The latest on the Shroud of Turin - just in time for Good Friday and Easter

5,863 Views | 63 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by LCE
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here is a rebuttal to the dating. As you can see by the images, there is a definite discoloration there, both visually and especially in the imaging. The original agreement was to take it from several different areas. The team that came in to date very clearly violated that agreement. Maybe somewhere there are documents showing the change was agreed to, but the team at STURP said this was in violation to the agreement. while I hope they redo this soon, you can see why there may be hesitancy. Personally I hope they redo it ASAP, but one of the most frustrating things as a Catholic is how slow the church moves. And they move slow for good reason. When they move fast (like changes to the mass in the 70s) it tends to be a disaster. Additionally, everything I've seen from the labs that did the research says "were right, they're wrong and we have no desire to re-open this". They aren't exactly beating their chests to disprove challengers.



https://shroudstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/corners.pdf

Something not becoming popular in Christianity until the 14th century doesn't bother me at all. Argument of absence. And as catag has suggested, there are earlier references. There is a corresponding face cloth that has mentions going back to the 600s.

https://www.simplycatholic.com/face-cloth-of-jesus-burial-the-sudarium-of-oviedo/

It's true that pigment is not found. The source you cited is the only man who has come to this conclusion, and I can't find any other studies corroborating his claim. You can reference this review of the experiment ran that has created the most accurate recreation to date. The man who conducted the experiment states that his experiment invalidates the shroud and he specifically mentions "after the pigment is washed away". He acknowledges the final product is pigment free (second to last paragraph)

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf

The height makes absolutely no difference to me. The average American male is 5'9. When you see a 6'2-6'3 guy, are you blown away by his height or just see him as a kind of tall guy? My 6'6 cousin certainly catches a lot of attention, but his 6'2 brother (yes, also my cousin obviously) doesn't seem to.

The average Mexican male is 5'2. You've certainly met plenty of Mexican males in Mexico (if you've gone) or immigrants here in Texas that are 5'6-5'8. They likely don't strike you as extraordinary. I've already demonstrated that the Roman army had a 5'10 requirement at one time. That obviously meant that at least a decent number of people could reach that height. Even when they lowered it to increase numbers, it was 5'8. Jesus being 5'9-5'11 wouldn't be some crazy giant guy, no different than a 6'3 guy is today.

Lastly on the height, an average of 5'5 doesn't mean his followers were all 5'5. If they were, I'd agree seeing the one 5'11 guy would be odd. For all we know Jesus had a secret height requirement of his own (mostly joking here), but I think it's fair to at least assume they would be a variety of heights, and as such, Jesus wouldn't be standing 6 inches over each and every one of them. I've always heard the Judas thing was more of like the witness on the stand pointing at the accused. It's not really necessary but it's a step towards identifying the accused as guilty to the Romans who lowly had never seen Jesus.

If for the facial features you are referencing the small forehead, then I misunderstood originally. Refer back to link 4. Notice how much of the hair part you see in the original vs the recreation. His neck is bent forward due to his hanging on the cross, and yes, rigor mortis. Here is a model created from the shroud (about the 30 second mark). Note his head and neck position. This is why he would appear to have such a short forehead.



Long hair is relative, but generally speaking in Jewish culture women would have LONG hair (and Paul was referring to not having womanly hair). And I've seen that Jesus rendering before. They used one skull and what scholars believe the standard hair style of the time was. That is literally like taking one (insert race here) guy from America and saying "this is what (insert race here) looked like in America in the 2020s". It would be helpful in getting a picture but it's not a snapshot or anything. Your typical white guy today probably has fairly short hair, but you would say a guy has abnormally long hair for a man until it's pretty dang long. I can think of several reasons why his hair would appear longer than normal after his crucifixion (matted with sweat and blood? Washed and anointed with oil? The helmet of thorns pressing the side down further than his regular curly hair would appear?). Or maybe it's not Jesus, but I don't think it's mere art.

As for rigor mortis, look at the knees and the ankles. Look at the neck angle that explains the appearance of a short forehead. His thumbs are missing because the way the nails entered the hands and wrists would have retracted the thumb. Think about hanging dead on a cross and how your arms would look. A slight bend at the elbows that you might not be able to straighten out would explain why his elbows appear to be in an odd position. And while the scientific phase of rigor mortis may take up to 8 hours to set in fully, the body stiffness last for days. In a cold environment (say a cave?) it can last longer.

And it likely took at least a couple hours to get him down. Even if he left the second Jesus died (unlikely) Joseph had to walk about a kilometer to Pilate and ask for the body. Pilate then asked for confirmation, so someone had to walk to Golgotha. They then had to walk back to Pilate to say "yah, he's dead". Let's say Pilate didn't deliberate on the particulars at all (standard was to let them hang for awhile as an example to others so allowing him to come down right away is unusual) and gave Joseph an immediate yes, Joseph then had to walk back, find help, have the centurions lower the cross and remove Jesus. Rigor mortis could easily lock led him into the state that gravity dictated: a state with ankles in a weird position, knees bent, neck bent and slightly bent elbows.

If it obviously art, I can't wait for modern science to explain all of the complexities, because as of today, we've only had one experiment get even remotely close to doing what this supposed forger would have done with far less at his disposal. In addition, the bodily posture the forger would have chosen shows a higher than average knowledge of crucifixion and how the body would have become locked into such an abnormal pose after death.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/150417-shroud-turin-relics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science?loggedin=true&rnd=1681144418142

Even if this is just art, it's one of these greatest pieces of art of all time
Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Reproducing the shroud with no brush strokes, pigment, or modern tech. Here's how it could have been done with a bas relief base.

Sorry for terrible link…. It's a Smithsonian channel YouTube clip.
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So, for those who believe the shroud is real, so you believe this cloth was stretched out taut over the top of where he laid canopy style? Because that's how it would have needed to be in order to make such a straight on projection instead of being wrapped around him in 3D.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ol_Ag_02 said:



Reproducing the shroud with no brush strokes, pigment, or modern tech. Here's how it could have been done with a bas relief base.

Sorry for terrible link…. It's a Smithsonian channel YouTube clip.


