hyzer

britinusa -

Nice site, thanks for the URL.

Typhon

The Shroud of Turin is a quite well known and accepted Medieval fake in reputable historical and academic circles. I really don't understand what the discussion is all about.

.T.

leonarde

I don't suppose a "typhon" is anything like a
"typhoon" ie. a super-large blast of hot air in
our tropical climes?

leonarde

Britinusa,
Let me agree with you: Nixon had NOTHING to do
with the JFK assasination.....

leonarde

Britinusa,
I wonder whether you are interested in the next
few days in discussing the paper whose URL you provided. It does give the outlook of one of the
more well-known Shroud debunkers in the world:
as his footnote says, Schafersman's response to
Meacham paper is at the END of Meacham's URL (ie
the one I gave early in this thread and was the basis for much disagreement between me and Koy).
Are you or is anyone else here REALLY interested in the merits of Schafersman's ideas?

Cheers!

leonarde

Posted by britinusa: If by "the shroud" you mean the one
that is in Turin (ie with the image) then it really IS impossible: Rome was founded in the 8th
century BC and was a backwater at that time. How
long it was before they "borrowed" crucifixion from some other people, I don't know but an accurate Roman Style depiction of a crucifixion, on a linen cloth or anywhere would
have been impossible before the 8th Century BC.
I don't think non-Roman crucifixion goes back that
far either. Seven thousand years? No way!

leonarde

Koy, in his most recent post, has asserted that I am trying to "avoid" the topic of blood loss. I don't think that that is true: if you look at the
whole thread you will find multiple references to
it by me. HOWEVER that does not NECESSARILY mean
that blood loss was the PRIMARY IMMEDIATE CAUSE of
death, which was my focus in going over the various theories.
When I refer to "forensic manual(s)" or "forensic
text(s)" it means GENERAL WORKS of that type, NOT
Shroud of Turin oriented works. Those general works, talking about crucifixion in GENERAL tend
to emphasize the asphyxiation: indeed the references in such work to crucifixion are in the
context of(ie the section dealing with)"postural",
or in some cases, "slow asphyxia". But don't take
my word: go to a bookstore or library and find
a forensics pathology text and look in the index
in back under: asphyxia, or crucifixion.....

If Zugibe's ideas gain ascendancy in the field then perhaps one day "crucifixion" will be listed
under "shock" in such works.

Cheers!

leonarde

However,
EVEN IF THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF DEATH of Jesus
were blood loss, I don't think that that is incompatible with the blood on the Shroud of Turin.

Cheers!

hyzer

Tell me again, who did what kind of test to establish that there is dried blood on the shroud?

Principia

And of course, the point is that 'general works' have to base their knowledge in the end on a conclusive study of some sort. Because it is fairly safe to say that the Romans could care less about the physiology behind crucifixion, any theory would come from at least the past century (any credible ones at least).

So, the task at hand is to find who *first* said asphyxiation was the primary cause of death in crucifixion, find his research, and discredit it(EDIT: well, perhaps 'challenge' or 'analyze' are better choices here). It sounds like Barbet is the primary candidate here. Anybody else?

There is a vast difference between saying what the general works tend to emphasize is mere theory and what is actual fact. Just because Barbet had half a century head start over newer theories (Zugibe, e.g.) doesn't mean his views should necessarily enjoy all the attention.

Now, leonard(e) has suggested that the cause of death is irrelevant to the authenticity of the Shroud. That is actually quite an interesting stance. It certainly opens the door for limiting the discussion to whatever leonard(e), the chief advocator, thinks is important for authenticity. That way, we can all avoid having to see Koy type out endless replies.

SC

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>