mfaber

?????
I was commenting on the speculations of Shanks and Witherington who want to compare mt-DNA from bones from the James ossuary to mt-DNA from the Shroud to prove that "James" of the James ossuary is the brother of Jesus. This is ridiculous because there any mt-DNA that one might get from the Shroud would not NECESSARILY be mt-DNA from JC. So many people have handled it that whose DNA would you be comparing the James DNA to? Not my speculation but theirs.

"IF", again??!!! The bottom-line here is that you don't have any thing to prove that the Mandylion relic and the Shroud are the same. Anyway, the dating sets the Shroud in the 14th century (as does the first record of it, not surprisingly where the Church panned as a forgery at that time), so that refutes your claim right there.

Only because it makes your support of that 6' guy depicted on the Shroud look ridiculous.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Let's assume that Zacchaeus was also average height. How could he spot Jesus in a crowd of people who were also around the same height? If Jesus were ~6' tall, he would tower above the crowd. [color= blue]That characteristic in and of itself would surely NOT have escaped the notice of any the Gospel writers if they were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus.[/color] There would be NO NEED for Zacchaeus to climb a tree to see Jesus if he towered above the crowd (which he most definitely would have done!)

Consider this... Now the average height of males (US) is 5' 8-9", with only 5% of the male population taller than 6'. A woman 6' tall is classed as a giant (an anomaly) in the medical books . The average height of Jesus' peers was 5' 1' (there is no doubt about this from the study of males skeletons from that time, place, and ethic group by forensic anthropologists). Can you imagine the comment that someone the height of the guy on the Shroud of Turin would have caused, just by his height alone (5' 11'- 6' 2")?

On the other hand, if Jesus were just average height for the time or even shorter, then Zacchaeus (assume he was also "average") would not have been able to "look over" the crowd to spot him. The best way to spot Jesus (sort out this particular "tree" from the forest) would be to climb to a vantage point above the crowd..makes perfect sense. It makes NO sense if Jesus was as tall as the fellow depicted on the Shroud though....

BZZZTT!! Let me make this clear. If the Shroud temperature had exceeded ~205ºC (400ºF), it would have burned because that is the "ignition" point for cellulosic fabrics like linen and cotton. (Flammability Characteristics, p.15, PDF FILE). The Shroud was scorched. Scorching occurs at somewhere ~20 degrees less than the ignition point. That means that the temperature of the Shroud was well-above the denaturing point of proteins (60ºC), especially those in blood (very sensitive to changes in temperature). The casket protected the Shroud from catching fire, but it would have "baked" in the heat generated as part of the casket melted. You will have to pardon me if I don't believe that blood proteins, markers, and antigens can survive that treatment. Assume the shroud was a 1st century artifact, that would make the "blood" 1500 years old, too old for doing the blood-typing, immunoserological typing, retreiving nuclear DNA etc, even without the fire. Any way you date the thing, there is no way that those tests would be valid. You lose either way, leonarde.

Like Principia pointed out the melting point of red ochre (haematite) is close to 3000 degrees. Of course the Shroud would have been ashes long before that could even happen (ignition point of linen ~205ºC. I think your bunch was definitely lying about the "paint liquifying".)

And who that would be??? I'm mystified by this. But then, since you won't post a name or any supporting evidence for claiming that I'm the "oh-so-desperate playmate", the only thing I can conclude is that this is just another gratuitious insult in place of any argument to support your position.

Yet another insult instead of an argument to an opponent who has bested you at every turn.

"Insult and run" appears to be your style of debate... What out for that door-knob on your way "out"...

Well I was wrong...your style of debate:

"Insult, spam, and run"

Exposure to oxygen turns the blood dark(brown to black). As I have already posted , here are the pics of what blood looks like on the same kind of fabric as the Shroud :

It is paint that is on the Shroud:


REAL BLOOD turns dark and brown (left) on linen but notice the bright red of the "blood" on the Shroud (right)==>NO WAY that is 2 millenia old "whole blood"!


This is a micrograph of a tape lift from a "bloody" area on the Shroud==it is RED OCHRE, NOT BLOOD

From Shroud Update 1999

leonarde

Suuuuuure, Koy, oh I mean "mfarber"!

mfaber

So you think I'm "Koyaanisqatsi"?? Well, I must say I'm flattered by the comparison, but I'm not sure he would be. But alas, no, I can't claim that mantle (you're wrong, AGAIN). Why don't you ask him yourself, he was posting HERE(his profile says this was his last post). Better yet ask a mod on this forum if we are the same person. There is no reason for them to lie about such a thing.

BTW, it's "mfaber" NOT "mfaRber".

Principia

mfaber,

Don't worry about lenny mistaking you for other people. It's his way of throwing a tantrum whenever he can't deal with the facts. Yup, he's done this immature "I'm a linguist, analysing prose for pseudonyms" bit before, and each time he was wrong --deliberately wrong.

Cretinist

Principia is right, leonarde has a history of believing his debate opponents are other people that 'torment' him. I believe Principia himself has been accused of being someone else by leonarde. Didn't he accuse you of being Gurdur, Principia? I can't remember.

It's actually quite funny, though it does make me wonder about leonarde's mental stability (this behavior seems rather paranoid).

Principia

Why, don't you know, Cretinist? I might be you too.

Jeremy Pallant

[MODERATOR]

Okay, let's keep to the subject rather than flirting with ad hominems.

[/MODERATOR]

Jackalope

Okay, speaking as a painter who's worked with egg tempera paints:

(1)Heat would bake the pigment on, not melt it.
(2) Ochre is not the same thing as vermillion. Ochre is an iron oxide, where vermillion is a mercury oxide. Vermillion produces a brilliant, flaming red (sometimes called "chinese red"). Ochre produces a...rusty...shade. While the paint on the shroud is bright, it's definitely not vermillion.
(3) Rose madder is a fugitive pigment (meaning it can run in oil bases). This is not an issue in proteinous bases like albumin or caesin, as the denatured proteins lock the pigment particles in place.
(4) The temperature required to melt the paint base (remember, it's albumin not linseed oil with additives) would be greater than that required to reduce the linen to ash.

Please, get a better set of arguments, Leonarde.

leonarde

Partial post:That's funny! I just looked at your II profile and it said nothing about your being a painter. It said you were a musician and even though you listed hobbies or interests "painting" was not among them:Guess you forgot! Or took it up quite.......recently shall we say?

But let's look at what Isabel Piczek had to say about the "painting theory" in general (and Isabel Piczek is a professional painter and has been her entire life):Actually this merely states one of many, many, many reasons why, for technical reasons involving the nature of pigments and paints and the way that they depict their subject matter that the S of Turin isn't an artistic rendering (at least of the paint/pigment sort).
Above from: http://shroud.com/piczek.htm

Or better yet, let's look at the final (1981) report (just the last paragraph of the summary of the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project):Cheers!

leonarde

Partial post by Jackalope:Oh but that not what the leading Shroud debunker, Walter McCrone, the one and only member of STURP to dissent on the question of "is it a painting?" said. (And McCrone dropped out of STURP long before its final report). Let's look at his McCrone Institute site's characterization: Above from:
http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html

Sorry, senhor!

Cheers!