Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 03-25-2002, 12:08 PM

Posted by Koy:

Quote:

MORE: but in the most recent speculations that I have read the more common interpretation is that the cloths were used consecutively: after deposition the head cloth was used to absorb blood and other fluids from the mouth and nose.

Stop right there.

That would mean that Joseph and Nicodemus used the "napkin" to wipe the blood and snot off of
Jesus face!

Leonarde: yes.

Quote:

They take the body down from the cross and wipe it clean with the first cloth is what you're saying with this.
Why in the hell would you use a cloth to wipe a corpse's face only to then wrap that cloth around
the face again?
You're saying that Joseph and Nicodemus wipe the face clean with the "napkin," then take this
filthy rag and wrap it around Jesus' face. They then wrap the entire body--including the head that
is now wrapped with what amounts to a filthy snot/blood rag--in the first shroud (what you are
alleging to be the shroud of Turin) and not linen strips/cloths in the manner of Jewish burial that
the NIV tells us, yes?

No the most likely
scenario is that after the bleeding from the
nose and mouth area was stanched, the "napkin"
(ie the Sudarium) was removed and only then was
the Shroud put on the body (perhaps there was
an intervening period while a washing, partial or
complete, was done.

Quote:

A filthy napkin used to remove blood and snot is wrapped around the very head that contained the blood and snot only to have another shroud wrapped around that and the rest of the body (thereby discarding the notion, BTW, that the "napkin" was some sort of binding cloth, further
contradicting Meacham).

No, see above:
the cloths were probably used consecutively: if
there was any overlap whatsoever the napkin was
removed (placed to the side) before the body was
given its final disposition in the tomb: that is
why John says that the cloths were physically separate within the empty tomb.

Quote:

If this is the case, then just reverse and apply another one of my arguments that you've still never addressed. That would mean that the napkin underneath the Shroud would be saturated with blood in the exact same way that a paper towel is saturated when absorbing water; i.e., there would be no face visible through the massive amounts of blood that absorbed through two
layers of linen!

If the napkin was beneath
the linen that was only temporarily (ie it was
removed before the caretakers of the body left the
tomb on Good Friday).

Datheron · 03-25-2002, 12:10 PM

Wow...after reading Koy's long (but amusing as always) post in refutation to Leonade's argument, and his response thereafter...I must say that Koy is wasting his time. Leonade is NOT going to stand up and address the issues which Koy have bolded and TYPED IN CAPS; might as well quit while you're ahead.

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-25-2002, 12:13 PM

Professor Zugibe also writes:

Quote:

Zugibe: At the outset, it must be realized that my conclusions that the Man of the Shroud was washed prior to placement on the Shroud is solely on a scientific basis. The following thoughts regarding scriptural support are presented with the full realization that I am not an expert in this area.

What's this? Could this be the exact same "objective" qualifier that both Meacham and Bucklin stated, only to then completely disregard in favor of their biased opinions?

Let's find out:

Quote:

MORE: However, my intention in presenting the following scriptural comments is merely an attempt to show that there is scriptural support for the washing hypothesis.

Really. So, he's just as "unbiased" as Meacham and Bucklin...oh, wait, you already conceded that Bucklin was biased and I've already demonstrated the same bias in Meacham.

Let's see what clues we might find (if any) to Zugibe's possible bias:

Quote:

MORE: If we, however, must plug in some scientific justification for washing based on these modern practices, then I submit that the only blood flow after death included a small amount of a watery, blood tinged discharge that extruded from the lance wound.

What's that? A "watery" blood tinged discharge? Now where have we read that before?

Quote:

MORE: The amount of watery effusate

There's that word again in the very next sentence! Why, it's almost as if, like Bucklin, Zugibe is trying to make some sort of tenuous link...

Quote:

MORE: and blood exuding from the lance wound had to be small because immediately upon the introduction of the spear into the chest cavity, the lungs would collapse (pneumothorax) due to the increased atmospheric pressure thereby causing the fluid level to immediately drop because there would now be more space in the chest cavity.

Had to be small, eh? But the "historical" evidence Meacham discusses points to a "miraculous" amount of blood and water; even a "copious" amount issued from Jesus' side.

Quote:

MORE: Therefore, the only fluid extruding out of the wound would be due to the initial penetration by the lance (immediately prior to collapse) and the small amount of blood from the right atrium of the heart contained on the spear tip by a quick, jerking motion following the sudden thrust.