This guy is as close as it's come so far. He's why I say even if it's just art, this is an amazing piece of cloth. The forger would have done something no other human had ever done with a technique no one had ever heard of. Granted this guy is not an artist, but the shroud is far more impressive in its accuracy. It's incredible whether real or fake.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Let's break this up by subject so it doesn't get never ending. This one is so obviously wrong to me, I'll start here, if you can't see the flaws in the rigor mortis argument, we will be at an impasse early:


Quote:

f for the facial features you are referencing the small forehead, then I misunderstood originally. Refer back to link 4. Notice how much of the hair part you see in the original vs the recreation. His neck is bent forward due to his hanging on the cross, and yes, rigor mortis. Here is a model created from the shroud (about the 30 second mark). Note his head and neck position. This is why he would appear to have such a short forehead.
This is literally backward. Looking down increases your forehead and lowers your eyes. The image has eyes way too high for human anatomy. You can prove this to yourself just looking in the mirror and moving your head up and down. When you look down your chin lowers, your eyes and nose lower and the distance between your eyes and the top of your head increases. When you look up your chin raises, your neck exposes, your nostrils grow larger, nose points up, eyes move up, and the distance between your eyes and the top of your head decreases. For your argument to work he would have been trapped in rigor with his head pointed toward the sky for 3 days-even still that doesn't work because the rest of his head isn't' pointed up, it's just drawn wrong. You can tell looking at a head if its pointed up down or level.

Quote:


As for rigor mortis, look at the knees and the ankles. Look at the neck angle that explains the appearance of a short forehead. His thumbs are missing because the way the nails entered the hands and wrists would have retracted the thumb. Think about hanging dead on a cross and how your arms would look. A slight bend at the elbows that you might not be able to straighten out would explain why his elbows appear to be in an odd position. And while the scientific phase of rigor mortis may take up to 8 hours to set in fully, the body stiffness last for days. In a cold environment (say a cave?) it can last longer.

This is just completely backwards, as noted above you've got the results of looking down switched it lowers the eyes not raises them. As for Rigor, you are operating on common misconceptions.

"In humans, rigor mortis can occur as soon as four hours after death. Contrary to folklore and common belief, rigor mortis is not permanent and begins to pass within hours of onset. Typically, it lasts no longer than eight hours at "room temperature"."

There is no plausible way he was held in rigor mortis three days and three nights. Any cooling effect of a cave in springtime in Israel is trivial. (passover was in april at the time)


Quote:

ven if he left the second Jesus died (unlikely) Joseph had to walk about a kilometer to Pilate and ask for the body. Pilate then asked for confirmation, so someone had to walk to Golgotha. They then had to walk back to Pilate to say "yah, he's dead". Let's say Pilate didn't deliberate on the particulars at all (standard was to let them hang for awhile as an example to others so allowing him to come down right away is unusual) and gave Joseph an immediate yes, Joseph then had to walk back, find help, have the centurions lower the cross and remove Jesus. Rigor mortis could easily lock led him into the state that gravity dictated: a state with ankles in a weird position, knees bent, neck bent and slightly bent elbows.
Even with all this unlikely set of events, it simply wouldn't hold, and the head is still completely backwards of where you need it to be. Also the arms would be locked in a completely different position as they were tied to the cross even if we did pretend rigor lasted for days. And as was noted earlier, you need someone to tent the shroud over him taught to produce the effect. Think critically here, does this really make sense to you?

The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I searched quite awhile on the facial dimensions of the shroud. The only people I can find claiming the proportions are off are on message boards. No quality articles on it. And those same people are parroting known falsehoods (it's not real blood, it contains pigment from paint/drawing, etc). I'm willing to acknowledge I may be wrong but I can't find any good evidence for it outside of opinions from people that haven't viewed it. It's not your job to provide them, but if you found any articles on the facial dimensions from someone who actually studied the shroud I'd appreciate it.

Also I think you and I have different views on the perspective we're viewing the man from. If I understand you, your issue is more with the elongated cheeks and chin than the smaller appearing forehead? I'm still confused.

And rigor mortis is a specific phase in decomposition. Stay more generic and google "how long will a dead body stay stiff" and you will find its anywhere from 24-72 hours. This is well known. I've never heard anyone claim that the body resumes flexibility after only 8 hours.

https://australian.museum/about/history/exhibitions/death-the-last-taboo/decomposition-body-changes/

Jesus died at 3:00 on Friday and resurrected sometime Sunday morning (tradition says around 3 AM but I won't go through all that) so we're looking at 36 hours which is well inside the window of body stiffness. Not a problem at all. And before you say that this means Jesus didn't stay in the tomb three days, this was addressed many, many years ago. He was there Friday, Saturday and Sunday. It didn't need to be a full 72 hours. As for the cooling in the cave, maybe and maybe not. It's high in the mid 50s in Jerusalem this week. Odd cold snaps happen.

And these aren't unlikely events. At least not if you're a Christian. the Bible spells out these things happened. We just have to reason how long that would reasonably take, considering everyone was walking everywhere. We don't have a definitive timeline but we know they didn't take him down the second he died. Several hours makes plenty of sense. And it is known that leaner, more muscular people have rigor onset sooner rather than later. This guy was nearly 6 feet tall and only ~150 pounds. I'd say that qualifies as lean and muscular.

I have thought critically about it and have arrived at the conclusion that I just don't know. I don't need to know. I didn't learn about the shroud until a couple years ago. It doesn't need to be real for the rest to be real. I just think this is a really amazing thing regardless. If it's Jesus that is incredible on a whole other level, but if some 13th century artist managed to create something that modern scientists and artists can't, it should be celebrated simply for being an act of incredible genius.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

I searched quite awhile on the facial dimensions of the shroud. The only people I can find claiming the proportions are off are on message boards. No quality articles on it. And those same people are parroting known falsehoods (it's not real blood, it contains pigment from paint/drawing, etc). I'm willing to acknowledge I may be wrong but I can't find any good evidence for it outside of opinions from people that haven't viewed it. It's not your job to provide them, but if you found any articles on the facial dimensions from someone who actually studied the shroud I'd appreciate it.


The pigment isn't a known falsehood. You were quoting people who were not experts in the appropriate field with a committed agenda who didn't understand what they were looking at. I sent you an article that clearly debunked this. Unless you have contrary evidence that actually counters the article written by an appropriate expert I don't see why to entertain it.



Quote:

Also I think you and I have different views on the perspective we're viewing the man from. If I understand you, your issue is more with the elongated cheeks and chin than the smaller appearing forehead? I'm still confused.




