Scientists Say Shroud of Turin Shows Jesus Was Crucified in 'Very Painful' Position

reply to post by DeadSeraph


The only argument that I see, is that there is no proof that the shroud is a forgery and that there is no proof that there is not. Which is the same argument that we have for God, no proof either way.

Those that want to believe, believe. Those that need convincing are not convinced.

windword
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

The only argument that I see, is that there is no proof that the shroud is a forgery and that there is no proof that there is not. Which is the same argument that we have for God, no proof either way.

Those that want to believe, believe. Those that need convincing are not convinced.

Exactly what I was trying to point out, while also making the correction that those who have automatically determined the shroud to be a medieval forgery based on previous carbon dating data, have done so in error, since the results have since been invalidated.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Invalidated because the sample provided by the Vatican, conveniently came from a piece of (new) patch. And now, the whole shroud has been tainted so that no testing can be done at all.

Very convenient!

personally...

I think the 'shroud' is a intentionally created 'relic'
perhaps one of the Illuminated artists/Renaissance Masters of the time
took a freshly deceased corpse and did a series of desecrations-to-the-body
in a fiendish display of presenting to the masses a relic of the important crucifixion of Jesus

it would have took an enlightened person with anatomy-medical-artistic knowledge and skill to
#1 obtain the fresh corpse even before it was buried/ or had rigormortis set in
#2 the corpse had fresh blood, no other telltale scars or wounds to betray the ruse
#3 the perp. quickly and adroitly lashed/scourged the body & head with lacerations & punctured the hands/feet
... then quickly laid a oiled & anointed shroud around the corpse to capture the bloodstains of a 'crucified' man..
the bloody image would be hailed as a 'relic'...

but over the ages (perhaps more than 200 years before Da Vinci even) the Iconic shroud of a bloody torso would have mostly crumbled/disintegrated away...leaving only the ghostly shadows of the past matted pools & streaks of dried blood...

the remaining image is accidental and not purposefully contrived by that long ago Agent... an Agent for the Faith who got carried away in his quest to inspire-the-masses of the Church of Rome...
perhaps the 'Artist' was trying to also rectify/mediate the past excesses done during the Inquisition by the clergy/Church...
perhaps he 'rationalized' too much and his macabre desecration of a human corpse will finally come to light---to his detriment



just a free association session, thanks

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Just to reiterate with some extra copypasta -

Technical Problems

- No examples of complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave. In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized — and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus — multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face:
“”Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself...
—John 20:1:6, King James Version

- For a shroud that was supposedly wrapped around the body of Christ, the lack of wraparound distortions across the torso, thighs, and legs is striking - the figure does not satisfy the geometric conditions of contact formation.

- There are also claims of "bloodstains" on the cloth, but Hebrew law dictated cleansing of the corpse before wrapping and bodies don't bleed after death. Chemist Walter McCrone identified the substance as a "combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint." However only fibrils lifted from the shroud on sticky tape were tested for blood (This was done in order to avoid damaging the cloth). It should be pointed out though that the color observed was still an unfaded red, which would not be expected of real blood, which browns with age. Dr M. M. Baden, a pathologist, pointed out the blood trickles from the scalp are evidence of forgery, on the ground that blood from a scalp wound does not flow in rivulets but mats the hair.[1]

Rational Wiki: The Shroud of Turin

Face up to reality. Regardless of what the pope says, this thing is an obvious - obvious - forgery. Just engage the grey matter for a second - the mere fact that you can't wrap a body in linen and produce an image like that which is free of the distortions of wrapping should put the matter to rest right there.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

 

Just to reiterate with some extra copypasta -

Technical Problems

- No examples of complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave. In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized — and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus — multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face:
“”Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself...
—John 20:1:6, King James Version

- For a shroud that was supposedly wrapped around the body of Christ, the lack of wraparound distortions across the torso, thighs, and legs is striking - the figure does not satisfy the geometric conditions of contact formation.

- There are also claims of "bloodstains" on the cloth, but Hebrew law dictated cleansing of the corpse before wrapping and bodies don't bleed after death. Chemist Walter McCrone identified the substance as a "combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint." However only fibrils lifted from the shroud on sticky tape were tested for blood (This was done in order to avoid damaging the cloth). It should be pointed out though that the color observed was still an unfaded red, which would not be expected of real blood, which browns with age. Dr M. M. Baden, a pathologist, pointed out the blood trickles from the scalp are evidence of forgery, on the ground that blood from a scalp wound does not flow in rivulets but mats the hair.[1]

Rational Wiki: The Shroud of Turin

Face up to reality. Regardless of what the pope says, this thing is an obvious - obvious - forgery. Just engage the grey matter for a second - the mere fact that you can't wrap a body in linen and produce an image like that which is free of the distortions of wrapping should put the matter to rest right there.