Accept that the "historical documents" don't support a spear to the right atrium (as Bucklin told us, over the right pectoral, which would be exceedingly difficult to do from below jabbing up), rather from Jesus' side!

A guard standing below a crucified man jabbing into someon's side would not be jabbing above the right pectoral, but I guess "historical documents" aren't actually being consulted here, are they? Just reconciled by the same kind of deliberate, forced equivocation of disparate facts that cannot be reconciled.

Quote:

MORE: In my opinion, this amount is less than the quarter log quantitated as the minimum amount of blood after death that is required to become unclean according to the Mishna and Talmud ( 4 ).

Well! Isn't that astounding! Here's an example of that forced reconciliation, rather than the obvious.

The lengths that people will go to in order to force the Shroud of Turin down the biblical throat.

Not to mention that we now depart entirely the "objectivity" standards posted previously when it comes to the most important section, the conclusion! Just like Meacham and Bucklin:

Quote:

MORE: Even if more than a quarter log extruded from the lance wound, the small amount of blood around the spear wound could easily be avoided during the washing procedure.

Why would it?

Quote:

MORE: The act of washing would then cause an oozing from each of the wounds thereby accounting for the imprints at their locations consistent with those on the Shroud.

That's assuming there would be any blood left to "ooze," let alone enough "oozing" blood to account for the forensic analysis of the wounds!

You can't have it both ways. Either the blood was washed away, removing the rivulets of blood from the arms and the head and the pierced side and the face and the whole goddamned body mentioned by Meacham and Bucklin, leaving only the possible moistened clots just at the postmortum wound sites, or not!

The lengths that are here gone to in order to force the Shroud down Jesus' throat is appaling and counter to logic. The bias is obvious and overwhelming.

Either the GJohn account of what happened to the body is true or it is not. If it is true, then the Shroud of Turin could not possibly be Jesus' burial linen.

If it isn't, then there is no historical document that corresponds with the post-mortem findings of Bucklin et al.

Square pegs do not fit in round holes no matter how desperately you try to smooth the edges.

leonarde · 03-25-2002, 12:24 PM

Partial post by Spin:

Quote:

At the same time, you should note that the linen bandage was what covered the body, the head
was covered with a soudarion, ie we are dealing with two separate items, the bandage and the
head covering. So on two counts, we are obviously not dealing with the one-piece cloth item at
Turin.

Cheers, again! Thanks for your
participation! I agree that one should be wary of
interpretations which tell us what we WANT to believe but that always cuts both ways: a doubter
of authenticity must also be wary of any and every
detail which appears to tell him what he wants to
hear. There have been down through the years numerous attempts to discern the exact meaning of
the Greek words used in John's Gospel (and not
just in the instance of the funereal garments!).
In addition there have been side issues related to
the Mandylion, a Shroud-like textile on display
in Constantinople until it was stolen by Crusaders
as part of the looting of that city in 1204. A
contemporary account referred to the "figure"
of the cloth and that led some to say that the Mandylion couldn't be the Shroud since "figure" means "face" in French. Yet in medieval French
"figure" meant "figure" in the English sense. (though by no means certain it is likely that the
Mandylion was the Shroud until 1204).
As to the fact that there was more than one "piece" in the funereal clothing: yes, most Shroudies think that there were 2: the Shroud of
Turin AND the Sudarium of Oviedo. (I posted links
on the latter a couple times in this thread).
Cheers!

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

spin · 03-25-2002, 12:38 PM

For leonarde,

1: You avoid the meaning of the word, I gather because you see that the shroud doesn't fit it.

2: As the Torino rag also includes the face impression, it is still not the authentic item.

You should not sidestep the whole issue because there are conflicting "relics" around. Relics are a dime a dozen. (Would you like John the Baptist's hand? I've seen it at the Topkapi Palace!)

The rag was manufactured by someone who was not aware of the significance of the Greek text. Perhaps someone could cut the head of the rag and try again, but then they'd have to cut it into strips as well, right?

leonarde · 03-25-2002, 12:40 PM

Posted by Koy:

Quote:

MORE: This is the opening of a chapter called "Serology" (mostly about blood typing though) in the book, "The Casebook for Forensic Detection" by
Colin Evans. If I can find something more about the exact way that a deceased body bleeds/doesn't bleed, I will post it here.
Cheers!

No need to. Picture a gallon of milk pouring out of its container as analogous to a live body with 34 arterial wounds and a heart pumping for at least three hours while gravity drags him down from a cross.