The Shroud of Turin: The Great Gothic Art Fraud -- Because If It's Real the Brain of Jesus Was the Size of a Protohuman's! Internet Infidels
The Proportions of the Head (artyfactory.com)
5 Proportions of the Face to Know (thedrawingsource.com)

As I said before, rigor mortis even if entertained does nothing for you here, it's just a bad drawing. You can tell when a head is looking up or down, and you need it to look up if anything.
Quote:

And rigor mortis is a specific phase in decomposition. Stay more generic and google "how long will a dead body stay stiff" and you will find its anywhere from 24-72 hours. This is well known. I've never heard anyone claim that the body resumes flexibility after only 8 hours.

Well now you have:
Rigor Mortis - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Rigor mortis - Wikipedia

The body is generally completely flaccid at 36 hours. You need it to be remarkably stiff just for a base plausibility.

But it's not even plausible because you have addressed two fundamental points. You can't get him into that position with gravity alone even up on a cross. To cross your hands across your privates requires you to actively activate muscles in your arms and shoulders. Even leaning forward on a cross doesn't get you there. And I have no idea how you think you solved the issue with the head.


Quote:

Jesus died at 3:00 on Friday and resurrected sometime Sunday morning (tradition says around 3 AM but I won't go through all that) so we're looking at 36 hours which is well inside the window of body stiffness. Not a problem at all. And before you say that this means Jesus didn't stay in the tomb three days, this was addressed many, many years ago. He was there Friday, Saturday and Sunday. It didn't need to be a full 72 hours. As for the cooling in the cave, maybe and maybe not. It's high in the mid 50s in Jerusalem this week. Odd cold snaps happen.

It says three days and three nights but I acknowledge that this does contradict other passages (it's another issue but there is no way to formulate a fully consistent timeline of these events with all NT authors). But even still, 36 hours is the cutoff number for being completely flaccid so the argument fails all the same. And thats before even pointing out you can't get his body into a position you need it to be naturally.


Quote:

I have thought critically about it and have arrived at the conclusion that I just don't know.

You think under a critical analysis that it's plausible a body stayed fully stiff for 36 hours in a position that requires flexed muscles whether on a cross or the ground and that the head proportions being dramatically different are explained by a mere tilting of the head in the wrong direction. And that all this happened while someone for absolutely no reason took his top burial shroud and rather than wrap it around a person which is literally always done they stretched it out in from of him with some sort of tensioned tent?

That's before we even get to the written historical record and three independent labs dating it to the exact same time. That's before we get to for some inexplicable reason no single author in the church mentioning it for over a thousand years (Or even 600 but those face overing references have nothing to do with the shroud and I don't know why you think they would).

I don't know is almost always a fair answer to some extent, but often it seems it's used to give more possibility than deserved to the far from plausible.

Quote:

I don't need to know. I didn't learn about the shroud until a couple years ago. It doesn't need to be real for the rest to be real. I just think this is a really amazing thing regardless. If it's Jesus that is incredible on a whole other level, but if some 13th century artist managed to create something that modern scientists and artists can't, it should be celebrated simply for being an act of incredible genius.
It's really not that impressive much better art has been done. You are correct in that it should have no bearing on your thoughts on the resurrection. But it's really wishful thinking to even entertain the suggested "solution" to any one of a myriad of problems presented.

And it's not the catholic church being careful or slow that keeps them from testing it again. This isn't a matter of dogma or cultural change.



Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.youtube.com/live/HAbuG-oVq1Q?feature=share


Great episode on the shroud. They go through the issues with many of the "best forgeries" and why none have come close to replicating the characteristics of the Shroud.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sorry it took so long. I wanted to go back and test some of my assumptions. As I did, I started feeling is becoming unproductive because we believe very opposite things to be true. I see the presence of pigment to be a known falsehood. I will stand by that. You have one article from one man who reviewed the small samples he wasn't supposed to have by visual inspection. Here is an article discrediting him. It's why all of the most recent attempts to recreate it SPECIFICALLY attempt to make sure no pigment traces can be found. McCrone was just wrong.

https://docslib.org/doc/8554798/the-nature-of-the-body-images-on-the-shroud-of-turin

https://shroud.com/pdfs/ssi43part4.pdf

I know you won't like the 2nd link's domain name, but it is simply the same scientist summarizing his prior work. That there is blood on the shroud has not been in dispute by those that are actually studying the thing.

The matter of perspective isn't easy to deal with as you like to think. You could attribute it to a fuller beard, as shown in the shroud recreation. Attributing just a tiny bit of that image to facial hair and you can get very close to half way down the face very quickly. Even the article you used concludes that you can shave off a bit for the facial hair.



"A little over a third" isn't useful so, while I know this is overkill, I measured the picture you posted. It's 1.031 inches. His eyes are at the 7/16 mark, which is 43.8% of the way down his face. Average is 47.6% of the way down your face (wiki link below). If we use the average head height of 9.1 inches and apply it to the "a little over a third" picture, his beard accounting for only 1/3 of an inch puts him at dead on average. A semi-bushy beard can easily account for a third of an inch. The disproportions are being overstated.

You should just toss the infidel link out immediately. I just ran the test on myself and my head to height ratio is 7.97, which the author says is abnormal. I guess I'm some sort of freak, but guarantee you wouldn't pick me out of a lineup. Scientific American says average head to height ratio is 8:1 (second to last paragraph). This guy is flat wrong when he says 7-7.5. So in honesty, the fact that the figure in the shroud isn't meeting his art proportions helps the case that this isn't the art he claims it is. If we use his 8.85 for head length at an 8:1 ratio, this figure is 5'9.5, which is within range. If we use the taller estimate for the figure of 5'11, the ratio is 8.02:1. None of these numbers scream abnormal. It's only abnormal when you use his incorrect ratios. (On another note, he also incorrectly claims the average head height is 9.6 inches, when in reality that's the 85th percentile (figure at the bottom of wiki)).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-body-ratios/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_head

There is nothing radically out of proportion here, which is why no serious studies have ever been done on it. It's only random internet posters that promote this stuff because only they are coming up with 6'3"

As for rigor mortis, your first link has several articles that show rigor mortis can last several days in some cases, exacerbated by cold or extremely lean, muscular people. Your own link refutes you. "Generally" means just that: generally. In nice, bold words: can last 24-84 hours.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321792#What-happens-in-decomposition?

Now, as to how they would have moved the arms, I think it would have been mechanical force by those burying him. I never intended to mean hanging on a cross would make your arms come down to your privates. You're right in saying that's impossible. I was mentioning rigor at the elbows to the poster who said the elbows are in an unnatural suspended state. I spent far too much time using rigor to explain the facial dimensions because I was not understanding you. I should have asked more questions on the front end. But as for rigor at the elbow, knees and ankles not being adjusted, that's easily explained by not needing to adjust those to fit into a shroud. A figure stuck in the beginning of the YMCA pose would need to be adjusted at the shoulder. The link you provided has an article demonstrating how rigor can reinstate after a joint is mechanically moved.

