threads before you simply re-submit something that has been examined to exhaustion.
Click to expand...

after all, that soap opera totals less than 25000 posts, a cakewalk ;)
 
Any arguments that contain the phrase "who's to say?' automatically set-off my BS meter.
[.../...]
 
Who said anything about arguments? Sure, they can be entertaining and occasionally informative argument on sites such as this. But science, cutting-edge science that is, is more than argument. The progress of science depends on the formulating and testing of hypotheses, on refining those hypotheses in the light of new data, and occasionally having to abandon one's pet hypothesis and returning to square 1. Communing one-to-one with one's own data frequently plays a more important part than "argument", whether with colleagues or as here on public access forums and other websites.

Where does the original, revised or rehashed hypothesis come from in the first place? From imagination, blue-sky thinking, call it what you want, but one thing's for certain. The preamble "who's to say?" plays a vital, often obligatory role in stepping aside from existing confusion, contradictions, uncertainty or received wisdom and seeking out entirely new and original approaches, "going boldly etc etc" as per Star Trek.

Can someone enlighten this newbie on what light the thousands, nay tens of thousands of previous comments have thrown on the Shroud and/or its claimed 'early sightings'?

Personally, I consider the first sighting of the Shroud's distinctive two-fold head-to-head body image was the Lirey Pilgrim's badge, circa mid 1350s, with the twin Geoffroy de Charny/Jeanne de Vergy coats of arms. I would need a lot of convincing to believe it was the the much earlier Image of Edessa/Mandylion etc conveniently doubled-up 4 times ("tetradiplon") so that only the framed face was visible, as per Wilson's thesis, with an entire double-body imprint tucked out of sight. There would surely have been mention of the bloodstains etc, especially the distinctive reversed 3 on the forehead,long trickles in the hair etc to make clear that the image was post-crucifixion, or at any rate post-placement of crown of thorns, as distinct from a Veronica-style face-only pre-crucifixion imprint that is generally assumed or implied.
 
Meccanoman, the initial thought the shroud was made was for a easter shroud , as a decoration. You can find it explained multi threads with example of other such clothes used as decoration for easter tabernacle.

The forgery part comes only when it started to be taken as the shroud of jesus.
 
Really? That's hardly the take-away message one gets from that recently-discovered Machy mould for a variant of the Lirey Pilgrim's badge, with its Veronica-like face of Jesus, accompanied by the word SUAIRE. That means "shroud' in medieval French, and is/was generally taken to mean "burial shroud" (leading to much misunderstanding in my opinion as to its real intended purpose as a temporary body-wrap en route from cross to tomb). Be that as it may, I fail to see how a single sheet of linen deployed in up-and-over mode to envelope an entire body, one especially that bears faithful-to-Gospel-bloodstains that imply death by THE Crucifixion, can usefully be described as "clothes" , whether for use in some kind of Easter ceremony or not. In any case, why go to all that trouble for a tiny private chapel way off the beaten track in rural Champagne, especially given the manufacture of at least one, probably two pilgrim's badges designed to attract folk from far and wide to that remote location, with supporting documentary evidence of those early public exhibitions from that celebrated if much maligned Pierre d'Arcis (Bishop of Troyes) memorandum.

That alleged role in some kind of once-a-year-only Easter ritual strikes me as a big distraction from the real pertinent facts, one I suspect that's being/been used to prop up the chemically-illiterate notion that the Shroud image is "just a painting". No it's not - it's a highly subtle contact imprint (thus the image-superficiality, confined to the crowns of the threads, the negative, tone-reversed character, the typical imprint-type response to 3D-rendering software, the absence of solid inorganic paint pigments, the bleachability of the image by diimide consistent with a complex organic chromophore (melanoidins?) containing conjugated double bonds etc etc.
 
catsmate said:
The shroud is a medieval fabrication, this is well.supported by the evidence.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a medieval copy of the original shroud. The one we have now is the touring copy; Jesus' original burial cloth remains hidden.
 
So what if the Shroud of Turin was created in 300-400 AD?

If this is actually the case (which is quite unlikely), then it still does not mean that the Shroud of Turin was actually a shroud that was used by Jesus.
 
Aepervius said:
Firstly if you look at the image, it does look more like the representation somebody of the epoch and not from the region would think Jesus look like , he looks Caucasian to me.

Secondly, carbon 14.

Thirdly, it does not even look like the shroud.

There is really nothing here to think, I think this was even discussed to death in the shroud thread.
Click to expand...

No. Firstly, carbon 14. And you don't need second.
 
meccanoman said:
Really? That's hardly the take-away message one gets from that recently-discovered Machy mould for a variant of the Lirey Pilgrim's badge, with its Veronica-like face of Jesus, accompanied by the word SUAIRE. That means "shroud' in medieval French, and is/was generally taken to mean "burial shroud" (leading to much misunderstanding in my opinion as to its real intended purpose as a temporary body-wrap en route from cross to tomb). Be that as it may, I fail to see how a single sheet of linen deployed in up-and-over mode to envelope an entire body, one especially that bears faithful-to-Gospel-bloodstains that imply death by THE Crucifixion, can usefully be described as "clothes" , whether for use in some kind of Easter ceremony or not. In any case, why go to all that trouble for a tiny private chapel way off the beaten track in rural Champagne, especially given the manufacture of at least one, probably two pilgrim's badges designed to attract folk from far and wide to that remote location, with supporting documentary evidence of those early public exhibitions from that celebrated if much maligned Pierre d'Arcis (Bishop of Troyes) memorandum.
Click to expand...