Everyone has their "sources" but the fact is nobody can prove or disprove the shroud of turin.....yet. Here's just one example about "sources".

greatshroudofturinfaq.com...
Pieces of herringbone cloth has been found in the ancient Hallstatt salt mines near present-day Vienna among the mummified remains of a Celtic people dating back about four centuries before Christ. Other herringbone cloth, made from horsehair, has been found in Ireland dating from possibly as early as the arrival of Celtic people on the island around 600 B.C. Besides, herringbone, other complicated twill patterns going back to at least 200 B.C. and probably earlier have been found with mummies discovered in the Tarim Basin in present-day Xinjiang, China.

reply to post by AreUKiddingMe


Sources, schmources... You don't need anything more than your own brain to figure this one out. Imagine a person covered in ink. Imagine wrapping them in a white sheet. Now imagine unwrapping the sheet - the image pressed onto the sheet will be distorted due to the geometry of wrapping the sheet around a body.

It really isn't rocket science..

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Except it wasn't ink/dye/paint that created the image, or the case would be closed.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Supposedly it was blood, that's what you are driving at? In which case - no difference. The concept is exactly the same.

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Not blood, no. There is blood on the shroud, but the image itself remains a mystery as to how it was generated. We know it's not paint,ink,dye, etc. and that's about it. There are some wild theories out there (like the earthquake theory, or that the image was generated from a burst of radiation of some sort) but at the end of the day nobody knows how it was created. Even if it's a hoax (which so far can't be proven), nobody can say how it was done. It remains a mystery at present.

I don't think the debate will ever be put to rest until the vatican allows scientists access to the shroud for further analysis. The fact they haven't done so could be viewed as a red flag by itself, I suppose.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Of course it's a red flag. It's in their interests to keep this buzz going as long as possible.

Basically whatever method you think was used to place the image into the shroud - if we accept it was a natural physical process associated with a death shroud, then it happened when the shroud was wrapped around the body. Any image created in this way will show as distorted when the shroud is flattened out.

But of course it's not distorted, which is evidence that the image was created while the shroud was spread flat.

if, on the other hand, you suggest the image was created by some magical non-physical or supernatural process, then you have descended into the realm of special pleading in order to justify your faith in this obvious - obvious - pious fraud.

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Firstly, I neither acknowledge nor deny this particular fabric was placed upon the body of Yeshua, as I do not know. But it seems to me that you are ducking what has been said and using some non factual information to support your theory that it is a fraud. Then when someone clearly shows this to you, you brush it off as if it is inconsequential. If it is inconsequential, than why use it to support your theory in the first place?

Let me ask this, if this fabric was not supposed to be a representation of Yeshua, would you be so adamant in attacking it? As your title indicates, you have some type of dislike for Christianity. Your tagline talks about pseudoscience and the like, as if you alone disproved all non scientific understanding. How do you reason that most of the highly regarded scientific minds of the history of man have been unable to explain the clear and defined clues to a designer in our existence and have resorted to believing that in fact a G-d does exist, if not a Christian one? Would you also declare them illogical while not considering your own lack of understanding? My faith has come not from a heart to believe, although that aspect of me has grown. It comes from analytical desire to understand. Men have studied this cloth and have not been able to find a reason for the image to be there. That was the statement made which you have danced around. What the OP is saying has to do with his desire for understanding. What you have done leans more towards emotionally driven agitation. If you hate christianity, that is fine. But talking about blood being washed off, than arguing that a body covered in ink would be yadda yadda clearly shows you are not thinking this through and are more likely just trolling. Stop pretending to be soooo intelligent. Your own words betray you.

Cmessier
I wonder, and this is a general question to all of you, since the authenticity of the shroud is up for debate in this thread, what you think of the Sudarium of Oviedo?

Let me say, I am a Christian. I believe the bible is the word of God. I believe Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, my saviour, walked this earth 2000 years ago. I believe he was crucified under Pilate, died, and ressurected and in doing so paid the price for my selfishness and sin. I DO NOT NEED THE SHROUD TO BE REAL TO BELIEVE ANY OF THAT.

Having said that, I am still utterly fascinated by the shroud. I think the carbon 14 dating is a major drawaback, but not the final word on authenticity. I think there is much evidence that the shroud is indeed older than the 1300s. The correlation between markings on its face and on the background and known earlier art has been demonstrated almost, IMO, unarguably. The three circular defects apparent on the shroud are also visible in artwork known to be significantly older than the shroud has been carbon dated to. It's compelling evidence that the C-14 dating is inaccurate. (If I could find the reference, I'd link it. I'll look around, once I do I will put it here. Been a while since I read it.)

The Sudarium matches up eerily well with the shroud. It, too, has been dated to an earlier period than the Shroud (though only about 150 years if I recall correctly, and if one chooses to accept the C14 dating as inarguable).

