[Merged] Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

X · 23rd December 2011, 05:57 AM

A group called "Mission of the Shroud" put a full-page ad in today's newspaper, showing some of the 'miracles' revealed in their studies of the Shroud of Turin. Their studies, near as I can determine, involve highly imaginative inspections of close-up photos of smudges. They do the same think to rocks, skies and whatever they can find.

In these images, they claim to see depictions of Jesus, Mary, the Bible, a Chalice, and so-on and so-forth.

As for me, I can't see a thing. Even in the photos they've helpfully labelled, all I see is a smudge. I suspect it's either pareidolia, or it's one of those Magic-Eye things (which I normally have no trouble seeing).

Anyway, have a look and see what you see.
Mission of the Shroud photos page

I was also amused to note that this group of overly-optimistic smudge-gazers is local.

ebardos · 23rd December 2011, 06:28 AM

I looked, I didn't get it. But if you have to point it out like that - "look there's his nose if you hold it sideways and squint a little" - how reliable is it? It's like getting a Jesus face in your morning toast.

Lord Emsworth · 23rd December 2011, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by X

Anyway, have a look and see what you see.
Mission of the Shroud photos page

I refuse to use flash in order to look at some pictures. Kooks.

MG1962 · 23rd December 2011, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by ebardos

I looked, I didn't get it. But if you have to point it out like that - "look there's his nose if you hold it sideways and squint a little" - how reliable is it? It's like getting a Jesus face in your morning toast.

I have a vague memory that someone was selling a toaster this year that did that on demand

paiute · 23rd December 2011, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

I have a vague memory that someone was selling a toaster this year that did that on demand

http://www.burntimpressions.com/

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 08:32 AM

The only miracle is why anyone would believe it was genuine.

X · 23rd December 2011, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

The only miracle is why anyone would believe it was genuine.

No, no...
That's easily explained.

TimCallahan · 23rd December 2011, 01:59 PM

This is a nice collection of blurry images. Since they actually show nothing, they could be used as a sort of Rorschach test for religiosity. It's Jesus on a taco all over again.

They do prove one thing though: Pseudoscience never dies. The carbon dating of the shroud as late 1200s to early 1300s should have ended the debate. What is particularly an aspect of pseudoscience vs. science is that, had the carbon dating shown the shroud was from the first century, its advocates would have been trumpeting the findings to the skies. Once carbon dating showed the shroud to be of medieval origin, they couldn't find enough rationalizations to explain it away.

tsig · 23rd December 2011, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

This is a nice collection of blurry images. Since they actually show nothing, they could be used as a sort of Rorschach test for religiosity. It's Jesus on a taco all over again.

They do prove one thing though: Pseudoscience never dies. The carbon dating of the shroud as late 1200s to early 1300s should have ended the debate. What is particularly an aspect of pseudoscience vs. science is that, had the carbon dating shown the shroud was from the first century, its advocates would have been trumpeting the findings to the skies. Once carbon dating showed the shroud to be of medieval origin, they couldn't find enough rationalizations to explain it away.

The best one I heard was that the Resurrection Event changed the structure of the shroud thereby throwing off the carbon dating.

ETA: Iron clad proof would be if they took a fleck of 'blood' and cloned Jesus.

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

The best one I heard was that the Resurrection Event changed the structure of the shroud thereby throwing off the carbon dating.

ETA: Iron clad proof would be if they took a fleck of 'blood' and cloned Jesus.

That's as funny as the balderdash about Thomas Aquinas and the fish.

TimCallahan · 23rd December 2011, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

The best one I heard was that the Resurrection Event changed the structure of the shroud thereby throwing off the carbon dating.
(snip)

Which means that the assertion the shroud is from the first century isn't verifiable / falsifiable; which means it isn't science and isn't even intellectually honest.

tsig · 23rd December 2011, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Which means that the assertion the shroud is from the first century isn't verifiable / falsifiable; which means it isn't science and isn't even intellectually honest.

Found this:

In recent years, some scientists have tried to link the enigma of the Shroud's images to a resurrection event. In the wake of a miraculous occurrence, they reason, some energetic stimulus brought forth a visible chemical change at the surface of the cloth?

http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-miracle.htm

The argument seems to be that when the resurrection happened there was a blast of energy that 'burnt' the image onto the cloth.

Science? No, but there's nothing new about scientists throwing their brains out the window when it comes to faith.

joesixpack · 23rd December 2011, 07:41 PM

Am I mistaken or didn't the Church reject the shroud as a latter-day forgery/fake/hoax over a decade ago?