NO NEED TO?????Sorry but I'm not used to
making preemptory remarks concerning forensic
pathology. I'll leave that to others here. If I
say anything concerning a highly technical subject
I usually do it after consulting someone with a
better background that I have. Call me wild and
irresponsible!

leonarde · 03-25-2002, 12:45 PM

Posted by Spin:

Quote:

1: You avoid the meaning of the word, I gather because you see that the shroud doesn't fit it.
2: As the Torino rag also includes the face impression, it is still not the authentic item.

Spin, I first confronted the Greek words
23 years ago when I first learned about and became
interested in the Shroud of Turin. I would hardly
call that "avoiding the meaning of the word".
Your second point is a non-sequitur as you would
know if you read this thread all the way through.
Cheers!

leonarde · 03-25-2002, 12:49 PM

Datherton, since you apparently know how to write
succinctly and are in sync with Koy, perhaps you
could summarize any objection of his to which I
have not already responded. That would eliminate
a lot of VERY long posts. Cheers!

leonarde · 03-25-2002, 01:18 PM

An interesting paper regarding possible error in
the C-14 dating of the Shroud is available here:
<a href="http://users.aol.com/fcbrink/hsg/hsgart1.htm" target="_blank">http://users.aol.com/fcbrink/hsg/hsgart1.htm</a>

A medical doctor, Leoncio Garza-Valdes, discovered
that certain pre-Columbian artifacts were misdated
via C-14 due to the presence of microscopic life
forms. An excerpt:

Quote:

The analysis of the pre-Columbian artifacts and of a "blood glob" and textile segments of the
Shroud of Turin, showed Lichenothelia fungi, pink pigment producing bacteria, and Lichenothelia
Varnish, deposited on the surface of the seven pieces. Lichenothelia Varnish is a natural deposit on
ancient stable surfaces produced by a symbiotic association between Lichenothelia (a five
micrometers spheric fungus classified ln the Loculoascomycetes) and Rhodococcus (an aerobic,
gram positive, pink pigment producing bacteria, that has nitrilase and nitrile hydratase enzymatic
activity with production of acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, and acrylamide). The Lichenothelia form
micro-colonies from 150 to 200 micrometers, it exudes a yellowish gel that by symbiotic
association with the Rhodococcus produce, after long periods of time, a varnish composed of
calcium carbonate, Rhodococcus products, Lichenothelia remnants, kaolin-montmorillonite, silica,
and manganese and/or iron compounds. It takes hundreds of years of Lichenothelia and
Rhodococcus activity to have a continuous coating on a stable surface. Fungi and bacteria cultures
done on samples taken from the Shroud of Turin grew the Lichenothelia and Rhodococcus,
indicating that the fungi and the bacteria are still alive.

Again the above was from:
TEXAS MEDIEVAL ASSOCIATION
San Antonio, Texas. September 11, 1993
SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN
Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes M.D.
ABSTRACT

leonarde · 03-25-2002, 01:26 PM

Partial post by Koy (first quoting me and then
responding):

Quote:

leonarde: Well, believe it or not, there is STILL a lot of disagreement about what the exact cause of death was:

Who cares?[....]

If you don't know the cause of death then, among other things, it is
going to be difficult to determine the amount of
blood lost during the crucifixion. Ergo any statements about how much blood should/should not
be on the Shroud will be skewed. That's why someone SHOULD care. Why don't you?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-25-2002, 12:10 PM	#172
Datheron Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 553	Wow...after reading Koy's long (but amusing as always) post in refutation to Leonade's argument, and his response thereafter...I must say that Koy is wasting his time. Leonade is NOT going to stand up and address the issues which Koy have bolded and TYPED IN CAPS; might as well quit while you're ahead.

03-25-2002, 12:38 PM	#175
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	For leonarde, 1: You avoid the meaning of the word, I gather because you see that the shroud doesn't fit it. 2: As the Torino rag also includes the face impression, it is still not the authentic item. You should not sidestep the whole issue because there are conflicting "relics" around. Relics are a dime a dozen. (Would you like John the Baptist's hand? I've seen it at the Topkapi Palace!) The rag was manufactured by someone who was not aware of the significance of the Greek text. Perhaps someone could cut the head of the rag and try again, but then they'd have to cut it into strips as well, right?

03-25-2002, 12:49 PM	#178
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Datherton, since you apparently know how to write succinctly and are in sync with Koy, perhaps you could summarize any objection of his to which I have not already responded. That would eliminate a lot of VERY long posts. Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.