What I also find quite interesting is that the Gospel mentions the apostles seeing the items in the tomb. One burial cloth (shroud) and one item that covered the face (sudarium). Why mention both of these things? There is, of course, no mention of any image....but clearly, someone thought them significant. Keep in mind, in Jewish culture these items would have been considered unclean. But yet, the Gospel of John makes note of them. Why did they take on significance? The way they're mentioned makes sense to me. Notable, but not venerable. Since most non-catholic Christians have the mindset that only Christ is to be adored and worshiped, we do not ascribe anything holy to the objects themselves associated with him. Yet, they ARE fascinating. This same attitude seems to be present when these items are first mentioned; interesting, but not holy.

Then there is the question of - if it IS a forgery, then HOW did it come to be? Most forgeries are readily apparent. Look at the supposed Veronica's veil. One glance at that and we know. And yet, the shroud presents us with mystery even IF we choose to believe that it is medieval.

So...thoughts on the correlation between the Shroud and Sudarium? Do skeptics believe that the markings match so well merely by coincidence? [/quote



The Sudarium of Oviedo is strong evidence validating the Shroud as Jesus burial cloth.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by AreUKiddingMe

 

Sources, schmources... You don't need anything more than your own brain to figure this one out. Imagine a person covered in ink. Imagine wrapping them in a white sheet. Now imagine unwrapping the sheet - the image pressed onto the sheet will be distorted due to the geometry of wrapping the sheet around a body.

It really isn't rocket science..

This^^^ So simple!

(Knocks palm against forehead and muses "I could'v had a V-8!)

reply to post by pleasethink

Posted by pleasethink
Firstly, I neither acknowledge nor deny this particular fabric was placed upon the body of Yeshua, as I do not know. But it seems to me that you are ducking what has been said and using some non factual information to support your theory that it is a fraud. Then when someone clearly shows this to you, you brush it off as if it is inconsequential. If it is inconsequential, than why use it to support your theory in the first place?

Please think, pleasethink, because you're completely missing the point.


Here's the Point...




.............. here's you

It matters not one naughty nun's nipple what stain - whether it be ink or bodily fluid or ground up beetles or grapefruit juice or soy sauce or what-ever-freaking-fluid-you-want-to-use- is used. A stamp is a stamp, and that's what we are, essentially, talking about here. Yes, the Shroud of Gullibility is, in effect, a Jesus Stamp.

Or rather, what was left by stampy Jesus.

I used ink in my thought experiment, but if it makes you feel any better, replace it with blood. What's the difference? Hmm? Seriously, from the point of view of making a stamp, show me how it is any different.

Let me ask this, if this fabric was not supposed to be a representation of Yeshua, would you be so adamant in attacking it?

It would depend what kind of baggage and associated nuttery went with the claim. With this claim, there comes a whole crapload of baggage - and the associated nuttery, well it's off the scale.

As your title indicates, you have some type of dislike for Christianity. Your tagline talks about pseudoscience and the like, as if you alone disproved all non scientific understanding. How do you reason that most of the highly regarded scientific minds of the history of man have been unable to explain the clear and defined clues to a designer in our existence and have resorted to believing that in fact a G-d does exist, if not a Christian one? Would you also declare them illogical while not considering your own lack of understanding?

Your ridiculous argument is nothing but a vacuous appeal to authority and to antiquity, almost as obviously vacuous as the shroud itself.

For much of history it has been heresy, frequently under the threat of being burnt at the stake or some other charming punishment, to speak of anything other than a god as being responsible for the beauty and diversity of the world we see around us. No wonder very few have challenged the religious status quo in the past.

And being intelligent does not necessarily correlate to making intelligent choices. In fact, it is far easier for intelligent people to fool themselves into believing claptrap - since they are much better at rationalizing away inconsistencies in their own thinking.

My faith has come not from a heart to believe, although that aspect of me has grown. It comes from analytical desire to understand. Men have studied this cloth and have not been able to find a reason for the image to be there. That was the statement made which you have danced around.

I couldn't give a bugger about people who have studied it being unable to find a reason - as stated above this is nothing but a worthless appeal to authority. I'm certainly not skirting the issue - since you don't have a decent argument to begin with.

You are also shifting the burden of proof - the supporters and proponents of the Shroud of Gullibility, i.e those making the claim in the affirmative, have never proven their case.

What the OP is saying has to do with his desire for understanding. What you have done leans more towards emotionally driven agitation. If you hate christianity, that is fine. But talking about blood being washed off, than arguing that a body covered in ink would be yadda yadda clearly shows you are not thinking this through and are more likely just trolling. Stop pretending to be soooo intelligent. Your own words betray you.

Please explain how using blood changes anything. If you prefer, substitute blood for ink. As I have said it makes no difference.

Your entire post is a great example of the ignorance and the overreach of the zealous maniacs who inhabit this place, and I think you may possibly have the most ironic username I have ever seen..