Darth Rotor · 23rd December 2011, 07:47 PM

Didn't we have a multiple paged thread on this topic a while back?

Ray Brady · 23rd December 2011, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Iron clad proof would be if they took a fleck of 'blood' and cloned Jesus.

You don't need the Shroud for that. Communion wine literally transforms into the blood of Christ, giving you all the DNA you need.

tsig · 23rd December 2011, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by Ray Brady

You don't need the Shroud for that. Communion wine literally transforms into the blood of Christ, giving you all the DNA you need.

The accidents (appearance, smell, taste) remains the same but the essence changes into Jesus so no cloning (RCC doctrine)

Jabba · 6th March 2012, 07:32 AM

- Have any of you guys studied the alleged evidence?

X · 6th March 2012, 08:21 AM

Is there any compelling reason to?

Right now, pareidolia and wishful thinking suffice. Especially considering that the shroud is only 800 years old, and not 2000.

Resume · 6th March 2012, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Have any of you guys studied the alleged evidence?

To what end?

azzthom · 6th March 2012, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Have any of you guys studied the alleged evidence?

Yes. The image on the shroud is an idealised, iconic image of Jesus that did not start to take shape until about 600AD, and didn't reach the form on the shroud until about 800AD. In addition, Tertullian and Josephus left physical descriptions of Jesus in their writings (as did some of the 'other' gospels). Those descriptions match each other quite well. They do not match the image on the shroud.

The crucifixion marks on the image are incorrect. The Romans may have varied their methods regarding the hands, but the feet were always dealt with in the same way, which is not the method shown on the shroud. The carbon dating was performed on 4 distinct samples from the shroud, and all 4 showed a date of between 1200 and 1390.

In short, although the Turin shroud is a fascinating object, it is not the burial shroud of Jesus. In fact, since crucifixion was abolished by Constantine, it is not a burial shroud at all. It is most likely a very unusual example of medieval iconography.

Jabba · 6th March 2012, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by azzthom

Yes. The image on the shroud is an idealised, iconic image of Jesus that did not start to take shape until about 600AD, and didn't reach the form on the shroud until about 800AD. In addition, Tertullian and Josephus left physical descriptions of Jesus in their writings (as did some of the 'other' gospels). Those descriptions match each other quite well. They do not match the image on the shroud...

azzthom,
- Can you point me to the Tertullian and Josephus descriptions?

azzthom · 6th March 2012, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

azzthom,
- Can you point me to the Tertullian and Josephus descriptions?

Yes indeed. Josephus' description is in the Slavonic edition of 'The Capture of Jerusalem'. You can find a summary here:- http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=13

It also includes other descriptions I had forgotten about, and quotes Tertullian.

Jabba · 6th March 2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by azzthom

The crucifixion marks on the image are incorrect. 1) The Romans may have varied their methods regarding the hands, but the feet were always dealt with in the same way, which is not the method shown on the shroud. 2) The carbon dating was performed on 4 distinct samples from the shroud, and 3) all 4 showed a date of between 1200 and 1390...

azzthom,
- I numbered your statements for easy referral.
- Re #1, I don't think that's true. Can you point me to your source. I'll look for mine...
- Re #2, unless I'm forgetting one, the carbon dating was done at only three laboratories -- Oxford, U of Ariz and the Institut für Mittelenergiephysik in Zurich -- and on only three samples. In addition, the samples were not especially distinct -- together, they comprised one small corner of the Shroud. I can't remember the size of the corner, but each sample took up only a few square centimeters.
-Re #3, I'm pretty sure that all the peer reviewed articles on the carbon dating since the original Nature article in 1988 have concluded that the dating was invalid.

yy2bggggs · 6th March 2012, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

-Re #3, I'm pretty sure that all the peer reviewed articles on the carbon dating since the original Nature article in 1988 have concluded that the dating was invalid.

Citation?

azzthom · 6th March 2012, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

azzthom,
- I numbered your statements for easy referral.
- Re #1, I don't think that's true. Can you point me to your source. I'll look for mine...
- Re #2, unless I'm forgetting one, the carbon dating was done at only three laboratories -- Oxford, U of Ariz and the Institut für Mittelenergiephysik in Zurich -- and on only three samples. In addition, the samples were not especially distinct -- together, they comprised one small corner of the Shroud. I can't remember the size of the corner, but each sample took up only a few square centimeters.
-Re #3, I'm pretty sure that all the peer reviewed articles on the carbon dating since the original Nature article in 1988 have concluded that the dating was invalid.

