Amaleq13

Nothing you wrote refutes my statement. Even if all three pieces of evidence are accepted as legitimate, their presence fails to establish that the object existed prior to the middle of the 14th century.

leonarde

They establish:

1) that the Shroud has a prehistory.

2) PART of that prehistory was in the Jerusalem area.

But since even Nathan Wilson acknowledges that the anatomical and physiological verisimilitude of the wounds etc of the body image required a real crucifixion victim to create that image, the logical place/time period to locate that would be BEFORE Constantine eliminated crucifixion as a state punishment in the 4th Century. And when taking into account the pollen, floral images, and limestone subtype the logical geographic location is the Jerusalem area.

Cheers!

Sparrow

No they don't. The shroud could have been contaiminated without having ever left Italy.


You're making the grand leap that the only way anyone could get any information on what a crucified body looked like was to crucify one themselves. There are so many holes in this hypothesis it looks like swiss cheese.

Diogenes the Cynic

The anatomical proportions of the image show that it cannot have come from a real human model.

And the pollen thing was bogus. There is no evidence that the shroud was ever in Jerusalem.

leonarde

That's funny: that's not what the overwhelming majority of medical examiners who have been consulted on the question have said about it. And as I already noted, Nathan Wilson, the clever young man touted in the OP, and a Shroud debunker, readily admits that a crucifixion victim was necessary to produce the image. Only difference is:

1) Wilson believes that the 'medieval forger[s]/artist(s)' crucified someone in the Middle Ages expressly for the purpose of creating the body image .

2) I and most authenticity supporters think it more likely that it was a true victim of ROMAN EMPIRE crucifixion whose body image is imprinted.

Considering how much information on the details of Roman crucifixion had to have been lost between the 4th Century and the 1350s, Wilson's idea won't explain the correspondences between the wounds and those details......

leonarde

Posted by Sparrow:"Contaminated" by floral images of Near Eastern plants?!? It would take a successor to Johnny Cochrane to explain THAT one!

Diogenes the Cynic

The head is 5% too large for the body, the nose is off and the arms are too long. It can't be a real human body.

It's all a moot point anyway since three independent tests have dated it no earlier than the 13th century and all attempts to invalidate those tests have been laughable at best.

leonarde

Oh the radiocarbon tests were COMPLETELY valid. They indicated the age.....of the STITCHING tested......

Avatar

Avinoam Danin and his colleague Uri Baruch also claim that they found impressions of flowers on the shroud and that those flowers could only come from Israel. However, the floral images they see are hidden in mottled stains much the way the image of Jesus is hidden in a tortilla or the image of Mary is hidden in the bark of a tree.

BTW: Johnny Cochrane was neither clever, glib, or particularly convincing. Flashy, yes. Substantial? No. The defense that he is so famous for was simply slightly less incompentent than the prosecution.

Question: Where are the hand/arm wounds on the shroud? If they are on the hands, then the authenticity of the sroud goes straight out the window.

Question: Is there blood on the shroud? If so, why is it red? Ancient blood is black.

Diogenes the Cynic

They indicated the age of the fabric. I'm aware that someobody tried to make a rather lame argument that the samples came from a patched up part of the shroud but he was never really able to prove this and those who cut the samples specifically chose an area that was clear of any patches or seam stitchings.