Double post

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Well if you were paying close attention, I referred to you at first stating that Jews would wash the body so that no blood would be able to be transmitted. Then you stated that a body full of ink would distort the image. This appears to everyone(but yourself,apparently) to contradict your own argument you made previously. Also, as I stated, I do not know if it is Yeshuas or not. And to associate insanity with Christianity is a limited view point which is not really based upon logical thought and more of an attacking nature. And anyone who has read the Bible knows that what was done during the inquisition was not done by Christians, but by sinful men masquerading in their place. So what I said has been proven, by your own words. Thanks for the support.

reply to post by pleasethink

And anyone who has read the Bible knows that what was done during the inquisition was not done by Christians, but by sinful men masquerading in their place.

Wait.


What?

There is nothing in the Bible about the Inquisition. There have forever been people killing for their faith, and shushing those who disagree. You can't deny the Inquisition happened. (ETA: Most notably for purposes of speaking of the Bible, St Paul/Saul of Tarsus, who was a bona fide Christian prosecutor/persecutor before his 'conversion' - rather similar to Constantine, wouldn't you say? Woudn't you agree?)

But perhaps you're saying that those things were later history, which is true.

Therefore, those events are not in the Bible, but lots of genocide is. What the Catholic church did after the 'Bible' was compiled is not contained in it, no. But the history is still there. Inquisition, Witch-hunts, forced 'conversions', all of it.
It happened.

reply to post by pleasethink
Well if you were paying close attention, I referred to you at first stating that Jews would wash the body so that no blood would be able to be transmitted. Then you stated that a body full of ink would distort the image. This appears to everyone(but yourself,apparently) to contradict your own argument you made previously.

You are taking issue, essentially with these 2 points and declaring them contradictions -

Posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

- For a shroud that was supposedly wrapped around the body of Christ, the lack of wraparound distortions across the torso, thighs, and legs is striking - the figure does not satisfy the geometric conditions of contact formation.

- There are also claims of "bloodstains" on the cloth, but Hebrew law dictated cleansing of the corpse before wrapping and bodies don't bleed after death. Chemist Walter McCrone identified the substance as a "combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint

Okay, I think I understand what you are driving at. However, these are precisely the type of 'that doesn't add up..' kind of observations one would expect with a pious fraud.

If we are looking at it as an actual shroud to a dead body, then yes it appears contradictory in the sense that there was supposedly no blood or bleeding, yet we have this image.

Now if I was trying to make the point that the Shroud of Gullibility was a legit image left by a corpse on a burial shroud, yes you could say this fact contradicts that argument.

Looking at it from the point of view of it being a hoax, however, this is just another sign that this thing is a fake.

The contradiction isn't one that disproves the argument, but rather it makes it. It's just another in a litany of 'things that don't add up' about the shroud.

Posted by pleasethink
And to associate insanity with Christianity is a limited view point which is not really based upon logical thought and more of an attacking nature.

Well, to me it seems pretty crazy. However, I understand that sane people can hold insane positions so in most cases it's just a little personal delusion rather than full blown insanity.

I am reminded of the words of Sam Harris -

"While believing strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in any other area of our lives, faith in God still holds immense prestige in our society. Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about. It is telling that this aura of nobility extends only to those faiths that still have many subscribers. Anyone caught worshipping Poseidon, even at sea, will be thought insane.”

― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Posted by pleasethink
And anyone who has read the Bible knows that what was done during the inquisition was not done by Christians, but by sinful men masquerading in their place.

Here's another thought experiment. Imagine you have a time machine. Actually, imagine that you have a TARDIS (which as all Doctor Who fans will know will also translate foreign languages for you). Now imagine travelling back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition. Imagine walking up to the Grand Inquisitor and his entourage and saying, in his native tongue "You are not a Christian".

Can you imagine what his response might be? Whatever it would be I think he would use the medium of a red hot poker to communicate it to you.

The point is that a) You are using the No True Scotsman Fallacy and b) that the Inquisitors certainly thought themselves christians whether you do or not.

In fact, the Spanish Inquisition combined with the other 2 great Inquisitions, the Roman Inquisition and the Portuguese Inquisition are collectively known as "The Christian Inquisitions".

Posted by pleasethink
So what I said has been proven, by your own words.

Not in the slightest, but I admire your sheer audacity in the face of impossible odds..

Posted by pleasethink
Thanks for the support.

Anytime.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


You are missing the point. What the Bible teaches people entirely contradicts the actions which happened during the inquisition. I never denied it happened. I said it was not by true Christians, as they would not have involved themselves in the wholesale slaughter of anyone, no matter their faith, as one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill". Clearly anyone participating in the torture and murder of people was not doing it from a Christian point of view, but I would imagine it was done in a more political fashion, which is similar to what Yeshua reached about the Pharisees.