The Shroud Of Turin

[c.d.]

If someone was capable of producing the image back in the Middle Ages, you would think that they would simply grab the nearest cloth, kill a stray dog or cat and drip some blood on the cloth. That would be all that you need to be in business. But as far as we know, the blood is human male blood and follows the pattern of death by crucifixtion. The cloth is the type of cloth used for burials at the time of Christ and also contains pollen grains from plants that bloom in the Holy Lands in the Spring. Also, it has been shown that the marks on the cloth are what would be expected had it been stored in clay jars which apparently was a common practice among the Jewish people. On the other hand, the lack of provenance is troubling. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

CD,

I don't think it is a fake. I think it was created as an icon to be carried about, stored in a church, and whatever one does with such things... kind of like the tabots in Ethiopia that represent the 10 commandments. Perhaps it was considered too atrocious or something and got licked away for a couple of hundred years, cataloged, and forgotten.

Cheers,

Mike

[Celesta]

I'm off to bed, Cel,
just a quick happy Easter to you too.

Amitiés ma chère,
David

Thank you, David, and I hope yours and your son's was a happy one, also.

Whatever the Shroud is, it hasn't been clearly defined to the satisfaction of everyone. It's an interesting artifact. The Sudarium, the supposed companion piece is interesting also, as mysteries go. I've wondered if the Shroud was a replacement for something else, an older artifact that was similar but which was either lost, destroyed, or, perhaps, disintegrated over time. Maybe someone felt there was a necessity to create a facsimile, if indeed it was a creation. Could it not also be an actual shroud that was artistically embellished at some point? Many possibilities here.

Best wishes,

Cel

[The Good Michael]

I'm working on a shroud right now. I can't find a hairy bearded guy, so I'm using a 12 year old Korean girl named Lee Jeong Min. A few hours exposure in my camera obscura and a little ketchup and it should be good. I'm using a huge roll of ricepaper as linen is hard to come by in these parts.

Mike

[Ally]

[QUOTE=c.d.;129706]

But as far as we know, the blood is human male blood and follows the pattern of death by crucifixtion.

Ah yes but see the problem is that they went one step too far. They typed the blood and said it was AB. Which is somewhat problematic since AB blood woudn't have existed at the time of christ and he was unlikely to have had that blood type. I mean one could argue that maybe Mary was A and God was B, but really, come on. If he was a virgin birth (giggle, snort) then he would have had the DNA characteristics purely of his mother and since AB is one of the more recent blood groupings, he would not have been AB.
This is example of Junk science. Where those who "believe" write "scientific" papers, to supposedly support their faith. The science is only as good as the objectives of the scientist.And everyone else who has tested the "blood" has found ochre and NOT blood. And for most of the science that supports the shrouds authenticity, it comes from unreliable persons with pre-formed beliefs or questionable reputations...which leads us to the next issue...

The cloth is the type of cloth used for burials at the time of Christ and also contains pollen grains from plants that bloom in the Holy Lands in the Spring.

Actually the cloths are not. The weaves are different than the type that were used in the first century. And when we get to the pollen, oh amusing, but the dude who 'collected' the pollen sample from the shroud, via tape transfer, was the same dude who "authenticated" the Hitler Diaries! There's some credibility. In short, any "science" that comes from the Sturp organization is flawed, because they are not out to prove the truth, they are out to prove their pre-formed decision.

[Tom_Wescott]

There is no proof that Jesus ever existed

That's messed up. The Good Michael just became the evil heathen Michael.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

What Mike means is that in terms of historical methodology there is no primary source evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed, or even that Nazareth ever existed either.

That Christ is a mythical composite, behind which may lie an historical figure, or several.

St Paul is arguably writing about a 'Son of God' who lives, dies, is crucified, and is resurrected, up in the sky, in an invisible realm; a purely spiritual saviour, not an earthly figure.

One theory is that St. Paul's movement combined with -- at a much later stage -- with an earthly prophet's movement, one who had been martyred. That this fusion happened in the chaos experienced by Judaism following the Fall of Jerusalem.

Flavius Josephus does not mention Jesus in the versions which come down to us, except for a notorious Christian forgery from the 4th Century [plus an interpolation from the same period about James the Just] and that is why no early Church fathers refer to the Testimonium Flavianum -- it did not yet exist.

The Gospels are arguably written much later, and the first, St. Mark, may have been a symbolic salvation story -- not to be taken literally.

It has to be remembered that a tiny Jewish splinter sect was absorbed into Paganism, and Pagan traditions/ideas of looking at the world, and the metaphysical realm.

For example, that gods can mate with human females, that a human figure can also be a god, that a god can die and rise again to save the world -- these are not Jewish ideas.

For most of its history Christianity, a Jewish/Pagan hybrid, was a Medieval Religion, producing the first totalitarian state, or multi-state, thus leaving far behind the Jewish/aesthetic/pacifistic teachings of its 'founder', and being a force for ignorance, and intolerance, and injustice.

They don't call it the Dark Ages for nothing.

The Shroud of Turin is a relic not just because it is a Medieval relic, but also because it is a relic of an ugly, sectarian era obsessed with death and torture and Thought-Crime.

It is, in itself, a terrific, realistic painting of Christ's suffering in a sinful world, but modern obsessions with it are a throwback to the Medieval World, one which banned bathing and unleashed plague.

[DVV]

Mike,

I know you didn't say that.
But then, what's the use of saying "we have no proof" ???

Are we back to Renan ?

What is this site about ?

Any proof that JtR has ever existed ?

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

David,

My point was a response to someone talking about the perfection of anatomy of the shroud's image and the exact locations of wounds. If we have no primary sources for Jesus' existence, how can such things as perfection and wound location be used to bolster the pro-authenticity argument? Rhetorical question obviously.

Cheers,

Mike

[belinda]

David,

My point was a response to someone talking about the perfection of anatomy of the shroud's image and the exact locations of wounds. If we have no primary sources for Jesus' existence, how can such things as perfection and wound location be used to bolster the pro-authenticity argument? Rhetorical question obviously.

Cheers,

Mike

Your point is very valid

[DVV]

Understood, Mike.
At the same time, an American legist who has studied crucifixion for years (and proved, for example, that asphyxia wasn't the cause of death) said the image is consistent with that of a crucified (thumbs retracted, and some other details I can't remember).

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

David,

I'm sure that's correct. The shroud certainly looks like an image of a man who underwent crucifiction.

Mike

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

I remember seeing a tv-documentary, testing, how Jesus should look like after the shroud had been taken off the body.

Well; the best thing to describe the outlook, is, that he should have been like a green comics figure Hulk...

Meaning; the body dimensions get distorted, when the shroud is around the body!

All the best
Jukka

[DVV]

crucifiction.

Mike

In which case, thumbs up...!

[Tom_Wescott]

Bunch of blotchy-faced heathens. To say there's no evidence for Christ's existence is completely retarded.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott