Koyaanisqatsi

So, why, pray tell, did you ask for my account of Delage when there is no account of Delage?

Koyaanisqatsi

Here is the opening statement from that very brief account (emphasis mine):

But not back then, as GJohn attests.

Koyaanisqatsi

Tell that to the teams of translators that wrote the versions of the bibles we have today.

Precisely, so to conclude anything at all that would counter the translations we do have would not be either professional or a rational, logical, unbiased conclusion for a pathologist to come to!

APPLY CRITICAL ANALYSIS TO YOUR POSTS FOR GOD'S SAKE PLEASE!

Fuckin hell!

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Some quotes allegedly from Delage:

It may be "natural," i.e., wish fulfillment, but it is by no means scientific! Especially the fact that the story does not parallel the shroud!

The story tells us that Jesus was pierced in the side, not in the chest and that the body was wrapped in strips and the head in a separate "napkin."

More from Delage:

How could he possibly come to this conclusion when no one knows how the image got there in the first place! "Necessary that the body remain in the Shroud at least twenty-four hours?" "Necessary time for the formation of the image itself?"

From what is he basing these necessities upon?

Not according to the "historical documents," since they all state he was dead for three days and three nights, which would mean he would have had to have been wrapped in the shroud for at least 60 hours (assuming Jesus was wrapped before sundown on Friday--let's say 5 pm--and fulfilled his own prophecy of being in the "ground" for three days and three nights, which would mean that the Marys found the linens and the separate napkin at dawn on Monday, not Sunday, at 5 am).[*] Wrapped at 5pm on Friday and put into the tomb=1 day and 1 night (sundown was the end of a day by Jews, so technically it can't be considered that he was in the "ground" for that day, but fuck it, it's the nights that count)[*] Saturday in the tomb=1 day and 1 night[*] Sunday in the tomb=1 day and 1 night[*] Sunrise Monday, therefore fulfills the prophecy

but I'm sure you'll launch into Sabbath apologetics.

Regardless, the point is, as always, that no critical analysis is being applied.

Delage could not have made any judgement calls at all regarding how long the body would need to be wrapped in order to make an image since no one knows how the image got there to begin with, let alone how long it would take for such an image to "appear" (assuming, of course, that the image is not painted on).

Likewise, no matter how you count the days and nights, Jesus would have had to have been wrapped in the shroud for at least a 60 hour period for the prophecy to be fulfilled (no resurrecting early, you cheeky savior, you)!

Regardless, just another example of the lack of critical analysis being applied.

I need a fucking drink.

leonarde

%&$3@*! Cheers!

Goliath

Wow. leonarde has finally been reduced to literal gibberish for his arguments.

leonarde, have you met Amos, yet? I think you two would get along nicely, especially given this recent...change of writing style that you've undergone.

Sincerely,

Goliath

leonarde

Posted by Goliath: I would like to note that the quotation in question (%&$3@!) was taken completely out of context without any indication of ellipsis (ie
[....]). Dedicated researchers will notice that
"Cheers!" follows the key board symbols in question. Taken in toto, this remark is in response to the previous post by Koy. What readers
make of that is up to them.

Cheers!

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Principia

In my opinion, leonarde should avoid the confrontations by discussing what else needs to be done to improve the quality of the evidence. Certainly, a skeptic can argue the merits of the evidence, but they can't argue quite as successfully the inability to obtain more convincing evidence.

This forum need not become a courtroom, where in the end there must be a verdict based on the evidence presented. leonard(e) should spend more time sorting out who was the originator of some of the Shroud theories, since reproduction of more sources that all derive from the original does not strengthen the argument.

SC

leonarde

I would like to thank Scientiae for his sobering
thoughts. Indeed I have hopes of developing a dialogue in the coming pages with Britinusa concerning the criticisms/insights of Schafersman
who is a real figure of substance in the world of
sindonology. How and when and for how long this dialogue will unfold is to be seen but I think it
can be fruitful for all concerned. Right now I am
re-acquainting myself with Schafersman's approach.

For now though I would like to give an OVERVIEW of
the lingering (and perhaps perpetual)limits/weak-
nesses in the quest for total acceptance of the
authenticity of the Shroud as authentic (here I
mean a real 1st Century burial cloth of a Man crucified in the Roman way and sharing ALL the major wounds suffered by Christ).

So:The Gaps/Weaknesses/Blackholes in our knowledge

1)Reason for C-14 dating being in 14th Century or
thereabouts (there are many, many HYPOTHESES, led
by microbial contamination but a clear picture is
years, perhaps decades away)

2)Whereabouts of the Shroud before 1350s. Again
there are many, many interesting ideas but no conclusive proof. A more likely scenario is that
the Mandylion, a likeness of Christ kept in Constantinople until the Crusaders looted that city in 1204, is THAT VERY CLOTH that we today call the Shroud of Turin.

3)Exact agent of image formation. We know that the
Image of the Man is due to the premature aging and
oxidation of the upper fibrils of the Shroud but
what exactly caused it is unknown.

Compared to the above questions just about all the
others are relatively unimportant sub- or sub-sub
controversies whose final disposition won't change
the authenticy/non-authenticy of the Shroud.

Goliath, my $%^&@#$ Cheers! remark was a joke based on what Koy's last sentence was on the previous page. Sorry if it was confusing.

Cheers!

Principia

leonard(e)'s short list is a start for refocusing the discussion. I would add, so that Koy's contributions will not have been in vain:

4) Is the Shroud that of a crucifixion victim, and is the evidence consistent with the mechanism of death? (Keeping in mind that the goal is not to answer the question but to suggest methods for providing more conclusive evidence above what has been done.)

Now, we need to be in agreement with the definition of 'authenticity.' Is it sufficient to show that the Shroud is that of any crucifixion victim, or is it required that the Shroud be of Biblical relevance? In particular, is the Shroud only considered authentic if and only if it covered Jesus at the time of burial?

Given that definition, the rest of this discussion will just be playing pretend with a clear stopping point. In the end, if the evidence that we would require and that meets accepted standards does indeed match the existing evidence, then and only then can leonard(e) return to his current arguments of authenticity.

SC