Here is a summary of Crucifixion evidence from the same website as the physical descriptions of Jesus. http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=15

Here is a paper on experiments done with crucifixion, concentrating on the hands.
http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/ex...n_crucifix.htm

Apologies on the dating samples. It was one sample from the shroud, and three control samples. Memory failed me

The strip taken from the shroud was cut into three smaller samples as you said. This link describes the dating process and the results.
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Recent research has suggested that the area tested was a medieval repair, and so the results are of the dating were invalid. Apologies again, I'm working from memory (it's been a long time since I did my checking) Here's another link which summarises and explains the situation.
http://shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html

It agrees that the shroud is much older, but gives a range of 1300-3000 years. The date is still open, but earlier than medieval.

Rincewind · 6th March 2012, 12:06 PM

I recall - dimly - a TV program of a few years ago where they tried to reproduce the shroud image.

Apparently, when you wrap a cloth around a face, the resulting image looks distorted.

I wish I could remember it more clearly...

wardenclyffe · 6th March 2012, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Rincewind

I recall - dimly - a TV program of a few years ago where they tried to reproduce the shroud image.

Apparently, when you wrap a cloth around a face, the resulting image looks distorted.

I wish I could remember it more clearly...

Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

I wish it were a joke.

Ward

P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time.

catsmate1 · 6th March 2012, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by yy2bggggs

Citation?

A number of groups claim that the area of the shroud sampled for ¹⁴C analysis was a medieval patch¹ or otherwise contaminated²; this supposition is not generally accepted, nor is there significant scientific dispute on the dating itself.
Ray Rogers is the most often cited doubter of the dating; he published a paper in Thermochimica Acta in 2005 alleging the sampled area was such a patch. However there are a number of utterly unsupported claims in his paper regarding alleged chemical differences between the majority of the cloth and the sample and the cotton content.
Likewise while there are various conspiratorial allegations (financial donations, mysterious deaths et cetera) there is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing.
The CSICOP article is a good start for such claims.

¹ This is despite the panel of experts selected to decide the sampling area carefully examining the cloth and avoiding any such patches.

²A figure of an additional contamination 2% is often cited by believers in the shroud's authenticity as sufficient to lead to an error of fourteen centuries; however this is utter nonsense, the correct figure being in the range of ~60-70%

tsig · 6th March 2012, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe

Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

I wish it were a joke.

Ward

P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time.

Her explanation works equally well for a painting.

Brainache · 6th March 2012, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe

Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

I wish it were a joke.

Ward

P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time.

So Jesus was a black hole.
I don't think he was a Russian.
He had anti-grav. as well as soul
and left his mark on some old linen.
As he left this mortal coil
I'm sure I heard him say:
Energise and make it so, YAHWEH

Craig B · 6th March 2012, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by azzthom

Yes indeed. Josephus' description is in the Slavonic edition of 'The Capture of Jerusalem'. You can find a summary here:- http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=13

It also includes other descriptions I had forgotten about, and quotes Tertullian.

azzthom, are you seriously treating the material in the Slavonic Josephus, where it is additional to the content of the Greek text, as a reliable source of information about anything, let alone the physical appearance of Jesus?

Even the two sparse references to Jesus in the "standard" Josephus, Antiquities Chs 18 and 20, are quite clearly interpolated by a later hand. But the Slavonic ... Dear God!

Brainache · 7th March 2012, 12:03 AM

The only miracle of the Shroud I see is its incredible ability to continue to suck money from the pockets of morons 700 years after it was painted.

Most medieval relics have long since lost their ability to extract cash, but the Shroud just keeps on fleecing that flock.

Amazing!

Leumas · 7th March 2012, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Brainache

The only miracle of the Shroud I see is its incredible ability to continue to suck money from the pockets of morons 700 years after it was painted.

Most medieval relics have long since lost their ability to extract cash, but the Shroud just keeps on fleecing that flock.

Amazing!

What about the Vatican?

azzthom · 7th March 2012, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by Craig B

azzthom, are you seriously treating the material in the Slavonic Josephus, where it is additional to the content of the Greek text, as a reliable source of information about anything, let alone the physical appearance of Jesus?

Even the two sparse references to Jesus in the "standard" Josephus, Antiquities Chs 18 and 20, are quite clearly interpolated by a later hand. But the Slavonic ... Dear God!

If it were the only description of Jesus, you may have a point. It isn't. The man on the Turin shroud is not Jesus. He does not match any of the descriptions and bears no resemblance to the people of the region at that time. I can accept that Jesus was a real man, but the Turin shroud does not show his image.

Craig B · 7th March 2012, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by azzthom

If it were the only description of Jesus, you may have a point. It isn't. The man on the Turin shroud is not Jesus. He does not match any of the descriptions and bears no resemblance to the people of the region at that time. I can accept that Jesus was a real man, but the Turin shroud does not show his image.

Could you direct me to the other descriptions of Jesus? I mean descriptions which might have originated directly or indirectly with people who knew him, and not those derived from visions vouchsafed unto Theresa of Avila, Catherine Emmerich or their like.

azzthom · 7th March 2012, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by Craig B

Could you direct me to the other descriptions of Jesus? I mean descriptions which might have originated directly or indirectly with people who knew him, and not those derived from visions vouchsafed unto Theresa of Avila, Catherine Emmerich or their like.

My post that you quoted has a link to a page with a collection of such descriptions. For convenience, here it is again:-
http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=13

Can you find a description, following the same rules, which matches the Turin shroud?

Leumas · 7th March 2012, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by azzthom

If it were the only description of Jesus, you may have a point. It isn't. The man on the Turin shroud is not Jesus. He does not match any of the descriptions and bears no resemblance to the people of the region at that time. I can accept that Jesus was a real man, but the Turin shroud does not show his image.

I must be getting "good" at "thinking" like a theist maybe due to being exposed to the posts of some people in this thread.

But here is a solution to the dilemma from a theistic twisted point of view....

Jesus when he was in Israel looked like a common place guy in the society of Israel of the epoch.

However, when he got resurrected he deliberately changed his looks to look like a European guy in anticipation of his future role as an inveigler of Europeans.

This also explains why the Disciples did not recognize him when he appeared to them after the resurrection..... he was European looking by then and not at all like the Guy who taught them how to ~~huckster~~ fish for Jewish men. Mark 16:12, Luke 24:18, Luke 24:36-37, John 20:14

Accordingly the shroud would have the image of his new manifestation.

See..... anything is possible for the theistic warped mental gymnastics of casuistry.....reality is what they wish it to be.

I felt conflicted writing this post. On the one hand I did not want to give the casuists more material, and on the other I wanted to beat them to it in order to demonstrate to them that an atheist can beat them at their game.

azzthom · 7th March 2012, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by Leumas

I must be getting "good" at "thinking" like a theist maybe due to being exposed to the posts of some people in this thread.

But here is a solution to the dilemma from a theistic twisted point of view....

Jesus when he was in Israel looked like a common place guy in the society of Israel of the epoch.

However, when he got resurrected he deliberately changed his looks to look like a European guy in anticipation of his future role as an inveigler of Europeans.

This also explains why the Disciples did not recognize him when he appeared to them after the resurrection..... he was European looking by then and not at all like the Guy who taught them how to ~~huckster~~ fish for Jewish men. Mark 16:12, Luke 24:18, Luke 24:36-37, John 20:14

Accordingly the shroud would have the image of his new manifestation.

See..... anything is possible for the theistic warped mental gymnastics of casuistry.....reality is what they wish it to be.

I felt conflicted writing this post. On the one hand I did not want to give the casuists more material, and on the other I wanted to beat them to it in order to demonstrate to them that an atheist can beat them at their game.

I just laughed out loud at your post, thanks! But I know what you mean. I've given evidence that the physical image is wrong, that the crucifixion marks are wrong... others have brought up the lack of distortion, refuted the claims on the dating being wrong, there's also the problems with the weave not being found anywhere at the right time, the differences between the shroud and actual burials of the time... The list goes on and still they put faith in an object ... well, you know what I mean.

Craig B · 7th March 2012, 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by azzthom

My post that you quoted has a link to a page with a collection of such descriptions. For convenience, here it is again:- http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=13 Can you find a description, following the same rules, which matches the Turin shroud?

No, because I think the Shroud is a mediaeval forgery. But your linked page is most unimpressive as a source about Jesus' physical appearance. It contains NO "descriptions", according to any rules whatsoever.

Quote:

More than 1500 years ago, St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) lamented that: “we have absolutely no knowledge of His appearance”

Quite so.

Quote:

When Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and found it empty, she inquired of the “gardener”, where is Jesus? and promised to lift Jesus’ body up if he told her where he was. Obviously if Mary were capable of lifting Jesus up, he can’t have been very large.

I gasp in amazement at this being presented as a "description" of Jesus, or even as an indication of his stature, for these reasons:

The account is from John, and is not confirmed in the other gospels. John is not historical.

The "gardener" was Jesus and Mary didn't recognise him! In such circumstances her mental condition doesn't inspire confidence as regards the practicality of her intentions, or her ability to describe the Jesus she couldn't even recognise.

As to "lifting up", NIV renders this passage as "Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” Which doesn't mean she intended to lug his body away by herself without assistance.

Angels are present too. Enough said. Pity they didn't leave us a description.

Quote:

The Gospel of Luke (19:3) describes Zaccheus’ attempt to see Jesus while he preached in a crowd: “And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and he could not for the crowd, because he was low of stature.” Of course, Luke may be referring to Zaccheus rather than Jesus.

For sure. In the other case almost nobody at all in the crowd would have seen Jesus.

Quote:

We have another clue to Jesus’ appearance in the Qur’an. One night, a winged snow-white beast takes the prophet Muhammad to Jerusalem to the Temple where he meets Moses and Jesus, and Jesus is the smaller of the two.

I abstain from making any comment on the use of this as a source; and I have already ruled out the Slavonic Josephus interpolations.

Quote:

Jesus Had Short Hair and was Clean Shaven Imagine Jesus as your prototypical Marine - short hair, clean-shaven. Hard to imagine, yet that seems to be our best evidence. Freke and Gandy (2001) note: “the earliest representations of Jesus actually portray him beardless, with short hair….(p. 56).” We can see this in our survey of the earliest Christian art…

All the early representations cited are Roman frescos, in which he was of course depicted as a Roman. That he actually was a clean shaven toga wearer is quite impossible, and this image indicates that the Roman Christians had indeed no idea of his real appearance.

jhunter1163 · 7th March 2012, 04:03 AM

On a somewhat unrelated note, do you guys think that the Sudarium of Oviedo is a similar piece of Dark Ages iconography?

23rd December 2011, 05:57 AM	#1
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud A group called "Mission of the Shroud" put a full-page ad in today's newspaper, showing some of the 'miracles' revealed in their studies of the Shroud of Turin. Their studies, near as I can determine, involve highly imaginative inspections of close-up photos of smudges. They do the same think to rocks, skies and whatever they can find. In these images, they claim to see depictions of Jesus, Mary, the Bible, a Chalice, and so-on and so-forth. As for me, I can't see a thing. Even in the photos they've helpfully labelled, all I see is a smudge. I suspect it's either pareidolia, or it's one of those Magic-Eye things (which I normally have no trouble seeing). Anyway, have a look and see what you see. Mission of the Shroud photos page I was also amused to note that this group of overly-optimistic smudge-gazers is local.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

23rd December 2011, 07:33 AM	#5
paiute Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Smack in the middle of a de Broglie wavelength. Posts: 1,140	Originally Posted by MG1962 I have a vague memory that someone was selling a toaster this year that did that on demand http://www.burntimpressions.com/
	__________________ A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong? Now free for download! http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine

23rd December 2011, 08:32 AM	#6
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	The only miracle is why anyone would believe it was genuine.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd December 2011, 08:38 AM	#7
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	Originally Posted by dafydd The only miracle is why anyone would believe it was genuine. No, no... That's easily explained.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

23rd December 2011, 01:59 PM	#8
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,133	This is a nice collection of blurry images. Since they actually show nothing, they could be used as a sort of Rorschach test for religiosity. It's Jesus on a taco all over again. They do prove one thing though: Pseudoscience never dies. The carbon dating of the shroud as late 1200s to early 1300s should have ended the debate. What is particularly an aspect of pseudoscience vs. science is that, had the carbon dating shown the shroud was from the first century, its advocates would have been trumpeting the findings to the skies. Once carbon dating showed the shroud to be of medieval origin, they couldn't find enough rationalizations to explain it away.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,133

23rd December 2011, 06:28 AM	#2
ebardos Scholar Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 56	I looked, I didn't get it. But if you have to point it out like that - "look there's his nose if you hold it sideways and squint a little" - how reliable is it? It's like getting a Jesus face in your morning toast.
ebardos Scholar Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 56

23rd December 2011, 06:49 AM	#3
Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Through the Cables and the Underground ... Posts: 2,827	Originally Posted by X Anyway, have a look and see what you see. Mission of the Shroud photos page I refuse to use flash in order to look at some pictures. Kooks.

23rd December 2011, 06:51 AM	#4
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by ebardos I looked, I didn't get it. But if you have to point it out like that - "look there's his nose if you hold it sideways and squint a little" - how reliable is it? It's like getting a Jesus face in your morning toast. I have a vague memory that someone was selling a toaster this year that did that on demand

23rd December 2011, 02:47 PM	#9
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,791	Originally Posted by TimCallahan This is a nice collection of blurry images. Since they actually show nothing, they could be used as a sort of Rorschach test for religiosity. It's Jesus on a taco all over again. They do prove one thing though: Pseudoscience never dies. The carbon dating of the shroud as late 1200s to early 1300s should have ended the debate. What is particularly an aspect of pseudoscience vs. science is that, had the carbon dating shown the shroud was from the first century, its advocates would have been trumpeting the findings to the skies. Once carbon dating showed the shroud to be of medieval origin, they couldn't find enough rationalizations to explain it away. The best one I heard was that the Resurrection Event changed the structure of the shroud thereby throwing off the carbon dating. ETA: Iron clad proof would be if they took a fleck of 'blood' and cloned Jesus.
	Last edited by tsig; 23rd December 2011 at 02:48 PM.

23rd December 2011, 02:51 PM	#10
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	Originally Posted by tsig The best one I heard was that the Resurrection Event changed the structure of the shroud thereby throwing off the carbon dating. ETA: Iron clad proof would be if they took a fleck of 'blood' and cloned Jesus. That's as funny as the balderdash about Thomas Aquinas and the fish.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd December 2011, 03:47 PM	#11
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,133	Originally Posted by tsig The best one I heard was that the Resurrection Event changed the structure of the shroud thereby throwing off the carbon dating. (snip) Which means that the assertion the shroud is from the first century isn't verifiable / falsifiable; which means it isn't science and isn't even intellectually honest.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,133

23rd December 2011, 06:52 PM	#12
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,791	Originally Posted by TimCallahan Which means that the assertion the shroud is from the first century isn't verifiable / falsifiable; which means it isn't science and isn't even intellectually honest. Found this: In recent years, some scientists have tried to link the enigma of the Shroud's images to a resurrection event. In the wake of a miraculous occurrence, they reason, some energetic stimulus brought forth a visible chemical change at the surface of the cloth? http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-miracle.htm The argument seems to be that when the resurrection happened there was a blast of energy that 'burnt' the image onto the cloth. Science? No, but there's nothing new about scientists throwing their brains out the window when it comes to faith.

23rd December 2011, 07:41 PM	#13
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,423	Am I mistaken or didn't the Church reject the shroud as a latter-day forgery/fake/hoax over a decade ago?
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

23rd December 2011, 07:47 PM	#14
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Didn't we have a multiple paged thread on this topic a while back?
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

23rd December 2011, 07:53 PM	#15
Ray Brady Muse Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 579	Originally Posted by tsig Iron clad proof would be if they took a fleck of 'blood' and cloned Jesus. You don't need the Shroud for that. Communion wine literally transforms into the blood of Christ, giving you all the DNA you need.
Ray Brady Muse Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 579

23rd December 2011, 10:34 PM	#16
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,791	Originally Posted by Ray Brady You don't need the Shroud for that. Communion wine literally transforms into the blood of Christ, giving you all the DNA you need. The accidents (appearance, smell, taste) remains the same but the essence changes into Jesus so no cloning (RCC doctrine)

6th March 2012, 07:32 AM	#17
Jabba Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Schenectady, NY Posts: 906	- Have any of you guys studied the alleged evidence?

6th March 2012, 08:21 AM	#18
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	Is there any compelling reason to? Right now, pareidolia and wishful thinking suffice. Especially considering that the shroud is only 800 years old, and not 2000.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

6th March 2012, 08:22 AM	#19
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,038	Originally Posted by Jabba - Have any of you guys studied the alleged evidence? To what end?
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,038

6th March 2012, 08:46 AM	#20
azzthom Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: United Kindom Posts: 484	Originally Posted by Jabba - Have any of you guys studied the alleged evidence? Yes. The image on the shroud is an idealised, iconic image of Jesus that did not start to take shape until about 600AD, and didn't reach the form on the shroud until about 800AD. In addition, Tertullian and Josephus left physical descriptions of Jesus in their writings (as did some of the 'other' gospels). Those descriptions match each other quite well. They do not match the image on the shroud. The crucifixion marks on the image are incorrect. The Romans may have varied their methods regarding the hands, but the feet were always dealt with in the same way, which is not the method shown on the shroud. The carbon dating was performed on 4 distinct samples from the shroud, and all 4 showed a date of between 1200 and 1390. In short, although the Turin shroud is a fascinating object, it is not the burial shroud of Jesus. In fact, since crucifixion was abolished by Constantine, it is not a burial shroud at all. It is most likely a very unusual example of medieval iconography.
	__________________ "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" "To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet "Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin "A hypothesis that cannot be falsfied is merely a superstition" - Me. Joseph Tittel is a fraud.

6th March 2012, 08:52 AM	#21
Jabba Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Schenectady, NY Posts: 906	Originally Posted by azzthom Yes. The image on the shroud is an idealised, iconic image of Jesus that did not start to take shape until about 600AD, and didn't reach the form on the shroud until about 800AD. In addition, Tertullian and Josephus left physical descriptions of Jesus in their writings (as did some of the 'other' gospels). Those descriptions match each other quite well. They do not match the image on the shroud... azzthom, - Can you point me to the Tertullian and Josephus descriptions?

6th March 2012, 09:04 AM	#22
azzthom Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: United Kindom Posts: 484	Originally Posted by Jabba azzthom, - Can you point me to the Tertullian and Josephus descriptions? Yes indeed. Josephus' description is in the Slavonic edition of 'The Capture of Jerusalem'. You can find a summary here:- http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=13 It also includes other descriptions I had forgotten about, and quotes Tertullian.
	__________________ "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" "To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet "Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin "A hypothesis that cannot be falsfied is merely a superstition" - Me. Joseph Tittel is a fraud.

6th March 2012, 09:27 AM	#23
Jabba Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Schenectady, NY Posts: 906	Originally Posted by azzthom The crucifixion marks on the image are incorrect. 1) The Romans may have varied their methods regarding the hands, but the feet were always dealt with in the same way, which is not the method shown on the shroud. 2) The carbon dating was performed on 4 distinct samples from the shroud, and 3) all 4 showed a date of between 1200 and 1390... azzthom, - I numbered your statements for easy referral. - Re #1, I don't think that's true. Can you point me to your source. I'll look for mine... - Re #2, unless I'm forgetting one, the carbon dating was done at only three laboratories -- Oxford, U of Ariz and the Institut für Mittelenergiephysik in Zurich -- and on only three samples. In addition, the samples were not especially distinct -- together, they comprised one small corner of the Shroud. I can't remember the size of the corner, but each sample took up only a few square centimeters. -Re #3, I'm pretty sure that all the peer reviewed articles on the carbon dating since the original Nature article in 1988 have concluded that the dating was invalid.

6th March 2012, 09:41 AM	#24
yy2bggggs Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,436	Originally Posted by Jabba -Re #3, I'm pretty sure that all the peer reviewed articles on the carbon dating since the original Nature article in 1988 have concluded that the dating was invalid. Citation?
yy2bggggs Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,436

6th March 2012, 09:55 AM	#25
azzthom Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: United Kindom Posts: 484	Originally Posted by Jabba azzthom, - I numbered your statements for easy referral. - Re #1, I don't think that's true. Can you point me to your source. I'll look for mine... - Re #2, unless I'm forgetting one, the carbon dating was done at only three laboratories -- Oxford, U of Ariz and the Institut für Mittelenergiephysik in Zurich -- and on only three samples. In addition, the samples were not especially distinct -- together, they comprised one small corner of the Shroud. I can't remember the size of the corner, but each sample took up only a few square centimeters. -Re #3, I'm pretty sure that all the peer reviewed articles on the carbon dating since the original Nature article in 1988 have concluded that the dating was invalid. Here is a summary of Crucifixion evidence from the same website as the physical descriptions of Jesus. http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=15 Here is a paper on experiments done with crucifixion, concentrating on the hands. http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/ex...n_crucifix.htm Apologies on the dating samples. It was one sample from the shroud, and three control samples. Memory failed me The strip taken from the shroud was cut into three smaller samples as you said. This link describes the dating process and the results. http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm Recent research has suggested that the area tested was a medieval repair, and so the results are of the dating were invalid. Apologies again, I'm working from memory (it's been a long time since I did my checking) Here's another link which summarises and explains the situation. http://shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html It agrees that the shroud is much older, but gives a range of 1300-3000 years. The date is still open, but earlier than medieval.
	__________________ "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" "To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet "Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin "A hypothesis that cannot be falsfied is merely a superstition" - Me. Joseph Tittel is a fraud.

6th March 2012, 12:06 PM	#26
Rincewind Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,162	I recall - dimly - a TV program of a few years ago where they tried to reproduce the shroud image. Apparently, when you wrap a cloth around a face, the resulting image looks distorted. I wish I could remember it more clearly...

