Posted on 03/25/2010 12:58:38 PM PDT by TaraP
Learn to get up to speed before posting drivel.
Cheers!
Forgot the Emmaus road?
A broken nose does not invalidate the prophesy... that not one bone be broken... a nose is cartilage... and it can even not be broken but torn out of place.
No, they eventally recognized him. The point I was making was that he didn’t appear to them beaten up, and so that means that there was a healing of his body prior to the resurrection and therefore the argument that he the image on the shroud is not Jesus because the image does not appear beaten up, doesn’t hold water.
By analogy to the Passover Lamb, and "not a bone of him shall be broken" etc.
But the nose is not bone, but cartilage.
Cheers!
You've been watching too many old episodes of "In Search Of...".
Skeptics like to play on the adage that "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed Jack is King": if all one has in unreliable anecdotes, then any semi-plausible hand-waving about a purported mechanism trumps stories.
...But in this case, we have more than stories: we have the actual physical artifact in our hot, greedy little hands.
And a lot of tests, by reputable scientists, have been done. The converging evidence, from wet-bench chemistry, to spectroscopy, to study of the C-14, to studies of blood decomposition products, traces of pollen matched by location and even germination time of year to species specific TO the outskirts of Jerusalem; studies on weaving of the fabric; studies on the anatomy of the body and the effects of crucifixion; detailed photomicrographs and chemical analysis of the changes to the very fibers in the cloth which comprise the image itself; and the inability of 21-century specialists to even suggest a methodology which could reproduce gross characteristics of the actual image as it has been observed...
ALL are consistent with a genuine image of a truly crucified man of the 1 century, and NONE with a forgery.
Nice try though.
Cheers!
Makes you think huh?
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. The face cloth exists. It is held in the Cathedral of Oviedo Spain, and called the Sudarium of Oviedo. It was a rolled cloth that was placed around the face (not OVER the face) to bind the jaw shut... this cultural practice is well documented in Jewish burial practices from documents FROM THE PERIOD.
Fine Linen twill weaves were NOT a 14th century invention contrary to your assumption... many weave patterns predated the 14th century... and fine Linen 3 over 1 JEWISH twill patterns have been found in the Jewish fortress of Masada from the 1st Century. So another one of your arguments is shot down... and 3 over 1 twill patterns have been found in 2000 years older than that Egyptian tombs... so that's dispositive of nothing more than your eagerness to show your ignorance of the topic at hand.
However, the Shroud DOES have limestone dust on the dorsal side that is found only on one place on earth... that dust is a form of Travertine Aragonite limestone, found only in a small area to the east of Jerusalem, and nowhere else... it's identical to the limestone where the tombs were quarried where Joseph or Aramathea and many of the wealthy members of Jerusalem's population buried their dead. I wonder how a medieval forger thought to add that little detail to his masterpiece.
And the shroud’s been too closely held and controlled and too-little researched for anyone to make any “physics, radiology, botany, anthropology, medicine, forensics, ancient history, textiles, art....you name it” bones, ROL. Let me do my own physiopsychopneumenology on it, will ya? Let me hold it in my basement laboratory for 3 months and I’ll be mass-producing replicas in China @ $34.95 each. STURP called the question of how the image was formed “a mystery”, they say, but mysteries often get solved. I see your point about the water stain, CB, and will admit my error there, but, what with the current Pope just now implicated in deaf-boy-Priest-rape coverups, and with what so many historians tell me about so many popes and churches down thru the centuries, and with my own innate skepticism, and with this particular Jesus shroud (there’ve been many others, I believe) suddenly being “discovered” in teh 1400s. I won’t believe this particular shroud ever touched Jesus until he shows me the mark of the nails in his hands, and puts my hand in his wounded side. So, yeah, ROL, let’s see it. “(P)hysics, radiology, botany, anthropology, medicine, forensics, ancient history, textiles, art... I won’t believe much of it, I’m afraid, but some of it might be interesting to read.
Too little researched... Laughing my Democrat-Party-Mascot off...
You display your abysmal ignorance of both science and the shroud's history, Flowerplough. The Shroud has been called the single most studied object in the world... with good reason. It is... for over 112 years. Samples of the shroud's cloth and the stains and image have been in the hands of scientists since 1973. Thirty seven years... and they are making headway in understanding exactly what the image is composed of... and it isn't something made by human artifice in the 14th Century by any of the so far proposed techniques. In addition, there is far more provenance for the existence of the Shroud far earlier than what you grant as its "discovery" in the 14th century... provenance that takes it at least as far back as the sixth century.