You seem to be suggesting that the CIQ is, in fact, a piece of cloth that was, in one way or another, actually in contact with the christ-'god', with all the assumptions that entails. Am I wrong?

meccanoman said:
That alleged role in some kind of once-a-year-only Easter ritual strikes me as a big distraction from the real pertinent facts, one I suspect that's being/been used to prop up the chemically-illiterate notion that the Shroud image is "just a painting". No it's not - it's a highly subtle contact imprint (thus the image-superficiality, confined to the crowns of the threads, the negative, tone-reversed character, the typical imprint-type response to 3D-rendering software, the absence of solid inorganic paint pigments, the bleachability of the image by diimide consistent with a complex organic chromophore (melanoidins?) containing conjugated double bonds etc etc.
Click to expand...

The "alleged" role as a banner has been discussed with support, in the "Miracle of the Shroud" thread(s).

However, you touch on my personal hobby horse:

The "faithful-to-the-gospel" "bloodstains" are, demonstrably, NOT blood or blood products; further, they are hyper-real; that is, they look as they would look had they been over-faithfully applied by someone who knew what they thought the "bloodstains" ought to look like. The hyperprecision of the "dumbell" scourge-marks is but one example.

A more telling problem is the anatomical inaccuracy (not to mention the postural impossibility) of the cartoon.

JFG, may I inquire after your qualifications in art, and chemistry, and chemical art issues?
 
"You seem to be suggesting that the CIQ is, in fact, a piece of cloth that was, in one way or another, actually in contact with the christ-'god', with all the assumptions that entails. Am I wrong?"

Yup. The TS is an imprint from a medieval-era human volunteer, possibly two simultaneously (one for frontal, one for dorsal), though probably with a bas relief for the face, as conceded by Prof. Luigi Garlaschelli in his powder-frottage model.

"The "faithful-to-the-gospel" "bloodstains" are, demonstrably, NOT blood or blood products; further, they are hyper-real; that is, they look as they would look had they been over-faithfully applied by someone who knew what they thought the "bloodstains" ought to look like. The hyperprecision of the "dumbell" scourge-marks is but one example."


Agreed.

"JFG, may I inquire after your qualifications in art, and chemistry, and chemical art issues?"

Nope, but you're allowed to speculate. ;-)
 
meccanoman said:
"You seem to be suggesting that the CIQ is, in fact, a piece of cloth that was, in one way or another, actually in contact with the christ-'god', with all the assumptions that entails. Am I wrong?"

Yup. The TS is an imprint from a medieval-era human volunteer, possibly two simultaneously (one for frontal, one for dorsal), though probably with a bas relief for the face, as conceded by Prof. Luigi Garlaschelli in his powder-frottage model.
Click to expand...

OK: so, no implication about the actual existence of any kind of 'god'. Good.

meccanoman said:
"The "faithful-to-the-gospel" "bloodstains" are, demonstrably, NOT blood or blood products; further, they are hyper-real; that is, they look as they would look had they been over-faithfully applied by someone who knew what they thought the "bloodstains" ought to look like. The hyperprecision of the "dumbell" scourge-marks is but one example."


Agreed.
Click to expand...

Good. A votary artifact, not a relic of the crucifiction of any actual 'god'.

meccanoman said:
"JFG, may I inquire after your qualifications in art, and chemistry, and chemical art issues?"

Nope, but you're allowed to speculate. ;-)
Click to expand...

Ah. Coyness. Good. No actual qualifications, then.

This really, really ought to be merged in with the other "Shroud" threads...

ETA: the "Quote" button, lower right, lets you quote words and preserve the identity of the original author. It helps avoid confusion...
 
Last edited:
What makes you think specialists in this or that have the answer?

Slowvehicle said:
Ah. Coyness. Good. No actual qualifications, then.


One can only speculate as to who created the Shroud, how they made it, precisely when they made it, why they made it. What's more the image characteristics are totally unique, often described as 'enigmatic'. Scores, maybe hundreds of experts, armed with sophisticated instrumentation, have failed to produce a chemical formula for the Shroud body image, or the precise chemical composition of that unblood-like "blood" that stays permanently red and lacks a typical porphyrin spectrum (Adler and Heller).

So why bother asking for a commentator's qualifications in this or that? How can you be so certain they would have any bearing on something that is a total mystery?

Why not stick to discussing the issues? If you have reason to doubt what I or others say, then the onus is surely on you to consult specialists and/or experts
of your choosing whom you consider might have relevant expertise.
Click to expand...
 
meccanoman said:
........If you have reason to doubt what I or others say, then the onus is surely on you to consult specialists and/or experts
of your choosing whom you consider might have relevant expertise.
Click to expand...

Oh no, no, no. The burden is on those making the claim. If you can't back up your claim, the sensible will consider it null and void. It couldn't be any other way, otherwise you would have to be seeking proof that there isn't a pink unicorn farting star-dust as it orbits the earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom