leonarde

Posted by Atticus_Finch: Greetings! I'm a newbie too! I don't
disagree that for someone who is already
a believer the Shroud CAN BE somewhat superfluous.
Still, you will discover, if you haven't already,
that in talking to NON-believers there is a mismatch:
1)the believer thinks the Bible inspired and (sometimes)inerrant.
2)the non-believer thinks it a mixture of myth,
fiction, legend, plus SOME historically accurate
details.

(the above means that there isn't much room for
agreement in discussing the SIGNIFICANCE of what
the Bible says)
Ditto for the "evidences in creation": there are
two (at least!) takes on the significance of the
"evidence".
Cheers!

leonarde

Posted by Koyaanisqatsi: No.
Most modern Shroudies who believe in authenticity
ALSO think that the Sudarium of Oviedo (Oviedo is
a city in Spain)IS THAT VERY HEADCLOTH referred to
in John's Gospel. The Shroud of Turin would be the
other, larger cloth of John's Gospel. I posted a
link on this thread to an article about the Sudarium of Oviedo. It has been in Spain since
at least the 8th Century. The blood on the Sudarium is of the same type (AB) as that of the
blood on the Shroud of Turin. There are NUMEROUS
congruities in the blood flows/stains on both
cloths. The probability is EXTREMELY high that
the Shroud and the Sudarium were on the same person. This fact alone undermines the results
(ie validity/accuracy) of the carbon dating tests.
Cheers!

leonarde

I post again the link that covers, among other things, the Sudarium of Oviedo and its congruencies with the Shroud of Turin:
<a href="http://www.earthfiles.com/earth026.html" target="_blank">http://www.earthfiles.com/earth026.html</a>

Koyaanisqatsi

The point is (and was) that Meacham goes to great lengths to explain away the questions about Jesus' being wiped down by Joseph prior to be wrapped in the shroud. A common argument (and one I've made as well) is that the shroud wouldn't show any blood at all, because Joseph would have most likely cleaned the body of God prior to wrapping.

The counter-argument is that Joseph didn't have enough time to wipe God's body of blood, because of Jewish burial rites, yet he has enough time to put coins on God's eyes, which is patently ludicrous.

Either the coins were used to weight the eyes down for a viewing as I contended--which wasn't going to happen in this case--or they were symbolically applied as a sort of extension of the Egyptian ritual of giving the dead means to pay their way through the after life, which Joseph obviously would not have done for GOD!

So, which is it? That Joseph had enough time and the completely illogical thought to put coins on God's eyes so that he could pay his way to Shoal and therefore, arguably, had enough time to wash the blood off of God's body prior to wrapping and burial, or he didn't have enough time to wash off the blood?

If you contend he didn't have enough time to wash off the blood--which is Meacham's contention--then we have an even more serious problem in that the shroud shows no signs of the streams of blood that would have covered Jesus' face, neck and body from the "30...spike wounds" in his head!

From Meacham:

Both of which would patently ludicrous for God's eyes or even the Messiah's eyes.

(edited to include Meacham - Koy)

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

leonarde

Koyaanisqatsi,
I can't answer all your comments here (Tercel
was addressed by you previously and may want to
respond) but as to your last:
1)You keep using the word God but serious
Shroud researchers don't do that in this connection because
a)even the identification of the Man of the Shroud
(the usual formulation) with Jesus cannot be
ASSUMED. It should be (if the evidence points in
that direction)deduced SUBSEQUENT TO an examination of the evidence.
b)identifying Jesus with God might be correct but once again is NOT something that
science can, in and of itself, determine.

2)the degree to which the body was cleaned is somewhat unclear: we know sundown was approaching when the bodies were deposed but
we don't know how much time there was,
nor do we know how many people were involved
in the preparation.

3) apparently on Easter Sunday one or more woman
went to the grave to COMPLETE the cleansing
and application of spices etc. That indicates
that the Good Friday body preparation was
incomplete.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

I'll check this out too, in a moment, but a few quick notes here regarding Meacham:

As opposed to:

So, we either have it that the blood just penetrated the top fibrils or that it penetrated through to the other side of the sheet. How it is that this is contradicted by more "sensitive" instruments is a mystery, but irrelevant.

Could someone please explain to me how blood that had been dried for hours--considering not just the length of time Jesus was dying, but also the length of time he was dead while Joseph petitioned Pilate (the most ludicrous notion of all, IMO) for the body--could have possibly absorbed through the other side of the sheet, thus accounting for the image and blood to be found on the "napkin" (or, as you contend, Sudarium of Oviedo)?

Last I checked, Golgotha was supposed to be in the desert. Jesus, streaming with blood from multiple head wounds (as Meacham called them "arterial...spike wounds"), two nails in his wrists (also arterial and the preferred method of a suicide by blood loss) and two nail wounds in the feet (also, most likely arterial, but if not, like spiking the bottom of a pinnata) unto the ninth hour before he "gives up the ghost," would mean that he was not only most likely completely bereft of blood (as is allegedly the case from the postmortum stab wound producing little blood on the cloth, but "copious" amounts in the scripture), but add on the fact that he hangs there dead for at least a few hours while Joseph petitions Pilate, receives permission and the body is either taken down by Joseph and Nicodemus or the body is delivered to Joseph (again, depending on which myth you read) and you've got nothing but hours old dried blood covering, most likely, his entire body, from head to toe.

How then does the blood disappear from the face, neck and body of the figure in the shroud and absorb through any thing at all?

In order for blood to absorb into cloth of any kind it has to be fresh, not hours dried in the dessert night air.

So if there was so much fresh blood as to absorb through two layers of linen, could someone please explain to me how we have any image of a face preserved in the manner it is on the shroud?

Have you ever draped a paper towel over water? What happens? Absorption to the point of complete saturation. For there to be so much fresh blood on Christ's face and head that it went through two layers of cloth would mean that he was wrapped right after death and that his death was exceptionally quick, and not unto the ninth hour.

It would also mean that the Shroud underneath the "Sudarium of Oviedo" would be almost completely obscured by the absorbed blood, just like a paper towel on a puddle!

Think, damn you, think!

Regarding the washing:

So, Joseph didn't wash the body. WHERE ARE THE STREAMS OF BLOOD DOWN JESUS' FACE, NECK AND BODY FROM THE "30...SPIKE WOUNDS" IN JESUS' HEAD?

With that much unwashed blood (assuming it was fresh) we wouldn't be able to see anything clear at all, much less a face, assuming it absorbed through (especially into the "napkin").

As to the side wound that only GJohn talks about:

As opposed to:

So much for the biblical account!

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Because that's what people like Joseph believed Jesus was, or, at the very least the Messiah or even son of God in a very real and literal sense.

The questions go to the manner in which Joseph prepared the body of his Messiah and how that would translate to an actual burial shroud of Jesus.

One of my points exactly. John is the only one who speaks of a side wound being inflicted, which would mean that if the shroud of Turin is Jesus, that John's account is the most reliable. If that's the case, then we know Joseph and Nicodemus wrapped the body with one shroud and the head with another.

Where does it say to "complete" the "cleansing?" Are you saying that they would have unwrapped the body in order to clean it? Anointing of oil and spices would not require unwrapping.

leonarde

Posted by Koyaanisqatsi: In my opinion (sorry haven't read the rest yet!)
this is a small contradiction:

1)what is a "lot" of blood? (copious blood flow)
In my life I have seen people with what looked like ghastly bloody gashes but to someone
who works with blood in a hospital or bloodbank
the fraction of a pint actually lost in such a
gash may seem like peanuts. The bloodbank worker
might say "he lost a little blood"; I might say
"there was blood all over the place". Neither person is "wrong" in such an instance.

2)the purpose of the spear/lance wound was to be
100% certain the person was dead (not just passed out or faking death).

That means:

1)sometimes the person was already dead (so the
outflow would probably be confined to the heart
lung area). (a significant, visible but still more
limited flow of blood plus fluid(s)).

2)sometimes the person was still alive and so there would be MORE bleeding (death would be IMMEDIATELY caused by loss of blood).

I don't think either the Gospel or the Shroud's
authenticity is endangered by using "a little"
or "copious" to refer to the blood flow: language
is seldom so precise. (is a half a pint a "lot"
of blood? It DEPENDS!)
Cheers!

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde

Posted by Koy: We don't really know the degree to
which Joseph of Arimithea understood Jesus' nature(s). He knew He was an excellent teacher,
performed healings etc. but the idea of the
Divinity of Jesus was probably non-existent
before Easter Sunday. Jesus was, whatever else
He was, a man. A man who had died. He was given
a hurried but probably as good an entombment on
Good Friday as the circumstances allowed. Avoiding
ritual religious impurity (by still cleaning the
body after sundown) would have been Joseph's main
motivation. Since Sunday provided another opportunity to clean the body, it was no big deal.
Cheers!

Boro Nut

Kaboom!!

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Boro Nut ]</p>