St Irenaeus wrote in the 100s about Jesus's death on a Friday, and he learned from Polycarp who learned directly from John the apostle. I'll take that over modern biblical literalists who are trying to wrestle with a literal 72 hours they come to believe must have happened. Early Christians were fasting on Wednesday and Friday right at the beginning. Wednesday for the betrayal and Friday for the crucifixion. We can be reasonably certain he was in there 36-48 hours. And as shown above, 36 hours is not some sort of mandatory cut off point. Bodies have been observed in rigor going longer than 72 hours without artificial refrigeration anyway, so don't know why you're stuck on that.

I still have difficulty understand the 3 dimensional qualities and why the requirement would be for someone to stretch it out in front of him. Scientists certain they have discredited the shroud don't know if it was wrapped or lain upon a man (second to last paragraph)

https://www.history.com/news/shroud-turin-forensic-study-not-jesus-burial-cloth

The facecloth of Oviedo has remarkable symmetry to the shroud. That's why it has relevance. The symmetry is not as well studied, so there is room for doubt, but if the study was accurate, then it lends a ton of credence to the shroud being much older than the carbon dating.

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-sudarium-of-oviedo-the-other-shroud-of-jesus

I genuinely do not care if the shroud wasn't mentioned for 600 years or 1600 years. The only relic/icons we really do see mentioned is the cross and thorns (300s), the facecloth (600s) and the manger (700s). And let's be honest, if you had writings on the shroud back in the 600s, you'd still use the same argument of "no one mentioned it for 600 years!"

I've discussed the issues with carbon dating, so no need to do so again. I feel confident that there is a body of scientific evidence rigor mortis can last for days. Your own links show that. I am confident that the facial symmetry is within reason, otherwise I am personally a freak of nature and the Scientific American is wrong on average human head to height ratio. Lastly, I am confident that there is actual blood on the shroud and no pigment, as modern attempts to recreate the shroud wouldn't be concerned about not leaving any pigment behind. There is also no firm claim I can find by those that have tried to reproduce it that the shroud couldn't have been wrapped and still produce the image. I am not staking my claim that this is 100% real, but you are using much stronger language in your claims than scientists studying this (and postmortem body stiffness) use. Most of your claims are coming from internet sleuths.

I don't know why you can't see the fact that modern scientists and artists have such a difficult time trying to recreate its features isn't impressive for a forger in the 1300s. I'm not saying it's the same as building the pyramids or Stonehenge without modern industrial equipment, but this is very impressive.

I don't mind having my positions challenged. It's helped me learn more. If this comes across as confrontational, I don't mean to. I just don't see how we ever come to common ground of any kind here
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

Sorry it took so long. I wanted to go back and test some of my assumptions. As I did, I started feeling is becoming unproductive because we believe very opposite things to be true. I see the presence of pigment to be a known falsehood. I will stand by that. You have one article from one man who reviewed the small samples he wasn't supposed to have by visual inspection. Here is an article discrediting him. It's why all of the most recent attempts to recreate it SPECIFICALLY attempt to make sure no pigment traces can be found. McCrone was just wrong
I doubt it, the entire wiki entry does a nice summary.

In October 1978, a team of scientists affiliated with STURP took 32 samples from the surface of the Shroud, using adhesive tape. Of those samples, 18 were taken from areas of the Shroud that showed a body or blood image, while 14 were taken from non-image areas. The chemical microscopist Walter McCrone, a leading expert in the forensic authentication of historical documents and works of art, examined the tapes using polarized light microscopy and other physical and chemical techniques. McCrone concluded that the Shroud's body image had been painted with a dilute pigment of red ochre (a form of iron oxide) in a collagen tempera (i.e., gelatin) medium, using a technique similar to the grisaille employed in the 14th century by Simone Martini and other European artists. McCrone also found that the "bloodstains" in the image had been highlighted with vermilion (a bright red pigment made from mercury sulfide), also in a collagen tempera medium. McCrone reported that no actual blood was present in the samples taken from the Shroud.[5]
Other members of STURP rejected McCrone's conclusions and concluded, based on their own examination of the Shroud and the tape samples, that the image on the Shroud could not be explained by the presence of pigments.[16] Mark Anderson, who was working for McCrone, analyzed the Shroud samples.[75] In his book Ray Rogers states that Anderson, who was McCrone's Raman microscopy expert, concluded that the samples acted as organic material when he subjected them to the laser.[76]: 61 McCrone resigned from STURP in June 1980, after giving back all of the tape samples in his possession to Ray Rogers.[77]: 124
John Heller and Alan Adler examined the same samples and agreed with McCrone's result that the cloth contains iron oxide. However, they argued that the exceptional purity of the chemical and comparisons with other ancient textiles showed that, while retting flax absorbs iron selectively, the iron itself was not the source of the image on the shroud.[23]
After his analysis of the Shroud was first published in 1980, McCrone continued to argue in journal articles, public lectures, and in the book Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (which appeared in 1996), that the Shroud had been painted in the 14th century and that it showed no traces of actual blood.[77] He also argued that the members of STURP lacked relevant expertise in the chemical microanalysis of historical artworks and that their non-detection of pigment in the Shroud's image was "consistent with the sensitivity of the instruments and techniques they used."[5] For his work on the Shroud, McCrone was awarded the American Chemical Society's National Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000.[78][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-C&EN-2000-78][/url]

Mccrones paper that I already provided is proper scientific paper with data, methodology, photographs, oppositions views, and the reasoned conclusion. Alders' paper has little of that.

Mccrone's paper sums it up nicely:

The STURP scientist find no pigment particles at 20-50x (I used 400-2500x). They find no cementation of the fibers no evidence of capillary flow. I observe many visual evidence of a paint medium. They are not microscopists, and, particularly, not microscopist trained in the study of pigments and paintings. They are not familiar with the microscopical appearance and behavior of tiny samples, in this case, both very thin collagen paint medium and small amounts of very tiny particles in watercolor images. There is no way at 50X that anyone could recognize the red particles as Fe2O3 and as red ochre or the HgS as a ninth century vermillion, and no way anyone could see that the pigment particles are cemented into an organic matrix (paint medium) and to the fibers. At 400-2500X I readily observe these features.

Everything I can see shows the scientist you are supporting being the wrong specialty and working with far less sensitive equipment. Mcrone is sometimes called the "Father of modern Microscopy". He predicted in 1983 based on the analysis he did and the historical record that the shroud would be dated to shortly before 1356. As we can see he was right.

p48.pdf (centerforinquiry.org)


Quote:

The matter of perspective isn't easy to deal with as you like to think. You could attribute it to a fuller beard, as shown in the shroud recreation. Attributing just a tiny bit of that image to facial hair and you can get very close to half way down the face very quickly. Even the article you used concludes that you can shave off a bit for the facial hair.
You need a lot more than a tiny bit of head.

Quote:

I measured the picture you posted. It's 1.031 inches. His eyes are at the 7/16 mark, which is 43.8% of the way down his face. Average is 47.6% of the way down your face (wiki link below). If we use the average head height of 9.1 inches and apply it to the "a little over a third" picture, his beard accounting for only 1/3 of an inch puts him at dead on average. A semi-bushy beard can easily account for a third of an inch. The disproportions are being overstated.
To humor you I just measured it in bluebeam using the scale from the article and it takes 3/4" of beard. Which is more than you think. Its enough to visually look off. If it was only a third of an inch of it wouldn't look strange and it certainly does. You can easily pick it out of a line-up.



You can have a bushy bearded jesus and it doesn't make it look like he's got no forehead.


Quote:

As for rigor mortis, your first link has several articles that show rigor mortis can last several days in some cases, exacerbated by cold or extremely lean, muscular people. Your own link refutes you. "Generally" means just that: generally. In nice, bold words: can last 24-84 hours.
I can't find anybody actually arguing that rigor mortis is a plausible explanation here. Are you making this up whole cloth or actually quoting someone who's actually trying to credibly argue that rigor mortis explains this? And it makes it clear that the long duration effects are generally due to refrigeration (as is common at the morgue).

Yes generally means just that, so generally a human body is 100% flaccid in the time period you require. For that reason in forensic analysis rigor mortis is used for a preliminary indication of time of death: for less than 3 h, 38 h, 836 h, and more than 36 h. However, in actual rigor mortis the human body is unpliable. And forcing joints isn't going to let you artfully arrange him. So you are arguing that the rigor mortis was subsided enough to be partially pliable very early on and that jesus was forced into this awkward position while the shroud was put over him. And that semi-pliable rigor mortis state within the narrow window where the body is too unpliable for gravity to move yet flexible enough for a person to artfully arrange held exactly for 36 hours.


Quote:


The link you provided has an article demonstrating how rigor can reinstate after a joint is mechanically moved.
That's right, it you actually force a joint according to the article there is a 38.5% change that rigor will re-establish. I couldn't find though in the test whether they forced a joint into a position which gravity would resist. How many joints you need to have that happen in two shoulders, two elbows, two wrists, and I would imagine at least a couple finger joints at minimum. Or you know they drew something not realistic....Can you point me to literally any scientist who thinks that's a plausible explanation compared to "the artist got it wrong"?


Quote:

I still have difficulty understand the 3 dimensional qualities and why the requirement would be for someone to stretch it out in front of him. Scientists certain they have discredited the shroud don't know if it was wrapped or lain upon a man (second to last paragraph)
I don't think you are using that quote appropriately. That's a scientist of a particular specialty listing unknowns. The image itself doesn't look grotesquely distorted in the horizontal direction. If you draw a face on a paper it will look like a human face if you do it right. But if you put ink on cloth and wrap it around someones head and then unfold it to a flat surface the sides will be very distorted.


Quote:


I genuinely do not care if the shroud wasn't mentioned for 600 years or 1600 years. The only relic/icons we really do see mentioned is the cross and thorns (300s), the facecloth (600s) and the manger (700s). And let's be honest, if you had writings on the shroud back in the 600s, you'd still use the same argument of "no one mentioned it for 600 years!"
This goes back to what I talked about with regard to thinking critically. What would the world look like if the shroud were real? Would it be likely for the church fathers to make note of their possession of it? Would it be an honored and important relic and important evidence of the faith? Would we expect bishops and popes to declare it a fraud? Would we expect carbon dating to the first century?

What would we expect if it were a medieval forgery? Well there would need to be a complete absence of records from the early church. Check. Ideally it would have a well documented historical record to the time of it's creation. Check. It would have records indicating an artist had been identified who "artificially painted it in an ingenious way". Check. We would expect the first church actions to make note of this rather than honor it as authentic. Check. Upon scientific analysis not only would we expect it to carbon date much younger than if it were authentic, we would expect it to carbon date to the exact time of the historical record within the accuracy windows of the testing methodology. Check. Check. Check.


Quote:

I've discussed the issues with carbon dating, so no need to do so again.
Nothing you wrote before actually addressed the debunking of those arguments listed in the wiki article. If the church really believed they had a good chance of another test helping their cause they would have done so in the last thirty years. Instead, I think it much more likely that you die and they still havent' repeated the test. The labs reviewed the arguments made against them and dismissed them casually for the silly arguments they are.

"However, all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-c14.arch.ox.ac.uk-12][12][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-Radiocarbon_Dating_pg_167-168-7][7][/url] including the medieval repair hypothesis,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-R.A._Freer-Waters,_A.J.T._Jull_2010-8][8][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-freeinquiry1-9][9][/url] the bio-contamination hypothesis[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-Gove_1990-11][11][/url] and the carbon monoxide hypothesis.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-c14.arch.ox.ac.uk-12][12][/url]"


Quote:

I don't know why you can't see the fact that modern scientists and artists have such a difficult time trying to recreate its features isn't impressive for a forger in the 1300s. I'm not saying it's the same as building the pyramids or Stonehenge without modern industrial equipment, but this is very impressive.
It's a matter of degrees. You seem to be implying it's so impressive we should be ignoring that, and I mean this in a very literal sense, virtually every expectation we would have if the shroud were a fraud has been fulfilled. We dont' know how they did Stonehenge which is more impressive but I don't' think it was aliens.












Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How in the world could a medieval forger know what a photograph negative image was?
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll try keep this brief: yes, they were not experts with a microscope. That's why they didn't do his tests. They did chemical testing for the existence of blood. If we find a blanket in the house of a missing person and want to determine if it's blood, we are not restricted to only using a microscope. There are other testing methods available, and that's what the other team did. Again, everyone trying to recreate this thing is operating under a rubric that specifically says it can not have traces of pigment. Why are they spending their time on this if the current consensus is that pigment is on the shroud? It would be beyond a waste of time. Different tests, different results. Did you read the paper? I'll take the chemical testing over visual inspection


No you do not need a 3/4 inch beard. You did your measuring. I did mine. We have different results (not surprising). So how about instead of internet sleuthing we defer to the scientists studying this thing? I can not find a single source outside of random people on the internet talking about abnormal proportions. If you have any, I'm interested in reading them. It seems to me that if hyper intelligent scientists are looking at this thing as detailed as they are, they could have tossed the whole thing out at the beginning by noting massive abnormalities in the skull.

The rigor arguments I've heard have been on podcasts. I will try to find writings when I have more time. I'm tired of going through this over and over. I have found plenty of articles that show rigor mortis can go on for days. It's not some one off phenomena that no one has ever heard of. If you need refrigeration, fine. Significant slowing in rigor has been noted at 10 degrees Celsius. Jerusalem just spent 60 hours between 7 and 12 degrees. Last 3 days of March were also between 6 and 12 for nearly 3 days. In a cave, you aren't going to hit the high of 12, so it is very well within the realm of possibility he could have been at 10 degrees or less the entire time. It's still not needed, but if you feel it is, there you go.

You don't need to force all joints. I specifically said so. You mechanically force the shoulder down. You leave elbows, knees, hands, ankles as is. Done. Even a gentle wrap at the shoulders would keep the joint that does not re-stiffen in place.

I'll think about the face, but in effort to be brief, I think wrapping someone like this helps explain it. Note the wrap is not a skin suit and lays relatively flat over the face. I'll have to think more on it when I have time.




Again, do not care about the writing about it. They knew exactly what tomb Jesus was buried in, yet there were no writings about it. Constantine had to send a delegation to try to figure out where it was from local churches. Wouldn't one "expect" the early church fathers to draw a map to the tomb? This is not a strong argument precisely because this was a time of oral teachings and traditions. It why Catholics do not ascribe to Sola Scriptura. Their writings are incredibly helpful on a number of things, but those things are almost 100% related to faith and morals, and they most certainly did not write down every single thing they felt was important. That is an impossible task for us with modern computers and AI, much less them with limited and expensive paper and ink. They were not the same meticulous and suspicious documenters we are today. It's why we argue about the scriptures, no different than we argue about the constitution and no different than we argue about the intent of laws past within the last couple years. You can't possibly spell every single thing out even in modern times.

As I have said, I don't care about a forgery they found. There were more than 40 documented forgeries. Maybe this is the forgery referenced. I'm ok with that. Maybe it's not. I'm ok with that.

I posted this before. Maybe you didn't watch it. You only need to use the first 3 minutes. It's one of the very researchers that helped with the dating that reviewed his own work and found that the samples taken were incorrect. The entire sampling process was done wrong. This has been peer reviewed by several journals not some rando on the internet. Until they redo it, we can't know. And I hope they redo it soon. If they do it the correct way this time (multiple samples from multiple points on the cloth) I'll fall in line with the results. But right now the on it other method for age testing (x-ray) is showing early 1st century.
New Peer Reviewed Date for the Shroud of Turin

End of the day this isn't open and shut. You are very confident in shutting the door. I am not, in either direction.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

I'll try keep this brief: yes, they were not experts with a microscope. That's why they didn't do his tests. They did chemical testing for the existence of blood. If we find a blanket in the house of a missing person and want to determine if it's blood, we are not restricted to only using a microscope. There are other testing methods available, and that's what the other team did. Again, everyone trying to recreate this thing is operating under a rubric that specifically says it can not have traces of pigment. Why are they spending their time on this if the current consensus is that pigment is on the shroud? It would be beyond a waste of time. Different tests, different results. Did you read the paper? I'll take the chemical testing over visual inspection


But nothing they did addresses his tests. His tests found pigment. They presented no evidence he errored. And again, he's the actual expert in how to do this. That's the reason he, an outsider with no ties to the shroud was brought in this group of believers in the shroud who were scientists. They needed his expertise and then disregarded it.

Quote:



No you do not need a 3/4 inch beard. You did your measuring. I did mine. We have different results (not surprising). So how about instead of internet sleuthing we defer to the scientists studying this thing? I can not find a single source outside of random people on the internet talking about abnormal proportions.
Find an image of an actual human that looks like that. I've googled about every actor that's every played jesus and they don't look like that.

Feel free to send the rigor stuff, but I find it a comically weak case.

Quote:


I'll think about the face, but in effort to be brief, I think wrapping someone like this helps explain it. Note the wrap is not a skin suit and lays relatively flat over the face. I'll have to think more on it when I have time.
It still follows the sides of the face at least back to the ears. I don't think a tight wrap is required.

Quote:

Again, do not care about the writing about it. They knew exactly what tomb Jesus was buried in, yet there were no writings about it.
This is evidence claimed but not substantiated. What proof do we have they knew and remembered exactly what tomb jesus was buried in? Again, it's not whether you care. It's whether a thoughtful dispassionate analysis would value this as evidence. And I think it beyond doubt that this is evidence.


Quote:

As I have said, I don't care about a forgery they found. There were more than 40 documented forgeries. Maybe this is the forgery referenced. I'm ok with that. Maybe it's not. I'm ok with that.
Again, would a thoughtful dispassionate observer care? Is this evidence? Of the 40 documented forgeries you are referencing, which are in the exact right place at the exact right time? What reasons do we have to disbelieve this account? We know for a fact that the church at the time believed it a forgery and acted accordingly. So the people with the most to gain if the shroud were authentic, who lived in the exact right place and exact right time to be talking about the exact same shroud called it a fraud based on the evidence. And you think it thoughtful and appropriate to dismiss this because you can lump it into the broad category of "forgeries" and since there are 40 some odd you think this is just a 1 in 40 chance? That doesn't follow.


Quote:

This is not a strong argument precisely because this was a time of oral teachings and traditions.
There is not remotely a shortage of writing from the early church. I'm not merely talking about scripture or morals. An important relic of the church being in possession and not made mention is peculiar. Particularly one that is evidence of the faith in and of itself. In fact it evidence of the single most important event in the faith. And they wrote nothing?

Quote:


I posted this before. Maybe you didn't watch it. You only need to use the first 3 minutes. It's one of the very researchers that helped with the dating that reviewed his own work and found that the samples taken were incorrect. The entire sampling process was done wrong. This has been peer reviewed by several journals not some rando on the internet.
So it's nothing but random coincidence that all three labs results-which were wrong dated to the exact right time? And the church just so happens to believe this is false but is completely unwilling to have another test done?

The "invisible mending" has been debunked.

Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin | Radiocarbon | Cambridge Core
Home (ox.ac.uk)
A Skeptical Response to Ray Rogers on the Shroud of Turin (archive.org)

Quote:

End of the day this isn't open and shut. You are very confident in shutting the door. I am not, in either direction.

It really is, and it comes down to this paragraph which I'll simply post again and again and there is really nothing thoughtful you can add to discredit it:

What would we expect if it were a medieval forgery? Well there would need to be a complete absence of records from the early church. Check. Ideally it would have a well documented historical record to the time of it's creation. Check. It would have records indicating an artist had been identified who "artificially painted it in an ingenious way". Check. We would expect the first church actions to make note of this rather than honor it as authentic. Check. Upon scientific analysis not only would we expect it to carbon date much younger than if it were authentic, we would expect it to carbon date to the exact time of the historical record within the accuracy windows of the testing methodology. Check. Check. Check.

Where are the check marks in the other direction? The only thing you are offering is some imo bad reasons to ignore the checks. But you aren't actually offering competitive evidence of your own that is exactly what we would expect if it were created in the right time and place to be authentic.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I keep getting sucked back in. Shame on me.

They tested the freaking thing for blood. They found blood. If you have a positive chemical test for human hemoglobin and serum, why would you rely on someone using visual inspections only? Maybe they're lying about the blood? Maybe he's lying about the pigment? Both have been peer reviewed. I don't know what to tell you other than science as an industry isn't the pure pursuit of truth you may think it is. Everyone has an agenda. You think it's the people that found blood. I would lean towards McCrone. It's an impasse

Here are some low hairline/small forehead people. This argument just needs to die.














Dude, two apostles went to the freaking tomb, along with the women who buried Him. You think they forgot where it was? And this further proves my point. His empty tomb was extremely important, as it proved His resurrection. AND THEY DIDN'T BOTHER TO WRITE IT DOWN ANYWHERE! Why I am supposed to be concerned that they didn't write about the burial cloth?

Here is an interesting article about liturgical norms in the 8th century. The very way we celebrated mass invoked the burial cloth and suddarium. Does this mean we had His cloths in our possession? We can't prove that. But the fact that His burial cloths were known about means someone did at some point. We have a bunch of forgeries, right? What were they forging? What about those that claimed to have witnessed to see the shroud before this admitted forger? Another posted some examples on page 1. Fact is I don't know that chain of custody of that particular forgery nor this cloth, so how about we just inspect what we have. The second link explains an alternate theory.

https://www.ncregister.com/news/liturgy-of-the-cloth-how-the-early-church-incorporated-the-shroud-and-sudarium-in-the-mass

http://factsplusfacts.com/christianitydarcis.htm

End of the day is we don't know so we aren't held to it. I'm not trying to hold you to a position. You are claiming the positive here and I am unconvinced because the summaries you are giving are not comprehensive and have very large potential holes in them. Having studied the early church at length, you are flat out wrong that the early followers were in the habit of writing about particular icons or locations. Zobel is (probably wisely) staying out if this but as the East is much bigger on icons, maybe he could help out. Maybe you're an early history buff and I'm unaware, but you are claiming an arbitrary standard that the church has never held nor had a habit of following in regards to icons/relics.

Yes, all 3 labs got roughly similar results. They all pulled from the same piece of cloth. What were they supposed to find different? Had multiple pieces been pulled as had been dictated, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Maybe the men retrieving samples should have done their job. The Cambridge article says there is "no evidence this wasn't taken from the main part of the shroud" which can easily be flipped into "no evidence this WAS taken from the main part". Unconvincing. The second article is from a devout atheist who never saw the samples. Neither of these sway me, like nothing I present will sway you. Like the presence of hemoglobin and serum done by chemical analysis instead of visual analysis you are glossing over. We have two groups of people telling conflicting stories. If I'm on the jury, I'm not convicting regardless of who the defense. Why don't I chose to hold you to the arbitrary standard that unless you can provide video evidence of all of the samples being taken, showing them being taken from multiple parts of the cloth and security up and until the point of the pieces being analyzed for their carbon content, I'll assume the studies are all a hoax and can't be trusted?

There is absolutely nothing that I can give you that would convince you to be open minded on this, so I don't really feel like going there. In addition, I'm not 100% convinced it's real, so I'm not going to bother. This has really just been a futile attempt to show you many of the claims you're using to make your point are wrong. I hope the church opens investigations again soon. I'm sure they will eventually.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Here are some low hairline/small forehead people. This argument just needs to die.
I didn't realize you still didn't understand the issue. We ARE NOT talking about the distance from the hairline to the eyebrows. I understand why you might be confused.

Every single picture you posted proves MY point. Those people eyes are halfway from the very tip of the head.



his eyes are a very significant distance from the top of the head (like where you measure height).



Your shroud jesus has a very short distance to the literal top of his head. You know, like where the brain goes?

Find me a picture of someone who looks like that. With very little head (not forhead skin, head) above their eyes. None of your pictures have anyone with eyes way up their head.

I'll address the rest later, but I actually started laughing a bit as you posted pictures of people with normal amounts of head above their eyes.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

They tested the freaking thing for blood. They found blood. If you have a positive chemical test for human hemoglobin and serum, why would you rely on someone using visual inspections only?
Just because I have a minute. Does the presence of blood disprove the presence of pigment? Why do you think it does?


Quote:

Yes, all 3 labs got roughly similar results. They all pulled from the same piece of cloth. What were they supposed to find different
You aren't reading what I wrote, just trying to respond I don't know why. I'm not asking why they aren't different. That's not what I said. I am asking why the piece of cloth they tested that you are saying is incorrect didn't date to 400 AD, or 1700AD or basically any year between modern times and the first century, it just so happened to squarely land on the historical record of the shroud. Just another in a long line of coincidences right?
Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm sorry why would the presence of blood mean anything other than the artist used actual human blood in its creation?

Interesting… Never heard this… was it discussed earlier?

Quote:

Around 1389, Pierre d'Arcisthe bishop of Troyes, Francesent a report to Pope Clement VII claiming an artist had confessed to forging the shroud. Furthermore, d'Arcis claimed the dean of the Lirey church knew it was a fake and had used it to raise money anyway. In response, the pope declared the shroud wasn't the true burial cloth of Christ. Still, he said the Lirey church could continue to display it if it acknowledged the cloth was a man-made religious "icon," not a historic "relic.


https://www.history.com/news/shroud-turin-facts
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No, I'm fully understanding you now. You mention that his forehead is too small/eyes are too high, so I give you short foreheads, showing perspective matters. I have measured the picture and see a short 1/3 inch beard putting the eyes at dead on average. You've come up with an estimate of 3/4 inch beard, which is also not out of the realm of possibility. The fact remains that people that have actually gotten their eyes on this in real life, including skeptics, see this as a non-issue. Find me someone other than an internet atheist. Until then, I'm happy with my measurements justifying a placement of 46-47% down the face. Perfectly average. You believe opposite and nothing I say will convince you. I can not repeat enough that there is a reason this argument has not gained any serious traction
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
None of your pictures look like the guy in the shroud, none. So either you didn't understand or can't see. The fact that you showed pictures of people with very small hair to eyebrow distances but with large amounts of head above the eyes shows you didn't or don't understand.

I'm talking about the top of the head, not the traditional forehead of visible skin. If you understood why did you show the opposite of what I'm asking for?

They simply do not look alike and I don't know why you think they do.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggrad08 said:


Quote:

They tested the freaking thing for blood. They found blood. If you have a positive chemical test for human hemoglobin and serum, why would you rely on someone using visual inspections only?
Just because I have a minute. Does the presence of blood disprove the presence of pigment? Why do you think it does?


Quote:

Yes, all 3 labs got roughly similar results. They all pulled from the same piece of cloth. What were they supposed to find different
You aren't reading what I wrote, just trying to respond I don't know why. I'm not asking why they aren't different. That's not what I said. I am asking why the piece of cloth they tested that you are saying is incorrect didn't date to 400 AD, or 1700AD or basically any year between modern times and the first century, it just so happened to squarely land on the historical record of the shroud. Just another in a long line of coincidences right?


The pigment/blood results come from the same samples. Someone is right and someone is wrong. Let's say for the sake of argument it's both, how would you deal with that fact? What would that mean to tou? Because please remember this is the blood alone. He did not test/find pigment in the image (face, body, etc). That has routinely been confirmed to be a superficial mark that does not cross over or under the blood (pigment?) stains

You're correct, I misread that about the date range. This is one of the reasons I have not come down firm either way. I would say it's a solid reason to be cautious in calling it the real shroud. The defenders of the shroud have given their rebuttal, including a different method of dating. I look forward to a re-test some day.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggrad08 said:

None of your pictures look like the guy in the shroud, none. So either you didn't understand or can't see. The fact that you showed pictures of people with very small hair to eyebrow distances but with large amounts of head above the eyes shows you didn't or don't understand.

I'm talking about the top of the head, not the traditional forehead of visible skin. If you understood why did you show the opposite of what I'm asking for?

They simply do not look alike and I don't know why you think they do.


They don't exactly have head on shots of every person on earth. Fine. Here is prison Jesus 1 and prison Jesus 2. PJ1 has eyes at 42% at best. Same with the shroud. PJ 2 has the lowered hairline that makes it LOOK like he's abnormal compared to PJ1, but is actually measuring more normal. Perspective matters.





Lastly, what do you have to say about people who are the opposite? Are small variations not allowed?

RebelE Infantry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Shroud is undoubtedly the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, who was crucified and rose again from the dead on the 3rd day.



Be sure to click on the photos which provide more detail.
The flames of the Imperium burn brightly in the hearts of men repulsed by degenerate modernity. Souls aflame with love of goodness, truth, beauty, justice, and order.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The FTIR stuff is interesting. But like everything else around the Shroud, the claims outweigh what the evidence actually supports.

https://medievalshroud.com/ftir-and-the-shroud/
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Long hair is relative, but generally speaking in Jewish culture women would have LONG hair (and Paul was referring to not having womanly hair). And I've seen that Jesus rendering before. They used one skull and what scholars believe the standard hair style of the time was. That is literally like taking one (insert race here) guy from America and saying "this is what (insert race here) looked like in America in the 2020s". It would be helpful in getting a picture but it's not a snapshot or anything. Your typical white guy today probably has fairly short hair, but you would say a guy has abnormally long hair for a man until it's pretty dang long. I can think of several reasons why his hair would appear longer than normal after his crucifixion (matted with sweat and blood? Washed and anointed with oil? The helmet of thorns pressing the side down further than his regular curly hair would appear?). Or maybe it's not Jesus, but I don't think it's mere art.
The bigger issue with his hair and beard is that it precisely resembles with 13th and 14th century men thought was stylish, right down to the little fork in his beard. The Jesus on the Shroud isn't just similar to the depictions of Jesus in Medieval art, it is 100% precisely identical to a Medieval depiction of Jesus.

We should also take note that the Shroud appeared in the record for the first time at the exact moment a huge glut of new relics were appearing throughout Europe. The kind of glut we joke about because John the Baptist would have had 4 heads and 27 fingers if all the relics were accurate. Relics were big BIG business in an era of pilgrimage, and what would be bigger than an actual relic from JESUS. The true cross relics were around. Thorns were around. But the burial cloth would beat them all.

You also can't remove the Shroud from the Church's history at the time. The Church was going through a political upheaval with an antipope in Avignon who was directly connected to the French family that suddenly has this shroud that pilgrims are paying to see and pray to.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've read some that interpret the "fork" in his beard as his beard having been torn out at that spot.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jabin said:

I've read some that interpret the "fork" in his beard as his beard having been torn out at that spot.
That would be unusual. And I wouldn't expect it to leave a very stylized part.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Jabin said:

I've read some that interpret the "fork" in his beard as his beard having been torn out at that spot.
That would be unusual. And I wouldn't expect it to leave a very stylized part.
You are able to see much more detail from the shroud than I am if you are able to detect styling.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think the notch in the beard is explained by the face cloth that was tied beneath the chin to hold the mouth closed and thus a barrier of sorts between the shroud and the face of Jesus. Also, I believe artwork going back long before the 1300s shows a similar notch in the beard. The face cloth that corresponds perfectly with the shroud was known to exist and had had a documented history going back to the 600s.

Finally, if one believes in Jesus and in his resurrection, do we really need to be able to explain the image he left for us down to the proportional measurements of his eyes or forehead? I mean he is God and he conquered death. The image on the shroud is without explanation even with today's most advanced scientific technologies. Skeptics will always look for a reason not to believe.
LCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Same people who see Jesus in a tortilla
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.