You might want to try reading some of the peer-reviewed science that already exists on the shroud research... before you denigrate it so off-handedly.
We have a huge mural of the Risen Christ by her, everyone hates it and wants to get rid of it, which is impossible because it is done on the whole wall, or cover it up. I love it. I found a little info about her and the mural in the church files and printed them up and that helped but there was very little information.
Could you point me to some good links about her? I think the kind of information you have in your post would impress people a little and make them more comfortable with the mural.
http://www.swnm.com/pcsugar/DemingNewMexico/Deming_Church_School/DemingChurches.htm
Here’s a link to a post card picture of the mural, in real life there is more mauve and blue.
Thanks for the comments on the cloth keeping the jaw shut. (’cuz that is all I remembered and would have written!). I did not know that about the limestone. I have read stuff about the pollens that they have found that include plants native to the region.
Interesting stuff. I know in the Bible it talks about the “water” that flowed from the spear thrust (I think that was from a prophecy?). I forget how medically it is explained - a clear fluid around the heart or something.
Interesting how the shape of the nose on the jewelry is similar to the rendering of the 3D History Channel image. Of course that may be common for the region?
Your wish to behave like St. Thomas is valid, human. But even Thomas grew in his Faith. It was St. Thomas who stuck a staff in the sand, and the ocean did not pass.
One of the “problems” with public exposition of the Shroud is that people still get healed from touching it.
I would venture to guess that any DNA analysis of the blood on the Shroud would yield no DNA map. Scientific analysis of Eucharistic miracles, from all over the world, yield the following results: blood type AB, tissue type heart muscle from the sinoatrial node region, DNA mapping = empty set. It is a strange result, but it reminds us that we are made in His image, therefore we have DNA, but there is no necessity that He would have needed any pre-image.
Wrong yet again. Example: the face cloth is known as the Sudarium; it’s kept in a cathedral in Oviedo, Spain. Herringbone weave is definitely 1st century (and long prior to that, actually). No one has been able to duplicate it; not even close (the image).....but then why bother you with facts, right?
Tell ya what ya do: Barrie Schwortz has an excellent Web site (www.shroud.com). He’s had it up for 14 years now. Barrie was the lead documentary photographer for STURP (he’s also Jewish). Papers out the wazoo, links, etc. Go there and study; would keep you busy for days (although, of course, we both know you won’t).
Then....come talk to me. Ask legitimate questions; challenge the science. That is encouraged....but bring your A game. There has been some amazing work done on this cloth.
Isabel has done nearly 500 murals around the world (including, as I mentioned, at the Vatican). Barrie Schwortz’s site has some great stuff by/on her (www.shroud.com). She’s nearly 70 years old now, so she isn’t as given to climbing scaffolding these days (works on smaller pieces of art). She’s Hungarian by birth; she and her sister escaped when she wasn’t even yet 14 (Cold War era). They’ve lived in the Los Angeles area for years.
By the way....she’s incredibly well connected at the Vatican. They have tremendous respect for her (she has the highest lay title you can have in the Catholic church; she’s Dame Isabel Piczek).
In 1978 I clearly remember as a child the disappointment when they announced the carbon dating found the age of the shroud to be 1200-1300 a.d.. I am not sure if the scientists claimed it was a medieval replica or if it was the people reporting it that took that leap (memory issues) I have however seen on t.v. recently that there is a new theory regarding a flaw in the carbon dating. According to what I heard, they proposed that it was mended using an almost invisible form of “reweaving” that merges new fabric with the old. Unfortunately that was also the area chosen for the carbon dating. My understanding is that the repair includes dyed cotton fabric which is not present in the rest of the shroud. Is this correct, or just another stretch? I figure you are a good person to ask. Also, I understand that there are other datable areas of the shroud that could be used. They said that the shroud was cleaned and all the charred areas were attended to. Some charred pieces were cut away and saved and that these pieces would be extremely good candidates for dating. Please tell me, Is that true? Is it being done?
I’ve seen some recent findings that show the carbon dating was flawed.
“The shroud has been carbon dated no older than the 13th century.”
You are missing important information about that initial attempt to date the shroud.
“Well, let’s run a DNA analysis on the blood, see what we can find out about that.”
That is an outstanding idea! I would love to see the blood of the shroud compared to the blood produced by Eucharistic miracles. ;-))
Steve and I are going to be going to Lourdes about that time and the train ticket over to Turin is only $130 so we’re thinking about going. Do you know what the arrangements are for viewing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.