I have watched the very interesting way you twist facts.
Such as this post
“Albrecht Durer (1471-1528) was very fond of self portraits and often sent his own to others. Sometime in the early 16th Century, he sent a self portrait to his friend Raphael (1483- 1520) that was painted on a transparent cloth, visible from both sides and was described by Raphael and those who saw it as “miraculous”.
“According to Vasari, Dürer’s self-portrait was painted in watercolour on a canvas so extremely fine that it could be seen from both the front and the back side. It was truly a piece of virtuosity, which beside immortalizing the artist’s features was clearly intended to show his painting skills.”
Wolfram Prinz
Raphael, using the same technique and same Byssus cloth, painted his OWN portrait and sent it to Dürer.
“By these and other works the fame of Raphael spread to France and Flanders. Albert Dürer, a remarkable German painter and author of some fine copper engravings, paid him the tribute of his homage and sent him his own portrait, painted in water-colours, on byssus, so fine that it was transparent, without the use of white paint, the white material forming the lights of the picture This appeared marvellous to Raphael, who sent back many drawings of his own which were greatly valued by Albert...”
Giorgio Vasari
Various persons who saw both Dürer’s and Raphael’s “miraculous” self-portraits described them as being made from either Byssus or Cambric.”
You are trying to use a quote from Vasari to bolster your declaration that Raphael sent a transparent painting to Durer. But that is NOT what he is referencing. He is talking about the DRAWINGS that Raphael sent.
You then talk about various person who saw Raphael’s self portrait BUT YOU CAN POINT TO NO EVIDENCE.
And yes, I don’t believe you. For some reason, you have an agenda to show that the Veil is not real.
I, on the other hand, am actually looking for evidence. I would gladly entertain information that Raphael did a transparent Self-portrait..BUT I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF IT AND YOU AREN”T PROVIDING ANY.
All you provide is a declaration.
So, your posts are not relevant to me because you refuse to back up your claim.
Btw, if I had throughly researched a topic in the libary..I would know in general how to look it up years later. It wouldn’t be that hard to go online and see what your University had...especially since you know the time frame...but there is a reason you don’t want to do it.
The fact that Raphael did a transparent painting would be of great importance to the researcher that you quoted to bolster your statements. Yet, you didn’t bother to tell him....
Jaworski DOES use the word linen- referencing Fanti
http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/JaworskiWeb.pdf
Thank you for that link. I appreciate the reading of that article. It was new information. I stand corrected. Incidentally, the spectral data vis-a-vis Linen and Byssal threads would apply to cotton as well. Until qualified scientists can open that reliquary and examine the threads themselves, we cannot know for sure what they are.
I am willing to agree that they are not Byssus. I have always thought they were not for logical reasons. . . mostly because of the costly nature of the cloth both in Jerusalem and in Europe. In the 1st Century Byssus was pretty much reserved for Royalty and it would be highly unlikely that any lady of royal blood would even BE there much less offer her veil to a condemned prisoner to wipe his sweaty and bloodied face on in the Streets of the town. A veil made of linen would make more sense, such as the one being held in the Vatican. Similarly, when Dürer and Raphael were exchanging their artwork, of whatever kind, Cambric would be of almost equal diaphanous nature as Byssus and a FAR cheaper cloth with which to experiment.
You claim I have an agenda to show that the Veil is not real... Yes, RummyChick, I do. Why? Because that is what the scholarship, science, and evidence shows me is the case!
You, on the other hand, claim to have no agenda, but your every argument shows you have an agenda of ignoring the evidence to accept the Manoppello Veronica as the one and only veil that was pressed to Jesus' face on the Via Dolorosa on the way to the Cross, despite all the evidence that it could not be. . . even resorting to using "miracle" as a convenient way of explaining everything that does not fit your pre-conceived notions.
I do not have to resort to "miracles" to explain away the FACT that the sizing does not match... or that the mustache and beard are totally different and also DO NOT MATCH... to those seen on the Shroud of Turin. Or see swelling in a cheek as Fanti claims. . . because the cloth was stretched when it was mounted in the glass, distorting the face... or impute wispy locks of forehead hair on the Shroud face that are not there and that NO ONE ELSE HAS SEEN, because there are wispy locks of forehead hair of the Manoppello image, as again, Fanti does!
The SCIENCE and SCHOLARSHIP show me that the Manoppello veil is a beautiful work of art, most likely, but not assuredly, done by Raphael (it may have been an attempt by Dürer to portray his friend using his technique)... but it LOOKS like other self-portraits of that artist at the time of life in which it was reliably reported that he exchanged experimental portraits with Dürer.. reports of which I, and others, found compelling enough to agree with. That minor finding stands, along with all the other evidence, but it is not the main point, but only one of many data points in the making of the conclusion that the Manoppello Veil is not authentic.
I will continue to put forward those findings when it invades Shroud threads. Perhaps I am wrong. However, the veil DOES have pigments on it... everywhere there is image.