6th March 2012, 12:45 PM	#27
wardenclyffe Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 1,485	Originally Posted by Rincewind I recall - dimly - a TV program of a few years ago where they tried to reproduce the shroud image. Apparently, when you wrap a cloth around a face, the resulting image looks distorted. I wish I could remember it more clearly... Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10. I wish it were a joke. Ward P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time.
	__________________ ~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~ - Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347

6th March 2012, 03:47 PM	#28
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,136	Originally Posted by yy2bggggs Citation? A number of groups claim that the area of the shroud sampled for ¹⁴C analysis was a medieval patch¹ or otherwise contaminated²; this supposition is not generally accepted, nor is there significant scientific dispute on the dating itself. Ray Rogers is the most often cited doubter of the dating; he published a paper in Thermochimica Acta in 2005 alleging the sampled area was such a patch. However there are a number of utterly unsupported claims in his paper regarding alleged chemical differences between the majority of the cloth and the sample and the cotton content. Likewise while there are various conspiratorial allegations (financial donations, mysterious deaths et cetera) there is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing. The CSICOP article is a good start for such claims. ¹ This is despite the panel of experts selected to decide the sampling area carefully examining the cloth and avoiding any such patches. ²A figure of an additional contamination 2% is often cited by believers in the shroud's authenticity as sufficient to lead to an error of fourteen centuries; however this is utter nonsense, the correct figure being in the range of ~60-70%

6th March 2012, 03:50 PM	#29
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,791	Originally Posted by wardenclyffe Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10. I wish it were a joke. Ward P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time. Her explanation works equally well for a painting.

6th March 2012, 07:29 PM	#30
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,086	Originally Posted by wardenclyffe Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10. I wish it were a joke. Ward P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time. So Jesus was a black hole. I don't think he was a Russian. He had anti-grav. as well as soul and left his mark on some old linen. As he left this mortal coil I'm sure I heard him say: Energise and make it so, YAHWEH
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

6th March 2012, 10:44 PM	#31
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,985	Originally Posted by azzthom Yes indeed. Josephus' description is in the Slavonic edition of 'The Capture of Jerusalem'. You can find a summary here:- http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=13 It also includes other descriptions I had forgotten about, and quotes Tertullian. azzthom, are you seriously treating the material in the Slavonic Josephus, where it is additional to the content of the Greek text, as a reliable source of information about anything, let alone the physical appearance of Jesus? Even the two sparse references to Jesus in the "standard" Josephus, Antiquities Chs 18 and 20, are quite clearly interpolated by a later hand. But the Slavonic ... Dear God!
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,985

7th March 2012, 12:03 AM	#32
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,086	The only miracle of the Shroud I see is its incredible ability to continue to suck money from the pockets of morons 700 years after it was painted. Most medieval relics have long since lost their ability to extract cash, but the Shroud just keeps on fleecing that flock. Amazing!
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

7th March 2012, 12:59 AM	#33
Leumas Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,493	Originally Posted by Brainache The only miracle of the Shroud I see is its incredible ability to continue to suck money from the pockets of morons 700 years after it was painted. Most medieval relics have long since lost their ability to extract cash, but the Shroud just keeps on fleecing that flock. Amazing! What about the Vatican?
Leumas Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,493	__________________ "I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't." - Jules Renard "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." - Thomas Jefferson

7th March 2012, 02:35 AM	#34
azzthom Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: United Kindom Posts: 484	Originally Posted by Craig B azzthom, are you seriously treating the material in the Slavonic Josephus, where it is additional to the content of the Greek text, as a reliable source of information about anything, let alone the physical appearance of Jesus? Even the two sparse references to Jesus in the "standard" Josephus, Antiquities Chs 18 and 20, are quite clearly interpolated by a later hand. But the Slavonic ... Dear God! If it were the only description of Jesus, you may have a point. It isn't. The man on the Turin shroud is not Jesus. He does not match any of the descriptions and bears no resemblance to the people of the region at that time. I can accept that Jesus was a real man, but the Turin shroud does not show his image.
	__________________ "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" "To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet "Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin "A hypothesis that cannot be falsfied is merely a superstition" - Me. Joseph Tittel is a fraud.

7th March 2012, 02:53 AM	#35
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,985	Originally Posted by azzthom If it were the only description of Jesus, you may have a point. It isn't. The man on the Turin shroud is not Jesus. He does not match any of the descriptions and bears no resemblance to the people of the region at that time. I can accept that Jesus was a real man, but the Turin shroud does not show his image. Could you direct me to the other descriptions of Jesus? I mean descriptions which might have originated directly or indirectly with people who knew him, and not those derived from visions vouchsafed unto Theresa of Avila, Catherine Emmerich or their like.
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,985